Sitting of 8 December 1998

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN
QUEEN'S SPEECH (ANSWER TO ADDRESS)
The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:
I have received with great satisfaction the loyal and dutiful expression of your thanks for the Speech with which I opened the present Session of Parliament.

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

    Tax-varying Powers
    Mr. Graham Brady: If he will make a statement about the technical measures to allow tax-varying powers to be introduced in Scotland. [61263]
    The Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office (Mr. Henry McLeish): The Government are working to ensure that the tax-varying power will be fully in place and available for use by the Scottish Parliament from April 2000. The Inland Revenue has consulted widely and is continuing to work with a group of industry representatives on the measures required for implementation of the Scottish variable rate.
    Mr. Brady: I thank the Minister for that reply. It will obviously be an expensive and inefficient process to administer a Scottish tax. The Government claim to be opposing vigorously proposals in Europe to harmonise taxes with the United Kingdom, on the grounds that such harmonisation would be bad for the United Kingdom. Will the Minister confirm that it would also be bad for Scotland if its tax levels were higher than England's?
    Mr. McLeish: The Scotland Act 1998 has been premised on the basis that we want to provide a level playing field across the United Kingdom in the regulatory powers affecting industry. Moreover, I remind the hon. Gentleman that, on 11 September 1997, the Scottish people decided that they would like the Scottish Parliament to have power to vary the basic income tax rate. That power was endorsed by the Scottish people, and we are in the process of implementing our commitment
    126
    on it. We believe that it is right for the Parliament to have such a power, and it will be up to the Parliament and the parties in it to decide whether to use it.
    Mr. John Home Robertson: I do not think that my hon. Friend needs to take any lectures on expensive and ineffective taxation from those who gave the poll tax to Scotland. May I try asking my hon. Friend a hypothetical question? If he were minded to set up a Scottish army, Scottish navy and Scottish air force, and to establish Scottish embassies around the world, does he think that he would be able to do so from revenue of threepence on income tax?
    Mr. McLeish: I shall resist the temptation to go down that particular road. However, I think that the House might be interested to know that the Labour party has ruled out use of the tax when we are elected to Holyrood, whereas the Scottish National party is still dithering and confused about whether it might use it. Suffice it to say that, in a recent weekly publication, the SNP suggested that if it did not use the Scottish variable rate, it might want to consider
    "purging quangos and taking a closer look at … Scotland's enterprise network to find extra resources."
    The real challenge is for the nationalists to come clean on the Scottish variable rate.
    Mr. James Wallace: Will the Minister of State confirm that the tax-varying powers, if used in full, amount to £450 million? Will he confirm also that further sums should be within the Scottish Parliament's direction, but that, according to media reports today, United Kingdom Departments are trying to find ways of not informing the Scottish Parliament about those funds? Will he say what action the Scottish Department has taken to ensure that the Scottish Parliament will not be short-changed, and that the concordats will be honoured in both spirit and letter?
    Mr. McLeish: It has always been the case, and always will be the case, that we will get what we are entitled to. There is no plot to snatch back funds from the Scottish Administration.
    Mr. John McAllion: Is not a vote in favour of a tax increase by the Members of the Scottish Parliament currently the most important technical provision allowing a tax increase in Scotland? Does my hon. Friend agree that, although such a vote would grab headlines in Scotland, it might not do the same elsewhere in the United Kingdom? Does not that fact make the case for a separate Scottish "Six O'Clock News" programme broadcast and controlled from Scotland, and underline the boneheadedness of those in the BBC who are trying to prevent such a separate Scottish broadcast?
    Mr. McLeish: I am, yet again, being tempted down another road, which I shall again resist. On the important issue of taxation, suffice it to say that the Scottish people endorsed the measure on 11 September, and that we have been working very hard with the Inland Revenue and the business community to ensure that it is a success. Regulations will in the near future be laid before the House, putting the flesh on the bones of the measure.
    Dr. Liam Fox: The Minister of State will undoubtedly be aware of Scottish Life's estimates of

    127
    the compliance costs—£170 million—of the tartan tax, regardless of whether it is used. Will the Minister tell us what discussions he and other Ministers have had with the Inland Revenue on compliance costs, and on who will pay the required sum? Will it be paid out of the Scottish block or by United Kingdom taxpayers as a whole?
    Mr. McLeish: Throughout the process of discussing the Scottish variable rate and other matters in the Scotland Act 1998, we have been in close consultation with the Inland Revenue and with the business community. Of course we have also dealt at length with the assurance industry. We are working with a consultative group of industry representatives on formal compliance cost assessments for future publication, and we are fully aware of the concerns that have been expressed by the life assurance industry. It is one area in which dialogue has met with success.
    We are convinced that we shall have the Scottish variable rate power available from April 2000, which is what matters to Scots. I can reassure every hon. Member that it will be done in an efficient way, to ensure a value-for-money approach at all times.
    Dr. Fox: That was an answer that we can chew over in Hansard to see whether we are any the wiser. Does the Minister agree that the real danger is that of backdoor taxes, with different groups competing to spend Scottish taxpayers' money? Keith Geddes, the president of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, suggested a bed tax on tourists, Lord Steel suggested a caravan tax for visitors and Scottish Natural Heritage has suggested a sightseeing tax around Loch Lomond. Will the Minister give a commitment on behalf of the Labour party to rule out not only the use of the tartan tax, but an increase in the overall burden of tax on the Scottish people via the Scottish Parliament?
    Mr. McLeish: Those concerns were brought to the House early in the debate on the Scotland Bill. It is now an Act, published on 19 November, but the Conservatives appear to have learnt little. The power exists to vary the Scottish basic rate of income tax. We think that that coincides with the wishes of the Scottish people and with the wish of the business community not to be inundated with new taxes. That will be the settlement for the Scottish Parliament. We shall have it in place by April 2000.
    Mr. Dennis Canavan: Will my hon. Friend remind the Tory party that the people of Scotland voted in the referendum just last year for a Scottish Parliament with the power to vary tax? Does he agree that there is a strong case for the future development of fiscal autonomy for the Scottish Parliament, to give its Members the responsibility for raising the money that they want to spend on important services such as the national health service and education, instead of being dependent on decisions taken by the United Kingdom Government or votes in this House?
    Mr. McLeish: My hon. Friend is right to point out that the Scottish people have endorsed the Scottish variable rate—it is important to underline that. It is also important to stress that the use of the variable rate is a power available to the Parliament. Any party can stand on a
    128
    manifesto to raise that money and spend it. The Labour party has decided not to stand on such a policy. I challenge the nationalists to come clean and say whether they would use the Scottish variable rate. If not, what other sources of funding would they have?

    Economic Development
    Mr. Andrew Lansley: When he next intends to meet representatives of Scottish Enterprise to discuss economic development. [61264]
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Donald Dewar): My colleagues and I regularly meet Scottish Enterprise, which plays an important part in the Government's proposals to modernise the Scottish economy. The most recent meeting was between my noble Friend the Minister for business and industry and the chairman and executives of Scottish Enterprise on 4 December.
    Following assurances given to the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, my strategy guidance to Scottish Enterprise entitled "Renewal and Enterprise" is being published today, and a copy has been placed in the Library.
    Mr. Lansley: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that reply. When he next meets Scottish Enterprise, will he acknowledge that, with unemployment rising in Scotland, 12,000 job losses announced this year and business surveys increasingly showing falling order books in Scotland, he and his colleagues, particularly the Chancellor of the Exchequer, have left Scottish Enterprise ill equipped to respond to the impact of the Government's macro-economic policies?
    Mr. Dewar: I shall start at the bottom—that is probably appropriate when dealing with the hon. Gentleman's questions. The budget for Scottish Enterprise is more than £440 million this year. It is adjusted, but remains substantially above £400 million. The reasons are that Hyundai did not come on stream, we are spending £70 million through the new deal on training and we decided, with the agreement of Scottish Enterprise, that it should spend less on property and more on its mainstream activities.
    On the Scottish economy, the hon. Gentleman could not be more wrong. Of course none of us knows what the future holds, but he will know that the unemployment claimant count is at its lowest since 1977, that last month's unemployment figures again showed a drop in Scotland and that, looking at not just the bad news headlines but the good news headlines about the creation of jobs, there is a significant balance in Scotland's favour.
    Ms Sandra Osborne: May I take this opportunity to express the gratitude of the people of Ayrshire to my right hon. Friend and his colleagues for their response to the ending of Jetstream 41 production at Prestwick, which was to set up the Prestwick task force? As a member of that task force, I am aware that the report to be published shortly will show that substantially more jobs have been created than were originally lost. Does my right hon. Friend agree that such partnership working sets a good example for elsewhere?
    Mr. Dewar: Yes. I thank everybody, including my hon. Friend, who served on the Prestwick task force. It has been a success. I am also grateful to the firms that took the opportunity presented by the site at Prestwick. It is now a hub of activity and I am sure that it will grow and prosper in future. My hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) had a similar experience with the closure of Mitsubishi at Haddington, where energetic local action, using local talent, skills and advantages, did much to redress the balance.
    Mr. Archy Kirkwood: When the Secretary of State next meets Scottish Enterprise, will he continue to discuss the particular difficulties being faced in south-east Scotland owing to the recent spate of redundancies? Is he aware that there is high expectation in the borders that when the Scottish Office working party reports in the next few days it will provide adequate additional resources to make a significant difference to those difficulties? In particular, will he make sure that any projects to expand employment in existing local businesses arising through the Scottish Enterprise network will not be knocked back by central Government because of a lack of funds?
    Mr. Dewar: We have made it very clear that good, viable projects will be encouraged in every way. That applies across Scotland, but we are particularly aware of the difficulties in the south of Scotland and in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. We cannot offer the prospect of immediate success in solving all the problems, but there are a number of encouraging factors.
    There is a very good spirit of co-operation in the area and we have every intention of continuing to work closely with local interests. Some of the matters that were raised with me when I was there have been dealt with in another way and in another forum. For example, the recent settlement of some of the immediate anxieties of the farming industry has been widely welcomed in the south of Scotland.
    Dr. Norman A. Godman: My right hon. Friend will forgive me for being parochial, but when he next meets representatives of Scottish Enterprise will he urge upon them the need to assist the further development of the waterfront at Port Glasgow—not in my patch—Greenock and Gourock? The Government also need to assist with the proposal by Clyde ports for the development of a passenger ferry terminal at Port Glasgow. It makes excellent sense and would provide lots of jobs on the lower Clyde.
    Mr. Dewar: I of course appreciate the importance of the issue that my hon. Friend raises. There has been a great deal of work and a great deal of success has been achieved. There have also been disappointments, such as the unfortunate closure of National Semiconductors, but new jobs have also been created, for example at IBM, on a very extensive scale. Again there is a balance to be struck. I am aware of the particular project to which my hon. Friend referred at the end of his question; it is something that we will watch very carefully.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: Is not the truth of the matter that job losses are on the increase in too many parts of Scotland? While the Secretary of State
    130
    concentrates on trying to get another job for himself—a prospect that is fading faster after the north-east Euro by-election—others are losing their jobs. With high interest rates compared with the rest of Europe, too strong a pound hitting exports, and high on-costs on wages even before the minimum wage starts pushing unemployment even higher, is the only hope for those losing their jobs due to Government policy to follow the lead of the Paymaster General and advertise their availability for hire in the "Yellow Pages"?
    Mr. Dewar: I suppose that the hon. Gentleman is trying to add to his reputation as a statesman. Obviously he was not listening or decided to ignore what I said earlier. If we compare the job losses that have been announced since the beginning of the year and the job promises that have been made—I recognise that promises do not always turn into reality—and even if the promises are only two thirds fulfilled, it is clear that we are in balance.
    Unemployment in Scotland has been falling steadily. I shall not attempt to predict the future because there is a world crisis and a contagion of fear in the international market—we cannot be totally immune from that—but we have a stable economy as a result of two years of tough but necessary decision making by my colleagues in the Treasury. We are thus in a good position to ride out the problems, and the figures remain encouraging.

    Further Education
    Mrs. Maria Fyfe: What plans he has to review the organisation and management of further education, with particular reference to industrial relations issues. [61265]
    The Minister for Education, Scottish Office (Mrs. Helen Liddell): The Government have asked the further education sector to play a leading role in the delivery of our key programmes for education, social inclusion and competitiveness and we are increasing expenditure in the sector by £214 million over the next three years. To ensure that that money meets the challenges that the Government have set the sector, I intend to ask the new Scottish Further Education Funding Council to review the management of further education colleges. I will announce a detailed remit for the review shortly.
    Mrs. Fyfe: That is excellent news which will be widely welcomed. Will my right hon. Friend say whether, as part of the review, the restoration of the national negotiating machinery will be considered? That machinery was taken apart by the previous Government, despite the fact that they were warned about the likely consequences in places such as Motherwell college. Responsible and experienced trade unionists, who knew what they were talking about, told the then Government what the results would be, but their views were ignored.
    Mrs. Liddell: I take my hon. Friend's point about bargaining in further education colleges. There is a mixed message across Scotland about the impact of localised bargaining, but I have no doubt that the review board will consider the matter and come to conclusions on it. As she knows, I have no specific locus in industrial relations

    131
    matters, but I recently visited Motherwell college, where I asked both management and the trade unions to resolve their difficulties as quickly as possible. The only people who suffer in such situations are the students, who are all working extremely hard.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Does the right hon. Lady see any problems with the difference between the supposed increases in expenditure on school teachers and the salaries available to people in further education? The Government have clearly tried to accelerate the amount of funding per pupil in schools, but the same is not true of further education.
    Mrs. Liddell: I really wish the Opposition Whips would brief Conservative Members better. If the hon. Gentleman had listened more closely, he would have heard me say that £214 million extra was going into further education over the next three years. Further education is at the heart of the Government's plans for lifelong learning, and we are greatly encouraged by the breadth of experience of lecturers in further education colleges and the role that they are playing in meeting the Government's challenges.
    Mrs. Irene Adams: I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend on the review of further education colleges, especially because of the difficulties that we have had in Renfrewshire with Reid Kerr college in my constituency. Will she ask the review board to consider how the new deal is working in further education colleges? I have heard complaints that new dealers have been turned away in favour of more lucrative students.
    Mrs. Liddell: That is an interesting question—I know that my hon. Friend is concerned about the matter. We have invited consultants to look at the operation of Reid Kerr college. We have made it plain to the further education sector that it has a responsibility to its conventional students as well as to those students who have come in under the new deal. I hope shortly to publish the strategic framework for further education, which will take into account some of the structural issues that are causing colleges to compete perhaps needlessly.
    Mr. Alasdair Morgan: In view of the dissatisfaction with local pay bargaining in further education to which the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) referred, will the right hon. Lady undertake not to introduce similar arrangements in secondary education?
    Mrs. Liddell: The millennium review completed its discussions on salary levels in our schools a short time ago. The review is currently negotiating the role of local authorities as employers with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. I am hopeful that, at the end of that process, there will be a settlement for Scotland's teachers that rewards all teachers in a way that recognises their talents. At the moment, there are no proposals on the table for the introduction of localised bargaining.
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Will the Minister accept that the £2 million real-terms cut in funding for the three north-east colleges of further education has placed a real question mark over the Government's commitment to
    132
    "education, education, education"? Does she acknowledge that the cut has led to sudden, abrupt changes in timetables, which are deeply damaging to the students and cause great unhappiness to the lecturers, who are not even consulted in advance?
    Mrs. Liddell: As the hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware, we inherited a £5 million public expenditure cut in further education colleges. This year alone, we have increased expenditure by £12.4 million. Early in the new year, I will announce the settlements for colleges, including those in the north. The Government have shown our commitment to further education by giving it the place in the education system that it deserves, and by increasing expenditure on further education across Scotland.

    Local Government Reform
    Mr. Robert Syms: If he will make a statement regarding the reform of local government. [61266]
    The Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office (Mr. Henry McLeish): The Government are working to ensure that we create modernised local government, delivering the services people need. We appointed the Commission on Local Government and the Scottish Parliament under the chairmanship of Neil McIntosh; it will report to the First Minister in due course.
    Mr. Syms: Does the Minister think that the McIntosh commission on local authorities has missed an opportunity by not recommending an anti-corruption commission to look into allegations of wrongdoing in the central belt?
    Mr. McLeish: The reason why we did not ask the McIntosh commission to look at that matter is that we are looking at it ourselves. Next week, we will issue a new code of conduct for councillors, which will be part of the question of ethical standards in local government. There will be standards committees for councils, and a standards commission for Scotland, to provide a means of dealing with allegations of misconduct external to the council involved. We have acknowledged that there is a difficulty and we have taken steps to remedy it. We will publish our findings next week, and the Scottish Parliament will legislate.
    Mrs. Rosemary McKenna: Does my hon. Friend agree that the root cause of the problems in Scottish local government lies directly with the Conservative party and its botched and expensive reorganisation, which removed from local government a vast number of experienced officers? Is not the bottom line the fact that the Scottish Parliament will work with local authorities to provide the high-quality, modernised services that the people of Scotland desperately need?
    Mr. McLeish: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. For 18 years, local government was neglected and abused. In the past 18 months, we have had an opportunity to tackle problems where they have arisen, but we must go ahead in partnership. I have no doubt that the new Parliament will ensure that local authorities retain their autonomy. We will make sure that standards are improved and that services are modernised. Where it is required, we will rebuild public trust and

    133
    confidence. That is an important agenda for the new century—an agenda that it would be impossible to achieve under the Conservative party.
    Dr. Liam Fox: Self-regulation by the Labour party in Scotland scarcely fills us with confidence. The Labour party cannot be the solution, because it is the problem. Perhaps the Minister can refresh our memories. How many investigations are currently taking place into misdemeanours in Labour-run councils? Strathclyde regional council last week found that it was leaving a deficit of £78 million for its successor councils to pay up. Was that old Labour, new sleaze or new Labour, old sleaze? How would the Minister describe his party's financial incompetence?
    Mr. McLeish: It is clear again that the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), the Opposition's principal spokesman, has completely missed the point. No one is talking about self-regulation by the Labour party. We are talking about a new ethical framework which, I repeat, will comprise a code of conduct for councillors, standards committees for councils and an independent standards commission for Scotland to provide the means of dealing with allegations of misconduct. That will be the basis of an announcement, and the basis for parliamentary legislation in Holyrood. Dealing with the House of Lords may be a trifle easy, but dealing with Scottish local government requires the Opposition to be serious—which they have not been in the past 18 months.
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Does my hon. Friend realise how much the extra £860 million for local government will improve services, and how welcome it is in the schools in my constituency and elsewhere that an extra £1.3 billion is being spent on our education services over the next three years? That is 15 per cent. above inflation, and far more than was ever given by the Conservative Government.
    Mr. McLeish: I welcome my hon. Friend's comments, because that is the reality of Scottish local government. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is investing heavily in the future of education. That is important to Labour Members, even if it is not important to Conservatives. We want to invest and modernise, and that requires partnership, which is what the new Parliament at Holyrood will provide.

    Mental Health Care
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: When he last met representatives of health trusts in Scotland to discuss delivery of mental health care in Scotland. [61267]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Sam Galbraith): I meet representatives of health boards and NHS trusts regularly to discuss matters of current interest. Mental health is a top priority for the Government and we have already introduced a range of measures designed to improve services for the mentally ill. It is vital also that the legislative framework be adequate to meet developments in treatment and care, while having due regard to public safety, so we are setting
    134
    up a committee to carry out a major review of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984, which the right hon. Bruce Millan, I am pleased to announce, has agreed to lead.
    Mrs. Ewing: I welcome the Minister's comments, but does he appreciate the fact that many of us will want time to study the recommendations that may be made in the review of that Act? This important issue affects many people in Scotland. Will there be nurse-led initiatives in both acute and primary care services, which are very important for everyone; and will the review exclude compulsory treatment, which is a matter on which the Scottish Association for Mental Health, for example, has expressed concern about civil liberties? How will the review be undertaken and when will the recommendations be implemented?
    Mr. Galbraith: I am grateful for the hon. Lady's welcome for the review, but she must appreciate the fact that there are two separate issues involved: the legislation under which care is carried out, and the care itself. What I have announced today is a review of the legislation. It will be carried out under the chairmanship of the right hon. Bruce Millan, and we will make further announcements about the membership and remit of the review committee. We hope that it will report in 18 months' time.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: Does my hon. Friend agree that there are almost exactly the same number of people with learning disabilities in hospitals in Scotland as there are in the whole of England and Wales? Does he further agree that, before such patients are discharged, there should be proper assessments and advocacy, in line with the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986, so that we know what will happen to them? Does he, finally, agree that he has inherited a situation in which there are again more mentally ill people in Scottish prisons this Christmas, simply because the courts do not know where else to send them; and that that is incompatible with the caring attitude of the Scottish people?
    Mr. Galbraith: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's comments on a subject on which he is an expert. He is correct about the figures. There is always a balance to be struck between those in the community and those who are looked after in hospitals. We have not got it right yet, but we are moving in the right direction. I can give an absolute assurance that no person with learning difficulties will leave hospital unless going into care of a very high standard that will offer decency and dignity and the opportunity to live as normal a life as possible.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: How many mental health hospitals in Scotland still have mixed-sex wards?
    Mr. Galbraith: I cannot give the exact figure. The difference between Scotland's mental health services and those in the rest of the country is that we did not rush into closing all our mental health hospitals and forcing all the patients into the community. We have retained a certain number in hospitals because we think that it is right and proper to provide places of refuge

    135
    and asylum. We will continue to do that. It is a question of getting the balance right, and we think that we are near to achieving that in Scotland.

    Higher Still
    Mr. Michael Connarty: If he will make a statement on the progress of the implementation of Higher Still. [61268]
    The Minister for Education, Scottish Office (Mrs. Helen Liddell): Work is proceeding to ensure that Higher Still will be introduced from August 1999. The liaison group which I announced at Scottish questions in November has now met twice to consider issues relating to the implementation of Higher Still. I hope that the contribution of and positive approach taken by all members of the group will ensure that there is no need for any further delays with Higher Still.
    Mr. Connarty: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the warm commendations that accompanied the applause after her recent speech to the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland? For her handling of the Higher Still debate, she is becoming known as Scottish education's "flexible friend," although I have suggested that her approach is more firm and flexible than just flexible. Does she accept that the Educational Institute of Scotland's survey of readiness reveals that, because of the cascade training method, many classroom teachers still feel unprepared to deal with Higher Still in the classroom? Will she make it plain to local authorities in Scotland that they should use some of the vast resources that she has made available to them to train teachers directly in the classroom in preparation for Higher Still?
    Mrs. Liddell: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I know that he does so with some knowledge of the topic. With reference to the cascade methods used to disseminate training, it is difficult to see how cascading could be avoided entirely, given that tens of thousands of teachers and lecturers are involved in the process, but there should be only one cascade from the principal teacher to the classroom teacher.
    I recognise the anxieties of teachers about their preparedness. That is why I have made an additional £24 million available, which makes a total of £40 million for the implementation of Higher Still. A number of local authorities have made available additional in-service training days for Higher Still, and the Government are making available resources for two additional in-service training days. My hon. Friend can be confident that teachers will not be forced to implement Higher Still if they feel that they cannot do so competently.
    Mrs. Eleanor Laing: Why will the Minister not listen to professional teachers who are trying to tell her that the element of internal assessment in the Higher Still system will inevitably mean that employers and higher education institutions will have doubts about the validity of exam results achieved by children under the Higher Still system?
    Mrs. Liddell: The hon. Lady is misinformed. The structure of assessment that will operate in Higher Still is based on existing structures of assessment. She says that
    136
    the Government have not listened. When English teachers felt that the level of assessment was one level too far, the Government undertook to amend the system of assessment available for the teaching of English, and we are now issuing new guidelines.
    The hon. Lady is far from the mark when she suggests that employers are unhappy with Higher Still. As recently as four weeks ago, the Confederation of British Industry issued a statement calling for the rapid introduction of Higher Still, because Higher Still meets the needs of employers and is a route towards ensuring that Scottish education maintains and builds on its high standards.
    Mr. Donald Gorrie: As flexibility seems to be the key to getting agreement between the Scottish Office and the teachers, will the Minister elaborate on the reply that she gave a moment ago about the extent to which individual schools and departments will be able to go ahead or not, depending on how well prepared for Higher Still the teachers feel?
    Mrs. Liddell: The liaison group was established to take that matter into account. There have been two meetings of the liaison group so far, and I am grateful for the hard work that has been done by the group. A third meeting of the liaison group is to take place next week, and it will examine the guidelines to local authorities and the parameters within which decisions are to be taken.

    Universities (English Applicants)
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: What is his current estimate of the number of applications to Scottish universities from English-domiciled students for the years 1999–2000; and what was the number of applications in November 1997 for the academic year 1998–99. [61269]
    The Minister for Education, Scottish Office (Mrs. Helen Liddell): Seven per cent. more English students have accepted places at Scottish universities this year than did last year, which gives the lie to the scaremongering that we heard some months ago. I expect the number of English applications to Scottish higher education institutions for next year to be maintained. We want to offer as many students as possible the opportunity to qualify for higher education in Scotland.
    Mr. Dalyell: Will 9 per cent. of the population continue to gain 13 per cent. of the university places? Do not universities such as Heriot-Watt, Stirling and Aberdeen depend financially on the continuation of that position?
    Mrs. Liddell: My hon. Friend is concerned following his discussions with representatives of those universities about the level of applications this year. However, we shall not have a detailed analysis of those applications until 15 December, when the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service cut-off date applies. I shall try to find out what impact there has been on specific disciplines, and the Government are committed to monitoring the introduction of new student support arrangements, which is why the Quigley committee has been established.
    Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: What is the social profile of the students to whom the Minister referred? Will she publish the figures on 15 December so that we can determine whether the new students have rather well-off parents?
    Mrs. Liddell: I am afraid that I must disappoint the hon. Gentleman, who is searching for gloom where none exists. Analysis by UCAS of the social classes of United Kingdom applicants suggests that the proportion from poorer backgrounds this year is similar to that last year. The scaremongering was all for nothing.
    Mrs. Ray Michie: Can the Minister say how many English students have applied to the university of the highlands and islands, and, in particular, to Argyll college? She will be aware that, although the college's prospectus is out, there is no funding with which to run the college, and that has put it in jeopardy in an area that has no further education facilities. Will she and her Department do something about that immediately?
    Mrs. Liddell: I am slightly ahead of the hon. Lady, because I met representatives of Argyll college last week. I recognise the difficulties in Argyll, an area with no ready access to further education. I am anxious that Argyll should benefit from the university of the highlands and islands. I cannot give the hon. Lady statistics disaggregated for applications for higher education in Argyll, but I know of the strong academic record of Argyll—particularly at Dunoon grammar school, which has sent a high proportion of hon. Members to the House—and I look forward to a solid future for Argyll. My officials are giving what assistance they can to Argyll college, because it is important to put together a sustainable business case for the college's proposals on marine education. I am anxious to give the maximum support to ensure that Dunstaffnage puts together a viable case that will provide future stability.

    Manufacturing
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: If he will make a statement on developments in the Scottish manufacturing sector. [61272]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Calum Macdonald): In the year to the second quarter of 1998, manufacturing output increased by 4.6 per cent., compared with the previous four quarters, and growth was evident in seven of the 11 manufacturing sectors.
    Mr. Winterton: Are the Minister and the Labour Government concerned by the Office for National Statistics index of production, which showed manufacturing output in the three months to October falling by 0.7 per cent. and business failures in September rising by nearly 18 per cent? Do those figures result from the tax on savings, the increases in taxation and the increase in business costs that the Government have brought into effect.
    Mr. Macdonald: As I would have predicted, the hon. Gentleman is being selective. As I have said, in the year to the second quarter of 1998, manufacturing output
    138
    increased by 4.6 per cent. In the past month, there have been excellent announcements by various companies: Fullarton Computer Industries will create 500 new jobs in Prestwick; Universal Scientific Industries is creating 700 jobs at a new plant in Irvine; and Walter Alexander, the Falkirk coach builder, has won a £15 million contract from Hong Kong for 122 buses, which is commendable in a difficult export climate.
    Ms Roseanna Cunningham: Will the Minister advise the House whether he thinks that the Scottish manufacturing sector will be adversely affected by an emergent Whitehall culture, which is demonstrated in a recent leaked memo stating that as little information as possible is to be given to the Scottish Parliament even in areas of devolved powers? Does he think that that grudging attitude is appropriate?
    Mr. Macdonald: Manufacturing would, of course, be wrecked by the uncertainties caused by any move towards separation and independence. I must emphasise that there is no plot to snatch back funds from the Scottish Administration. Funds that are already with the Scottish Office will automatically transfer to the Scottish Parliament and the White Paper stated that Scotland would continue to benefit from its appropriate share of United Kingdom public expenditure.

  LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT
  The Minister of State was asked—
  LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

    Commonhold Tenure
    Mrs. Jacqui Lait: When he expects to publish his proposals on commonhold property tenure. [61248]
    The Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is consulting on proposals for leasehold reform. That consultation deals with issues similar to those that would have to be covered in consultation on a commonhold scheme. Therefore, it would be sensible to consider the results of the DETR exercise before embarking on our own consultation. Meanwhile, work on developing proposals is continuing.
    Mrs. Lait: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that reply, but it would help those of us who are interested in leasehold reform if we could consider commonhold in parallel. In the past, he told us that some difficulties have emerged since the 1996 Bill was drafted in the Department. Can he tell us what problems remain on commonhold and whether he would accede to the suggestion that we consider commonhold along with leasehold reform, rather than afterwards?
    Mr. Hoon: The reason it was decided not to proceed in parallel was that any proposal for a commonhold scheme would inevitably have to cover many areas on which the DETR is consulting on leasehold. For example, relations between individuals and their landlord—whether he or she is a freeholder or a commonhold association—relations between individuals, managers and agents,

    139
    valuation and dispute resolution processes and a number of other areas are common to both matters. It seems to us to make good sense to keep the systems in step in so far as we can to ensure that any benefits that result from leasehold reform are also available to commonholders. However, we are continuing with the preparatory work so that as soon as the consultation period on leasehold reform is completed we will be in a position to proceed with any further proposals on commonhold that may be necessary.

    Justice (Local Administration)
    Mr. Barry Sheerman: What steps he is taking to improve the local delivery and administration of justice. [61252]
    The Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): On the criminal side, our plans for developing the local delivery and administration of the magistrates courts service were announced in statements to both Houses on 29 October 1997. As a result, smaller magistrates courts committees are amalgamating, leading to an increase in administrative efficiency for the areas involved. On the civil side, the Court Service is responsible for ensuring an appropriate balance between the delivery of local justice and obtaining value for taxpayers' money. The Access to Justice Bill, which was introduced on 2 December, will continue our programme of reform.
    Mr. Sheerman: My hon. Friend will know that I approve of, and congratulate him on, many of the things that the Department is doing. However, on local justice locally delivered, many of my constituents and many magistrates are concerned that the rationalisation that is still continuing apace in magistrates courts is very similar to that carried out under a previous Administration. The proximity of courts to everyday life and work is important, especially for people from impoverished backgrounds—those people who suffer from social exclusion—so that they can be in their community and get to court easily. Therefore, will my hon. Friend have a word with some of his civil servants? The proposal may look good on the map and may be good for rationalisation and efficiency as regards the taxpayer, but surely local justice should still be locally delivered.
    Mr. Hoon: I do not disagree with the principles that my hon. Friend has set out. However, responsibility for local magistrates courts is in the hands of local magistrates courts committees. They decide whether courts should remain open or closed in the first place and it is only when there is an appeal against a decision that the Department becomes involved. Hon. Members who are concerned about the local delivery of justice should use their influence, as I hope that my hon. Friend will, on local magistrates courts committees to ensure that, where appropriate, courts remain open.
    Mr. Graham Brady: May I ask the Minister to consider the importance of the county courts as part of the local community as well as part of the delivery of local justice? In particular, will he examine the proposals, which I understand are at an early stage, to
    140
    close Altrincham, Tameside and Leigh county courts? That would be a retrograde step in the local delivery of justice and I hope that he will take a close look at it.
    Mr. Hoon: I have visited Altrincham county court—in a wholly representative capacity, might I say. I was impressed by the service that it provided to the local community. It is crucial that the local court service can balance the interests of the taxpayer and the cost of county courts against the importance of the local delivery of justice. Most people who visit county courts go there for information; they do not necessarily go there to attend court. There are many ways in which information can be delivered using the benefits of modern technology other than through making available a courthouse facility. I hope that information technology will improve access to information, rather than leaving us dependent on expensive court buildings to deliver the service.
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: The Minister knows that I have been concerned for some time about the closure of magistrates courts in my constituency. I have seen him at least once on the subject, but he did not assist me much in terms of access to local justice then. It is not only the public—front-line access to justice—who are suffering; justices of the peace in north Wales have told me, fatalistically, that before long their lives will be so miserable that stipendiaries will come in and the whole system of local justice will go.
    Mr. Hoon: I simply do not accept that. As I said, the administration of local justice and the magistrates courts is in the hands of local magistrates courts committees. That is the same in north Wales as in other parts of England and Wales. It will remain in their hands because that is the best way to guarantee the local delivery of justice.
    Ms Hazel Blears: I am sure that the Minister agrees that, for local people to have confidence in their justice system, it is crucial that magistrates benches be properly representative of the communities that they serve. Unfortunately, that is not the case in Salford. Take three inner-city areas: in Ordsall we have no magistrates; in Langworthy and Seedley we have but one; and in Kersal we have a grand total of five. Such areas suffer the bulk of crime and disorder in our city. Will the Minister reassure me that steps are being taken to increase the number of inner-city representatives on our magistrates benches so that the communities that suffer crime are represented at the heart of the justice system?
    Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question, although she will know that appointments in the Duchy of Lancaster are the responsibility of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. Nevertheless, the Lord Chancellor has asked the Central Office of Information to devise a national press campaign to help identify ways of attracting groups who are under-represented on the bench. The Lord Chancellor's Department and the Magistrates Association have worked together to produce a guide for employers explaining the benefits to their companies of having magistrates in the work force. I sincerely hope that the appointments system will benefit from that approach.

    Access to Justice Bill
    Mr. Dominic Grieve: If he intends to publish a White Paper in advance of the Access to Justice Bill. [61254]
    The Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): The Government published their White Paper "Modernising Justice" on 2 December 1998.
    Mr. Grieve: I am obliged to the Minister for pointing out that which had already been brought to my attention. May I take him to the reference in paragraph 6.18 of the White Paper on whether salaried defenders will be sanctioned by the Government? He knows that that issue has caused much disquiet in the legal profession and that the White Paper suggests that it will be kept under consideration. Will he explain why clause 13 of the Access to Justice Bill, which was published simultaneously, provides that Parliament will be asked to sanction exactly such a step and will be deprived of the opportunity of legislative scrutiny thereafter?
    Mr. Hoon: The explanation is that it is clearly necessary for the Government, subject to parliamentary approval, to have powers to employ salaried lawyers who may one day, if appropriate, constitute a public defender service. The Government have no plans to take forward any comprehensive scheme, but it is right that Parliament should have the opportunity to debate in principle whether that may one day become a feature of our criminal defence service.
    Dr. Alan Whitehead: Will my hon. Friend acknowledge the bewilderment that members of the public who have recourse to the law feel when they have dealt with a lawyer whom they trust and believe is competent to carry out their business and that lawyer is suddenly replaced in court by someone whom they have barely met and do not know? Will he emphasise to me the Government's commitment to ensuring that access to audience is seriously pursued?
    Mr. Hoon: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's question. He will know that the Bill and the White Paper set out proposals to eliminate the remaining restrictive practices between solicitors and barristers to allow all those who have qualified as either a solicitor or a barrister to appear in all the higher courts. That is a welcome improvement in the rights of ordinary people to secure legal representation and will eliminate the problems that my hon. Friend so well describes.
    Mr. Edward Garnier: The Minister will recognise that the Access to Justice Bill will deny citizens the right to select a defence lawyer of their choice. How does that comply with the Human Rights Act 1998?
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Difficult, Geoffrey.
    Mr. Hoon: Not at all.
    The provisions that we have set out in the White Paper and the Bill will ensure that those who are represented under legal aid schemes paid for by taxpayers' money have access to specialist representation. We will contract with only those lawyers who are specialists in particular fields. For the moment, anyone who is eligible for legal aid can go to any lawyer, irrespective of whether that lawyer knows anything about the subject in hand. We will ensure through contracting that people still have a choice of lawyer, but they will have a choice of those lawyers who are qualified and experienced in the relevant field of practice. That is a considerable improvement on the present arrangements.
    Mr. Gareth Thomas: Does my hon. Friend agree that, whatever the leader of the Bar may say, the majority of those of progressive opinion within the legal profession accept the need to modernise the profession, eliminate unnecessary restrictive practices and improve access to justice?
    Mr. Hoon: I was slightly surprised to discover that members of the Bar welcomed our proposals. Although they had one or two "predictable moans", according to a leader in The Times, on balance they felt that our proposals would improve access to justice and would be to the benefit of all those citizens who have to use legal services.

    Magistrates Courts (East Anglia)
    Mr. Andrew Lansley: What representations he has received concerning the closure of magistrates courts in East Anglia. [61255]
    The Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): I have recently received 12 representations from hon. Members, justices of the peace and other local interested parties, following the Cambridgeshire magistrates courts committee's determination to close the March magistrates courts with effect from 31 December 1998. I have previously received representations in relation to the Suffolk magistrates courts committee's decision to close magistrates courts in Suffolk.
    Mr. Lansley: I am grateful for that reply. Does the Minister agree that Haverhill in Suffolk is a good instance of a market town—it is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring)—that is forecast to grow and should have local infrastructure, but that will see access to justice denied and the abandonment of an important part of the local infrastructure?
    Mr. Hoon: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern about Haverhill and other courthouses in Suffolk, but those decisions were taken by the Suffolk magistrates courts committee. It is curious that the hon. Gentleman should come here and make representations to a

    143
    London-based Minister that that Minister should override a local decision which surely was informed by all the factors that he advances on behalf of the case for Haverhill and other such towns.
    Mr. Bob Russell: Does the Minister agree that every magistrates courts committee is a quango?
    144
    Does he accept that those quangos are taking the decisions that they have taken, not at the behest of local people, but because the Government have starved the service of sufficient resources?
    Mr. Hoon: I do not accept for one moment either that magistrates courts committees are quangos or that they are starved of financial resources.

Mental Health Services
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): I should like to make a statement on the Government's proposals to modernise the mental health services as part of our drive to ensure that we enter the new century and new millennium with health and social services that are modern and dependable.
Last year we published our proposals for radical reform of the national health service, and last week we did the same for social services. The strategy document we are publishing today brings together our proposals for far-reaching changes and improvements in the treatment and care which both services provide for people who are mentally ill. We are doing that to emphasise that mental health is not some marginal responsibility of the NHS and local social services—far from it: it must be at the heart of both. That is because mental health is not an obscure minority concern. It is just as important as physical illness and the two can be closely interlinked.
Mental illness is as common as asthma: it affects as many as one in six adults at any one time. It ranges from high levels of anxiety or deep depression to severe and enduring illnesses, such as schizophrenia, which affect one person in a hundred. Mental illness is extremely disturbing to sufferers and their families. It can leave people without insight into the consequences of their actions, which is very frightening; in addition, mental illness is little understood. Those factors combine so that mental illness carries a stigma. In turn, the stigma frightens sufferers and their families, and can lead to people postponing getting the treatment they need.
Partly because of that, mental illness does not get the prompt, effective and sympathetic attention it both deserves and needs. As a result, people who are mentally ill, their carers and the professional staff responsible for their welfare have suffered from ineffective practices, an outdated legal framework and lack of resources. We want to deal with all those aspects to bring about a dramatic change for the better in the treatment and care of all those who are mentally ill. In particular, we want to make sure that proper attention is given to the disturbing growth in the number of young people who are mentally ill, and to the particular needs of certain ethnic groups.
Most people who suffer mental illness are vulnerable people who pose no threat to anyone but themselves. Their condition may make it hard for them to keep a family together or hold down a job, but their behaviour is mild and inoffensive. Most of them are not getting all the low-intensity support they need. That is partly due to the fact that confidence in the whole system is in crisis, mainly because it is not coping with the small minority of mentally ill people who are a nuisance or a danger both to themselves and to others. That is where the policy of care in the community has failed: its failure to deal effectively with the most severe cases has dealt a blow to all mental health efforts and lost the confidence of the public.
Discharging people from hospitals brought benefits for some, but it has left many vulnerable people who find it difficult to cope. Others have become a danger to themselves and a nuisance to others. Too many have been left wandering the streets and sleeping rough, and a small but significant minority have become a danger to the
146
public as well as to themselves. That cannot go on, so we are putting in place a new strategy to tackle the problems faced by patients, professionals and public alike. We have to take steps to tackle the most extreme manifestations of mental illness, because if we do not, the other people who are mentally ill will not get the attention they deserve and need.
That is why we must bring the law on mental health up to date. That law was formulated at a time when most mentally ill patients were treated in hospitals, so it now reflects the practices of a bygone age and must be modernised to cope with the problems of today. At present, some people who would once have been left locked up in a hospital are fine living in the community; others are only safe providing they take their medication. However, some of those who can become a danger to themselves and others refuse to comply with the treatment they need. That cannot be allowed to go on, which is why I have set up a review of the law on mental health. We need a law that works in a crisis, not one that fails in a crisis.
Similarly, there is a small group of people with an untreatable psychiatric disorder, which makes them dangerous. At present, neither law nor practice are geared to cope with them. They cannot be taken into a mental hospital if they will not respond to treatment, and they cannot be put in prison unless they have committed an offence. If they are sent to prison, they can be a danger upon their release. Therefore, the Home Secretary and I are considering proposals to create a new form of renewable detention for people with a severe personality disorder who are considered to pose a grave risk to the public.
That raises all sorts of ethical and practical problems, but we are convinced that the safety of the public must be the prime concern. People whose mental illness poses a threat to others constitute a very small minority, but we must be able to deal with them. Their illness is often an even bigger threat to them, and our new system should be better both for them and for the public.
Our mental health strategy goes much wider than that, and there are huge developments in both policy and practice. We will put in place a national service framework, which will spell out for every part of the country the range of services that are needed to treat and care for the mentally ill and how best to deliver them. We are being advised about that by an external reference group chaired by Professor Graham Thornicroft from the Maudsley hospital. I thank him and his colleagues for their work in that area.
In the meantime, we are getting on with the improvements that are unarguably needed. There is a pressing need in some parts of the country for more mental health beds and for 24-hour services to be available. We want the services that are provided to be safe, sound and supportive: safe to protect the public and the most vulnerable patients; sound to ensure that patients get the best and most appropriate care and attention; and supportive by working with the patients, users, carers and local communities to help mentally ill people live as independent lives as possible. The strategy works best when patients and carers are involved in shaping services to meet local needs.
Those services, which back up informal carers, will be provided by the national health service, social services and voluntary bodies. All must work together to ensure

147
that people who are mentally ill get well-organised and unified treatment. Proposals in the forthcoming national health service Bill and Local Government Bill will promote that policy.
This year, the planning guidance issued to the national health service was issued as joint guidance to the health service and social services to emphasise the need for them to work together. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence, which we shall establish, will issue clear and authoritative guidance on the most effective drugs and therapies for use in treating mental as well as physical illnesses.
At the same time that those general improvements are being made to the NHS, we are going ahead with much better support for patients and carers. The measures include: access to NHS Direct 24 hours a day; 24-hour crisis teams to respond in emergencies; more mental health beds of the right sort, in the right place; more hostels and supported housing; home treatment teams; and improved mental health training for GPs and others responsible for providing primary care. Other new developments in the NHS, including health action zones and the obligation on health authorities to prepare and implement health improvement programmes, will contribute to improving mental health treatment and care.
I would like to pay a particular tribute to all those who care for people with a mental illness. A great deal of that caring is done by parents, children, friends and neighbours. It is also done by dedicated professional staff. Their work can be very stressful and is sometimes dangerous. We owe them a great debt. They must deal, day after day, with the consequences of policy failures, shortcomings in the law and a lack of resources.
What needs to be done will clearly cost money. Last week, I announced that we had found an extra £185 million to invest in mental health services provided by council social services. Today, I can announce that that sum will be more than matched by our extra investment in national health service mental health services, which will total £510 million over the next three years. That adds up to about £700 million extra investment in mental health services over the next three years on top of the £3 billion already going in.
All that is investment for change. The Government and the public will expect that extra investment to make a discernible difference and help people across the range of mental health needs. At the end of three years, we expect there to be more 24-hour staffed beds, more secure beds, access to new drugs, assertive outreach teams where they are most needed, more day and respite care, more supported accommodation and improved services for children and adolescents.
All those and many more services will make sure that when people have a mental illness, they and their families can turn to top quality professionals to provide the best possible treatment and care in a system that is safe and sound for patients and the public.
Miss Ann Widdecombe: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in letting me have an advance copy of his statement and for ensuring that on this occasion, it reached me in good
148
time. I have questions about his proposals which I hope he will be able to answer today, but if he cannot, perhaps he will write to me.
First, will the Secretary of State confirm that the view of the profession is that care in the community has been an overwhelming success and that only a small number of inappropriate discharges have caused justifiable concern among the public?
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that a major factor in patients defaulting on medication is the rationing of the latest atypical anti-psychotics? Will he give an assurance that community treatment orders will not be invoked until the patient has been given access to all appropriate medication, even if that medication costs more than that currently being used? Will he ensure that guidance from NICE on the prescribing of medication for patients with mental illness does not assume that all patients should start on the older, less satisfactory medication? If NICE recognises a drug as effective, will he ensure that it is always available on the NHS?
Will the Secretary of State commission a study on the real costs to our health service of providing the latest anti-psychotic medication, compared with providing in-patient treatment? Will he state what consultation he has had with those involved with all aspects of mental health, and what are the results of that consultation?
Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify the position of personality-disordered patients in relation to the Mental Health Act 1983 and state what discussions he has had with the Royal College of Psychiatrists regarding the prospects for treatment of those individuals?
Will the Secretary of State clarify the role of the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), in consulting the mental health charities and what reception he has had from those discussions? Is it true that the hon. Gentleman greatly offended the charity MIND with ill-advised comments about enforced treatment?
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that care in the community has been in existence since the closure of Victorian-style asylums in the 1950s? Will he confirm that the policy of community treatment orders has caused concern among psychiatric nurses? What steps is he taking to ensure that their fears are not realised?
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the number of dangerously mentally ill patients, from whom the public need protection, accounts for a small proportion of the total population of mentally ill people?
What estimate has the Secretary of State made of the number of new in-patient beds that will be necessary if community treatment orders are not to prove utterly unworkable? How many of those beds will be provided in mixed-sex wards? What is his policy on mixed-sex wards for the mentally ill?
When will the Mental Health Act 1983 be replaced? [Interruption.] I think that some Labour Members do not understand the workings of the Act. Is it not the case that to implement community treatment orders a new mental health Act will be required? Why, in that case, has the Secretary of State failed to win time for one in the Queen's Speech? If mental health is such a priority for him, why could not time have been found in this year's Queen's Speech for a new mental health Act? Can the

149
right hon. Gentleman confirm—I hope that he will—that there will be no enforced medication for patients outside NHS premises?
Mr. Dobson: I cannot really thank the right hon. Lady for her welcome for what we are proposing. She asked me to confirm that the psychiatric profession's view is that care in the community was a success. It is my job to say what my views are. The right hon. Lady can find out from the profession what its views are. I think that it failed.
We are seeking the views of the various professionals involved in this matter, but some of the shortcomings in the present arrangements arise from the things that some of the professionals have got wrong in the past and, in my opinion, from their adherence to an over-optimistic view of the likely product of care in the community carried to extremes.
NICE will have the clear job of looking at new treatments and new pharmaceutical products, and advising on whether they are sound and should be widely used in the NHS. If they should, they will be funded.
I am afraid that I cannot read my notes. What was the right hon. Lady's fifth question? I am happy to take a hint.
Madam Speaker: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will continue. I am sure that it will come to him eventually.
Mr. Dobson: What we have been saying all along is that we want to consult the people who have been involved in these matters but, in view of the track record of some of them, we will have to look carefully at what they say and not necessarily directly accept their advice. Some of them have been responsible for some of the things that have gone wrong. There is a new arrangement in hand and they will have to become accustomed to it, as will the people at MIND who did not like the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), giving them an outline of what we intend to do.
I heard someone from MIND on the radio this morning and she apparently shares the right hon. Lady's view that there is really nothing wrong. I have seldom heard such a defence of the status quo as was apparent in the right hon. Lady's questions. She emphasised that the policy of care in the community has been in place for a long time. Indeed it has, and it has had time to show whether it works—it has shown that it has not worked. One cannot claim success for a policy that fails the most difficult cases, and that is certainly what has happened with care in the community.
We believe that the law needs to be changed to enable community treatment orders to be introduced; that is one of the reasons why we need to change the law. As I said in my statement, I recognise—it is fairly clear—that the dangerously mentally ill are a small minority. However, I have also emphasised that, until we sort out the crisis that they have created, proper attention will not be given to the other people who need help with their mental health.
We are not looking for national totals for beds. We are conducting a survey of all beds in the NHS to find out what is needed in each area so that we can identify what sort of beds are required. The fact that there is a surplus of beds in Norwich is of no consequence to those facing a shortage of beds in Bristol.
150
We want to eliminate mixed-sex wards. I have twice stepped in to prevent health trusts from following the policy of the previous Government and trying to create more mixed-sex wards. I will not tolerate such wards and they will be eliminated.
The right hon. Lady asked about the provision of legislative time in order to do these things. If she can sort out the Tory party's policy on the House of Lords so that we know whether it will obstruct the passage of our measures during this Session, perhaps we could introduce the legislation for which she apparently yearns.
Mr. David Hinchliffe: I warmly welcome many of the points made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I welcome also the Government's recognition that serious problems are facing a minority within the community.
I find myself in some difficulty because I agreed with the first point made by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) about community care being a success for many thousands of people. There are many thousands, who do not make news headlines, who are better off cared for in the community as a consequence of the community care policy. At the same time, I accept that there have been some very serious failures and tragedies that should be addressed, and my right hon. Friend is right to address them.
I say that in the context of regretting the view of some people that there was a golden age of the lunatic asylum; there was not. I am old enough to remember the Stanley Royd hospital in my constituency and other long-stay psychiatric hospitals, which left a great deal to be desired. I welcome my right hon. Friend's points in that context.
I press my right hon. Friend on two specific points. First—I am particularly concerned about this—does he recognise the urgency of the reform of mental health laws? As he has said, these laws reflect the old asylum system rather than the reality of today's care in the community. We desperately need laws that underpin the work of those who are doing a valiant job in helping people to be cared for in the community.
Secondly—it will not be a surprise to my right hon. Friend—bearing in mind the number of failures that have occurred through a lack of inter-agency working, is it not about time that we addressed seriously the issue of a single community care authority?
Mr. Dobson: First, I shall answer my hon. Friend's final question. He has a great depth of professional and personal knowledge of these matters. I believe that there would still be boundaries wherever we drew the line. I am not in favour of having joint social services and national health service provision. I am sometimes told that such a system works brilliantly in Northern Ireland, while others tell me that it does not.
One of the greatest problems was that the old institutions were awful. In many instances, they were absolutely vile places. It is right that they have been closed down and that people have been moved out. The problem is that some people have been moved out without adequate provision being made for them, either in law or in terms of the services that are available to them. The Victorians may have built great lunatic asylums so that people were out of sight and out of mind; under the previous Government, people were turned out of hospital

151
and off the books, but we can no longer tolerate that sort of thing. We must ensure that people are properly looked after.
My hon. Friend has made the point that I make whenever I speak on these matters, which is that only a small minority of people are a danger to others. However, there are a huge number who are endangered by not being properly looked after when they are walking the streets. In future, people in both those categories need to be properly looked after, and that is what we intend to do.
Mr. Simon Hughes: First, will the Government accept our welcome for their intention to make mental health a greater priority for the national health service? In particular, we welcome the commitment to assertive outreach, early intervention and 24-hour services, whether they are drop-in services or admission into hospital beds for those who need that provision—and at present, often cannot have it. We join the Secretary of State in his tribute to those who care for the mentally ill, especially psychiatric nurses, community psychiatric nurses and psychiatric social workers, who are often in the front line undertaking extraordinarily difficult jobs.
Will the Government reflect, however, and consider whether it would be better as a policy not to be tough on care in the community, but tough in providing the resources for that care? Is it not the case that many of the problems that have made the front pages of the tabloid newspapers have been caused by overstretched teams not being able to provide such care, rather by people being out in the community and being cared for?
Is the Secretary of State able to tell us the number of beds that he estimates we need to open? More importantly, does not he accept that we are desperately short of psychiatric nurses, community psychiatric nurses and psychiatrists? How many more of these people will be engaged as a result of the resources that he is announcing today?
In the past eight years, there has been a cut of about one sixth in the share of the NHS budget spent on mental health. Will the funds that have been cut be restored? Will the £700 million be £113 million a year for the next three years, or £233 million for the next three years? There are two ways of calculating £700 million, and one total is only half of the other.
Does the Secretary of State accept that—to protect the public and the mentally ill from homicides and, much more often, suicides involving the mentally ill—we need to have better ways of controlling the moment of discharge, often by including a lay element? Does he accept also that—rather than telling people that they will be taken back into hospital if they do not take their drugs, taking away their civil liberties—the test should simply be whether people are well enough to be in the community?
Mr. Dobson: That was a set of weasel words at the end of the hon. Gentleman's questions. It is not simply a matter of people taking their drugs. Day in and day out—
Mr. Hughes: But—
Mr. Dobson: If the hon. Gentleman will listen for a moment, I shall answer his question. Day in and day out,
152
even in purpose-built, small units trying to provide 24-hour care for those who can go out into the community, if someone has a bad episode—is on the turn—those who are running the place cannot keep that person in if he or she is determined to go out. That is nothing to do with medication but is a practical problem. We have to change the law to deal with that practical problem, and that is what we shall do. We are increasing the amount of money available and the proportion of NHS and social services money spent on the mentally ill. We think that it is right to do that.
I am sorry that I did not follow the hon. Gentleman's arithmetical gymnastics, in which he seemed to disappear halfway up the sum that he originally mentioned.
There are more specialist psychiatric nurses in training, and we want to ensure that there are sufficient nurses and other staff available to do the job that needs to be done. It is certainly true that, across the United Kingdom, there are overstretched teams. To help them, we plan to change the law, to provide extra resources and to change the way in which they go about things. We believe that those three actions combined will lead to a very substantial improvement in the service for all those who are mentally ill.
Mr. John Gunnell: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that, when it is recommended that a patient has electro-convulsive therapy, it will be certain that the hospital providing the therapy has up-to-date equipment and a technician or doctor trained in the use of that equipment, and that, if the patient has any uncertainty about accepting the treatment, the opinion of an independent second appointed doctor will be available before the treatment is provided?
Mr. Dobson: Anyone who is being treated in the national health service should be entitled to treatment using equipment that is sufficiently up to date to be safe and to do the job that it is intended to do, whether it is to treat patients for something that is physically or mentally wrong with them. It is certainly intended that all treatments should be administered by properly trained staff. There is royal college guidance on the matter, and it should be followed. If my hon. Friend feels that we have to follow up and augment the guidance with arrangements in the national health service, I should be happy to contemplate doing so. One of the reasons why we are giving responsibility for quality to the national health service is that we feel that current arrangements are not satisfactory.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I served on the Social Services Committee when it undertook a lengthy inquiry into adult mental illness and mental handicap. I warmly support the Secretary of State's statement. The recognition of the failings of care in the community for the more severely mentally ill is long overdue. In-patient hospital beds are required for that small minority. My constituency has experienced two or three tragic deaths as a result of the failure of the system. The Secretary of State made a statement some time ago that no further hospital beds would be closed in the mental health sector. Will he repeat that assurance and promise

153
that resources will be available to provide the necessary facilities for those with severe mental illness, particularly the more extreme cases of schizophrenia?
Mr. Dobson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind welcome for what I have said and for all the work that he did on the Select Committee, which he chaired with great distinction. On these issues, he sometimes appears to be more supportive of the present Government than he was of the previous one. I do not want to ruin his reputation with his colleagues. He developed a reputation for saying what he believed to be true, which is a good reputation to have anywhere, particularly in the House of Commons. I share his view that unless those who are in favour of care in the community are willing to recognise its failings, we shall not be able to address those failings and get on with the rest of the task.
We do not want any loss of psychiatric beds that does not make sense. We have slowed the process of closure and have instituted an independent review, which is new. There may still be some cases in which moving people out of some of the remaining large hospitals is an appropriate response, but, as the hon. Gentleman says, if that is going to happen, the people must be moved to somewhere that is suited to their needs. I remember drawing the analogy when I was a shadow health spokesman a dozen or more years ago of looking at the old institutions as broken down motor coaches. What is needed is something approaching a custom-built vehicle for everyone who moves out. Sadly, a lot of them have been left to walk.
Audrey Wise: I particularly welcome my right hon. Friend's reference to child and adolescent mental health services. I recommend that he ensures that his Department continues to keep an eye on that theme. When the Health Committee investigated the issue, it was concerned that neglect in childhood was worsening the situation for adult mental health. We were distressed to find that many of those engaged in child and adolescent mental health services felt that their service was a Cinderella of a Cinderella. I urge my right hon. Friend to keep his eye firmly on the issue for economic reasons as well as to ensure a good service.
Mr. Dobson: I thank my hon. Friend for what she has said and for her contribution to thinking on the issue. The strategy document refers to the views of the Select Committee on that. The services for children and adolescents are a neglected part of an already neglected service. We want to put that right.
Mr. Peter Brooke: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. Will he accept it from me that I have heard the president of the Royal College of Psychiatry say within the Palace that although the present policy constitutes major problems for those on the streets of the Secretary of State's constituency and mine, it has worked a good deal better in rural and suburban areas? Does the Secretary of State further agree that it is important that we achieve, if possible, as much of a bipartisan policy as
154
we can on so serious an issue, and that we all have a responsibility to build on the common ground of analysis and fact?
Mr. Dobson: I accept most of what the right hon. Gentleman, who represents the neighbouring constituency to mine, says, but nobody could accuse me of bringing politics into this afternoon's statement.
Dr. Lynne Jones: I commend my right hon. Friend on the sensitivity of his statement. One of my earliest recollections is visiting my father in what was known locally as the loony bin, and having my clothes prodded by elderly ladies who were dressed in clothes from the communal store and who looked like children. God forbid that we should ever return to those days of dehumanising institutionalisation. However, the principle of care in the community is not a failure; it is the inadequacy of its resourcing. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that there will be sufficient well-trained staff with manageable case loads to provide care and support for the majority of mentally ill people who are not a threat to the community, and who for too long have suffered in silence either alone or, if they are lucky, with their families who are equally in despair? Will he ensure that sufferers and their carers are involved in the development of new services? Perhaps he could also consider establishing a mental health ombudsman to look at complaints across the boundaries of social services and health services which so often failed in the past?
Mr. Dobson: In relation to my hon. Friend's last point, the national health service ombudsman can deal with NHS issues and the local government ombudsman can deal with social services issues. There is nothing in law to prevent them from mounting a joint exercise in respect of issues at the boundary. I share her desire not to go back to the old institutions. The provision of care in the community certainly has been under-resourced, but it is not just a matter of under-resourcing. There was over-optimism among some of those concerned about the capacity of patients to cope outside institutions and a failure to provide the necessary back-up. The law is undoubtedly out of date and some of the practices have not been very sound. We are trying to address all three aspects. As I said in my statement, we want to work in collaboration with patients and carers in each locality because all the evidence is that when that is done effectively, it results in a better service for everyone and that is what we are after.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: The Secretary of State will be aware that people suffering from learning difficulties—or mental handicap, as it was once known—sometimes need to take drugs in the community. Can he confirm that his statement does not apply in any way to those with learning difficulties, and that each case will be considered on its merits? Does his statement apply only to England or to Wales and Scotland as well?
Mr. Dobson: The statement applies to England alone. We are talking not about the treatment of people with learning difficulties, but about mental health.
Mr. Martin Linton: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the provision of more mental health

155
beds will be a great step towards ensuring that people who should be in hospital are not kept in hostels? That would be some reassurance for the colleagues and relatives of Jennifer Morrison, who was killed in a hostel in my constituency only two or three weeks ago, and, indeed, for the neighbours of the hostel. Although care in the community was a bipartisan policy, we cannot be totally uncritical of the previous Government, who, between the mid-1980s and mid-1990s, oversaw the closure of 50,000 to 60,000 beds in psychiatric hospitals without making care in the community a reality by ensuring that resources and the provision of hostels kept pace.
Mr. Dobson: I share my hon. Friend's proper concern for the relatives and friends of Jennifer Morrison, who—as we should always remember—died doing the job that we had asked her to do, in difficult and, as it turned out, fatal circumstances. The necessity is to provide services that are suited to the needs of each individual. A place in a hostel may be appropriate for some, whereas a place at home—provided that there is back-up—may be appropriate for others. In some cases, people should be held in secure accommodation. We must recognise the fact—some practitioners, I believe, do not like to recognise it—that people can move backwards and forwards across that spectrum; we are trying to ensure that we can respond sensitively and quickly to those changes.
Mr. David Faber: The right hon. Gentleman's statement and some of his subsequent replies will have a somewhat hollow ring for my constituents in Warminster, where we learned with dismay this weekend that the mental health unit in the local hospital would close. The hospital is not large, if I may use his word; it is a small community hospital that serves a rural area, and its future will be threatened by the closure of the unit. Is he aware that his refusals to meet local health workers to discuss the closure or to answer my questions on it in the House have been viewed at best as discourteous by those who work in the hospital and by those whose family members are being treated there? Given the nature of his statement, will he or one of his Ministers undertake to meet those health workers and local people as soon as possible?
Mr. Dobson: I am not aware of the current state of any closure proposals for the unit to which he refers. I may have to take a decision on it, but I do not know off hand whether that is the case. If I do have to take a decision, I am, as ever, willing to meet the elected Members for the area or to get one of my colleagues to do so.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: I warmly welcome the measures that my right hon. Friend has outlined. I have never understood the argument that it is better to sleep rough or languish in prison than to be given proper short-term asylum and appropriate treatment—if one of my loved ones was involved, I know which option I would prefer. Will he consider the tragedy of the high number of suicides among teenagers? Does he envisage special measures to deal with that vulnerable group?
Mr. Dobson: I thank my hon. Friend, too, for all her efforts on this issue over the years, in and around Halifax,
156
in the House and in other places. The increase in the number of young people who commit suicide is one of the most disturbing aspects of our society. No one has a ready explanation for that increase or for the general increase in mental illness among children and young people, but we hope that the specific measures that we are taking—not only through mental health services, but through the education service—will help to tackle the problem. We also hope that the changes that we are proposing as a result of the Utting inquiry into children in care will help, especially as a much higher proportion of children in care are mentally ill and a higher proportion of them subsequently commit suicide. Until we have a better explanation for the problem, however, it is hard to do anything about it.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the statement. Along with my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), I served on the Social Services Committee, and we tabled an amendment—which was not accepted—pressing for secure units and places of asylum. Having said that, I must confess that the general plan of community care has worked tremendously well and, in parts of Northern Ireland, it has been going on for 40 years to good effect.
May I press the Secretary of State on the number of occupational therapists who are being recruited? There is still a great need for such people to help folk with mental illness. Is there a process of reaching out to the Department of Social Security? Recently, I had a constituency case where benefit for a schizophrenic person was reduced from including the major care component to a lower care component. As a result, her husband was not able to look after her and she was readmitted to hospital. Surely there should be greater cross-referencing between the different branches of the caring professions.
Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman's last point is valid, and we are looking at how we can provide a better package of care that includes money and direct help. We are trying to formulate that package, but it is rather difficult. If he has any further ideas, I will be happy to consider them.
Many therapists—not just occupational therapists—can make a contribution to helping people cope with living in the community, and we must try to make the system work as best we can. There was a time—it is still the case in certain circumstances now—when asylum was regarded as a good concept, and as a place of safety and security. However, the asylums became so disreputable that the concept suffered, and the bad reputation and stigma that attached to the word "asylum" have, to some extent, dominated much of the subsequent discourse on the matter. They have made some people reluctant to look at the idea of providing the secure care that is needed by some people.
Mr. Neil Gerrard: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, including what he said about the way in which the current system has failed a small number of desperately ill people. In my constituency, a young man, when seriously ill, murdered someone else. The most tragic part of the case was that his family had been trying desperately to get help for him and to get him into secure accommodation. They were not able to do so.

157
Does my right hon. Friend accept that if we bring in a new and renewable form of detention order, there may be some clear-cut cases but, with any such order, there will be difficult, borderline cases where decisions have to be made as to whether an order is brought in or not? What safeguards does he envisage for the bringing in of such orders? What protection will be provided to someone who might be subject to such an order?
Mr. Dobson: My hon. Friend rightly refers to the small number of what might be described as spectacular and awful failures, but the failure of the system went further than just the people who became a danger. There are many vulnerable people who are walking the streets and who are not getting the attention that they deserve. We should not forget them.
A renewable detention order raises deep and difficult ethical issues. I expect—although I cannot say, because we have asked some distinguished people to look at mental health law—that some form of protection for the individual will be recommended, relating both to people's clinical state and to their freedom as individuals. Both concepts will have to be brought to bear when decisions are made.
Dr. Evan Harris: I welcome much of what the Secretary of State has to say, but will he accept a sixth invitation to agree with the statement that he was wrong to describe community care as failing outright? That gives major concern to people who work in the area. May I invite him to agree that community care may have failed in a few areas for a few patients, but that generally when it has failed, it is because it has never been tried, as it has always been inadequately funded?
Does the Secretary of State accept that in Oxfordshire, with a mental health trust that is effectively in receivership, and with experience of the failures in the tragic Raus and Darren Carr cases, we would be concerned to learn that the extra money allocated to
158
mental health will not compensate for the real-terms cut in funding that Oxfordshire social services received in the standard spending assessment announced last week?
Does the Secretary of State finally accept that rationing—the "R" word that dare not speak its name from the Government Front Bench—has applied in mental health, the Cinderella specialty, not only in the use or lack of use of new anti-psychotics, but in the provision of beds for the mentally ill near where their families live, and not miles away? Many of my constituents have had to go to Wales to visit their loved ones. Does he accept that rationing exists and that his funding could at least reduce the amount of rationing that occurs in this specialty?
Mr. Dobson: One or two people seem to think that a system that has led to an unacceptable number of homicides and suicides has been a success, but I am afraid that that is not my interpretation. I think that the system of care in the community failed as a totality, because it failed in the most difficult circumstances. One cannot claim success for an arrangement that fails in a crisis. I fully accept that it delivered for a substantial number of people—
Miss Widdecombe: Ah.
Mr. Dobson: The right hon. Lady reacts as though I had never said that before, but I said it in the statement. No doubt she was preparing at the time to jump up and announce that the system had been a success. The people who have committed suicide or killed others are not the only failures. All over the country there are vulnerable people who have not been properly looked after, and that cannot be regarded as a success.
We have just announced that we are putting an extra £700 million into mental health care, on top of the £3 billion already being spent. That is a big step forward, and it is disproportionately greater than the increase in spending on other aspects of health care. We are moving in the right direction. We may not be moving as fast as the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) would like, but then again, we have to find the money, and he does not.

Tabling Questions
4.23 pm
Mr. James Gray: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will be aware that, since the amalgamation of the Department of the Environment and the Department of Transport after the general election, it has been the custom for Back Benchers to table oral questions on the environment and on transport separately. Were you aware that, as of today, that practice has been stopped and Back Benchers now have to choose between the environment and transport? Was that decision yours, or was it the Government's; if the latter, would you agree that it is another example of the Government's reluctance to face up to proper scrutiny from Back Benchers?
Madam Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me an indication of his point of order in advance. He is of course right to say that questions will no longer be divided between environment and the regions on the one hand and transport on the other. As a result, hon. Members may submit only one oral question instead of two, as was the practice earlier. The question rota is issued on the instructions of the Government. In the normal course of events, changes are discussed through the usual channels. If the hon. Gentleman wants to pursue the issue, may I suggest that he pursues it through the usual channels?
Mr. Gray: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I have checked with the usual channels, and it has not been discussed in that way so far.
Madam Speaker: That is not my business. The usual channels are the usual channels. My business is the Speaker's business.
Mr. Simon Hughes: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. The news of the change has only just filtered through. The information process does not seem to have worked. Will you inquire why hon. Members were not notified of the change? Until today, there were two opportunities for tabling questions to be answered in a fortnight. No notice or circular has been issued. Hon. Members have gone into the Table Office expecting to be able to table two questions—
Madam Speaker: Order. There has been no indication to hon. Members about the change, but of course it is clear on the Order of Questions, which is available to all hon. Members. All one needs to do is to look at the Order of Questions, and there it is.

Orders of the Day

  Road Traffic (NHS Charges) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
  4.26 pm
  The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill does not introduce any new charges. It simply makes it easier for hospitals to collect from insurance companies charges that they have been entitled to collect for nearly 70 years. The present arrangements simply do not work, so the health service is losing a great deal of money. Nobody really knows how much. Estimates range from about £50 million a year to £500 million. Whatever the figure is, it is clear that, if the charges were collected properly, national health service hospitals would be a lot better off.
  Under the present law, there are two charges. One is an emergency treatment fee of £21.30, which is supposed to be collected directly from any driver who needs immediate treatment from a doctor after a road accident. The other charge is supposed to be levied on insurers when a motor accident victim makes a successful claim for compensation. At present, this charge can be up to £295 for out-patient treatment and up to £2,949 for in-patient treatment.
  Those charges do not work. They combine minimal income with maximum inconvenience. Last year, they raised just £16 million. To collect the emergency treatment fee, NHS staff must ask injured motorists for the money in the immediate aftermath of an accident. That causes maximum offence to the motorists, who may be in shock or pain. They sometimes get the impression that it is a charge for the use of an NHS ambulance. It is not.
  Asking for the money is a rotten task for the staff who are supposed to do it. It is a diversion from their real job of looking after patients. In many cases, the emergency treatment fee is literally more trouble than it is worth.
  Such problems are not confined to the emergency treatment fee. Motorists and other victims may be pressed while in accident and emergency, or even in a hospital bed, to say whether they are going to make a claim against somebody who caused the accident. Alternatively, they may be sent a letter out of the blue to ask them the same question.
  The problems of collecting the charges do not end there. Hospitals sometimes send out letters to motorists to demand payment of one or both charges. That is because it is up to each hospital to track down the organisation responsible for paying the compensation. Each hospital must calculate the costs of the individual treatment provided to each motor accident victim, separating in-patient treatment costs from out-patient treatment costs. Each hospital then has to track the progress of each compensation claim.
  The average motor accident injury claim takes two years to process, and many take much longer. The hospital must bill the insurer, and then chase them up and make sure that the debt has been paid. The motorist can get dragged into the process at various stages.

  161
  Faced with such protracted and laborious arrangements, most hospitals do not get much income from the charges. Some employ collection agencies, but they have to pay them for their service, which reduces the takings for the hospitals.
  We have decided to end that shambles, and to help to make sure both that hospitals can collect the money to which they are entitled and that charges reflect the true cost of the treatment involved. For a start, we have decided to abolish the right of NHS hospitals to levy the emergency treatment fee. General practitioners who attend road accident victims will still be able to levy the fee if they choose to do so.
  Having decided that the main charge should be collected properly in future, we considered very carefully how best to go about it. We consulted widely not just within the NHS but with the Association of British Insurers and some individual insurers. We also kept the Law Commission and the Law Society informed of developments. I am most grateful to them all for their advice and help. All concerned with the present scheme wanted a simpler, clearer, quicker and less costly system, and that is what we intend to deliver.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: During the debate on the Queen's Speech, the Secretary of State said that it had been estimated that the charge might raise anything between £30 million and £500 million. Can he be more specific today, and if not, why not? Given that he previously led the House to believe that the Government did not favour the introduction of any new charges—presumably he will say that these charges are old charges that are merely being collected—can he confirm that the Government are happy about, and supportive of, all the other charges currently placed on people who use the NHS?
  Mr. Dobson: The Bill is about one charge that hospitals have lawfully collected since 1930, and another that has been lawfully collected by hospitals since 1933. I understand that both were introduced with the support of the Liberal party. All we are doing is getting rid of one of them, and making the other one work. There is nothing new about either of them.
  We propose that the compensation recovery unit of the Benefits Agency should take on the job of getting the money in and distributing it to hospitals. The compensation recovery unit was set up in 1990 by the previous Government to recover state benefits where both benefits and compensation had been paid out in respect of the same accident, injury or illness. Insurers are required to notify the recovery unit of claims for compensation, so the unit is well placed to take on the additional task of collecting NHS charges.
  There are many advantages to our proposal: the recovery unit has a good track record; the unit has good relations with the insurance industry and proven procedures; insurers will need to deal with only one central unit instead of several hundred individual hospitals; the work will be done at minimum administrative cost to all concerned; hospitals will be relieved of an onerous task; the process will require minimal involvement of motorists; and the proposal will secure around 50 jobs on Tyneside, where the recovery unit is situated. The insurance industry supports the proposal.
  162
  In a further effort to simplify and reduce administrative costs, we propose to introduce a tariff of charges so that every hospital, every insurer and the recovery unit will know how much the charge is likely to be in every case. In most cases, the only patient information that will need to be transmitted is whether motorists were treated in an NHS hospital as out-patients, and how many days they spent in hospital if they were treated as in-patients. The insurance industry supports that proposal, too.
  The charges will be set out in regulations, and will be made up of two items. The first will be a flat rate fee for those who do not need to stay in hospital. Initially, the flat rate fee will be set at £354, no matter how many out-patient attendances are involved. The second item will be a daily rate charge for those who need to stay in hospital, and that will be set at £435 per day initially.
  The new tariff has been calculated to reflect the current cost of treating road accident victims. It is expected to bring in a total amount that broadly reflects the costs of treating those who make a successful claim against another driver. As part of the arrangement, I have concluded that it would not be in the spirit of the proposed new system to impose open-ended liabilities on insurers, so there will be a ceiling of £10,000 on a single charge. Both the tariff and the ceiling will be set by regulations, and uprated as necessary.
  Following our consultations with the motor insurance industry, we propose that the new charges should apply to treatment given in respect of accidents that happened on or after 2 July 1997, when the Chancellor first announced our intention to collect the full cost of treatment. Treatment for accidents that happened before that date will be charged at the new tariff, but subject to a ceiling of £3,000.
  Mr. Robert Syms: Does the £10,000 limit relate to an individual or to an accident? For example, in the case of a coach, 30 or 40 individuals might be involved. Would the liability be multiplied by the number of people in the coach?
  Mr. Dobson: It would be per person, as would all compensation claims of that sort. There is nothing different about the claim in question.
  As the House knows, the Motor Insurers Bureau, financed by the insurance industry, pays compensation to victims of road accidents caused by drivers who are either uninsured or have disappeared. Under the Bill, the NHS will be able for the first time to collect charges from the Motor Insurers Bureau. By regulations, we will make it clear that payments will be sought from the bureau only in respect of accidents that happen after the Bill is enacted.
  The new charging process will be straightforward. It involves adding just one question to the existing standard form, which insurers are already required to send to the recovery unit. It will report which NHS hospital, if any, treated a motor accident claimant. The recovery unit will then get from the hospital concerned confirmation that the claimant was an out-patient, and, if an in-patient, how many days he or she spent in the hospital.
  The unit will then be able to collect the charge from the insurer as soon as the overall claim is settled, and pass it on to the hospital. Unless there is some dispute,

  163
  each motorist's involvement should amount to nothing more than telling his or her insurer if he or she received treatment in an NHS hospital.
  Mr. Michael Jack: Will the Secretary of State clarify one point? If, as a result of a subsequent court case, a motorist were found to be entirely innocent of any blame in an accident that led him or her to receive hospital treatment, would the other party, who was blameworthy, have to accept the entire bill for all the parties involved in the treatment?
  Mr. Dobson: The whole question rests on there being a successful compensation claim in the first place. If there is such a claim, it will include the NHS costs. If there is not—possibly, in the circumstances to which the right hon. Gentleman referred—the NHS would not get any money.
  We also propose to give insurance companies, for the first time, the right to ask for a review of charges in a particular case, and, where appropriate, to appeal to a tribunal.
  There have been a number of scare stories about what we propose. Some people have claimed that we are introducing new charges. Others have claimed that what we are doing will lead to large increases in motor insurance premiums. Neither is true. Nothing is new in principle about what we propose. Insurers have been liable for such charges since 1930. We are merely ensuring that, in future, NHS hospitals will get the money to which they have been entitled for the past 68 years.
  The present collection arrangements are such a shambles that no really firm data exist on which to base estimates of the likely sums that may be raised under the new scheme. The best estimates that I can come up with range from around £100 million to about £150 million in England—about £120-odd million to £165 million in Great Britain. The ABI estimates that, if the total impact of what we propose were to be passed on to motorists, premiums might rise by 2 to 3 per cent., or around £6 to £9 per policy holder. That is the ABI's estimate, not mine.
  To put this in perspective, again according to the ABI, motor insurance premiums have risen by an average of 16 per cent. for comprehensive policies and 12 per cent. for non-comprehensive policies since 1996. The proposals will have no impact on the no claims bonus of the drivers making the claim for compensation.
  In any case, there is good reason to believe that not all the costs will be passed on to motorists' premiums. It was in July last year that we first announced our intention to collect the actual cost of treatment, and we hope to introduce the new scheme from April next year. That means that, by the time the new scheme comes into operation, insurers will have had nearly two years to adjust. That was borne out the other day, when Direct Line was quoted as saying:
  "rises would be minimal as most insurers have already factored in potential NHS claims".
  The Association of British Insurers was quoted as saying:
  "most companies already take their liability under the existing law into account when assessing premiums."
  The principal concern of the insurers has been the fear of retrospective action to recover the sums not collected over the years. In a meeting with me, the ABI said that it
  164
  would be prepared to accept 2 July 1997 as the operative date for the changes. It welcomes the simplified arrangements and the tariff system that we propose, so our proposals will not place a large burden on motorists or motor insurers.
  The new scheme will bring order out of chaos. It is a sensible, practical measure that will raise much needed extra funds for hospitals in every part of the country. It is sound in principle, and it will work in practice; that is why I commend it to the House.
  4.41 pm
  Miss Ann Widdecombe: I beg to move, To leave out from 'That' to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  `this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Road Traffic (NHS Charges) Bill because the Bill further adds to the burdens the Government has imposed on both commercial and private motorists in that insurance premiums will rise; notes that the proposal did not appear anywhere in the Labour Party's election manifesto, and conflicts with the Government's express opposition to extending charges in the NHS; further notes that these charges will apply only to motorists and not to victims of other insurable accidents; and calls on the Government to clarify its future intentions with regard to both the level and range of any future additional charges in the NHS, and to take into account the impact on the motorist when determining the amounts to be charged.'
  It may reassure the Secretary of State to know that the Opposition have some sympathy with some of the aims in his Bill, but we will press our amendment, because certain aspects concern us, and I would welcome clarification of them when the Minister replies.
  All Government measures must be considered in the context of overall policy. At the moment, it seems that the Government are determined to penalise motorists. I might have been sympathetic to a proposal to make more effort to collect charges from insurance companies, but I am bound to observe that the Bill will have a disproportionate effect on one group of people who use the NHS.
  The Government have already raised fuel duty by 20 per cent., and vehicle excise duty by 3.4 per cent. They have taken powers for an entirely new registration tax on new vehicles. By the end of this Parliament, they will have charged motorists more than £9 billion in extra taxation. If we were to use the Secretary of State's quaint method of counting, that would probably come to £18 billion over three years. If so, one would be tempted to observe that motorists were being asked to fund all the increases that he has promised for the NHS. Perhaps he will not on this occasion insist on his favoured method of counting increases.
  It has been estimated—the Secretary of State more or less confirmed it when he mentioned a figure of up to £9—that the proposals will add another £10 or so to motor car insurance premiums; I am happy to come down to £9. On its own, that might not have been too serious, whether the figure was £6, £7, £8, £9 or £10, but, in combination with all the other costs that the Government have inflicted on the motorist, it is of more significance than it otherwise would have been.
  Can the Secretary of State explain the position of uninsured drivers? As I read his proposals—I am happy to be corrected—the NHS will not write off the cost if the driver is uninsured, and will not charge the driver directly. Rather, law-abiding motorists will effectively be

  165
  charged twice, in that their insurance premiums will have to reflect the costs of uninsured drivers' treatment, even though they have already paid taxes to cover such treatment. What guarantees are there that the income from this charge will not end up as a substitute for Treasury funding? What assurances, if any, will the Government give that they will not increase insurance premium tax?
  Where does this stop? What about victims of other insurable accidents? Will the Secretary of State extend such charges to them, or will he give an absolute guarantee that that is not the Government's intention?
  What about cases of self-inflicted injury? If the Secretary of State proposes to extend his charges to that group, does he agree that he is introducing a new principle into the NHS of a double whammy on anyone prudent enough to take out insurance? if he does not intend to extend such charges, why pick on the motorist rather than those whose actions are entirely self-inflicted and cost the NHS a great deal in care and treatment? What about those who practise dangerous sports? Where does it stop? Does it stop at all?
  Mr. Eric Martlew: Perhaps the right hon. Lady will explain to the House why she voted for the legislation in 1988.
  Miss Widdecombe: We did not add the measure to the cumulative effect of a series of taxes that penalise one group of people who may use the NHS. That is exactly what the Government are doing. If the hon. Gentleman had listened—he usually does—he would have found that, right at the beginning, I said that we might have had some sympathy for the Bill but for the cumulative effect on motorists.
  Ms Julia Drown: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Miss Widdecombe: No, I have just given way on that point. I now want to make some progress.
  I was about to say, before I was interrupted, that I was grateful to the Secretary of State for one thing—the assurance that the new charges would not be levied retrospectively. I am glad that he has said that. I take it from what he has said that, even though the hospitals could have collected the money under the 1988 powers and too often did not, there is no suggestion that that should now be recovered. I am sure that that will be welcome both to the insurance companies and to motorists.
  Will the Secretary of State accept that the measure is proof positive that we ration health care services in the NHS, and that there is only a limited amount that can be done? After all, the Government have boasted, with their quaint method of accounting, that they have put £21 billion extra into the NHS, yet they still find it necessary to fine motorists £10 for the crime of needing hospital treatment. Does that not say it all? Is it not true that the National Institute for Clinical Excellence will ration treatment and services throughout our health care system?
  I wonder how comfortable the Minister of State feels today. He described the Road Traffic Act 1988 as a sick law. He has tried to get out of that since then by saying that he was referring to the 1930s regulations, but his
  166
  comments were made in 1995, when the issue of the day was an order that simply increased the scale of charges for the liability incurred. So what was he then complaining about? Was he complaining that a little more money was being collected from insurance companies? So today he decides to collect a vast amount more. He described the 1988 Act as a tax on accidents, and today he seeks to increase that very tax.
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): We have heard this tired old record from the right hon. Lady before. Unfortunately, it does not quite fit with the facts.
  My concerns in 1994 arose from a case in which two of my constituents faced an emergency treatment fee following an accident involving their three or four-year-old daughter. I thought that the emergency treatment fee was wrong in principle, as it was levied by the hospital. I argued then that it should be abolished. I am pleased that the Government are abolishing it now. I know that the right hon. Lady is intent on torturing the facts until they confess, but she might spend a little time explaining why her Government promised to abolish the emergency treatment fee, and then failed to deliver on that promise.
  Miss Widdecombe: The right hon. Gentleman refers explicitly to a tax on accidents. There is not much other description that one can give to the charges that the Government are now extending than a tax on accidents. That is what he condemned, and what he is now promoting.
  On the emergency fee, let me again give some comfort to the Secretary of State, and say that we welcome that measure. We shall not seek to oppose it. We said that, when a suitable legislative vehicle, arose we would use it to abolish the fee.
  Mr. Milburn: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Miss Widdecombe: No. I have given way to the Minister on this point.
  The Secretary of State has consistently said, "No new charges," but now he proposes just that. So much for Labour's sacrosanct principle of an NHS free at the point of consumption.
  Lastly, I am somewhat concerned—I am open to conviction on this—that the mechanisms that are being put in place will be expensive and bureaucratic. Those who are responsible for collecting moneys have claimed that the problem is not so much the method of collection as the fact that the sums involved for individual trusts are so small compared to the bureaucracy of claiming them in the first place that there has been no incentive to claim. In what way do the proposed methods represent increased simplicity over the old methods?
  We have some sympathy with the measure—[HON. MEMBERS: "Then show it."] We are pressing our amendment to a vote. We have some sympathy with the measure, but I am concerned by the cumulative effect on motorists.
  Mr. Dobson: So why does the amendment state:
  "this House declines to give a Second Reading to the … Bill"?
  Miss Widdecombe: That is how a reasoned amendment is phrased. The right hon. Gentleman has

  167
  been in the House all these years, but appears not to know that—he learns something new every day, does he not? If the Bill receives Second Reading, we shall examine in detail in Committee some of the points that I have raised today.
  The Bill would result in a most unfortunate additional imposition on motorists, at a time when substantial impositions have already been levied. If the measure stood alone, it might not be so significant. The Labour Government generally seek to bash the motorist, and the frivolity with which Labour Members have treated the subject lends credence to our belief that they do not take such matters seriously.
  I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us on uninsured drivers. Why should law-abiding motorists pay twice? Why are they, uniquely, being picked on? I have no complaint about the fact that the Secretary of State is, quite properly, reviewing the collection of the charges, but why has he not reviewed the groups from whom the charges are collected? Why does he not perceive the obvious illogicality in picking on only one group of people, who use the national health service at a time when they are extremely vulnerable—in an emergency, when they are often badly injured, ill and in need of major treatment? Surely that is not the group that should be singled out for progressive taxation.
  Mr. Dobson: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Miss Widdecombe: I was about to finish, but I shall give way.
  Mr. Dobson: The arguments that the right hon. Lady has adduced over the past few minutes suggest that she believes that the charge should be repealed entirely. It has been in existence since 1930; it was reconfirmed and extended in 1933; and it was last reaffirmed by the House in 1988, under the Conservative Administration of which she was a member. All we are doing is ensuring that, in future, insurers will pay the money that they should pay.
  Miss Widdecombe: All the right hon. Gentleman is doing is putting an extra charge on the motorists. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, he is not"] Yes, he is: he is saying that he will raise a great deal of extra money through the proposed collection method. He is fond of referring to events that occurred under the Conservative Government, so let me point out that, when we introduced more efficient collection procedures to raise money from existing taxes, the then Labour Opposition counted that as a tax rise. Now they are getting a dose of their own medicine.
  The Secretary of State is levying an extra charge on motorists, at a time when substantial charges have already been levied. The Bill is not the most sensible of measures, but I hope that it can be improved in Committee, and that the right hon. Gentleman will stop laughing at the plight of the law-abiding motorist, who will have to pay twice for the rest.
  4.53 pm
  Mr. Eric Martlew: To listen to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), one would think that there was a
  168
  charge on the patient, but there is no charge whatsoever on the patient. The idea that the Government will take money from vulnerable people is nonsense. What they will do is take money from the insurance companies that should have been paying it in the first place. The fact is that fewer bills will be sent out after the Bill is passed, because the Government are getting rid of the emergency charge. That is the charge that causes aggravation and distress to people who are asked for the money when they are in casualty, or who get a letter in the post. The Conservative never achieved the objective of getting rid of that charge, but the Labour Government are doing it.
  I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on having found a slot in the legislative programme for the Bill. I am disappointed that it is to be opposed and will therefore take more time. If the Opposition, both here and in another place, were more co-operative, we could get through more legislation, but that is obviously not going to happen.
  On 22 July, I asked the Secretary of State about this matter and he said that it was wrong for the insurance companies not to pay. His Department had calculated the figure at £50 million, but the Automobile Association estimated that it was £440 million. The correct amount of money will now be paid to the national health service.
  The legislation will not affect all those who are injured in road accidents; it will affect only the innocent victims. For example, if I fall asleep behind the wheel, have an accident and I am treated in hospital, I obviously will not be able to claim against anyone else's insurance. In the absence of any claim, the NHS will continue to treat me for free. However, if there were a passenger in the car, he or she could claim against my insurance. The NHS will still bear the vast cost of treating road accident victims.
  The charge was first drawn to my attention as a Member of Parliament when I took up the case of a constituent who had received an emergency bill. I was told that the legislation had been on the statute book for decades and that my constituent simply had to send the money to the insurance company. The bill would then be paid and there would be no problem with the no-claims bonus. Initially, it seemed to be a good way of raising money for the NHS. However, the emergency fees have caused problems, and I am glad that the Government have decided not to pursue the issue and to abolish those charges.
  I have examined the real terms cost to hospitals and the amounts that they receive in compensation. In one year, my local hospital received back about £80,000 after treating 1,000 patients. I pressed my local hospital about the matter—there was a Conservative Government and the trust budget was facing a shortfall—and it managed to raise more than £100,000. However, that is not a great deal of money when viewed in the context of 1,000 road accidents.
  I am pleased that the money will now go to the hospitals that treat the patients. That is a great advantage for areas such as Cumbria, where we have a sparse population but many tourists. This measure is better for rural areas as it is not fair to put the money into a general pool. My local hospital will benefit considerably. Many visitors to Cumbria—probably too many—travel by car and there is a considerable number of road accidents each year. The hospital received £100,000 last year, but the treatment of one overseas tourist in the Cumberland

  169
  infirmary cost £45,000. That puts the matter in context. In that case, the German insurance company paid the bill and there was no problem.
  Although we expect this legislation to raise considerable extra money for the NHS, the reality is that the health service will never have enough money. Cumbria has done very well under this Government: we are to have a new district general hospital and there is a health action zone in the north of the county. However, my constituents realise that resources will always be scarce and it is wrong to claim that this legislation is unpopular with the general public. The Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats have picked the wrong approach—the Liberals always do.
  My local newspaper, the News and Star, surveyed the population on this issue—it is called a vox pop. Nine out of 10 people interviewed thought that it was a good idea that their insurance companies—not they—should pay the NHS to treat road accident victims in the same way as those companies pay to repair the vehicles involved in the accidents. The proposal is popular. I am pleased that the Secretary of State is introducing the Bill and that it will be implemented by April. [Interruption.] I am glad that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald thinks that that is funny.
  Mr. John Randall: My point is not meant to be confrontational. I know that the hon. Gentleman's constituency is in Cumbria. Does he think that the Bill's principle should be applied to people who come from outside that area to do mountaineering or hill walking because the local health service pays for their care if they are injured while taking part in those activities?
  Mr. Martlew: The principle is specific to the Bill. The existing legislation, which has been in place since the 1930s, was amended by the previous Government in 1988, and all sides of the House have agreed to it. There is now some carping about the level of the charges. People are prepared to pay a little extra—that is all it will cost and if competition works properly, there might be no extra cost—through their insurance to ensure that payment is made to the NHS. If the Opposition do not believe that, they are out of tune with their electors.
  Mr. Alan Duncan: Will the hon. Gentleman explain what he believes to be the difference between motor insurance paying for someone's health care and general health insurance paying for such care?
  Mr. Martlew: There is a great difference. This proposal is acceptable and has been since the 1930s. Any other proposal would be unacceptable and would go against our commitments. We gave a commitment on this measure and we shall stick to it.
  Mr. Philip Hammond: Where?
  Mr. Martlew: We made a commitment on charges and we are getting rid of several charges for people who are affected by the legislation. We shall reduce the number of those charges by three quarters. I am sure that when hospitals receive the money, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald and her hon. Friends will not say, "Send it back to those poor insurance companies.
  170
  They cannot afford it." They will accept the situation. Conservative Members are making mischief. I shall support the Bill.
  Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman continually refers to insurance companies paying. How does he think that insurance companies get money if not from the people who insure with them?
  Mr. Martlew: I have already said that if there is an extra charge, my constituents will accept that it is a price worth paying to support the health service. The insurance companies should have been paying that money all along. In some cases they have frustrated the hospitals' and trusts' claims for money by not co-operating. Time and time again, we find that the Tories would sooner support insurance companies than support the national health service.
  5.3 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: My colleagues and I will vote for the reasoned amendment in our names if it is selected by Madam Speaker or by you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If it is not selected, we will vote for the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and her colleagues.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not present at the beginning of the debate when Madam Speaker announced that she had selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. That is the decision on the selection of amendments.
  Mr. Hughes: In that case, we shall, perforce, support the amendment tabled by the Conservative Opposition because we cannot vote on our reasoned amendment. We have reservations about the way in which the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald has drafted the amendment because it is rather pro-motorist.
  Miss Widdecombe: Rather!
  Mr. Hughes: We are unhappy about that stance. The debate should be about how the health service raises money rather than whether motorists are clobbered by the measure. I shall turn to the details of that issue in a moment.
  I apologise to hon. Members for the fact that the reasoned amendment in the names of my colleagues and myself, as I have already pointed out to the Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald and Madam Speaker, should have read, "on the grounds that it makes provision for payment by requiring those who successfully claim compensation for personal injury sustained in road traffic accidents but not by any other means". I do not know whether that omission was caused by my handwriting, my drafting or by an error somewhere else, but I hope that I have corrected the record.
  As I told the Secretary of State during the debate on the Queen's Speech, we support the abolition of the emergency treatment fee. It was too bureaucratic to collect

  171
  the charge, and the cost of collection was not worth the candle of the payment. I share the Secretary of State's view that it had an indignity about it.
  If that is out of the way, this debate is about changing the rules for collecting another source of money which, as the Secretary of State rightly said, has been available for collection since the 1930s. The Secretary of State's researchers may have done a better job than me. If it is true that my predecessors and the Secretary of State's predecessors—old though he is, he is not that old—voted—[HON. MEMBERS: "Old Labour."] No, not old Labour, just old. If our predecessors voted for the measure in 1930 or 1938, that was almost two decades, or thereabouts, before the NHS came into being. Raising money for health services in those days was a whole different ball game from when we set up the national health service, which was voted for in this place by the Labour party and the Liberals and opposed by the Conservatives. We put in place a health service paid for by taxes, not charges. This debate is about whether this is a proper charge, a new charge and whether it should be supported.
  I accept that, as the Secretary of State said, this is not a new charge. Therefore, I accept that in this Bill the Government have not broken any commitment not to raise any new charges to pay for the health service. It is an old charge, but it was not collected. It is a convenient source to which the Government can turn to add a bit more money to the kitty. I understand their reasons for doing it. It provides a way of raising money that is consistent with the Government's commitments.
  However, it changes the amount of money raised through charges and, in that context, it is a little like the Government's announcement about raising prescription charges earlier in the year. Last year their policy was that raising prescription charges would be a tax on patients, the poor and the sick. This year, lo and behold, they raised them. This measure will mean that more money will be collected from charges, directly from the insurance companies but inevitably, as the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald said, indirectly it will come from those who pay insurance companies. Insurance companies have no money of their own other than that paid to them. The Bill will increase the charges collected for the NHS from some of the people in Britain when they pay their motor insurance.
  I doubt whether the motor insurance industry believes that it can do all that without putting up our premiums by a penny—only time will tell. I have never known a free lunch and I have never known insurance companies reduce charges when the bill for them has gone up. We will hear that debate in Committee and, no doubt, we will debate how much the charges might go up and when.
  The reasons why my hon. Friends and I have reservations and cannot support the Bill on Second Reading are summarised in our reasoned amendment. We do not believe that it is principled to raise more money for the health service from charges. My party stands by a national health service paid for through taxation. There is a range of charges that contribute to the health service including prescription charges and appliance charges. There are also charges paid by pensioners, who are the only group in society who have money recouped if they
  172
  go into hospital because some of their pension is taken back. That does not mean that adding to an anomalous hotch-potch of charges is right. We do not think that it is.
  At my party's conference this year we agreed a motion committing us to looking at all charges in the health service. I do not know the outcome of those deliberations, but, when we reach our conclusion, which will be well before the next election, we may decide to commit the party to abolishing those charges. It may be—
  Mr. Kevin Hughes: The hon. Gentleman's party will have to be in government.
  Mr. Hughes: We are moving towards that position as fast as the Labour party was before the general election.
  Mr. Martlew: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hughes: I shall give way in a moment.
  As an eternal optimist and as someone who watches the political runes, I think that we are well on the way to being in government long before the hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) retires from politics, and certainly long before I and my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) retire.
  Mr. Martlew: How much will the policy of abolishing charges cost and how much would it be necessary to increase income tax to ensure that exactly the same amount of money went into the NHS as goes in now? There will be no betterment by abolishing charges and increasing tax, will there?
  Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman has asked a proper question. We have asked our policy people to examine the implications this year and in future years. The hon. Gentleman is right that abolishing charges means that the money lost must be recouped. If it has to be recouped through taxation, more money must come from taxation somewhere. It may not be taxation for those at the lower end of the income scale. It may be, as my party believes, that taxpayers at the higher end of the income scale should pay more tax. That is a policy that we reaffirmed this year, a policy that is not yet supported by the Government in spite of their historic commitment to redistribution of wealth.
  Ms Drown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I will give way one more time.
  Ms Drown: Is a possible outcome of the hon. Gentleman's party's review of charges also that it may end up supporting current charges and the method of collection that is being proposed by the Government, or is that being ruled out in his party's review of charges?
  Mr. Hughes: No. The hon. Lady asks a perfectly proper question but it is mischievous.
  The reality is that if we examine whether we should keep charges or lose them, everything might be considered. I have heard no voices in my party saying that we should introduce additional charges to the health service. My presumption is that my party will want to reduce charges rather than increase them. However, in

  173
  theory it is possible that things might go in a different direction. In a democratic, one-person, one-vote party, the members will decide.
  Jackie Ballard: Not Millbank.
  Mr. Hughes: Certainly not Millbank and certainly not through the block votes of anyone because we all come with a block vote of one.
  Secondly, we are not faced with a coherent policy for reviewing charges. I would have liked the Secretary of State to make the announcement at the time of the comprehensive spending review. I would have liked him to say, "We have reviewed all the charges and for a reason that I shall now explain there is a reason behind this charge but not any other." No such luck. The charge is before us only because it happens to exist.
  It is a rather funny policy. It is rather like a policy that I do not hear espoused regularly from the Government Benches: "We will support the hereditary peers because they happen to exist." The Government's charging policy is being supported only because it happens to exist. That is hardly a principled basis for keeping a policy. It would have been far better to examine all charges and ascertain whether the Government's proposal is supported by logic.
  Mr. Oliver Letwin rose—
  Mr. Hughes: I hope that in a moment I shall be able to persuade the House that it is not.
  Mr. Letwin: I am tempted by the hon. Gentleman's most recent remarks to ask him whether he will confirm that the Government have rather said that they will be perfectly happy to have hereditary peers, or at any rate 91 of them, because they are there in the House of Lords.
  Mr. Hughes rose
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) is following the track along which he went last night in introducing entirely extraneous matter.
  Mr. Hughes: I had not dreamt of being distracted, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Thirdly, if the Government are considering introducing charges, I flag up the question whether there are some people who use the NHS who perhaps should pay—not those who are United Kingdom residents, not nationals of countries with reciprocal arrangements with the UK and not those who come as asylum seekers and therefore ask to use NHS benefits—such as those who come to this country as income earners who are perfectly well financially endowed. They come here on that basis and yet they are treated under the NHS. There is an issue there. The Government have raised it and the previous Conservative Government raised it. It is one that seems to be outside the debate about whether UK residents should pay taxes, or those to whom we have obligations in this country.
  The fourth reason why the Government's approach is problematic has been alluded to by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald. If we charge people who use their cars through their insurance, it is not a
  174
  progressive tax. The reality is that the poor pay as much as the well off in many senses. For example, those in rural areas have no alternative but to have a car. They have to pay motor insurance and if their premiums increase, they will suffer. That will adversely affect the less well off, if the charge impacts on the insurance payer at all.
  Lastly, as the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald said, the proposal is absolutely illogical. It is not logical that we should recover money from someone who receives compensation for being injured in a road accident, regardless of his or her responsibility for the accident, but not from someone who is injured—I shall deal only with transport—in a train, shipping or aircraft accident. Ministers might say, "You do not have to be insured compulsorily to use those forms of transport", but such insurance is required for some of them.
  There is, nevertheless, no logic in claiming money from those who have been compensated for a motor accident, but not from those who have been compensated for an accident at work when the employer is obligated to ensure that employees are insured, or from those who are compensated for tripping over a footpath or in a park that the local council is responsible for maintaining and when the authority is obliged to have an insurance policy.
  What about climbers, sailors or—as my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) will have in mind—hang-gliders who are treated wonderfully by the national health service for injuries caused because of a choice that they have made? Although people make a choice to sail, to climb or to hang-glide, if they are injured, they will not be asked to make a contribution for their treatment. There is therefore absolutely no logic in the Bill, which is simply an ill-logical means, without principle, to gain access to a pocket of money.
  Mr. Syms: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly right about aircraft accidents. A few years ago, an aircraft overshot Northolt and went on to the A40, hitting cars. In such a situation, a millionaire in a private jet would not be caught by his insurers, whereas the poor person driving his or her Ford might well be caught.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Hutton): That is wrong.
  Mr. Hughes: Such examples may be wrong. However, debates on such matters should be left for the Committee stage rather than Second Reading. There will be a debate in Committee on the Bill's details, which I do not want to dwell on now. If the Bill is given a Second Reading today, as I think that it just might be, my hon. Friends will test in Committee whether the charging system proposed—if we are to have such a system—is the best one.
  If we are to have such a system, the system proposed in the Bill seems to be better than the current one. It seems that flat-rate charges are better than variable ones, and that a common charging system is better than a localised one. Therefore, for as long as we shall use such a system to raise revenue for the health service, I guess that the Bill's provisions will offer the least worst option.
  Ultimately, if the charges raise £100 million, it will of course be welcome—but it will hardly make a huge contribution to the health service's £45 billion budget. I only wish that the Government had proposed an overall

  175
  review—on a basis of principle and logic—of health service charges, and not simply plucked a convenient little extra off the shelf.
  5.18 pm
  Mr. David Hinchliffe: I am very happy to support the measure, which is sensible and tidies up procedures that—as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said—have been in the system and operating since the 1930s. The system has had cross-party support, and I think that its historical and political context has been generally understood. Nevertheless, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) that the public have not fully understood the system.
  Like my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle, I have had constituents raise with me their concern about charges for emergency treatment within what they perceive to be a free national health service. Many constituents are completely unaware of fees, and are shocked when a demand for fee payment is pressed on them. In each of my 11 or 12 years as an hon. Member, I have received two or three letters expressing their concerns about the system, which the Bill will sensibly amend.
  I specifically welcome, for reasons that I have already given, the Bill's proposal to remove the emergency treatment fee. I welcome also the proposal on removing from national health service providers the role of collecting money. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle, I particularly welcome the Bill's proposal on returning funds to the providers who provided the treatment.
  The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) asked about extending the principle of charging to other spheres. I do not think that any hon. Member has yet mentioned in the debate the contents of the Law Commission's 1996 consultation paper. It raised the possibility of a reclaiming scheme for other personal injuries for which damages are paid. As I said to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State last week, in my long lost youth I played a good deal of rugby league and, as a consequence, spent a lot of time in local hospitals receiving treatment. I was well insured above the costs of any loss of time at work resulting from the injuries and made a substantial profit on each claim.
  I am not suggesting backdating, but some people have asked about extending the practice to other areas, particularly those for which there is compulsory insurance. That may be tempting for the Treasury, but I urge caution, because such a scheme would depart from some important basic principles governing how our NHS has operated since its introduction in the 1940s. I am worried that extending the principle of recouping insurance payments to other areas could result in a USA-style system, which I have seen, where insurance arrangements are established for each patient before a pulse reading is taken. I am sure that we would all oppose any changes in that direction.
  I have listened with great interest to the comments of the Conservatives. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald has left the Chamber, because I wanted to raise some concerns about what she
  176
  said, particularly the inconsistency between her arguments today and the record of the Conservative Government, who moved health provision ever more towards a USA-style system. If the Tories have a health policy, it is to move increasingly towards private insurance. She has made that clear in debates since the general election.
  We should examine how the introduction of market mechanisms by the previous Government and the increased emphasis on paying for elements of health care have led to some of the problems in the national health service that the Government are trying to unravel.
  I was interested in the right hon. Lady's attacks on the Government's proposals for motorists. In 1988, I served on the Standing Committee that considered the Health and Medicines Bill, which was all about introducing wider fundraising duties and powers for the national health service as part of a move towards the American-style system that the Conservatives favoured. The Tory reasoned amendment talks about burdens imposed on private motorists and complains that
  "these charges will apply only to motorists".
  I should like to hear the views of Opposition Front Benchers on what arose from their Act in 1988. One of the first results was the imposition of car parking charges in hospitals. In a spirit of consistency with their reasoned amendment, do the Conservatives believe that the previous Government were wrong to bring about a system that penalised people using cars when they visited hospitals? Elderly people who travel to see their loved ones in hospital have to pay to park at that hospital.
  Mr. Randall: Many hospitals, including that in my constituency, have tokens for those who are genuinely visiting the hospital or staying there. We had a problem at Hillingdon hospital with people parking for free and going into town, depriving others of the use of the car park. There is a way of getting around the problem.
  Mr. Hinchliffe: That may be the case, but it seems inconsistent that the Opposition have tabled a reasoned amendment and made remarks bashing the motorist when the previous Government—the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald was a Minister at the time—introduced hospital parking charges.
  I now turn to another issue which also resulted from the policies of the previous Government. My constituency received national attention when the general manager of Wakefield health authority received from the Conservatives the national prize for innovation for introducing a remarkable scheme under the Health and Medicines Act 1988 which earned the NHS £10 a head—perhaps that is the wrong term. When someone was lying dead in the hospital mortuary awaiting collection by the local undertaker, for a fee of £10 the mortuary attendants would measure the corpse to ensure that the undertaker arrived with the correct-size coffin. That cost was passed on to the bereaved relatives—yet another charge that the right hon. Lady has conveniently forgotten, but one that gained Wakefield something of a reputation shortly after the introduction of the Health and Medicines Act.
  The Conservatives also presided over the total privatisation of care of the elderly in private nursing homes and care homes. People ended up paying for services that they had previously received free from the NHS. Those charges impacted on the most vulnerable

  177
  people—as do the increasing charges for domiciliary care and the anomalies that persist today as a consequence of those charges.
  I welcome the Government's resistance to calls for more charging and their response to the direction that the previous Conservative Administration were taking. I welcome my right hon. Friend's arguments against charging for GP consultations and hotel prices for NHS beds and the steps that he is taking to return the NHS to its basic principles. In particular, I welcome the massive sum of money that he and his colleagues have obtained from the Treasury; it is having an impact in my constituency and throughout the country.
  5.27 pm
  Mr. John Randall: In giving the Bill a Second Reading, the House will not be introducing a new principle of NHS funding; rather, the Bill will ensure that the NHS entitlement to recover its costs for treating accident victims, which is already enshrined in law, is achieved more readily.
  The NHS is currently entitled to recover the costs of treating the casualties of road traffic accidents. The difficulty has been that, to date, it has not been very successful in doing so. The Bill will attempt to change the position by shifting to insurance companies the responsibility for making payments to the relevant trust or hospital.
  According to Department of Health figures produced last July, NHS trusts recovered £13.7 million from insurance companies during the financial year 1995–96. Estimates as to the sums that could have been recovered vary hugely. The Department has estimated that around £50 million could have been claimed, whereas the Automobile Association claims that the figure could be as high as £400 million.
  During the financial year 1996–97, 190 trusts out of a total of 429 claimed back absolutely nothing from the insurance industry. To illustrate the diversity of claims being made, during 1996–97 the Leicester Royal infirmary raised £365,000, but Guy's and St. Thomas's Hospital NHS trust raised only £15,000 and Derby City hospital raised absolutely nothing.
  It would seem that, in the light of those figures, the NHS could begin to recover fairly large sums of money previously left unclaimed. It would be helpful if the Minister would enlighten the House on the difference between the estimated sums that are not claimed, in order to give the House a realistic idea of the scale of the problem.
  One reason for the apparent failure of trusts to reclaim money from the insurance companies is the perception that the current system is bureaucratic and legally complex. A Department of Health circular has advised NHS trusts to consider more carefully how they pursue claims under the Road Traffic Act 1988. Perhaps the Minister will shed some light on how far that misperception has been corrected through more rigorous enforcement of current guidelines. What improvements resulted from the circular?
  Under the Bill, the Secretary of State will issue certificates to the insurance companies specifying the NHS charges that are due. The responsibility will be delegated to the Department of Social Security's
  178
  compensation recovery unit. The certification scheme, which is outlined in clauses 2 and 3, is designed to be as similar as possible to current schemes involving the unit and the insurance industry. The aim is to make the new scheme's introduction cheaper and easier, but will the Minister provide us with any Department of Health figures on the estimated costs and say what alternatives have been considered?
  The initial response to the Bill has been relatively muted. The two parties that will most obviously be affected—the NHS and the insurance industry—have had different reactions to it. In the NHS, there has been a slightly different emphasis, depending on to whom one speaks. The NHS Confederation has welcomed the Bill as a way for hospitals cost-effectively to recover the money to which they are entitled, whereas the British Medical Association doctor-patient partnership and members of the Royal College of Nursing have expressed concerns about the knock-on effect on NHS funding. There are fears that the Bill will provide a precedent whereby the door is open to fund other areas of health care through insurance schemes for health-damaging life styles—from the heavy drinker to those who indulge in dangerous sports.
  It is not clear why the victims of road traffic accidents should be singled out. What about any other injured individual who makes an insurance claim after receiving medical treatment? Why should the victim of a road traffic accident be the focus of recovering moneys from the insurance industry when others are immune? It would be of great interest if the Government would say what view they take on that difficulty and whether they have plans to extend the Bill's principle to funding for other areas of health care. I am sure that, even on road traffic accidents, the Government acknowledge that road users other than car drivers are involved in or even cause accidents. Are there plans, for example, to extend the system to compulsory insurance for cyclists or pedestrians? That is a genuine matter of debate, although I would not particularly welcome any such extension of the scheme.
  On the Bill's implications for the insurance industry and the motorist, the Automobile Association has estimated that the increase in premiums for drivers will be higher than the Department of Health has said. The Government have produced a figure of between £6 and £9, whereas the AA has put it at nearer £10 on the average motor policy.
  Mr. Dobson: For the record, the Association of British Insurers has estimated that, if the full costs are passed on to motorists, there will be a 2 to 3 per cent. increase—between £6 and £9—in the price of a policy. I assume that the ABI knows more about the matter than the Automobile Association does, as its members will have to pay.
  Mr. Randall: I am grateful for the Secretary of State's intervention and his dismissal of the Automobile Association's opinion. In fact, the ABI has cited an amount as great as £20 on motorists' premiums. If there were less of a discrepancy between the estimates, that would help us to make up our minds about the Bill. The motorist will be hard pressed by a range of new charges from the integrated transport policy, in addition to the

  179
  increased costs proposed by the Bill. The motorist does not want further large increases in premiums on top of everything else.
  Rebecca Hadley of the AA has said:
  "Britain's estimated one to two million uninsured drivers will continue to dodge the charge. It is also an unfair levy: if you fall off a ladder while cutting your hedge, the hospital would provide treatment without claiming the cost from your home insurance, so why are motorists singled out, yet again, to pick up the tab?"
  In light of the AA's comment on the number of uninsured drivers on the roads, it would be helpful if the Minister would tell us what discussions he has had with the Home Office about reducing the number of uninsured drivers who continue to exploit the situation. If the Bill achieves its aim, dealing with that problem will become more of a priority.
  The Bill aims to make the current way of recovering money from insurance companies for traffic accidents easier and more efficient. However, the Government must say in more detail how much money the Bill will save for the NHS. How much will it cost to implement? What guarantees can be given about not extending the principle to other areas of funding? What will be the effects on the ordinary driver? What is proposed for all those on our roads who are driving without insurance?
  Principally, I am asking the Government why attacking the motorist once again is their priority. Without answers to those fundamental questions, I am afraid that I cannot support the Bill.
  5.38 pm
  Miss Anne Begg: I would like to take this opportunity to describe my experience of the existing legislation. Let me take the House back to a snowy January morning in 1996, when I was driving my fairly new car—a spanking red car that was only two months old—near Brechin and Arbroath as I was going to work. It was a snowy morning with a lot of black ice. Water had been running across the road and had frozen. I was tentatively driving up a narrow, winding back road—taking my time because I knew of the dangers of the road. It was a classic accident spot.
  Imagine my shock and horror when I saw another driver come around the corner towards me. I could see the fear and alarm on her face, and it was obvious that her car had hit a piece of black ice. I do not know whether anyone in the House has been in the situation where an accident is about to happen, but it happens in slow motion. I could see the expression on her face as her car slid across the road. She would quite happily gone off the road and into some trees, but I happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Before the impact, my last thought was, "My nice new car!" There was nowhere for me to go as her car ploughed straight into the side of my car.
  I was lucky—I had my mobile phone and I quickly dialled 999 to report the accident. Before long, an ambulance was there to cart me off to hospital. It was an occasion when it was quite good that I was in a wheelchair because, in standing on my brakes to try to stop the accident, I had done something to one of my feet. It had swollen; possibly a bone was broken—I did not know. I got my wheelchair out of the car and got myself
  180
  into it. By the time the ambulance had arrived, I was mobile, but obviously something was fairly seriously wrong. Also, I had broken my sternum from wearing the seat belt. The ambulance took me to the local hospital, Stracathro hospital, where I was patched up and duly dispatched home.
  At this point, I was glad that I had ticked the small box on my insurance form that ensured that I would have legal representation should I have an accident. The insurance company appointed a lawyer, who went into action on my behalf to claim some personal injury compensation.
  I was able to claim a small amount to compensate for my pain and suffering, but I also had to claim back my wages for the two days for which I had been off work, despite the fact that my employer would have paid my wages in any case. As a teacher working for a local authority, I was covered by all the normal statutory sick pay arrangements, but because I was claiming personal injury compensation, my employer expected recompense for the two days' work that he did not get from me.
  I expected to have to claim something to pay for hospital bills, but it did not happen. I had that expectation because, 20 years earlier, I had had another accident. I do not want hon. Members to think that I make a habit of having accidents. It was a snowy evening in March, and on this occasion I was driving down a road in Dundee when someone came out of a side road, tried to brake, did not stop and came straight across my path—another example of my being in the wrong place at the wrong time. I was collected by an ambulance and taken to the Dundee royal infirmary.
  After that earlier accident, a bill arrived at my house, which I thought was to cover the cost of the ambulance. I have learnt only this afternoon, by listening to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, that the bill was not for the ambulance. I remember feeling alarmed that I had to pay for the ambulance, until someone told me that the bill would be met by the other person's insurance.
  Therein lies the problem: two different health authorities, and two almost identical accidents, but in one I—or the insurance company of the person who caused the accident—was not charged, while in the other a charge was made. That is the anomaly that the Bill will put right. The power already exists, and is exercised in some areas, to charge for hospital treatment resulting from an accident; but it is used sporadically and inconsistently. It is used by some health authorities on some occasions and by others not at all.
  What is the point of legislation if it cannot be enforced and the money cannot be recouped? That is why I welcome the Bill. It will make the recovery of costs much easier and there will be much greater consistency. It is different from existing legislation because of the compensation recovery unit, which will take the responsibility for recouping the money for the hospital out of the hands of the individual and put it squarely on the shoulders of the insurance companies. The law will be more coherent and therefore much better.
  I welcome the Bill because it will create a much fairer system. It will apply to everyone equally and I hope that, as a result, the health service will continue to be able to put extra resources in the areas of greatest need, improving accident and emergency treatment, modernising the equipment in ambulances and reinvesting funds in the health service to make it the jewel in the crown that makes us so proud to be British.
  5.44 pm
  Mr. Robert Syms: In such an interesting debate on the subject of charging in the national health service, one can confidently predict that each side will accuse the other of being inconsistent. On both the Government and the Opposition Benches we have a history of arguing certain cases. Car parking charges are one of the topics that have already been mentioned. Consistency may not ring out from either side of the Chamber tonight.
  Regardless of the existing law, the NHS charges have not been collected. If the Bill introduces a more efficient collection system, motorists will ultimately have to pay via their insurance companies. In effect, the Bill brings about an indirect tax rise, against the background of major increases in motoring costs initiated by the Government, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) argued.
  Everyone contributes to the NHS through general taxation. Motorists will, in effect, be charged twice. Having paid through general taxation, they will be expected to pay again through their insurance. It is estimated that the Government's proposals will cost motorists an extra £10 a year in increased premiums. Seen in the context of £9 billion of extra motoring taxes, it is clear that many motorists will find the additional cost difficult to meet.
  During the debate, the Opposition will seek assurances that the proposals are not the thin end of Labour's charging wedge. It is easy to claim that increased charges are justified in one part of the NHS, but good arguments can be made for higher charges for other NHS services.
  The Bill has implications for bureaucracy. Additional money may well be raised, but that will entail costs, as 50 people will be employed in the collection unit.
  Insurance premiums will rise by about £9 a year. As my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) noted, the Automobile Association estimates a £10 increase, but that remains to be seen. The fact that costs will be absorbed by the Motor Insurers Bureau means that the uninsured may be paid for by the insured. That is not compatible with natural justice. Higher insurance premiums are hardly likely to increase the number of motorists who take out insurance. The Association of British Insurers estimates that uninsured drivers will cost motorists £250 million in 1999. The Bill could increase that sum substantially.
  Many motorists' costs are paid by businesses, so business costs will rise. There are 1.6 million company cars. The additional burden on business will have to be financed from trading.
  The charges could be judged to be an unfair levy. Motoring in the United Kingdom is already more expensive than elsewhere in Europe.
  Anomalies will inevitably arise, and perhaps the Minister will respond on this point at the end of the debate. I mentioned earlier the example of an aircraft careering off a runway into a road. If someone falls off a ladder in his home, there would not necessarily be a claim against his home insurance. The case of cyclists has been mentioned. Other examples are that of a ferry sinking or a train or aircraft crashing.
  Mr. Andrew Dismore: Aircraft and shipping accidents are covered by international conventions, so a
  182
  Government could not legislate for those cases, even if they wanted to do so. The Athens convention deals with shipping accidents and the Warsaw convention with aircraft accidents.
  Mr. Syms: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. I am sure that such issues will be explored more fully in Standing Committee, on which I may volunteer to serve. The Bill creates a regressive tax without regard for whether someone is rich or poor. Indeed, some poorer households pay rather more of their income in insurance than do some richer households.
  The Bill also raises questions about the future funding of the national health service. If we introduce the principle that motorists should contribute through their insurance companies, we shall have to deal with arguments about why that should not be so for smokers, drinkers or the overweight. Self-inflicted injury has been mentioned. Those who take part in dangerous sports might also be affected. We must address the anomaly of having a charge for motorists—probably because there is already a substantial insurance market which can be tapped—while there is no charge in other areas. There is also concern about extra bureaucracy.
  Ms Drown: Did the previous Government point out that anomaly during discussion on the Road Traffic Bill in 1988? Can the hon. Gentleman distinguish between the compulsory insurance required by people who drive cars and non-compulsory insurance, which applies to some of his other examples?
  Mr. Syms: The hon. Lady makes a good point. Motoring insurance is compulsory, although not everyone takes it out. A number of people caught in accidents are not in fact insured, and one of my problems with the Bill is that it fails to address that situation. The burden will fall on law-abiding citizens who conform to rules, regulations and laws, and who may have to pick up the tab for the bad apples who are uninsured.
  The principle of insuring oneself for certain activities is recognised. People take out insurance for various sports.
  Miss Begg: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify whether he is suggesting that, because some people break the law by not taking out compulsory insurance, we should not accept the Bill?
  Mr. Syms: I am not suggesting that; I am merely saying that it is a fact of life that many people who should be covered by motor insurance are not covered. Under the Bill, the Motor Insurers Bureau run by the insurance companies will have to cover claims for those people who have not done their duty.
  Miss Begg: Should we, then, frame legislation to take account of those who break the law or do not fulfil their obligations? Is that what the hon. Gentleman is saying?
  Mr. Syms: No, that is not my point. Many people are insured. The Government's proposals will hit law-abiding citizens, who have already been hit by increased motoring taxes, including an increase in fuel taxes. The Bill does nothing to deal with uninsured drivers, and we should put

  183
  more emphasis on making sure that they are insured, and on punishing them if they are not. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree with that.
  My more general point is that to argue for the principle that drivers should pay through their insurance—compulsory or otherwise—is to set off on the slippery slope of arguing the same for other, more voluntary, activities. In rural areas, people need cars, and most Members of Parliament need cars to conduct our business.
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: May I bring the hon. Gentleman back to the point made by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) about great variations in the amounts that hospitals claim? The reason suggested was the complexity of the process. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Bill is excellent, in that it will simplify the process and help to eliminate variations in what is claimed around the country?
  Mr. Syms: We shall have to test that point in Committee to see whether the Government's intentions—with some of which I agree—will have the planned results. Aspects of the Bill are positive, but many questions will be raised as the Bill progresses. There are concerns about the precedent being set, which may affect other areas. As a Conservative, I believe that the NHS must be basically free and paid out of national taxation. Income can be supplemented in one or two ways, but we all know that there is no effective way to pick up the NHS bill, except through general taxation.
  5.55 pm
  Laura Moffatt: There will be a huge cheer throughout national health service trusts today when staff learn that the Bill has set off on its passage. Anyone in the NHS who has had to collect the £21.30 charge will tell hon. Members what nonsense that was. The Bill only makes possible what should have happened already. It contains nothing new, and it breaks no principles. Anyone who claims that a new principle is being introduced is neither right nor honest.
  Is it reasonable to expect hard-pressed NHS staff to chase small sums? Those staff become completely disillusioned, dropping the chase when they have had enough. My local trust serves part of the M25, and it has to deal with lots of accidents, but it raised only £70,000 last year from the charge. Two people had to be dedicated to collecting small sums, and they were driven into the ground and became fed up. It is little wonder that some trusts paid heed to companies that offered to collect the debts, raising cash for the trusts, but taking a cut for themselves. That is clearly unacceptable.
  However, matters are even worse than that. Some companies offer to look into the people involved in accidents, and then to organise retrospective insurance. The company then gets a cut for the hospital, and for the person who is making the claim. Tacky, nasty arrangements are being made over funds that should by right go to the NHS. I am glad to see the back of all that, and I look forward to putting a stop to companies making money from a difficult situation.
  184
  Charging should be in the hands of people who know what they are doing. The compensation recovery unit is used to dealing with such matters.
  Mr. Letwin: How successful has the compensation recovery unit been? What percentage of claims sought over the past five years has the unit managed to obtain?
  Laura Moffatt: Clearly, I am not able to answer that. I can answer only for constituents who have experienced the work of the compensation recovery unit, and who have had no complaint about the ways in which they were asked to pay back benefit that they had received while waiting for claims to be resolved.
  The compensation recovery unit is used to dealing with such matters. I hope that patients and hospitals will see little evidence of administration, and that the emotive subject of money need not be raised with people at difficult times. I trained as a nurse with my local trust, and I worked in the accident and emergency department, in which everyone had an opportunity to work, both during and after my training. It is awful to have to tell a patient that he or she may be charged a levy, and that we need a name and address so that we can make the charge. False names and addresses are still given to hospital staff, and that is clearly unacceptable.
  The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) mentioned the response of the Royal College of Nursing. I was interested to hear the hon. Gentleman say that the royal college was concerned, as it very much welcomes these moves. It produced two pages welcoming what the Government are trying to do, and its one small word of warning concerned ensuring that the principles were not taken further, which would be my warning too. I can support the measure only because compulsory insurance is involved, and I support it wholeheartedly. We will stick to that principle. The Royal College of Nursing, as a caring organisation, is right to say that we must be sensitive when we are claiming money from people who have been involved in difficult and horrible situations. I do not want the principle to be extended to other accidents.
  I listened with interest when my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) talked about insurance and said that he would be covered if he had an accident. That would not be true of my three sons, who play for Crawley rugby club. The club encourages a sporting activity that enables our young people to join in, have great fun and keep fit. The last thing that I want is to cause them difficulty. The principle must rest there; it would not be acceptable to take it further.
  I support the Bill because motor insurance is compulsory and the money will go back to the NHS, as it so rightly deserves. As a nurse in the NHS for 25 years, I have been waiting for such a measure. Staff are involved in issues with which they do not feel comfortable. The Government say that they will do something about that. They will ensure that staff do not have to be involved and that the NHS merely needs to know the names, addresses and types of treatment that have been given in a hospital. They will take the matter out of the nurses' hands, which will clearly be music to the ears of people who work in the NHS throughout the land.
  Mr. Randall: Given the hon. Lady's experience as a nurse, does she think that the measure will involve more paperwork for nursing staff?
  Laura Moffatt: I can envisage only a reduction in paperwork. The hon. Gentleman should speak to those working in his local trust. In mine, two people have to spend most of their day chasing small sums. There will be a great reduction in the amount of paperwork. The job will be done elsewhere, by people who are used to doing it, which seems to be the only way forward.
  Mr. Randall: I thank the hon. Lady for giving way again. She is most kind. With respect, I accept, as I said in my speech, that the money that trusts get back varies greatly. Under the Bill, will there have to be paperwork for all, or nearly all, patients who have been involved in a road traffic accident—paperwork that will have to be sent to the central collection point?
  Laura Moffatt: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has not noticed, but there is paperwork when most patients are admitted to an accident and emergency department. That work has to be done—there is no question about it—and it is the way in which it is done that matters. Another authority will deal with it further and the staff will be relieved when they hear that they will no longer have to pursue claims. The Bill is about bringing fairness back into the system. If a Labour Government are about anything, they are about fairness. Military hospitals have been included in the provisions of the Bill and will now be able to claim money. They will get the money that is due to them.
  The Bill is a fitting tribute and a fitting approach to the national health service in its 50th year. I am glad that the Labour Government are taking us along that path and ensuring that the NHS gets the money that it so rightly deserves. NHS staff throughout the country will be grateful.
  6.7 pm
  Mr. Oliver Letwin: With your eagle eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will have noticed that I have been translated not merely from the Front to the Back Bench—I hope temporarily, for the purposes of this debate—but to the very Back Bench, as I would not want my remarks to constrain or embarrass my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench in any way.
  I must begin by admitting that I am becoming something of a "Dobsonist", or perhaps, a "Dobsonite". I am startled by the magisterial way in which the Secretary of State is gradually building the case for the privatisation of the national health service—a case that he and his colleagues spent their time in opposition explaining that they regarded as an abomination.
  When I was new to the House, my first parliamentary question was to the Secretary of State. I wanted to know whether he recognised that, in the first measure proposed by the Government for the NHS, he was paving the way for the privatisation of clinical services. The right hon. Gentleman, with his usual charm, grinned slightly and evaded the question wholly, since when it has become evident in the popular press and elsewhere that that was indeed the tenor of the measure concerned.
  The Bill was presented as entirely uninteresting by the Secretary of State, who went out of his way to diminish the interest and importance of his own measure. I have not been long in the House, but I cannot recall an occasion on which a Secretary of State made so brief and so
  186
  low-toned a speech on Second Reading—a speech so calculated to induce silence, and possibly sleep, on the Benches behind and opposite him. He intended to put us to sleep so that we should be pleasantly anaesthetised, to use a health service metaphor, and should not notice that there was anything remotely interesting in this legislation.
  Ms Drown: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the Bill is relatively simple and involves simple principles? Is my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State not to be highly commended for not speaking longer than necessary, since we have many matters to discuss in the House?
  Mr. Letwin: As I said at the beginning of my speech, I am increasingly an admirer of the Secretary of State and I certainly do not want my remarks to be taken as an accusation against his acumen. I hope that by the end of my speech, the hon. Lady may be persuaded that, although the Bill is simple in the sense that it is short, it does not by any means involve simple principles. In fact, it probably involves the most subtle principle to be connected with the NHS and it constitutes one of the more important measures to come before the House this Session, as will probably come to light gradually in the next five, 10 or 20 years.
  I shall explain. The fundamental question about health payment—not the administration of the NHS or the way in which people are cured—which has been a vexed political issue for almost half a century, is not whether there should be charges at the point of use. No major political party has advocated that since the war and, in large part, no party has advocated it since the 1920s. Everyone has aimed at a health service that is free at the point of use. The great debate—sometimes open and sometimes covert, sometimes pursued intelligently and sometimes with partisan zeal and much less intelligence—has concerned whether the health service should be insurance or tax based. Members on both sides of the House will recognise that that has been the serious issue that people have pondered, debated and failed to resolve.
  The measure before the House is extremely interesting. It appears to extend the tax base for payment for NHS services. It has that appearance because it so happens that under the laws governing motoring, insurance for motorists is compulsory, so Labour Members have been able to argue that this is a special case—the Secretary of State did not bother to do so, so keen was he to avoid the issue altogether—and have salved their consciences, so to speak. The hon. Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) salved her conscience by explaining that this was a special case, quite unlike all the other cases that she did not want to see flow from it, because motoring insurance is compulsory.
  Laura Moffatt: The hon. Gentleman says that we are salving our consciences by saying that because compulsory insurance is involved, the Bill is easy to justify. Can he cite any other compulsory personal insurances in the United Kingdom that might relate to the Bill?
  Mr. Letwin: No, but I fear that I will alarm the hon. Lady a little by explaining that the distinction that she has erected will be subject to an onslaught from the Secretary of State.
  Mr. Duncan: I suggest that my hon. Friend start his list with employer liability and local authority liability.
  Mr. Letwin: With his customary acuity, my hon. Friend is right. There are other such cases, but my argument goes well beyond the cases where there is already compulsion.

  187
  The hon. Member for Crawley argues that this is a special case. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) pointed out that it is not so special, but there is a restricted set of cases that involve compulsory insurance. Labour Members have effectively argued that compulsory insurance schemes through which the NHS seeks to recover its costs from insurers are de facto taxes. This is another sort of tax, but one that happens not to pass into the Consolidated Fund but directly to the NHS, if that is indeed the case; I plead ignorance on the point. I find it a little odd in terms of Treasury theology that it should be so designated but perhaps it is. If so, it is all the more interesting because that would suggest that it is not quite a tax. If it were seen by the Treasury as a tax, it would enter the Consolidated Fund. The Treasury therefore regards it as a charge, but the hon. Member for Crawley and others would argue that it is a de facto tax because it is raised from an insurance company in a case where the insurance is compulsory.
  The problem with that line of argument from the Government's point of view is striking because we must ask why compulsory insurance is applied only in a very select group of cases, in particular, motoring and the two others that my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton mentioned. Why is compulsory insurance so restricted in its application? The answer is that it happens by historical accident to be rather restricted. Now enters upon the scene the majestic figure of the Secretary of State, with his logic and his needs.
  The Secretary of State intends to pile large sums that the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not have, and will have less of in due course, into the NHS. He argues—and has introduced a Bill to this effect—that it is legitimate for the NHS to charge the insurers of people who suffer from accidents the cost of caring for them because the insurance involved is compulsory. It is at that point that he will ask the Home Secretary to do something that is perfectly rational under that rubric or logic—to expand the scope of compulsory insurance.
  It is rational to propose that anyone engaging in an activity with a high chance of leading to medical care costs should by compulsion be insured. It is rational because it covers a social inequity. If they are honest, Labour Members will admit that as much as would Conservative Members. It is equitable to suggest that people who decide to do something dangerous should not impose additional costs on the rest of the community. It follows that if the Secretary of State believes that the right way for the NHS to recapture the costs from the right people is to make insurance compulsory, the Government will argue for making such insurance compulsory for a wide range of activities.
  The more I think about the matter, the less I can see the slightest objection on the part of the Government to the widening of compulsory insurance. Some Conservative Members would object to a vast widening of compulsory insurance on libertarian grounds. It may well be that my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton would, because he is one of the most noted of the libertarian tendency of Conservative Members—perhaps its most distinguished exponent in print. Among Labour Members, I see no libertarians. I have heard no such logic or rhetoric from them so far, and do not expect to hear
  188
  any before the Government's period in office ends, to suggest any objection to a vast application of compulsory insurance across a wide range of activities.
  Such a course would be consonant with Ministers' desperate efforts to prevent people from killing themselves by smoking. The Government specialise in trying to deal with what they regard as the problem of individuals taking risks that they should not take. Why else spend large amounts of public money trying to persuade people not to smoke? Why else does the Minister for Public Health spend her time circulating the heads of the royal colleges and desperately assuring them that the single most important thing in the health service is preventing people from smoking? Why would it not be a natural extension from that to get the Secretary of State to agree to something that would be introduced as an unimportant, obvious little Bill to which we need not pay much attention, and would create a compulsory insurance scheme for smokers? Labour Members could argue that, de facto, it was a tax if the NHS could recover the cost of cancer treatment from a compulsory insurance scheme for people who smoke. I believe that treating cancer is one of the major costs of the NHS, although I am not an expert. That logic could be extended across a vast range of activities.
  Mr. Hugh Bayley: Where is the evidence?
  Mr. Letwin: The hon. Gentleman asks where the evidence is. We have an interesting dialectic here, similar to that which we find in relation to the European Union. First, we get an unimportant little measure about which we are told not to worry. Secondly, there is an accusation that it may lead to greater things. Third comes the riposte, "Where is the evidence?" Then, it comes true and we are told, "Goodness me, you must have noticed that at the beginning." I fear that what I am describing is a logic, and logic is powerful. Even in this Government, it captures people.
  Ms Drown: I might accept that this could be the start of a huge, fantastical operation by the Government if the Bill proposed new charges, but it does not. The charges have been in place since 1930. Given that and the fact the hon. Gentleman's Government in 1988 discussed the matter and reinforced the charges, he is on very weak ground.
  Mr. Letwin: That is the brilliance—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is not an abstract debate but one on the Second Reading of the Road Traffic (NHS Charges) Bill. It would be helpful to hear a little more about that. The hon. Gentleman has travelled rather far from the core of the subject.
  Mr. Letwin: I stand corrected and shall swiftly bring my remarks back to the Bill, but the hon. Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) illustrates the brilliance, power and subtlety of the Secretary of State's mind beautifully. He has chosen a case in which he can argue that he is not even doing what he is doing. By vastly increasing the take in circumstances where he can find an ancient peg, he can argue that the Bill is not a Bill at all but merely a tidying-up. There were moments in his

  189
  speech when I doubted that he was introducing a Bill because he seemed to be talking about an administrative measure that would not have required parliamentary approval.
  The Secretary of State is, of course, making a major change. He is introducing legislation; he is occupying the time of the House to go through First Reading, Second Reading and so forth precisely because he is trying to raise a large amount of money. He is doing something that will have an impact in precedent. We may hardly believe it any more, but legislation passed by the House is important in the development of the way in which people think about the subject of the legislation. If legislation is introduced about the NHS that has the effect of raising a large extra sum from insurance, the logic that I describe becomes all too easy to apply.
  To move back to the remarks that I was making before I gave way—but very much in the context of the Bill, Mr. Deputy Speaker—I want to argue that the extension of compulsory insurance under the Bill is a major conceptual change in the allocation of NHS payment and funding. Ultimately, every activity carries risk. The mere act of breathing is risky. Compulsory insurance could easily be widened to the point at which it covers all the costs of the NHS. The Secretary of State knows that; his officials know that; his Ministers know that. If and when the Secretary of State begins to build what I suspect he privately intends to build on the basis of this measure, Labour Members will be surprised to find that this little, apparently unimportant Bill was a paving Bill in the most exceptional sense—a conceptual paving Bill.
  The Bill is reminiscent of much else that the Government are doing. In many cases, they are slowly beginning to persuade members of their own party to accept vast changes to positions held only by the Conservative party before now by persuading them to accept things that are apparently innocuous. I fear that Labour Members have illustrated beautifully this afternoon exactly the tendency that the Secretary of State hoped that they would illustrate, namely, the tendency not even to notice that there lies within the Bill the seeds of something that they at present do not wish to see grow into a tree.
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: I have been struggling to follow the logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument. He now says that the Bill is some sort of paving device for new charges. Although he was not a Member of Parliament at the time, I am sure that he supported the Road Traffic Act 1988. Why was that not the paving Bill for wider charges?
  Mr. Letwin: I cannot he said to have supported the 1988 Bill because I had no idea that it existed. Had I been a Member of Parliament, I might or might not have supported it. The reason why it is perfectly appropriate that my right hon. and hon. Friends should have tabled a reasoned amendment this afternoon is not that the Bill is in principle objectionable, but that the explanation that has been given of it and the logic that has been advanced as lying behind it are wholly beside the point. The truth has not been brought out. It is the role of the Opposition to oppose that which they need to oppose and to bring out the real character of measures.
  I believe that the real purpose of the debate this afternoon is precisely to illustrate to the public that the Bill has far wider implications than has been admitted to
  190
  them and that the Bill has been defended on a basis that is not open or honest with them. It falls to the Government to admit what lies behind the Bill. Then perhaps in later stages, Labour Members may have their own doubts about the wisdom of this measure, even if Opposition Members have, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) said, some sympathy with the principle.
  6.24 pm
  Ms Julia Drown: In following the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), it might be helpful if I bring the House back to reality. Although his speech was interesting, and perhaps it used up some useful time of the House, it has not been useful in making progress on the Bill.
  I am disappointed that the Opposition do not support the Bill, but perhaps it serves as a useful example of the difference in priorities between the political parties. While the Labour Government believe that the NHS should get the funds to which it is entitled, the Conservative party seems more concerned about letting insurance companies off the charges that they have been set up to cover. Other Opposition Members seem more concerned to discuss the philosophical purities of differing charging regimes.
  The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who is not in his place, suggested that £100 million was not a lot out of the £40 billion that the NHS needs every year. I suggest that £100 million can make an awful lot of difference to the NHS. If the hon. Gentleman does not want that money for his constituency, I can guarantee him that my constituents could well use the money for their health services.
  Dr. Evan Harris: The hon. Lady must accept either that a significant amount would be saved which could replace money raised from income tax for the NHS or that too little would be raised to re-establish the principle—I take the point that the Bill re-establishes something that has already been legislated for—that patients should pay towards their care. In our reasoned amendment, however, the Liberal Democrats propose as a fairer way of funding the NHS in general than through patient charges.
  Ms Drown: I do not accept that. I see the charges as money to which the NHS is entitled and has been entitled since 1930, when the legislation was first introduced. The NHS has not been collecting all that money, but the Government are setting up the proper administrative arrangements to ensure that the money goes to where it is needed in the NHS.
  I am pleased to be able to speak on the Bill because I am one of the few people in the House who has personal experience of managing the existing system under which the NHS can reclaim from insurance companies some of the costs of treating people who have been injured in road traffic accidents. My brief experience was instructive and I remember it well. Two things stand out in my memory and both of them lead me to welcome the Bill.
  First, I remember how inappropriate it seemed to visit the accident and emergency department as an administrator, trying to establish which of our patients were there as a result of a road traffic accident and which had been injured in other ways in order to set up the appropriate paperwork

  191
  for road traffic accident victims. The other hospital staff were rightly concentrating on giving their patients the best clinical care that they could; neither patients nor staff wanted to be disturbed at that time by what they saw, reasonably in my view, as intrusive bureaucracy. The existing system for reclaiming the treatment costs of road accident victims makes such intrusion inevitable by putting the onus on the hospital to establish not only which of their patients have been injured in road accidents but a series of details about the accident.
  The principle that the NHS should be able to reclaim some of the costs of providing medical treatment to people injured in road accidents is well established. The Road Traffic Act 1930 introduced the charges, which have been levied since 1934. Motorists are covered by their insurance for those costs yet those charges are little understood by motorists or even Members of Parliament. Motorists are compulsorily insured, and that creates a distinction between the charges set up in 1930 and other possible charges that have been mentioned by right hon. and hon. Members.
  Of the charges covered by the Bill, the emergency treatment fee—currently £21.30—is the most unpopular as it is payable by the vehicle user in an accident regardless of who is at fault. The Government intend to abolish that charge for hospitals, and I congratulate them on that. Its abolition will be welcomed by the NHS, motorists and insurance companies alike. It makes sense for everyone involved to concentrate on the payments for out-patient and in-patient treatment.
  Over the past 50 years, NHS administrative staff have been trying to collect those funds—often in difficult circumstances. Staff collecting those sums have had to deal extremely sensitively with patients. It is only right that the House congratulates them and the administrative and other staff who have managed a difficult administrative system in a professional and sensitive manner. The Government's proposals would shift the onus of collecting payments from NHS hospitals to insurance companies. In doing so, those difficult situations can be avoided and more money spent on what is important—NHS care.
  My second abiding memory of running the existing system is of how complicated and bureaucratic it is. I remember the forms, the checks and the chasing letters—they were almost charming in their detail. I also remember the filing cabinets and the frustration of chasing bills, in some cases for relatively small sums. The only thing missing from the overall Dickensian impression was a quill pen. I applaud the Government's determination to find a way to reclaim some of the cost of treating road accident victims that cuts the mass of paperwork in hospitals.
  The difficulty of operating the current system has led many hospitals to reclaim less of the cost of treating such victims than they were entitled to under existing legislation. That inevitably means that there is less NHS money available to treat patients. The sensible way forward, of abolishing the emergency treatment fee for hospitals and properly recovering the money due for patient treatment, will let the NHS see the wood for the trees, and contrasts starkly with the actions of the previous Government, who merely introduced measures to increase
  192
  the piles of paper in the NHS. I welcome the Labour Government's steps to make additional money available to the NHS and to reduce paperwork.
  I have three questions about the implementation of the proposed schemes which I hope will be considered during the Bill's passage. First, there is the question of transitional arrangements. On 2 July last year, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that steps would be taken to recover the money due to hospitals in respect of the treatment of people injured in road accidents. I understand that the new system will cover treatment given to road accident victims from that date, but if the Bill is passed, it will still be some time before guidance can be issued to hospitals and insurance companies setting out the precise details of the new system. If the Bill becomes law, I hope that the Government will make careful arrangements for cases arising between 2 July 1997 and the time when the new guidelines are issued. There will be scope for confusion and double counting in respect of such cases, so care will be needed to ensure that confusion is minimised. Some hospitals will have already billed for road accident treatment since 2 July 1997, whereas others will not. Clear guidelines are needed on who is to claim what money, from whom and when it should be claimed.
  My second question relates to the nature of the records that hospitals will be expected to keep under the new system. Although I welcome the Government's aim of cutting down NHS bureaucracy by requiring insurance companies to initiate and follow through payments to hospitals, it is important that steps be taken to ensure that the new system succeeds in reducing bureaucracy. I presume that insurance companies will not simply be left to get on with the job of administering the system without checks. There will have to be incentives to ensure that the companies comply with their new duties and make all the payments they should. However, if the operation of the new system requires hospitals to keep detailed records of which of their patients have been injured in road accidents and the exact cost of their treatment, there is a risk that the new system will simply replicate the troublesome and time-consuming bureaucracy of the existing system.
  Laura Moffatt: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in addition to all the difficulties with collection that she describes, there is a seven-day limit on the time in which a claim can be made, which adds to the bureaucratic nightmare suffered by administrators?
  Ms Drown: The system can certainly be described as a nightmare, because of the forms and bureaucracy resulting from existing legislation. That is why I urge the Government to pay close attention to ensuring that any new system results in the NHS receiving the money to which it is entitled and in a genuine reduction in paperwork and hospital administration.
  My third point relates to the fact that the Government have rightly stressed the importance of encouraging innovation in the NHS and of making the best use of hospital beds. Care in the home has been emphasised as an alternative to hospital treatment—an alternative that many patients prefer. The Bill allows the NHS to recover from insurance companies the cost of hospital treatment given to people injured in road traffic accidents. In 1930, when the Road Traffic Act was introduced, I suspect that no thought

  193
  was given to alternatives to treating people in hospital and that the emphasis on acute hospital care rather than community care was even stronger than it is now.
  Given that motorists are insured for the cost of NHS treatment resulting from road accidents, should not the Bill reflect the modern reality of the NHS and allow the cost of treating road accident injuries to be charged whether treatment takes place at hospital or in the home? If that provision is not made, an incentive will remain for the NHS to treat road traffic accident patients in hospital or at out-patient clinics, instead of allowing them to be treated at home. It is illogical to say that the cost of treatment should be recoverable when that treatment is given in hospital, but not when it is given in the patient's home, for example, by a physiotherapist or district nurse. I urge the Government to examine the possibility of amending the Bill to enable the recovery of the cost of treatment given either in hospital or at home. That would be wholly appropriate given the shifts in the culture surrounding hospital and non-hospital care.
  I congratulate the Government on their sensible proposal, which will be welcomed by hospital staff, both clinical and administrative. I hope that the points I have made will be addressed during the Bill's passage.
  6.36 pm
  Dr. Evan Harris: Although Liberal Democrat Members found the principle of the Bill quite attractive and were tempted to support it on Second Reading, and various minor parts of it in Committee and at later stages, we have set out our objections to the principles behind the Bill in a reasoned amendment.
  We welcome certain of the Bill's provisions, such as the abolition of the emergency treatment charge, which was, and is perceived as being bureaucratic and upsetting to many patients. However, we have serious concerns about some of the principles that the Bill reflects or that it re-establishes from existing legislation, which overcome the advantages contained in those welcome provisions.
  Our amendment states our concern that the Bill
  "makes provision for requiring those who successfully claim compensation for personal injury sustained in road traffic accidents, but not by any other means",
  with the result that the measure appears to operate in a vacuum. We should be grateful if the Government gave a clear statement of the principles behind the way in which they want to treat co-payment and patient charges. Secondly, the Bill
  "proposes no coherent policy for raising or reforming NHS charges or for making them fair".
  We still await detailed clarification of whether the Government believe that current prescription charges, as an example of co-payment, are fair in their operation; whether there are any proposals to make them fairer; and what is the future of those sort of co-payments.
  Our third objection is that the Bill
  "moves public policy and practice further away from the principle of paying for the NHS from general taxation".
  That point has been made by hon. Members on both sides of the House, in particular by the hon. Member for
  194
  Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe). Later in my speech, I shall return to the points he made. Our fourth concern is that the Bill
  "contains no mechanism for protecting those on low incomes against increased insurance costs"—
  small though those compulsory insurance costs may be. Finally, we are concerned about the fact that the Bill
  "adds to bureaucracy without any sufficient compensatory benefit."
  Such compensatory benefit would include clarification of some of the areas I have mentioned.
  Our approach must be contrasted with that of the Conservatives. We can see from their reasoned amendment that much of their opposition to the Bill—apart from the Oppositionitis from which they are suffering—relates to their love of the motor car. The Opposition's reference to the motorist in their reasoned amendment might suggest that their love of the motor car is at least as great as, if not greater than, their love of the principles upon which the NHS was founded. I shall take this opportunity to explain our concerns about how the legislation may affect NHS founding principles.
  We accept that, although the Bill does not introduce a new principle, it re-establishes an existing one. The Government had the opportunity in this Bill to abolish both the charges that apply to road traffic accident patients, but chose to abolish only one. Therefore, it is impossible for the Government to ignore the fact that they are re-establishing a principle that they had the opportunity to remove.
  That principle which they have chosen to retain is that income for the NHS can be raised from patients. My hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) expressed concern about that matter earlier. The Secretary of State admitted that there will be an increase in the cost of motor insurance. Estimates of that increase range from £10—the figure suggested by the Opposition—to a lesser figure favoured by the Government. I am sure that if their own estimates were revised upwards the Government would opt for talking of an increase of £9.99, rather than £10, in the interests of good public relations.
  That insurance increment is regressive as it will be compulsory and will generally have no regard for the income of the person seeking to take out car insurance. Everyone will be affected equally. That is not the case with the current main source of revenue for the NHS: income taxation. We believe that the principle of fairness should be upheld in all NHS policy. That is why we are concerned about the perpetual increases in prescription charges and why we went to the election calling for a freeze in those charges prior to a review. The current system has a regressive effect at the margins for those who just fail to qualify for exemption from prescription charges.
  We are also concerned about where the process will end. Some hon. Members have tried to make reassuring comments, but we are not convinced. If the charge is restricted to compulsory insurance, it will not apply to injuries incurred during sporting activities where there is no compulsory insurance. My hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey asked whether the Government will soon introduce legislation to recover charges arising from employer liability—which is compulsory in many areas—as a result of industrial accidents; or from local authority liability that currently applies to injuries incurred through the negligence of local authorities.

  195
  A further example comes hard on the heels of the interesting and thought-provoking speech by the hon. Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown). If the key issue is that insurance is compulsory, what will happen to those with compulsory buildings or insurance for mortgages? What will prevent the Government from introducing legislation to charge the victims of house fires, through their buildings insurance, for the cost of expensive burns treatment? The Liberal Democrats will not be satisfied until the Government confirm that the measure will stop at this point and not affect other forms of compulsory insurance—whether that be mortgage insurance or car insurance.
  Ms Drown: The legislation refers to compulsory insurance for drivers of motor vehicles. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the charge has been in place since 1930 and has been discussed and agreed at various times since then?
  Dr. Harris: I addressed that point earlier in my speech. No one is suggesting that this is a new charge. This legislation presented an opportunity for the Government not only to re-establish those parts of the charges that they are maintaining but to take the alternative view and move away from charging patients directly. That opportunity has been missed.
  Mr. Hutton: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm when his party discovered its opposition to this proposal? As I understand it, the Liberal Democrats have supported these measures previously.
  Dr. Harris: My party, like the Labour party, has serious long-standing concerns about those charges. Unlike the Labour party, we demonstrated our concern in our manifesto commitment to freeze prescription charges. The Labour party did not presage in its manifesto the introduction of this legislation which will increase the average cost of car insurance. According to the Association of Community Health Councils for England and Wales and other groups, there was little consultation with patient groups about the Bill. The Government will be on shaky ground if they look to their past record both in and outside this place—particularly regarding indications of intent in party manifestos. I am grateful to the Minister for giving me the opportunity to make that point.
  Anyone who is concerned about the regressive nature of the proposals, which re-establish the charges, could maintain that there are better cases than car insurance for making claims on insurance companies and making insurance compulsory. For instance, what about injuries incurred in certain sports to which the less well-off do not have easy access? I refer not to the rugby games enjoyed by the children of the hon. Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) but to skiing, for example—which I have had neither the funds nor the courage to try for myself. I do not believe that skiing could be described as a sport that is generally enjoyed across the social classes, yet there are significant costs involved with the treatment of skiing injuries. If one were to argue that the present charge is reasonably fair, one could envisage the
  196
  Government's introducing other legislation where my arguments about the regressive nature of the charges apply less.
  Mr. Hutton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again; I appreciate his courtesy. I am sure that he understands that the legislation has nothing to do with self-insurance: it is do with third party compulsory insurance.
  Dr. Harris: That is a reassuring comment. I hope that the Minister will confirm that the Government will not move any further towards those sorts of schemes. However, the principle will be breached if the Government seek to raise additional funds for the health service—they make no bones about it; that is what they are doing—by increasing motor insurance when that money could be raised more fairly, transparently and less regressively through general taxation.
  There has been debate, some of which I have not followed—particularly the contribution by the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin)—about the nature of compulsory insurance. It has been claimed that because it is compulsory insurance, the charge is okay. That implies that people with optional insurance should not be asked to fund the health service. One can understand the moral pressure that could be brought to bear on people who were asked to contribute voluntarily to the NHS. That could cause philosophical and political problems for the Government.
  However, I feel strongly about the way in which the Government have attached national lottery funds to improvements in cancer treatment. One could argue that that is not funding NHS core services—although the Government would have difficulty claiming that improved cancer care is not core to the NHS. The policy is a move away from the position adopted by my party and the Labour party in opposition that lottery funding should not be used to support NHS core services. Cancer is a particularly evocative subject for patients. Because the Government have chosen to fund cancer treatment through that indirect charge—it is the type to which we refer in our reasoned amendment—patients feel that they are somehow doing the NHS the world of good by spending money, which in many cases they do not have, on that form of gambling. Commentators have said that funding the NHS through the national lottery is another example of the rich finding ways to make the poor pay more for the services that everyone uses.
  Miss Begg: The hon. Gentleman is straying from the Bill's remit. Surely the Bill's aim is to deal with the anomalies in the existing legislation which I described and to simplify the bureaucracy so that the collection of charges is fairer and easier.
  Dr. Harris: I understand the hon. Lady's point and I shall listen carefully for a ruling from you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, rather than from the hon. Lady, if my remarks are not in order. My point is that the principle of co-payment of charges can extend much further than this matter and our objection on Second Reading is based on the fact that if we concede the point and support the Bill, as Government Back Benchers will, we do not know where that extension will end. I know that the Minister has been listening carefully to my remarks, and I seek

  197
  clarification on that point. In Committee, I shall take a constructive approach on my specific concerns, which I shall address later.
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: Should not the hon. Gentleman view the Bill in the same way as the Government's attempt to tackle prescription fraud? The Bill aims to make an existing system work more effectively and fairly and no great new principles are being advocated, as he is suggesting.
  Dr. Harris: Liberal Democrat Members are prepared to accept that the Bill will achieve greater efficiency and, by abolishing the emergency treatment charge, more fairness in the existing system. However, the point that I have already made twice—once in response to one of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues—is that by introducing the Bill the Government are re-establishing a principle that can be challenged. They could use this legislative opportunity to say that they will not fund the NHS through flat-rate increases on compulsory insurance. We have a genuine disagreement with the terms of the Bill, and it is valid to oppose it on Second Reading because of the missed opportunity to revoke that principle.
  Car parking charges have also been mentioned. One can accept, as I have at my local hospital, the use of car parking charges to encourage people to use public transport and to avoid providing a free parking facility on hospital grounds for people who may have no business to park there. That is a legitimate way to level the playing field and ensure that there is no financial incentive for people to use their cars, particularly in congested areas. That is why the Liberal Democrats support a tax on employers' car parking perks, including those that apply to hon. Members.
  When hospital authorities justify high charges by saying that any money raised will go to patient care, they breach the principle that patient care should be funded according to means. I see that the hon. Member for Wakefield is back in his place. He will not have heard me say that I agreed with much of what he said about the principle of sticking to general taxation for raising the bulk of NHS funding. When patient care directly benefits from people paying high car parking charges over and above those needed to control transport congestion, users of the service are being made to pay more than the average taxpayer, which I oppose. After all, on that basis one could argue that there should be a hike in canteen charges over and above what is necessary to break even so that hospitals can make a profit.
  Those arguments are of relevance if this legislative opportunity to re-establish a principle is then used to open the floodgates.
  It is seen to be an advantage of the Bill that the money to pay for patient care will go directly to hospitals and that the charges have been worked out on a notional basis, such that if all the money was reclaimed it would pay the hospital costs of all road traffic accidents. However, it is worrying that through direct hypothecation, an entire area of the NHS will effectively be paid for by indirect patient charges. Although that may not be the Government's intention, it sets a precedent for future Governments or, perhaps, for this Government in another Session. The costs of road traffic accidents will be paid entirely by co-payment by insurance companies, albeit directly
  198
  to hospitals. That is a grave concern, however much the Government assure us that the principle will not be extended.
  We must consider the principle mentioned by the hon. Member for South Swindon—I am glad that she made the point for me—who said that it seems illogical to stop at hospital costs. I might support her in Committee if she tables an amendment, because without one, there will be a perverse incentive for hospitals not to discharge patients for community nursing because they will be able to retain the £435 a day that they are able to charge for in-patients.
  Another incentive is created by the flat-rate out-patient charge. It may be that it already exists but because hospitals do not collect the charge, it is not at the forefront of administrators' minds. It would be much more cost effective for hospitals to see people once in out-patients, rather than recurrently, because no matter how often people are seen in out-patients, the revenue to the hospital is the same. I question whether purchasers will take note of the Secretary of State's words that the charges are deemed to pay for the entire cost of road traffic accidents and will not be willing to fund such accidents as a part of their contracts with hospitals.
  For all those reasons, Liberal Democrat Members cannot support the Second Reading of the Bill. We will work constructively in Committee to improve the Bill, but we seek reassurances from Ministers on the points of principle that I have raised.
  6.57 pm
  Mr. Andrew Dismore: I first took an interest in this subject in the late 1980s, during my work as a solicitor specialising in personal injury litigation. In 20 years of practice as a PI lawyer, I have found it increasingly unfair that, under private health insurance policies, I could be forced by the likes of BUPA to claim back their expenditure on the private treatment of accident victims who were their members, while the NHS could not effectively make similar claims. As a passionate believer in the NHS, I found it particularly galling to send cheques for thousands of pounds to private health insurers, but not to the NHS.
  I first flagged up that problem in a pamphlet that I wrote for the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers in 1990. I should say that I have a non-pecuniary interest as a member of APIL's executive committee. I again raised the issue in 1996, in a book published by the Society of Labour Lawyers entitled "Law Reform for All", when I wrote:
  "Private medical insurers such as BUPA are entitled to recover their outlays, and the NHS should not be put in a more disadvantageous position than a medical insurer."
  Of course, as hon. Members have said, there is nothing new in what the Bill proposes. Recovery of medical expenses was first introduced in Herbert Morrison's Road Traffic Act 1930, which also introduced compulsory insurance for motor vehicles.
  Equally, there is nothing new about the tort principles of common law, which have provided restitutory rights going back centuries. In its response to the Law Commission in April 1997, APIL said:
  "We believe that not to provide a right of recoupment would grant the tortfeasor an unjust benefit, paid by the taxpayer, in that the taxpayer is righting the wrong committed by the tortfeasor through the payment for the treatment of the victim."

  199
  What is new is that people have been waking up to the unfairness of the system for the NHS, and, more importantly, its patients. In Personal Injury magazine in 1996, the general editor, Frederick Holding, said:
  "the medical and legal communities should wake up to the fact that the insurance industry is having a parasitic effect on the taxpayer, the welfare state and NHS emergency services in particular. It is little wonder that the NHS is in crisis when victims of serious accidents, who have the legal right to have their treatment paid for by the insurers of the tortfeasor, are still draining the resources of an NHS system".
  That, of course, was the position under the previous Government, and there have been great improvements in the health service since then, but the basic principle still applies.
  I was pleased that the Law Commission took an interest in the subject in its full and well-argued consultation paper No. 144, which was published in December 1996 and in which it flagged up the issues involved. My only regret at the time was the Tory Government's complete failure to take on board the possibilities raised by the Law Commission. I am extremely pleased that my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Chancellor have reacted so quickly by introducing this Bill.
  This is not a tax on accidents, as the Tories have claimed. The Bill allows the NHS to get back what it is rightly owed. A great deal of debate has focused on motorists, but half the road accident victims are pedestrians, cyclists and passengers, and are not responsible for insurance; they just need to be treated.
  The hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) mentioned uninsured drivers. There is a general problem in people failing to take out insurance, and the amount involved in this Bill is a fleabite compared to the total bill of the Motor Insurers Bureau. One way forward could be through the introduction of insurance discs for motor vehicles in a similar way to tax discs, so that we can catch those without insurance.
  Despite the provisions of the Road Traffic Act 1930 and the various amendments now consolidated in the Road Traffic Act 1988, the insurance industry has been getting away with ripping off the NHS for years. Of course, the NHS did not pursue its rights effectively, and has let the insurance industry off the hook. However, the fact remains that insurers have not been paying out what they should. They have made windfall profits at the expense of NHS patients for decades.
  We are told that premiums may have to go up. The best estimate so far is that they may go up by £6 to £9. I believe that the competitive market for insurers could well absorb that expenditure. That figure overlooks a number of key advantages introduced by this scheme. First, there are advantages for road safety. Car insurance is worked out according to risk, and bad drivers pay more. If part of the impact of the scheme is that bad drivers have to pay more for their insurance, they may improve their driving standards. One third of a million people are injured on our roads each year, and we need to look at the advantages for road safety.
  A further advantage is the care of the victims. In the personal injury world, there is a new and growing concern for the victim's wider interests, going beyond compensation alone. Increasingly, we are seeing moves to
  200
  look much more at issues such as the need for rehabilitation care, intensive physiotherapy and so on, so that we can do all that can be done to improve a victim's recovery. Regrettably, such services are somewhat patchily available in the NHS, and some places are better than others.
  There are discussions in principle and on individual cases between those who represent victims and the insurers, trying to persuade the insurers that it is in their interests as well as those of the victims to fund such care packages. In the long run, it is cheaper to compensate a fully or better recovered victim than someone with on-going disabilities. If the on-going cost of NHS treatment is to be met by insurers, it will be a real incentive for them to look to the better and quicker recovery of the injured person
  In APIL' s submission to the Law Commission, we said:
  "We believe that recoupment will encourage insurers to adopt a broader approach to the plaintiff's condition beyond mere damages. Insurers will be encouraged to organise private care regimes at an earlier stage, where the extent and cost of the care regime can be negotiated and agreed between the parties, to their mutual benefit."
  That could also relieve some pressure on NHS services.
  The measure will also generate additional funds for the NHS, as the money recovered will be ploughed back into the hospitals concerned, allowing more patients to be treated more quickly.
  According to the reply that I received to a parliamentary question last year, currently only £13 million comes back to the NHS. The Wellhouse Trust, which is the acute service provider in my area, clawed back only £45,000 in 1996–97, despite treating almost 89,000 patients in the accident and emergency department, let alone any follow-up in-patient care or elective surgery that might have been needed. That works out at just 50p per casualty. Of course not all those patients were road accident victims, but that shows the scale of the problem.
  In 1990, the total cost to the NHS of all accidents was estimated at £1 billion. According to a 1984 study, road accidents account for 18.5 per cent. of all accidents, and result in 34 per cent. of victims bringing claims. Allowing for a proportion of those not succeeding, the estimate of about £50 million or £60 million seems fairly accurate—four times what is currently being recovered, but significantly less than some of the scare stories being put around by some in the insurance industry. I wish that it was higher, but we have to be realistic.
  I hope that we will look at a substantial capping of the ceiling. A total of £10,000 is all well and good, but I recall in the past having to send cheques to BUPA for tens of thousands of pounds in response to its incredibly itemised bills. The NHS should be on the same level playing field. I believe that a tariff-based approach is correct, but as we get into better benchmarking of NHS treatment costs, I hope that we can produce a more sophisticated tariff based on the benchmark costs of various procedures. That would result in rewarding efficient hospitals, and encouraging the less efficient to improve towards the average.
  I do not believe that the Bill deals well with the length of the recoupment period. The Department of Social Security has a sensible rule, limiting recovery to the date of settlement or five years from the accident. That provides an added incentive to insurers to deal with claims promptly, which I am sure we all wish to see.

  201
  I believe that the Government are correct to put the administration of the scheme into the hands of the compensation recovery unit. When that was first set up by the Tories in 1989 for DSS recoupment, it was a real disaster. It worked unfairly against the interests of victims, and led to many calls for its reform, not least from the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, the Trades Union Congress, the Law Society and others, and ultimately the Select Committee on Social Security.
  Having done some work on this, I found myself in the rather peculiar position of advising the then Tory Government, Labour Front Benchers and Liberal Democrat Front Benchers at the same time on reforms to the legislation. That emerged as the Social Security (Recovery of Benefits) Act 1997, which dealt with many of the problems we were experiencing. The CRU is now a major success story.
  The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) mentioned the cost of the CRU. I took that up at the time, and was told that the unit cost of a recoupment claim for the DSS was less than £10. The system that we are introducing with this Bill will be cheaper, because it is simpler. In response to the question raised by the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), the CRU recovers £180 million a year, one third of which is from road accidents. It has done so efficiently, and by respecting the necessary confidences of all parties involved.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is right to ensure that victims are excluded from the operation of the scheme. That problem was always one of the failings of the DSS scheme, and it remains a problem, although it is dealt with in a much better way now. By keeping the victims out, we reinforce the message that there is no question of the victim having to pay for medical treatment. That must remain free at the point of delivery.
  However, in that way, we can also enlist the help of victims in recovering what is due to the NHS. If victims are given copies of the certificates, they can say whether they are accurate or whether there is an under-estimate. Victims are much more likely to co-operate with the Department's CRU than with some of the private companies that have sprung up. I am sure that the Government have had many approaches from such companies saying that they could do a better job. Compared to the present system, that is undoubtedly so, but we should resist their blandishments, because the CRU will knock spots off them when the new scheme is set up.
  The confidentiality of the CRU will help to reduce the growing abuse of claims assessors, putting pressure on victims to bring claims via their dubious services. That often results in victims recovering less compensation overall at a higher price to them through the contingency fee arrangement. Many of the companies involved in road traffic accident recoupment so far on behalf of trusts have a "claims assessor" arm. I believe that there is some evidence that they have abused the information given them by the trusts to drum up trade, putting pressure on victims. Victims must be properly informed of their rights, but they must not be pressured into bringing claims that they would not otherwise bring.
  If I have one concern about the Bill, it is that perhaps it does not go far enough. I hope that, when the Law Commission report is published, it will be carefully considered by the Government. I believe that that report
  202
  is promised for February 1999. It is proper for us to await the outcome of that report before looking further at these proposals, but there are some extensions that we should look at.
  First, there is the NHS drugs bill. For donkey's years, accident victims have recovered the amount they spend on prescription charges and proprietary medicines. Of course, the total cost to the NHS of the medicines involved is far greater, and we should look to the insurers for the difference between the amount paid by the patient and the cost to the NHS. That may be an administrative problem at the moment, but, with better computerisation, it can be overcome. For example, I once recovered over £500 in prescription charges for a victim. Just think what the total cost to the NHS must have been for the medication received by that victim. The topping up to the full cost requires further examination.
  Secondly, we have heard a great deal in the debate about how the scheme could be extended to other areas. I believe that we should look at other areas of compulsory insurance, particularly accidents at work and employers' liability. Such accidents account for half as many injuries again as road accidents—27 per cent. compared with 18.5 per cent of all personal injury accidents. With the help of trade unions' well-developed legal assistance schemes, 24 per cent. of victims claim. Such an extension of the scheme would probably double the amount recoverable.
  I can see no philosophical difference between those two areas of compulsory insurance, and believe that both could be made subject to NHS recoupment. In fact, there are positive advantages. In the same way as these proposals could impact on road safety and better care of road accident victims, they could have an impact on health and safety in the workplace, by strengthening the drive for better working conditions through insurers being tougher with bad and unsafe employers, and through better rehabilitation, helping injured employees to get back to work more quickly.
  My third suggestion concerns the cost of long-term care, which is sometimes borne by the NHS but more often by local authorities. The legal position on recoupment of these costs is very unclear. Some local authorities expect accident victims or their representatives to sign subrogation agreements, and either expect the victims' lawyers to get the moneys from the insurer, or, even worse, try to claw it back after the event from victims' compensation.
  This uncertain area of the law means that disputes are often long drawn out, making cases harder to settle. Sometimes it results in satellite litigation, such as the case of Avon v. Hooper in December 1997, in which Avon county council tried to get the money out of the deceased victim's family, adding to that family's distress. It would be far better if the legal position were clarified through legislation such as this. I should certainly like to see local authorities in a similar position to the NHS in being able to recover their costs.
  I very much welcome the Bill, which is long overdue. It will bring in additional and badly-needed resources to the NHS. It will ensure that those responsible for road accidents meet the full costs, through their insurers, of their negligence. I hope that we shall continue this reform process along the lines that I have described.
  7.11 pm
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: I shall speak briefly to support the Bill, and perhaps I can set it in its proper context, as only one small part of a package of measures that will modernise our approach to health. That package clearly includes the £21 billion of extra investment from the comprehensive spending review. It also includes various measures to tackle prescription fraud. It ranges from the reforms of the national health service modernisation Bill to many of our public health measures, such as extra investment in housing and modernisation of local government, through to the Government's work to tackle financial exclusion.
  The Bill is not about the introduction of a tax on motorists, and there are no great new issues of principle involved. I remember being in the Chamber when the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) promised us mature and constructive opposition. The shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), was never so ambitious. I assume that that is why the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) was allowed to run with the scare story that compulsory health insurance would somehow result from the Bill.
  For more than 60 years, hospitals have had the right to recover some of the costs of treating victims of road accidents. Indeed, since the introduction, under the Conservative Government, of the Road Traffic Act 1988, those costs are in theory recoverable from an insurance company. I say that that is the position "in theory", because the system, mirroring the wider Conservative approach to health care in the late 1980s and early 1990s, was highly bureaucratic and overly complex, and created unnecessary administrative burdens. The Bill will simplify and improve the way in which money is collected, so that the NHS gets the money to which it has been entitled for the past 50 years.
  The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) did the debate a service when he highlighted the wide variations in moneys that have been collected by hospitals. That variation is clearly because of the complex bureaucracy that has been so lucidly outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) and others. My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), in highlighting many of the health charges facilitated by the health reforms introduced by the previous Conservative Government, performed a useful service in signalling the double standards that lie behind the Opposition's amendment.
  In contrast to the scare stories of the Liberal Democrats, the Bill will abolish a charge on patient care. It will move the NHS even closer to its founding principle of a service available when needed, where it is needed, with clinical need, not income, the key determinant.
  The Bill will abolish the emergency treatment fee which has to be collected by NHS staff from injured motorists. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) said, that process causes offence and embarrassment. It is a completely unwelcome distraction from what NHS staff do so well, which is looking after the injured.
  Dr. Harris: Does the hon. Gentleman feel that the proposal returns the NHS to a mainly taxation-funded system, even if the increased efficiencies of the scheme
  204
  increase the proportion of NHS revenue that is raised from such charges? Does that return the NHS more to the principles of taxation?
  Mr. Thomas: In the sense that the purpose of the Bill is to abolish one of the charges on patient care, it will clearly return to the founding principles that I have outlined.
  The emergency treatment fee is highly unfair. It is levied regardless of whether the injured person was responsible for the accident. It is clear that the NHS has not been receiving the moneys to which it has been entitled. We know that only £13.17 million was recouped for the NHS in 1995–96 under existing legislation. According to recent estimates, NHS trusts could have claimed £50 million, £100 million, or—much less likely—anything up to £440 million.
  The first beneficiaries of the reforms in the Bill will be the Opposition parties, whose difficulties on health service financing are well documented. It will not solve those difficulties for them, but it will provide some small fig leaves to small parts of the holes in their funding plans. The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald cannot obtain permission from the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer to welcome the £21 billion of new investment in the NHS, or to offer positive suggestions on how that money should be spent. Apart from some vacuous waffle about more private sector investment, the shadow health team has not suggested where the money will come from for more investment in the health service.
  The Liberal Democrats, too, will benefit. They threw out the plans of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) at their conference, without one vote in favour. Indeed, the party's plans were described as shambolic. It is therefore not surprising that both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats have rushed to exaggerate, quoting the highest estimates they can find of the likely income that the Bill will generate.
  As the Liberal Democrat approach to finances owes more to Heath Robinson than to accounting guidance, I am certain that, just as with their 1p on income tax, the modest moneys raised through the Bill will be spent many times over in the coming months.
  Even £100 million extra would make an important difference to the services that hospitals can supply. Such a sum will provide small additional increases in income over and above the £21 billion that will be invested throughout the health service. That investment was described by the NHS Federation as beyond its wildest dreams. It was described by the Institute of Health Service Management as a
  "massive injection of new cash."
  The truth, sadly, is that, such has been the scale of under-investment in patient care by the Conservative party, it would be entirely irresponsible to fail to secure these extra funds, to which hospitals have always been entitled, for the treatment of road traffic accidents.
  The Bill is an entirely sensible measure, which is long overdue. It will help to modernise the way in which we collect moneys due to the health service, and I warmly welcome it.
  7.18 pm
  Mr. Alan Duncan: We have had a lively and wide-ranging debate. Indeed, it has perhaps been rather more lively than some right hon. and hon. Members expected when they entered the Chamber this afternoon.
  Perhaps the Bill and the Road Traffic Act 1988, which goes in harness with it, can best be described as measures that allow the national health service to piggy-back successful claims for compensation so as to recoup some of the health treatment costs from insurance companies. As every Opposition Member has said, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe)—I am happy to reiterate this—we do not challenge that principle. However, we challenge the Government to explain how what they are doing by means of the Bill fits into any policy that they have previously expressed on charging in the NHS. We challenge them also to justify increasing the incidence and burden of costs on motorists, who are already very hard pressed.
  The House will have noticed that what the Government are doing was never in the Labour party's manifesto. Labour did not give a clue to the electorate, whose vote they sought, that it would do something like this. It is yet another typical example of Labour saying one thing and doing another.
  The Bill comes at a cost to the motorist in the form of a compulsory charge. We have tabled our reasoned, and reasonable, amendment to highlight that cost, and I welcome the Liberal Democrats' decision to join us today in the Lobby.
  I listened very carefully to the Secretary of State's speech. He brazenly said that the proposals in the Bill will not cause the imposition of any new charges. Technically, in some respects, he is right. However, the magnitude—[Interruption.] As I told the House and Labour Members, I am nothing in debating these matters if not reasonable and constructive. I should think that even Labour Members will appreciate that the charge's magnitude and incidence will be dramatically increased. The charge will therefore be bigger and more burdensome.
  Opposition Members agree with the Government on the proposal to abolish the emergency treatment fee. I do not quite understand why—perhaps the Minister will explain it to the House—general practitioners and hospitals can still collect that fee. I look forward to hearing the Minister's explanation of why they can do so.
  The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) is a very confused man. He said that the case of the German tourists who incurred a £45,000 bill in his constituency was a simple one because the insurance company paid the bill, although he was unable to explain to us the difference between insurance charges—which he was advocating and said were acceptable—and general health insurance. His exact words were that his constituents would feel that insurance charges were "a charge worth paying to support the health service." In a subsequent intervention, he supported charges in principle and criticised proposals to abolish them. Thus, he became the first Labour Back Bencher to support insurance premiums for national health service treatment.
  The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) was quite right that the Bill would increase the scale of the current scheme. He also argued that a premiums increase would be a regressive
  206
  tax. He was quite right also to say that the Government think of charges as an easy little pot of resources on which to draw.
  The hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) mentioned the Law Commission, and said that it might well recommend extending the scope of the type of scheme proposed in the Bill. He appeared to endorse such an extension. He said that he does not want health insurance. However, in one respect, he will have it—and he is supporting it—in the Bill.
  Mr. Hinchliffe: If the hon. Gentleman reads my speech tomorrow, he will see that I did not say that. I specifically distanced myself from proposals to extend the scheme, as he is suggesting. Will he deal with the point that I made on the inconsistency between the reasoned amendment tabled by the shadow Health Secretary and her colleagues and the previous Government's introduction of car-parking charges?
  Mr. Duncan: The inconsistency today is among Labour Members—some of whom want to extend the scope of the scheme, some of whom want to reduce it and some of whom want to keep it as it is. They are totally at odds one with another.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) rightly pointed out the effect on motorists of charging.
  The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) vividly described the crash that she herself suffered. So well did she describe it that, for a moment, I almost felt that I was in that car. However, she was yet another Labour Member welcoming NHS charges as proposed in the Bill.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) made it clear that a charge is a charge. He spoke of the effect of uninsured motorists, and drove a coach and horses through any remaining pretence that the Government have any consistent principle in their thinking.
  The hon. Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) seemed to give full support for national health service health insurance, and admitted that it would be a compulsory charge for NHS treatment.
  My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin)—who has apologised to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to the House for not being able to stay for the conclusion of the debate—ably described how the Government are so devoid of principle that, in the Bill, they are doing the opposite of what they led the electorate to expect before the general election. Although I was very grateful for his kind words about my libertarian credentials, I was more grateful to him for cogently dissecting what I and everyone else now recognise as the Government's intellectual poverty.
  The hon. Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) is a public sector accountant. Therefore she, above all, should know about compulsory insurance. However, she made no case as to why only motorists should face paying such a charge.
  The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Hams) made yet another plea for some expression of principle by the Government. I fear that his plea will have fallen on deaf ears.

  207
  The hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) clearly is new Labour. He tried to give credit for the Bill to the grandfather of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. If the hon. Gentleman drives as fast as he speaks, he will always be done for speeding. He wishes to extend the charging concept, whereas the hon. Member for Wakefield—who is sitting behind him—does not.
  The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas), too, seems to be totally at odds with the hon. Member for Wakefield.
  The Government's approach to the Bill demonstrates their incoherence on the overall issue of national health service charging and on the way in which money in the health service works. The Secretary of State keeps saying that there is no rationing; yet the Government—as they always have done—ration. He said that NHS charges must never exist; yet—in this very Bill—the Government most clearly will charge. The Bill will broaden the incidence of charging. The Secretary of State rails against charges, but today he promotes them. It is an extraordinary volte-face.
  The Bill will increase the scope of charging for treatment, but where is its logic? What will happen next? Let us consider an example that is currently in the news. Barry Horne, an animal rights activist, is on hunger strike. No one has injured him; he is inflicting his condition on himself. He is in a hospital in Yorkshire and is a cost to the national health service. Does the Secretary of State think that he should be charged in some way for the treatment that he is receiving? Does he think that he should pay the costs of the delayed opening of the hospital's new cancer ward, if it is delayed?
  Does the Secretary of State think that charging will eventually be applied to other places that are insured, such as offices and homes, where there might be a fire or an accident? Will charging be applied to train crashes or to dreadful, massive events such as Hillsborough or Zeebrugge when compensation is paid out?
  Does the Secretary of State intend—perhaps he will do the House the courtesy of listening—that, one day, charging might extend to what is deemed a "class action" against tobacco manufacturers, so that those smokers—whose treatment clearly has imposed a cost on the NHS—also have to pay?
  The logic of the legislation shows that it is not about risks that are compulsorily insured but about cases in which compensation happens to be delivered and in which, in the case of motorists, there happens to be compulsory insurance. It is an easy route to a wider charge. No proof of fault is required. There was no principle in the Secretary of State's statement about insurance being compulsory. The simple fact is that compensation in such cases can easily be traced and then returned to the national health service.
  The costs of charging will be passed on. Estimates of the costs range from £50 million to £450 million. Even if the costs figure falls between the high and low estimates, they will cause motorists a notable expense.
  Let us be clear about it: the Government's proposals will hereby extend compulsory charging for NHS treatment of motorists. Let us ignore the Secretary of State's words; let us look at his deeds.
  Motorists will be hit—perhaps, if the higher estimate applies, quite hard. Motorists have already had to pay £9 billion extra in fuel tax. After today's announcement
  208
  by the Deputy Prime Minister, they will probably have to pay road charges. Their vehicle excise duty has gone up, and they face a new car registration tax. Now, they will have to pay for the Bill's proposals.
  I think that the Secretary of State probably used to attack the insurance premium tax, but now he is introducing another tax. He even had the gall to say that insurance premiums will not rise, and cited the case of Direct Line insurance, which essentially said that it already factored in the charges. A charge on an institution does not mean that the individual is not eventually charged. The Government are proposing a wider and more burdensome charge that will fall on the hard-pressed motorist. I urge the House to support our reasoned amendment.
  7.30 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Hutton): As the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) said, this has been a lively debate. More importantly, it has been a well informed and useful debate, in which several hon. Members, particularly Labour Members, have brought their professional and personal experiences to bear on the issue. I should like to respond as fully as possible to the points that have been raised. If I am not able to cover all the points, I shall write to the relevant hon. Members when I have an opportunity for more detailed consideration.
  I am afraid that the speech by the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton has come roughly 70 years too late. The subject matter of the Bill has been on the statute book for that long. As I am sure that he would be the first to admit, when the Conservatives had the opportunity to consider the issue, they endorsed the principle that we are debating.
  We have heard sensible contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew), for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg), for Crawley (Laura Moffatt), for South Swindon (Ms Drown), for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) and for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas). I shall also deal with some of the points made by Opposition Members.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle welcomed the abolition of the emergency treatment fee, as did many other hon. Members. It will be widely welcomed, particularly in the national health service. He highlighted the inefficiencies of the present scheme and mentioned the benefits that the new arrangements will bring to the national health service in Cumbria.
  The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) appeared to be in favour of statutory mechanisms for setting the price of motor insurance, which I found curious. He proceeded to read out most of the Liberal Democrat reasoned amendment, which did not add much to our proceedings. He then tried manfully to distinguish it from the Conservative reasoned amendment, which he went on to say that he would vote for anyway. That is the Liberal Democrats.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Oh dear! We had hoped better of the new Minister, but he has yet to amend his ways. He

  209
  has mentioned insurance contributions. Can he guarantee that insurance premiums for car drivers will not go up as a result of the Bill?
  Mr. Hutton: I intend to deal with that later in my speech.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield also welcomed the abolition of the emergency treatment fee and pointed out the inconsistencies in the Opposition position. He did us all a favour by drawing attention to the ambiguous position adopted by the Conservatives.
  My hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon referred to her experience of trying to administer the existing arrangements. She spoke for many in the national health service when she welcomed the proposals. She described the existing arrangements as complicated and bureaucratic. I assure her that we want the new arrangements to be clear and straightforward. Local hospitals should benefit directly.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South made a persuasive and effective speech, drawing attention to the absurdities of the present arrangements and the fact that the national health service loses out. I welcome her support for the Bill. She also pointed out that the new arrangements will apply to the national health service in Scotland.
  The hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) repeated his concerns about the impact on motorists. I shall deal with that in a moment. He also expressed concerns about what he described as new bureaucracy in the arrangements. That is rich coming from the Conservatives. We are proposing a streamlined system for recovering the charges that are owed to the national health service. It is the best and least bureaucratic scheme that we can devise and it will deliver benefits to the national health service. Intriguingly, he said that he supported some parts of the Bill, but declined to say which. It is a shame that he is going to join his hon. Friends in voting against the Bill.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Crawley welcomed the involvement of the compensation recovery unit. She brought her experience as a nurse to the debate on the emergency treatment fee. She rightly said that the Bill is about fairness.
  I am sorry that the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) is not in his place. Of course, that gives me an opportunity not to refer to his speech, which is a serious temptation. However, I should let my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State know that the hon. Gentleman expressed his admiration for him, which was gratefully received by Labour Members. Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman spoiled it by failing to understand the terms of the Bill or the Government's policy. That revealed the confusion that underpins the Conservative response to our proposals. Sadly, he allowed the hatred of everything European to surface again. He deserves some praise for his ingenuity in getting Europe into the debate. Like other Opposition Members, he has sought to read more into the Bill than he should.
  The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) joined the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey in showing that the Liberal Democrats do not have a coherent or rational position on this occasion—as on many other occasions. It is a mistake for them to join the Conservatives in opposing the Bill.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister cannot seriously say that the Government's position is coherent. They say that
  210
  they are against more charges, but they are bringing forward a Bill that would allow charges in one area to go up. No charges were mentioned in the Labour manifesto, but suddenly, hey presto, the Government are to produce more money from somewhere and charge the public for it.
  Mr. Hutton: The hon. Gentleman has not understood the Bill. No new charges are being introduced. I thought that he had tried to make that point. The logic of his argument, although he did not spell it out in detail, is that he wants to increase taxes substantially. He will have to deal with that when the voters make their judgment at the next general election.
  I should like to return briefly to the subject of the debate—the Bill. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pointed out, it will enable hospitals to benefit fully for the first time in more than 60 years from the provisions that successive Administrations have endorsed, although they have never been given practical effect. This is not the first step on a slippery slope towards charging for NHS treatment. Let me make it crystal clear—no patient is to be charged and no one will be required to insure themselves against the cost of future treatment. The principle that has been in force throughout the existence of the NHS remains: the road user is required to insure against risk to third parties. That includes reimbursing hospitals for the cost of treating third parties.
  We are not talking about charging everyone involved in a road accident for the cost of NHS treatment. The charges will be levied only when a claim for compensation arising from a road traffic accident has been made. The charge will be levied against the insurer of the person responsible for the accident. We estimate that approximately 40 per cent. of all road traffic accidents will be covered by the Bill.
  Reference has been made to insurance premiums. Much of what has been said and written is patently untrue. Our figures show that if insurers pass on the charge—which is by no means certain, as some insurers have been open enough to admit—the effect on the average premium should be very small indeed—around 2 to 3 per cent. or £6 to £9. Insurers already factor potential NHS charges—whether or not they are collected—into premiums.
  As many of my hon. Friends have said, our new system will see in NHS hospitals the end of the iniquitous charging of the emergency treatment fee. That will be better for drivers, hospitals and insurers. Each year there are hundreds of thousands of small transactions between hospitals and drivers and drivers and their insurance companies which will end when the Bill receives Royal Assent. At the current rate of £21.30, the cost of that process must certainly outweigh the benefit. The abolition of the emergency treatment fee will be welcome news to many people in and outside the national health service.
  NHS care is and will remain free to all those who need it. The Bill does not affect that principle. It does not usher in a free season on that principle and it does not remotely hint at a change in direction. Nobody will be denied care or be prevented from seeking it as a result of the Bill. NHS patients stand to benefit directly from the practical steps brought in as a result of the measure and on that basis I commend it to the House.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 150, Noes 347.

  Division No. 18]

  [7.41 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Allan, Richard

  Keetch, Paul

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Key, Robert

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Baker, Norman

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Ballard, Jackie

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Body, Sir Richard

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Lansley, Andrew

  Brady, Graham

  Leigh, Edward

  Brake, Tom

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Lidington, David

  Brazier, Julian

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Breed, Colin

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Loughton, Tim

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Luff, Peter

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Burns, Simon

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Butterfill, John

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Chidgey, David

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Chope, Christopher

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Clappison, James

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

  Moore, Michael

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Norman, Archie

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Oaten, Mark

  Colvin, Michael

  Öpik, Lembit

  Cotter, Brian

  Ottaway, Richard

  Cran, James

  Page, Richard

  Day, Stephen

  Paterson, Owen

  Duncan, Alan

  Pickles, Eric

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Prior, David

  Evans, Nigel

  Randall, John

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Faber, David

  Rendel, David

  Fabricant, Michael

  Robathan, Andrew

  Fallon, Michael

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Gale, Roger

  Ruffley, David

  Garnier, Edward

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Gibb, Nick

  Sanders, Adrian

  Gill, Christopher

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Gorrie, Donald

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

  Gray, James

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Green, Damian

  Spring, Richard

  Greenway, John

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Grieve, Dominic

  Steen, Anthony

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Stunell, Andrew

  Hammond, Philip

  Swayne, Desmond

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Swinney, John

  Harvey, Nick

  Syms, Robert

  Hawkins, Nick

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Hayes, John

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Townend, John

  Horam, John

  Tredinnick, David

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Trend, Michael

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Tyler, Paul

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Hunter, Andrew

  Viggers, Peter

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Wallace, James

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Walter, Robert

  212

  Wardle, Charles

  Wilshire, David

  Waterson, Nigel

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Webb, Steve

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Wells, Bowen

  Woodward, Shaun

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Whittingdale, John

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Willetts, David

  Sir David Madel and

  Willis, Phil

  Mr. Tim Collins.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Colman, Tony

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Connarty, Michael

  Ainger, Nick

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Cooper, Yvette

  Alexander, Douglas

  Corbett, Robin

  Allen, Graham

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Cousins, Jim

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Cranston, Ross

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Crausby, David

  Ashton, Joe

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Cummings, John

  Austin, John

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Barnes, Harry

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Barron, Kevin

  Battle, John

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Dafis, Cynog

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Dalyell, Tam

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Davidson, Ian

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Berry, Roger

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Betts, Clive

  Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Blackman, Liz

  Dawson, Hilton

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Blizzard, Bob

  Denham, John

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Dismore, Andrew

  Boateng, Paul

  Dobbin, Jim

  Borrow, David

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Doran, Frank

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Dowd, Jim

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Drew, David

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Browne, Desmond

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Burden, Richard

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Burgon, Colin

  Ennis, Jeff

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Etherington, Bill

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Caborn, Richard

  Fisher, Mark

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Flint, Caroline

  Campbell—Savours, Dale

  Flynn, Paul

  Canavan, Dennis

  Follett, Barbara

  Cann, Jamie

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Caplin, Ivor

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Casale, Roger

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Foulkes, George

  Chaytor, David

  Fyfe, Maria

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Galbraith, Sam

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Gapes, Mike

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Gerrard, Neil

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Clelland, David

  Goggins, Paul

  Clwyd, Ann

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Coaker, Vernon

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Cohen, Harry

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Coleman, Iain

  Grocott, Bruce

  213

  Grogan, John

  McIsaac, Shona

  Gunnell, John

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Hain, Peter

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  McLeish, Henry

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  McNulty, Tony

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  MacShane, Denis

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  McWilliam, John

  Healey, John

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Marek, Dr John

  Heppell, John

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Hill, Keith

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Marshall—Andrews, Robert

  Home Robertson, John

  Martlew, Eric

  Hood, Jimmy

  Maxton, John

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Michael, Alun

  Hope, Phil

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Milburn, Alan

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Miller, Andrew

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Mitchell, Austin

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Hurst, Alan

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Hutton, John

  Morley, Elliot

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Illsley, Eric

  Mountford, Kali

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Mudie, George

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Mullin, Chris

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Norris, Dan

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Olner, Bill

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Jowell, Ms Tessa

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Pearson, Ian

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Pendry, Tom

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Pike, Peter L

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Plaskitt, James

  Kemp, Fraser

  Pollard, Kerry

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Pond, Chris

  Khabra, Piara S

  Pope, Greg

  Kidney, David

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Purchase, Ken

  Laxton, Bob

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Lepper, David

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Leslie, Christopher

  Radice, Giles

  Levitt, Tom

  Rammell, Bill

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Rapson, Syd

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Lock, David

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Love, Andrew

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  McAllion, John

  Rogers, Allan

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Rooker, Jeff

  McCabe, Steve

  Rooney, Terry

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

  Rowlands, Ted

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Roy, Frank

  Macdonald, Calum

  Ruane, Chris

  McDonnell, John

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  214

  Salter, Martin

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Temple—Morris, Peter

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Sawford, Phil

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Tipping, Paddy

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Todd, Mark

  Sheerman, Barry

  Touhig, Don

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Trickett, Jon

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Truswell, Paul

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Singh Marsha

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Vaz, Keith

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Snape Peter

  Wareing, Robert N

  Soley Clive

  White, Brian

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Stevenson, George

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Wills, Michael

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Winnick, David

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Wise, Audrey

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Wood Mike

  Stott, Roger

  Woolas, Phil

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Wray, James

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Stringer, Graham

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Wyatt, Derek

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Mr. David Hanson and

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Mr. David Jamieson.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 62 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).

ROAD TRAFFIC (NHS CHARGES) BILL [MONEY]
Queen's recommendation having been signified—
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Road Traffic (NHS Charges) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(a) fees and allowances to members of any appeal tribunal established by regulations made under the Act;

(b) any other expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State in consequence of the Act; and

(c) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums so payable by virtue of any other Act.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Question agreed to.

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 25 (Periodic adjournments),
That this House, at its rising on Thursday 17th December, do adjourn till Monday 11th January 1999.—[Mr. Dowd.]
Question agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That, at the sitting on Thursday 17th December, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until she shall have notified the Royal Assent to Acts agreed upon by both Houses.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Rail Fares
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dowd.]
7.56 pm
Mr. Matthew Taylor: Like me, the Minister will probably be rather pleased that this Adjournment debate is taking place earlier than it might have done. Although I do not intend to speak at length, I am more relaxed about timing than I was.
The train network is an integral part of our daily national life and it will become even more important as we strive to cut the number of unnecessary car journeys to avoid congestion and unnecessary environmental destruction. As things stand, car ownership is predicted to rise by 15 per cent. each decade, and many roads and motorways are already running at full capacity. The rail network is vital in reducing the resulting congestion and air pollution.
Rail could take a bigger proportion of travellers and freight, but it will not do so unless it is made more attractive to passengers and to business. In general, rail fares are too expensive and the fare structure is too complicated. Fares have increased sharply in real terms in the past 20 years, but motoring costs have remained stable or have fallen.
According to Government figures, rail fares rose in real terms between 1974 and 1996 by 74.8 per cent. above inflation. By comparison, the real cost of motoring fell by 3.5 per cent. Travelling by car became far more affordable and train travel became less affordable, so it is no wonder that our roads are so clogged.
According to a Union Bank of Switzerland survey last year, rail fares in this country are now the most expensive on the planet. The cost of train travel in the United Kingdom is almost three times the world average. Since privatisation, the franchising director has regulated key commuter and leisure fares, including saver tickets, unrestricted standard return tickets and all standard weekly season tickets. Indeed, the franchising director has a duty under the Railways Act 1993 to regulate those fares where he considers that regulation is required in the interests of passengers.
The Conservative Government believed that market forces would prevent excessive price increases, leaving operators with the freedom to apply commercial judgment in setting a range of non-regulated fares. Those unprotected tickets include the supersaver—the cheapest national long-distance walk-on rail ticket—cheap day returns, family rail cards and the network card.
As Liberal Democrats predicted, companies have been increasing unprotected fares at rates well above inflation; they are clearly taking advantage of the legislative loopholes in the Railways Act. The increases are targeted largely at casual travellers, such as families, shoppers and people who cannot or do not book in advance, who account for about 40 per cent. of ticket sales. There is a very real fear now that, sooner or later, many of the low-cost regulated tickets will be phased out altogether.
Virgin Trains is the worst offender—perhaps unsurprisingly, since that name comes up regularly in these debates—and recently raised the supersaver on its cross-country network by four times the rate of inflation.

217
Virgin argues that it is introducing many new discount offers, but those cheap fares must be booked in advance, can be used only on Virgin trains, are limited by train, number of tickets available and time of day, can be purchased only at main stations or by credit card, are often not available for journeys to and from stations on connecting routes and both outward and return trains must be specified in advance. That is confusing, restrictive and clearly by no stretch of the imagination equivalent to the simple supersaver system.
Virgin is not by any means the only railway company poised to take money from many passengers. Midland Mainline is raising its open first-class return fare from Kettering to Sheffield by 26 per cent. On the politically sensitive west coast main line between London and Glasgow—where passenger complaints run at a startling one for every 100 journeys—there will be rises of up to 19 per cent.
In London, the regulator has already punished rail companies for their dismal performance by ordering them to keep increases below 1.9 per cent.—below inflation. Connex, which operates some of Britain's busiest commuter routes through south London, Kent and Sussex, has got around the restriction by raising the price of cheap day returns—which are not protected by the regulator—by an average of 6.5 per cent.
In my own county, we have been hit by two recent examples. In the spring, Great Western Trains restricted the use of saver tickets, banning them from early and late trains. This meant that passengers using the 5.35 pm from Paddington had to pay £120 return, rather than the previously available £58 saver fare. That is the last train to Penzance. Booking in advance would get passengers a fare reduction, but not everybody can do that. The day return discount remains, but a day return from Cornwall to London is hardly realistic, since it would leave only few hours at most in London. If one cannot book in advance, one must pay far more to travel at reasonable times.
Similarly, in 1995, Great Western planned to withdraw group travel arrangements for school parties from certain services. I took that up and got it reversed but, this October, the company did it again. Schools either pay full fare, or must travel when it is convenient for Great Western. In the case with which I was presented, that meant that people were not travelling on an early train to get home at a reasonable time, and were forced to arrive very late at night. Previously, we got the decision reversed almost immediately I took it up. On this occasion, after two months, Great Western has not even bothered to reply to my representations—despite repeated attempts to chase the company up.
Mr. Don Foster: My hon. Friend is right to say that it is not acceptable to have effective fare increases while punctuality is getting worse. However, does he accept that Great Western—which uses his constituency and mine—is not entirely responsible for some of the difficulties? Some of the punctuality problems lie at the door of Railtrack, rather than the operating company. Does he accept that a survey has shown that only 30 per cent. of punctuality problems are the result of Great Western, while 70 per cent. are the result of Railtrack? Does he agree, therefore, that Railtrack should get its act together and do more to help the companies?
Mr. Taylor: I thank my hon. Friend, and there is time for him to elaborate on that point in a speech, if he wishes.
218
The point is well made. There are problems with Railtrack. As a regular user of Great Western, I have relatively few complaints about the quality of service, and the staff do a superb job. However, on fares, Great Western and others have used the unregulated system as a means of making up the costs of the restrictions on regulated fares. That has done a considerable disservice to passengers in Cornwall, who may, on average, end up paying a little less, but do so for a service that is not at the times they want. There is also the risk that, if they cannot travel at those times, they have to pay considerably more.
All the rail companies argue that, by offering advance booking discounted tickets instead of supersavers, they are not penalising passengers, but that is nonsense. The tickets are generally limited in number, more limited in terms of which services are included and require considerable pre-planning. There is no flexibility if those plans go awry.
The railway is traditionally a "turn-up-and-go" carrier—greatly to the benefit of passengers—and the application of an airline pre-booking style arrangement undermines the flexibility of rail travel. Ultimately, that will reduce the flexibility of passengers to use the service and, therefore, the numbers using it. My fear is that, as the ability of the service to take more passengers increases, profits will be taken from the increases, but flexibility will not be restored. Not all passengers can plan their journeys days or weeks in advance—especially the return leg. They therefore have to choose between a loss of flexibility or a higher—sometimes much higher—fare.
Analysis of ticket types by the Central rail users consultative committee revealed larger fare rises for passengers who purchase their tickets at the time of travelling and smaller fare rises for passengers who buy tickets in advance. Fares that could be purchased immediately before travel went up, on average, by 3.4 per cent., while tickets that had to be purchased in advance went up, on average, by 1.8 per cent.
Average fares paid by passengers are often quoted by the rail companies, and by the Government in official responses, on the ground that average fares paid by passengers have fallen. Those fares have fallen slightly in real terms, it is true, but that masks gains for some at the considerable expense of others. There has been an overall reduction in the flexibility of the service that passengers receive. These have not been free cuts: they have been cuts at the expense of the service that passengers get.
The Central rail users consultative committee—the statutory watchdog protecting and promoting the interests of rail passengers—has revealed that nine out of 25 train operators increased prices in real terms in spite of deteriorating performance, punctuality and reliability. It is not even the case that all companies are offering reduced real-terms prices on average. For instance, Connex South Eastern was able to raise fares by an average of 4.4 per cent. during a period when major delays increased by 30 per cent. and cancellations on the Kent coast services rose by a staggering 100 per cent.
A report issued yesterday by the Central rail users consultative committee set out the passenger charter figures for the year ending September 1998, and showed that the proportion of train delays is now 35 per cent. higher than in the year ending March 1997, which marked the completion of franchising. Complaints to the local

219
committee network have also continued to rise, and are now more than a third up on the same period last year. In July, August and September of this year, the committee received nearly 5,000 complaints—an increase of 39 per cent. over the same period last year, and a 45 per cent. increase over the April-June total.
In Devon and Cornwall, the South West rail users consultative committee recorded a 200 per cent. increase in complaints last year—the highest in the country, but by no means exceptional. In November, the same committee made one of the more bizarre announcements by the rail industry—almost on a par with "the wrong kind of leaves". It announced that it could not cope with the rising tide of complaints—this is the body set up to receive complaints—and would no longer answer calls in the morning, so that it could deal with the backlog. I suppose refusing to answer the telephone is one way of cutting complaints, but it is not a solution of any help to irate passengers.
Since privatisation, companies have been concentrating their efforts on introducing their own fares, which are available only on their services and from which they keep all the revenue. Revenue from national fares is divided up between the companies. That reduces choice and price competition, and makes arranging travel far more complex.
For inter-city companies, we are moving towards an airline approach—multiple classes, multiple fares and multiple hassle, complication and misery. It is possible with certain companies to pick up cheaper advance fares, but the downside is that the fares structure becomes an impenetrable jungle, which the staff—never mind the passenger—have difficulty in understanding. For example, three different companies operate between Gatwick and central London, offering a total of 36 different standard-class fares.
Rail travellers are now being hit by a further blow: the withdrawal, not for the first time, of cheap travel over Christmas. That is a Scrooge-like measure at this time of year. Supersaver tickets have been cancelled from 18 December to 1 January. With increasing complaints, delays and cancellations, and the certainty of packed trains, the least the rail companies could do this year is to stop being Scrooge and offer a little Christmas spirit by maintaining saver tickets; that is, if anybody can find the right train in the first place: the Christmas timetable should have been available in early October but, like many services, it is running late. Some Christmas journey timetables have still not been published two weeks before Christmas.
Liberal Democrats opposed the Conservative Government's privatisation of the railways because we foresaw problems such as higher fare increases on non-regulated tickets, confused booking arrangements and deteriorating service. We and the Labour party did not believe that privatisation would deliver either a high quality of service or the necessary investment. Since privatisation, quality has indeed continued to decline. Private partnerships to increase investment in the system would have made sense; the botched system that we got did not. No wonder not a single Conservative Member is present for this debate.
220
I know that the Government accept that they need to tackle rail companies that continually abuse franchise loopholes, but their commitment to rail travel has so far failed to get legislative backing. I welcome the news that the Deputy Prime Minister announced this week: that, as a result of agreement on the handling of House of Lords reform, the Government hope as a priority to introduce legislation to establish a strategic rail authority. But that is not definite, to say the least, as the Conservative leader clearly has other ideas about that agreement, as we all know.
Frustrated rail travellers this Christmas may well wonder why the Deputy Prime Minister failed to secure the Bill in the Queen's Speech in the first place. They have heard the rail companies blaming the wrong kind of leaves for delays; perhaps this is an example of the wrong kind of Lords.
It is time for action. Welcome as the Government's words have been, non-regulated fares are going up at high speed, despite the fact that more and more trains are late or cancelled. The only answer is high-speed legislation from the Government to sort out the situation in the new year, not a further delay into the new millennium.
8.12 pm
Mr. Paul Tyler: I am grateful both to the Minister and to my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) for allowing me to make a brief contribution.
My hon. Friend, who normally speaks loudly and clearly on behalf of Cornwall, has taken a national perspective this evening, so I shall indulge in being rather more parochial than usual. I have one of the most rural constituencies in the United Kingdom, with only 100 yd of mainline railway. We have a branch line of which we are all extremely proud, and we hope that we can keep it, but we do not have a great railway service. Far be it from me to suggest that we should reopen all the lines that used to traverse the constituency, because that would cost a great deal.
Any effort to assist those who live in sparsely settled rural areas to get access to public transport will be a long and difficult process. We warmly welcome the Government's commitment to assisting people in rural areas, but access to the main railway network is extremely difficult for many of my constituents. That does not mean that we should not attempt to improve access. Many of my constituents have to travel many miles before they can reach a railhead, but it is none the less important for them to have access to the national and—through the channel tunnel—international rail network.
Cornwall has a high percentage of people who, through age or disability, have no access to cars. Welcome as the Government's commitment to rural public transport is, it would be even more impressive if we had more commitment to those who want to use that transport. There is no contradiction: it is perfectly possible to devise subsidies to support services that will not provide what people in fact need.
That is why we were especially glad that the Deputy Prime Minister committed himself to a national concessionary fare for public transport for all retired people. I hope that the Minister will spell out in a little more detail how that will work and what the time scale for implementation will be.

221
The comparatively urban communities that can provide concessionary fares tend to be the ones that least need them, for the simple reason that the distances to be travelled are much shorter, while more rural areas tend to have few or no concessionary fare schemes for the retired and the disabled. It is clearly preferable to subsidise passengers to fill trains—and buses—rather than subsidising operators for the losses that they make through vehicles being empty. I hope that that principle will underline the introduction of the scheme. More detail, please, and as early as possible. Many organisations and individuals feel that the scheme is the right way forward, but it must be introduced urgently.
As my party's Chief Whip, I underline our commitment to say godspeed to any legislation that will improve the Government's strategic control over the rail network: both Railtrack and the operating companies. That is urgent. If, as a result of the shenanigans at the other end of the Corridor last week, there is real progress in other legislation, I hope that the Government will find it possible urgently to introduce legislation to improve public transport.
I know that there are other candidates for any vacant slot in the legislative programme, and I would not want to express any great preference between freedom of information, the food standards agency and the strategic rail authority, but I hope that the Minister will take it from us that we wish her the very best of luck in trying to get the rail legislation into the programme.
8.18 pm
Mr. Norman Baker: I entirely agree with the comments of my hon. Friends the Members for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) and for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler). The fact that there are so many Liberal Democrats present tonight underlines my party's commitment to rail issues. Excluding yourself, Mr. Deputy Speaker, 75 per cent. of those present were Liberal Democrats, until the most recent arrivals—the figure may now be 60 per cent., and declining as I speak.
Mr. Matthew Taylor: Still no Tories.
Mr. Baker: That is true.
We must consider rail fares as a crucial part of the rail industry as a whole. Rail fares are important for social reasons. Many people who depend on public transport have no access to private motor vehicles, and it is doubly unfair for those—often in rural constituencies such as mine and those of many of my hon. Friends—who cannot afford cars to have to pay over the odds for train tickets.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and St. Austell said, rail fares have increased dramatically compared with the increase in the cost of motoring over the past 20 years. That cannot make any sense socially or environmentally, as I am sure the Minister will agree. We and the Government want more people on trains and fewer on the roads. It would be helpful if the Government would commit themselves to a target under the road traffic reduction legislation, so that we can know that in a set period, perhaps four or five years, there will be a reduction target for the vehicles on our roads or the mileage that they clock up.
The Minister said earlier this Session that if no action was taken there would be a 9 per cent. increase in vehicles on our roads, or their mileage. That cannot be allowed
222
to happen. We must get more people on trains. A key way to do that is to reduce fares—to eliminate some of the problems that have occurred over the past 20 years, when rail fares have rocketed.
I, too, will be parochial in this short debate and speak about my constituency. We have had a plan in my constituency for the massive upgrading of the trunk road—the A27—between Lewes and Polegate. I declare an interest, living next to the trunk road and next to the railway line. We live in an old railway cottage and therefore benefit or otherwise from both of those pieces of infrastructure.
The previous Government had a plan to spend £80 million on adding four lanes to the existing two lanes of the A27, without even looking at the potential of the parallel rail line. This Government have said that they are prepared to consider the integration of road and rail, and they must do that. If rail fares can be cut, even if that involves public money, that will help to solve traffic problems far more than spending on infrastructure works.
We must get away from the days when we were told that money spent on roads is investment and money spent on rail is subsidy. That is nonsense. Money spent on rail is investment as well, no matter whether it is spent on reducing fares or on infrastructure. Whether it meets a social and environmental end, helps to move people around or helps the economy, those are the criteria that the Government should use, rather than some artificial Treasury figure created in 1942, in setting out what should be invested in our infrastructure. The Government should not shy away from considering direct investment to reduce rail fares, if that is the most satisfactory way of achieving their integrated transport objectives.
My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and St. Austell rightly mentioned Connex and what the company has done to certain fares in south London. I have been negotiating with the company in my constituency, and I am happy to say that partly as a consequence of that—no doubt other factors are involved—certain off-peak fares from Lewes, Newhaven, Seaford and Polegate to London have been cut by 25 per cent. That is what we should encourage other train operating companies to do.
On the Carlisle-Settle rail line a few years ago, British Rail used to shut stations, reduce services, increase fares and then say that the line was not economic. After much pressure from the public, BR reversed its policy and started opening stations, marketing the line and attracting passengers, and the line is now a success. Rail companies can improve financial accountability and profitability by cutting fares. That is the message that I have given my local rail company, and I hope the same message will come out of the House tonight.
All the way through my constituency, we have rail lines parallel to roads. It would make a wonderful example for a case study, if the Government were minded to do that. We would be happy to co-operate if such a study were undertaken. The congestion problems on the trunk roads in my constituency could largely be solved if rail travel was made more attractive by reducing fares, introducing new rolling stock and making stations safer. If that is done, there will not be a problem on the A27 or the A26. We must start considering lateral solutions.
I shall mention one or two other matters, to which I hope the Minister will respond. National rail inquiries is not coming up to standard in terms of the number of calls

223
answered within the due time—less than 90 per cent., according to the most recent figures. More to the point, it gives conflicting and inaccurate information regarding both the appropriate route for passengers to take and the cost of fares available on particular routes.
What quality measurement is taking place at national rail inquiries? It is easy to measure the speed of response to calls, but who is measuring the quality of the answers given by national rail inquiries? The answers given leave something to be desired. I suggest that quality is being sacrificed in an effort to reach the target of 90 per cent., as failure to meet it could result in a fine. That is not to the benefit of rail passengers.
The powers of the strategic rail authority need to be clarified. We are told that it will be introduced in shadow form or in full during this Session. What powers will it have? What powers will it take away from Railtrack? In my view, it should take away Railtrack's safety responsibilities. What powers will it have over fare levels? How will it interact with the rail regulator, Opraf?
My hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall mentioned the problems of elderly people travelling. A parliamentary answer that I received from the Minister this afternoon showed that the number of people who have bought a senior citizens railcard has dropped dramatically since 1990, although it has gone up over the past year. The population is getting older, so there should be more, not fewer, people buying such tickets. A disincentive has been applied to that ticket. Presumably, if older people are not buying the railcard, they are either using their cars or not travelling, neither of which is satisfactory if we want to encourage freedom of movement for all sections of society, including the elderly.
I accept that the problems are not the Government's fault because of what they inherited. I hope that they will be tough on the train operating companies where necessary, and perhaps also tough on the causes of the train operating companies, although they are not present tonight. I hope that the Government will introduce the strategic rail authority as soon as possible, give it firm powers and ensure that fares on our trains are cut.
8.25 pm
Mr. Phil Willis: I am delighted to make a brief contribution to the debate. My constituency is not as rural as that of my hon. Friends. Harrogate and Knaresborough is an urban constituency, but we rely heavily on rail transport for the economic regeneration of the town and to get people in and out of the former West Riding conurbations, where they travel to work each day.
Harrogate boasts one of the largest conference and exhibition businesses in the United Kingdom. The Liberal Democrats will be holding their conference there next year. The conference and exhibition facilities attract visitors from all over the world. They arrive at Leeds-Bradford airport, which is an excellent regional airport, and travel to the constituency by road. It can take them as long to get from the airport into the conference centre as it took them to fly up from London, because of traffic congestion on the roads.
If people come up by train from London to York, they will have one of the best rail services in Europe. Great North Eastern Railway undoubtedly runs a Rolls-Royce
224
service between London and Scotland on the east coast main line. I have no difficulty in praising GNER for running such a first-class service. However, people get off the train at York and have to wait for what can only be described as a horse and cart. The service provided by Northern Spirit between York and Harrogate and on to Leeds is unacceptable as we move towards the next millennium. It is a service more fitting for the 1950s than for the 21st century.
Because of the poor quality of the service and of the rolling stock, it is difficult to sell the service to the public who would wish to use it. The part of the line from Harrogate to Leeds is well used, especially at peak commuter times. It is impossible to get on the train particularly at the Leeds border, the point at which it hits the former West Riding passenger transport executive area. From that point on, there are subsidised fares, and, it is possible to travel at significantly reduced rates at peak and off-peak times. As soon as the train crosses the border from Leeds and North Yorkshire into my constituency, there are no such benefits or subsidies, and the people who rely on the line must pay the full fares despite having all the inconveniences of the line.
The Minister's right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister claimed that passenger transport executives would be extended, and that all authorities in the United Kingdom would receive the same benefits. Then, groups of people in large conurbations would not be treated differently from others in more rural and isolated areas, who, it could be argued, are more dependent on public transport. The people of my constituency certainly rely on public transport, and I hope that the Minister will tell us her plans to extend the benefits of passenger transport executives across the UK, and particularly into Harrogate and Knaresborough.
Many people in my constituency are elderly. People traditionally retire to Harrogate and Knaresborough as the constituency is beautiful and has many advantages. However, if they want to use the rail transport network to get to Leeds or York at either end of the line, especially if they have an ambulant disablement, they face real difficulties. The two ends of the line boast two of the largest stations in the UK, but they have not one escalator between them. Huge improvements are happening at York station, but when I asked when escalators would be installed, I was told that there would be none. I asked about the multi-million pound investment in Leeds station, and was again told that there would be no escalators.
It is extremely difficult for people who have mobility problems to use our stations. If we want people to use the railways, we have to provide facilities not only on trains, but in stations. Only then will people of all classes be attracted to using the system.
8.32 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): I congratulate the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) not only on securing the debate, but on managing—though not single-handedly—to introduce it earlier than expected into the House's programme this evening. He has afforded an opportunity to several of his hon. Friends to make speeches.
The hon. Members for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), for Lewes (Mr. Baker) and for Bath (Mr. Foster)—I regret that the last-named hon. Member is not in his place—

225
have each, in their individual and inimitable ways, raised the issue of rural transport, or, rather, the marked lack of it. Although the essential thrust of the debate raised by the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell had to do with the failure of the railways to provide a first-rate service to the millions of people who are willing to travel on them, other issues have been raised.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall spoke of access to the railways from his rural constituency. He will be aware of the sizeable rural bus grant—£50 million every year for the next three years—which is being specifically targeted at tackling the type of issues that he and his hon. Friends have raised. Additional sums were available for a rural bus competition that sought innovative schemes to deal with the most sparsely populated and most dispersed rural communities, and we shall soon announce the results.
The hon. Members for North Cornwall, for Lewes and for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) spoke of how pensioners feel themselves to be impacted against. There again, the Government have taken steps to redress that position. Although few local authorities provide concessionary fares for their pensioners, as the House will know the Government have said that there will be a national scheme and it is proposed that all pensioners will be able to have them for a down payment of £5.
In the first instance, we are obviously concentrating on our bus network. We want bus services to increase and to integrate with rail services. The hon. Member for Lewes mentioned the availability of senior citizens' railcards and I have noticed the downturn in applications for the railcard in the past few years. In common with the hon. Gentleman, I am delighted that the figures are now rising, but I am not convinced that the failure to apply is necessarily due to the cost; it is due to the fact that our railways have not provided the type of service that we need.
The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough mentioned the inaccessibility of many stations. Through the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, the Government are committed to ensure that all public transport is accessible to all our citizens. Indeed, from 1 January all new rolling stock must be accessible to everyone, but I would not attempt to convince hon. Members—nor would I be believed if I did—that all rolling stock will be accessible on that date; nor would I be believed if I attempted to convince them that all our stations will be accessible.
All hon. Members who spoke mentioned the need for a strategic rail authority. The lack of investment that marked the previous Administration for decades underlies all the specific and general problems that were raised tonight. The fact that investment in our railway network—
Mr. Bob Russell: Will the Minister comment on the total absence of the official Opposition? Is that a boycott, a snub, or evidence of a could-not-care-less attitude on the part of the Administration who left us in this situation?
Ms Jackson: I would like to think that that absence is due to a sense of shame, but that is highly unlikely as the Opposition markedly failed to express any of that attribute in anything that they said before or after their crushing defeat.
226
Essentially, the issue is the failure to invest adequately post-privatisation. As the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell said, the Liberal Democrat and Labour parties campaigned ferociously against what we still believe to have been a benighted policy. Post-privatisation there has been no strategic authority capable of directing, in the national interest, where investment should go. That would be one of the central responsibilities of the strategic rail authority and I was delighted that hon. Members welcomed the Government's proposal to create one.
I took on board the suggestion that the necessary legislation might be introduced sooner rather than later because of what I can only describe as some bizarre goings-on at the other end of the Corridor and the even more bizarre reactions to them by the Leader of the Opposition. As hon. Members will know, however, we have given a commitment that a shadow strategic rail authority will be in place by next April—we hope.
Mr. Tyler: I am glad to hear that, but will the Minister deal with the problem of co-ordination between the rail and bus networks? In the previous Parliament I was our party spokesman on transport during part of privatisation process and, as she rightly said, Labour and Liberal Democrat Members stood shoulder to shoulder to try to prevent the desecration of our rail system. One problem that resulted from the deregulation of the bus network in 1983 was the overall lack of co-ordination and integration between public transport services. In a constituency such as mine, if bus services do not link with train services, all the work that the strategic rail authority might do could be undermined.
Ms Jackson: I entirely agree and the train operating companies are beginning not only to talk to each other but to take on board the fact that—
Ms Candy Atherton: I am seeking a meeting with Great Western to put the views of my constituents on rail fares and the lack of a train service to meet their needs. It has been brought to my attention that travel between Falmouth and Camborne and Paddington was faster in the 19th century than it is today. I find that staggering, as I am sure does the Minister. Does she support me in seeking that meeting to make the case for my constituents?
Ms Jackson: I strongly support my hon. Friend in her desire for a meeting with her train operating company. She is right about journey times. Across central London, they are about the same as they were in the 18th century. That is another thing that the Government are committed to addressing and redressing.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall mentioned the integration of the various transport modes. I believe that both the train operating companies and the bus providers realise—certainly we have urged them to—that the competition is not with one another but with the private car. That is not exclusively because bus and train companies are often one and the same, although bus companies have invested in train operating companies. As I have had occasion to say before, if they cannot provide high-quality services, and the choice is between sitting in

227
an ever-growing traffic jam and standing on a wet, windy pavement or platform waiting for a vehicle that may not arrive, the car will win hands down every time.
Mr. Matthew Taylor: As several bus operators have taken over rail companies, does the Minister agree that it is unacceptable for companies to think that branch line services in particular can be replaced by bus services? There is a tendency in that direction. They clearly believe that there may be profits to be made from doing it.
Ms Jackson: If companies are approaching the matter on the basis of not expanding and increasing services, it is clearly something that one would not welcome. However, I will not say categorically that, in every instance, the best quality of service that can be provided, particularly in sparsely populated rural areas, must be the maintenance of a branch line, when an infinitely better, faster, more modern, more accessible service could be provided by, say, a coach that linked up with the main line.
However, all such proposals must be considered individually; there cannot be a blanket yes or no. That is one reason why the Government have found extra money for two new funds—the investment fund and the passenger fund. They will act as the seedcorn to bring together a partnership comprising several interests to advance a business case that could, for example, revitalise a branch line if custom warranted it.
The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough mentioned passenger transport executives and authorities. The recurring theme that informs Government thinking is the integration of our transport modes. We are looking to local authorities to create integrated transport plans for their areas. Again, we have made a major breakthrough, because they will be expected to submit plans that will take three to five years to complete, and involve budgets that will run for three years. We have got away from the annual begging bowl round for local authorities in presenting their transport plans. The integrated transport plans will have to fit in with the much wider regional transport plans.
I was impressed when I took part in four of the eight meetings between Ministers and the regional authorities by just how much co-operation and partnership is already in place throughout the country. I was impressed by the willingness—indeed, eagerness—of local and regional authorities to work together and to advance policies to produce the transport plans the country so desperately needs. We are talking about integrated transport, which requires that everyone involved should work together in a genuine spirit of partnership.
Mr. Willis: I am grateful for the response that the Minister has just made. May I clarify the issue of subsidies? The huge subsidies that are going into some of the existing passenger transport executives do not equate with the subsidy that goes into a county such as North Yorkshire. Is the Minister saying that resources will be equalised on a regional basis, or shall we still have inequities in grant aid?
Ms Jackson: If the hon. Gentleman is thinking of some of the passenger transport authorities and executives of
228
which I am aware—I hope that he will not take it as an insult, but the one that most immediately comes to mind is Greater Manchester—my reply is that we have seen massive investment in rail infrastructure by those local authorities. The hon. Gentleman would call it special grant, but there has to be a balancing of the amount that such authorities have already invested to ensure that the investment gives a return.
We have managed, following the comprehensive spending review, to make available an additional £700 million for local authorities' transport plans. We have also introduced hypothecation. Local authorities will, via congestion charging and a private non-residential parking levy, be able to raise an income stream, which they will be able to use only for improving transport in their area. I repeat that local authorities will be expected to submit plans. They can plan for three to five years with the assurance that there will be budgets. We have got away from the annual begging bowl round.
I trust that the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell will forgive me for concentrating in the first part of my speech on the points made by his hon. Friends, many of which were inherent in his speech. I assure hon. Members on both sides of the House, and, indeed, the entire country, that issues surrounding transport in rural areas are central to the Government's thinking. We are well aware of the difficulties in many rural areas. We have taken major steps to address them. This is not empty rhetoric. We have put the wherewithal—money—behind it, to begin to address and redress the issues.
I am sure that the House and the country will agree that the last thing that rail passengers want for Christmas—the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell dubbed some of the train operating companies Scrooges—is news of even more fare rises. But with key fares now regulated by the franchising director, widespread annual above-inflation January increases are now a thing of the past.
However, despite that good news, I remain concerned—the speeches by other hon. Members this evening have confirmed that I am not alone in my concern—that some unregulated off-peak fares continue to increase above the rate of inflation. The growth market in discount fares has not stopped some operators putting up the prices in real terms of unregulated cheap day returns, supersavers and similar discounted fares. The hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell gave some detailed information on that issue.
That has happened not only in the south-west but in many parts of the country, which will be of no comfort to the hon. Gentleman or any of his constituents. Basic economics surely dictates that higher fares will not encourage more people to travel by train. Train operators have to consider whether increasing off-peak fares is the best way to attract new rail passengers and fill spare capacity.
The absence of control over unregulated fares is a consequence of legally binding franchise agreements inherited from the previous Government. I regret that there is little practical scope for altering the current arrangements in the short term. However, we have made it clear that, when opportunities arise for negotiating franchises, the new strategic rail authority will ensure that arrangements are made to ensure that train operators structure and market their fares to offer value for money for their passengers, and to reflect the fact that our railway

229
is a national network, which needs to be marketed accordingly and in a way that encourages people to switch from car to train.
Mr. David Drew: I should like to raise two issues on which my hon. Friend the Minister might care to comment. The first is the definition of "peak" times, which is a fairly elastic phrase. Secondly, the problem is not only what people pay, but the service they receive. The trains are now a worse-kept secret, and many people use the train only to be put off by the low-quality service they receive—for example, the train is overcrowded, or there is no buffet car. The two problems must be tackled together.
Ms Jackson: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. In his own way, he underlines a point made by several hon. Members, which is that there has been a lamentable lack of investment in our railways, not only in infrastructure, but in rolling stock. We cannot drag back the wasted years, but we can, via the strategic rail authority, begin to ensure that investment is not only adequate in terms of amounts, but strategically placed, so that the improvements that everyone wants take place.
Mr. Andrew George: Following the points raised by the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), would the Minister care to comment on one of the many anomalies resulting from the way in which the rail service was privatised—the role of rolling stock companies? In my part of the world, many trains on branch lines run with only one carriage when there should be three or four. The Minister may correct me, but my understanding of what the service operators tell me is that they have no recourse against the three rolling stock companies that supply those shoddy services.
Ms Jackson: The hon. Gentleman introduces the subject of rolling stock companies. If I get started on that subject, any benefits the House has gained from the Adjournment starting sooner than expected would totally disappear. It was surely one of the most crass aspects of rail privatisation that the rolling stock companies were sold off at a fraction of their real worth, and entirely outside the regulatory system. Orders are now being laid, and new rolling stock will come on to our railways, but that is not before time.
The pieces of good news that I recounted at the start of my speech will be of little comfort to the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell, as many of his constituents have seen their fares increase by more than inflation. Last summer's decision by Wales and West Passenger Trains to ban cheap day returns to several popular holiday resorts in Cornwall might have made sense to the train operating company and helped it to manage overcrowding, but it is a bitter pill for passengers, many of whom are totally reliant on those rail services for their own essential travel. In addition, I very much doubt that high local fares benefit the Cornish local economy, dependent as it is on tourism and holiday travel.
I know that Great Western Trains has also made changes to its fares for journeys between London and Cornwall. I am aware of concern about the fact that saver tickets are no longer available for use on the popular 5.30 pm departure from Paddington—a point raised by the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell. However,
230
I understand that Great Western Trains has made arrangements to accommodate day travellers from Cornwall to London by other means, including a flexible all-day services day return ticket and the super advance fare.
I would be surprised and disappointed if train operators did not consider different ways of meeting the needs of their passengers, and providing them with good value for money for the journeys they wish to make. As well as meeting the fares regulation requirements, train operators must show the franchising director that they are improving their customers' satisfaction with the service and value on offer.
Mr. Matthew Taylor: As the rail regulator and Great Western will undoubtedly refer to this debate, it is important to make it clear that a day return from Cornwall is no substitute for a saver fare, because few people will make the round trip to London in a single day. The time is very limited. The only real option is the advance fare, and not everyone is able to make use of it.
Ms Jackson: It is entirely probable that the rail regulator and Great Western Trains will attempt to obtain a copy of the Official Report to read this debate. If they do not, I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall certainly bring it to their attention.
Recent research has shown that, on average and in real terms, fares overall have been falling since privatisation. From January 1999, key fares such as saver tickets, unrestricted standard returns where there are no savers, and all standard weekly season tickets, will be capped at 1 per cent. below the rate of inflation. They will remain capped for each of the next four years.
In the London, Edinburgh and Cardiff areas, where there is significant commuting and the railways exercise considerable monopoly power, all standard season tickets and a range of standard singles and unrestricted standard returns are also capped. For non-lnterCity London commuter fares, the fares cap can be adjusted further to reflect the quality of service provided by operators—a point made by the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell.
With the exception of Silverlink trains, the average permitted increase in London commuter fares has been capped below the rate of inflation, to reflect falling performance levels over the last year. That means a reduction in real terms for passengers. However, as many passengers have told me, they want reliability more than anything else: they want the train to be there when they arrive at the station, and they want to be sure that it will arrive at its destination at the advertised time.
Passengers expecting the usual January fares increase will have been surprised by Connex Rail's announcement last week that it would be reducing the cost of many commuter rail fares in the south-east. Connex Rail's decision should help to make rail travel more attractive and encourage people to leave their cars at home—and every hon. Member who has spoken this evening has stressed the desirability of that outcome. I strongly welcome that move, and I hope that it will mark the beginning of a trend to attract more passengers with value-for-money fares across the rail network.
I also welcome moves by train operators to promote discount fares such as Apex—I know that the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell does not share my

231
view of that method of selling tickets—and other advance-booked products to attract people to their services, particularly in off-peak hours, when space capacity currently exists. As a result, passengers are using the cheapest tickets more than ever before.
The take-up of journeys made by purchasing Apex and similar advance-booked tickets has increased by 40 per cent. in two years. Indeed, the increase in the average fare paid between April 1996 and April 1998 was only 3 per cent.—below the rate of inflation. Popular discount railcard schemes—the senior railcard, the young persons railcard and the disabled railcard—which allow reduced rail travel for holders have also been protected by the franchising director.
One of the obvious failures of rail privatisation has been the perceived lack of a clear, understandable, national fares structure. Although I welcome many of the new and innovative fares introduced by train operators, they have led to a multiplicity of different and frequently changing fares for similar services, with, in some cases, complex and varied conditions—for example, in relation to advance booking.
Mr. Colin Breed: I want to try to ensure that every hon. Member from Cornwall speaks tonight, so I shall relate to the Minister an experience that I had a few weeks ago when I was trying to book a ticket.
I waited in the queue for about 20 minutes with nothing else to do, so I decided to time the people standing at the full inquiry desks, where three clerks were trying to work out fares. That is difficult for the public to do. Even the clerks, poring over computer screens and huge books, were taking five to six minutes to deal with each inquiry. Surely there is a better method, whether it uses a paper or computer system. Inquiries about the best ticket for a particular journey must take less time. To stand in a queue for nearly half an hour, as I did, while clerks spend five to six minutes on each inquiry will clearly put people off travelling at all.
Ms Jackson: It may be of some comfort to the hon. Gentleman to know that the Association of Train Operating Companies is engaged in producing a high-tech system that will mean that the wait to which he was subject, and which many would-be rail travellers suffer, will be a thing of the past. I am in no position to say when that system will come on line, but it will do so. Of course, as I have said, that does not attack the problem of the multiplicity of fares and people's sheer inability to understand how they are arrived at, which we want to be addressed.
Mr. Baker: Before the Minister concludes—she seems to be coming to the end of her remarks—will she respond to my earlier point about the quality of response from national rail inquiries in dealing with the multiplicity of fares, which is diminishing so that they can meet their targets of answering a call on time?
Ms Jackson: The hon. Gentleman should have more faith—I intended to deal with that issue before I
232
wound up. As he has pushed me, I say to him that we are disappointed that the rail regulator has had occasion, yet again, to impose stinging fines on the Association of Train Operating Companies over the failure of the national rail inquiries system. I have regular meetings with the association, and I assure all hon. Members who have spoken that I will raise with the association the issues that have been mentioned tonight.
I am concerned about the complexity that passengers often face when booking an apparently simple journey. The hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) related a direct personal experience of that. I am particularly concerned that there may be instances of passengers paying more than they should or receiving inaccurate advice about the service and routes they may use. As I said, we can do little to change the current fares arrangements in the short term, and I do not want to deprive passengers of many popular bargain fares that are now widely available. However, it is surely not too much to ask train operators to make sure that they correctly advise passengers on every occasion.
When I and my right hon. Friends the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of Transport met train operators and Railtrack last month, we made it clear that we expect progressive year-on-year improvements from the industry starting over the next 12 months. Passengers want an efficient, reliable and reasonably priced rail service. I assure the House that we shall do everything in our power to ensure that train operators redouble their efforts to deliver a good service at a reasonable price.
I shall discuss with the train operating companies the issues that have been raised, including that of school parties, which the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell mentioned. That could be addressed. There are considerations of capacity but, as the hon. Member for Bath, who I regret is not in his place, has said. Railtrack has failed adequately to invest in certain parts of the network. We have discussed the failure of the rolling stock companies to provide new stock.
Although we argued against rail privatisation, as did Liberal Democrats, we have to acknowledge that we are where we are. We have to move forward. Vast amounts of public money are still going into our railways. I was interested to hear that the hon. Member for Lewes has opted for our approach to this. Money put into roads was deemed by the previous Administration to be investment, but money put into railways was subsidy. We totally reject that argument.
For a variety of reasons, not least the environment and economic sustainability, we are committed to ensuring that our railways carry more passengers and more freight. We have made it abundantly clear to the train operating companies and to the entire railway industry that there is potential for a renaissance in our railways, but it will be achieved only by everybody working together. If we need to push and shove a little, the Government are determined to do that.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at five minutes past Nine o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Women Prisoners
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many women held in prisons in England and Wales on 1 November had a child or children with them. [62022]

  Mr. George Howarth
  On 1 November 1998, 53 women had their babies with them in the four mother and baby units in the female prison estate.

  Mr. Farrakhan
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to make a final decision on the application of Mr. Farrakhan to visit the United Kingdom. [62285]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Earlier this year, my right hon. Friend carried out a full review of Mr. Farrakhan's exclusion from the United Kingdom. My right hon. Friend was minded to continue the exclusion, but invited representations to be made. Those representations are being given careful consideration and we expect to take a final decision shortly.

  Asylum and Immigration
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many asylum seekers have been convicted of offences punishable with imprisonment in the last year for which figures are available; [62212]

  (2) how many asylum seekers have been (a) excluded and (b) deported from the United Kingdom as a result of the commission of crime in another country in the last year for which figures are available; [62206]

  (3) how many asylum applicants have been ordered to be deported as a result of the commission of criminal offences in the United Kingdom in the last year for which figures are available. [62205]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 3 December 1998]: Information is not held centrally on the number of asylum seekers who have committed offences in another country or on the number of asylum seekers convicted of offences punishable with imprisonment and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  During 1997, 366 persons were recommended for deportation by a court and 89 were served with deportation notices on the basis that their continued
  108
  presence in the United Kingdom was not conducive to the public good. These figures include asylum and non-asylum cases.

  The system we inherited for identifying asylum seekers who have offended requires the police and prison service to inform the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) when someone subject to immigration control is convicted of any offence against the person, any drugs offence or any immigration offence or any other offence where a sentence of imprisonment of 12 months or more is imposed. In addition IND is notified where a court recommends that an offender should be deported. Other offences may be reported but there is no requirement for this to be done.

  This system produced records which showed that, in 1997, 14 persons who applied for asylum at some stage were recommended for deportation by a court and a further four were issued with notices of intention to deport on grounds conducive to the public good following conviction for a criminal offence. The current records are likely to under-estimate the numbers involved but it is difficult to assess by precisely how much. I have asked officials to re-examine and recommend improvements to the inherited process of collecting this data as part of our process of modernising the information systems in IND.

  Prison Population
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current prison population; and what it was in each of the last five years. [62380]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Information on the average prison population in England and Wales is published in "Prison Statistics England and Wales" (table 1.4 of the 1997 edition, cm 4017) a copy of which is in the Library.

  Population in Prisons in England and Wales 1993–98

  Date/Year

  Number

  4 December 19981

  66,273

  Annual averages

  1997

  61,114

  1996

  55,281

  1995

  51,047

  1994

  48,794

  1993

  44,566

  1 Provisional figure

  Prison Costs
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the present annual cost of keeping an inmate in a prison in England and Wales. [62379]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The average cost per prisoner in 1997–98 (based on the final outturn) was £23,006.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total budget for the Animal Procedures Committee in each of the last five years; and what proportion of the budget in each year was allocated to sponsor research on alternatives to animal experimentation. [62389]
  109
  Mr. George Howarth
  The Animal Procedures Committee does not have a budget. It advises on how the Home Office budget for sponsoring research into alternatives should be used. The Home Office also has a budget to reimburse the expenses of Committee members and, from this year, has a budget to remunerate the Chairman.

  In each of the last five years, these budgets have totalled:

  £000

  Year

  Research

  Expenses

  Chairman?s remuneration

  1998–99

  259

  20

  10

  1997–98

  182

  22

  —

  1996–97

  242

  17

  —

  1995–96

  253

  1—

  —

  1994–95

  272

  1—

  —

  1 These figures are not available

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many animal procedures inspectors were(a) budgeted for and (b) in post in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [62487]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The number of inspectors in post and the total number of posts at 31 December in each of the last five years are as follows:

  Year

  Inspectors in post

  Inspectorate posts

  1997

  18

  118

  1996

  17

  18

  1995

  18

  18

  1994

  19

  19

  1993

  20

  21

  1 Additional funding was secured during 1997 to increase the complement of the Inspectorate to 21 during financial year 1998–99.

  There are currently 21 inspectors in post.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he has taken to implement each of the recommendations made in the Animal Procedures Committee interim report on the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. [62486]

  Mr. George Howarth
  I refer the hon. Member to pages 40–42 of the Report of the Animal Procedures Committee for 1997, which was published and laid in the Library on 26 November 1998.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to ensure that animals are used in scientific procedures only where justified; and what additional restrictions have been introduced since 1 May 1997. [62388]

  Mr. George Howarth
  In addition to the progress outlined by my right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister, in a reply to the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) on 3 November 1998,Official Report, columns 473–74, we recently announced that we had secured an end to the use of animals in the United Kingdom for the testing of cosmetics ingredients.
  110
  Project licence applications and ongoing work will continue to be carefully scrutinised by the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate to ensure that programmes of work are justified, in the sense that:
  the potential benefits outweigh the likely costs to the animals involved;
  non-animal alternatives are used wherever possible; and
  where animals have to be used, the least suffering is caused to the fewest number of animals of the lowest sentience.

  The ethical review processes that will be required in all designated establishments from April 1999 will also have an important role to play in ensuring that animals can be used only when it is absolutely justified.

  While the use of animals in many areas, especially medical research and testing, will continue to be necessary for the foreseeable future, we will continue to look for opportunities to eliminate types of animal use where suitable alternatives become available or where that use is no longer justified by the benefits that might accrue.

  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many project licences issued under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 that are currently in force and involve the use of drugs have(a) mild, (b) moderate, (c) substantial and (d) unclassified security banding. [62374]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Aggregate information on whether project licences authorise the use of drugs—either research on drugs (including pharmaceuticals) or research involving drugs including those where analgesics or anaesthetics are used to reduce pain and suffering—could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  OECD Safety Tests
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he has taken to delete the LD50 test from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's list of regulatory safety tests. [62488]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Along with other member states of the European Union, we have pressed the European Commission to pursue this issue with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). We understand that the OECD will consider this once guidelines on the use of the alternatives to the LD50 test have been finalised.

  Police National Computer
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each of the last three years(a) the number of accesses to each index of the police national computer and (b) the maximum and minimum number of entries in each index; and what is the current number of entries. [62319]

  Mr. Boateng
  I am advised that the number of transactions carried out in the last three years and the current number of entries on each application of the Police National Computer are shown in the following table. The maximum and minimum number of entries on each application is not recorded.
  111

  Number of transactions

  Application

  11995

  11996

  January-March 1997

  21997–98

  Vehicles

  25,400,639

  26,271,565

  6,841,519

  28,228,526

  Stolen Property

  292,695

  261,524

  60,054

  220,279

  Names

  20,598,101

  24,533,793

  6,654,447

  27,735,256

  Fingerprints

  911,840

  1,087,393

  260,711

  946,815

  Comparative Case Analysis

  298,742

  419,408

  134,260

  495,620

  Transaction Log

  585,298

  628,848

  165,303

  675,001

  Other (e.g. Broadcast, Force/Station inquiry, Post Centre inquiry)

  2,304,490

  2,583,330

  681,259

  2,786,720

  Total

  50,391,805

  55,786,861

  14,797,553

  61,088,217

  1 Data held on calendar year basis

  2 Data held on financial year basis

  Current number of entries (as at 4 December 1998)

  Application

  Number of entries

  Vehicles

  46,899,574

  Stolen Property

  57,461

  Names

  5,912,064

  Fingerprints

  4,713,609

  Comparative Case Analysis

  9,249

  Transaction Log

  163,959,077

  Total

  121,551,034

  1 Calendar year to date

  Forgery
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons were(a) arrested for and (b) charged with offences contrary to section 1 of the

  Persons at Heathrow Airport

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Accused of attempting to commit a notifiable offence

  1—

  1—

  201

  232

  206

  Charged with the above

  1—

  1—

  177

  224

  194

  Accused of offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981

  14

  46

  50

  43

  66

  Charged with the above

  6

  32

  41

  37

  65

  1 Not available

  Road Traffic Offences
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made over the last five years(a) within his Department, (b) in conjunction with other Government departments and (c) in conjunction with European bodies towards developing systems involving the use of new technology for safety-related road traffic law enforcement and the administration of penalties. [62543]

  Mr. Boateng
  Since 1 January 1994, we have type approved for police use 10 speed measuring devices which operate using the various technologies of radar, lasers or sensors across the road. The most recent available figures show that 34 per cent. of the speed offences dealt with by the police were detected by automatic cameras. For drink drive law enforcement we have also type approved 1 alcohol screening device for roadside use and 3 evidential breath alcohol testing instruments. Research is underway into possible devices to enable the police to screen for drugs driving offences at the roadside.
  112
  Criminal Attempts Act 1981 or section 3 of the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 at (i) Heathrow Airport and (ii) Gatwick Airport in each financial year since 1993–94. [62390]

  Mr. Boateng
  This information is not normally collected centrally. However, the Metropolitan police have been able to provide information on persons accused—that is, a count of persons arrested and subsequently proceeded against—and persons charged. The information relates to persons accused in the Heathrow division of attempting to commit a notifiable offence and those accused under section 3 and 4 of the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981. The information is shown in the table.

  The information for Gatwick airport is not available as this would incur disproportionate cost since manual searches through individual records would be required.

  In 1996, the Police Research Group published a cost benefit study of police enforcement cameras, the findings of which encouraged the wider use of camera technology to reduce road casualties. Home Office scientists have published a number of technical specifications and standards for various technologies to assist manufacturers to meet the needs of law enforcement. A new technical specification for police vehicle livery has been designed to provide greater safety by improving the visibility of police vehicles.

  Scientists at the Police Scientific Development Branch and Forensic Science Service continue to test systems developed by manufacturers with a view to their being type approved for police use. The Department is also supporting a project on the possible use of simulation technology for police driver training.

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of road traffic offenders were sentenced to(a) a re-test and (b) an extended re-test for the offences of (i) causing death by dangerous driving and (ii) dangerous driving in each of the last three years. [62551]
  113
  Mr. Boateng
  The readily available information relates to the percentage of findings of guilt for offences of causing death by dangerous driving (including causing death by careless driving under the influence of drink or drugs and causing death by aggravated vehicle taking) and dangerous driving, which resulted in a requirement to undertake a driving test in England and Wales in the years 1995 to 1997, and is as follows:

  Findings of guilt for dangerous driving and causing death by dangerous driving etc. that resulted in a driving test requirement in England and Wales

  Causing death by dangerous driving etc.

  Dangerous driving

  1995

  Number

  53

  1,997

  Percentage

  16

  31

  1996

  Number

  9

  1,900

  Percentage

  3

  33

  Defendats proceeded against at magistrates' courts and found guilty at all courts for offences related to, but not necessarily involving, illegal tipping England and Wales 1995–97

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Offence description

  Prosecutions

  Convictions

  Prosecutions

  Convictions

  Prosecutions

  Convictions

  Depositing, causing the deposition or permitting the deposition treating, keeping or disposing of controlled waste in or on land without a licence1

  111

  80

  121

  95

  98

  87

  Depositing, causing the deposition or permitting the deposition of controlled special waste in or on land without a licence2

  30

  23

  32

  24

  19

  19

  Handling, controlling or transferring controlled waste without taking reasonable measures. Failing to comply with the Secretary of State's requirements3

  69

  49

  105

  81

  89

  72

  Contravening regulations of a waste management licence4

  65

  50

  94

  62

  84

  59

  Failure to comply with Regulation 18 of the Special Waste Regulations 1996

  7—

  7—

  7—

  7—

  1—

  1—

  Abandoning items on any land without lawful authority5

  98

  79

  77

  57

  78

  65

  Transporting controlled waste in the course of a business or otherwise with a view to profit without registering as a carrier6

  21

  15

  11

  10

  9

  6

  1 Environmental Protection Act 1990, sec 33(8)

  2 Environmental Protection Act 1990, sec 33(9)

  3 Environmental Protection Act 1990, sec 34

  4 Environmental Protection Act 1990, sec 33(6)

  5 Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978, sec 2

  6 Control of Pollution (Amendment) Act 1989, sec 1

  7 Not applicable

  Source:

  Home Office Court Proceedings Database

  Senator Pinochet
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 1 December 1998,Official Report, columns 132–33, if he will define the general principles of fairness which will guide his handling of representations and the exercise of his
  114

  Finding of guilt for dangerous driving and causing death by dangerous driving etc. that resulted in a driving test requirement in England and Wales

  Causing death by dangerous driving etc.

  Dangerous driving

  19971

  Number

  84

  3,458

  Percentage

  26

  58

  1 Provisional

  No information is available centrally to distinguish between re-tests and extended re-tests.

  Illegal Tipping
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons have been prosecuted and convicted of illegal tipping in each year since 1995. [62534]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information available from the Home Office court appearance database is given in the table. The offences shown are related to, but do not necessarily involve, illegal tipping.

  discretion in deciding the question of whether or not to issue an authority to proceed in the case of Senator Pinochet. [62644]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 7 December 1998]: The general principles of fairness, which I shall be following, are those laid down by law. Moreover, I shall explain the reasons for my decision.

  Prisoner Suicides
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prison inmates in England and Wales have committed suicide since 1 January. [62595]

  Mr. George Howarth
  As at 7 December 1998, there have been 74 self-inflicted deaths of prisoners in establishments in England and Wales since 1 January 1998. Of the 23 inquests held, 18 verdicts of suicide have been recorded.

  Channel Islands (Taxation)
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the powers of Her Majesty's Government to seek to impose taxes on the Channel Islands, with particular reference to the proposed EU withholding tax. [62515]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 7 December 1998]: The Channel Islands are not subject to European Union instruments on taxation, such as the proposed Directive on the taxation of savings. The Explanatory Memorandum to the proposed Directive, however, encourages member states to apply the measures contained in the Directive to their dependent territories within the framework of their constitutional arrangements. Legislation on taxation matters has always taken the form of laws enacted by the Island legislatures.

  Xenotransplantation
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to publish the code of practice on the welfare of xenotransplantation source animals; what groups, companies and individuals he has consulted on this code; and if he will make a statement. [62427]

  Mr. George Howarth
  I cannot give a date for publication at this time. Work on the code is progressing, but it can be finalised only once we have received confirmation—from the United Kingdom Xenotransplantation Interim Regulatory Authority (UKXIRA)—of the health status requirements for animals intended for clinical use. Home Office officials met members of the UKXIRA biosecurity steering group on 26 November to discuss these matters.

  Officials have also consulted with the Department of Health, the British Laboratory Animal Veterinary Association, the Laboratory Animal Science Association, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare, the British Veterinary Association, the Pig Veterinary Society and Imutran. The code must be submitted to the Animal Procedures Committee for its consideration before it is published.

  Manslaughter and Murder
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the average penalty applied to a person convicted of(a) manslaughter and (b) murder in each of the last five years. [62421]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information available from the Home Office court appearance database is given in the table.
  116

  Average sentence lengths 1 for people convicted of murder or manslaughter at the Crown Court, 1993–97 England and Wales

  Months

  Offence

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Murder2

  All convicted people were sentenced to life

  Attempted murder

  99.3

  98.7

  111.5

  115.8

  98.0

  Manslaughter

  62.2

  57.6

  58.0

  60.9

  62.0

  Manslaughter due to diminished responsibility

  57.3

  57.4

  56.0

  61.0

  74.4

  1 Based on custodial sentences excluding life. Covers unsuspended imprisonment, imprisonment in a young offender institution and detention under the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, sec. 53(2)

  2 Murder has a mandatory sentence of life

  Jury Trials
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to reform the system of trial by jury. [61249]

  Mr. Boateng
  We have published two consultation papers this year about jury trials. The first paper, on use of juries in serious fraud trials, invited views on the principle of whether the system is likely to operate better and with a greater degree of public confidence if, in a small number of complex fraud trials, a traditional jury were to be replaced by another method of determining the facts. The consultation paper on determining the mode of trial considered whether defendants should be able to choose to be tried by a jury in cases which magistrates have indicated that they would be content to hear. We are currently considering the responses to these two consultation exercises.

  Criminal Prosecutions
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to reform the law relating to the mounting of private criminal prosecutions. [61261]

  Mr. Boateng
  I have no such plans, although the issue will fall to be considered in the context of the Law Commission's recommendations in its recent report on Consents to Prosecution.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he has taken to ensure that police stations' computers are millennium compliant; how much money has been allocated to this; what percentage of this has been given to Taskforce 2000; and if he will make a statement. [62410]

  Mr. Boateng
  It is for each police force to assess the likely impact of the Millennium Bug on its information technology systems. All forces have conducted audits of their Information Technology and communications systems, and will have contingency plans to ensure the continuation of critical business areas. Forces are expected to meet the costs of this exercise from within existing budgets.
  117
  Taskforce 2000 receives no funding from central Government. However, the Government have funded Action 2000, established last year to advise United Kingdom industry and the public on tackling the Millennium Bug.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers are currently being detained in Scotland; and how many in each place of detention. [62903]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  As at 30 November 1998, 24 people were held under Immigration Act powers in Scottish penal establishments. All of them had claimed asylum at some stage.

  The number in each place of detention is as follows:

  Her Majesty's Prison, Inverness: 2

  Her Majesty's Prison, Aberdeen: 10

  Her Majesty's Prison, Edinburgh: 6

  Her Majesty's Prison, Gateside: 5

  Her Majesty's Prison, Perth: 1.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what estimate he has made of the number of pre-July 1993 asylum applicants with a criminal conviction resulting in a sentence of less than 12 months' imprisonment who will benefit from the backlog procedure; [63057]

  (2) pursuant to the answer of 3 December 1998, Official Report, column 249, if every case involving the commission of a criminal offence by an asylum seeker is notified to the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. [63098]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Information is not held centrally on the number of asylum seekers who have been convicted of offences punishable with imprisonment and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  As outlined in the White Paper, "Fairer, Faster and Firmer—A Modern Approach to Immigration and Asylum", where an asylum application was made before the coming into force on 1 July 1993 of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993, delay in itself will normally be considered so serious as to justify, as a matter of fairness, the grant of indefinite leave to remain.

  This will not apply, however, to applicants whose presence here is not conducive to the public good, for example on the basis of their conviction for a serious criminal offence. In general, any offender receiving a custodial sentence of 12 months or more will be excluded from benefiting from the backlog procedure. Other offenders may be excluded if their record is serious enough. Nor will it apply to any application for asylum made after the commencement of removal or deportation action against the applicant.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Electoral Boundaries
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he plans 118
  to implement the Local Government Commission recommendations for electoral boundaries for Amber Valley and Derbyshire Dales before the local elections in May 1999. [62226]

  Mr. Raynsford
  No. Our policy is to make electoral change orders by no later than the October before the May election date on which the changes come into effect so as to allow sufficient preparatory time including compiling the Electoral Register. The final reports on the Derbyshire Districts were not presented to the Department until 24 November 1998.

  Electric Cars
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) how many grants the Energy Savings Trust has approved for conversion to electric cars; [62387]

  (2) how many of the grants awarded by the Energy Savings Trust for conversion to electric cars have been to (a) UK-based and (b) overseas-based companies. [62385]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Energy Savings Trust has received no applications for grants for conversion to electric cars, but has provided grant funding to two UK-based companies for the conversion of 4 minibuses to run on electricity. The Trust has also provided grant funding to 10 local authorities, 1 charity, 1 public organisation, 4 private organisations and 1 private individual, all UK-based, for the purchase of 64 electric vehicles, as part of its Powershift programme.

  Millennium (Emergency Cover)
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans his Department has to contract with the armed services to provide emergency cover over the millennium period; and what estimate he has made of the cost of that cover. [62575]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), on 7 December 1998,Official Report, column 20.

  EC Transport Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the outcome of the Transport Council held in Brussels on 30 November; and if he will make a statement. [62328]

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the outcome of the EC Transport Council of 30 November to 1 December. [62943]

  Dr. Reid
  The Transport Council met in Brussels on 30 November and 1 December. I and my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London represented the United Kingdom.

  The Council agreed a common position on one legislative proposal and reached agreement on transport negotiations with Switzerland. It also agreed a report to the Vienna European Council on integration of

  119
  environmental requirements into transport policy, and held useful discussions in several other important areas of land, air and maritime transport policy.

  In land transport, the Council agreed a common position on a directive on heavy goods vehicle taxation and charges (known as the "Eurovignette" directive). This was a difficult dossier, to which successive Presidencies, including our own, had contributed. The Council also reached agreement on the outcome of the European Commission's transport negotiations with Switzerland on behalf of the European Community. The complete package of negotiations with Switzerland, on transport and other items, will be finalised by the General Affairs Council.

  There was a debate on two directives amending the rules promoting combined transport. Although there was general support for the underlying aim, there were concerns about the proposals as drafted. Among these were the UK's concern that, at least in the UK, the proposals would not have the desired effect of encouraging a shift of freight from road to rail, and would be likely to have perverse effects. In the absence of sufficient support the Presidency asked for further work to be done by the Committee of Permanent Representatives (COREPER).

  There was further discussion of the Commission's legislative proposals to establish a regulatory framework for the Community's railways. The UK strongly supports the proposals and referred to the Treaty requirement for progressive abolition of barriers to freedom to provide services. Following the discussion, the Presidency asked for further work to be done on the proposals.

  Two measures were discussed relating to inland waterways, neither of which applies to the UK. Broad agreement was reached on a measure to extend a fleet capacity management programme, and the Council discussed a draft amending directive on technical standards for inland waterways vessels.

  On air transport, the Presidency concluded that there was insufficient support for the draft conclusions which it had tabled on a full Community negotiating mandate for air transport negotiations with the US, and asked for further work to be carried out.

  Disagreement between Spain and the UK over application to Gibraltar Airport prevented the Council agreeing a draft amending Regulation which would improve compensation arrangements for air passengers who are denied boarding on overbooked flights. The UK reaffirmed its strong support for the measure and rejected Spanish claims that Gibraltar Airport should be suspended from its application, pointing out that this would remove rights conferred on users of Gibraltar Airport by the original Regulation. The Presidency noted the Commission's request for further work on a Regulation on aviation statistics which has not progressed since 1996 when disagreement on application to Gibraltar Airport prevented its adoption. The Council also discussed a draft Directive providing for ramp checks on third country aircraft using EU airports which had previously been agreed, because Spain had now requested suspension of the application of the measure to Gibraltar Airport. The UK confirmed its support for the text agreed by the Council, regretting that Spain had objected to this important safety measure at such a late stage.
  120
  The Council noted the Commission's reports on the progress of negotiations to establish a European Aviation Safety Authority, for Community membership of Eurocontrol, and on extending the single aviation market to ten central and eastern European countries. The Council also noted progress on the draft Directive on airport charging, and received a report on the outcome of the 32nd meeting of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) Assembly in Montreal.

  In maritime transport, there was a debate on the draft directive on ferry manning conditions. The UK made clear its strong support for the proposal, which would protect Community seafarer employment. Some Member States thought that more information was needed about the impact of the proposal. At the Presidency's request, the Commission agreed to produce a report on the directive's likely impact and inform a future Council of progress.

  The Council agreed a report on integrating environmental requirements into transport policy, to go to the European Council in Vienna on 11–12 December. The report outlines progress to date and indicates that the Council will draw up an ambitious phased work programme, a first report on which will be discussed by the end of 1999.

  Under other business, the Commission presented its proposal for new working time rules in the road and maritime sectors, and presented its report on the development of transport Trans-European Networks.

  Trains (Disabled Access)
  Ms Kingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions his Department has had with rail operating companies concerning the provision of toilets with disabled access on trains. [62362]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Under the Rail Accessibility Regulations 1998, which will apply to all new types of rolling stock coming into service after 31 December this year, trains fitted with toilets for passengers will have to provide wheelchair accessible toilet facilities, as well as a wide range of other features to improve accessibility. The regulations have been drawn up in close consultation with train operating companies.

  Taxis (Disabled Access)
  Ms Kingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has had with hackney carriage operators concerning the higher fares charged for the use of taxis with disabled access in many parts of the country. [62382]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The fixing of taxi fares outside London is a matter for the local licensing authority concerned. In London, where fares are fixed by the Secretary of State, the same tariff applies to all taxis, including those with access for disabled people.

  Illegal Tipping
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to discourage illegal tipping. [62535]
  121
  Mr. Meacher
  Stringent controls and severe penalties are already in place to discourage the illegal tipping of waste and the Environment Agency has made clear its

  Maximum penalties for offences relating to waste

  Offence

  Magistrates" Court

  Crown Court

  Sections 33(1)(a), (b) or (c) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990

  Unlawful deposit, recovery, disposal etc. of non-special waste

  Imprisonment for 6 months and/or a fine of £20,000

  Imprisonment for 2 years and/or an unlimited fine

  Section 33(1)(a), (b) or (c) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990

  Unlawful deposit, recovery, disposal etc. of special waste

  Imprisonment for 6 months and/or a fine of £20,000

  Imprisonment for 5 years and/or an unlimited fine

  Section 34(6) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990

  Breach of the duty of care or Regulations on retention etc. of documents

  A fine not exceeding the statutory Maximum

  An unlimited fine

  Section 1(1) Control of Pollution (Amendment) Act 1989

  Transporting waste without registering as a carrier

  A fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale

  n/a

  Special Waste Regulations 1996

  Unlawful movement or handling of special waste

  A fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale

  Imprisonment for two years and/or an unlimited fine

  Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994: Regulation 20(5)

  Failure to register as a waste broker

  A fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale

  n/a

  Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994: Paragraph 12 Shedule 4

  Failure to register as a collector, transporter, dealer or broker of waste

  A fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale

  n/a

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to release the report on the status of radioactive waste management at Dounreay prepared by the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee. [62392]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have not yet received the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee's report on Dounreay, but I understand that it is to be supplied to Ministers by the Committee shortly. The Committee itself publishes all the advice it gives to Government.

  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what levels of radioactive discharges have been notified from each site on the Sellafield complex in each of the last five years. [62490]

  Mr. Meacher
  The data for years 1996 and 1997 are in the Environment Agency's Annual Reports for those years. For the preceding years 1993 to 1995, the data are contained in annual discharge returns, provided by BNFL and UKAEA, which relate to discharges from major stacks and approved places on the sites. The data are available on request from the public register at the Environment Agency North West Regional Office, Warrington, Cheshire and other local authority public registers in Cumbria and Lancashire.

  I have asked the Environment Agency to collate data specifically for the Sellafield complex and I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of the letter in the Library as soon as this is available.
  122
  Commitment to taking firm enforcement action. The main controls and the maximum penalties are ser out in the table:

  British Gas
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received from British Gas plc concerning participation in a voluntary agreement relating to misleading environmental claims. [62377]

  Mr. Meacher
  My Department has received no representations from British Gas plc on this matter.

  Drivers (Epilepsy)
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has further to reduce the duration of the driving ban that follows an epileptic fit; and if he will make a statement. [62527]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  There are at present no plans to reduce from one year the period for which an ordinary driving licence is withdrawn following an epileptic attack. As with other medical conditions, however, the situation is kept under review, taking account of expert advice.

  Asbestos
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the extent of illicit recycling of asbestos into building materials; and if he will make a statement. [62358]
  123
  Mr. Raynsford
  Asbestos waste is controlled under the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the Special Waste Regulations 1996. The Environment Agency has responsibility for the enforcement of the relevant legislation.

  The Environment Agency has no evidence to indicate that asbestos is being illicitly recycled into building materials.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions his Department has had with the British Occupational Hygiene Society on the dangers to working people of contact with asbestos; and if he will make a statement. [62596]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Health and Safety Executive and British Occupational Hygiene Society (BOHS) are in regular contact, and are planning a series of joint roadshows scheduled for early next summer to raise awareness of the dangers of contact with asbestos at work and to explain how to reduce the risks.

  Rural Bus Challenge Competition
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to announce the results of the Rural Bus Challenge Competition. [62694]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I am currently assessing 214 bids, which have been received. I hope to make an announcement shortly.

  Local Government Pension Scheme
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what would be the estimated annual cost of extending the Local Government Pension Scheme (Transitional Provisions) Regulations 1997 regarding spouses' pensions to spouses who remarried or started to co-habit prior to 1 April 1998. [62690]

  Mr. Raynsford
  This information is not available. An actuarial assessment of the cost of providing spouses' pensions for life was carried out on behalf of the United Kingdom Steering Committee on local government pensions prior to introducing this improvement into the Local Government Pension Scheme from 1 April 1998. However, this did not identify the cost of surviving spouses' pensions for widows or widowers who were already re-married or co-habiting before that date.

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the total costs were of medical investigations, inquiries and examinations incurred by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency in the most recent financial year for which figures are available; and what proportion of these costs related to drivers aged 70 years or over. [62795]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The total cost in 1997–98 of medical inquiries was £5.7 million of which £2.2 million was spent on medical reports and examinations. The proportion of these costs attributable to drivers aged over 70 is not available.

  Housing Revenue Account (Oldham)
  Mr. Woolas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the financial impact on Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council of the implementation of the 3,000 homes limit on subsidy recalculation of the housing revenue account. [62687]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council transferred 642 properties on the Limehurst Village estate to Limehurst Village Trust in March 1998. The number of properties transferred fell below the threshold (the lower of 3,000 dwellings or 10 per cent. of the authority's current stock) at which Housing Revenue Account (HRA) Subsidy would be recalculated for 1998–99. Oldham was required to consider the effects on subsidy before deciding to make the transfer. If subsidy had been recalculated, it is estimated that Oldham MBC would have received an additional £490,000 in HRA subsidy for 1998–99.

  Motorways
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many miles of motorway were(a) completed and (b) under construction in (i) 1979 and (ii) 1997. [63101]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  During 1979, 41.3 miles of motorway were completed out of a total of 120.2 miles of motorway which were under construction at some time in the year. During 1997, 42.7 miles of motorway were completed out of a total of 87.7 miles of motorway which were under construction at some time in the year. These figures include some motorway widening.

  Rail Fares
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many rail fares have, since 1 January 1998,(a) increased by more than 5 per cent., (b) increased by 3 to 5 per cent., (c) increased by 0 to 3 per cent., (d) remained unchanged and (e) decreased. [62889]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  This information is not available in the form requested.

  Under the Railways Act 1993 the regulation of fares is a matter for the Franchising Director. The Franchising Director regulates at least one fare between any two points on the network. Other fares, particularly discounted fares for off-peak travel, are set by the train operators. The Government have recently conducted research into the effects of fares regulation, based upon the fare actually paid by the passenger. The increase in average fares paid for 1995–96 and 1996–97 was 2.36 per cent, marginally below the RPI of 2.40 per cent. The increase between 1996–97 and 1997–98 was 3 per cent, below the RPI figure of 4 per cent. Between 1995–96 and 1996–97, the rate of increase in average fare paid fell below RPI for the first time since 1989–90.

  Rail Cards
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) how many young persons' rail cards were issued in each of the last 10 years; [62890]
  125
  (2) how many senior citizens' rail cards were issued in each of the last 10 years. [62888]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The information requested is in the table. Details of railcard sales in 1988–89 and 1989–90 are not available.

  Financial year

  Young Persons" Railcard

  Senior Railcard

  1997–98

  722,443

  679,664

  1996–97

  723,524

  605,040

  1995–96

  683,719

  569,904

  1994–95

  704,071

  630,205

  1993–94

  652,840

  681,425

  1992–93

  678,933

  712,563

  1991–92

  712,672

  760,648

  1990–91

  676,561

  930,393

  Integrated Transport
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the timetable for the publication of the daughter documents of the White Paper on integrated transport. [62417]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government have today issued their consultation document on road user charging and the workplace parking levy. The remaining daughter documents—papers on shipping, buses, sustainable distribution, road safety and inland waterways—will follow within the next few months. We will also be issuing a paper on ports policy, and confirming guidance on local transport plans, following up the draft guidance currently out to consultation. In addition, a strategy to encourage walking, produced by the Walking Steering Group, will be published by the Department early in the New Year.

  Rail Users Consultative Committees
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to increase powers available to the rail users consultative committees; and if he will make a statement. [62430]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  A New Deal for the Railways (Cm 4024) announced that, subject to legislation, sponsorship of the Rail Users' Consultative Committees will be transferred from the Rail Regulator to the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA). In future, the Committees will have explicit new powers to report perceived breaches of franchise agreements to the SRA, not just breaches of passenger and station licences. In addition, the Committees' remit will be extended to any open access operators (i.e. to passenger

  Franchise

  Date

  Circumstances

  New commitments

  Great Western Trains

  23 February 1998

  Three call-ins for infringements of thresholds for cancellations and part cancellations, deemed a breach of the franchise agreement

  Operator committed to improvements in Passenger's Charter payments for delayed journeys, to implement a recovery plan to improve rolling stock reliability and train crew availability, to spend £500,000 on additional rolling stock items and £500,000 on additional customer information systems in 1998–99.

  126
  services not provided under franchise agreements). We will ensure that the Committees include a wide cross-section of passengers, and want them to co-operate with bus user representative bodies and to contribute jointly to the development of the regional transport strategies which will form part of Regional Planning Guidance.

  Train Companies (Staff Reductions)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to ensure that staff reductions by train operating companies do not lead to compromises in safety. [62434]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Under the Railways Safety Case Regulations 1994, arrangements for operations or maintenance must be set out in a train operator's Railway Safety Case. Railway Safety Cases and any subsequent revisions have to be accepted by the Infrastructure controller or the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) before operations or revised operations can commence. Reductions in staffing levels would require amendment to a Railway Safety Case where this might affect safety. HSE monitors compliance with the Regulations and will take whatever action it considers appropriate (including enforcement action, if necessary) to ensure safety is not compromised.

  Train Companies (Franchises)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the circumstances under which franchise agreements with train operating companies can be renegotiated; which franchises have been so renegotiated; and if he will make a statement. [62438]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Deputy Prime Minister has said that the books are open for renegotiating franchises in order to secure improved services for passengers. An announcement about how we will seek additional benefits through renegotiation will be made in due course.

  The Franchising Director already has scope to negotiate additional commitments from franchisees. Where contravention of the franchise agreement has a materially adverse effect on passengers, the Franchising Director's Objectives, Instructions and Guidance, given to him in November 1997, require him to seek to secure contractual undertakings from the franchisee which will provide additional benefits as compensation for passengers. Where agreement has been sought to transfer control of a franchise to another party, the Franchising Director can also seek benefits for passengers. Substantial new commitments and changes to franchises negotiated by the Franchising Director since the Minister of Transport gave him new Objectives, Instructions and Guidance in November 1977 are shown in the table.
  127

  Franchise

  Date

  Circumstances

  New commitments

  Great Western Trains, North Western Trains and Great Eastern Railway

  6 March 1998

  Franchising Director agreed to buyout of Great Western Holdings Ltd. By FirstGroup plc

  Great Western: 32 new vehicles by June 2002; one week"s free travel for qualifying season ticket holders; new performance penalty regime; bus/rail integration schemes; new first class lounges; refurbishment of sleeper trains; improvements for cyclists.

  North Western: £1.2 million invested in agreement with PTEs and passenger representatives; 70 new vehicles equipped with CCTV security; £100,000 spent on access for disabled people; TOC to take more of the costs of planned vehicle refurbishment over from PTEs; improvements for cyclists.

  Great Eastern: replace all slam door trains by end of 2002; bus/rail integration schemes; modern rolling stock for Sudbury branch by October 1998.

  Thames Trains

  5 June 1998

  Franchising Director agreed to buyout of Victory Railway Holdings Ltd. by the Go-Ahead Group plc

  £500k spent on station improvements;improvements to Passengers' Charter; new through service

  Oxford-Didcot-Swindon-Bath-Bristol; bus/rail through ticketing; improvements for cyclists at Oxford; improved access to Heathrow Airport; reinstate London-bound platform at South Greenford.

  Chiltern Railway

  19 August 1998

  Three call-ins for infringements of thresholds for cancellations and part cancellations, deemed a breach of the franchise agreement

  One week's free travel for qualifying season ticket holders; improved Passenger's Charter compensation provisions; improved security; new public address system and help points; improvements to facilities for disabled people, toilets and passenger shelters.

  West Coast Trains; Cross Country Trains; South West Trains

  7 October 1998

  Franchising Director agreed acquisition of 49 per cent, of shares in Virgin Rail Group (VRG) by Stagecoach plc

  Bus/rail integration schemes; improved Passenger's Charter compensation terms; 16 new vehicles for VRG or South West Trains; £500k spent on improvements at stations served, but not operated, by VRG; passenger fora hosted by senior directors of all three TOCs.

  North Western Trains

  29 October 1998

  Concentration of cancellations on Oldham Loop, deemed a breach of the franchise agreement

  Two weeks' free travel for season ticket holders; to be extended to other ticket holders bynegotiation with Greater Manchester PTE.

  LTS Rail

  11 November 1998

  Review of rolling stock availability relating to Class 317s scheduled for release from WAGN Railway

  Relieved LTS Rail of incentive payments due if Class 317s not taken over from WAGN. Commitment to replace all slam door stock by March 2002; 12 additional vehicles; improved Passenger's Charter; more exacting performance thresholds; £2 million spend on passenger information systems, increased staffing and other facilities; additional spend each year on staffing; improved facilities for disabled people and passenger security; bus/rail integration schemes; improved access to Lakeside shopping centre; improvements for cyclists; additional reduced rate early morning season tickets.

  Concessionary Bus Passes
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what percentage of persons of pensionable age currently have access to a concessionary fares bus pass. [62419]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I understand that 11 local authorities have no concessionary fare scheme for their resident pensioners. The number of pensioners in those local authority areas represents about 2.6 per cent. of the total number of pensioners in England.
  128
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the number of concessionary fare bus passes(a) currently issued and (b) which will be issued when the nationwide £5 bus pass is introduced; and if he will make a statement.[62418]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  No such estimate can be made, because my Department does not hold statistics on the number of passes issued; that is a matter for the individual local authorities concerned. Without that information it is
  129
  not possible to calculate any likely change in numbers of passes issued due to our proposal for a national minimum standard for concessionary fares for pensioners, based on a £5 bus pass and half fares on buses.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will estimate the extra cost to the public purse from the introduction of a nationwide concessionary fare bus pass at(a) £5 and (b) £10 assuming (i) a continuation of the present number of passes issued and (ii) his estimate of the increased number of passes which might be issued.[62420]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  It is not possible to give such an estimate, because the cost and the number of passes issued would depend not only on the price of the pass, but also on the level of concessionary fare with which the pass was associated.

  Lorries (Weight Restrictions)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to restrict lorry access by weight to non-trunk roads.[62429]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  It would be impractical to impose a national ban on lorry traffic on non-trunk roads because most lorry journeys begin and end on such roads. Non-trunk roads are the responsibility of local traffic authorities who have powers to make traffic regulation orders to prohibit or restrict lorry access, subject in limited cases to a requirement to hold a public inquiry and obtain the Secretary of State's consent.

  Train Companies (Sub-contracting)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the implications for public accountability of the sub-contracting of services by train operating companies; and if he will make a statement.[62433]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  This was considered by the Franchising Director before letting the current franchises. Train operators may make arrangements with each other for operating services on a subcontracted basis, subject to conditions which ensure that the arrangements do not transfer control of the services concerned, or the obligation to deliver the Passenger Service Requirement (PSR), to the subcontractor; and subject to a maximum of 5 per cent. of the aggregate scheduled train mileage of the operator subcontracting services. Subcontracting above this limit or outside the terms of the conditions requires the consent of the Franchising Director or, where applicable, the relevant Passenger Transport Executive (PTE). In addition, the Franchising Director requires clear separation between different franchises held by the same franchisee, and any relationship between them must be on an arm's-length basis and set out in clear contracts.

  Train Companies (Passenger Service Requirements)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the appropriateness of the criteria applied to train operating companies in respect of passenger service requirements; what plans he has to alter these; and if he will make a statement.[62437]
  130
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We have considered the revised Criteria for the Appraisal of Support for Passenger Rail Services, which the Franchising Director has submitted to us for approval, and he expects to issue them shortly.

  Travel Safety Statistics
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many casualties per kilometre travelled were recorded in(a) 1987, (b) 1992 and (c) 1997 in respect of (i) car, (ii) train, (iii) motorbike, (iv) bicycle and (v) air travel.[62893]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Passenger casualty rates by mode

  Per billion passenger kilometers

  1987

  1 1992

  2 1996

  Average 1987–96

  Car 3

  Killed

  4.6

  3.6

  3.1

  3.7

  KSI

  61.3

  45.3

  41.7

  48.0

  All

  335.8

  334.5

  356.2

  339.2

  Rail 4

  Killed

  1.0

  0.04

  0.03

  8—

  KSI

  3.3

  2.6

  7—

  8—

  All

  76.6

  65.9

  19.4

  8—

  Two wheeled motor vehicles 4

  Killed

  100.4

  97.0

  98.8

  101.4

  KSI

  1.929.3

  1,516.3

  1,391.1

  1,699.4

  All

  6,359.0

  5,555.1

  5,176.1

  5,958.5

  Pedal cycle 3

  Killed

  48.8

  43.4

  47.2

  46.5

  KSI

  893.9

  849.1

  880.2

  887.2

  All

  4,563.4

  5,267.0

  5,705.6

  5,201.5

  Air 5

  Killed

  0.0

  0.01

  0.0

  0.1

  KSI

  0.0

  0.1

  6—

  0.1

  All

  6—

  0.1

  6—

  0.1

  KSI—killed and seriously injured

  1 1992 onwards—casualty rates based on revised exposure figures.

  2 For rail casualties there is no longer a distinction between major and minor injuries under the new Accidents Reporting regulations 1995, which came into effect on 1 April 1996. Injuries are classified as either 'minor injury' or 'death'. The reporting trigger for minor injury is the passenger being taken to hospital.

  3 Drivers and passengers in Great Britain.

  4 Financial years from 1991–92.

  5 World passenger carrying services of UK airlines for fixed and rotary wing craft over 2,300 kilograms. Passenger kilometres relate to revenue passengers only.

  6 negligible (less than half the final digit shown)

  7 not available

  8not applicable

  Train Companies (Compensation Payments)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much was paid in compensation payments, and to how many individual passengers, by each train operating company in the last year for which figures are available.[62894]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Under the franchise agreement, each franchise operator must have a Passenger's Charter which provides for compensation for day ticket holders
  131
  whose journey are delayed, and for season ticket holders who suffer poor performance over a period. At the start of the franchises these terms were at least as favourable as British Rails; since then, a number of operators' terms have tightened, either through negotiation with Franchising Director or at an operator's own commercial initiative. Operators have varying Charter compensation terms and information about payments belongs to each operator. The Franchising Director has the contractual right to inspect records, to ensure compliance, but they are not maintained on a comparable basis across all TOCs.

  Green Ministers Meeting
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the departments which, at the meeting of Green Ministers on 18 November, were represented by officials. [62415]

  Mr. Meacher
  The following departments were represented by officials:

  Department for Culture, Media and Sport

  Department of Social Security

  Department of Trade and Industry

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  HM Treasury.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the meeting of Green Ministers on 18 November considered methods of(a) decreasing car journeys by Ministers and (b) making the cars made available to Ministers less polluting. [62416]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Green Ministers' meeting on 18 November discussed progress on delivering green transport plans across Government. These plans will comprise measures to encourage staff to choose alternatives to single-occupancy car use, including public transport, cycling, walking and car-sharing, to reduce the environmental impact of travel and to reduce the need to travel. Where feasible, Ministers use public transport or walk. However, security issues and issues of practicality can mean that cars are often essential.

  But the Government Car Service is committed to reducing the environmental impact of its fleet, and has begun to convert its vehicles to use Liquid Petroleum Gas, a significantly cleaner fuel than conventional fuels, with the aim of converting its entire fleet within the next five years. It also has a programme monitoring fuel consumption and providing driver training with a published target for improving the average fuel efficiency across its fleet by at least half a mile per gallon every year.

  Through-ticketing
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to promote through-ticketing between train and bus services. [62891]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Under his objectives, instructions and Guidance, the Franchising Director is required to take all appropriate steps to provide for the participation by franchises in multi-modal travel schemes, and to manage franchise agreements in a way which reflects our policy on transport integration. Accordingly, where he has negotiated new commitments from franchises, these have 132
  included through ticketing and timetable integration schemes which promote through journeys by rail and bus services, both within towns served by the railway and towns and villages. The number of similar schemes have been promoted by operators at their own initiative. We will be looking to build on this as we consider the renegotiation of franchise agreements.

  Road Traffic Reductions
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the places where his Department wants road traffic levels to be reduced; and within what time scale it wants them to be reduced. [62892]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 3 November 1998,Official Report, column 458.

  Coach Services
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the implications for rail services of the introduction of new coach services which could be assumed to seek to divert passenger traffic from parallel rail lines. [62432]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Coach operators may provide whatever services they wish in response to commercial demand, although where they could undermine rail services they may be subject to review by the competition authorities. The Rail Regulator and the Franchising Director would advise the Director General of Fair Trading in these circumstances, but any final decision would rest with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

  Train Companies (Subsidy Reductions)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions in what circumstances he can implement a reduction in subsidy to a train operating company in addition to that agreed in the franchise agreement. [62436]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  All payments to and from franchise operators are governed by franchise agreements and changes to the basis for such payments could be made only during the term of existing franchises by negotiation and agreement between the contracting parties i.e. the Franchising Director and, in some cases, the Passenger Transport Executive and the franchise operator.

  Strategic Rail Authority
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will allow the Strategic Rail Authority to retain revenue received from fines levied by that authority. [62431]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government are currently reviewing a wide range of fines currently paid into the Consolidated Fund, to consider which ones should be retained by the levying authority.

  Mark One Rolling Stock
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to receive the report on mark one rolling stock from the Health and Safety Executive. [62435]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) on 7 December 1998,Official Report, column 39.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list for each local authority the increase in standard spending assessment(a) for education, (b) for social services and (c) overall, included in the 1998–99 local government revenue finance settlement. [62886]

  Ms Armstrong
  The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Air Carrier Liability
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will continue to pursue any prosecutions under Air Carrier Liability Order 1998/1751 pending the outcome of IATA's application for judicial review of the order; and if he will make a statement. [62944]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Unless and until the Air Carrier Liability Order 1998 is either amended by Parliament or declared by the courts to be void and of no effect, it remains in force and the possibility of prosecution for breaches of the Order therefore cannot be excluded.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment the Government have made of the implementation of Council regulation (EC) No. 2027/97 on air carrier liability following accidents in each member state; what assessment he has made of the level and nature of implementation in each member state; and if he will make a statement. [62945]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government have made no assessment of measures taken by other EU member states in giving effect to the Council Regulation in their jurisdictions. However, I can report that at a meeting in Brussels convened by the European Commission on 10 September 1998, when member states were asked what measures they had taken or planned to take to implement the Regulation, all eight member states present had either taken or already possessed powers to enforce the provisions of the Regulation.

  National Air Traffic Control
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if it is the Government's intention to sell National Air Traffic Control Services in the financial year 1999–2000; and if he will make a statement. [62942]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government are currently consulting interested parties on their proposal to establish a public-private partnership for National Air Traffic Services Ltd. We will take full account of the views of 134
  consultees in reaching final decisions on the future of NATS and will bring forward legislation at the earliest opportunity. The timing of any sale is for consideration once the legislation is in place.

  IATA v. UK Government
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the costs to the Government so far of the case brought by IATA against the UK Government concerning the implementation of EC regulation 2027/97; if he will estimate the likely total cost to the UK taxpayer; and how long he estimates the case will take to resolve. [62946]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  At the preliminary hearing in the High Court in November, the judge refused IATA's request for an immediate reference of the matter to the European Court of Justice and awarded costs to the Secretary of State. A further hearing has been scheduled for February 1999, at which the substance of IATA's case will be considered, but it is not possible to predict the total cost to the Government of the action since this will depend on the length of the judicial process in reaching a decision and whether the Government are again awarded costs in the event of a successful defence. A reference to the European Court of Justice, which would result in a protraction of matters, cannot be excluded.

  Four-star Petrol
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what exceptions he plans to make to the proposed ban on the sale of four-star petrol; if disabled drivers will receive financial help in replacing or converting their cars; and if he will make a statement. [63062]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government are considering options with the oil industry and other interested organisations with regard to the continuance, under the terms of the EU directive, of a very limited supply of leaded petrol. However, its availability will ultimately be a commercial decision.

  Vehicles driven by disabled drivers are generally ordinary passenger cars or light vans all of which have been required to use unleaded petrol for several years. Older vehicles requiring leaded petrol will be able to use lead replacement petrol or an anti-wear additive in conjunction with unleaded petrol. Particular financial help for disabled drivers is not therefore necessary.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he has taken to ensure that local government computers are millennium compliant; how much money has been allocated to this; what percentage of this has been given to Taskforce 2000; and if he will make a statement. [62409]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We are working closely with the Local Government Association, the Local Government Management Board and the Audit Commission to ensure that all councils are properly prepared to deal with the millennium bug. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has, jointly with Sir Jeremy Beecham, Chairman
  135
  of the Local Government Association, written twice this year to each council leader stressing the importance of their taking action, inviting them to sign Pledge 2000, and to nominate a senior member to take local responsibility for seeing that action on this issue is driven forward. The Local Government Finance Settlement takes into account the need for councils to deal with the Year 2000 problem. On the basis of returns submitted to DETR, English local authorities have, in aggregate, provided £64.6 million in their 1998–99 reported budgets to deal with the Year 2000 problem.

  Huddersfield Canal
  Mr. Woolas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to announce the decision on funding from English Partnerships for the Huddersfield Canal Project. [63066]

  Mr. Caborn
  A full economic appraisal of the Huddersfield Narrow Canal Millennium Project, to ensure that the proposal is robust and represents good value for money, has been carried out by English Partnerships. English Partnerships Board recently give its support for almost £13 million of the funding to the project, subject to agreement on a number of contractual details with its partners, the local authorities and British Waterways. The level of English Partnerships' proposed investment means that the project requires approval from my Department. I expect a final decision in the next few weeks.

  Regional Eurostar Services
  Mr. McNulty
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he has received the review into the feasibility of regional Eurostar services; and if he will make a statement. [63225]

  Mr. Prescott
  The Consortium presented its report "Review of Regional Eurostar Services" to me on 13 November and a copy has today been placed in the Library. The Government have noted the conclusions of the report and will be commissioning a thorough, independent review of it, and of the alternative proposals put forward by the Virgin Group. The Government will also be working with the parties to seek to ensure that the regions have access to convenient, effective Channel Tunnel services.

  Trust Ports
  Mr. Quinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the outcome of his review of trust ports. [63227]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Our review of the role and status of trust ports has been completed, and we have now published a summary consultation paper setting out conclusions and recommendations. We have asked that responses and comments on this paper should be sent to the Department by 31 January 1999. Copies of the paper have been placed in the Library.

  Driving Tests
  Mr. Quinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to revise the practical driving test. [63228]
  136
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Following extensive consultation, we have decided to make important changes to the practical driving test, its length, content and the way it is marked.

  From Spring 1999, candidates will be required to demonstrate their skills in a broader range of road and traffic conditions. Tests will have about ten minutes more general driving. Test routes will include more higher speed dual carriageways and rural roads. The emergency stop exercise will be carried out at random in about one third of all car tests rather than all of them. Candidates who commit large numbers of less serious driving faults will fail their test. The threshold will initially be set at 15 faults. The revised test will set higher standards for candidates' driving and will check they are prepared for the pressure of driving in today's road and traffic conditions.

  The package also includes measures to raise training standards. We plan to introduce a voluntary log book scheme at the same time as the test is amended, to aid candidates and their instructors to gauge progress towards test standard. Candidates will also be given more detailed written feedback about their performance on test by the examiner. This will advise unsuccessful candidates about the reasons they failed and provide those who passed guidance about aspects of their driving which could still be improved.

  The implementation date for these changes will be announced shortly. The longer test and the revised marking arrangements will be introduced for the motorcycle test, and the emergency stop exercise will be retained in all those tests. The revised marking arrangements will also be introduced for lorry and bus driver tests. Training logbooks for these sectors will be developed in consultation with the representative bodies.

  Planning Guidance
  Mr. Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when his Department will be issuing for consultation draft guidance for local authorities on land-use planning and electromagnetic fields. [63262]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Department has today issued for consultation the draft of a joint circular with the Department of Health. It gives guidance to local planning authorities in drawing up development plan policies or deciding planning applications for development giving rise to electromagnetic fields (EMFs) or for development proposed in the vicinity of existing sources of EMFs. Examples of development emitting EMFs are overhead power lines and telecommunications base stations. The Government recognise that there is some public concern about the possible health effects of exposure to EMFs and it is upon this aspect that the guidance focuses.

  Comments are requested by 19 February 1999. Copies of the consultation package have been placed in the Library.

  Transport Safety
  Mrs. Humble
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how he intends
  137
  to implement the review of the arrangements for transport safety announced in the Transport White Paper; and if he will make a statement. [63307]

  Dr. Reid
  The White Paper on the future of transport "A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone" announced the Government's intention to review the arrangements for transport safety, including those for accident investigation.

  In carrying out this review, we will address recommendations from the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Select Committee that transport safety regulation should be focused on a single independent authority as a means of separating safety regulation from operational responsibilities. As the Select Committee's recommendations have potentially wide-reaching implications for the current institutional framework, the review will embrace all transport modes and consider the roles and responsibilities of a number of organisations concerned with transport safety.

  The aim of the review is a modern institutional framework, designed to deliver continued improvements to transport safety and secure public confidence. It will focus on the principles that should govern the organisational and regulatory arrangements for transport safety, including those for personal security, and cover the main areas of public concern, from the setting of safety standards to the investigation of accidents. In particular, it will address institutional obstacles that are seen to act as a constraint to better regulation of safety and consider whether there are aspects of the current organisational arrangements that could give rise to conflicts of interest. It will not address the substance of policies for the operational safety of individual modes taken forward within the current institutional framework.

  An inter-departmental steering group has been set up to guide the review which will work to the following terms of reference:
  "to consider whether a more integrated or unified approach to transport safety across modes would be more effective, produce a safer travelling environment and secure best value for money".

  The review will involve representatives of the transport industries and those working in them, together with consumers. We have set up a small advisory panel to provide an independent sounding board and external influence on the work of the review. There will also be consultation in the Spring on the organisational and operational principles that should apply to any new arrangements for transport safety.

  Our aim is to complete the review process and announce decisions in about 18 months.

TREASURY

  Bank of England
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many staff at the Bank of England were employed in the(a) Traded Markets Team and (b) Supervision and Surveillance Division of the Bank of England on (i) 31 December 1996 and (ii) 31 December 1997. [61037]
  138
  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 27 November 1998]: As at 31 December 1996 there were 420 staff employed in the Supervision and Surveillance Divisions of the Bank including 10 staff in the Traded Markets Team.

  As at 31 December 1997 there were 448 staff employed in the Supervision and Surveillance Divisions of the Bank including 11 staff in the Traded Markets Team.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many staff have transferred from the(a) Traded Markets Team and (b) Supervision and Surveillance Division of the Bank of England to the Financial Services Authority. [61038]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 27 November 1998]: Nine and 406 respectively.

  EU Code of Conduct Group
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what matters have been discussed by the EU Code of Conduct Group to date; and if he will make a statement. [61884]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 1 December 1998]: The Code of Conduct Group has discussed matters which relate to potentially harmful and discriminatory tax measures as is its remit.

  Duty Free Sales
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to retain duty free sales in the EU; and if he will make a statement. [62102]

  Dawn Primarolo
  This matter was discussed by European Finance Ministers at the ECOFIN Council meeting on 1 December 1998. A minority of member states, supported by the UK, called for a fresh look at the decision to end intra-EU duty free sales on 30 June 1999.

  Stamp Duty
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total amount raised in stamp duty on share transactions in each of the last five years. [62276]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 3 December 1998]: The figures are as follows:

  Stamp duty (including stamp duty reserve tax) on transactions of shares and other securities

  £million

  Year

  Amount

  1993–94

  1,035

  1994–95

  1,013

  1995–96

  1,298

  1996–97

  1,408

  1997–98

  1,960

  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the Government's plans with regard to the current stamp duty exemption when authorised unit trusts merge with an open-ended investment company. [63263]

  Ms Hewitt
  Following a number of representations, we intend to extend the current temporary exemption from Stamp Duty Reserve Tax (SDRT) when authorised unit trusts merge into an open-ended investment company
  139
  (OEIC) to match the timetable for the introduction of the framework to allow the formation of a wider range of OEICS. This means that investment funds which intend to rationalise their range of products by merging authorised unit trusts into an OEIC will have the opportunity to do so without paying a Stamp Duty or SDRT charge.

  The current exemption for mergers of authorised unit trusts into OEICs ends on 30 June 1999. We intend to extend this until a year after the coming into force of Treasury Regulations putting in place the new framework.

  Drugs (Turkey)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate his Department has made of the proportion of heroin that enters the United Kingdom via Turkey. [62512]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Customs does not have a reliable estimate of the proportion of heroin which enters the United Kingdom via Turkey. The amount Customs seized during 1997 known to have originated in or transited through Turkey was 1037.33 kilograms which represented 59.37 per cent. of the total amount of heroin seized by Customs during that year, but Customs assess that around 80 per cent. of the total seized has arrived from Turkey.

  Ministerial E-mail Address
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his e-mail address; and what is the e-mail address of the Chief Secretary of the Treasury. [62559]

  Ms Hewitt
  All Treasury Ministers can be e-mailed through the Treasury's website (www.hm-treasury.gov.uk) or the Public Enquiry Unit (public.enquiries@hm-treasury.gov.uk).

  Charities
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he plans to publish the Charities Tax Review consultation document. [62334]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 7 December 1998]: The Government received over 3,000 replies in the first phase of the Review and are determined to consider carefully all the options before launching the next phase. We intend to publish a Consultation Document as soon as possible.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent changes in practice there have been regarding the 10 per cent. commercial use concession to charities' zero rating for new buildings. [62338]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 7 December 1998]: None. Zero-rating is available for charity buildings that are used solely for non-business purposes. However, when the building is used for a business purpose for less than 10 per cent. of the total time that it is open, that use is ignored.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has made to the EU Commission regarding the special VAT zero-rating arrangements for charities regarding(a) the supply of lifeboats to the RNLI, (b) the conversion of lifeboat slipways, (c) the supply of
  140
  medical research equipment to charities and (d) the supply of equipment for the disabled to charities; and if he will veto any proposals to end these arrangements. [62336]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 7 December 1998]: As my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary said in the House on 1 December 1998, there are no detailed proposals from the Commission to change the existing VAT rates, and existing EC agreements fully safeguard the UK's zero rates.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the revenue cost to charities of EU proposals to(a) end zero rating and (b) end exempt activities in respect of VAT. [62337]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 7 December 1998]: There are no proposals from the Commission to change the existing VAT rates for charities.

  Winter Mortality Rates
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many deaths, where hypothermia was mentioned on the death certificate as the main or contributory cause of death, took place in England and Wales in 1997 among those(a) of all ages, (b) aged 60 to 74, (c) aged 74 to 84 and (d) aged over 85 years; what were the winter mortality rates for (i) the population as a whole, (ii) people aged 60 to 74, (iii) people aged 75 to 84 and (iv) people aged 85 years and over; and what the percentage increase was in each group compared to non-winter deaths in 1997–98. [62794]

  Ms Hewitt
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Director of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Eddie O'Hara, dated 8 December 1998:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary question on deaths from hypothermia and winter morality rates.
  The information requested is shown below.

  Deaths where hypothermia was mentioned on the death certificate, England and Wales, 1997

  Ages

  Number

  All Ages

  357

  60–74

  51

  75–84

  127

  85 and over

  127

  Excess winter mortality, England and Wales, 1997–981

  Age

  Excess winter deaths 2

  Percentage increase in mortality in winter

  All ages

  23,680

  14

  60–74

  5,050

  11

  75–84

  7,960

  14

  85 and over

  9,180

  19

  1 provisional

  2 rounded to the nearest 10

  Excess winter deaths are defined as the difference between the number of deaths during the four winter months (December to March) and the average of the number of deaths during the preceding autumn (August to November) and the following summer (April to July).

  VAT (Football Transfer Fees)
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what the annual revenue is from VAT on football transfer fees for(a) players under contract and (b) players under 24 years who are out of contract; [62800]

  (2) if he will estimate the annual revenue forgone as a result of the decision of the European Court in the Bosman case relating to football transfer fees; and if he will make a statement. [62799]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Any VAT relating to football transfer fees can be recovered by the acquiring club. Therefore, there is no VAT revenue from football transfer fees and no VAT revenue forgone as a result of the judgment of the European Court in the Bosman case.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Smoking
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chairman of the Catering Committee for what reasons smoking has been banned in the(a) Churchill Room and (b) Members' and Strangers' Dining Rooms; and for what reasons it is permitted in the Press Gallery Dining Room. [62651]

  Mr. Dennis Turner
  The Committee agreed that smoking should no longer be permitted in the Churchill Room and in the Members' and Strangers' Dining Rooms following representations made to it by hon. Members requesting such a course of action. I understand that the Director of Catering Services has received no such representations from members of the Lobby and Gallery concerning smoking in the Press Dining Room.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Lottery Funding
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport which sporting venues have received lottery funding for athletics in the past 12 months. [62175]

  Mr. Banks
  Listed are the sporting venues which have received Lottery sports funding from the English Sports Council for athletics in the period 1 December 1997 to 30 November 1998:

  Stourport Sports Club, Stourport-on-Severn, Worcestershire

  Exeter Arena, Exeter, Devon

  Trafford Athletic Club, Stockport, Cheshire

  Moorways Sports Complex, Derby

  Priory School, Lewes, East Sussex

  Eastbourne Sports Complex, Darlington, County Durham

  Sunnydale Leisure Centre, Shildon, County Durham

  Erith Running Track, Erith, Kent

  Battersea Athletics Track, London

  Par Recreation Ground, Cornwall.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much lottery funding the sport of basketball has received over the last 12 months. [62176]

  Mr. Banks
  In the period 1 December 1997 to 30 November 1998, basketball received Lottery capital sports facilities awards of £990,039 from the English 142
  Sports Council, towards total project costs of £1,285,052. The English Sports Council has awarded a total of £25,409,308 to the sport since awards began in March 1995.

  Since the World Class Performance programme commenced in October 1997, 17 English wheelchair basketball players have received a combined total of £468,839 from Lottery sports funding. In addition, £14,500 has been awarded from World Class Events funding in an effort to bring the 2002 world championship for wheelchair basketball to this country.

  UK Sports Institute
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many contracts for the UK Sports Institute have been(a) put out to tender and (b) signed. [62702]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 7 December 1998]: This is primarily a matter for those in Sheffield who are setting up the Headquarters of the UK Sports Institute. However, I understand that a number of contracts, including contracts for design and for site investigation as well as contracts of employment, have been let although no construction contracts have yet been put out to tender or signed. Both the UK Sports Council and Phoenix have assured me that good progress is being made.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what progress has been made in identifying sites for the national and regional centres of the UK Sports Institute. [62701]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 7 December 1998]: We have already announced that the Headquarters of the UK Sports Institute will be located in Sheffield. Separate announcements have been made about arrangements in Scotland. So far as England is concerned, the English Sports Council has been consulting wide with potential providers of services and I understand it will soon be in a position to make further proposals to the Government. We have already agreed that there should be a devolved regional structure. Some extra time has been taken by the Council to ensure that the whole of England is adequately covered, including East Anglia and the concentrations of population of the south coast.

  National Lottery
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what is the current National Lottery surplus; and if he will make a statement. [62634]

  Mr. Banks
  The National Lottery has so far raised £6.6 billion for Good Causes. £5.6 billion has been awarded to projects across the UK of which £2.99 billion has already been paid out. The remaining £1 billion is yet to be committed to projects. Any money held in the National Lottery Distribution Fund earns (tax free) interest for the good causes.

  The recent changes to the Lottery will allow a more flexible approach to distributing Lottery money. The shift in emphasis from buildings to people should mean that more money will be distributed more quickly across the country.

PRIME MINISTER

  Policy Unit (Travel)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list each overseas trip paid for out of public funds by members of the No. 10 Policy Unit since 1 May 1997, indicating in each case the(a) individuals involved, (b) destination, (c) purpose and (d) cost; and if he will make a statement. [62095]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 3 December 1998]: For the period 1 May 1997 to the end of October 1998, members of the No. 10 Policy Unit have travelled overseas on official business for talks with officials from European governments on 26 occasions. The average cost of travel was about £380.00 per person. Only one special adviser travelled on each occasion except for a visit to Bonn undertaken by three special advisers. Subsistence costs were met on four occasions, totalling approximately £700. All visits have been made in accordance with the rules set out in the Civil Service Management Code.

  In addition, members of the No. 10 Policy Unit have accompanied me and other Ministers on my official visits abroad. Information on these visits has been provided in answer to previous parliamentary questions.

  These arrangements follow the practice of successive administrations.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Robert Jackson
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list all current special advisers in his Office; and if he will indicate the subjects on which they advise. [62798]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answers I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) on 30 October 1997,Official Report, column 860; my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) on 14 January 1998, Official Report, column 233–34; the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) on 5 May 1998, Official Report, column 278; and the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), on 6 July 1998, Official Report, columns 356–57.

  In addition, Dr. Iain Anderson is employed as a part-time, unpaid Adviser on the Millennium Bug providing advice to me and my right hon. Friend the President of the Council.

  Parliament (State Opening)
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Prime Minister what estimate he has made of the total costs of the State Opening of Parliament. [62214]

  The Prime Minister
  Some £50,000 has been jointly set aside by the two Houses, from their Vote, for the State Opening of Parliament. As in previous years, approximately £1,600 has been allocated for the printing of the Queen's Speech.

  The Metropolitan Police estimate policing costs for the State Opening at around £240,000, a similar figure to previous years. This excludes the costs incurred by the Metropolitan Police in providing the permanent security service within the Palace of Westminster. It also excludes
  144
  costs such as catering. These figures do not include any additional cost of military staff who took part in the ceremony, which are not separately costed.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Robert Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the special advisers in her Department and the issues on which they specialise; and to what level they have been security cleared. [62836]

  Clare Short
  I have two Special Advisers, David Mepham and Dee Sullivan, who advise me on the full range of issues for which I am responsible. They are strongly committed to international development and I value their work greatly. They work in full co-operation with my departmental officials on the issues on which it would be inappropriate for officials to work. Special Advisers are subject to the usual security clearance arrangements. It would not be appropriate to give details about the level of security clearance applying in the case of particular individuals.

  Ministerial E-mail Address
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what is her e-mail address. [62878]

  Clare Short
  The e-mail address of my office is c-short@dfid.gtnet.gov.uk.

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has in respect of future humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan. [63056]

  Clare Short
  My Department has just concluded a review of Department for International Development's (DFID) current humanitarian programme to Afghanistan.

  Our assessment is that while the forthcoming winter may see a seasonal lull in active fighting, there is little prospect for a settlement of the conflict.

  Serious human rights abuses appear to have been perpetrated by all parties, and the discovery of mass graves has generated demands for an external investigation, together with the deployment of human rights monitors. We are supporting this in the UN, and have urged the involvement of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. The Taliban continue to impose difficult working conditions including limiting access to women. The Taliban have also not kept their pledge on narcotics, and production has actually expanded over the past year.

  The UN aid agencies have not returned their expatriate staff to Afghanistan as conditions for their return (including satisfactory account of investigations into the past killings of UN workers, and assurances over future security) have not yet been met. The ICRC have remained in the country but with a curtailed programme and

  145
  reduced expatriate representation. Some NGOs are sending back their expatriate staff, while others are still waiting to see what happens in coming weeks.

  The humanitarian situation inside Afghanistan—in terms of basic physical needs—is under reasonable control at the present time. People are coping partly due to increased food production in areas that have seen little active fighting this year. However health services, rudimentary to start with, are further stretched or broken down. We are also informed that the situation in the Central Bamiyan region is precarious. Humanitarian needs may become more stark in parts of Afghanistan if there is a severe winter.

  Current DFID Programme

  During our Presidency of the European Union, the UK negotiated a Common Position, led a Joint EU Mission to create a broad consensus on aid strategy, and hosted a meeting of the Afghan Support Group in London. We also continue to support the mediation efforts of the United Nations Special Mission to Afghanistan, and the UN Secretary-General's Special Envoy Mr. Lakhdar Brahimi.

  Our effort to help create a system-wide approach to Afghanistan, and increase synergy between peace-making and humanitarian assistance, has been underpinned by the provision of £8.5 million in 1998: this includes support for:
  ICRC's protection, humanitarian law and medical relief work;
  demining through the UN and Halo Trust;
  United Nations Office For The Co-ordination Of Humanitarian Assistance for Afghanistan (UNOCHA) for co-ordination and common services to benefit the whole system (e.g. communications, logistics, aircraft);
  NGOs (Afghanaid, Christian Aid, CARE, TEAR Fund, Support for Afghan Further Education (SAFE); BBC, Children in Crisis, the Agency Co-ordinating Body for Afghan Relief (ACBAR), British Agencies Afghan Group) for education, health, water, sanitation and co-ordination activities;
  UNHCR for refugee care and protection programmes;
  and FAO for livestock and food security.

  Useful impact has been achieved in terms of encouraging an effective principled common approach to programming, promoting protection, building livelihood security and making use of the available modest opportunities for education for girls and boys. We also provided disaster relief when two major earthquakes struck Northern Afghanistan earlier this year.

  Forward Strategy

  We will continue to remain engaged in Afghanistan. In doing so, we will be informed by the principled common programming approach under the United Nations led Strategic Framework for Afghanistan that we have been instrumental in developing and promoting. The purpose of the Strategic Framework is:
  to enhance reinforcement between the United Nations political strategy in Afghanistan and international assistance activities;
  to promote greater effectiveness and coherence in the international assistance programme.
  146
  We recognise that the operating context for humanitarian agencies will remain highly uncertain for the time being. Until we have fresh information to the contrary, we shall continue to advise British aid workers against returning to Afghanistan because of security concerns. This means that we are not able to support NGOs that send expatriates back into the country. This restriction does not apply in the same way to ICRC and UN agencies because of their specially mandated role under international agreements.

  We shall also consider further funding for ICRC and selected UN agencies in Afghanistan after appraisal of the Consolidated Interagency Appeal due to be launched next week by the United Nations. Guidance to Agencies wishing to apply for DFID funds includes the expectation that they will also subscribe to the above principles of the Strategic Framework for Afghanistan. New funding commitments would be limited to six months. We shall conduct another review of Afghanistan policy in mid-1999 unless there is significant earlier change in circumstances.

  We recognise that the operating context for humanitarian agencies will remain highly uncertain for the time being. Until we have fresh information to the contrary, we shall continue to advise British aid workers against returning to Afghanistan because of security concerns. This means that we are not able to support NGOs that send expatriates back into the country. This restriction does not apply in the same way to ICRC and UN agencies because of their specially mandated role under international agreements.

  We shall also consider further funding for ICRC and selected UN agencies in Afghanistan after appraisal of the Consolidated Interagency Appeal due to be launched next week by the United Nations. Guidance to Agencies wishing to apply for DFID funds includes the expectation that they will also subscribe to the above principles of the Strategic Framework for Afghanistan. New funding commitments would be limited to six months. We shall conduct another review of Afghanistan policy in mid-1999 unless there is significant earlier change in circumstances.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the cost to his Department of travel by Ministers in his Department in(a) RAF and (b) privately chartered aircraft (i) in the year to 1 May 1997 and (ii) since 1 May 1997. [60904]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 27 November 1998]: The cost of travel for DTI Ministers:

  (a) In RAF Aircraft

  (i) For the year to 1 May 1997: Nil

  (ii) Since I May 1997: £15,934.80

  (b) In Privately Chartered Aircraft

  (i) For the year to 1 May: £24,199.01

  (ii) Since I May 1997: £11,314.72.

  Company Accounts
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many company directors were disqualified for one or more Companies Act 1985 offences for failing to keep adequate accounting records in each year since 1987. [61959]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 1 December 1998]: There are no known instances since 1987 where a director has been disqualified solely for failing to keep adequate accounting records.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many companies were(a) found guilty and (b) fined for not disclosing to the public that a director has (i) resigned and (ii) been appointed within two weeks of that resignation under section 288 of the Companies Act 1985 in each year since 1987. [61955]

  Section of the Act

  General nature of the offence

  Mode of prosecution

  Punishment

  S 221(5) or 222(4)

  Company failing to keep accounting records (liabilities of the officers)

  1. On indictment 2. Summary

  2 years or a fine: or both 6 months or the statutory maximum, £5,000; or both

  S 222(6)

  Officer of company failing to secure compliance with, or intentionally causing default under section 222(5) (preservation of accounting records for requisite number of years)

  1. On indictment 2. Summary

  2 years or a fine: or both 6 months or the statutory maximum, £5,000; or both

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many company directors were found guilty of approving accounts which did not comply with the Companies Act 1985 in each year since 1987. [61954]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 1 December 1998]: There were no prosecutions for the years 1987–1998 under the provisions of section 223(5) of the Companies Act 1985, as amended.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what was the average fine levied on a company director convicted of approving accounts which did not comply with the requirements of the Companies Act 1985 in(a) 1995, (b) 1996 and (c) 1997; [61949]

  (2) how many directors were fined in 1997, and for what amounts, for approving accounts which did not comply with the requirements of the Companies Act 1985; [61952]

  (3) how many company directors have been fined, and for what amounts, for approving accounts which did not comply with the requirements of the Companies Act 1985 in each year since 1987. [61950]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 1 December 1998]: There is no record of any company directors being fined for approving accounts which did not comply with the requirements of the Companies Act 1985 for the years in question.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what is the maximum punishment for conviction as a director of a company which fails to file an annual return which discloses the names of the directors and owners of the company within 28 days of its due date under section 363 of the Companies Act 1985; [61961]
  148
  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 1 December 1998]: Since 1987 three convictions have been secured under section 288 of the Companies Act 1985. These convictions were obtained in the year 1990–91 but there is no record of the fines, if any, imposed.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the maximum available punishment following a conviction as a director of a company which failed to keep adequate accounting records. [61951]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 1 December 1998]: There are a number of penalties laid out in respect of punishment following conviction of a director of a company which failed to keep adequate accounting records. These are set out as follows under section 730, Schedule 24 of the Companies Act 1985.

  (2) what is the maximum punishment following conviction for being a director of a company which fails to file financial accounts with Companies House within (i) seven months and (ii) 10 months of the end of the period of account; [61948]

  (3) what is the maximum punishment for a company which does not disclose to the public that a director has (a) been appointed and (b) resigned within two weeks of that resignation under section 288 of the Companies Act 1985. [61960]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 1 December 1998]: A fine of up to £5,000 (the statutory maximum).

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many company directors have been(a) imprisoned or (b) fined over the last 10 years for approving accounts which do not comply with the requirements of the Companies Act 1985; and what is the maximum (i) prison sentence and (ii) fine which may be imposed. [61958]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 1 December 1998]: There have been no instances in the last ten years of fines or imprisonment of company directors for offences, in relation to approval of accounts that do not comply with the requirements of the Companies Act 1985. There are no provisions to imprison directors who fail to comply and the amount of fine is not specified.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) how many company directors were (i) found guilty and (ii) fined for failing to file an annual return which disclosed the names of the directors and owners of the company within 28 days of its due date under section 363 of the Companies Act 1985 in each year since 1987; [61947]
  149
  (2) how many company directors were fined for being a director of a company which failed to file financial accounts with Companies House within (a) seven months and (b) 10 months of the end of the period of account in each year since 1987; [61957]

  (3) how many company directors were found guilty of failing to file financial accounts with Companies House within (i) seven months and (ii) 10 months of the end of the period of account in each year since 1987; and how many were fined. [61956]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 1 December 1998]: There are no figures available to answer pq 61956 and pq 61957. However, the total number of directors convicted each year since 1987 for failing to deliver annual returns and/or accounts on time to the Registrar are as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1987–88

  1,574

  1988–89

  1,178

  1989–90

  1,635

  1990–91

  1,962

  1991–92

  1,716

  1992–93

  1,915

  1993–94

  1,285

  1994–95

  987

  1995–96

  636

  1996–97

  695

  1997–98

  745

  There are no figures available to show the number of directors convicted and fined during the years concerned for failing to deliver annual returns only.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many company directors have been found guilty of failing to keep adequate accounting records in each year since 1987; and what penalties were imposed. [61953]

  Dr. Howells
  The number of company directors that have been prosecuted for failure to keep or preserve accounting records in accordance with sections 221–223 of the Companies Act 1985 were:

  S 221–223 failure to keep or preserve accounting records

  Year

  Offence

  Prosecutions

  Convictions

  Numbers of charges where a conviction was not obtained

  1997–98

  S 221–223

  134

  64

  70

  1996–97

  S 221–223

  71

  38

  33

  1995–96

  S 221–223

  32

  22

  10

  1994–95

  S 221–223

  68

  33

  35

  1993–94

  S 221–223

  118

  61

  57

  1992–93

  S 221–223

  171

  105

  66

  1991–92

  S 221–223

  118

  69

  49

  1990–91

  S 221–223

  99

  71

  28

  1989–90

  S 221–223

  116

  93

  23

  1988–89

  S 221–223

  90

  77

  13

  Statistics for earlier periods are not available and to research this information would involve disproportionate cost. Similarly there are no available records which show the level of penalties imposed for the above years. To research and gather this information would involve
  150
  reference to a number of sources, such as records of Magistrate's Courts, and again the work involved would be disproportionate.

  Lear Corporation
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what Government grants or assistance has been requested by the Lear Corporation since 1996. [62293]

  Mr. Battle
  No publicly announced grants or assistance are on record.

  Business Fees
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the Government will announce the fee to be charged to businesses under the proposals in the Competition Bill. [62195]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 3 December 1998]: Any decision on fees will be made in good time before the new prohibition regime is brought into force on 1 March 2000 and following the statutory consultation prescribed in the Competition Act 1998.

  Postage Costs
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the cost of(a) first class and (b) second class postage in each of the last 20 years, adjusted to 1998 prices. [62309]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  I understand from the Post Office that first and second class postage rates in each of the last 20 years adjusted to 1998 prices were as follows:

  Pence

  Year

  1st Class

  2nd Class

  1978

  29.3

  22.8

  1979

  26.9

  21.2

  1980

  28.8

  23.9

  1981

  30.2

  24.8

  1982

  30.8

  24.9

  1983

  30.4

  23.9

  1984

  29.8

  23.1

  1985

  29.2

  22.1

  1986

  28.6

  20.3

  1987

  28.7

  20.8

  1988

  27.9

  20.3

  1989

  27.2

  20.1

  1990

  26.5

  20.1

  1991

  27.5

  21.1

  1992

  28.2

  21.1

  1993

  27.9

  21.0

  1994

  28.2

  21.4

  1995

  27.3

  20.7

  1996

  27.2

  20.8

  1997

  26.8

  20.7

  1998

  26.0

  20.0

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will publish the results of the consultation on the draft regulations implementing the minimum wage which ended on 6 November. [62978]
  151
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  Our final proposals for the National Minimum Wage Regulations will be presented to the House for approval shortly.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to reduce the minimum wage payable by those employers who make full board and lodging available to their employees. [62982]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  We have no plans to reduce the level of the national minimum wage. We are considering representations on the deductions that could be made in respect of accommodation provided by employers made to us during the consultation process on the draft National Minimum Wage Regulations. The Regulations will be presented to the House for approval shortly.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has had from British Activities Holidays Association in respect of the minimum wage; and if he will make a statement. [62979]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Government have received a number of representations from the British Activity Holidays Association about the national minimum wage.

  We have consulted business, employees and others with an interest on the draft National Minimum Wage Regulations. We have listened to the concerns expressed and this will be reflected in our final proposals to be announced shortly. The Regulations will be presented to the House for approval.

  Mrs. Humble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what factors led him to set the accommodation deductor in the draft national minimum wage regulations at its current level. [62939]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Government accepted in principle the advice of the Low Pay Commission on the amounts which could be offset against the national minimum wage, subject to the practicalities of implementation and the draft National Minimum Wage regulations reflect that position. The maximum amount the Commission recommended to be offset for accommodation only was £20 per week.

  Mrs. Humble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received on the issue of the draft national minimum wage regulations accommodation deductor; and if he will make a statement. [62940]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Government have received a number of representations on the draft National Minimum Wage Regulation dealing with the treatment of deductions in respect of accommodation provided by the employer.

  We have consulted business, employees and others with an interest on the draft National Minimum Wage Regulations. We have listened to the concerns expressed and our final proposals will be presented to the House for approval shortly.

  Mrs. Humble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to lay before the House the statutory instrument regarding the national minimum wage regulations. [62938]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The statutory instrument to implement the National Minimum Wage regulations will be presented to the House for approval shortly.

  Confiscated Assets
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps the Government are taking to return to victims of Nazi persecution assets which were confiscated in the United Kingdom by Her Majesty's Government under trading with the enemy legislation. [63042]

  Mr. Mandelson
  This Government are revolted by the treatment meted out by the Nazis to Jews and other minorities during the Second World War. We have the greatest sympathy for the victims and their relatives. This is why, in June 1998, we appointed the right hon. the Lord Archer of Sandwell QC to advise on a Scheme for determining claims from victims of Nazi persecution for the return of assets, where practicable and subject to validation, placed in the UK, which were confiscated by HM Government during the Second World War. We have now received Lord Archer's recommendations and I am pleased to confirm that the Government will quickly put in place a Claims Scheme based on them. A copy of the Government's response to Lord Archer's main recommendations has been placed in the Library of the House.

  The Scheme will have the following main features: any victims of Nazi persecution who had assets in the UK confiscated by HM Government under the Trading with the Enemy legislation, and who have not already been compensated, will be eligible to make a claim; the Government will pay compensation at today's values in respect of valid claims to the original owners or their heirs; and claims will be determined by a panel of three independent Assessors comprising a legal Chair; someone with financial expertise; and someone with an understanding of belonging to a minority group.

  This Government are aware that time is of the essence to victims of Nazi persecution and their families. We shall therefore establish the Claims Scheme as a matter of urgency so that claims for compensation may be met as soon as possible. The terms of reference of the assessors, a claims form and guidance on how to apply will be made available as soon as is practicable.

  My Department has already received a number of potential claims and we shall be writing to these individuals to inform them of the procedure. We shall also be updating my Department's enemy property website, adding further lists of names and details of the Claims Scheme as they emerge. We are also in touch with the main interest groups and together with them we shall ensure that the Scheme gets the widest publicity.

  I am grateful to Lord Archer for proposing a solution which allows the Government to meet the claims of victims of Nazi persecution while addressing the real practical problems of meeting the standards of propriety expected in public expenditure in circumstances some fifty years after the event. The UK owes victims of Nazi persecution a debt of honour. That debt can now be repaid.

  Gas Consumers
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent consultations he has held with the Council of Registered Gas Installers concerning the interests of gas consumers; and if he will make a statement. [62399]
  153
  Mr. Howells
  [holding answer 7 December 1998]: I met the Council of Registered Gas Installers on 24 November, to discuss a number of matters relating to the safe use of gas by domestic consumers.

  Oil Industry
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the Director General of Fair Trading will complete his review of the undertakings given by oil companies in 1966; and if he will arrange to publish this review when he receives it. [62402]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 7 December 1998J: I expect to receive the Director General of Fair Trading's advice following his review of the petrol undertakings around the end of the year. The Director General's advice is confidential.

  Petrol Industry
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what conclusions he has reached on the Director General of Fair Trading's report on the wholesale and retail petrol market, published on 18 May. [62403]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 7 December 1998]: The Director General of Fair Trading, in his 18 May report on competition in the supply of petrol in the UK, concluded that the market is competitive and working to the benefit of consumers. It is for the Director General to decide whether or not to make a reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. He decided on the basis of his report that a reference of this market was not justified.

  Better Payment Practice Group
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many businesses and organisations to date have joined the Better Payment Practice Group. [63111]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Better Payment Practice Group was established in October 1997 as an integral part of the Government's commitment to work in partnership with the private sector to bring about an improved payment culture in the UK. The role of the Group is to help shape and influence the private and public sectors' efforts to tackle the problem of late payment as well as informing the work of other organisations and sectors on this issue.

  Since it began 18 representative organisations have accepted invitations to join the Better Payment Practice Group from the small firms, banking, factoring, trade credit insurance, credit management, accountancy profession and credit services sectors to look at this important issue. A key achievement for the Group has been the launch of its campaign in October this year to highlight the economic benefits that can be derived from paying on time.

  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the businesses and organisations which have refused invitations to join the Better Payment Practice Group. [63112]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Better Payment Practice Group was formed in October 1997 as a partnership between the public and private sector to bring about an improved payment culture in the UK. Since it was established no organisation invited to join the Group has refused the offer of a place.
  154
  This 100 per cent. take-up rate reflects the importance which both the private and public sectors attach to addressing the difficulties caused as a result of late payment of commercial debts.

  Small Arms Exports
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the quantity of small arms exported in each of the last five years and their destination; and what(a) quantity and (b) proportion were exported to a country at war or which was at war within a year of the arms being exported. [61661]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information is not held in the form requested and obtaining it could be done only at disproportionate cost.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Criminal Legal Aid
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what are(a) the budgets and (b) the priorities for criminal legal aid in (i) 1997–98, (ii) 1998–99 and (iii) 1999–2000. [61257]

  Mr. Hoon
  There is no separate budget for criminal legal aid. However, in 1997–98, the cost of criminal legal aid, including advice and assistance, was £733 million. This year expenditure is expected to be around £800 million while next year it is expected to rise to £840 million.

  Our priority continues to be that criminal legal aid should enable criminal justice to be dispensed fairly, effectively and without undue delay. Our proposals for contracts at fixed prices would reward efficient lawyers and provide better control over expenditure and quality.

  Court Closures
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department how many courts have closed since May 1997; and how many new ones have opened. [61258]

  Mr. Hoon
  I am aware of 29 magistrates courthouses closures since May 1997. It is possible that other closures have occurred following a decision by a local magistrates courts committee against which no appeal has been lodged. The Lord Chancellor has a role in magistrates courthouse closures only where an appeal has been made. Three new magistrates courthouses have opened at South Shields, Chippenham and Tameside.

  Since May 1997, eight county courts have closed. There have been four court buildings opened since May 1997: Swansea County Court (June 1997), Oldham County Court (November 1997), the Immigration Appellate Authority (March 1998) and Principal Registry of the Family Division (June 1998).

  Mr. McWalter
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to provide additional resources to boroughs which no longer have court services; and if he will make a statement. [61262]
  155
  Mr. Hoon
  The Lord Chancellor's Department makes grants to local authorities towards current and capital expenditure incurred by them on behalf of the magistrates courts committee for their area. The overall level of expenditure allowed to be incurred, and thereby the amount of grant due to be paid, is determined by this Department.

  The formula used to calculate the amount of current grant to be paid to each local authority is under review. It has been agreed, pending the completion of this review, that each local authority will receive, in cash terms, a 1.5 per cent. increase in their grant allocation for 1999–2000 over 1998–99.

  The Department has made no specific plans to provide additional resources to local authorities during 1998–99, with the exception of those areas where there are amalgamations of magistrates courts committees which may bid for additional resources towards any transitional additional costs resulting from that amalgamation. It is always open to a magistrates courts committee, in conjunction with its local authority, to bid for additional resources from this Department.

  Epping Magistrates Court
  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what representations he has received on the future of Epping Magistrates Court. [61259]

  Mr. Hoon
  I considered three representations on the future of the Epping Magistrates Court, before approving the application made by the Essex Magistrates Courts Committee for the reorganisation of its petty sessional divisions.

  I understand from the Justices' Chief Executive for the Essex Magistrates Courts Committee that the Committee has no proposals to close the Epping Magistrates Court.

  Witness Support Schemes
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement about the contribution made by witness support schemes to the administration of magistrates courts. [61260]

  Mr. Hoon
  Witness support schemes give information about court procedures, arrange with the court pre-court familiarisation visits and provide separate waiting facilities on the day of the witness's court appearances, and give emotional support. The Government are committed to improving witness services in the magistrates courts, reflecting the considerable importance that is attached to the welfare of witnesses in the criminal courts.

  Judicial Appointments Commission
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make it his policy to establish a judicial appointments commission. [61253]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Lord Chancellor announced in October 1997 that, given the priority of other radical reforms, work on a judicial appointments commission would not proceed for the time being. He has made 156
  significant changes to the appointments process, including the extension of advertising of vacancies to include High Court appointments; more flexibility in part-time sitting arrangements to encourage applications, in particular from women; and an increase in the upper age limit for appointment as Assistant Recorders and lay magistrates in order to widen the field of applicants.

  Worthing County Court
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what representations he has received about the proposed closure of Worthing County Court; and if he will make a statement. [61250]

  Mr. Hoon
  The hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) and the Worthing Law Society have written separately to the Lord Chancellor. Before any consideration is given to closure, court users will be asked for their views early in the New Year.

  Rights of Audience
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what steps are being taken to extend rights of audience before the courts for solicitors and employed barristers. [61251]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Access to Justice Bill includes provisions to give all solicitors and barristers full rights of audience before all the courts, provided they meet the training and conduct requirements imposed by their professional bodies. The Bill proposes to give employed banisters and solicitors, including Crown Prosecutors, the same rights of audience as their colleagues in private practice.

SCOTLAND

  Special Adviser
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many special advisers are employed in his Department; and what is the total cost to public funds in the current financial year. [61271]

  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total cost to public funds of employing special advisers in his Department in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [61282]

  Mr. Dewar
  There are three Special Advisers employed in my Department. Their salaries are negotiated individually and are confidential within the three-band range announced to the House by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office on 16 November 1998,Official Report, columns 354–55.

  Beef
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the NFU in Scotland to discuss the promotion of Scottish beef. [61273]

  Mr. Dewar
  I have met the farming industry several times in recent months and discussed the promotion of Scottish beef and other matters with the President of the Scottish NFU when I met him on 24 November 1998.
  157
  Regaining export markets for Scotch beef is vital and my noble Friend Lord Sewel is working closely with the industry. But it is not the only opportunity for our Scottish industry; I want to help the farming industry secure a healthy sustainable future. My noble Friend and I will meet the Scottish NFU and other organisations on 22 December to launch discussions on the way ahead for the Scottish farming industry and related sectors.

  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has made to the Treasury regarding proposals for varying the vehicle excise duty in Scotland. [61274]

  Mr. Macdonald
  I very much welcome my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer's commitment to make payment of Vehicle Excise Duty fairer for owners of lower emission cars. I encourage interested parties in Scotland to contribute their views.

  Health Service
  Mr. Eric Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the planned expenditure on the health service in Scotland. [61275]

  Mr. Galbraith
  Net expenditure on the Health Service in Scotland is planned to be £4.6 billion in 1998–99. Following the Comprehensive Spending Review an extra £1.8 billion is planned to be spent over the period 1999–2000 to 2001–02. Planned spending next year will be at a record high of £4.9 billion or about £960 per head.

  Scottish Parliament
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received regarding elections to the Scottish Parliament. [61276]

  Mr. Dewar
  Since the publication of the White Paper, "Scotland's Parliament", last year we have received many representations on a wide range of issues to do with the elections to the Scottish Parliament.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects the Scottish Parliament to sit for the first time. [61284]

  Mr. McLeish
  Section 2 of the Scotland Act 1998 provides that the date of the Parliament's first sitting will be prescribed in an order by the Secretary of State. My right hon. Friend will make an announcement on this in due course, but we expect that the Parliament will first meet a few days after the elections on 6 May.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to review the method by which additional members of the Scottish parliament will be elected. [62087]

  Mr. McLeish
  The electoral system for the Scottish Parliament is set out in the Scotland Act 1998, which received Royal Assent on 19 November. We have no plans to review this.

  Farmers (Assistance)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what measures he will take to assist farmers in Scotland. [61277]
  158
  Mr. Macdonald
  Assistance is currently running at record levels. Last year, direct payments to Scottish farmers totalled almost half a billion pounds and latest indications are that a similar amount will be recorded for 1998. Throughout this year we have implemented a range of additional measures and these have been worth about £50 million. On 16 November, a further £36 million was approved for payment early next year.

  Strategic Defence Review
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the impact of the strategic defence review on Scotland. [61278]

  Mr. Dewar
  I welcome the outcomes of this Review conducted by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. It ensures that Scotland will continue to play a prominent role in meeting Britain's defence requirements.

  Office for National Statistics
  Mr. Savidge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the status which the Office for National Statistics kitemark carries on official documents published by the Scottish Office. [61279]

  Mr. Dewar
  ONS does not operate a kitemarking scheme. Some Scottish Office publications bear the logo of the Government Statistical Service (GSS). The logo is not used for publications which are not prepared on behalf of the GSS, or where the content of a publication is set out in statute.

  The Scottish Office is committed to adhering to the Official Statistics Code of Practice in all statistical work, whether or not carried out on behalf of GSS.

  New Parliament Building
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the latest estimate of the cost of the new Parliament building.[61280]

  Mr. McLeish
  The construction costs of the new Scottish Parliament building at Holyrood continue to be estimated at around £55 million including site acquisition and demolition costs but not including fees and VAT.

  EU Enlargement
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last visited the European Parliament to discuss the implications for Scotland of EU enlargement. [61281]

  Mr. Macdonald
  I visited the European Parliament in June of this year while my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met the President of the European Parliament when he visited Scotland on 3–4 December. On both occasions the issues discussed included EU enlargement.

  Funding Transfers
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to transfer funding from local authorities in Scotland to the Scottish Parliament. [61283]

  Mr. McLeish
  My right hon. Friend has no such plans.

  Anti-drugs Strategy
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on progress with the Government's anti-drugs strategy in Scotland following the appointment of the United Kingdom anti-drugs co-ordinator. [61285]

  Mr. Galbraith
  Following the publication of the White Paper "Tackling Drugs to Build a Better Britain", my right hon. Friend and I have asked the Scottish Advisory Committee on Drug Misuse and the Drug Action Teams in Scotland to consider further development of the Government's drugs strategy for Scotland.

  We expect to issue an enhanced drugs strategy framework for Scotland in the first part of 1999.

  Domestic Abuse
  Miss Begg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action the Government are taking to protect the victims of domestic abuse. [61286]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Tackling domestic violence is a priority for the Scottish Office. We are taking action on 3 fronts.

  We have established a Scottish Partnership on Domestic Violence which met for the first time on 23 November under the chairmanship of Anne Smith QC.

  On 13 November we issued a consultation document entitled "Preventing Violence Against Women: A Scottish Office Action Plan". This contained 27 Action Points.

  We are also preparing a new awareness raising campaign which will begin at Christmas and roll out over the next 3 years.

  Home Ownership
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on levels of home ownership in Scotland. [61287]

  Mr. Macdonald
  The estimate for December 1997 recently published in the Scottish Office Statistical Bulletin (Housing Series), is that, 60.2 per cent. of all dwellings in Scotland are owner-occupied.

  Farming Support
  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met representatives of the farming industry to discuss support for Scottish farms. [61289]

  Mr. Macdonald
  Support for the agricultural industry was one of the matters discussed when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State last met representatives of the farming industry on 24 November.

  Further Education
  Mrs. Irene Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what additional resources have been channelled into further education since 1 May 1997. [61290]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Government have been able to make available to the further education (FE) sector in 1997–98 and 1998–99 £12.4 million more than the planning figures set by the previous Administration. This is in spite of the 160
  Government's commitment to operate within the overall spending limits planned by the previous Administration for the period.

  Further education in Scotland is to receive a massive boost over the next three years, as a result of the Comprehensive Spending Review. In total, the FE budget will receive an additional £214 million over the period, to support further increases in student numbers, promote wider access to FE, improve quality and standards, and stabilise the financial position of the sector.

  Higher Still
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action the Government are taking to ensure that Higher Still proceeds on time. [61291]

  Mrs. Liddell
  We are on course to introduce the first Higher Still courses in 1999. Over £24 million is being provided over the three year period up to 2001–02 to help classroom teachers implement Higher Still. This is in addition to the £20 million which will have been directly invested in Higher Still by the time the first classes start in 1999. An unprecedented level of support materials and national training is also being provided, and two additional in-service days have been granted for local training.

  In addition, I have set up a Liaison Group consisting of representatives from teaching unions, local authorities, further education and parents' organisations, to discuss detailed arrangements for the phasing of Higher Still in 1999–2000. The Group will also consider other topics of concern identified by members.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met representatives of the Education Institute of Scotland to discuss the implementation of Higher Still. [61288]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I had a positive and constructive meeting with representatives of the EIS on 24 November. This resulted in the EIS suspending its boycott of preparations for Higher Still and joining the Liaison Group which I have set up to agree the detailed arrangements for the rephasing of Higher Still in 1999–2000.

  Parliamentary Constituencies
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to review the rules that will determine the number of Scottish parliamentary constituencies. [62086]

  Mr. McLeish
  Section 86 of the Scotland Act removes the current requirement in the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 for there to be a minimum number of Scottish constituencies, so that this requirement will not apply at future reviews of parliamentary boundaries in Scotland. Section 86 further provides that the electoral quota for Scotland will in future be the same as that for England. I have no plans for any further review of these provisions.

  Racism
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what measures is he taking to combat racism in Scotland. [62088]
  161
  Mr. McLeish
  The Government are firmly committed to combating racism in all its forms. In Scotland, we have taken steps to meet the Government's commitment to put racial equality at the heart of our policy agenda by introducing new measures in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to deal with racially aggravated offences; working with key agencies such as the NHS and the Employment Service to make services more accessible to minority communities; and promoting racial equality projects through funding the Ethnic Minority Grant Scheme. The Scottish Social Inclusion Strategy recognises the exclusion that some minority communities face, and we have made equal opportunity a key principle to underpin the Scottish Parliament so that it can be responsive to the whole range of Scottish society.

  I plan to meet the Commission for Racial Equality shortly to discuss how we can work together to raise the profile of racial equality in Scotland as we look ahead to the Parliament. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has demonstrated his own personal commitment to racial equality by signing up to the Commission's Leadership Challenge.

  SSSIs and National Parks
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will publish the findings of the consultation exercise concerning reform of SSSIs and national parks. [62255]

  Mr. Macdonald
  The Scottish Office is currently considering responses to the consultation paper "People and Nature: A New Approach to SSSI Designations in Scotland". My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland expects to make an announcement in the early part of next year.

  Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) recently consulted on proposals for National Parks appropriate to Scottish circumstances. The responses to the consultation will be taken into account by SNH in the advice that it provides to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. It is intended that SNH publish its advice in the early part of next year.

  Devolution (Concordats)
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many concordats remain to be published; and if he will make a statement. [62186]

  Mr. McLeish
  Work is progressing on concordats both within the Scottish Office and in Whitehall Departments. None of them has yet been published.

  Ministerial E-mail Address
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his e-mail address. [62564]

  Pupils and teachers in publicly funded secondary schools, September 1997

  Education authority

  Schools

  Pupils 1

  Adults

  Teachers (FTE)

  Pupil/teacher ratio 1

  Scotland

  401

  314,916

  2,044

  23,875

  13.2

  Aberdeen City

  13

  11,138

  2

  861

  12.9

  Aberdeenshire

  16

  15,114

  5

  1,110

  13.6

  Angus

  9

  7,262

  24

  568

  12.8

  162
  Mr. Dewar
  Electronic mail for me should be sent to scottish.secretary@scotland.gov.uk. This address is published on the home page of The Scottish Office Website.

  School Toilets
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many schools have outside toilets(a) in each education authority and (b) in Scotland. [62648]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The information is not collected centrally.

  Teachers
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) pupils and (b) full-time equivalent teachers there were in each education authority in (i) primary schools and (ii) secondary schools; and in each case what the pupil-teacher ratio (1) was in 1997 and (2) is currently. [62649]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The information requested is set out in the tables.

  Pupils and teachers in publicly funded primary schools, September 1997

  Education authority

  Schools

  Pupils

  Teachers (FTE)

  Pupil/teacher ratio

  Scotland

  2,300

  440,594

  22,187

  19.9

  Aberdeen City

  61

  15,921

  795

  20.0

  Aberdeenshire

  160

  21,526

  1,127

  19.1

  Angus

  62

  9,381

  490

  19.1

  Argyll and Bute

  87

  7,792

  447

  17.4

  Clackmannanshire

  19

  4,542

  216

  21.0

  Dumfries and Galloway

  116

  12,944

  678

  19.1

  Dundee City

  41

  12,360

  650

  19.0

  East Ayrshire

  47

  11,449

  538

  21.3

  East Dunbartonshire

  37

  10,653

  479

  22.2

  East Lothian

  35

  7,942

  398

  20.0

  East Renfrewshire

  24

  8,596

  384

  22.4

  Edinburgh, City of

  103

  30,590

  1,491

  20.5

  Eilean Siar1

  43

  2,556

  197

  13.0

  Falkirk

  48

  12,334

  587

  21.0

  Fife

  146

  30,870

  1,625

  19.0

  Glasgow City

  204

  49,439

  2,458

  20.1

  Highland

  191

  19,149

  1,078

  17.8

  Inverclyde

  32

  7,826

  365

  21.4

  Midlothian

  36

  7,433

  377

  19.7

  Moray

  49

  8,078

  418

  19.3

  North Ayrshire

  52

  12,614

  596

  21.2

  North Lanarkshire

  134

  29,831

  1,472

  20.3

  Orkney Islands

  22

  1,846

  124

  14.9

  Perth and Kinross

  78

  10,776

  572

  18.8

  Renfrewshire

  52

  15,796

  715

  22.1

  Scottish Borders

  72

  8,969

  486

  18.5

  Shetland Islands

  34

  2,335

  184

  12.7

  South Ayrshire

  45

  9,490

  449

  21.1

  South Lanarkshire

  125

  26,846

  1,285

  20.9

  Stirling

  45

  6,897

  351

  19.6

  West Dunbartonshire

  35

  8,890

  425

  20.9

  West Lothian

  65

  14,923

  732

  20.4

  1 Formerly Known as the Western Isles

  163

  Pupils and teachers in publicly funded secondary schools, September 1997

  Education authority

  Schools

  Pupils 1

  Adults

  Teachers (FTE)

  Pupil/teacher ratio 1

  Argyll and Bute

  10

  5,614

  30

  446

  12.6

  Clackmannanshire

  3

  2,951

  9

  220

  13.4

  Dumfries and Galloway

  16

  9,600

  47

  792

  12.1

  Dundee City

  10

  8,983

  2

  687

  13.1

  East Ayrshire

  10

  7,926

  13

  586

  13.5

  East Dunbartonshire

  9

  8,664

  7

  615

  14.1

  East Lothian

  6

  4,853

  9

  359

  13.5

  East Renfrewshire

  7

  6,789

  15

  483

  14.1

  Edinburgh, City of

  23

  18,714

  1,198

  1,388

  13.5

  Eilean Siar2

  13

  2,030

  8

  218

  9.3

  Falkirk

  8

  8,619

  4

  663

  13.0

  Fife

  19

  22,938

  32

  1,707

  13.4

  Glasgow City

  39

  29,952

  68

  2,227

  13.4

  Highland

  28

  14,864

  62

  1,259

  11.8

  Inverclyde

  8

  5,906

  4

  437

  13.5

  Midlothian

  6

  5,368

  4

  405

  13.3

  Moray

  9

  5,700

  19

  454

  12.6

  North Ayrshire

  10

  9,155

  63

  673

  13.6

  North Lanarkshire

  26

  23,057

  38

  1,705

  13.5

  Orkney Islands

  6

  1,425

  2

  136

  10.5

  Perth and Kinross

  10

  7,507

  13

  594

  12.6

  Renfrewshire

  14

  11,641

  17

  837

  13.9

  Scottish Borders

  9

  6,494

  42

  530

  12.3

  Shetland Islands

  9

  1,594

  0

  210

  7.6

  South Ayrshire

  9

  7,875

  55

  581

  13.6

  South Lanarkshire

  21

  20,705

  152

  1,484

  14.0

  Stirling

  7

  5,598

  0

  427

  13.1

  West Dunbartonshire

  7

  6,871

  88

  477

  14.4

  West Lothian

  11

  10,099

  12

  736

  13.6

  1 Excluding adults

  2 Formerly Known as the Western Isles

  Provisional result of the 1998 school census Publicly funded schools in Scotland, at September 1998; number of pupils by sector and education authority 1

  Primary

  Secondary

  Special

  Educaion authority

  Total Pupils

  Total Pupils

  Total adults 2

  Total Pupils based

  Scotland

  437,239

  314,228

  1,729

  8,149

  Aberdeen City

  15,833

  11,059

  24

  458

  Aberdeenshire

  21,550

  15,331

  1

  356

  Angus

  9,300

  7,274

  14

  0

  Argyll and Bute

  7,810

  5,589

  35

  55

  Clackmannanshire

  4,512

  2,952

  4

  58

  Dumfries and Galloway

  12,957

  9,617

  46

  28

  Dundee City

  12,103

  8,873

  5

  180

  East Ayrshire

  11,233

  8,022

  8

  178

  East Dunbartonshire

  10,617

  8,620

  0

  140

  East Lothian

  8,040

  4,872

  9

  0

  East Renfrewshire

  8,727

  6,953

  3

  43

  Edinburgh, City of

  30,330

  19,047

  850

  991

  Eilean Siar1

  2,453

  1,983

  2

  0

  Falkirk

  12,421

  8,534

  36

  325

  Fife

  30,456

  22,733

  24

  250

  Glasgow City

  48,071

  29,350

  37

  2,040

  Highland

  19,031

  14,885

  49

  164

  Inverclyde

  7,625

  5,753

  0

  127

  Midlothian

  7,430

  5,371

  75

  174

  Moray

  8,043

  5,714

  19

  23

  North Ayrshire

  12,578

  9,057

  36

  206

  North Lanarkshire

  29,600

  22,884

  19

  785

  Orkney Islands

  1,831

  1,399

  0

  15

  Perth and Kinross

  10,895

  7,646

  9

  53

  Renfrewshire

  15,562

  11,727

  4

  369

  Scottish Borders

  8,969

  6,622

  44

  0

  Shetland Islands

  2,315

  1,594

  4

  0

  South Ayrshire

  9,404

  7,814

  24

  104

  South Lanarkshire

  26,902

  20,371

  130

  601

  164

  Provisional result of the 1998 school census Publicly funded schools in Scotland, at September 1998; number of pupils by sector and education authority 1

  Primary

  Secondary

  Special

  Educaion authority

  Total Pupils

  Total Pupils

  Total adults 2

  Total Pupils based

  Stirling

  6,924

  5,618

  0

  67

  West Dunbartonshire

  8,839

  6,792

  77

  184

  West Lothian

  14,878

  10,172

  141

  175

  1 Provisional

  2 Adults attending day education classes

  Note:

  Publicly funded schools comprise education authority, self governing and grant aided schools

  Education Expenditure
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the average per capita spending(a) in each education authority and (b) in Scotland in (i) primary schools and (ii) secondary schools on (1) books, (2) computer equipment and (3) other education materials and equipment in the most recent three years for which figures are available. [62647]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The available information is given in the following tables which have been compiled from local authority financial returns. Details for 1994–95 and 1995–96 are under the council areas then applicable, whereas the table for 1996–97 reflects the current local authority structure. There can be variations in the recording of expenditure under the two headings. It is, therefore, possible that some expenditure on books may be included
  165
  under expenditure on equipment or vice versa. Expenditure on computer equipment is not identified separately in local authority returns to The Scottish Office for the years in question.

  Expenditure per pupil on text and library books and on educational tools, equipment and materials

  £ (outturn prices)

  Year 1994–95

  Primary

  Secondary

  Region

  Books

  Equipment

  Books

  Equipment

  Borders

  0.00

  68.18

  0.00

  153.75

  Central

  0.65

  34.63

  2.60

  91.87

  Dumfries and Galloway

  16.30

  65.44

  10.99

  135.84

  Fife

  21.44

  5.91

  58.77

  19.47

  Grampian

  0.00

  56.30

  0.00

  132.05

  Highland

  32.58

  33.16

  54.43

  47.46

  Lothian

  19.65

  31.76

  10.68

  76.75

  Strathclyde

  3.04

  39.02

  3.83

  79.39

  Tayside

  12.70

  33.73

  10.80

  84.01

  Orkney

  0.00

  58.12

  0.00

  111.19

  Shetland

  0.00

  89.65

  0.00

  188.78

  Western Isles

  29.57

  69.12

  55.31

  85.19

  £ (outturn prices)

  Year 1995–96

  Primary

  Secondary

  Region

  Books

  Equipment

  Books

  Equipment

  Borders

  0.00

  52.39

  0.00

  152.73

  Central

  0.69

  34.32

  2.65

  90.92

  Dumfries and Galloway

  13.49

  57.87

  8.51

  121.30

  Fife

  24.88

  4.88

  67.13

  24.97

  Grampian

  0.00

  61.01

  0.00

  135.61

  Highland

  32.23

  26.48

  54.89

  40.52

  Lothian

  19.85

  40.87

  12.20

  80.89

  Strathclyde

  2.09

  49.18

  4.70

  91.56

  Tayside

  12.81

  32.37

  9.55

  67.31

  Orkney

  0.00

  66.52

  0.00

  100.07

  Shetland

  0.00

  92.30

  0.00

  178.47

  Western Isles

  32.07

  71.78

  50.35

  83.92

  Notes:

  1. Not all education authorities distinguish on a consistent basis between the two headings.

  2. Where expenditure under one of the headings is shown as £0.00 it should be assumed that the expenditure has been allocated to the other heading.

  Expenditure per pupil on text and library books and on educational tools, equipment and materials

  £ (outturn prices)

  Year 1996–97 Region

  Primary

  Secondary

  Council

  Books

  Equipment

  Books

  Equipment

  Aberdeen, City of

  0.00

  42.13

  0.00

  73.24

  Aberdeenshire

  0.00

  53.26

  0.00

  110.46

  Angus

  0.00

  46.11

  0.00

  89.75

  Argyll and Bute

  5.12

  90.66

  14.07

  102.94

  Clackmannanshire

  0.00

  35.13

  0.00

  83.36

  Comhairle Nan Eilean Sair

  19.32

  86.94

  49.86

  82.62

  Dumfries and Galloway

  14.98

  58.46

  9.78

  103.19

  Dundee, City of

  3.90

  38.10

  4.91

  58.67

  East Ayrshire

  0.00

  44.49

  0.00

  93.81

  East Dunbartonshire

  5.14

  38.46

  12.57

  75.85

  East Lothian

  0.00

  58.21

  0.00

  83.37

  East Renfrewshire

  47.43

  0.00

  122.52

  0.00

  Edinburgh, City of

  20.46

  52.51

  11.50

  105.83

  Falkirk

  1.79

  35.65

  2.54

  87.46

  Fife

  9.01

  23.24

  9.67

  75.11

  Glasgow, City of

  1.46

  31.36

  4.38

  74.87

  Highland

  0.00

  62.78

  0.00

  107.30

  Inverclyde

  5.54

  32.98

  11.43

  74.48

  Midlothian

  15.96

  15.96

  12.96

  46.27

  Moray

  0.00

  3.11

  2.30

  19.13

  166

  Expenditure per pupil on text and library books and on educational tools, equipment and materials

  £ (outturn prices)

  Year 1996–97

  Primary

  Secondary

  Council

  Books

  Equipment

  Books

  Equipment

  North Ayrshire

  3.09

  33.02

  11.00

  70.57

  North Lanarkshire

  0.00

  51.25

  0.00

  93.82

  Orkney Islands

  0.00

  66.56

  0.00

  75.69

  Perth and Kinross

  12.28

  26.43

  11.01

  41.17

  Renfrewshire

  7.14

  44.73

  13.79

  94.72

  Scottish Borders

  0.00

  49.87

  0.00

  72.89

  Shetland Islands

  0.00

  80.30

  0.00

  175.89

  South Ayrshire

  3.15

  37.67

  7.39

  78.94

  South Lanarkshire

  4.35

  35.62

  8.84

  66.43

  Stirling

  2.09

  46.89

  1.42

  111.05

  West Dunbartonshire

  0.00

  32.83

  0.00

  75.30

  West Lothian

  20.91

  28.45

  12.11

  47.84

  Notes:

  1. Not all education authorities distinguish on a consistent basis between the two headings.

  2. Where expenditure under one of the headings is shown as £0.00 it should be assumed that the expenditure has been allocated to the other heading.

  Scottish Members of Parliament
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received on his proposal to reduce the number of hon. Members for Scottish constituencies; and if he will make a statement. [61270]

  Mr. McLeish
  We recognise that the creation of the Scottish Parliament means that the present level of Scottish representation at Westminster cannot be maintained, a view which has received very broad support.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  China
  Mr. Alan Johnson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the human rights situation in China; and what has been the impact of United Kingdom and European Union policy. [63146]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We continue to have many serious concerns about human rights in China. During his visit to China earlier this year my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary raised these concerns with Chinese leaders, as did my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Recently, the Chinese Government has taken some positive steps in this field, which we have welcomed, while repeating our desire to address issues of concern through the continuing bilateral and EU/China Human Rights Dialogues.

  Since the commencement of the bilateral UK/China Dialogue, and the resumption of the EU/China Human Rights Dialogue, last year, China has taken several positive steps which will bring about its closer integration into the UN human rights system, and should in time help to strengthen protection of human rights in China. It has signed the International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and on Economic Social and Cultural Rights; agreed to report to the UN on Hong Kong under these two Covenants; admitted the UN High Commissioner for

  167
  Human Rights, Mrs. Robinson, as well as the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention; and welcomed a possible visit by the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture.

  In addition, China has allowed a visit by a delegation of EU Troika Ambassadors to Tibet and accepted the participation in the Dialogue of critical NGOs such as Amnesty International. It is also noteworthy that the Dialogue has allowed us to discuss privately and frankly with the Chinese authorities a range of concerns from Tibet, to the death penalty, freedom of association and torture.

  Both Britain and the EU have now established substantial co-operation programmes with China, funded respectively by DFID and the Commission, and these seek among other things to promote judicial exchanges and legal reform.

  We shall encourage the Chinese Government to ratify the International Human Rights Covenants, with as few reservations as possible, as soon as possible. We want to see further reform in China's capital punishment regime, leading ultimately to abolition, as well as improvements in its systems of detention. At the same time we shall continue to raise the cases of individuals, as we did on 2 December, when we expressed our concern to the Chinese Government at the recent detention of Mr. Xu Wenli, a prominent dissident. We look forward to discussing these and other points with the Chinese Government.

  MI6
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he takes to ensure that former MI6 personnel who take up private sector posts do not utilise information gained whilst employed by MI6 for the advantage of their new employers. [62426]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  SIS staff are bound by the same conditions as home civil servants and members of HM Diplomatic Service with regard to acceptance of outside appointments after resignation or retirement. These include, where appropriate, reference to the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, and approval by myself.

  Government Hospitality (Wine)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the total expenditure on wine for Government hospitality purposes since 1 May 1997; what is the average cost of each bottle purchased; and what percentage of wine purchased is of UK origin. [62422]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The cost of wine purchased for all Government Hospitality purposes from 1 May 1997 to 25 November 1998 was £146,985 inclusive of VAT (the cost of wine purchased for all Government Hospitality purposes from 1 November 1995 to 30 April 1997 was £192,604 inclusive of VAT). The average cost per bottle was £11.72 inclusive of VAT. English and Welsh wines comprised 4 per cent. of the total bought.

  Telephone Records
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if telephone records exist that 168
  could enable the tracing of external telephone calls from particular extension numbers in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to external numbers on 28 and 29 April. [62440]

  Mr. Fatchett
  No such records exist.

  Mercenaries
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the Government's current guidelines on relationships with mercenary companies; and when he will announce new guidelines. [62080]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The current guidelines on FCO official contacts with private military companies are those referred to by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in his statement to the House on 27 July 1998,Official Report, column 21. These guidelines are now being revised in consultation with other Government Departments. The new guidelines will be announced shortly.

  Visa Application (Maladministration)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will name the diplomat criticised in the Ombudsman's recent report relating to maladministration in connection with a visa application by a UK businessman; and for what reasons his Department did not take the action recommended by the Ombudsman. [62948]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The diplomat involved is Sir David Gore-Booth, currently British High Commissioner in New Delhi.

  The FCO fully accepts the conclusions in the Ombudsman's report and has apologised to the complainant. In addition the FCO has offered him an ex gratia payment of £5,000 in compensation for the manner in which his complaints were handled.

  Sir David Gore-Booth
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the resignation of Sir David Gore-Booth from the Diplomatic Service. [62947]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Sir David Gore-Booth will be leaving the Diplomatic Service on 31 December 1998 in order to take up a post in the Private Sector.

  St. Helena
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the present members of the St. Helena Government. [63063]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Subject to the provisions of the St. Helena Constitution Order 1988, the executive authority of St. Helena is exercised on behalf of Her Majesty by the Governor, who is advised by an Executive Council. The Governor is Mr. D. L. Smallman, LVO.

  The present members of the Executive Council are:
  Hon. T. Richards: Chairman, Agricultural and Natural Resources Committee
  Hon. E. W. George: Chairman. Public Health Committee
  Hon. S. George: Chairman, Public Works and Service Committee
  Hon. R. Robertson: Chairman, Education Committee

  169
  Hon. W. Drabble: Chairman, Employment and Social Services Committee
  Mr. M. Clancy: Chief Secretary
  Mr. M. Young: Financial Secretary
  Mr. K. de Freitas: Attorney General.

  Currently the hon. Mrs. P. Peters and Mr. J. Siraut are temporary members of the Executive Council during the absence from St. Helena of Councillor Drabble and Mr. Young.

  Members of the Legislative Council have an important role to play in the government of St. Helena as legislators and members of the Council Committees which influence policy development.

  Idi Amin
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to the Government of Saudi Arabia calling for them to expel Idi Amin from their territory. [63097]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We have no plans to make such representations.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Belfast Harbour
  Ms Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made by Belfast Harbour Commissioners in developing their proposals for the transfer of the port to the private sector; what consultation there will be on the proposals; and if she will make a statement. [63222]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  In May this year, the Government conveyed their agreement, in principle, to the Belfast Harbour Commissioners' proposals to transfer the Port to the private sector by means of a placed flotation, with the aim of establishing a private/public partnership, with Government retaining a Golden Share interest. Since then the Commissioners have made good progress in further developing their proposals with the view to submitting a formal Transfer Scheme to the Department, under the terms of the Ports (NI) Order 1994.

  This legislation provides for a 6-week public consultation on submission of a Transfer Scheme to the Department. However, local elected representatives have expressed the view that this period is insufficient given the strategic importance of the Port in Northern Ireland context. Following discussions with the Belfast Harbour Commissioners therefore, it has been agreed that the Commissioners will now embark on a consultation process involving local Political Parties and other interested groups, before finalising their proposals and submitting their Transfer Scheme.

  It is expected that this further consultation will extend over a 3–4 month period and this means that the final decision on the Commissioners' Transfer Scheme will be taken by the Assembly. I am writing today to each of the Northern Ireland Political parties explaining in more detail the arrangements for the extended consultation process.

  Chief Electoral Officer
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will publish the report of the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland for 1997–98. [63223]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  The Chief Electoral Officer's annual report has been laid before Parliament today. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

DEFENCE

  Tank Transporter (Cenotaph Parade)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what type of transporter the Challenger II tank used in the Whitehall Cenotaph parade on Sunday 15 November was brought into central London; how many axles it had; who owned it; and if he will make a statement. [62082]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Challenger II tank used in the Whitehall Cenotaph parade on Sunday 15 November was moved by a civilian tractor and low loader trailer unit with 10 axles, owned by Messrs Kings Heavy Haulage of Bristol. The move into and out of Whitehall was conducted in conjunction with the Metropolitan Police and other civil police authorities.

  Pay and Personnel Agency
  Mr. Rapson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the outcome of consultation with his Department's trades union officials about the recommendations of the efficiency review of the Pay and Personnel Agency. [63145]

  Mr. Spellar
  Further to my reply to the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) on 28 October 1998,Official Report, column 206, the consultation process is now complete. I have accepted the recommendations of the efficiency review, including the closure of the Worcester office, but in the light of representations made by the Trade Unions I have agreed that the implementation of certain other recommendations from the review should be delayed until later next year. These adjustments to the timetable will help the handling of the important changes in the way the agency conducts its business but will not significantly affect the savings anticipated in the PPA's running costs in the next financial year. The implementation of the review's proposals, especially those concerning the transfer of pensions work from Worcester to Cheadle Hulme, will be sufficiently flexible to ensure the effective transfer of existing skills and will include a contingency to meet any changing demands upon the agency. I am today informing the MOD Trade Unions of my decision.

  Defence Diversification
  Mr. Beard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the libraries that hold copies of the submissions received in response to the consultation exercise on defence diversification announced in Cm 3861. [63224]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Microfiche copies of the submissions received have been placed in the Parliamentary Libraries and in the following major libraries.
  171
  Westminster Reference Library

  35 St. Martin's Street

  London

  WC2H 7HP

  Central Library

  George IV Bridge

  Edinburgh

  EH1 1EG

  Central Library

  St. David's Link

  Frederick Street

  Cardiff

  CFI 4DT

  Central Library

  Royal Avenue

  Belfast

  BT1 lEA

  Cambridge Central Library

  Reference Section

  7 Lion Yard

  Cambridge

  CB2 3QD

  British Library

  96 Euston Road

  London

  NW1 2DB

  Central Library

  St. Peter's Square

  Manchester

  M2 5PD

  City Library

  Princess Square

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  NE99 1DX

  Birmingham Central Library

  Chamberlain Square

  Birmingham

  B3 3HQ

  Bath Central Library

  The Podium

  Northgate Street

  Bath

  BAI 5AN

  Exeter Central Reference Library

  Castle Street

  Exeter

  EX4 3PQ

  Bodleian Library

  University of Oxford

  Broad Street

  Oxford.

  Depleted Uranium
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what requests his Department has received for the disclosure of papers dated between 6 November 1997 and 17 July 1998 relating to depleted uranium; what response 172
  he has given; if he has authorised investigations by MoD police relating to these papers; and if he will make a statement. [63035]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The Ministry of Defence has received two requests for copies of documents, dated between 6 November 1997 and 17 July 1998, which relate to depleted uranium. Both requests, which were from the same individual, are being considered under the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  The documents were requested by reference to details given in a document list which has been reported to the Ministry of Defence Police as having been stolen from the Gulf Veterans' Illnesses Medical Assessment Programme based at St. Thomas' Hospital, London. Since then the Ministry of Defence Police have been investigating the reported theft in the normal way.

  The Chief Constable of the Ministry of Defence Police is independent of ministerial and departmental influence in operational policing matters and it is for him to authorise any investigations.

  Armed Forces (Married Quarters)
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the numbers of married quarters available to each service of the Armed Forces in Scotland by location; and how many are currently occupied by families. [62541]

  Mr. Spellar
  Housing for Service families is a tri-Service resource with no allotment of estates to individual Services.

  Management information on housing is maintained by Defence Housing Executive Area, not by individual location, which could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The information requested, broken down by the three Areas covering Scotland is:

  All as at 31 October 1998

  Total stock

  Number occupied

  Area 23

  Helensburgh and South West Scotland

  1,637

  1,057

  Area 24

  Rosyth and South East Scotland

  2,016

  1,593

  Area 25

  Highlands and Islands

  2,425

  1,945

  Note:

  The Total Stock figure includes houses held for, or undergoing major modernization works and some awaiting disposal.

  Gulf War Syndrome Victims
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he was informed, before they took place, about recent searches of the homes of Gulf War Syndrome victims by his Department's police. [63065]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  No. The execution of search warrants is an operational matter for the Chief Constable of the MOD Police. The Chief Constable of the Ministry of Defence Police is independent of Ministerial and Departmental influence in operational policing matters.

  MOD Policies (Public Reaction)
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library the result of research carried out into public reaction to his Department's policies since 1 May 1997. [63144]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 30 June 1998]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by my predecessor on 28 July 1998, Official Report, column 199. I regret that the information provided contained minor inaccuracies and did not specify which reports would be placed in the Library. The research listed was that reported to the Survey Control Unit of the Office for National Statistics.

  The RAF attitude survey and advertising tracking research was commissioned in March 1997 not March 1998 and should not therefore have been included in the previous answer. The Army fitness video research was commissioned but was not in fact, undertaken.

  The following reports have now been placed in the Library of the House:

  Public Presentation of the SDR: two reports on focus group research and an omnibus survey.

  Attitudes to NATO

  Catterick Garrison Radio Trade evaluation

  Navy advertising evaluation

  SGE & OM Qualitative research Royal Navy

  0G8 dropout research Royal Navy

  RAF Advertising Strategy

  Technicians Target Market research—RAF

  RAF degree package research

  Image of RAF/reactions to advertising concepts

  Advertising tracking RAF

  Be the Best branding research—Army

  Be the Best tracking research—Army.

  The following reports are being withheld under the terms of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information:

  Exemption 7 Effective management and operations of the public service

  Evaluation of marketing effects on walk-ins to AFCO/IACIO offices

  Events evaluation research

  Exemption 13 Third party's commercial confidences

  Territorial Army advertising development research

  Army Campaign Development Research

  Army Ethnic Minority Initiative evaluation

  Exemption 11—Research, statistics and analysis

  Army Presentation Team Evaluation

  Officer Profiling research.

  DEXSA 1998 Exhibition
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which(a) ministers and (b) officials visited the DEXSA 1998 exhibition in South Africa. [62081]

  Mr. George Robertson
  No British Ministers attended DEXSA 1998. Thirty-five UK based MOD staff attended: of these ten were British Army personnel demonstrating British equipment to prospective buyers 174
  and six were members of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) who supervised the DERA stand. A further 13 locally based staff also attended.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  State Earnings-related Pension Scheme
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what weekly SERPS pension would be received in April 2000 by(a) a man, on retirement, who had earned average male earnings throughout his working life, (b) the widow of such a man who died after 31 March 2000 and (c) a married woman, on retirement, who had earned average female earnings throughout her working life, except for 10 years during which she received child benefit, under the SERPS rules which existed (i) when SERPS was first introduced, (ii) following the enactment of legislation basing pensions entitlement on life time earnings and related changes and (iii) following the Pensions Act 1995. [61439]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 27 November 1998]: The information is in the table.

  Additional pension award at April 2000 (2000–01) financial year

  £

  1975 Act

  1986 Act

  1995 Act

  Males

  101.85

  101.25

  97.35

  Widow

  101.85

  50.15

  48.70

  Female—full record

  64.20

  63.05

  60.15

  Female—10 years blank

  39.40

  35.10

  34.50

  Notes:

  1. Figures are in April 2000 prices and are rounded to the nearest 5 pence.

  2. The estimates assume constant average earnings for men and women.

  3. 1975 Act figures include the best 20 years and the full 25 per cent accrual rate.

  4. 1986 Act figures allow for lifetime earnings and 24.5 per cent. accruals post 1988. The introduction of Home Responsibilities Protection for SERFS from 1999 has not been included in the answer.

  5. 1995 Act figures allow for annualization.

  6. The estimates for females assume that the blank years are from 1978/79–1987/88.

  Source:

  The Government Actuary's Department.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the number of people who will be affected in each of the 20 years after 2000 by the decision to halve SERPS for widowers and widows whose spouse dies on or after 6 April 2000. [61149]

  Angela Eagle
  [Holding answer 27 November 1998]: The information is in the table.

  Information on the average number of widows and widowers who could be affected at any one time in each year

  Year

  Number of widows and widowers affected

  2000–01

  105,000

  2001–02

  310,000

  2002–03

  500,000

  2003–04

  675,000

  2004–05

  845,000

  2005–06

  1,000,000

  2006–07

  1,145,000

  175

  Information on the average number of widows and widowers who could be affected at any one time in each year

  Year

  Number of widows and widowers affected

  2007–08

  1,280,000

  2008–09

  1,410,000

  2009–10

  1,530,000

  2010–11

  1,640,000

  2011–12

  1,745,000

  2012–13

  1,845,000

  2013–14

  1,940,000

  2014–15

  2,025,000

  2015–16

  2,110,000

  2016–17

  2,190,000

  2017–18

  2,265,000

  2018–19

  2,335,000

  2019–20

  2,405,000

  2020–21

  2,470,000

  Notes:

  1. It should be noted that some of these people may have no SERFS entitlement and will not be affected by the change.

  2. The proposed new schemes for widows and widowers under State Pension age have not been taken into account.

  3. Cases where the widower is over state pension age but the deceased partner is under State Pension age are included in the estimates.

  4. Figures are for GB only.

  5. Numbers are rounded to the nearest 5,000.

  Source:

  Government Actuary's Department.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Robert Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the special advisers in his Department and the issues on which they specialise; and to what level they have been security cleared. [62833]

  Mr. Denham
  This Department employs Andrew Maugham as economic adviser to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, across the full range of Departmental issues. All special advisers are subject to the usual security clearance arrangements.

  War Pensions
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the take-up rate of war pensions. [62873]

  Mr. Timms
  It is not possible to estimate take-up of War Pensions. Only a minority of former members of the HM forces suffer any disablement due to service.

  We estimate that 16 per cent. of service personnel discharged from the HM forces since 1945 have claimed a War Disablement Pension.

  Work Incentives and Benefits
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to publish the results of his research on(a) work incentives and intermediaries, (b) attitudes towards housing benefits and (c) take-up
  176
  of income support among older citizens; and if he will, in each case, place a copy of such results in the Library. [62872]

  Angela Eagle
  The research on work incentives and intermediaries was published on 15 September 1998, as the Department's Research Report Number 85—Elam G, Diffley M, and Shaw A, (1998) "Getting the Message Across", CDS. A copy was placed in the Library.

  The Department will publish a research report on "Attitudes to the Welfare State and Responses to Reform" in the first quarter of 1999. This report will include a chapter on the research into attitudes towards Housing Benefits.

  Research to understand why pensioners do not claim the Income Support to which they are entitled began at the end of last year. The fieldwork is now complete and a report is being prepared. Preliminary findings from qualitative research were published in June 1998 as the Department's Research Summary Number 6 "Older People and Income Support: Barriers and Triggers to the take-up of Income Support". A copy was placed in the Library. Full results are due early next year, and publication is expected in Spring.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to separate bursaries from income when assessing an applicant's entitlement to family credit; and if he will make a statement. [62413]

  Angela Eagle
  There are no plans to separate bursaries from income when assessing an applicant's entitlement to Family Credit.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security under what statutory authority he can amend(a) the taper, (b) the rates of credit and (c) the structure of the child care subsidy within the family credit system. [62953]

  Angela Eagle
  The statutory authorities are:

  (a) Regulation 48 of the Family Credit General Regulations 1987;

  (b) Schedule 4 to the Family Credit General Regulations 1987; and

  (c) Regulations 13 and 13A of the Family Credit General Regulations 1987.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total sum paid to local authorities in Wales for the last complete financial year to enable them to discharge their obligation to pay council tax benefit to eligible claimants. [62503]

  Angela Eagle
  The total sum payable by this Department to local authorities in Wales for 1996–97 to enable them to discharge their obligations to pay Council Tax Benefit was £86.2 million.

  Note:

  The figure for 1996–97 is the last financial year available.

  Source:

  Audited Subsidy Claims.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Employment Service
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the reasons for the Employment Service's failure(a) to meet its target for placing unemployed people into work and (b) to stay within its planned unit cost of placing unemployed people into work in 1997–98. [61074]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 30 November 1998]: The main reason for the shortfall was the introduction by ES—after the unemployed placing target was set—of a new, more rigorous, recording and validation system for job placings. Whilst improving the accuracy of performance information, this action reduced the number of job placings recorded. The welcome fall in unemployment during 1997–98 also meant there were fewer long term unemployed people for ES to help into work. The unemployed job placing target for 1998–99 has been set to take account of the new placing validation system, and the lower level of unemployment.

  The 1997–98 planned unit cost of an unemployed placing was based on the assumption that the ES would achieve its placing target with the resources available. Due to the shortfall in unemployed job placings, the ES was unable to stay within its planned unit cost.

  ES performance during 1997–98 should be seen in context of the excellent work it undertook to ensure the successful implementation of the New Deal programmes and other Welfare to Work initiatives.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if, where admission limits to infant schools are in excess of multiples of 30, his Department will insist on reduction or increases to admission numbers when agreeing local education authority development plans. [61823]

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  11996–97

  Dead or barred

  400

  400

  400

  400

  400

  Ill-health retirement

  3,900

  4,500

  5,100

  5,000

  5,200

  Premature retirement (redundancy)

  2,300

  3,000

  2,400

  3,200

  3,100

  Premature retirement (efficiency)2

  5,400

  5,400

  5,400

  5,900

  7,900

  Not in service—men3,4

  3,400

  3,100

  3,400

  2,900

  3,100

  Not in service—women3,4

  14,100

  12,300

  13,600

  11,100

  11,000

  Total leaving teaching service

  29,500

  28,700

  30,300

  28,500

  30,700

  Going to other teaching service5

  4,000

  10,300

  4,500

  5,000

  4,400

  1 1996–97 figures are provisional

  2 The increase in premature retirements on efficiency grounds in 1996–97 was mainly caused by teachers leaving before the changes to the early retirement arrangements in September 1997.

  3 Some of the teachers shown as not in service may be in service that is not recorded i.e. in independent schools that are not part of the Teachers Pension Scheme (TPS).

  4 A number of the teachers shown as not in service will have taken career breaks and will return to teaching.

  5 Going to other service such as short term supply teaching, independent schools (that are part of the TPS) or the further education sector. Only the 1992–93 figures include teachers leaving sixth form colleges. In 1993–94, sixth form colleges left the schools sector, this has distorted the number of teachers apparently leaving the schools sector and moving to another sector in 1993–94. From 1994–95 onwards, teachers leaving sixth form colleges are excluded.

  Note:

  All figures rounded to the nearest hundred

  Undergraduates
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of undergraduates of British nationality entering(a) Oxford,
  178
  Ms Estelle Morris
  No. It is a matter for local decision how local education authorities and school governing bodies comply with the duty to limit infant classes to 30 or under with effect from the start of the 2001–02 school year. Adjusting published school admission numbers relating to infant classes to multiples of 30 is one of a number of options available, although admission authorities have a duty to vary standard numbers where these are incompatible with class size limits. The Department will consider the plans put forward by local education authorities in the light of local needs and circumstances.

  Local authority plans must give due regard to the exercise of parental preference. Our guidance states that this can be best achieved by adding to the number of classes in popular and high achieving schools which are able to expand. Where this is not possible local education authorities should ensure that there is sufficient space at another local school which offers a broadly equivalent standard of education.

  Teachers (Resignations)
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the total number of qualified teachers who left teaching in each of the years 1992–93 to 1997–98 for reasons other than reaching the normal retirement age; and if he will provide an analysis of the reasons. [61819]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The following table shows full and part-time qualified teachers (excluding short term supply teachers) who left teaching in the maintained nursery, primary, secondary and special schools sector in England and Wales, during the financial years shown, by their position at the end of the year.

  Changes, made in April and September 1997, to the early retirement arrangements for teachers are now bringing down the numbers of premature and ill-health retirements.

  (b) Cambridge and (c) the London School of Economics came from (i) fee-paying private schools and (ii) selective grammar schools in each year since 1968. [62027]

  Mr. Mudie
  The available information for the years 1994 to 1997 is shown in Table 1. The data are taken
  179
  from information collected by the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS). Prior to 1994, the data were collected by the Universities Central Council for Admissions (UCCA) but were not published separately for each university.

  Data for Oxford and Cambridge for the years prior to 1994 are however published by the admissions offices of these universities and available data are shown in Table 2, though this does not separately identify grammar schools.

  Table 1: Accepted home domiciled applicants to full-time and sandwich undergraduate courses, 1994 to 1997

  All accepted applicants

  of which, percentage whose previous school was:

  Year of entry

  Maintained grammar

  Independent

  Cambridge

  1994

  2,991

  13

  46

  1995

  2,989

  14

  45

  1996

  2,767

  15

  44

  1997

  3,001

  13

  45

  Oxford

  1994

  2,891

  13

  49

  1995

  2,848

  12

  50

  1996

  2,948

  13

  51

  1997

  2,942

  13

  51

  LSE

  1994

  503

  9

  33

  1995

  581

  10

  30

  1996

  500

  11

  32

  1997

  592

  10

  35

  Table 2: Accepted applicants 1 to full-time and sandwich undergraduate courses, 1970 to 1993

  All accepted applicants

  of which, percentage whose previous establishment was:

  Year of entry

  Maintained school or college 2

  Independent school 3

  Cambridge

  1993

  3,068

  45

  45

  1992

  3,052

  46

  44

  1991

  3,015

  48

  47

  1990

  3,117

  44

  44

  1989

  3,013

  47

  43

  1988

  2,933

  43

  45

  1987

  3,020

  41

  47

  1986

  3,129

  39

  50

  1985

  3,098

  42

  50

  1984

  2,985

  43

  49

  1983

  2,899

  48

  46

  1982

  2,792

  47

  48

  1981

  2,021

  41

  51

  1980

  2,322

  46

  49

  1979

  2,239

  45

  49

  1978

  2,386

  49

  48

  1977

  2,359

  44

  53

  1976

  2,455

  44

  53

  1975

  2,453

  46

  50

  1974

  2,878

  42

  50

  1973

  2,887

  43

  49

  1972

  2,907

  40

  52

  1971

  2,868

  40

  53

  1970

  2,715

  40

  57

  Oxford

  1993

  3,157

  44

  47

  1992

  3,184

  43

  49

  1991

  3,189

  42

  48

  180

  Table 2: Accepted applicants 1 to full-time and sandwich undergraduate courses, 1970 to 1993

  All accepted applicants

  of which, percentage whose previous establishment was:

  Year of entry

  Maintained school or college 2

  Independent school 3

  1990

  3,110

  45

  48

  1989

  3,164

  46

  46

  1988

  3,226

  45

  48

  1987

  3,070

  46

  46

  1986

  2,940

  47

  45

  1985

  3,120

  43

  54

  1984

  2,853

  49

  48

  1983

  2,686

  50

  47

  1982

  2,840

  49

  47

  1981

  2,836

  50

  47

  1980

  2,814

  49

  49

  1979

  2,788

  47

  50

  1978

  2,850

  47

  50

  1977

  2,817

  48

  50

  1976

  2,744

  47

  52

  1975

  2,719

  45

  52

  1974

  2,537

  41

  53

  1973

  2,500

  42

  53

  1972

  2,497

  42

  55

  1971

  2,382

  41

  55

  1970

  2,417

  43

  55

  1 Home and overseas students

  2 Including HE, FE and Scottish and N. Irish establishments

  3 Including Direct Grant establishments

  Further and Higher Education
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to allow the use of local authority benefits data and Benefits Agency data to target Access resources for the recruitment of students to further education and higher education. [62545]

  Mr. Mudie
  This is a matter for those administering student support arrangements to agree locally, but I would not expect them to ask for such detailed information on individual students. Confirmation that a student or their parents are in receipt of an income-related benefit is usually all that is needed. The arrangements have operated in this way for a number of years.

  Teacher Morale
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of teacher morale; and if he will make a statement. [62361]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  My colleagues and I continually assess teacher morale through the various contacts we have with teachers, which include visits to schools, face to face meetings, correspondence and consultations. We have published, on 3 December, a Green Paper setting out our vision of a modernised profession capable of creating a world class education service.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many staff are employed in units of his Department established since May 1997; [63059]

  (2) how many employees his Department had in May 1997; and how many it has currently. [63067]
  181
  Mr. Mudie
  There are currently 204 DfEE staff employed in new Divisions established since May 1997. In May 1997, there were 4,230 staff in the DfEE. There are currently 4,245 staff.

  Education Council (EC)
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the outcome of the Council of EC Education Ministers held on 4 December. [63261]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Council, at which my noble Friend the Minister for Education and Employment represented the UK, reached agreement on common position texts for European Parliament and Council decisions establishing the second phases of the Socrates and Leonardo da Vinci programmes. Agreement was also reached on a Council decision establishing the third phase of the Tempus programme.

  The Council received information from the European Commission on implementation of the Commission's White Paper "Teaching and Learning: Towards the Learning Society" and on the Commission's Action Plan on the promotion of transnational mobility in the Community in the fields of education, training and youth. The Council also received information from the Austrian delegation on education events organised during the Austrian Presidency of the Council of Ministers.

WALES

  Development Agencies
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representatives of the Welsh and Scottish development agencies are stationed outside the United Kingdom. [62023]

  Mr. Hain
  The Welsh and Scottish Development Agencies have the following representatives stationed outside the UK:

  Welsh Development Agency

  Europe

  5

  Asia Pacific

  8

  Japan

  3

  USA

  7

  Canada

  1

  Total

  24

  Scottish Enterprise

  Locate in Scotland

  Scottish Trade International

  USA

  18

  5

  Asia

  6

  6

  Europe

  6

  5

  South America

  —

  2

  South Africa

  —

  1

  United Arab Emirates

  —

  1

  Total

  30

  20

  In addition, Highlands and Islands Enterprise have two representatives in Europe.

  World Heritage Site Nominations
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list those organisations in Wales involved in reviewing World Heritage Site nominations resulting from the Government's recent consultation. [62050]

  Mr. Hain
  Welsh candidates for the UK Tentative List of potential World Heritage Sites were provisionally identified by the Ancient Monuments Board for Wales and the Historic Buildings Council for Wales (in consultation with Cadw: Welsh Historic Monuments) and the Countryside Council for Wales. All local authorities in Wales as well as specialist bodies with an interest in the recommended sites, were subsequently consulted. Cadw has been involved in the review of the results of consultation co-ordinated by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport.

  Semi-conductor, Newport
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much financial assistance has been provided to date by his Department and by Government bodies in Wales to LG Industries for the proposed semi-conductor investment at Newport, Gwent. [62223]

  Mr. Hain
  Out of the total support package offered to the overall LG development at Newport the payments to LG Semicon to date amount to £43.328 million. This represents the apportioned value of the land acquired for the development, the general infrastructure and site development costs attributable to LG Semicon, and the property development grant paid by the Welsh Development Agency. This total also include training grants of £528,487 paid by Gwent TEC.

  None of the grant offered under the Regional Selective Assistance scheme has yet been paid.

  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what procedures his Department has in place to ensure that LG Industries repays any financial assistance received from his Department and from Governmental bodies in Wales for the proposed semi-conductor investment at Newport, Gwent, if the proposed investment does not go ahead. [62224]

  Mr. Hain
  The Welsh Development Agency has agreements in place with both LG Electronics Ltd. and LG Semicon Ltd. which provide for recovery of grant payments in appropriate circumstances. The Regional Selective Assistance offered to the Companies is also subject to detailed recovery provisions. Gwent TEC makes payments to the LG Companies only when individuals have been training and in employment for 3 months. The total of training support will not be paid if training does not take place for the agreed numbers of staff.

  Millennium (Emergency Cover)
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans his Department has to contract with the armed services to provide emergency cover over the millennium period; and what estimate he has made of the cost of that cover. [62570]

  Mr. Michael
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on 7 December 1998,Official Report, column 20.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what the value is of PFI credits approved for each unitary authority in Wales; [62366]

  (2) what is the total value of (a) all PFI applications per unitary authority in Wales to date and (b) PFI schemes approved per unitary authority to date. [62370]

  Mr. Michael
  No PFI credits have yet been issued to County and County Borough Councils in Wales. However, on reaching contract signing stage credits amounting to about £150 million are available for the projects selected as Local Government pathfinders.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the average time taken for the appraisal of PFI schemes in Wales. [62368]

  Mr. Michael
  Each scheme has to be appraised against the criteria of affordability and value for money. The time taken for the appraisal of PFI varies from scheme to scheme to such a degree that it is not possible to provide a meaningful average figure.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what the notional value is of Government credits for PFI apportioned to Wales. [62367]

  Mr. Michael
  There are no PFI credits apportioned to Wales. The Welsh Block receives a consequential of the revenue costs of local government PFI projects approved in England. I determine the related level of PFI credits to be made available in Wales as and when successful projects emerge.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the criteria applied in considering PFI schemes for approval in Wales. [62372]

  Mr. Michael
  The criteria applied in considering PFI schemes are that each scheme should:meet a policy objective of the Welsh Office;
  meet the priorities of the Welsh Office;
  deliver good value for money by allowing both public and private sectors to focus on what they do best; and
  ensure that staff are fairly treated whoever employs them.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many PFI schemes are currently under review in Wales. [62369]

  Mr. Michael
  There are 6 PFI projects included in the Local Government pathfinder programme. There are 3 major NHS PFI projects currently being progressed with the private sector and in addition there are a number of other PFI schemes being progressed individually by NHS Trusts within locally delegated arrangements. There is also a PFI project with one of our NDPBs (Bute Avenue) and the Department itself has one project (the A55).

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many PFI schemes have been approved for each unitary authority in Wales. [62371]

  Mr. Michael
  The Department is supporting 6 pathfinder PFI projects in the local government sector and will approve projects which successfully meet all the relevant criteria, including affordability. To date, no proposals have reached this stage.

  Welsh Language
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he has taken to ensure that the Welsh Language Board monitors Welsh language schemes effectively. [62364]

  Mr. Michael
  The Welsh Language Board has to set out plans for its activities in its corporate and operational plans. These plans require the approval of Ministers. Under the current approved operational plan, the Board is requiring bodies operating Welsh language schemes to submit annual reports on how they have carried out those schemes. The Board also uses its powers to investigate matters relating to individual schemes where it receives a complaint, or where it has other reason to believe that there has been a failure to carry out a scheme.

  The Board's work and progress against its approved plans, is monitored in a cycle of regular meetings with Ministers and officials.

  Health Authorities (Public Consultation)
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much was spent by each health authority in Wales on public consultation documents on their services in the last year for which figures are available. [62505]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  A5-A55 Dual Carriageway
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which company has been awarded the contract to build the A5/A55 dual carriageway across Anglesey; and if he will give the starting date for the work. [62504]

  Mr. Hain
  The contract has not yet been awarded but negotiations with the Preferred Bidder are nearing conclusion. The starting date for the work will be the date the contract is signed which I will announce when known.

HEALTH

  Clinical Perfusionists
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received regarding the regulation of clinical perfusionists; and if he will make a statement. [62360]

  Mr. Milburn
  We are considering a representation from The Society of Perfusionists of Great Britain and Ireland to regulate clinical perfusionists under the Professions Supplementary to Medicine Act 1960.

  Adoption Act 1976
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to amend section 51 of the Adoption Act 1976. [62638]

  Mr. Hutton
  We have no present plans to amend section 51 of the Adoption Act 1976. However, officials are working with the main interested groups to establish what might be done under existing legislation to clarify procedures relating to the disclosure of birth records.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place a copy of his letter to Anthony C. Walkey, 11 Castle Street, Totnes, Devon, referred to in his answer of 2 November 1998,Official Report, column 423, in the Library; and if he will make a statement on the steps he is proposing to take to ensure that lessons are learnt from the case of Mr. Walkey's son. [62307]

  Mr. Dobson
  [holding answer 7 December 1998]: If Mr. Walkey gives his permission I shall place copies of my letter to him in the Library. Officials have written seeking his permission.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton may expect replies to his letters to Ministers in his Department dated 20 August, 29 September and 29 October with regard to Mr. Peter Welbourne of 51 Mackenzie Street. [63058]

  Mr. Hutton
  I have replied to my right hon. Friend today.

  Mid Essex Hospital Services NHS Trust
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the latest figures for people waiting(a) 13 to 25 weeks and (b) 26 weeks or more to see a consultant in the Mid Essex Hospital Services NHS Trust area. [62646]

  Mr. Milburn
  The number of patients who were waiting for a first outpatient appointment at Mid Essex Hospital Services National Health Service Trust at the end of September were:

  13–25 weeks 1,596

  Over 26 weeks: 341.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the latest figures for people waiting 12 months or more for hospital treatment in the Mid Essex Hospital Services NHS Trust area. [62645]

  Mr. Milburn
  The number of patients waiting over 12 months at the Mid Essex Hospital Services National Health Service Trust at the end of October was 1,180.

  Midwives
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which NHS trusts in England(a) have and (b) have not implemented the Government's recommendation to ensure that midwives working as the lead professional are awarded the minimum F-grade salary. [62951]

  Mr. Milburn
  In July 1995, following the publication of the Changing Childbirth report in 1993, the National Health Service Executive issued Executive Letter (95)77 to trusts, suggesting that an 'F' or "G' grade would normally be appropriate for posts in which a midwife has a defined caseload of women to whom she/he gives the full range of midwifery care. Many NHS trusts have reviewed midwifery services and grading since Changing Childbirth. In January 1998 the Nursing Pay Review Body recommended that the Health Departments ensure the implementation of EL(95)77 at trust level and Advance Letter (Nurses/Midwives) 1/98 was issued on 4 June 1998 asked employing authorities to act upon this recommendation. Subsequently the NHS Executive wrote to NHS trusts in June 1998 asking about midwives' grading with reference to EL(95)77. We have summarized 186
  responses in supplementary evidence to the Nursing Pay Review Body, copies of which are available in the Library.

  MRSA
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the risks presented to(a) doctors, (b) nurses, (c) other hospital staff and (d) visitors by MRSA. [62863]

  Ms Jowell
  Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus does not pose a significant risk to healthy people and we are not aware of any evidence to suggest that MRSA infection is more common in hospital staff or visitors than in the rest of the general population. Employers must make a local assessment of the risks from MRSA and other biological agents under the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1994.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many legal cases there have been against hospitals in each of the last 10 years, as a result of patients becoming infected by MRSA. [62869]

  Ms Jowell
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of future therapeutic problems likely to occur as a result of MRSA, GRAM-negative bacilli and enterococci becoming resistant to available antibiotics. [62865]

  Ms Jowell
  Antibiotic resistance is one of the major challenges facing the international public health community. It was the subject of a comprehensive and wide ranging report earlier this year from the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology to which we will be responding shortly.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the cost of the MRSA in each of the last three years. [62868]

  Ms Jowell
  These data are not held centrally. In any individual patient, it is usually very difficult to assess the contribution of any infection acquired in hospital on the outcome, since many patients are already seriously ill from other conditions.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to develop community-based approaches to the prevention and transmission of MRSA. [62862]

  Ms Jowell
  The Department has issued guidelines on the control of infection in nursing and residential homes and in September 1998 issued a report by the Standing Medical Advisory Committee on good practice in clinical prescribing of antimicrobials to minimise the emergence of antibiotic resistance. Our response to the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology Report on Resistance on Antibiotics, which will be published shortly, will include information about other initiatives.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to make MRSA a notifiable disease. [62866]
  187
  Ms Jowell
  Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus infection can take the form of many different diseases ranging from minor skin infections to pneumonia or septicaemia, all of which are more commonly due to other causes. It cannot be diagnosed clinically but only by laboratory tests. Notification of clinically suspected cases of all of these diseases would be wholly impracticable. However, consideration is being given to the introduction, at the earliest possible opportunity, of a statutory requirement on laboratories to notify certain specified test results, which may include those indicating MRSA infection.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he has taken to ensure that hospitals' computers are millennium compliant; how much money has been allocated to this; what percentage of this has been given to Taskforce 2000; and if he will make a statement. [62411]

  Mr. Milburn
  All National Health Service trusts are required to report quarterly, in detail, on their plans for dealing with the Year 2000 problem. This information is published on the Internet, and is reported to Parliament as part of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster's regular reports on progress in the public sector. The NHS Executive's regional offices, as part of their performance management responsibilities, analyse the returned questionnaires and follow up progress and issues through visits and other surveys. The purpose of these arrangements is not only to assess progress but to identify central support requirements to help ensure a successful outcome for all NHS organisations.

  The latest returns for the period to 30 September 1998 show the reported position of the number of NHS organisations making satisfactory or good progress towards Year 2000 compliance currently standing at 93 per cent.

  The NHS's estimate of the cost of dealing with the Year 2000 problem is £318 million. This figure includes the cost of replacing of deficient equipment.

  The Department has not contributed any funding to Taskforce 2000.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Forestry
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to receive the report on a Forestry Strategy for England from the Forestry Commission; and when he will publish it. [62678]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 7 December 1998]: I have received the report from the Forestry Commission and expect to publish the Strategy later this week.

  Mr. Quinn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he plans to publish the Government"s Forestry Strategy for England. [63226]
  188
  Mr. Morley
  We have today published "A New Focus for England's Woodlands", our forestry strategy for England, and a copy has been placed in the Library.

  The Strategy sets out our priorities and programmes for the creation and management of woods and forests in England. It will help to focus discussion on how we, in partnership with other organisations, can work to ensure that England's woods and forests continue to provide benefits for England's people.

  The Strategy sets out a series of actions to help achieve our priorities and to help implement our key programmes. The Strategy is not prescriptive. It sets out the framework for the Government's continued support for forestry in England and will guide the targeting of our resources in the years ahead.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Robert Jackson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many people in his Department are currently on secondment from private companies, and if he will list them, their companies and their current responsibilities within Government. [62849]

  Mr. Morley
  There are currently no secondees from private companies in this department.

  Organic Production
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the financial incentives which presently exist to encourage tenant farmers to switch to organic production. [62425]

  Mr. Morley
  A comprehensive review of the rates and the structure of aid to farmers for conversion to organic production methods was produced in April 1998. A copy was placed in the Library of the House. The review included a detailed analysis of the cost of conversion of different farm types. Tenant farmers were not identified as a group requiring separate treatment within this analysis. As a result of the review a substantial increase in the payment rates and other measures designed to improve support for the organic sector was announced on 30 July 1998,Official Report, columns 466–67.

CABINET OFFICE

  Correspondence
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what guidelines the Government have set in respect of the timescale for Ministers to(a) acknowledge and (b) reply to letters from hon. Members regarding (i) constituency business and (ii) other matters. [63116]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The Cabinet Office issued guidance in October to departments reminding them of the procedures to be followed when handling correspondence from hon. Members. The guidance, copies of which have been placed in the Libraries of the House, emphasises the importance of setting robust and challenging targets for responding to letters from hon. Members.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Birmingham.
Lord Crawshaw—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his brother.

Benefits Integrity Project
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they intend to abolish the benefits integrity project and what are their plans for a replacement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, the benefits integrity project (BIP) will be replaced by a new even-handed system of review, sensitive to people's circumstances and fair because it will provide for awards to be increased as well as decreased in line with entitlement. We are keen to introduce the new process as soon as possible but it is most important that we get it right. We are discussing the way forward with the Disability Benefits Forum.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I am grateful for that reply. Does my noble friend recall that when the Secretary of State made his announcement back in October that the benefits integrity project would be cancelled, it was very warmly received because of the distress and injustice that the project was causing? Many disabled people assumed that the cancellation would be immediate, but here we are in December and the project is still continuing and, with it, the distress and the injustice. Can my noble friend give the House a date on which it will be cancelled and an assurance that whatever replaces BIP will not become known as "BIP Mark II"?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we inherited a system that was deeply flawed. It was based on incomplete evidence, so many of the decisions were wrong. Only the higher rates of awards were analysed, so people saw only cuts in their benefits. It was not based on consent. As my noble friend knows, we have been struggling with BIP for the past year. That is why we are determined that the system which replaces it will not make the same mistakes. That means that we shall be looking at under-claiming as well as over-claiming. It also means there will have to be full information, decent training of staff and revised literature. The system must be built on consent and consultation with the Disability Benefits Forum. That will take a few months. I am sure
802
that my noble friend will want the new scheme to be appropriate, sensitive, even-handed and to command consent.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, do the Government accept that the primary function of any successor body should be, as before, to check the correctness of benefits being paid—whether too much or too little—as distinct from detecting deliberate fraud, which, of course, is another function? Will the new body, if there is one, also be able to investigate where claims are not being made for eligible people who need the benefits?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Yes, my Lords. That is precisely one of the reasons why I suggested that the new review process will seek to identify the problems of under-claiming, including the problem of those who do not claim, as well as of over-claiming. The noble Lord is absolutely right. The review has not been fraud led. Of the 149,000 BIP reviews undertaken, there were only 79 irregularities—and not one individual has been referred for prosecution. I am, indeed, happy to confirm that the review was not fraud based. We need to ensure that we address the problems that BIP has so far failed to address.
Lord Addington: My Lords, taking into account what the Minister has just said, should we not cancel the whole scheme now for the simple reason that it has failed miserably and is clearly causing distress? Should we not call a halt and pull the plug on it?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, obviously Ministers and my honourable friends in another place have considered that. However, it must be remembered that we have a fiduciary duty to ensure that people receive the right level of benefit. Until BIP was introduced, the disability living allowance was the only benefit of which I was aware that did not have a review mechanism. We had a duty to review that. We shall replace it with a much more satisfactory system. It is not right for a benefit not to be reviewed. The system should reflect the fact that people may get better or worse and will need to have their benefit entitlement checked.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, is it not striking testimony to the integrity of disabled people that of some 150,000 cases investigated, as my noble friend said, not one has been referred for prosecution? What action is proposed to counter the cruel libel still put about by some in the media that fraud is rampant among disabled claimants? Since under-claiming of disability benefits now exceeds £6 billion a year, what further action is being taken to improve take-up by people who are not receiving the help to which they are entitled?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am happy to confirm my noble friend's statement about fraud. We know that the most common frauds in the social security system are where men claim unemployment benefit while doing work on the side; where women claim a

803
single parent's allowance but are cohabiting; or where landlords manipulate the housing benefit system. Those are the main areas of social security fraud. Disability fraud is not a "person fraud". As we have found in BIP, any errors are systems errors. I am happy to confirm that.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, are widely held outside the House? The Government seem to be perfectly happy to continue blaming the previous government for the existing situation, but have not done anything about it for a very long time. Indeed, why has it taken so long for any decision to be made? In response to the noble Lord, will the Minister give a clear date by which we are likely to have a definite decision?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the Social Security Select Committee said last May that the DSS needs to be much more active in reviewing benefits once awarded. It was right. We inherited a deeply-flawed system. I was personally involved for nearly a year in trying to wrestle it back into shape and to turn a system which was about fraud and cutting benefit levels into something that was decent, humane and sensitive. However, the structure did not permit us to turn it around with consent. That is why my right honourable friend the Secretary of State said very clearly that we have to start afresh with a review system which is routine, unthreatening and built on consent but which will continue to check the entitlement to benefit of those under-claiming as well as those over-claiming. That is what we hope to do. But to do so we need to undertake the task sensitively and with the support of the DBF. However, we shall not be able to do it within a matter of days.
Lord Rix: My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that the special needs of people with a learning disability will be taken fully into account in any new review activity which takes place?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am delighted to be able to confirm that. The areas which obviously require very sensitive and skilled interviewing and training are those which encompass people with special needs or learning disabilities. There are also people with mental health problems or with fluctuating medical conditions. We have benefited from the training and experience of the Disablement Income Group. However, in the new process which will replace BIP, we will need to strengthen even more the training that our staff has so far enjoyed.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, can the Minister say whether instructions have been given to draftsmen and whether a Bill is in the course of preparation in this respect?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I should point out to the House that changing the review process does not require legislation. The welfare reform Bill,
804
which your Lordships will no doubt be discussing in the spring, will refer to some of the gateways on to disability benefits more generally. However, this is not a matter for primary legislation; indeed, it does not need to be.

Quality of Life: Indicators
2.46 p.m.
Baroness Ludford Baroness Ludford asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why their proposed "quality of life" barometer excludes indicators on crime and poverty.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, those indicators are intended to focus on the key elements of quality of life which are most relevant to achieving sustainable development; that is, maintaining economic growth, while achieving social justice and protecting the environment both now and for future generations. Choices had to be made in order to arrive at a limited number of indicators. No single indicator can capture poverty, but this and the underlying causes of crime linked to poverty and lack of opportunity are reflected through the indicators on education, employment, housing and health. However, as this is a consultation document, we will consider extending the scope of the indicators in the light of responses.
Baroness Ludford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply; indeed, I believe that the Government deserve some congratulations in proposing indicators. However, can I press the noble Lord on why these two most important quality of life determinants have been left out as direct indicators? After all, we have had the recent report of Sir Donald Acheson on inequalities in health in which he identified low income, especially for families with children, as a major cause of ill health. Moreover, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation recently reported that one-fifth of householders perceived crime as a major problem in their area. Therefore, surely crime and poverty are two major indicators which should be included in this respect. Can the noble Lord assure us that the Government will include them in the final proposals?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am always happy to accept the congratulations of the noble Baroness on our general approach. However, on the specific indicators, I can say that we will consider representations during the consultation period. Clearly, both poverty and crime have an effect on the quality of life. There are already in the public arena a number of fairly clear crime indicators which are widely covered in the media. However, poverty is a much more complex matter and falls under education, health and employment sides as well as applying more generally to the quality of life.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, will the Minister consider commissioning some sort of research which would indicate that the quality of life actually suffers because of the extent of crime and poverty in some of our inner-city areas? Indeed, that may prove to be a very good indicator to take into account on future occasions.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I accept what the noble Lord says. However, crime and poverty are not headline indicators as regards particular aspects of sustainable development. There is a much wider government policy behind all this, particularly related to issues of social exclusion, which will tackle many of the problems in the inner-cities to which the noble Lord referred.

European Union Objective One Status: Wales
2.49 p.m.
Lord Roberts of Conwy Lord Roberts of Conwy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress has been made in negotiating European Union objective one status for Wales as a whole, or for part of it.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, EUROSTAT announced recently that the gross domestic product for the West Wales and Valleys NUTS II area over the period 1994–96 was about 71 per cent. of the European Union average. If the Commission's proposals for future eligibility criteria for objective one areas are agreed by member states, this will mean that West Wales and the valleys will receive objective one status for the period 2000 to 2006.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Bearing in mind that three other United Kingdom areas qualify for objective one status under the GDP criteria—Merseyside, South Yorkshire and Cornwall—are the Government broadly content with this as a possible outcome of the final negotiations? Secondly, will the Government consider setting up special arrangements in the case of West Wales and the valleys—which, I think the Minister will agree, is a pretty disparate region—to ensure that there is an ample supply of projects over those years which are acceptable to the Commission and which will enable that region to have the full benefit of the resources available?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord makes two extremely valid points. As regards his first question, objective one status would bring around £1.5 billion in structural funds to West Wales and the valleys. That would be a fortunate and justified outcome. On his specific question of having projects available, again he is quite right. I am happy to be able to tell your Lordships that the Welsh Office has already established a European task force to design a strategy
806
for the use of structural funds after 2000. So we will have detailed, well-worked and well-conceived schemes to put to the Commission.
Lord Islwyn: My Lords, does the Minister appreciate that as well as its immediate ill effects, heavy unemployment brings about ill health, an increase in the incidence of crime and a general down-grading of the community? The news that West Wales and the valleys are in line for objective one status is to be warmly welcomed. I wish the Government every success in their efforts to bring this about.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, of course the social consequences—not least in poor health—are extremely important. We have done extremely well to negotiate this likely outcome. The NUTS II area includes no fewer than 15 Welsh local authorities out of a total of 22. These 15 include Anglesey and Conwy—to forestall further questions—and include two-thirds of the population of Wales.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, I have to disappoint the Minister in that I am speaking as a resident of the county of Conwy, although not specifically on the issue of that county. I would like the Minister to convey our congratulations to the Welsh Office and to the task force on the work that they are doing. I would ask: what are the implications of any additional European funding on the block funding—which will be the funding for the assembly—bearing in mind the deliberations on these matters of the noble Lord, Lord Barnett?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, at present the position is that, normally, additional public expenditure for matching would have to come from within the Welsh block grant. Negotiations on the future of structural funds are under way within the European Union and the arrangements post-2000 remain to be determined.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the Minister give the House an assurance that he will bear in mind during the course of the negotiations that are taking place in regard to this matter that after all it is our own money that we are claiming?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, if it comes to assist West Wales and the valleys—and bearing in mind what the noble Lord, Lord Islwyn, rightly pointed out—I do not care whose money it is as long as we get it.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is it not the case that, apart from Wales—to which I wish every success in the review taking place—there are areas in England, such as the north west, the north east and South Yorkshire, that are every bit as disadvantaged as anywhere in Wales, south or otherwise? Will the

807
Minister ensure that the case for these areas in England does not go by default while these deliberations are taking place?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the criteria are general criteria and affect and relate to each relevant area within the United Kingdom. Therefore, curiously, Wales is not being unduly favoured on this occasion.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, will my noble friend clarify some of his answers? Does he mean that the funds received by Wales through the Barnett formula will not be reduced?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: No, my Lords. The position remains as I have indicated. There are negotiations under way within the European Union on the future of the structural funds for the United Kingdom as a whole. The future arrangements post-2000 therefore remain to be decided.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, bearing in mind the timescale of the baseline and the per capita income levels as criteria, will the Minister confirm that it is a sad reflection on the stewardship of the country under the previous administration that we end up having to claim these particular categories for any part of the United Kingdom? Will he confirm categorically that unlike the previous administration, who would not make matching government funds available so that European moneys could be claimed, this Government will ensure that matching funds are available if necessary?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, we are dealing with the consequences of the stewardship of the previous regime. There have been long-term structural problems in the Welsh economy. I am not sure that I want to point the finger at any particular regime, but we are dealing with the situation which we found. The Welsh Office is doing extremely well building on the work, if I may say so, of our predecessors. It is extremely gratifying that in an area of grave social difficulty we are managing to get funds to put things right.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that under the 18 years of the previous government the Welsh economy prospered as it had never done before in this century?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Well, my Lords, not really.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, we are all very grateful to the Minister for the illuminating replies that he has given and for the quiet tribute that he has paid to the previous administration. In return, I can tell him that the real problem is the one touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell—the problem of securing matching funds which may well fall to the assembly to achieve. Does the Minister agree?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the question of matching funds is critical. The funds will not be
808
released from Europe unless we have the matching funds. But my noble friend Lord Monkswell was not applauding the previous government; he was stigmatising them for their meanness of imagination and reflective thought in not providing matching funds. I was far too gentle to agree with my noble friend Lord Monkswell in that proposition—but I shall now.

AONBs and SSSIs: Protection
2.58 p.m.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry Lord Renton of Mount Harry asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they will announce their decisions regarding future legislation for the protection of areas of outstanding natural beauty and sites of special scientific interest; and what is the proposed timetable for such legislation.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, we are still giving detailed consideration to the Countryside Commission's formal advice on protecting our finest countryside, including the future arrangements for areas of outstanding natural beauty. There is a great deal to consider but we hope to announce some conclusions soon. We are currently consulting on the protection of sites of special scientific interest and will consider those responses. We will look for a suitable opportunity to legislate once it is clear that that is required.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply and I remind your Lordships that I am chairman of the Sussex Downs Conservation Board. Perhaps I may ask the Minister for his department's definition of "soon", bearing in mind that his colleague in another place, Mr. Meale, recently said that an announcement on these proposals would be made "very soon". In the noble Lord's department, is "soon" sooner than "very soon" or later? Is there not now such a logjam on environmental proposals in the Department of the Environment that there is a danger of all legislation regarding the countryside being pushed onto the back burner? Would it not be sense for the Government to commit themselves to bringing in a Bill in the next Session which simply deals with the protected areas and protected wildlife, ANOBs and SSSIs? Such a Bill might well get all-party support, get through both Houses of Parliament very quickly and thus show in the millennium year that the Government are doing something to meet their commitment to environmental protection.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I note with interest and delight the noble Lord's offer in this respect. If it emerges in the next Queen's Speech that we are pursuing such a Bill, I am sure that it would receive substantial support in this House. However, some complicated issues are involved here. We are still making up our minds. The definition of "soon" as

809
against "very soon" I will leave to your Lordships. But we would hope to make a decision "soon" subsuming "very soon".
Lord Bridges: My Lords, in considering this matter, will the Government, in the course of their review, examine the procedures being followed in the Department of the Environment for planning applications inside an AONB? At present, the procedure is that if such an application is made the Department of the Environment will not have anything to do with the consideration by the planning authority until that authority has decided that it is minded to approve. By that time, as I know very well from my experience in East Anglia, where a foreign developer is proposing to create a commercial airport within an AONB, the planning authority may have committed itself or may find it difficult to reverse its decision. Surely the Department of the Environment ought to have a constructive discussion with the planning authority to guide it as to its responsibilities, which, in the case which I mentioned, and as I know from my correspondence with Ms. Jackson, is not happening at the moment.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the prime responsibility in all these planning matters rests with the local authorities and with the authorities within areas of outstanding natural beauty. However, my honourable friend Dick Caborn, the Minister for Planning, is reviewing all planning processes. That will include those which apply to AONBs and other areas of outstanding natural interest.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his encouraging reply to this important question. Does he agree that some areas require almost instant attention and that some areas must be given priority over others so that these parts of our country can be saved by his actions?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I welcome my noble friend's support. There are always priorities involved. Nevertheless, we are clearly committed to protecting and enhancing the beauty of these areas of our country and protecting the areas of special scientific interest. This has been shown in our approach to infrastructure developments and road planning where we have greatly reduced the number of such sites that will be affected. This is a difficult area. As I said in my first answer, we will be making an announcement soon.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, what steps are the Government taking on funding the AONBs so that they will not be relying on a medley of assorted partners to come up with what they think they might be able to afford?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am able to say that the new Countryside Agency, which is being created by the merger of the RDC and the Countryside Commission,
810
will have an additional £2.5 million to spend on AONBs next year, which is more than double the amount available at present.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I wish to follow up the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, with regard to the quite astonishing proposal to convert the former RAF Bentwaters into a regional airport in an AONB in one of the most beautiful and tranquil parts of Suffolk. The council has been heavily lobbied by the commercial promoters. No infrastructure for transport by either road or rail is available in the area. If it were to go ahead it could be the end of the Aldeburgh Festival, one of Britain's major cultural events. In order to underline the Government's commitment to the protection of rural England in these special areas, will the Minister arrange for this application to be called in for determination by the Secretary of State in accordance with overall priorities for the country as a whole?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, what I can do is to note the noble Lord's remarks. However, were a decision to be taken for the site to be called in, it would not be appropriate for me to comment because the Secretary of State would then he acting in a quasi-judicial capacity.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that over the past 20 years astonishing damage has been done to large numbers of areas of outstanding natural beauty and to SSSIs? May one hope that the Government, when they complete their complex review, will be able to bring forward helpful arrangements which will meet general approval?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, there has been damage to some SSSIs. We would intend that whatever new policy we come up with as a result of this consultation will address the worst of those problems and, it is to be hoped, all of those problems.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that when the Government do produce answers to these very difficult problems—I admit that they are difficult—they will also produce answers to the questions about the future status as national parks of the South Downs and of the New Forest?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, your Lordships may know that the Countryside Commission has given formal advice on that as well. In relation to the New Forest, it is proposing that it should indeed become a national park. In relation to the South Downs, it is suggesting that the conservation board, of which the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is chairman, should be converted to a statutory basis. Ministers are still considering that advice.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the contributions of noble Lords this afternoon have only highlighted the dilemma facing the department at the moment? The Government have no overall strategy for the environment. Will the

811
Government accept the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Renton that on this issue alone there seems to be unanimity around the Chamber and that some form of legislation should come through sooner rather than later?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I would refute the noble Baroness's original remark. The environmental strategy that we have adopted under my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister has been one of the clearest and most ambitious programmes that the Government have embarked on both nationally and internationally. I think that, in different contexts, this House acknowledges that. I acknowledge that there are some dilemmas facing the Government, particularly with regard to this area. We hope to resolve them soon and report to your Lordships' House accordingly.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, as my noble friend is such a nice, innocent and generous sort of chap, may an old, hardened politician like me caution my noble friend about accepting, against the background of the events of last week, any offer from the Benches opposite of all-party support on anything? Has he not noticed that the Cross-Benches are becoming rather crowded?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I appreciate that the context in which these measures may be brought forward next Session or beyond may be somewhat different. Nevertheless, I think that noble Lords here and in prospect will support the measures when the Government eventually come through with them.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend Lady Hayman will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is being made in another place on mental health.

Science and Technology: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider science and technology and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named of the Select Committee:

L. Birdwood,

L. Haskel,

B. Hogg,

L. Howie of Troon,

L. Jenkin of Roding,

L. Kirkwood,

L. Nathan,

L. Perry of Walton,

L. Phillips of Ellesmere,

812

B. Platt of Writtle,

L. Porter of Luddenham,

L. Ponsonby of Shulbrede,

L. Rea,

L. Soulsby of Swaffham Prior,

L. Tombs,

L. Walton of Detchant,

L. Winston (Chairman);

That the Committee have power to appoint sub-committees and that the Committee have power to appoint the Chairmen of sub-committees;
That the Committee have power to co-opt any Lord for the purposes of serving on the Committee or any sub-committee;
That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;
That the Committee and any sub-committee have power to adjourn from place to place;
That the Committee and any sub-committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;
That the minutes of evidence taken before the Committee or any sub-committee from time to time shall, if the Committee think fit, be printed and delivered out; and
That the Committee do meet on Tuesday 15th December at a quarter before eleven o'clock.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Strategic Defence Review
3.8 p.m.
Lord Gilbert Lord Gilbert rose to move, That this House take note of the conclusions of Her Majesty's Government's Strategic Defence Review (Cm 3999).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, at last we are having a debate on the SDR. It has been some time since the review was published. I will rhubarb for some time until noble Lords have removed themselves from the premises—all those who are not going to listen to my dulcet tones with the attention that they deserve. I think that we derive a certain benefit not open to the other House in having the advantage of the perspective of several months before we come to debate the provisions of the review.
There are one or two matters I wish to make clear from the outset. As your Lordships may or may not recall, on one of the first occasions that I spoke in your Lordships' House I said that to me it had always been a matter of the highest importance to try to make defence a bipartisan question within this country. We in this Government want to make it clear that we were building on success and not on failure when we inherited our responsibilities last year. Our Armed Forces have a record that is second to none. I have been most heartened by the generous response from all parts of this House to the Government's strategic defence review.
Having said that, it was of course obvious to us that modernisation and enhancements were needed in many key areas and that defence needed a coherent vision to

813
revitalise it for the challenges of the next century. We were also encouraged by the welcome the review has been given not only from the service chiefs but also from men and women throughout the Armed Forces. However, what really matters, as your Lordships will be astute enough to realise, is that we follow through the review. I am sure that your Lordships will be diligent in monitoring our progress in that respect.
The review was, of course, foreign policy led. Set against a foreign policy framework, it was rigorous, unsentimental and extremely thorough in its approach. There was a broad degree of consensus inside and outside government about the international security context in which we found ourselves and the role that defence should play in support of our interests and responsibilities.
As regards the future of NATO and of European security in general, these were subjects in which your Lordships displayed considerable interest during the recent debate on the Queen's speech. The Atlantic Alliance has changed almost beyond recognition since the end of the Cold War. These days it is difficult even to remember the psychological climate in which we used to operate in those days. The Atlantic Alliance has been a prime mover in shaping our security environment for many decades now and, more recently, in creating new partnerships with our former potential enemies outside the Alliance and with the new candidate members who will be joining us shortly. There is, of course, increasing attention paid now to non-Article 5 activities in the run-up to the Washington Summit. We now have the opportunity, in the new strategic concept currently under preparation, to set out clearly a long-term vision for NATO's future.
Similarly we must demonstrate the relevance of a European security and defence identity. As every serious commentator now recognises, a stronger European identity is in no sense an alternative to the transAtlantic relationship, but a necessary and long overdue complement to it. Our challenge is to give Europe an effective military capability, which so far it has sadly lacked, to contribute to NATO operations when our friends across the Atlantic either do not wish, or do not need, to be involved. We need to recognise candidly the harsh fact that in many European countries military reality does not reflect the local rhetoric. This was recognised in the Joint Declaration on European Defence made at the Franco-British Summit in St. Malo last week.
The declaration identified the need for countries in Europe to strengthen their armed forces to provide a credible and effective response to the new security risks, but also made it clear that our shared understanding is that NATO is the foundation of Europe's collective security. As so many brickbats are sometimes thrown in a certain direction, I think it is pertinent for me to draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that France will provide between 1,000 and 2,000 troops for the extraction force in the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia under NATO command. We feel that NATO will be strengthened by improved military capabilities
814
and co-operation in Europe and by the implementation of the Berlin arrangements for a European security identity.
A number of noble Lords have mentioned in other debates, or in correspondence with the MoD, emerging risks such as information warfare, the problems of dealing with so-called asymmetric responses to our conventional capabilities, and the challenges posed by new technologies. I have touched on these subjects at this Dispatch Box over recent months and I do not propose to discuss them in greater detail today, but just to make it clear beyond peradventure that these are matters that have the attention of defence Ministers at this time. The Government take these issues seriously and will ensure that our defence capabilities are adjusted as necessary to cope with these challenges. These are, of course, issues not only for the Ministry of Defence; they are issues that concern government as a whole and they are kept under constant review across government. We have put in place a planning process that can address all aspects of the future evolution of warfare and our responses to it.
The process of modernising the Armed Forces has involved taking some difficult and sometimes painful decisions. However, the crucial test has always been that our forces must be able to deploy quickly, operate effectively and sustain and support themselves in difficult environments. They must be usable and relevant across the range of circumstances in which they might be required to operate. Consequently, we are restructuring our forces, shifting the emphasis towards an expeditionary and force projection capability of a kind that we have not had for many years. In practice this means a series of enhancements to build a capability fit for the next century. We need capable Joint Rapid Reaction Forces with substantial firepower and protection. We need the new strategic airlift and sealift to deploy those forces rapidly. We also need vital logistics, engineering and communications assets to support those forces once they have been deployed. To that end we shall add 3,000 personnel to the Army. A sixth deployable brigade for the Army and the development of an air manoeuvre brigade will be centred around the Apache attack helicopter.
One of the most difficult questions we have had to address is that of our legacy. I point no finger of blame at anyone when I refer to the state of the defence medical services. We shall invest some £135 million in enhancements over the next four years, including the acquisition of a new 200 bed casualty receiving ship. We shall bring forward more detailed proposals on the defence medical services very soon indeed.
We are also extending our power projection capability by fitting all our nuclear powered attack submarines with the Tomahawk cruise missile. Many of your Lordships may have seen that that was successfully fired off the coast of California a few days ago. We have plans for new, larger aircraft carriers and a joint Navy and Air Force unit to operate from them.
From time to time the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, has expressed a certain scepticism as to whether or not those carriers would ever arrive. I can tell your Lordships that

815
I have already received the first papers in connection with the early work that we shall need to undertake in respect of procuring those carriers. Those papers are receiving my full attention. I have a number of questions to ask the admirals about those papers, but the process has already begun. These ships will give us the capacity to project power and to underline our resolve in crises, wherever they may occur around the world.
Joint service co-operation and integration will be vital both to maximise the military output from our defence expenditure and to improve our ability to support the front line. The Smart Procurement Initiative will be a key. That will not solve generations of procurement problems overnight, as I know very well, having had to wrestle with precisely those sorts of problems some 20 years ago in the Ministry of Defence. However, I am convinced that the new arrangements that we are putting into place, with, I am delighted to tell the House, the co-operation of both sides of industry, will produce major savings and greatly improve the service that we give to the front line, in particular with respect to maintain ability. I made it one of my first priorities a few days after taking office to visit Abbey Wood and to state that maintainability was an absolutely top priority. Although we propose overall to reduce our holdings of spare parts—when we have found out exactly what they are, given the inadequacies of our existing IT structures—I hope that we will make sure that some of the vital shortages that have occurred in the past will not recur.
We have set up a high-powered central SDR implementation team to track progress on these matters. We also have integrated project teams who will "live" with individual equipment projects from their concept stage, through their development and production aid through the life of the piece of kit that we are acquiring. We are revising our standard contracts with our defence suppliers so that they hold themselves responsible for making sure that spare parts are available right through the anticipated service life of the equipment that they sell to the department. Those contracts will of course attract financial inducement, and financial penalties should shortcomings arise.
I emphasise again that we have received enthusiastic support from industry in these new developments. We have already established some 10 integrated project teams and are on course to establish the new Procurement Executive as an agency by 1st April next year.
We decided in the SDR that individual service logistic organisations should be brought together into a unified organisation. General Sam Cowan has been appointed to take control of the new organisations and to develop the arrangements after an appropriate transition, which will take a little time, into one integrated organisation. His priorities will include not only the reduction in stockholdings but also reductions in the infrastructure for storage of those stockholdings. He will also be working to achieve the convergence of the different IT systems and processes used within the support area by the three services. That will be a key step in making the management of logistics a more efficient business.
816
We are taking forward what is known as the Joint Force 2000 Initiative. This is intended to build upon the success of recent joint operations from our aircraft carriers involving the Royal Navy's air defence Sea Harrier FA2 and the Royal Air Force's ground attack Harrier GR7. This concept involves the formation of a joint force which will be deployable as a key element of the new Joint Rapid Reaction Force. The headquarters of Joint Force 2000 will be established in a new fixed-wing maritime group, which will also include Nimrod maritime aircraft, within RAF Strike Command under the control of a Royal Navy Rear Admiral. It will be commanded by an RAF Air Commodore and will be in place by the year 2000.
I have probably said all that noble Lords wish to hear from me on the restructuring of the Territorial Army. Noble Lords will no doubt wish to raise points for answer at the end of the debate.
So far as concerns Trident, we have signed an MOU with the United States covering revised Trident missile procurement and buy-back arrangements. Our requirement for 58 Trident missile bodies is seven fewer than under the plans of the previous government. With the MOU and buy-back plan we expect that our decisions will result in a saving of around £50 million.
We are extremely proud to have launched an equal opportunities centre at Shrivenham, and now have mandatory targets for equal opportunities training. All the chiefs have themselves either been or are about to go through the course at Shrivenham. We wish to make it absolutely clear that the Armed Forces and Ministers are determined to maintain a policy of zero tolerance on racial discrimination or harassment in Her Majesty's Armed Forces.
The equal opportunities training centre is the first of its kind in Europe. It provides equal opportunities training for service equal opportunities advisers and all senior service and MoD civilian personnel at one star level or above. In this context, we were delighted to receive the recent visit from General Powell from the United States and to be able to draw on his experience. I am hopeful that that visit, with his sagacious advice and many years of experience, will prove to be of great benefit to us in this field of activity.
We have also launched the Veterans Advice Unit. It opened within the MoD for business on 5th October. In the first eight weeks of operation, it has taken over 1,300 calls from ex-service personnel and their dependants. The unit is manned by five serving warrant officers. It offers advice on where to seek expert help on a range of issues of concern to former service personnel. So far, those have included issues such as homecare and housing, Falklands and Gulf War issues, finance, and how relatives might be traced. The largest number of calls have concerned pensions, employment, the provision of medals and inquiries about the unit itself. While we have done a great deal to publicise the setting up of the unit, I am confident that any help your Lordships could provide in that respect would be greatly welcomed by the MoD and by ex-servicemen's organisations.

817
Finally, as I am sure noble Lords recognise, it is beyond the power of this Government to implement the Strategic Defence Review in isolation from our allies. Our work has given us important insights with a broader relevance, which will be reflected in NATO's modernised strategic concept; namely, the blueprint for a new NATO to be adopted at the 50th birthday summit in Washington next year.
We intend also to work with our friends in Europe to turn rhetoric into practical defence co-operation. We are working to enhance the ability of the United Nations to conduct peace support missions. In that context, our increase in strategic air and seaborne lift capability will be extremely important.
We are also working to maintain the multinational interoperability on which our continuing operational success depends. These are areas where we shall have to invest heavily in the years ahead. That sort of interoperability does not come cheap.
Noble Lords need no lectures from me on today's agenda—Kosovo; the Gulf; people such as Mr. Milosevic; and the problems that we still have in Northern Ireland. But perhaps the greatest test of the Strategic Defence Review will be its ability to deal with challenges that we cannot yet even identify, let alone predict. In the Strategic Defence Review we have given the Armed Forces and all those who work in defence a robust vision of how our forces will be shaped through the first decades at least of the next century. We are now putting that vision into practice and, at a time when Britain's armed forces are once again in the headlines as a very real force for good, I am delighted to be able to commend our work to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House take note of the conclusions of Her Majesty's Government's Strategic Defence Review (Cm 3999).—(Lord Gilbert.)
3.29 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for giving us the opportunity to debate this important matter at what is realistically the first opportunity. I am grateful for the Minister's comments about building upon the success of the previous administration. I enjoy taking a bipartisan attitude, which I shall certainly have to do, with my new responsibilities.
I particularly look forward to the contribution of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Vincent of Coleshill, whom I first met when he was at NATO. It was a surprising visit for me because at the same time I also met at NATO headquarters a representative of the Russian Government. Developments since then have brought us to where we are now.
We on these Benches were extremely sceptical about the rationale behind the SDR, and indeed the outcome is a substantial reduction in the mobilised strength of the British Army. In addition, there is a planned reduction in expenditure of nearly £1 billion. However, it is nothing like as bad as we had anticipated. As the Minister stated, the broad thrust is to move away from a plan for all-out war in western Europe and instead to enhance our already unique expeditionary capability.
818
I note the Minister's comments about the St. Malo declaration and its relevance to NATO, and I am sure that our FCO team will be equally interested.
It is unfair to criticise previous reviews that had different objectives, and I am pleased that the Minister has not done so. The Minister referred to DCS 15. It was partly a visit by the all-party defence study group and the HCDC that identified problems to Ministers some time ago. Unfortunately, the situation remains grim. I understand that there are still only about four orthopaedic surgeons in the Regular Army. Furthermore, morale in the defence medical services could be improved, to say the least.
There are difficulties with the SDR. It does very little, other than offer fine words, to reduce the overstretch. Indeed, much is made of the likelihood of further operations in the foreseeable future. The collapse of the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union has made peacekeeping operations all over the world much more prevalent than during the old Cold War days. The Minister talked of the welcome increase in regular forces, but that will not greatly alter the percentage of the Regular Army involved in operations. We doubt that the new aircraft carriers will be built, but I am grateful for the Minister's helpful comments. The TA has been decimated. The 3 per cent. year-on-year efficiency savings have been described as "challenging". Presumably this will equate to a further cut in budget if the savings are not realised. Can the Minister assure me that the MoD budget is on target for the next two years?
On these occasions we ritually heap lavish praise on our Armed Forces and we are, rightly, convinced that it is fully justified. In the past five years, as a civilian NGO aid worker, I have been protected by our Armed Forces in Bosnia and, more recently, I have had the honour to serve with them in that troubled land. If anything, our praise is understated. Unfortunately, I do not have time to go into more detail.
There are, however, serious manning and morale problems due to overstretch, which the SDR and the Minister recognise. But the SDR does not indicate any attempt to reduce operational commitments and we still do not know what is the foreign policy basis of the SDR. The SDR states that full manning for the Army should be achieved by around 2004. We know that the services, and in particular the Army, are experiencing very high rates of marriage breakdown. In addition, it is extremely difficult for young, single soldiers to establish durable relationships due to pressure from operations and training. Like all its predecessors, SDR contains fine words, but will they match reality?
Before speaking about the TA, I remind the House that I have an interest as I currently command a REME TA recovery company at Redhill, which has, fortunately, survived the SDR. In view of my direct interest, I shall leave it to others to comment upon the proposed size of the TA and anything to do with man training days. I detect a modest amount of spinning regarding training on battle-winning equipment, such as Challenger 2. This was referred to by the Minister when he repeated the Statement on the structure of the TA. Noble Lords will be aware that operating a main battle

819
tank (MBT) is a highly specialised business. I believe that it would be a waste of time and resources to train TA personnel for this role when there will inevitably be far more crews in the Regular Army and the Regular Army Reserve than there are MBTs to be crewed. Furthermore, what regular unit would want to lend its carefully maintained MBT to a TA unit? I certainly do not believe that there is an intention to issue MBTs to TA units. Is there an operational requirement? If there is, why is it not identified in the SDR? If the TA is to have an enhanced armoured role, it should be with light armoured vehicles that would be useful for rear area security. Talk of MBTs is just a spin.
Talk of a more relevant, usable, integrated and rewarding role for the TA is welcome. Increasing use of the TA will help make the hard training much more worthwhile and relevant. All units in the new TA structure are now to be fully recruited. It was always my understanding that the target was that the TA would be 100 per cent. recruited; the difficulty was how to achieve that. What changes will the average member of the TA and the reserve forces see and experience?
I have been in the TA since I was 17½. I confess that, when I started, I practically hero-worshipped my senior NCO regular permanent staff instructors (PSIs). In the same way that one realises that one's parents are not infallible, this relationship with the various PSIs has changed over the years. Now that I am in command, I rely upon my PSIs to do the things that my TA NCOs cannot do. I also rely upon their wise counsel and experience. The non-regular permanent staff NCOs, who are effectively full-time TA, while very useful, are no substitute. They lack the Regular Army currency, rapidly experience skill fade and can have an "old soldier" attitude.
The optimum number of PSIs per unit has been determined with many years of experience and does not vary directly with the number in a particular unit, each PSI post having a particular function rather than a responsibility for a proportion of the soldiers in a unit. That being the case, can the Minister explain why there is a plan to reduce the number of PSIs at each surviving unit? Does he agree that this plan would fly in the face of all the spin on "improving" the TA and making it "more usable"? How can the TA become better integrated with the Regular Army if the Regular Army input and ethos is to be reduced? Furthermore, is the Minister aware that the Regular Army itself needs these high profile postings in order to create good career opportunities for the best NCOs?
I turn to a matter that is more the responsibility of the Minister of Defence Procurement. My point impinges on Smart Procurement and concerns MBT variants. The existing Challenger 2 is termed a gun tank but the REME and Royal Engineers also operate variants. The REME have in service the Challenger Armoured Recovery and Repair Vehicle (CRARRV). Automotively it is a Challenger 2. The Royal Engineers have in service Chieftain Armoured Vehicle Royal Engineers (AVREs) and Armoured Vehicles Laying Bridges (AVLBs). Neither of these vehicles can keep up with the in service Challenger MBT and urgently need
820
to be replaced. My understanding is that the Minister is seeking competitive bids for these equipments. He is certainly looking far and wide, to the extent that he is even considering a Polish T72.
Another option is to rework some Challenger 1 MBT hulls. Does the Minister agree that the cost of logistic support to anything other than a Challenger 2 variant would be prohibitive? This cost arises from the increased training requirement, increased Equipment Support facilities in any operational theatre and a massive increase in spares inventory of the formation holding these low population variants. As for the need for a competitive bid, he knows what was paid for the CRRARV recovery variant and the engineer variants will not be technically too wildly different. Will the Minister's procurement policy for MBT variants be under the Smart Procurement initiative, will it be competitive or instead will it be smart and recognise that technically there is no alternative to a Challenger 2 variant?
The Armed Forces face many challenges but a particular one is information technology. For example, the essay on the reserve forces stated that the IT system would be improved better to manage reserve forces. Presumably, this is a reference to the UNICOM system that is now being finally installed. Unfortunately, this system was first introduced in the late 1980s and has been overtaken by advances in technology. One must remember that the power of a laptop doubles almost every 18 months but that the MoD takes years to procure anything. I sympathise with Ministers who have to grapple with anything to do with IT policy at the MoD. I fear that the policy is one that is almost impossible to manage.
I enjoyed the Minister's opening of the debate. We are broadly pleased with the way in which SDR was undertaken and its outcome. I have identified some difficulties particularly with the TA. I am sure that other noble Lords will raise important and interesting points this afternoon. It is unfortunate that my role is to identify weaknesses and largely to ignore any good decisions that have been made that we wholeheartedly support. My real anxiety is that some of the fine words and sentiments in the SDR may prove to be just that.
3.43 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, we in the Liberal Democrats also welcome this review and its overall outcome in defence terms. It is far better to have a thorough going review like this than to continue with the death of a thousand cuts. In a number of ways this has reversed the minor mistakes which the previous Conservative government made in pushing Frontline First and thus cutting back on some of the necessary support facilities, in particular medical forces. Clearly, it is correct to invest in long-range sea and air lift and in more flexible forces.
We also greatly welcome the further extension of joint operations and command. It is efficient, saves money and reduces inter-service rivalry. We also welcome the reduction in the number of nuclear warheads and the general stepping back of our emphasis

821
on the independent nuclear deterrent. In particular, as a party that has been much concerned with the promotion of equal opportunities in defence we also welcome the new stress on that matter, the excellent conference that was held and the presence of General Colin Powell. My noble friend Lord Dholakia informs me that the Ministry of Defence is moving forward in many ways on this front. Recently in Birmingham there was active Ministry of Defence participation in a programme to give awards to Asians who had done well in the Armed Forces.
We have however some questions. We are unsure exactly what the role of the aircraft carriers will be. Is it intended that the aircraft carriers when built will have joint floating command post capacities? That appears to be an important part of how we view their future role. We also have a number of questions about the future integration of reserve forces into the regular Armed Forces. If, as seems most likely, British forces will be engaged over the next 10 to 15 years in a number of awkward peace-keeping and peace-making activities, some of the points touched on by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee—the problems faced by soldiers on the ground who serve abroad and are away from their families for long periods—raise questions as to how far the Army should be encouraged to move towards long-term service for all of its infantry and support troops. As I have said in previous debates, I believe that the integration of reserve forces on short service, or even on three-year terms, is perhaps desirable because it deals with the problem of keeping people away from their homes and their loved ones for too long.
We also welcome the concept of defence diplomacy and the emphasis that is given to that concept in the report. I have seen examples in central and eastern Europe of the extent to which British officers help to train and retrain the armed forces of former socialist countries. There is a great deal that can be done in eastern Europe, Africa and elsewhere to educate the military to understand how to operate in a civilian-led world. There is a lot that we can do with our immensely good training base. We can invite others over here to take part in training with the British Armed Services.
As a university teacher I am struck by the commitment of Armed Forces personnel to peacekeeping and peacemaking. When I visited the Department of Peace Studies at Bradford two months ago, I was particularly struck by the number of people who had left the Armed Services and gone straight there to study as a clear indication that that was what they wanted to do next. At present a former Welsh Guards officer is studying European integration with me. He moved from the Welsh Guards to Carl Bildt's personal staff and now for some odd reason believes that the London School of Economics has something to offer him.
Our hesitation is concerned with the foreign policy framework. We were not entirely convinced that this was foreign policy led. The strategic framework was very loosely defined. There was almost no consultation with our European allies during the review. That has followed rather than preceded the review. There are
822
some astonishingly loose references in the opening chapter of the review to the Gulf and beyond and to Britain's,
"dependence on imports of oil".
I thought that Britain was largely self-sufficient in oil.
There are some very big questions about the Middle East and the Gulf in particular which I do not believe the strategic review takes into account. The oil price now stands at an historically low level. The likelihood is that oil supply will exceed demand for the next five, 10 or possibly 15 years, with Venezuela wishing to expand its oil production very substantially and central Asia about to come on stream and predicted to supply some 10 per cent. of the world's oil demand in 10 years' time. This is not a strategic context in which we need to keep forces in the Gulf to protect oil supplies; rather, it is a context in which possibly the Middle East will be an area of considerable internal turmoil, but not necessarily one in which we should assume that we play the role of world policemen in the Gulf.
I have some very big questions as to how far American assumptions about Middle East policy are ones with which the British should necessarily go along. At lunchtime I heard Carl Bildt say that the new central front for NATO for the foreseeable future is south-eastern Europe and that we are going to have to commit troops long term to maintaining the peace there and to providing the framework within which civilian societies can grow, develop and become stable. That is clearly a commitment which we share with our other European and North American allies. Beyond that I found in the Strategic Defence Review a larger number of questions than answers. How far do we see British interests at stake in the Eastern and Southern Mediterranean? How far do we see British interests at stake in the collapsed societies of Southern, Eastern and Western Africa? Do we see ourselves playing a peacemaking and peacekeeping role there? These carry large implications for the kinds of forces and the long-range power projection that we might ourselves need.
There is very little reference in the Strategic Defence Review to the current immense American preoccupation with weapons of mass destruction and the American predilection for using long-range air power to suppress "rogue states"—the current American phrase—which seem to be developing these new weapons of mass destruction. I hesitate to accept the American perception that NATO now has to expand and take on a world role. Part of the argument that we need to have between a developing European pillar within the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and the United States is precisely about the balance between NATO's regional responsibilities and the broader global responsibilities which we all share as members of the United Nations. I, and many others in this House, also share the nervousness on this side of the Atlantic about American determination at present that NATO should be able to operate outside its own area without UN supervision and some UN backing.

823
Having said that, we on these Benches welcome very strongly the St. Malo agreement. It puts the horse after the cart, but nevertheless it is the right horse. There is nothing very new in closer European defence co-operation. After all, it is developing the European pillar which President Kennedy called for in his Declaration of Interdependence on 4th July 1962. There is nothing dangerously Euro-fanatic about it, though that is the way in which William Hague was reported as having greeted the St. Malo agreement last weekend. After all, Britain was one of the founders of the Eurogroup some 30 years ago. We have had a Dutch-British marine amphibious force now for 25 years. We have had joint naval forces in the North Sea and the Channel for 20 years. We have had a Franco-British air wing for nearly two years.
Clearly, it makes sense to work more closely with those with whom we may have to operate most closely. We are unlikely to be operating on our own in most conceivable circumstances over the next 10 to 15 years. There are not many specific threats to Britain and certainly there is no direct military threat to us. This is an area where Britain can legitimately take the lead in Europe and should do so. Sadly, it has failed to lead for much of the past 30 years.
Where then should the St. Malo declaration take us? I welcome its terms, which suggest that we move much of the limited capacities of the WEU into the second pillar of the European Union without unnecessary duplication. We should have a capacity for the analysis of information sources of intelligence and the capability for relevant strategic planning. That seems an extremely sensible way forward. We clearly need to reinforce that with a strong political figure as the new Secretary-General for the Council of Ministers, "Mr. CFSP", someone comparable to the Secretary-General of NATO in order to balance the European pillar with our American friends.
I and my party look to a further strengthening of European forces and, as we are talking about sources of intelligence, to greater European satellite intelligence capacity and perhaps towards some kind of AWACS model for joint, long-range air lifts. Coalitions of the willing are something that we should be doing our best to develop further. I also encourage the Government to make it more visible: for example, to have the British and Dutch Prime Ministers standing together inspecting the British-Dutch marine amphibious forces and perhaps joint British-French fly pasts where we can see them. As the Minister may know, I was one of those who expressed a wish that we should have a Guards Regiment march down the Champs Elysees on 14th July last on the 50th anniversary of the occasion when the Scots Guards did so in 1938. That is the kind of thing which makes it real to the Murdoch press and others—and even to William Hague—that we are in a European partnership and that we want to make it work.
This Franco-British initiative marks a very clear step forward, based on a Strategic Defence Review, which also marks a clear advance. On that basis we very much welcome what has been achieved.
3.55 p.m.
Lord Vincent of Coleshill: My Lords, it has been a special honour for me to join your Lordships in this House. I am very grateful for the warm welcome I have received. Maiden speeches have something of a daunting reputation, but I find the occasion slightly more relaxing than my first visit in a NATO capacity to Moscow where I spent two hours alone with the Duma Defence Committee.
As two years have now elapsed since I had my introduction into this House, I should perhaps make it clear that the delay in making my maiden speech certainly implies no lack of interest or respect on my part. It has occurred quite simply because, since the end of my full-time military service, I have found myself increasingly engaged in a variety of new and unexpected activities including, by invitation, the Strategic Defence Review. More specifically, I did not think it appropriate to speak on matters related to that review until it had been completed and I could judge both the process and its final outcome on its merits.
I have of course been directly concerned with reviews of this nature both on a national basis and in the wider international context of NATO. Therefore, I know from first-hand experience how difficult it is to structure and undertake them in a manner that avoids narrow vested interests and produces timely changes that are, above all, strategically and operationally sound. Such an undertaking becomes even more challenging as an ever smaller proportion of our population—maybe we should be grateful for this—has any experience of military service and the ultimate test of military operations.
It is an accident of history for me personally that my military career, starting with National Service in 1950, spanned almost the whole of the Cold War. Before that, as a young boy living with my parents in the outskirts of London, I have the clearest memories of the events of 1938 and 1939 and all that followed in the next six years of the Second World War.
In the last decade of my military service I also witnessed the largest ever military confrontation, born of the Cold War, come to its conclusion without an international conflict in the nuclear age. From a personal perspective, I have no doubt that nuclear deterrence played a key role in that outcome and that it still has a strategically important role to play in the uncertain years that lie ahead.
As we sought to respond to the momentous changes arising from the collapse of the former Soviet Union, I inevitably found myself comparing the effectiveness of our security policies and defence arrangements, which failed twice so catastrophically in the first half of this century, with those that on the whole have served us so outstandingly well ever since. For over the past 50 years, despite periodic alarms and upheavals, we have in western Europe and North America enjoyed the longest period of peace and growing prosperity in modern history. That has come about because since the end of the Second World War we have taken a broad view of our security. Apart from our military efforts, we have placed reliance on historic and cultural ties, trade and economic partnerships, and treaty arrangements where we thought them soundly based.

825
Additionally, and most significantly, over the past 50 years we and our allies have formed through NATO the most successful security and defence alliance ever created. Those who doubt NATO's continuing relevance in the post-Cold War era have only to look at its effectiveness in Bosnia after the tragically unsuccessful efforts of the United Nations over the preceding three-and-a-half years.
Measured against that remarkably complex and changing strategic background, I judge the Strategic Defence Review overall to be a thorough, objective and relevant response to the new security challenges that confront us. If I have a lingering concern—it has been referred to today—it is born of recent events: that in trying to seek more effective European security and defence arrangements we should not duplicate the very costly defence overheads and capabilities already available to NATO where they have been honed and tested over nearly half a century. By all means let us encourage a more effective defence commitment within the European Union, but let us also set ourselves realistic objectives to avoid trading off short-term political and economic problems against our longer term security needs and to avoid a costly and inefficient security and defence bureaucracy being created within the European Union at the expense of our much needed operational capabilities. Those are already available within the proven multinational political and military structures of NATO. It is through NATO—unlike the situation in the first half of this century—that we have on the whole kept the United States constructively engaged in European security. That has made a fundamental strategic difference over the past 50 years.
The real test, as the Minister acknowledged, is to implement the Strategic Defence Review effectively at a time when our regular forces are still heavily committed to operations. It is an extraordinary statistic that at the ending of the Cold War we now find the Army relative to its strength more heavily committed to military operations than at any time since the late 1940s. We have to do something about that—it will require sound plans and adequate resources—and not least secure the major changes in the Territorial Army which, on the whole, I judge to be timely, relevant and necessary. My concern is that a smaller and more thinly dispersed Territorial Army will require more administrative and regular support than exists at present. That seems to be in doubt in some instances; it is a matter that needs to be urgently addressed.
I thank your Lordships again for the welcome I have received in this House and for hearing me so patiently today.
4.4 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I should make clear that in speaking from this position in the debate I do so personally, although I remain a loyal Member of my party's Front Bench on other subjects. I know that I speak for the entire House in being the first to express thanks to the noble and gallant Lord the Master Gunner for a fine maiden speech. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Vincent of Coleshill, brings to this House a fine military record and much wisdom, as he has
826
demonstrated to us in his maiden speech. He joined the Army for his National Service and became a Field Marshal. I, too, was a National Service subaltern in the Royal Artillery, but that makes me all the more delighted and proud to pay a well deserved tribute to the Master Gunner of St. James's Park for his maiden speech. As the noble and gallant Lord mentioned, he has been quite a long time in getting round to speaking to your Lordships' House, but we look forward keenly to the benefit of more of his wisdom and experience on defence and other matters.
The noble Lord spoke appropriately on the wide front of the Strategic Defence Review; and the Minister rightly did the same. But as befits my infinitely more modest experience, I am aiming at a lesser target, but not, I hope, an irrelevant one. We all know that plans can go wrong if the strategy is not well conceived, politically and militarily. But we also all know that things can go wrong because on the ground the operation does not or cannot be worked out in accordance with the strategy.
I wish to discuss the plan for the TA which has been prepared under the Strategic Defence Review and the extreme difficulties which it seems to me it will present in practice, and which will be such as to jeopardise the possibility of fulfilling its objectives. The aims of the plan for the TA are set out in the foreword by the Secretary of State to Volume 1 of A Territorial Army for the Future and expanded in detail in later chapters in Volume 2. In essence, the Secretary of State wishes the TA to be available to back up the Regular Army in operations like Bosnia or the Gulf War rather than being available to provide the basis of vast citizen armies as it did so successfully in two world wars.
It is indicative of that back-up role that it is planned for the medical corps in the Territorial Army to be larger than the infantry. If the TA were still regarded as an army by itself, it would be an exceptionally pessimistic military leader who organised his army on that basis. But training is supposed to be of a higher standard. The links between the Regular Army and the TA are supposed to be strengthened both to ensure the necessary training and to assist the Regular Army in its recruiting. Ministers have set out the strategy and the Ministry has published the plans. However, in respect of the local TA in my part of the country the detail of the plans makes the objectives difficult to achieve.
The example which leads me to that conclusion is one that I know best: the city of Bristol. Your Lordships will know that Bristol is the largest city in the country south of Birmingham apart from London. We are to be reduced to a total Territorial Army strength in the city of 186 soldiers; 110 of those are to be Royal Signals; 44 are to be Gunners; and 30 are to be infantry. Those will be part of the amalgamated South West Battalion—with our part presumably wearing the cap badge of the Royal Gloucestershire, Berkshire and Wiltshire Regiment, an amalgamated regiment sometimes known as the M.4 Rifles.
Our 30 infantry soldiers are to be one-third of a company, the other two-thirds of which will be in Gloucester, nearly 40 miles to the north. The company

827
will be part of the new South West Battalion, with its headquarters in Exeter, 85 miles in the other direction, and with other elements stretching all the way to Camborne, which is a further 100 miles beyond battalion headquarters. The headquarters must therefore try to train its troops on weekday evenings and at weekends, when they are spread over 200 miles over difficult roads. Any soldier towards the end of the line in either direction, as the Bristol ones will be, will not only have difficulties in receiving training but will not be able to try for promotion, whether as an officer or an NCO, unless he is prepared to undertake a fantastic travel commitment.
The proposed position of Bristol's Gunners is in some respects worse. They are to have half of a rather small battery—44 soldiers—with the other half 125 miles away in Croydon. Are they seriously expected to travel a 250-mile round trip after work on a Tuesday in order to train with their colleagues? It is bad enough to expect them to travel such a distance at a weekend in order to join with their fellows, but it is much more difficult during the week. A Gunner battery functions as a battery and needs to train regularly as a battery and not just occasionally. We all know that belonging to the TA is a team matter, both militarily and socially, but some individuals will meet their fellow members only a few times a year. Furthermore, they will effectively be denied promotion or the opportunity to become specialists. It will be extremely difficult to run an efficient unit that way.
The Secretary of State said in his foreword that he proposes to include training in the TA. I cannot see how that follows from the geography I have described. He also stated that he wants to see the TA more integrated with the Regular Army. The existing Gunner battery in Bristol is now a battery of a Regular Army regiment, the 7th Regiment Horse Artillery. That direct link with the Regular Army is to be broken. In future, its Regular Army staff will be 125 miles away. That is not increasing links with the Regular Army; it is the reverse of the Secretary of State's proposals and reinforces the general point made by my noble friend Lord Attlee. The only remark in the Secretary of State's foreword which is borne out by the proposals is that the TA should maintain as wide a spread as possible across the country. But I am not sure that the Secretary of State had in mind that that should be within a single unit or, indeed, a single sub-unit, but that is what has happened.
If anyone thought at all before deciding what to do about Bristol's TA, the real intention must be that the units will have great difficulty and be in danger of failing. That seems to be the most likely outcome. We have no Regular Army in Bristol, so if the TA's part-sub-units disappear or do not do well, the Army's presence in the city will almost vanish. That is a deceitful way in which to treat the Army, given what the Secretary of State outlined as his objective. Perhaps I have taken a bad example. Other cities are not treated as badly as Bristol; some have twice as many TA soldiers, although they are considerably smaller than Bristol. Even Croydon is to have more TA soldiers than
828
Bristol. I believe that the detail of the proposals makes the Secretary of State's word into a spin-doctor's deception.
I want to end on a positive note. At least as far as our Gunner battery is concerned there is a solution. The Croydon half of the proposed new battery is to be found from the existing battery in East Ham. Those of your Lordships who know London will know that those who parade in East Ham are unlikely, to say the least, to want to transfer readily to Croydon. It is a difficult journey across London. It would be better if the part battery which is supposed to come from East Ham were to link with the HAC in Finsbury, which is far nearer and a much easier journey. That would leave Bristol free to find a whole battery, as now, for the Field Artillery Regiment. Proper training would be possible again, although the links with the Regular Army would still suffer.
I do not expect the Minister to give me a detailed answer to the plan tonight, although I made the suggestion last month in a letter to the Secretary of State, copied to the Minister, saying that I intended to refer to the issue. I trust that he will be giving careful thought to the suggestion and will write to me as soon as he has made the right decision.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, before moving to the Statement on mental health, I wish to take this opportunity to remind the House that the Companion indicates that discussion on a Statement should be confined to brief comments and questions for clarification. Peers who speak at length do so at the expense of other noble Lords.

Mental Health
4.16 p.m.
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Health (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, with the permission of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health. The Statement reads as follows:
"Madam Speaker, I should like to make a Statement on the Government's proposals to modernise the mental health services as part of our drive to ensure we enter the new century and new millennium with health and social services which are modern and dependable.
"Last year, we published our proposals for radical reform of the National Health Service. Last week, we did the same for social services. The strategy document we are publishing today brings together our proposals for far reaching changes and improvements in the treatment and care which both provide for people who are mentally ill.
"We are doing this to emphasise that mental health is not some marginal responsibility of the NHS and local social services. Far from it; it must be at the heart of both. That is because mental illness is not an

829
obscure minority concern. It is just as important as physical illness and the two can be closely interlinked.
"Mental illness is as common as asthma—it affects as many as one in six adults at any one time. It ranges from a high level of anxiety or deep depression to severe and enduring illnesses, like schizophrenia, which affect one person in a hundred. Mental illness is extremely disturbing to sufferers and their families. It can leave people without insight into the consequence of their actions. That is very frightening. Mental illness is little understood. Those factors combine so that mental illness carries a stigma. The stigma in turns frightens sufferers and their families and can lead to the postponement of the treatment they need.
"Partly because of this, mental illness does not receive the prompt, effective and sympathetic attention it both deserves and needs. As a result people who are mentally ill, their carers and the professional staff responsible for their welfare have suffered from ineffective practices, an outdated legal framework and lack of resources. We want to deal with all those aspects to bring about a dramatic change for the better in the treatment and care of all those who are mentally ill. In particular we want to make sure that proper attention is given to the disturbing growth in the numbers of young people who are mentally ill and to the particular needs of certain ethnic groups.
"Most people who suffer mental illness are vulnerable people who pose no threat to anyone but themselves. Their condition may make it hard to keep a family together or to hold down a job but their behaviour is mild and inoffensive. Most of them are not getting the low intensity support they need. And that is partly because the whole system is in crisis, mainly because it is not coping with the small minority of mentally ill people who are a nuisance or a danger to both themselves and others. And this is where the policy of care in the community has failed. Its failure to deal effectively with the most severe cases has dealt a blow to all mental health efforts and lost the confidence of the public.
"Discharging people from hospitals brought benefits for some. But it has left many vulnerable people who find it difficult to cope. Others have become a danger to themselves and a nuisance to others. Too many have been left wandering the streets and sleeping rough. A small but significant minority have become a danger to the public as well as themselves.
"This cannot go on and we are putting in place a new strategy to tackle the problems faced by patients, professionals and public alike. We have to take steps to tackle the most extreme manifestations of mental illness because, if not, the other people who are mentally ill will not get the attention they deserve and need.
"That is why we must bring the law on mental health up to date. This was formulated when most mentally ill patients were treated in hospital; it now
830
reflects the practices of a bygone era. It must be modernised to cope with the problems of today. At present some people who would once have been left locked up in a hospital are fine living in the community; others are safe only provided that they take their medication. But some of those who can become a danger to themselves and others refuse to comply with the treatment they need. This cannot be allowed to go on and that is why I have set up a review of the law on mental health. We need a law that works in a crisis, not one that fails in a crisis.
"Similarly there is a small group of people with an untreatable psychiatric disorder which makes them dangerous. At present neither law nor practice are geared to cope with them. They cannot be taken into a mental hospital if they will not respond to treatment. They cannot be put in prison unless they have committed an offence. And if they are sent to prison they can be a danger on their release. The Home Secretary and I are therefore considering proposals to create a new form of renewable detention for people with a severe personality disorder who are considered to pose a grave risk to the public.
"This raises all sorts of ethical and practical problems but we are convinced that the safety of the public must be the prime concern. People whose mental illness poses a threat to others are in a very small minority but we must be able to deal with them. Their illness is often an even bigger threat to themselves and our new system shall be better both for them and the public.
"Our mental health strategy goes much wider than this and there are huge developments in both policy and practice. We shall put in place a national service framework which will spell out for every part of the country the range of services which are needed to treat and care for the mentally ill and how best to deliver them. We are being advised on this by an external reference group chaired by Professor Graham Thornicroft from the Maudsley Hospital. I thank him and his colleagues for all that they are doing.
"In the meantime we are getting on with the improvements that are unarguably needed. There is a pressing need in some parts of the country for more mental health beds and for 24 hour services to be available. We want the services that are provided to be safe and sound and supportive: safe to protect the public and the most vulnerable patients; sound to ensure that patients get the best and most appropriate care and attention; supportive by working with the patients, users, carers and local communities to help mentally ill people live as independent lives as possible. This works best where patients and carers are involved in shaping services to meet local needs.
"These services, which back up informal carers, will be provided by the NHS, social services and voluntary bodies. All must work together to ensure people who are mentally ill get well organised and unified treatment. Proposals in the forthcoming NHS Bill and local. government Bill will promote this.

831
"This year the planning guidance issued to the NHS was issued as joint guidance to the health service and social services to emphasise the need for them to work together. The national institute for clinical excellence which we shall introduce, will issue clear and authoritative guidance on the most effective drugs and therapies for use in treating mental as well as physical illness.
"At the same time that these general improvements are being made to the NHS, we are going ahead with much better support for patients and carers. These include: access to NHS Direct 24 hours a day; 24-hour crisis teams to respond in emergencies; more mental health beds of the right sort, in the right place; more hostels and supported housing; home treatment teams; improved mental health training for GPs and others responsible for primary care.
"New developments in the NHS including health action zones and the obligation on health authorities to prepare and implement health improvement programmes will all contribute to improving mental health treatment and care.
"I would like to pay a particular tribute to all of those who care for people with a mental illness. A great deal of this caring is done by parents, children, friends and neighbours. It is also done by dedicated professional staff. Their work can be very stressful and is sometimes dangerous. We owe them a great debt. They have to deal with the consequences of policy failures and shortcomings in the law and lack of resources.
"What needs to be done will clearly cost money. Last week I announced that we had found an extra £185 million to invest in mental health services provided by council social services. Today I can announce that that sum will be more than matched by our extra investment in NHS mental health services which will total £510 million over the next three years. That brings a total investment of around £700 million extra in mental health services over the next three years on top of the £3 billion already going in.
"All this is investment for change. The Government and the public will expect to see this extra investment make a discernible difference, helping people right across the range of mental health needs. At the end of three years we expect to see: more 24-hour staffed beds; more secure beds; access to new drugs; assertive outreach teams where they are most needed; more day and respite care; more supported accommodation; improved services for children and adolescents. All these and many more services will ensure that when people have a mental illness they and their families can turn to top quality professionals to offer the best possible treatment and care, a system that is safe and sound for both patients and the public".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.27 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I welcome the Statement and am more than usually grateful to the noble Baroness for
832
repeating it. It contains a great deal of substance and while, for that reason, I cannot hope to do it justice, I should like to focus on those areas which seem to me to represent the essence of it.
The first of those is the long-awaited review of the 1983 Mental Health Act. I welcome that review. The law should reflect the conditions of the present day. It manifestly does not do so at present. However, it appears from what the Minister said that the Government's starting point for that initiative is the widely perceived need to contain those psychiatric patients who are likely to pose a danger to the public.
We all recognise that that is an important issue. The debate in your Lordships' House on 19th October introduced by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln highlighted the appalling and distressing consequences of a failure to contain and supervise a paranoid schizophrenic who murdered a young man, Christopher Edwards, in prison in 1994. Such cases cry out for something to be done. The question is: what?
Government Ministers have been quoted as saying that care in the community has failed, praying in aid cases of the kind to which I have just referred. I notice that there is a section in the strategy document which has that sub-heading. During the debate in October, I argued that that is a mistaken view. Indeed, it is a view which seems to wish to convey the impression to the public that all mentally ill people are dangerous. To be fair to the Statement, it does not do that. But it is important to remember that a relatively small number of mentally ill patients pose a danger to themselves or to others. The vast majority are individuals who are quite harmless and whose lives have been transformed by the introduction of the care in the community policy. In fact, many thousands of men and women have been enabled to leave institutions and live supported, but essentially independent, lives perfectly successfully. I simply do not agree with the part of the Statement which says that the whole system is in crisis.
Violent or potentially violent patients are, as I said, an important issue in framing a mental health policy; but they are not the only ones. Equally, it is important, when we speak of mental illness, not to blur the distinction between the mentally ill and people with personality disorders. We welcome the current Department of Health and Home Office consideration of a new approach to help people with personality disorders outside the use of the Mental Health Act. We are also pleased to note the recognition that healthcare services in prisons need improvement. Clearly, any proposals emerging from either of these initiatives ought to be subject to the widest possible consultation.
The other strand of thought which seems to underlie the Government's initiative is the belief that the only safeguard against the possibility of violent behaviour is to lock people up. It is not. There are two principal reasons why the system breaks down. The first is the discharge process. All too often the root of the problem resides in poor decisions having been taken by psychiatrists on the discharge of patients from hospital. Patients who are clearly unable to cope with returning to society are nevertheless let loose. To the extent that

833
that is precipitated by a shortage of in-patient beds—that is by no means the only reason—I welcome the Government's announcement of further resources in that area.
The other main reason for the system failing is the inadequate availability of the latest psychoactive medication. That is something the Government could expedite straight away, but there was only a passing reference to it in the Statement. A recent report by the National Schizophrenia Fellowship and the Maudsley Hospital demonstrated that over 50 per cent. of patients were not even receiving Clozapine—a drug developed in 1975—and were instead receiving medication developed much further back in the 1950s which carries with it serious and damaging side effects.
Even less available in general terms in the health service are two more modern drugs—Risperidone and Olanzapine—which are not only more effective in controlling schizophrenia, but are also much less likely to result in serious side effects. The cost of such drugs is of course higher, but that does not account for the fact that such patients are less likely to require in-patient care than those on older medication. The National Schizophrenia Fellowship and Maudsley study found that patients were five times less likely to take their own life and much more likely to comply with medication when prescribed the newer products.
This last point is crucial to an understanding of the alternatives open to the Government in this area. Compulsory treatment should be a last resort. It will do damage to the relationship of trust between patients and medical staff; and it can only encourage the view—referred to in the Statement—that all mental illness has a stigma attached to it. From a purely practical standpoint the business of keeping track of patients (especially in urban areas) is likely to prove extremely difficult. But the key point is that devising compulsory mechanisms does not tackle the root causes of why the problem exists in the first place. Does the Minister have any comment on the type of psychoactive drugs which should be available under the NHS or must we wait for the National Institute for Clinical Excellence to pronounce on the question of best practice?
I worry too about assertive outreach teams whose job it will be to police any compulsory procedures. What representations have Ministers received about those ideas from the nursing profession? How are the new arrangements likely to affect recruitment? There is already a shortage of psychiatric nurses and many more will be needed to implement the policy. What nurse will want the task of seeking out patients, restraining them and returning them to hospital against their will? It is an invidious brief for a nurse to be given. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said in the debate on 19th October that,
"Any new arrangements must involve compliance within an appropriate clinical setting".—[Official Report, 19/10/98; col. 1265.]
But compliance, or at any rate docile compliance, in reaching the clinical setting in the first place, will be next to impossible to achieve. Can the Minister be any more specific about the safeguards to be put in place to ensure that the new arrangements provide adequate protection not only of the public but also of the rights
834
of the individual? Are there any plans to enshrine in law a role for what are sometimes referred to as "independent advocates" who would ensure that the best interests of the patient were protected?
It is absolutely right and proper that care in the community should be looked at closely to ensure that it is working properly. We welcome the ingredients of the three-year programme. We welcome the fact that, contrary to previous government Statements, the policy is now seen to be relevant and appropriate for the vast majority of mental health patients. It is particularly reassuring to note the emphasis placed in the Statement on additional resources to be directed to mental healthcare services in the community. Can the Minister confirm my understanding that the extra resources represent new money? Can she also confirm what I thought might have been an addition to the text of the Statement handed to me that service users and their relatives and carers will be given a say in what new services are planned and funded?
I believe that in mental health, perhaps pre-eminently among all fields of healthcare, it is not enough to give patients what we think they need; we must also give them, as far as possible, what they want. I very much hope—though I am not yet confident in all respects—that the measures announced today will achieve that aim.
4.37 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, from these Benches I thank the Minister for the Statement. We also welcome the White Paper mentioned in the Statement. This is an extremely important topic. The Statement states that one in six people suffer from some form of mental illness. It is therefore no surprise that some forecast that by 2020 there will be more people suffering from mental ailments than physical ailments. It is inevitable, as a result, that society as a whole is waking up to the implications. One sign of a truly civilised society is how it deals with mental health issues. That means not only in terms of what treatment is available, but also what rights those suffering from mental problems have and how the rights of the individual are balanced with those of the community.
In a sense today's White Paper may be either too early because it predates Professor Richardson's report, which will no doubt come in the spring, about the review of the Mental Health Act. It also predates Professor Thornicroft's external reference group report which will prepare the national service framework. But also, in a sense, it may be too late—too late in terms of being a late announcement of the resources that will be available following the July announcement by the Government giving a foretaste of their strategy. Nevertheless, from these Benches we welcome the Statement and the strategy. We welcome the priority being given to mental health and we welcome the review being undertaken of the Mental Health Act. But we hope that the Government are not anticipating the conclusions of Professor Richardson's review.
We also hope that Professor Thornicroft and his external reference group will re-confirm the benefits of care in the community if it is properly managed and

835
resourced. We welcome many aspects of the approach adopted by the Government, in particular a commitment to 24-hour nursing care in hospital accommodation. That will ensure that those patients who are sometimes subject to quick deterioration are cared for properly. It may need to be for the long term, not just for the short term.
We welcome the concept of assertive outreach designed to ensure that individuals suffering from problems do not fall out of the care net, provided this does not become aggressive outreach. We also welcome the "partnership in action" approach which is designed to break down barriers between health authorities, social services and other providers. Liberal Democrats have been strongly supportive of that approach in many areas, particularly in Somerset where a county-wide mental health strategy has been agreed, and a joint commissioning body and single integrated mental health and social care provider created. But there is a huge job to be done in bridging the mistrust between health authorities and social services. The Minister will no doubt have seen a recent report from the Centre for Mental Health Services Development which shows that lack of trust and the hurdles to be overcome.
However, we do not welcome statements by Ministers that care in the community has failed. It is noticeable in the Statement today that such language has been rather toned down. We now hear that care in the community has failed a small minority of mentally ill people. That is much closer to what has actually happened. The original, bald statement that care in the community has failed caused considerable anger among mental health professionals. The implementation of care in the community has undoubtedly failed in several cases. A number of tragic circumstances testify to that, such as the case of Jonathan Zito, and we are, of course, all aware of the very hard cases involving Michael Folkes and Christopher Moffat.
We do not believe that the philosophy of care in the community has failed. It has not been tried or resourced properly. We do not welcome some of the punitive language used by Ministers. We must not return to the bad old days of thinking that every mental patient needs locking up in an institution. As has been well shown, alcohol and drug abuse are much more potent indicators of criminality than is mental illness.
With proper care and supervision, many patients can take their place in the community without danger to the public. The "safety plus" approach adopted by this Government must not mean treating all mental patients as criminals. We would be concerned if the Government shifted the emphasis unduly back to institutional care. The devotion of undue resources to medium secure units could mean, in practice, the simple locking up of more young black men who already constitute 80 per cent. of those in that type of secure unit in London and just under 50 per cent. elsewhere.
We are concerned about the clarity of responsibility for the commissioning of mental health services. Who is responsible: the region, the primary care group or the health authority? Ministers have said that the national service framework will make that clear. However, that
836
will not be available until April. If the primary carers are to carry out the task, they must have the ability to do it properly. It is not clear that they, or the health authority, will have adequate resources to do so.
We are also concerned about whether the Government are giving adequate attention to the abolition of mixed-sex wards in mental hospitals. Surely that is even more important in such hospitals than in ordinary hospitals.
We believe that the key is more resources to the whole spectrum of care. Even the previous government started to move in the right direction on mental health at the end of their time in office. The essence is a balance or spectrum of different types of care. What they did not do was to devote adequate resources to mental health; hence all the current problems.
As we know, one of the key causes of high profile cases involving homicide and suicide has been the breakdown of care plans because of overstretched teams and lack of available resources; in other words, more resources are needed to provide more effective care and supervision. I welcome the addition of the extra resources announced today after years of under-funding. However, I am somewhat baffled, even after reading the White Paper, about precisely what figures are involved. The noble Baroness may remember the confusion about the precise additional sums involved in the comprehensive spending review. We would welcome clarification of precisely what additional funding is involved. We must improve the generality of services and bring poor services up to the standards of the best. That is why we support the principle of a legally enforceable right to a minimum standard of treatment.
Resources must be ringfenced for mental health. There are some 5,000 potential long-stay patients who need 24-hour care in the community. Psychiatrists have enormous caseloads and we are something like 400 psychiatrists short. For every five GPs there is only one community psychiatric nurse. Each community psychiatric nurse has an average of 80 patients to care for, of whom 35 to 40 are psychotic. We need more, and better trained, community psychiatric nurses. I am not convinced that that is properly addressed in the White Paper.
For assertive outreach to work properly, psychiatrists and GPs need to have proper IT systems to track their patients' treatment. How is that issue being addressed by the Government?
There is a shortage of acute beds. A recent Sainsbury Centre report referred to a "care vacuum" in psychiatric wards with overworked, undertrained and inexperienced staff. Another recent Sainsbury Centre report showed that in London almost 50 per cent. of nursing staff are casual and hired from agencies. Outside London the figure is 30 per cent.
The Statement mentions the joint venture between the Home Office and the Department of Health. We believe that focusing on mental health in prisons is of enormous importance. There is an extremely good case for integrating the services. We hope that the joint venture bears fruit in that respect.

837
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, mentioned the funding of atypical anti-psychotic drugs. As the noble Earl said, the Maudsley Hospital and the National Schizophrenia Fellowship drew attention to postcode rationing of drugs such as Clozapine. We welcome the pledge of another £120 million for more effective drug therapies. However, we do not know whether that will seriously address the problem. We would welcome assurance on that point.
We welcome the recognition that mental health forms a central part of primary care objectives and that the health improvement programme is a vital tool. Consultation on the HIP must include the community, the voluntary sector and service users. The Government must recognise that public education is vital, and we seek assurance on that point. As we recall, one of the key objectives adopted by the Department of Health in 1993 was to reverse the public's negative perception of mental illness. That is more vital now than ever. New legislation, whether designed to make treatment more effective or the public more secure, is not enough. For treatment to be effective and for the right treatment to be available, we need the confidence of the community. We must increase understanding of mental health problems within the community and among individuals affected. How do the Government recognise that? And what do they plan to do about it?
4.46 p.m.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for what I believe was a basic welcome for the additional resources for these services and the recognition of their importance. Perhaps I may give more detail on the financial issues about which the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked. We are talking about £700 million of new money being made available over the next three years in addition to the £3 billion which is already going into mental health services. That is £510 million of NHS money to complement the £185 million announced last week for social care services.
As far as next year's money is concerned, we are talking about investing £146 million. Some of that will be via targeted allocation to health authorities; some will be available as central funds and will need to be bid for; and some will be available through the mental health grant to local authorities. It is a complex situation. We shall be giving more details next week. I reassure the noble Lord that that money will go towards mental health services and, in that sense, it is ringfenced through its various funding streams.
I turn to the theme that ran through the contribution of the noble Earl, Lord Howe; that is, the issue of not stigmatising all people who suffer from mental health problems because of the very real danger that a very small minority of those patients pose to themselves and other people. My right honourable friend tried to make it extremely clear in his Statement that we recognise that such patients comprise a tiny minority of all the people who need to use mental health services in the course of any year. However, I should tell the noble Earl that,
838
while I am happy to reinforce that point and to confirm that there is no desire to go back to institutional care for vast numbers of people who can be provided with adequate care in the community, it is our view that the failure of services and policies in the past to deal with some of the people who were most severely ill and who posed the greatest threat to themselves and to others—examples of which were given by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones—has not been in the interests either of those patients or the vast majority of patients who have been stigmatised. Indeed, services have been diverted into trying to deal with the very high profile areas in that respect. So there is no apology for trying to deal with those people who are most severely ill. I do not believe that that detracts from the services that we want to offer to the majority of patients in this area.
The same applies to the review of the Mental Health Act, to which the noble Earl referred. Perhaps I may reassure him in that respect. There is the issue about community treatment and the people who are outside an institutional setting who do not comply with medication and, therefore, become a danger both to themselves and to other members of the public. However, that is not the only area of concern. We need a root and branch review of the Mental Health Act because it does not reflect current patterns of care where the majority of care is not provided in a hospital setting but within the community. We are not only looking at community treatment orders, which are an important part of the process; we are looking much more broadly at the workings of the Act so as to make them reflect more realistically the patterns of treatment that people receive. I hope that that will prove to be a reassuring element of Professor Richardson's review.
Obviously there are difficulties to overcome and balances to be made here, as in the area of acute personality disorders to which the noble Earl also referred. It is important for us to strike a balance between the civil liberties of individual patients and the protection of the public. There are no simple answers. However, because there are no simple answers, I do not believe that we should be deterred from going into areas where we have only too tragic evidence of the failure of the system as it stands at present. This will need careful review and that is what it will have. We must ensure that we have a balanced approach, but we are determined to take action to improve the legal framework which is in place at present.
On the issue of assertive outreach services which was raised by the noble Earl, I can tell the House that there are very positive examples of where this is going on successfully—for example, in north Birmingham—and where it has been supported by all the professionals involved, including community psychiatric nurses. We want to look at how we can transpose that good practice elsewhere, where it is appropriate. But, again, it is one strand where we have the possibility of actually providing the right range of service within the community and preventing a crisis which can damage both other people and the patients themselves.

839
As far as concerns the point about the need for local government and health services to work together, I can confirm that there have been difficulties in that area in the past. We have clearly said that we recognise that the institutional barriers do not reflect the needs of patients. We have to start off with the needs of patients. That is why the national priorities guidance this year was issued jointly to both health services and local authority social services. That is why the legislation on the local authority front and the NHS front will aim to provide a framework in which joint working in the interests of patients can take place, whether it is through pooled budgets, the commissioning of arrangements, or whatever, to ensure that the needs of patients are actually met across the institutional barriers.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked for clarification as to the commissioning of mental health services. At present health authorities are responsible for commissioning specialist mental health services. Primary care groups will be free to take on responsibility for commissioning services and will be accountable for their performance. However, the important area here is the national service framework. The noble Lord was slightly critical of the fact that we have produced the White Paper before the national service framework is finalised. Some findings have emerged in that respect and we are beginning to see the way forward. It will be a very potent weapon in ensuring that we do bridge some of the gaps between the best and the worst provision and make sure that high levels of quality care are available throughout the service.
That leads me to the availability of the new generation of anti-psychotic drugs, which was raised by both the noble Lord and the noble Earl. From next year, the Government will ensure that extra resources are available to assist in meeting the demands for new drugs by targeting health authorities with the highest levels of mental illness. We recognise that we must look at the costings in the round and that these drugs may be more expensive than other drug treatments. However, if we consider their potential for saving admissions, they may in fact prove to be very cost effective. That is why it is important that the National Institute for Clinical Excellence will assess them as well as other interventions and produce and disseminate clinical guidelines as well as clinical audit methodologies. Although these drugs are suitable for some patients, they are not suitable for all patients. We have to look at the range of interventions available.
I turn now to the issue of staffing. A point was made about the need for training and, indeed, for better trained staff. That is very much taken on board in the funding both as regards improving the training of local authority staff and also staff within the health service. We are beginning to see greater numbers of trained staff coming through in the medical profession where there were great shortages in the past. We have to look at the training both for clinical psychologists and for nurses specialising in mental health. The Government are looking very carefully at the situation with a view to ensuring that some of the additional places being made available will cover that need.
840
Finally, I move on to the issue of mixed sex wards. Perhaps I may reassure the noble Lord in that respect. We recognise the great difficulties which such wards cause for patients, especially as regards mental health facilities. I can reassure the noble Lord that there is absolutely no going back on the Government's commitment to tackle the problem. As he may be aware, on two occasions where it was planned that new facilities would have mixed-sex wards my right honourable friend has intervened to ensure that they did not.
4.58 p.m.
Lord Thurlow: My Lords, like the noble Earl and the noble Lord who have already spoken, I most warmly welcome the Statement, which I hope and believe represents a very important milestone in meeting the deficiencies that have become so apparent to all of us ever since the 1983 Act. Those of us who were involved in the discussions in 1983, and since then, have always taken the line that, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, emphasised, community care has not failed; indeed, it has never been given a fair trial. We hope that the fairly massive resources that the Government will be putting into mental health over the next three years will do much to repair the situation.
I am most grateful not only for the content of the Statement but also for the process adopted by the Government in reaching their conclusions. They have taken their time and have consulted in the widest possible way. We await with hope and interest the results of the studies that are still in process. It seems to me that the whole package represents an enormously important step forward in remedying manifest deficiencies.
Of course we all have questions, but then this is such a wide canvas. One particular question I wish to ask the noble Baroness is whether she can give any indication of timing for the increase in new 24-hour nursing beds. When this was introduced by the previous government we first of all had fairly optimistic statements, but it all turned out to be a very slow affair. Although, I am sure, those which have come into operation have done excellent work, we need far more. I would like some indication of the timetable.
I warmly welcome the prospect of more beds in hospitals. Many of us have been gunning for them for years. We have deprecated the mad speed of the closure of the big hospitals. One hopes that that is a matter of the past.
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, perhaps I may remind the noble Lord that discussion on a Statement should be confined to brief comments and questions for clarification.
Lord Thurlow: My Lords, I apologise. On the question of co-ordination between local authorities and

841
the health service, is there any possibility of moving towards a single point of responsibility, as Sir Roy Griffiths originally said was necessary?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his welcome for what we have done. He used the word "package". It reflects a recognition that it is essential that we address all the necessary elements—the elements of extra resources for investment; of making sure through the national service framework what services are needed; of assessing needs in various areas; and of the necessary legislation that will underpin and provide a framework in which services can be provided.
As to the 24-hour beds, we hope to see action on those from the money already provided. Some of last year's winter pressures money, for example, was put into mental health. We hope to see a very swift response in relation to 24-hour beds. By making sure that the range of services, the 24-hour beds and the medium secure beds, are available, that in turn takes away some of the pressure on the acute beds, from which people cannot move because there are no alternatives.
There has been recognition in all the contributions made today that we need a range of services—both the community and inside hospitals, as well as half-way house type services—to reflect the range of need of a very wide group of patients.
Lord Renton: My Lords, does the noble Baroness accept that mental illness and mental handicap are quite different—because mental handicap is incurable—and that very few mentally handicapped people are aggressive? Will she confirm that the Statement does not broadly apply to the mentally handicapped people in our society? I hope that early in the new year she will make an equivalent Statement about the treatment of those who are mentally handicapped.
I wish to ask the noble Baroness one question with regard to mental illness? Will she confirm that the present small number of secure hospitals for containing people who are suffering from mental illness and extreme aggression will be retained, bearing in mind that the people in those hospitals are nearly always sent there by the criminal courts?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, whose commitment to the needs of people with mental handicaps and learning disabilities is well known throughout the House. I am happy to give him the reassurance that he seeks. They are a completely different group of people, and we are dealing in this Statement with people suffering from mental illness.
High security services will continue to be based on the three special hospitals for the foreseeable future. We are committed to better integration of high security psychiatric services with other parts of the NHS. One of the measures we will be taking will enable better integration by removing the barrier currently preventing high security services being managed by NHS trusts.
842
This will require primary legislation. I can assure the noble Lord that public safety will remain the prime concern of those who manage such services.
Lord McNair: My Lords, I am not sure whether the Minister has had a chance to read what I said on 19th October. If she has, she will be aware that I am unlikely to be convinced that the increase in spending on the mental health services will solve the problem. I wish to raise one point. The increase in the number of young people to which the Statement refers may well be partly the result of the tendency of the psychiatric services to seek out new clients by labelling different groups of people in society, in this case particularly children. For example, they label children with an attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and then often proceed to introduce them to a life of drugs by prescribing them drugs such as Ritalin.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I recognise the concerns of the noble Lord. I read his contribution in October but I was not sure how well I had retained it until today. I shall revisit it. Regardless of the point the noble Lord makes about issues such as attention deficit disorder, there is a worrying rise in child and adolescent mental illness and a worrying disparity of services throughout the country. It is important that we deal with these young people as and when their difficulties arise. There are ways in which this can be done, but services are very patchy. That is why we have made it a priority. We are determined to see that those children receive the services they need. The preponderance of some of these problems has to be seen particularly in conjunction with children who live away from home with our broader response to the Utting Report and its recommendations.
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness for this very welcome Statement. She will understand that I particularly welcome the support for the informal carers for the family, most of whom want to go on caring and are often subject to intolerable burdens. Recognition that family care, where possible, is not only the best but the most cost-effective form of care is welcome indeed.
I also welcome the Minister's assurance that community care has not failed in many aspects. Anyone who has worked on the back wards of the old mental hospitals—as I have—knows that much community care has been a resounding success, not only for those with mental illness but for older people and those with learning disabilities. It is important that we recognise that.
Does the Minister agree with me that any reform of community care law in order to make it stronger to deal with the small minority who are the subject of the Statement today should not be at the expense of preventive work to ensure that crises do not happen in the first place. Does she also agree that some of the money, the welcome extra resources, should be put into preventive services such as counselling, early intervention and family support groups.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I can reassure my noble friend that the national service framework will be

843
looking across the whole range of services that are necessary. It is much more cost effective to put money into preventive services if we can be assured of their quality and know that they are effective than to wait for crises to occur. In the whole debate about provision within the community and provision within hospitals and institutions, what we are not trying to do—and what no one wants to do—is recreate the Victorian institutions of the past for everyone regardless of their degree of need. What we are trying to do is ensure that there is a broad framework with a range of provision that meets the needs of the most severely ill in order to protect them and society as a whole.
My noble friend asked about carers. There is a recognition of the enormous amount of care that is being provided by families within the community. As she is only too well aware, we will be producing in the new year a strategy for dealing with carers not only in the field of mental illness but across the whole range of provision.
Lord Annaly: My Lords, I wish to flag up two areas of importance, having spoken on this issue this morning to a psychiatrist who deals with mental health. The taking of medication causes problems to people with mental health difficulties. They fail to take their medication and then start to run into behavioural difficulties. I wonder how the assertive outreach teams will work in practice. I am delighted that, according to the White Paper, they are working well in Birmingham. However, will nurses have to go out and sometimes apply force in order to get people to take their medication, bearing in mind that a good deal of medication needs to be taken on a daily basis? How will that work in practice? It is almost a combination of a policeman's job, supported by a nurse, to actually achieve that.
Secondly, I see the renewable detention places, which will provide 24-hour beds, as being a problem of cost. If they are not to be on the scale of old institutions, I imagine that they will be quite small. Will they be a combination of a secure centre, like a prison, and something else? I see them as being costly to run if they are to be spread across different areas. They will be costly in manpower as well. Will the Minister comment on that point?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the extra resources we are providing over the three-year period are a recognition that it is a costly business to provide the range of care that is needed—whether it is the range of staff to provide beds manned for 24 hours, whether it is the appropriate drug treatment, or whether it is the counselling and preventive services to which my noble friend referred earlier. It is because of those cost implications that we are putting large sums of extra money into mental health services.
The noble Lord asked specifically about non-compliance with treatment. The assertive outreach teams are working successfully within the current legal framework in trying to persuade people to recognise their need to comply with treatment. However, by
844
definition, non-compliance itself brings with it a lack of insight into the problem. That is why we have asked the expert group advising on the review of the Mental Health Act to make specific recommendations about how one aspect of policy, under which non-compliance with treatment for some patients is no longer to be an option, could be incorporated and supported. As I said earlier when this point was raised, we have to recognise that there are civil liberty implications. We have to have a balanced programme which ensures that patients who want to live independently can do so in a situation in which the safety of the community and of themselves is not threatened.
Lord Laming: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for a very encouraging Statement, encouraging both in its ambitions for the mental health services and for the extra resources to achieve those ambitions. As we are all agreed that the mental health services meet the needs of very many people, I should like to ask two questions about the needs of people who lead unpredictable lives and whose health fluctuates very considerably. Does the Minister agree that greater emphasis must be placed on a realistic assessment of need, especially for people who have few roots in the community and who are a danger to themselves potentially and a danger to other people? Secondly, does she agree that there is a need everywhere for community based multi-disciplinary teams which will be able to guarantee care and supervision to those people who have been seriously affected by mental illness and whose behaviour can at times be a threat to themselves and to others? Should not those teams be helped to strike a better balance between the rights of the individual and the safety of the community?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am happy to agree with my noble friend on those points. We need a multi-disciplinary approach and we need people to work in teams and across the organisational boundaries that sometimes have impeded particularly hard-to-reach groups in getting the service they need. My noble friend is right to pinpoint the small number of individuals who perhaps provide the greatest challenge. In those cases, assertive outreach can be effective, but it must have a coherent and determined attitude in order to ensure that people get the help that they need. There is also the link that sometimes exists between serious mental illness and substance abuse. We need new investment in risk management, in early intervention, in 24-hour staffed beds and in assertive outreach services if we are to meet the needs of those individuals.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I wish to raise a practical issue. Is the Minister aware that there is a great problem at the moment in two respects? Some hospitals have so many psychiatric cases that they cannot provide non-executive directors to sit, as they are requested to do, on the hearing of every case. Does the Minister agree that there will be an extra burden of decisions to be made in so many cases? One category has large numbers of patients and there is, therefore, a burden on the existing number of non-executive directors even if they are all available. I was reminded last night that in many parts of the country places for

845
non-executive directors have been left vacant. That is imposing a great additional burden on those who remain. Can the Minister assure us that she will take back to the department the necessity for appointing people to these posts so that they can carry out this responsible decision-making?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am certainly willing to give that assurance to the noble Baroness. We are making a great deal of progress this year—better than last year—but I recognise that in some areas there are still problems. We are certainly seeking to fill those vacancies.
The noble Baroness raised a broader question about the role and responsibilities of non-executive directors in trusts that have mental health functions regarding duties under the Mental Health Act. That area will have to be looked at by Professor Richardson's working group because it is an area that has concerned people for a period of time. It is one of the areas where we simply do not have in the 1983 Act a framework which reflects patterns of services as they are today.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we have reached the end of the 20 minutes on the Statement. We need to move on now.

Strategic Defence Review
5.19 p.m.
Debate resumed.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I am not so concerned about the content of the strategic review—although I understand that it is capable of being criticised, and has been criticised—because my noble friend in his usual efficient manner introduced it in a convincing way. Unfortunately the most important aspect of the whole defence world at this time receives no treatment at all in the document. I refer, of course, to the manifesto undertaking of my party that we shall seek the elimination of the nuclear weapon.
It is remarkable that a document of this kind should make no mention at all of the subject which divides the world at the moment. In effect we are divided between the nuclear powers and those who have an immediate ambition to follow in their track, and the vast majority who have no nuclear weapons. When the issue was discussed recently at the United Nations General Assembly, my Government joined in the opposition to their manifesto recommendation, rather than supporting it. Some 97 countries wanted to get rid of the nuclear weapon, but did our representative support them? Not a bit of it. Britain voted with the United States which does not wish to get rid of the nuclear weapon and has never pretended that it wishes to do so. However, I should say in parenthesis that there are many Americans who hold the same views on this subject as I do. However, they have not yet succeeded in persuading any United States government or potential government to change their mind on the matter. For some time America has been concerned with matters other than the nuclear weapon.
846
We have recognised the importance of the nuclear weapon and the need to get rid of it. However, in the United Nations we voted against the commitment that was stated in the manifesto. We have issued a prolix document in the name of a senior civil servant; no Minister put his name to this explanation of why we decided to take this extraordinary decision. The document is more wordy than convincing. But there it is. Apparently there is now no effective government intention in sight to work hard and speedily—as the non-proliferation treaty provides—and with conviction to get rid of the nuclear weapon.
That is a sad state of affairs, particularly for someone like myself who served in the Royal Air Force during the war in SEAC (South-East Asia Command). The bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, but after the initial rejoicing was over some considerable concern was felt about this remarkable new weapon which had killed thousands of people in a moment. I shared that concern and I have shared it ever since. In the immediate years after that event I forgot about it, but in the 1950s a Labour government decided to make the hydrogen bomb, a bomb one hundred times more deadly than the one which had extinguished people in Hiroshima. At that point I became convinced that the world now had the power to destroy our entire civilisation. Nothing in man's past record on such matters has convinced me that this power will not be used.
For the past 17 years, ever since I have been in this House, I have from time to time stretched your Lordships' toleration when I have pointed out the danger that these weapons pose to us. I would not expect your Lordships to take any particular notice of what I say if I, alone, held these views, but I am not alone. One of the extraordinary features to emerge in the past few years is the conviction felt among what one might call the world's top brass that this is a weapon which cannot be used as a weapon of war without risk of incurring such destruction as might threaten civilisation itself.
Last year, for example, 60 admirals and generals gathered in Washington and declared themselves in favour of nuclear disarmament. Two most distinguished ex-chiefs of staff who sit in this House are convinced that the nuclear weapon must be eliminated. The Pope's representative has spoken more vehemently than I have with regard to why the nuclear weapon must go. The Pope's representative believes that humanity itself is threatened by the continued existence of the nuclear weapon. I believe that it will destroy our civilisation, but who knows whether we are talking about the destruction of our civilisation, or the destruction of humanity itself, or, indeed, of all life on earth? That is the kind of detail with which I do not wish to bother. However, if our civilisation is destroyed, all that we stand for will go with it. I do not know whether after that there will be any life on earth, or whether in 20, 30, 40 years or more there will be any more life on this earth than there is on the moon. However, I believe that the period of time during which we can carry on without a nuclear holocaust is pretty limited. My own guess, for what it is worth, is that probably the first century of the coming millennium will see the end of our civilisation, unless we change our course.

847
I thought that my party had decided to change its course when it stated in its manifesto that it would pursue the elimination of the nuclear weapon. However, the document that we are discussing tonight on our strategic defence policy contains no effective undertaking in that regard. I should have thought that a substantial part of the document should contain the detail of how we bring about the elimination of the nuclear weapon, but not on your life! Instead of that, we vote against ourselves in the United Nations.
I shall not leave this subject alone; your Lordships have not heard the last from me. However, I do not wish to take up too much of the time that is available in this debate. Although this matter ought to be included in the document, it is not. Later in the debate, we shall hear from the noble Lord, Lord Carver, who can speak with considerable authority on this subject.
I hope that we shall begin to deal with this matter more seriously than we have done hitherto. There are two opinions on it. There are the opinions held in the non-nuclear world, which is wholly against nuclear weapons; and there are the opinions held in the nuclear world—opinions which are not widely held among the population. According to opinion polls the vast majority of people are in favour of the elimination policy which we declare ourselves to be in favour of but do not carry out. If that is the case, we have a duty to listen to what people are saying, particularly in those countries that do not have nuclear weapons, and to busy ourselves carrying out the policy on which we went to the country and won a magnificent victory.
I hope that we may be able to do something to heal the breach that exists between those with nuclear weapons and those without. That breach can be healed only by our joining the "withouts", not by the "withouts" joining us. That way lies perdition.
5.31 p.m.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, it is a pleasure to salute and congratulate from these Benches the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Vincent of Coleshill, on his admirable maiden speech. It was wise, thought-provoking and shrewd. The noble Lord also issued a caution to the Front Bench. If anyone is unwise enough to doubt the need for distinguished servicemen in this House who have advised Ministers at the highest level, the noble Lord's maiden speech must have deterred them from that view. I hope that, next year, when we discuss the reform of this Chamber we shall ensure that there will always be five star officers to give us their breadth of experience in planning and executing dangerous operations of war. I am sorry that there are no naval or Royal Air Force five star officers present to give us their views on the Strategic Defence Review. Perhaps we need more of those two categories in this House. I should welcome that.
It is a daunting experience to speak after the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, and before the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge. The former is a well-known and much respected campaigner for nuclear disarmament; the latter has to my knowledge never been
848
a nuclear disarmer. Likewise, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, has never been Chief of the Defence Staff. I have been neither a campaigner for nuclear disarmament nor a defence chief. I had the privilege as a field officer to command sub-units in the Regular Army, an armoured car reconnaissance regiment and a TA infantry company. It is from that level that I make my small contribution. It will not be like cru champagne like that of the noble and gallant Lord; it will be something like Babycham—with no insult to Babycham!
We have been told that the Strategic Defence Review is bipartisan. I suggest that it is tripartisan. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, will speak as an independent from the Cross-Benches. I believe that our servicemen welcome politicians in both Houses agreeing on the broad principles of defence policy, because that gives them confidence. Woe betide us when we get into a situation like Suez, when there were arguments between the Front Benches in both Houses as to the efficacy of the operation while our servicemen were about to launch the "boat" from the blue. We welcome the Strategic Defence Review. It has been a long time coming, but it was worth waiting for. I hope that the services now have time to settle down.
I have a question for the Minister which he will not be able to answer, because the answer will not be known. Events over the years will provide the answer. Is this strategic defence approach sustainable? We welcome assurances about the great warships and aircraft carriers that are to be built. I am slightly more concerned that our amphibious landing ships will not be built soon enough. We await HMS "Bulwark" and HMS "Albion". We say that we are returning to last century, and the "boat" from the blue; we land our sailors, soldiers and airmen in order to carry out ground operations. But they need a "sea taxi", an amphibious landing ship to get them there. I understand that there will be a gap between building the new ones and the decommissioning of the old ones. How will the Government bridge that gap—beg, borrow or steal, or make do with something? Will it be a case of "débrouiller", a case of muddling through? Will it be improvisation? I am reminded by Professor Michael Howard, the distinguished professor of war studies both at London and at Oxford, who said during his Cheney lecture when considering a previous defence review, "I do not believe that Her Majesty's Government have got it exactly right. However, I can expect from this defence review that they have the ability to put it right, time, God willing, permitting". I hope that we can also say that about this defence review.
I wish to make three points. First, we are talking about defence diplomacy publicly in a Strategic Defence Review for the first time. I note the Outreach programme and welcome its expansion, including the greater use of attachments and short-term training teams and additional training courses particularly for those in central Europe. I refer to the land from the River Weser to the River Narva. A Lithuanian parliamentary delegation, under the deputy Speaker, Mr. Andrius Kubilius, is presently meeting officials from the Minister's department. They are discussing the

849
enlargement of NATO. I hope that this distinguished group of Lithuanian members of parliament go away satisfied with what they learn from the Minister's officials. I suspect that they will be told that it will probably not be this year and that next year is unlikely. However, I hope that they will not be told that it will never happen, but that it will indeed happen at some time.
Will the Minister tell the House whether, following the Strategic Defence Review, we are to enhance our commitment to assist those nations that are recreating their defence forces on our own model?
I turn, secondly, to the Territorial Army. I experienced the undoubted sadness to be the sexton of a TA infantry company based at Hebburn on the Tyne. I was a sexton when it was wound up some eight years ago. Everyone in that 80-strong company found another home in another drill hall. The TA has now been cut again. Can the Minister give us some assurance, not that everyone who wishes to serve in the TA or whose commanding officers wish them to continue to serve in the TA will be found a home, but that his department will do all in its power to keep the junior and senior NCOs and the junior officers who have been expensively trained by the taxpayer and who still have a contribution to make?
Thirdly, we learn that we are short of 10,000 servicemen in the three services. The Minister was present in the Jubilee Room of the Westminster Hall on 25th November when members of your Lordships' defence group and members of the all-party defence group in the House of Commons listened to a presentation by Colonel Jackson, formerly of the Royal Green Jackets. Present to answer our questions were the Secretary of State, the Minister and the Chief of the General Staff, Sir Roger Wheeler. We saw an excellent film on that occasion. I believe that that film should be shown to a wider public, as should a naval one and a Royal Air Force one. Can the Minister assure us that we are using the media to present our defence forces in as good a light as possible? I suggest that there is no better way to present the defence forces than to get the soldier, the sailor and the airman to do it themselves.
5.41 p.m.
Lord Inge: My Lords, I start by congratulating my noble and gallant friend Lord Vincent on his maiden speech. I too congratulate the Government on the outcome of the strategic defence review. Ministers and the services were involved as a team from the outset and there was wide consultation. I know that the services feel that, within the constraints of the defence budget, it was a well-thought-out and successful review. In saying that, I include the Territorial Army, about which I shall say a little more in a moment.
I should like to highlight certain key points in the review that I think are important: the emphasis placed on the critical importance of NATO and this country's contribution as the lead nation within the allied rapid reaction corps; the commitment to, and the need to retain, a high intensity warfare capability—in other words, a true war-fighting capability; and the
850
importance of improving our capability to project military power, which we need to be careful not to overstate. I was delighted by the attention given to sustainability, about which I should like to say a little more later. I was also delighted to see that real efforts will be made to try to reduce overstretch, but I have doubts about whether that is achievable.
I should like to say something about the Territorial Army. I understand the highly charged and emotional reaction that greeted the significant cuts to the Territorial Army. During the Cold War I was fortunate enough to command a division which had within it a significant number of Territorial Army units and individual reservists. Without their contribution, the Second Infantry Division could not have gone to war.
I think we need to recognise two significant facts. First, there have been major changes, which are well known, to the international security situation. Secondly, the Government made it clear that there was no additional money available for defence—wrong, maybe, but a fact. Given those two factors, significant changes to the Territorial Army were necessary to allow the TA to play a real part in meeting effectively the operational demands likely to be placed upon it in the new security situation. In all of this I recognise the significant contribution made by many individual TA soldiers in places such as Bosnia, Northern Ireland and elsewhere. However, the Territorial Army's ability to provide formed units at short notice is, for understandable reasons, less good, as the experience when we tried to fit them into the tour plot for the Falkland Islands illustrated. I hope that the Government will provide them with the kind of training days that they require and the training support and permanent staff that they need to allow them to take on these difficult and challenging roles.
Even something as successful as the strategic defence review raises certain doubts and questions which will in the end decide whether this was a successful defence review. Perhaps I may touch on a few. As the Minister mentioned, we shall know whether it was a successful review when it is tested in an operational situation. We need to recognise, first, that Britain's Armed Forces are of the highest quality but that they are now very small and have limited scope to undertake independent military action. Secondly, the defence budget is, in Sir Humphrey's famous words, "seriously over-heated" and there must be doubt as to whether the full SDR package can be delivered. Significant savings may have to be made in the forward equipment programme. On top of this, there are the so-called 3 per cent. efficiency savings demanded by the Chancellor, which may well affect operational capability in such areas as training, overstretch and quality of life. This must have a knock-on effect on standards and on retention.
I was interested in what the Minister said about the defence co-operation agreement that was signed between France and Britain. I share some of the concerns touched upon by my noble and gallant friend

851
Lord Vincent. I would merely comment that I hope that Europe does not delude itself about its real military capability and does not forget the lessons that we learnt in Bosnia about the inability of the United Nations to provide such things as the strategic direction of a campaign, command and control of operations and real military fighting capability. I hope that this new co-operation agreement, about which the Minister will perhaps tell us more in due course, is more about reality than rhetoric.
I am also delighted that the Government have given such importance to sustainability in the Strategic Defence Review and are taking serious steps to improve it. Sustainability covers a wide field, including having properly manned logistic units, reserves of ammunition, thousands and thousands of spare parts and formed units. My worry is that Options for Change, which did not deliver the smaller but better armed forces that were promised, together with the various cuts that have taken place over a number of years, have resulted in deep cuts to our Armed Forces' sustainability. Noble Lords will remember how much ammunition we had to borrow to support our forces in the Gulf, and that was for only two brigades. I therefore have doubts about whether the defence budget can plug some of these major capability gaps.
My next area of concern is training. Effective training takes time, money and space. Given the operational demands on our Armed Forces and the tightness of the defence budget, there is no doubt that training, particularly for high intensity conflict, is suffering.
Finally, I should like to talk about people, who remain absolutely critical. We have touched on the problems of overstretch and the operational demands now placed upon our forces. Getting the balance right between operational tours of duty, time with family and friends and time on training is critical to retention. I believe that our servicemen and servicewomen have responded magnificently to a whole raft of challenges, but they inevitably feel buffeted, not only by the many reorganisations which they are undergoing but also by the other changes with which they are having to cope. The working time directive, the introduction of a Bill of human rights into British law, which will undoubtedly have an impact on service discipline and the chain of command, and the increased threat of legislation are but a few, and I have mentioned them before in this House. I ask the Minister to recognise that, although what I call short-term morale and spirit are fine, there are too many young, key servicemen and servicewomen, both commissioned and non-commissioned, who are seriously questioning whether they want a long-term career in our Armed Forces. They need a period of stability to regroup.
I have no doubt about the commitment of the Government to our small but very special Armed Forces. However, the armed forces need to feel that they have the wholehearted support of the Government, not just of the Secretary of State for Defence and his ministerial team. In conclusion, on a personal note, I know that defence cannot have a stronger supporter than the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert.
5.50 p.m.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, I welcome this opportunity to speak in today's defence debate. I congratulate the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Vincent, on his excellent maiden speech. I shall confine my remarks mainly to our future force capabilities, the medical services, including their TA element, military personnel policy and the Territorial Army and cadets.
At the outset I believe that the Strategic Defence Review has been a successful exercise and that the MoD and Chiefs of Staff should be congratulated on producing a review that has clearly studied with great care our future requirements. It has restructured our Navy, Army and Royal Air Force to meet the threats for the next 15 years. At this stage I should like to thank the Minister for keeping me informed of the progress and development of the review during the time that it was being conducted.
However, there are some areas that give me great cause for concern: the Treasury demand for an annual 3 per cent. saving and aid to the civil power in times of national disaster in relation to rogue states who possess weapons of mass destruction. It is in this area where the Territorial Army may have a very great role to play. I query whether the new establishment of the TA is now large enough to be effective in a national disaster role. Some noble Lords have spoken about the TA. I am aware that other noble Lords will speak about reserve forces in some detail. Therefore, I shall be brief. By and large I believe that the TA has been given realistic roles and will be able to train with up-to-date equipment for current operational roles. Although I have noted that some 87 TA centres will be closed, no single TA centre will be shut where there is not another in the same town in which it can be accommodated. The cadet forces have been protected and given some £12 million. The footprint across the country has been preserved. However, there are some concerns and it is still not too late to address them. By and large the TA has been brought up-to-date and will play a more useful part.
I turn for a moment to foreign policy. I am unable to detect any significant changes to existing policies, but the SDR concludes that greater attention is accorded to the Middle East. It has been estimated that 38 countries have ballistic missiles with a range of about 300 kilometres and 14 countries have missiles with a range of some 900 kilometres. In addition to those means of delivery, several countries possess weapons of mass destruction and are in the process of developing them. It is therefore disappointing to note that defence against a threat of this nature has not been addressed more fully or in any detail.
During Options for Change large reductions occurred, with manning levels reduced by 32 per cent. There were even greater reductions in equipment. The SDR imposes further reductions and additions, but these have all been agreed by the Chiefs of Staff. The Royal Navy has lost two further attack submarines, three frigates and three mine warfare vessels, but it has also been given a commitment by the Government that two large aircraft carriers will be built for it in the future. There will be a reduction in manpower of about 1,400 Royal Navy

853
personnel. The Army has lost two armoured regiments but the remaining six regiments will now have 58 tanks each. The two regiments that have lost their armoured role will convert to an armoured reconnaissance regiment and an NBC monitoring regiment. The number of equipment support battalions and Royal Logistic Corps regiments has each increased from six to seven and Army manpower has been increased by 3,300 personnel. The RAF has lost 13 air defence aircraft, 23 offensive air support aircraft and one Rapier squadron but has gained four heavy airlift aircraft.
The greatest concern within the Armed Forces is overcommitment within the current composition and structure of the services which leads to overstretch. That is one of the main reasons for servicemen and women leaving early. The SDR does not bring any reduction in commitments. It has been agreed that the Armed Forces will continue to be trained for high intensity operations and to fight major conflicts. The SDR has restructured the Royal Navy, Army and RAF to ensure less overstretch. Among the measures taken by the Royal Navy to achieve this has been a much more flexible approach to programming ships and submarines to match their commitments and resources. Overstretch will be reduced by changing the deployment of frigates, destroyers and the attack submarine programme which will ease the strain on the fleet.
The measure taken by the Army to reduce overstretch is to base its force structure on manoeuvre and flexibility with two deployable divisions, one in UK and the second in Germany. The divisions will be equally balanced and have three brigades each. To achieve this a sixth brigade will be formed. In addition an air manoeuvre brigade will be created. This new force structure will enable the Ministry of Defence to undertake concurrently two brigade operations: one a relatively short war-fighting deployment and the other an enduring non-war-fighting operation, including fullscale operations. Providing the system can be made to work it should reduce separation of families, assist with retention in the Army, establish stability and prevent skill fade in a unit's primary role. The three services that have been restructured for expeditionary conflict will continue to train for war-fighting and by this reorganisation should reduce overstretch and improve retention and recruiting. The new concept of "Jointery" should secure a more efficient use of resources.
I turn to the medical services. In previous debates many of your Lordships have been most concerned that they have been reduced too much and would not be able to provide the necessary support in a major conflict. I have to declare an interest as I am honorary Colonel to 306 Field Hospital. The SDR concludes that
"we are committed to restoring operational medical capability to the required level as soon as possible, and a major investment will he made to achieve it".
These are very welcome words. It also concludes that a number of improvements would be made to address personnel and equipment shortfalls, provide a 200-bed hospital ship, with a second one on contract if required, ensure that additional hospital beds would be made available and enhance the Army's regular ambulance
854
evacuation capability. All of these proposals are most welcome, including the addition of 2,000 Territorial Army posts to enhance this important service which would have an important role to play in any large conflict. However, here there is a matter of grave concern because out of the so-called 2,000 additional posts 1,222 have been lost. This loss is made up of a recent arbitrary cut of 476, a further reduction of 270 to be transferred to the non-regular permanent staff and 476 to be trained as combat medical technicians and held against the Royal Army Medical Corps Territorial Army establishment. In reality they will be the bandsmen of the yeomanry and infantry regiments.
The story gets worse as it has been decided to disband the TA RAMC band—the only band that it has—consisting of some 50 combat medical technicians. That must be a bitter pill to swallow when it has just been robbed of 476 TA posts for other Territorial Army bands. This is a most unrealistic, ridiculous and absurd arrangement without any logic. Furthermore, it will not be possible to sustain it and it will be a cause for plummeting morale just at the time when new recruits at all levels are required. I ask the Minister to reverse these decisions. Perhaps he could explain in any event why there has been this arbitrary cut in posts.
Some of your Lordships will recall from the defence group visit that we found that the Royal Hospital Haslar, the only military hospital. was located in the wrong place for the Services; was understaffed; had insufficient patients; and was costing an exorbitant amount of money. Furthermore, the wrong decision was taken to move the Royal Army Medical Corps training college from Millbank to Gosport, so that it could be close to the one and only military hospital. The future of Haslar is not known, but one possibility is that it could be closed and another Ministry of Defence health unit established in a National Health Service Hospital. If that is the course of action taken. I ask the Minister to ensure that a centre of medical excellence be created to cover military surgeons, anaesthetists, accident and emergency and other skills; and this new centre should be preferably close to London. That would enable eminent civilian physicians and surgeons to advise and visit this military centre of excellence. In fact, I can see no reason why this new centre of excellence could not be located on the present Millbank site.
The nation is proud and grateful to our Armed Forces who are well equipped and extremely well trained, but they are under-recruited, overstretched and with too much family separation, which leads to lower retention rates and high divorce rates. The Armed Forces will not continue to be so professional and efficient unless the right type of people are attracted to them. In this context the emphasis placed on a "policy for people" was timely and apt and right to have been a key part of the review. It is essential that the measures proposed to provide better terms and conditions of service; improvements in pay and allowances and pension terms; better quality of training; allowing service beyond the 22-year point; providing better education and opportunities to gain civilian recognised qualifications during their service; and the other policy proposals are all implemented with the utmost urgency. As soon as that occurs, recruiting

855
will improve even more than it recently has done and retention rates will go up. These are some of the factors that will reduce overstretch.
There is an area which is of serious and grave concern resulting from the Human Rights Act affecting service discipline. This was raised previously in your Lordships' House and, as far as I can recall, we were led to believe that we were worrying unnecessarily about the possibility of undermining the powers of a commanding officer. The fact of the matter is that it is now a subject of major concern to the services, as a commanding officer may have his powers severely restricted when dealing with disciplinary matters and this may debase the special ethos so vital to the Armed Forces. It is further understood that because of the Human Rights Act there are now difficulties over premature arrests and investigations by the Royal Military Police. I would be most grateful to the Minister if he would clarify the matter and let your Lordships know where the situation stands at the moment.
The successful outcome of the Strategic Defence Review depends on when the conclusions and recommendations will be implemented. It would be helpful if a schedule were published showing the timeframe when the recommendations of this report would be achieved. The report is not convincing about the urgency which is required for implementation of new personnel policies. If these recommendations are not seen to be forthcoming very soon by the Armed Forces, undermanning and overstretch will continue. This review, as always, is highly sensitive and vulnerable to the defence budget and it is essential that short-term financial goals are not achieved at the expense of capabilities critical to the overall strategy. Any proposals for further cuts in real terms below the third year base line could cause the whole strategy to unwind and if any significant aspect ceases to occur on time the whole structure could fall apart. On balance, this is an excellent Strategic Defence Review and commanders at all levels must continue to explain the forthcoming benefits of this review to our loyal, courageous, professional and hardworking servicemen and women to whom the nation is always indebted.
6.4 p.m.
Lord Carver: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I congratulate my noble and gallant friend Lord Vincent of Coleshill on his maiden speech. Like him and my other noble and gallant friend Lord Inge, I in general consider the review to be a good, sensible document, and that despite a liberal sprinkling of those pious platitudes which the civil servants at the Ministry of Defence are so skilled in concocting. I also believe that most of the decisions about the future of the Armed Forces that the review contains are sensible in the light of the fundamental transformation that has taken place in the probable defence tasks that we face.
The most important transformation, in comparison to the time when I became Chief of the Defence Staff a quarter of a century ago—rather a long time ago—is that then we were irrevocably committed to a series of emergency defence plans in NATO, CENTO and
856
SEATO to specific force targets. Today the Government are free to choose how much, when and what they are committed to. I appeal to them not to over-commit the forces for the sake of this curious policy called "punching above your weight".
I shall confine my remarks to only a few aspects of the review. I welcome the review's transparency about numbers of nuclear weapons, the missiles to deliver them and stocks of fissile material. I should like to see the Government press other nuclear powers to follow their example in this respect. I also welcome the reduction in the planned number of what it calls "operationally available warheads" and "missile bodies", and the announcement that submarine missiles will normally be, "at several days' notice to fire".
I welcome too the greater honesty in paragraph 74 about the costs of the programme. But while welcoming all this, I must stress that it makes no difference to my belief that we do not need such a system and that it would both save money and help to discourage proliferation if we gave it up. In fact, the reductions and change in alert status merely highlight the basic illogicality of the whole policy. The sole attempt to justify its strategic basis is in paragraph 60 of the review which merely states:
"Our minimum deterrent remains a necessary element of our security'.
The statements made in paragraphs 4 and 7 of supporting essay five on the subject add nothing significant to that.
In the debate on the Address on 26th November, the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, intoned the traditional mantras about why the Government believe our nuclear weapons to be necessary. As he is a trustee of the Council of Arms Control, I hope that he has read the article in its most recent bulletin by the vice-chairman, General Sir Hugh Beach, which effectively demolishes those arguments. If he has not read it, I suggest that he does so. So much for nuclear weapons.
I next turn to the reserve forces. I fully support the measures that the Government are taking to reorganise the Territorial Army and give it a relevant and realistic purpose. It has long been clear to me that, with the exception of certain logistic and medical units, units at regimental or battalion strength were never going to be employed as such; and that the real need was to make it possible for members, or possibly sub-units, of the TA to be able to reinforce regular units, preferably on a voluntary basis. It is absolutely right that in the Territorial Army, with the exception of certain logistic and medical units, the squadron, battery or company should be considered as the basic unit in which local or historical traditions should, as far as possible, be retained.
I have great sympathy for the problem so eloquently explained by the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, particularly because when I commanded 4th Armoured Brigade in the whole of the north-west Europe campaign in the Second World War, one of my regiments was the 44th Royal Tank Regiment, which was a Bristol-based TA regiment.

857
However, if the TA is to be reduced—as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, said, it has to be reduced as the requirement is reduced—there are two ways to set about that inevitable dispersion over the country. One is to do more or less what has been done: to try to retain some presence almost everywhere. The other is to concentrate the Territorial Army on major population centres. I am certain that that would raise just as many objections as were raised by those who have been affected by dispersion. Having been closely involved in reorganising the Army's voluntary reserves, including the TA, over 30 years ago I know that one has to struggle against the serried ranks of local interests and conservatives (with both a large and small "c") to meet the real need. When Richard Haldane was trying to form the territorial force out of the yeomanry volunteers and militia 90 years ago he met with exactly the same resistance—and nowhere more strongly than in this House. I congratulate the Government on having firmly, and, I believe, fairly, grasped this nettle.
My next point is what is known as "jointery": arrangements to make the three services act together or share training facilities. The remarkable advances in electronics in every form, both in friendly forces and potentially hostile ones—in communications, navigation and many different aspects of weapon systems—mean that where all three forces are involved in the same operation or area they must act together. But I should add a word of caution. The review makes clear that it is unlikely that in any serious military operations our own three Armed Forces together would be acting alone, as they did in the Falklands, and certainly not for any great length of time. The Army and the RAF may often act together. Indeed, future developments in technology may make it sensible for them to be integrated to a greater degree than the review suggests; and the RAF and the Royal Navy may act together when the Navy is within range of shore-based aircraft. In that case also future developments in technology are likely to force a greater degree of integration between ships at sea and land-based aircraft supporting them. But occasions when the Army and the Royal Navy act closely together will be rare and of short duration.
More likely than any of those scenarios is one in which we shall be acting with allies, each service fighting alongside the same service of other nations, most probably and most importantly with those of the United States. The ability of each service to operate with, and probably under the command of, United States forces is of higher priority than integrating closely on a tri-service basis by ourselves. A high technology gap is rapidly widening between US forces and our own which threatens our ability to co-operate with or serve under them. Closing that gap is of great importance and will be expensive.
I have another word of warning. It is about the proposal in paragraph 194 to set a target of a 3 per cent. annual saving in operating costs over the next four years on top of the other measures designed to reduce expenditure. That must not be allowed to undermine the resources promised to the forces under the review or to force other changes. A very close watch needs to be kept to ensure that that does not take place. I hope that the
858
Minister will be able to give us an assurance on this matter. There are already some disturbing signs that it is threatened.
As the Minister stated, there is to be a NATO summit next April on the 50th anniversary of the signing of the treaty which formed the North Atlantic Alliance. The meeting is due to consider a new strategic concept. What will be the Government's attitude towards pressure from the United States to formalise a military role for the alliance outside its present boundaries? It is a difficult matter. I hope that the government attitude towards it will be favourable. What will be their attitude to further enlargement? Do the Government still believe what was stated in paragraph 38 of the review: that the admission of the three new members is,
"a welcome first step in a carefully managed process of enlargement which will strengthen both the Alliance itself and European security as a whole"?
I hope that the rumours I have heard are true: that both the American Government and our Government are having second thoughts about further enlargement. I hope that the Minister can give us answers to those important questions.
Finally, I welcome the moves which the Government are considering, of which there was no hint in the review, to make a reality of a European defence identity in which we, Germany and France would take the lead. I have long advocated that, and I hope that the Government will put real and imaginative effort behind it. I noted with care the remarks that the noble Lord, Lord Owen, made on this subject in the debate on the Address. He expressed himself strongly opposed to the establishment of any new organisation, in particular if it were to have any link with the European Parliament; and he favoured a strengthening of the Western European Union. I agree with his first point but not his second. WEU has existed in a sort of limbo since the formation of the North Atlantic Alliance. In the past few years attempts have been made to breathe some life into it, largely in order to avoid any move towards an organisation linked with the European Union. But the right answer is not to try to resuscitate it but to wind it up.
On a number of occasions, both in this House and elsewhere, I have put forward my own solution. I do so again as briefly as I can. It is that the North Atlantic Alliance's military organisation, NATO, should be radically transformed so that it consists of three elements: first, the United States forces assigned to the alliance, straightforwardly—it is only recognising reality—under their own national command; and, secondly, a more or less integrated European military command and training organisation within the alliance, not separate like the WEU. Britain, France and Germany must be members of it and any other members of the alliance who wished could join. It should be capable of commanding operations either under American command or independently. The third element would be those members of the alliance who did not wish to assign their forces permanently to this organisation but who could do so for any operation in which they wished to participate. Adoption of that solution would make it possible to abolish NATO's huge bureaucratic

859
headquarter staffs which are bound to grow if the alliance is enlarged and NATO, as the military organisation, remains in its present pattern. We do not want to create a new organisation outside the alliance, as seemed to be indicated by some of the comments from the recent Anglo-French meeting at St. Malo. If the transformation I have proposed were to be adopted, most of my objections to enlargement would dissolve, particularly if it were accompanied by the establishment of a nuclear weapon-free zone from the eastern borders of Germany to the western ones of Russia.
Apart from their general intention, it is not at all clear to me what the Government have in mind as a formal structure for a European defence identity. Bilateral agreements with the French are not enough. I therefore offer the Government my solution, with the compliments of the season.
6.18 p.m.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, this debate and previous exchanges in the House seem to demonstrate that the SDR commands considerable respect—rather more than the prospect of the review was afforded in the previous Parliament. It commands respect because it is justified; and it is justified largely because it is realistic. It is realistic because it recognises the fact that in this world there is insecurity, barbarism, horror and great instability. That has been the case since the end of the Cold War brought an intensification of regional rivalries and other uncertainties. During that period, British servicemen and servicewomen were heavily involved. Clearly, Her Majesty's Government expect that as crises, difficulties and disasters occur British service personnel will continue to be involved. Perhaps they will be involved on a scale which is inequitable in comparison with the contribution provided by other members of the alliance.
The SDR recognises those needs, but there are social and disciplinary difficulties, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Vivian. I am an amateur student of military history. It reminded me that on the morning before the Charge of the Light Brigade the general commanding ordered three troopers to be flogged for smoking in their lines. One of them was flogged after the charge. No doubt in the years which followed, Members spoke in this House in order to make military discipline more humane. But people might have asked, "What will the Army come to if generals do not have the freedom to act with a degree of arbitrariness?". I do not suggest that noble Lords who reached eminent rank in the Army would wish to see the return of the days of that particular general. We are seeing the Ministry and the services recognise that they can and will happily adapt to the new requirements which a more civilised society, rightly or wrongly, has placed upon them.
At least the debate will continue in this House and in Europe. There has been, and there will be, no lack of debate in Europe. An unfortunate aspect is that politicians from the countries which do little will continue to say a great deal. They will happily seize upon the suggestions made in the debate, not least from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, about the
860
future structure of European security. I listened with great interest because I took part in many debates on these matters in the WEU. On occasion one felt considerable irritation.
I shall not repeat a fairly long passage of a speech that I made in this House shortly after my introduction, when I described my horror at the sheer triumphalism of the debates in the WEU. The triumphalism was most expressed by parliamentarians from countries which had made no contribution. It was rather odious, in particular as some of us felt that the Gulf War ended a little too soon. Perhaps subsequent events have justified that view.
However, there is a difference now. No doubt it was a matter of relief to my noble friend Lady Symons at Question Time last week when she said that our partners in Europe appeared to have no objection to British involvement in the Gulf. That may represent a considerable step forward, but it does not give us a great deal of hope that there will be urgent improvement in a sense of commitment.
Although I criticise the WEU, I believe that it can be and should be an essential part of the European security structure. It needs to be improved. The parliamentary assembly needs to be far more willing to discard the posture of tamed docility in response to Ministers speaking on behalf of or to the Council of Ministers. The Council of Ministers should be far more willing to look at the detail rather than providing fine sounding statements every couple of years. The office of the Secretary General needs to be a great deal more robust. We must not have the situation that I encountered when I was told by the Secretary General that members of the parliamentary assembly can ask questions only about those forces under the control of WEU. It does not take a great knowledge of the organisation for noble Lords to be aware that the WEU has commanded little in the way of resources before the Armilla Patrol and not all that much since. The organisation needs to be made more meaningful.
I say that because I have real anxiety about the call to transfer the responsibility for foreign and security policy to Brussels. I am not critical of Brussels—I believe that Europe must develop and emerge—but Europe has a lot on its plate. I wonder at what point in its scale of priorities security and defence might be placed. The Commission has long been interested and involved in and sought responsibility for industrial matters. Yet we have a grossly unsatisfactory situation within the European defence industry. We find our partners complaining about a one-way street. It is not a one-way street. The Americans would be justified in complaining if we sought to divert traffic upon it, given the scale of their investment and the efforts which America has made in largely securing the consolidation of its defence industry. The steps towards achieving that consolidation in Europe have been too halting and too much delayed.
One could exempt the United Kingdom from many of the strictures that one could offer on that matter. British Aerospace is now the largest of the European companies, although not quite to the standard or scale

861
of the American titan. But as a result of investment and skilled operation it has emerged as the leading player in the defence industry scene within Europe. National interests, hesitation and inadequate prioritisation have left the European industry in a less competitive state than the American giant which invested a great deal.
My noble friend, who is far more expert in these matters than I, may wish to comment on some aspects of the present and developing state of co-operation within the European defence industry. He may be able to comment on the Eurofighter—or the Typhoon, as it is now called—and tell us, as it is an extremely important development, a little about its commercial prospects.
It might also be appropriate for us to look ahead as well as at recent events. There is a great deal of concern and interest in the next generation of military aircraft; in the fighter and strike aircraft which will emerge in the next century. Are we to see adequate European and transatlantic co-operation in these fields? Is it possible to say when public debate, because public debate there must be, can reasonably begin on these matters? It may also be appropriate for my noble friend to refer to the future role of unmanned vehicles and aircraft.
I and a number of noble Lords, some of whom are or were present in the Chamber, recently visited the British Army in Germany. It was a most impressive visit. If I left with one anxiety it was that we are seeing, and quite properly, the deployment of large numbers of strike helicopters. But it is equally obvious that the Royal Regiment of Artillery and presumably other artillery units in other countries are also developing an increasing capacity to respond to the strike helicopter. Whether they can respond to the faster ground attack aircraft such as the Harrier is doubtful at this stage. But one should understand that human ingenuity is considerable and the strike helicopter may receive a ready response by the development of new modern anti-aircraft capacity.
I do not want to stray far because I wish to make two or three other points. First, I and many other noble Lords will be happy when our servicemen can once again walk about in uniform. I am not at all convinced that the general public in this country are fully aware of the quality and existence of our service people. It is all very well having military soaps which may be interesting on television, but really our public coverage of the work and role of our Armed Forces is grossly inadequate.
During the Gulf War, I spent a good deal of time in Paris, attending a series of WEU committees. Each time I went back to my hotel and switched on the television, you could have sworn that no one else was involved in the Gulf War except our friends, the French. And yet, if one watched television in England, you were more likely to see an F-18 flying than a Tornado. You were more likely to see American personnel. That is quite right because they provided the great bulk of the forces, although one would not have deduced that from the French experience.
However, people should be aware of the service given and the achievements made. For example, I doubt whether 1 per cent. of the people of this country are aware of the contribution which Royal Air Force aircraft made in the airstrikes which compelled the Serbs to
862
reach the Dayton Accord. And yet, those particular missions were of enormous importance for they demonstrated beyond doubt that it was possible to deliver the smart bombs with absolute precision, something which had never until recent years been available to anybody's air force. I accept that the Cruise missile may have the same degree of accuracy, but my noble friend may be able to confirm that it costs 20 times as much as a bomb which could achieve the same purpose.
We need to see people in uniform and we need to promote an understanding, awareness and appreciation which our services should command. That is particularly important if we are to ensure that the future reserves not merely recruit but retain. It is of considerable importance because the retention rate in many TA units—and no noble Lord has mentioned it—was quite deplorable.
My final point is that as a boy, before I joined the Royal Air Force, I was in the Air Training Corps for three or four years. I found it extremely enjoyable, and since I left the other place I have been delighted to be linked again with the Air Training Corps. I am president of our squadron in the Rotherham area in South Yorkshire. There I meet keen, healthy, concerned and active young people who are responding to challenges and seizing opportunities in a way which I find is quite delightful. In our local newspapers, we see too much of crime, drugs and the irresponsibility of some of our youngsters. Those in the cadet organisations—and I have seen something, too, of the Army cadets in recent months—are doing a great deal. I hope that any committed territorial who now finds his unit weakened, reduced or based many miles away—as the noble Lord, Lord Cope explained in describing the South West—will be brought in to work with the cadet organisations.
We need to see more adult voluntary commitment and involvement, not merely in the cadet forces but the same applies across the whole area of youth organisations in this country. The cadet organisations are doing a great deal. Obviously, many of the cadets will provide first-class servicemen when they become older. But the contribution to the community is much wider than that. I hope that that contribution can be continued and, indeed, enhanced. I was particularly grateful that the cadet organisations in my area can look forward to the future rather than face the anxiety which they may have felt before the SDR. In my view, that part of the SDR is extremely important. Perhaps I may say that among the people involved in our local Air Training Corps, there is a great deal of gratitude.
6.33 p.m.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, after such a galaxy of five-star generals, we are now reduced to a one-star air commodore. Immediately, I begin my remarks by congratulating the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Vincent, on a very fine maiden speech. I believe that the noble and gallant Lord and the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Carver and Lord Inge, were hinting diplomatically that they hoped that we should stay much

863
closer to NATO rather than the European Union in relation to defence. I am sure that that message will be taken up by the Minister when he winds up the debate.
With Options for Change, the Royal Air Force took a severe knock, as indeed did the other services. In line with that, equal pain was prevalent within the Royal Auxiliary Air Force, of which I happen to be the honorary inspector-general and have been for some years. We lost four defence force flights and three squadrons, including the two which had the Oerliken guns which we had captured in the Falklands, and two wing headquarters. Since then, there have been years of steady development. The RAF realises that the auxiliaries are well-trained, efficient and part of the line of battle and, most important, are cost effective.
Therefore, we faced the SDR with a great deal of confidence and that was certainly not misplaced, with an increase of 10 per cent. in the Royal Auxiliary Air Force as proposed in the announcement made recently by the Minister. We are now able to develop the Royal Support Squadrons. I visited the Helicopter Support Squadron on the Isle of Wight recently and was impressed not only with the training facilities but also with the squadron itself. There is also the Air Transportable Surgical Squadron. The noble Lord, Lord Vivian, will be interested to know, because he was talking about medical support, that we have very long waiting lists for our two medical squadrons. There are many consultants queuing up to join and, I believe, even moving their practices from England to Scotland so that they can join the squadron there at Leuchars. That demonstrates that there are many senior and highly-qualified doctors anxious to serve their country if the facilities are right for them. In addition, we have two training squadrons developed over recent years.
In 1997, there was the significant and welcome amalgamation between the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve and the Royal Auxiliary Air Force into the single Royal Auxiliary Air Force. That added to our strength with two intelligence squadrons, a photo-interpretation squadron, a PR squadron, and a met. squadron. Many individuals from those squadrons have been providing extremely valuable service in Bosnia. I am glad to say that we have not only had strong support from Ministers, and in particular from the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, but we have had support also from the Chief of Air Staff, Sir Richard Johns, and the Air Force Board.
All those auxiliaries are active volunteers. They must not be mistaken for the full-time reservists or, indeed, the many ex-regulars who appear on the computers but not on the parade ground. I am glad to say that the flying training programme has been going very well indeed. We have air crew and helicopters. We have a Hercules and now, at last, some fast jets as well. They bring back memories of the 21 flying squadrons that we had up to 1957 and the 16 squadrons which behaved so heroically during the Battle of Britain.
So it is good news that I am reporting to the Minister and I am grateful to him for the help that he has given since he took up his post.
864
However, there are two issues which I ask him to consider this evening and perhaps he will write to me about them as soon as he can. I know that the Royal Air Force is going through a strategic manpower review as part of the total force concept. A moratorium has been placed on our Royal Support Squadrons in relation to recruiting and training. A solution must be reached quickly because those volunteers do not wish to sit there marking time and wondering what is to happen to them in the future. I hope that we may be given approval to go ahead in the very near future so that we can proceed again with recruitment and the full training programme and know exactly where we are going.
Secondly, I wish to talk about the ethos of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force. There seems to be an impression in the Ministry of Defence, and perhaps elsewhere, that auxiliaries will be called out only in a major conflict. That is wrong. We would not be called out for short-notice operations or on humanitarian tasks. When a Royal Auxiliary Air Force serviceman or service woman joins up and signs on, they give that right for immediate call-up and are operationally trained to fulfil any role. It is important that it should be appreciated by Ministers in the Ministry of Defence that they are ready to go anywhere at the drop of a hat.
There are good procedures for when an individual is not able to go. For instance, when we sent two squadrons to the Gulf only two members were not able to go—for very good reasons; they had university final exams a few weeks ahead and were granted leave of absence. The Gulf conflict showed how effective the squadrons could be, particularly the movement squadron 4624 which did so much in the way of loading aircraft in this country and abroad.
Therefore I hope that the Minister can give me an assurance that the Royal Auxiliary Air Force will be called out for any operations for which their services are required. If we do not do that—this was prevalent after the Gulf conflict—not only will those auxiliaries who are not called out feel aggrieved that they were overlooked, but their employers will say, "We allowed these servicemen leave for 14 days continuous training, weekends and so forth, yet when a conflict arises such as that in the Gulf, they are not wanted". That is a wrong impression to give employers. I know NELC worked on this and we want to make sure that it does not happen again.
As I said earlier, we are the first line of reserve to the Royal Auxiliary Air Force and we want to remain that way. We have a high retention rate. Many members of squadrons in the Royal Auxiliary Air Force have served 10, 15 or more years. That is good for recruiting and for promoting and it brings stability. We want stability and we want to have confidence that there will be no more changes in the future.
My message to the Minister therefore as we approach the year of our 75th anniversary is that the Royal Auxiliary Air Force is in very good heart and pleased at the way things are going at the moment. But I want to make two or three quick points on a broader front. First, I read in the newspaper at the weekend that there was further talk about the air-sea rescue service being taken

865
from the Royal Air Force and given to the coastguard or privatised. That would be a retrograde step. The reputation of the Royal Air Force in search and rescue is enormous. All of us, particularly in Scotland where there is so much mountain rescue as well as sea-borne rescue, feel that it would be a great loss to public confidence if the Royal Air Force ceased to be in the lead. That is no criticism of the coastguard which does a very good job with helicopters itself.
Secondly, I know the Minister is being cautious to get it right in relation to TAVRA. It is important to us in the Royal Auxiliary. We receive tremendous support from the vice-chairman and her organisation. I know it is a tri-service, but people tend to think it is just an Army organisation. It looks after the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy Reserves as well. I hope the Minister will look carefully at the geographical changes in mind for TAVRA so that it comes out in the best way for all those who are interested in it.
I join with the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, in saying "Well done" on behalf of the cadets. All their headquarters are being retained and from my enquiries I understand that they can count on the full flying programme in the future. It is an important incentive to allow the Royal Air Training Corps cadets to fly each year with the Royal Air Force. I believe too that the Government are right to support the Army and Navy cadets which do so much along with the Air Training Corps for outward-bound activities and all the aspects mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hardy. We want to make certain that that continues in the future.
Finally, like the noble Lord, Lord Cope, I was concerned with my area which I represented for a long time in the House of Commons. It ran from Berwick to Stranraer—240 miles—and had one platoon and one company. It seemed a huge distance for whoever was doing the training, but at least they managed to retain the headquarters in Dumfries, to be shared with the cadets of the three services. By and large I give the Minister support for what is achieved in the review, even though it may have left many unhappy people in the Territorial Army. I am sure that at the end of the day many of those problems will be resolved and it may not then be as bad as it seems.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I wish to add my congratulations to my noble and gallant friend Lord Vincent on his excellent maiden speech. The good sense and thoughtful nature of his comments will come as no surprise to anyone familiar with his distinguished military career. Perhaps I may say also at this point that the House is fortunate to benefit from the views of two other noble and gallant Field Marshals who have spoken this evening and who add so much to the debates of this House on military subjects.
I want to concentrate my few brief remarks today on a subject which is crucial to any defence policy (the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, mentioned this in passing) but to which we are not giving sufficiently high priority; that is, the question of missile defence both in a national
866
context and in the context, perhaps more importantly, of the security of our armed forces when they are operating overseas.
The Strategic Defence Review was, in my view and that of other noble Lords, a courageous and constructive blueprint for creating defence forces appropriate to the new strategic environment. It is possible to have reservations about the detail of any review—for instance, the wisdom of substantial cuts in our reserve forces which have already received considerable attention this evening. But, more importantly, the Select Committee on Defence in another place warned us that the,
"Strategic Defence Review was very finely balanced"—
which indeed it is. But more significantly, it went on to criticise the SDR for failing adequately to consider the need for ballistic missile defence systems,
"to protect expeditionary forces and the UK mainland".
It is that concern which I want to underline and highlight today. In the Strategic Defence Review that matter received only one brief mention and that was in one of the excellent supporting essays that came with the review.
The Strategic Defence Review moved this country towards the concept of expeditionary force structures allowing a greater freedom of action in a wider range of theatres around the globe. Indeed, the Secretary for Defence said in his introduction to the Strategic Defence Review
"In the post Cold War world we must be prepared to go to the crisis rather than have the crisis come to us".
But if the Gulf War taught us anything, it was that any future expeditionary force of that kind might well come under crippling attack from missiles, ballistic or otherwise, possibly armed with warheads of mass destruction—chemical, biological or even nuclear. That threat has been described on so many occasions that it is otiose to repeat it in detail. The best recent analysis for those who wish to go into it more deeply is a document called the Fundamental Issue Study, written and edited by Professor Neville Brown, which was published in February of this year. But that was a dense and closely argued document.
It is enough for the purposes of this debate to underline the fact that in 1995 the United States Central Intelligence Agency estimated that at least 20 countries had or may be developing weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile delivery systems. Of those, North Korea, Iran, Iraq and Libya already possessed, or may have been developing, weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile systems which could threaten the security of any of our expeditionary forces operating in any future conflict. If they continue to develop such systems, they could in due course threaten our own national territory or at least that of our allies.
As recently as 17th November this year, thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, and the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, the Ministry of Defence issued a document which was an assessment of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons stockpiles. I remind noble Lords that those stockpiles, together with the Scud missiles which the Iraqis possessed, inflicted more than 20,000 casualties

867
in the war with Iran. It is therefore vital that we should examine, with some urgency, a means of defending any British expeditionary force against a threat of that kind. I do not think that it is too early to ask ourselves whether we need to contemplate the possibility of a national missile defence system. I know that that would be prohibitively and cripplingly expensive, but it may well be necessary in any future conflict with what has already been described as a "rogue state".
Before I leave the subject of Iraq and the paper on that country's weapons of mass destruction, can the Minister in his reply tell the House anything about what is happening at the military installation at Ibn A1 Haitham near Baghdad? He will know that that missile plant has recently been substantially expanded and might well be—indeed, according to some intelligence reports, already is—producing longer-range missiles than those which Iraq has possessed in the past. Have the UN inspectors been given any access to that installation? If so, what have they found? It would be enlightening if the Minister could say a word about that when he replies.
Perhaps I may say a word on the nuclear striking force. I congratulate the Government on the firmness but flexibility of their policy towards our nuclear deterrent. As the Strategic Defence Review states, that is an essential element of our national security. As the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, recently stated in this House, it may have to be used in extreme circumstances of self-defence, which includes the defence of our NATO allies. Perhaps I may say with the greatest of respect to my noble and gallant friend Lord Carver that I think that far from demolishing the Government's case, the views of General Sir Hugh Beach in the latest issue of the Bulletin of Arms Control go a long way to underline its strength. Perhaps my noble and gallant friend and I can take up that argument at some future date.
I see that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, is no longer in his place, but I think that it is worth saying, for the record, that I too was in the Far East when the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. Our intelligence estimates at that time indicated to us that if we had to invade Japan in order to bring the war to an end, hundreds of thousands of allied soldiers, sailors and airmen would have been killed. That invasion was made unnecessary by the use of the atom bomb. Whatever others may say, I have no difficulty at all in deciding in which direction my moral and ethical judgments lie on that argument.
I move away from the question of the nuclear deterrent because, for the purpose of defending our expeditionary forces, the threat of retaliation by use of the nuclear deterrent is not relevant. The question has already been put by an American analyst in the following form—and I hope that it is one that our military planners have asked themselves:
"Suppose that a ballistic missile with an anthrax warhead were fired at our armed forces in an expeditionary operation, is it credible that we would be willing to turn Baghdad into the next Hiroshima in retaliation?"
868
The answer must be perfectly obvious to anyone. There is surely only one alternative: the need for ballistic missile defence to prevent our forces being destroyed by such a potential enemy.
The need for such defence has already had a wide measure of endorsement. In October, the United States announced that it had allocated an additional 1 billion dollars to step up the development of its theatre and national missile defence systems. It was announced only last week that the Ballistic Missile Defence Office in the United States was analysing potential sites across the country for its own national missile defence system. Meanwhile, it has been announced that Japan has agreed to join the USA in a joint research programme on theatre missile defence. Earlier this month a memorandum was signed by the United States and Israel aimed at strengthening Israel's defence against the threat of long-range missiles and non-conventional weapons. The United States is fully committed to a programme known as the Theatre High Altitude Area Defence (THAAD) which is conceived principally for defence in overseas tactical situations rather than for national defence. Finally, there is the Medium Extended Air Defence System (MEADS) in which the United States, Germany and Italy plan together to develop a mobile defence system capable of intercepting and destroying theatre ballistic and, indeed, cruise missiles. Attempts to persuade the United Kingdom to join that system have so far been in vain.
In the Strategic Defence Review, that whole vital question was relegated to virtually one sentence. The Government have said that it would now be premature to decide to acquire a ballistic missile defence capability. However, the Ministry of Defence has committed itself to monitoring the threat, participating in NATO studies and working closely with our allies. That is most encouraging and those are unexceptionable sentiments. It is certainly of vital importance in working out a ballistic missile defence policy of the kind I regard as essential to proceed on an alliance basis. I should like to ask the Minister whether we are not being a little too cautious and conservative about that, if I may use that word. The three-year programme which the Government have undertaken on technology readiness and risk assessment is one way of approaching the problem, but does the Minister agree that it may well be overtaken by events?
Finally, apart from the important matter of the security of our expeditionary forces, which is at the heart of this imaginative and constructive Strategic Defence Review, there is also the important matter of the security of Europe. Planning staff in the German defence ministry published a paper as long ago as 1990 which contained the following sentence:
"A strengthened deployment of missile defence capabilities against the potential threat of Third Countries is in the interest of global stability and is preventive protection against new threats to all the states of Europe".
I should be grateful to know whether the Government agree with that assessment and whether they are content that the UK, almost alone among the major powers of

869
the Atlantic alliance, should have only what seems to be a watching brief in one of the vital strategic issues of the post-Cold War world.
6.58 p.m.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I offer my contribution with considerable trepidation as I have no military background whatever. However, I want to focus on the Defence Medical Services for two reasons. The first arises from my professional background as a nurse. Because of that I inevitably hear many and repeated expressions of concern from both nursing and medical colleagues. The second reason stems from the specific reference made to the problems of the DMS by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, in his contribution to the debate on the Address. The contributions of the noble and gallant Lord are, of course, always highly significant and immensely powerful. I was therefore especially concerned when he drew parallels between the Territorial Army and the DMS, fearing that the stuffing would be knocked out of the TA,
"just as the last government, despite warning after warning, also with plans hatched in the Ministry of Defence, justified with exactly the same exhortations about modernisation and relevance in the modern world, virtually destroyed the Armed Forces' Medical Services with disastrous consequences which this Government are now desperately trying to tackle".—[Official Report, 26/11/98; col. 148.]
I am reassured that the noble and gallant Lord believes that this Government are now trying to tackle the problems besetting the DMS. I was also pleased to hear the Minister refer in his opening speech to some of the initiatives already under way, some of which are identified in the SDR.
However, my noble friend Lord Vivian has highlighted some continuing concerns about the DMS. I have to say that there does not seem to be much sign that the proposed initiatives are yet having any significant effects on the men and women now in these services—perhaps I should say "still in these services". Many have left or are leaving, disillusioned and demoralised. One medical officer said to me only last week, "If the situation continues as bad as it is, you won't be having this debate on the DMS much longer, as they will have ceased to exist." Just two days ago, another medical officer reeled off a list of names of several colleagues who have either just given notice or are about to do so. I was also told that a senior executive officer working within the DMS recently claimed that it would take only three or four more consultants to leave for the medical service to implode.
Those are just a few examples of a disturbingly large number of representations I have received, all reflecting acute concern at the implications of the current situation for those still in post, and, more seriously for the future, fears that the capacity to maintain a viable medical service will be so diminished that our Armed Forces will not have the medical back-up they need to provide essential support in the event of future conflict.
Your Lordships will be well aware that those engaged in action must have confidence that, in the event of injury, they will receive immediate and comprehensive treatment. The knowledge that this treatment is available
870
is vital to the morale of fighting forces. It must be a national priority to ensure that those who risk life and health in active service are entitled to the highest possible quality of medical and nursing care.
In addition, in keeping with the Government's commitment to an "ethical foreign policy" and their increasing commitment to the work of the United Nations, this "support service" is being required to make a major contribution to the peacekeeping and aid operations which are increasingly occupying service personnel.
Some of the major concerns relating to the DMS are interrelated: the recruitment and retention of staff; career prospects; terms and conditions of service; and adequate clinical facilities for the provision of appropriate care. I offer your Lordships a few examples to illustrate the general issues. I begin with recruitment. I am aware that there may have been some recent improvement in this respect. However, there is still a very serious shortfall; for example, in 1996–97 there were 25 entrants to the RAMC, compared with a projected target of 55. Moreover, even an improved recruitment rate cannot compensate for the reductions which have already occurred and which are destroying the training base of the medical and dental services, and the seriousness of the problems caused by the large numbers of more senior personnel who have left the services. It is impossible to run a medical service on junior and relatively inexperienced staff.
The Defence Costs Study of 1994 reported that about 1,400 uniformed doctors and dentists were employed by the regular Armed Forces and proposed that up to 750 should be made redundant. In 1997, there were only 870 uniformed doctors left and there are now serious shortages in key personnel such as surgeons, anaesthetists and general practitioners. In the RAMC, the requirement is for 511 doctors. I understand that the current number in post is only 434. This deficit has serious knock-on effects. For example, the greater the number of shortages, the greater the pressure on those still in service with a subsequent further decline in morale. This may lead to more resignations and a downward spiral of falling retention and recruitment. That is why the cumulative effects of previous and current policies and mismanagement are so serious.
The problem of morale is exacerbated by diminished promotion prospects for medical personnel in both primary and secondary care. These are relatively poor and slow compared with those of non-medical colleagues. For example, in the Royal Navy a competent seaman officer may well become a captain by the age of 40 whereas a well qualified medical officer, who will have spent a great deal of time and effort working for specialist qualifications, may have to wait until somewhere between the age of 43 to 47 to obtain comparable promotion, if at all.
It may be thought that disaffection caused by such poor promotion prospects may be bought off by salary increases. But I have been told again and again that this is not the case. Medical personnel who see their peer group seamen officers being promoted well ahead of them feel that they are being discriminated against

871
unjustly. Noble Lords will be aware of the significance of rank in service life and of the importance of the authority which accompanies rank in relationships with other officers. It is ludicrous to adopt a policy of reduced promotion prospects for an already demoralised DMS, especially if it will not cost more to recognise their seniority and expertise by appropriate promotions on a time-scale comparable to their non-medical colleagues.
Added to truncated and discriminatory career prospects are problems of frustration caused by apparent mismanagement. For example, in recent years, with one exception, doctors' pay rises have been several months late. This year, the delay was four months—from April to August. As one medical officer said:
"It is not clever to treat an already disaffected and worried service with such inefficiency and apparent contempt".
There is also acute anxiety over the possible closure of Haslar Hospital, reference to which was made by my noble friend Lord Vivian. This is the only remaining main military hospital in this country, together with a subsidiary hospital at Catterick. The closure of Haslar would mean virtually complete dependence on MoD hospital units (MDHUs) attached to National Health Service hospitals. It would be interesting to know how many other western countries with sophisticated armed services have abolished all their military hospitals. While the arguments for combining military and civilian facilities may make sense to the Treasury, the knock-on effects for service personnel and for the provision of adequate medical care in the event of war must be potentially very serious.
I shall give your Lordships two brief examples in that respect. The first concerns service personnel. If all medical services are to be provided by MDHUs in NHS hospitals, there is a real danger that military medical and nursing staff will have all the disadvantages of service commitments with none of the advantages. They will find themselves working alongside NHS staff who may be better paid than they are; they will have the inevitable disruptions to personal and family life of postings away from home, but none of the advantages of the distinctive ethos of service life and "mess" facilities. Many are therefore asking why they should stay in the services. If Haslar is closed, some predict that the present steady flow of resignations could become a flood.
I turn now to my second example. It is, of course, difficult to maintain a balance between provision of adequate clinical services for situations of peace and war. But there is serious concern over a shortfall of medical and nursing staff, especially those with expertise in highly sophisticated specialties such as the care of patients with burns, or with facio-maxillary surgery. The NHS already suffers severe shortages in many such specialist services, even without having to care for the influx of casualties which would occur in the event of conflict. The enormous changes to the DMS, with concentration in DHMUs, have been made far too hastily, causing confusion and even lower morale among service staff who have not yet opted to leave, while a disturbingly high proportion of those who are leaving are newly appointed consultants and well-qualified general practitioners—the senior
872
personnel. Many doctors and nurses in the services have been angered by the perception that their concerns have been belittled by senior executives and by medical management at the highest levels.
I turn briefly to the situation in Germany where secondary care is now provided by the German hospital service. The notes provided by German doctors have to be translated back in Britain, and translations may take up to three months. Also, German doctors are using different drugs in different combinations from their United Kingdom counterparts and their instructions have to be amended in order to take into account drugs made in the UK.
The cumulative effect of these recent changes and of the current shortages are reflected in problems associated with reservists. Shortages of regulars have highlighted the problems which can arise when undue reliance is placed on the reserve forces. During the Gulf War it was clear that the regular medical personnel were inadequate in numbers and in composition. As a result, a large number of territorials and other reservists had to be called upon. It would appear that the Armed Forces are being allowed to make savings without regard to the impact on the NHS. Conversely, many NHS trusts are reluctant to allow key personnel the time they need to pursue medical military training with the reserve forces and many reservists had difficulty obtaining release from their National Health Service posts during the Gulf War. It is the BMA's view that the Reserve Forces Act does not provide adequate support for reservists needing release from their civilian employment.
These tensions in the NHS are exacerbated by the emphasis on competition through the internal market, and problems with recruitment and retention of both consultants and GPs have led to a climate in which NHS employers are equivocal about the commitment they make to employee reservists asking for time off for military training. Your Lordships will be aware that regular training is an essential requirement for reservists, and there is fear of insufficient safeguards to ensure that NHS employers are obliged to give the necessary time off to enable reservists to maintain the training they need to be available as an effective resource in time of need.
We live in a world where many unstable situations could erupt into further serious conflicts involving this country's Armed Forces. It is clear that at present there are very serious problems with regard to the availability of an adequate DMS to provide essential care for service personnel in the event of such conflicts. Therefore, I hope the Minister will today be able to offer reassurances, not only to noble Lords but to the many personnel in the DMS—doctors, nurses, medical assistants and others—who are currently experiencing anxiety, demoralisation and disaffection.
I understand that an independent market research survey is currently being undertaken to ascertain the views of all service medical officers about conditions of service and career intentions. I believe that the results of the survey will be very informative and important. Will the Minister undertake to make the findings of the survey available to Parliament so that subsequent debate can take this very significant evidence into account.

873
While recognising that many of the problems confronting the DMS are a legacy of the previous government, there has not as yet been much to reassure it from the present Government. I hope that tonight the Minister may be a harbinger of good tidings, in keeping with the spirit of Advent, and begin to reverse the downward spiral of frustration and discontent before it is too late and the DMS deteriorates beyond the point of resuscitation.
7.13 p.m.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I feel a little strange speaking from exactly the same seat in the House from which I made my maiden speech 12 years ago. In fact, I had half intended not to speak, until persuaded by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, at tea yesterday. But of course if I did not feel Strange at all there would be something seriously wrong.
It is a privilege, as always, to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. I would like briefly to congratulate my noble and gallant friend the Master Gunner, who is no longer in his place, on a clear, authoritative and brilliant maiden speech, with every phrase of which I personally agreed. The Strategic Defence Review is an excellent document, not only because the noble Lord the Minister, Lord Gilbert, has been so supportive of this House by asking your Lordships for your opinions, and acting on some of them, but because it starts from the premise "What do we need defence for?" It follows on from that. There are, as I see it, only two flaws in it, and they both spring from ignoring the unexpected, which, alas, in this world is what usually happens.
The first flaw is in cutting down the Territorials. I shall only mention this very briefly as it was so excellently and brilliantly covered by my noble and gallant friend Lord Bramall when he was speaking after the gracious Speech two weeks ago. Not only did he speak much better on the subject than I could have done, he was also much fiercer than I should have dared to be. He made the point—and as he is not speaking today, I shall make it again—that the Territorials are the only reserves we have got. However, he did not perhaps emphasise as much as I should have liked the Scottish Territorials. On this subject the right honourable gentleman the Secretary of State for Defence has already made very considerable moves and concessions in the right direction. It is excellent that there will still be territorial centres in Fife—at Baltimore Road in Glenrothes, at Bothwell House in Elgin Street, Dunfermline (though not at Bruce House), at Hunter Street, Kirkcaldy and at Yeomanry House in Cupar. There will still be a territorial presence at RAF Leuchars, though not, alas, at RAF Kinloss or Lossiemouth. Having had many happy associations with it in its naval days, I am saddened that HMS Camperdown in Dundee is now finally to be shut down and not even used to store vehicles any more. I am delighted that the Black Watch is to retain its territorial presence in Perth at Queen's Barracks, although a diminished one with 25 men and a band strength of 34. My great-great uncle and my father both served in the
874
Black Watch, and my husband's uncle won the VC serving in it during the First World War, so I do feel a very strong attachment.
There is an old Victorian ballad about the army volunteers, which I can only remember in part—perhaps mercifully—so your Lordships are very largely spared. But it is, in many ways, relevant. It begins:
"A queer wee man wis Jimmy Shaw
And he and his wife and his mither-in-law
They keppit a wee bit shoppie in Dundee."
But he joined what I believe must be the Victorian equivalent of the Territorials, for the chorus is:
"Noo Jimmie's jined the Volunteers,
A pair of tartan breeks he wears,
Marching off to fame and glory."
However, after many vicissitudes and much fighting, in which Jimmy distinguished himself, there was clearly an Options for Change, or merely a Strategic Defence Review, for the final verse—which ends happily, your Lordships will be relieved to hear—is:
"Noo here he is at the Queen's Review,
What though his troops are terrible few,
A sergeant, and a piper, and one man.
The Queen she says, "Weel, Mr Shaw,
Your men are as fine as ever I saw,
Though they're no sae very numerous it seems.
But gie's the lane o' your sword," says she,
"And doon ye get on yer bendit knee,
And I'll mak ye Major General Sir Jeems."
The other flaw in the Strategic Defence Review is that either there are not enough people in the services or there are too many commitments—whichever way one looks at it—to avoid overstretch. Unlike many noble Lords, I have no personal service experience, but I have been privileged with the Defence Study Group to visit many of our Armed Forces and their families, both in this country and abroad. What has always emerged, like a shining light, is how brave, skilled, professional, uncomplaining and dedicated they all are. But let us not forget that, however many rare virtues they possess, they are still people and they need to spend time with their families. Twenty-four months between front line tours is all right. Anything less is not—and the time between front line tours, combined with away-from-home training, is often very much less than that.
Christmas is a time for thinking about families, for being with families. Let us at this special time think how we can help the families of those who are not only dedicated to defending us but to preserving peace all over the world.
7.19 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, with not long to think about it, the only naval ballad I can recite which might possibly match that of the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, is as follows:
"The boatswain we had was apparently mad
For he sat on the after rail
And he fired salutes with the commodore's boots
In the teeth of a roaring gale".
I often feel like that boatswain. However, less so tonight than usual: I am going to be a great deal more friendly to the Government.

875
In the past few weeks, there have been a number of most interesting shifts: the defence Ministers in Vienna, St. Malo and ministerial statements and remarks all seem to be signifying a change of course which I believe will be greatly to the benefit of the British people. Here at last is the foreign policy which we had been told would lead the Strategic Defence Review but did not; and it has now become visible.
What did emerge in that and in the Strategic Defence Review was a useful piece of housekeeping. The great question has been: will the European members of NATO find their voice in time to prevent NATO becoming a heedless extension of US power around the world, expensive to its members and threatening to everyone else? Now it looks as though the answer may, after all, be yes. We appear finally to have realised that we cannot keep "defence" facing in one direction while our other interests and activities face in another. Our "security" involves the whole comprehensive gamut of our external affairs, and, in a globalising world, that means their economic, environmental, cultural and legal dimensions as well as the purely military.
As the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, reminded the House only yesterday, the Prime Minister called at the North Atlantic Assembly last month in Edinburgh for,
"a more effective Europe in foreign policy and security",
and,
"a European decision-making capacity and command structure".
On 3rd December the Foreign Secretary said in the Commons—I am sorry if I am robbing my noble friend Lord Gilbert of all the punchlines he was going to give: they are very good ones and I am sure he will not grudge me them:
"We are exploring how we can make decisions within the common foreign and security policy more effective, and more rapid, and how we can ensure that there is a better transmission between the security policy decided by the Foreign Ministers of the EU and the defence policy that we implement through the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation".—[Official Report, Commons, 3/12/98; col. 1083.]
Note here the use of the word "decide" for what the EU Foreign Ministers do and the word "implement" for what happens in NATO. That is right. For us Europeans, this language should be seen as a most welcome advance.
A question which should be addressed now is whether the United States retains its present veto over the use of NATO equipment of American origin, or whether the rest of us will have to develop our own surveillance systems, and so on. It is interesting and reassuring that so much effort is now going into the creation of a proper European defence industry through the joint agencies of the European Union and the WEU. It will have the advantage of being able to be no larger and no stronger than is required by actual events and dispositions.
Another task facing us Europeans is to define in advance what is to be the relationship between an active European force, engaged in something the European governments judge to be a European interest—under the UN and under international law—and a US-NATO component which may be inactive because the issue in
876
question does not touch American interests. How are those relationships being envisaged? In such cases, we must be sure that the US does not just provide cruise missiles while the Europeans fill the body bags.
I turn now to relations with Russia. In June last year my noble friend Lady Symons was emphatic, in a debate I initiated on NATO and the Russian Federation, that during the course of the negotiations for the Founding Act on mutual relations the two sides agreed that it should take the form of a solemn commitment, made at the highest level, similar to the Helsinki Final Act. She went on to say:
"anxieties in Russia about NATO … are based on a profound misunderstanding of the character and intentions of the alliance, which are strictly defensive. The best way to achieve a thoroughgoing and lasting change in perception is to … find a way of involving Russia in discussion of European issues that corresponds to her legitimate security interests".—[Official Report, 23/6/97; col. 1456.]
How strongly we may all endorse that!
There has been since then the matter I raised last June of the conditions Senator Helms imposed on the Clinton administration as his price for Senate approval of NATO enlargement, conditions which were in many ways incompatible with the Founding Act—specifically, his insistence on, "a fire-break" between NATO and the Russian Federation. NATO would inform Russia of its decisions, not discuss them in advance. The Government's view of the Helms' conditions was that they were—I quote again my noble friend Lady Symons—
"of course an internal matter for the United States",
and that,
"The new strategic concept will take account of NATO's new co-operative relationships with Russia".—[Official Report, 19/6/98; cols. 1849–50.]
It was presumably on the basis of this expectation, and on a perhaps too traditional view of military affairs, and on the assumption that the NATO of the future would be little different from the NATO of recent years, that the Strategic Defence Review took place. But since then the US administration has been trying to persuade NATO to accept all the Helms' conditions, which are hirsute, into the revised NATO strategic concept. What we now see, and what the Government, I believe and hope, have now seen, is that the terms of the new strategic concept the US administration has been proposing for NATO are incompatible not only with the Founding Act—the part about not discussing the concept with the Russians until it is finalised, when we will brief them on it—but also with international law, with the United Nations Charter and with any common foreign and security policy the European Union is likely to decide on. It would even intrude into our own responsibility for the level we may choose for our defence budget.
The doctrine behind the Helms' conditions, now embodied in the US strategic concept proposals, is simply unsustainable. Not many governments in the rest of the world believe US hegemony would make for a just world system, let alone an efficient or enjoyable one. Naturally, the American people, when asked, do not wish to rule the world. Those among us who would

877
really rather like an American-run world have to recognise that is not actually an available future. In the debate on the Queen's Speech, I was delighted to hear the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, mention "asymmetrical warfare" and the dangers we all face from our "vulnerability to information warfare". This is the future, and it is incompatible with any particular country running the world.
I have been raising both these points for some time, in the House and in correspondence, but parliamentary audibility, as all Members of this House know, is not very easy. We could, the Government believe, defend against this kind of thing. It is still said that the Ministry of Defence has never been hacked into, as if one would know. For commercial firms, presumably even the major utilities, it is a commercial matter, and so on. The Pentagon now, for reasons of cost, buys its electronics off the shelf, and so increasingly do we. Worst case analysis says, "You do not know if there is anything else, equivalent to the millennium bug, in what they have sold you. You cannot know"—and worst case analysis is what we pay officials in our Ministry of Defence to do. When some expensive piece of equipment blows up on launching—for example, the 1 billion dollar Mercury Sigint spacecraft that exploded on 12th August—we cannot know that some unfriendly hand was not in it.
To say that is far from saying that it was. It is just that when computer-run equipment fails, it is usually impossible to establish any exact cause or identify any guilty party within the kind of period that makes military sense.
Meanwhile, the relatively modest millennium bug approaches, and one of the US Federal Communications Commissioners says:
"We're are definitely past the period of where you're are going to solve the problem. We're into mitigation".
At the same time, the technological disconnect between the US and its European allies continues to widen, and sophisticated communications between our militaries becomes increasingly almost impossible.
I would like to think that somewhere, and some time soon, imaginative and informed thought will be given to considering the effect of electronic war on the future of warfare itself as an institution. It has now got about as far as nuclear weapons had when imaginative and informed thought was first given to the effect of nuclear war.
The essence of the dilemma is that without communications you can do nothing, from ordering more jam to airlifting an army, and communications now are electronic: the old modes have been stood down. Now add to this that their disruption is easy, including undetectable disruption. The Pentagon has hired hackers for both external and internal exercises and has detected a great many disruptions, and failed to detect many more. Very, very, few were identified. I have raised all this before. But the fact is that your armed forces are subject to the undetectable disruption and corruption of their communications. The equipment needed to do this is small and cheap and it is made in low wage countries, where the motives and the opportunities exist for political hatred of us.
878
Of course the danger is the same with weapons of mass destruction: the equipment goes in a suitcase, and such suitcases have been found. This fact has led to the elephants of NATO and of the US armed forces elsewhere in the world chasing the flies of international terrorism.
To the uninformed, it often seems as though all these dangers and counter-measures are simply more reasons to get ahead with abolishing the institution of war. The informed, unfortunately, largely live by its perpetuation.
This makes me say, let us get beyond the division of humanity into the "Don't know but do cares" and the "Do know but have my job to think abouts". That is difficult. We have to recognise that the arms industry is the only one in the world which is devoted to producing the means to destroy value. A job is good, the goods created by a job are good, and the jobs created by a job are good. But the products of the arms industry create no jobs and no value even when they are not used. When they are used they destroy jobs, value, values and life with blind efficacity. Solving crises before they turn violent should be our first purpose, and that means a far greater concern for justice and for the relief of oppression, which means the rule of law.
It would be good if just as the Prime Minister declares "Education! education! education!" in domestic affairs, so in foreign affairs he would declare "Justice! justice! justice!"
7.32 p.m.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, I am delighted to be one of many to congratulate the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Vincent, on his maiden speech today. It is a privilege to see my name alongside that of such a knowledgeable military historian as the noble and gallant Lord, Field-Marshal Lord Carver, for whom I acted as ADC when he was Chief of the Defence Staff. For his military genius the noble and gallant Lord was correctly awarded a life peerage. For my part, though I served only 10 years for Queen and country, I inherited one. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, presumed that anyway!
Like so many noble Lords in this House, and most in Her Majesty's Armed Forces, one has read the paper, Modern Forces for the Modern World: A Territorial Army for the Future. The text prompted telephone calls and correspondence with those volunteers within the T&AVR units, and with a recently retired general in my regiment. I served with him in Ulster in 1972. He was a captain and I a mere subaltern. Suddenly, I feel my age.
The Chief of the General Staff, General Sir Roger Wheeler, wrote a letter on 9th November 1998 which stated,
"The Defence Review highlighted an increased emphasis on supporting and sustaining expeditionary operations".
It referred to a Territorial Army which will be,
"part of our deployable order of battle".
Will the Minister help to clarify a statement which was reported to have been made by the Secretary of State

879
for Defence which implied that the TA was not required for NATO or home defence purposes? I quote General Wheeler again,
"The Territorial Army is a key part of our country's military capability; we must all ensure that it goes from strength to strength".
Perhaps he could explain why infantry in western Wessex is being reduced from two-and-a-half battalions to one battalion spread over five counties.
This reduction has substantial implications. First, it reduces the base for reflation of the Army in a time of future crisis, which undoubtedly will occur at some time. Secondly, it weakens the already weak link between the services and the civilian population. Thirdly, it reduces the amount of back up support available to the Regular Army in time of need; for example, in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, where substantial numbers of the TA have already been serving. Fourthly, it drastically reduces the amount of manpower available to assist in bringing military aid to civilian community tasks—for example, in a time of major flood. Fifthly, it greatly reduces the opportunity for those who wish to render voluntary services to their country. Sixthly, it minimises the reinforcements available to the Regular Army in times of future conflict.
It is true that a few elements of the Territorial Army are being increased. An example is the medical services of which we have heard much already this evening. However, as these are already under strength and are having difficulty in attracting doctors, it is unlikely that the proposed increase will have much impact.
Once again I stretched out my hand for A Territorial Army for the Future. It stated,
"Infantry, yeomanry and supporting combat services are no longer needed to the same degree and will be reduced".
Perhaps no one showed that sentence to the Chief of the General Staff. I repeat that this reduction has substantial implications. I believe that the bent towards computerised warfare—a desire prompted by our closest ally, the United States—has led those in the highest echelons in the Ministry of Defence to try to match that mega power weapon for weapon, all at the expense of the soldier.
I quote from a senior military commander, recently involved in Bosnia, who states,
"the Territorial Army cutbacks, especially those in the infantry are the most dangerous for the future defence of the United Kingdom in that in any future war or peace support operation, volume is needed".
That can be provided only by a strong reserve.
That same officer, a general of international note, made another remark which contradicts the principles, the idea supposedly proposed by the Secretary of State for Defence in relation to NATO:
"It is nonsense to say that because the Home Defence and NATO roles have disappeared we can get rid of the Home Defence and NATO roled battalions. It was the Conservative Party who insisted on mission orienting the Territorial Army, against Ministry of Defence advice. It takes 30 Territorial Army soldiers (a platoon) to keep the Regular Army supplied with one man in the front line for
880
a year. Statistics being currently quoted are flawed as they do not count the men who transfer from the Territorial Army for a three year engagement [in the Regular Army]".
NATO has been mentioned on several occasions. We are aware that European countries, as well as the United States, are our partners in NATO. However, it should be remembered that our Common Market partners made no reference to common security or defence until 1992, when it was mentioned in Article 17 of the Maastricht Treaty. That was amended by the Amsterdam Treaty. There it was stated that the common (European) defence and security policy was to include all questions relating to the security of the Union—let us remember that early in the next century it will be a matter of five plus one—including the framing of a common defence policy which might lead to a common defence force, should the Euro-Council so decide.
Bearing that last statement in mind, our position in NATO underlines the vital role of support troops such as the Territorial Army. Article 18 of the Maastricht Treaty states that at international conferences where not all member states take part,
"those who do shall uphold the Common Position".
Until recently we could speak as the United Kingdom. I question that sovereign solidarity now, and I question the Ministry of Defence's existence post-2004.
How many of us can remember the opportunity—or was it enforcement?—of being in the Cadet Corps at school? Today it is the Territorial Army that makes possible such training, such as understanding of respect for rank, cleanliness and good order. It is the Territorial Army that is the "recruiting sergeant", that encourages youth to test themselves alongside their elders and contemporaries in difficult, awkward, unusual situations, so that, when called upon to assist in military aid to the civilian community (floods, ambulance strikes, rescues at sea) they can work as a team, complementary to one another, to the benefit of others.
It would cost the nation £3 million to bring the TA to the required level of 45,000 supporting troops. Yet I am told that we are spending £250 million to refit a naval frigate which is destined to be scrapped in two years' time. As Rudyard Kipling said,
"It's 'Tommy this' and 'Tommy that'
and 'kick him out, the brute'.
But it's 'Hero of the country'
When the guns begin to shoot"
Only prepared people can provide peace.
7.44 p.m.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, I am glad that the cadets have not suffered in the review. Apart from the benefits that they give to their own members, they provide a very valuable, indeed essential, bridge to the community for recruiting for the Regular Army. But more recently they have been providing another service. By means of the youth and community project, they have been offering to disaffected youth discovery days and weekly attachments to try out and see whether they enjoy all the sports that the cadets can offer. Indeed, some detachments have been intentionally formed in

881
distressed areas in order to provide the opportunity for young people to attain the motivation and occupation to keep them out of trouble.
The cadets have been signally successful and have so far been prepared to fund the cost themselves or out of funds from charitable organisations. If the cadets are to be more widely used as a social medicine as much as any source for Army recruits, surely that service to the public order should be on contract to the civilian sector budget and not a total charge on the defence budget.
The cadets rely heavily on the TA for training aid and administration, as well as for their drill halls. With centres closed, who will give them that support in the future? If it is to be the Regular Army, what an expense that will be. For example, in my own home town of Guisborough, the Territorial Army is to be closed down. It serves some seven cadet units, yet the TA centre does not currently have, and has not for some years had, any permanent staff. That TA centre also provides a focus for many social benefits, as a function location and a venue for charity work. People in the area are extremely upset that it is to close.
Likewise, the Territorial Army has been helping society at a higher age group. The TA has drill halls and has trained staff available. They are valuable resources which at many times of the week are inadequately used. The TA is hoping to teach unemployed no-hopers many skills such as vehicle maintenance and IT, and to encourage and help them to return to the labour market. These are the youngsters who otherwise may cause nothing but pain and trouble to the community, and who have been referred to as a "ticking time-bomb".
I could single out the Royal Northumberland Fusiliers, who are pioneering on their own initiative a scheme to assist disaffected youth. They run one to five day courses for unmotivated and "dropped out" 16 to 24 year-olds, many with criminal records, where they are instructed at drill halls and taught life skills. The Army manages to motivate them, and several may join the Army instead of drifting into crime. Funds come from various trusts, including the Prince's Trust, and involves the Gateway and the New Deal. But the cost ensures that it is run on only a small scale. What a shame it would be if the scheme should take off just as drill halls were sold to be pulled down and redeveloped. They would be the ideal sites for courses to be run and the instructors could be both regular and territorial soldiers. Indeed, it would be one of the greatest peacetime contributions to the country that the TA could make, but it would be quite wrong and just would not happen unless the cost was borne by a Vote other than the defence budget. Yet the cost of the use of drill halls to train young tearaways to become good citizens would be amply justified by the reduction in the cost of potential crime.
The MoD has a couple of officers concerned with the youth initiative, but the potential success is too valuable to be limited by the cost to the defence budget, and the Home Office should be buying the services from the military. Further thoughts might lead to assistance with community service, prisoner training, assisting with probation and so forth. The military could make a huge
882
contribution against crime and it would be cost-effective. But again, the help should not fall on the defence budget, or the military would naturally decline to provide it.
The military corrective training centre, or glasshouse, is another area that could be contracted out for civilian use. Built to a high specification, it is, unlike the prisons, designed to raise spirits. Perhaps as a result, the rate of re-offending is only 12 per cent. as opposed to 50 per cent. in civilian prisons. The training not only deters re-offending, but many military inmates go on to become NCOs. It should be said that most military inmates are not violent or vicious disturbed criminals, as are many inmates in civilian prisons. But likewise, there are many in civilian prisons who are not vicious or disturbed and who would benefit from such a regime rather than being in overcrowded cells or being abused in ordinary prisons. The staff of the MCTC are highly trained and proven leaders, never below the rank of sergeant.
Surely it would be worth considering sending those civilian prisoners who might be thought able to benefit from it to the MCTC. The idea could be pursued, with prisons run on army lines, entirely devoted to civilian tearaways, with military or ex-military staff, but financed by the Home Office. These would not be boot camps but training camps from which inmates could emerge as responsible members of society.
The training is military, demanding and concentrated, but it is also interesting, and soldiers return to their units well motivated. Civilian prisoners might equally be motivated. It is, of course, expensive, but the cost must be compared with the cost that would be incurred if the offender were, without that training, to become one of the 50 per cent. who re-offend having come out of an ordinary prison, rather than one of the 12 per cent. who received the better training. If suitable offenders were to be directed to the MCTC or a civilian equivalent run by these trained leaders, their offending rate might be drastically reduced.
There should be no reason why the military should not be able to contract out their expertise and any spare capacity to the civilian market. With that funding, the military could budget for extra staff and would therefore not be able to use the argument that they were already overstretched. The services would gain from having a larger pool of staff to mature and rotate. This would be in accordance with the wish of the Government that all departments should adopt a more entrepreneurial attitude.
Bands are also to be drastically reduced. That is a great shame. Bands are a very important part of public relations, and the interface of the Army with the public will be greatly reduced.
An interesting point in the review is that the TA establishment of medics should be increased. In my TAVRA we anticipate that it will be very difficult to achieve the required strength. When doctors attend camp it interferes dramatically with their system of appointments, and hospitals are loath to let them go. We do not expect that our establishment will be reached for

883
some years, if ever. It may well be that if civilian medics are required for emergencies, as they will be, some system other than through the TA will have to be found.
On a more direct defence matter, I was very concerned to read in a brief that top Chinese General Mi Zhenyu told the Chinese two years ago:
"We quietly nurse our sense of vengeance. We must conceal our abilities and bide our time".
We have lived through the aggressive aspirations of the Germans twice and those of the Russians, the Japanese and now the Iraqis. It seems that China may well be the next to threaten world peace. They are powered by a strong feeling of wounded nationalism, with the xenophobic conviction that they are the superior race and that their grievances have not been avenged. China already has the largest army in the world and, having studied the Gulf War, has spent billions on military equipment from Russia alone in the past two years. I read that China admits that it plans to occupy islands almost as far south as Singapore. Vietnam and the Philippines are no match for China's 9,000 tanks, and they know it. China is already using its fire-power, as in 1988 when it sank three Vietnamese ships, and in 1994 when it warned off a US naval force. I sincerely hope that my brief is unduly alarmist and untrue; but let us cultivate friendship with China and ensure that it does not feel any further loss of face. However justified it may be, let us not do a Pinochet with the next Chinese leader to visit the country.
But let us be fully aware that history could repeat itself and that the day may come when there will be a showdown and the whole of the Far East could flare up into warfare. Whether this country and the US would be sucked into any such conflict, I do not know, but one thing that is sure is that we must maintain the military capability to respond in whatever way the political decision may be taken. Thankfully, this country keeps up its technological expertise, but only time will tell whether we shall rue the day when we disbanded so many reserves from our Territorial Army. Napoleon said:
"When China awakes let the world tremble".
China is waking.
7.54 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I should like to begin by congratulating the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Vincent, on his fine maiden speech and by broadly supporting the SDR. I had hoped that I could claim to be the most junior military person present, having managed the rank of lieutenant, having turned down a captaincy in the TA because it would have meant leaving a light aid detachment. However, I am informed by my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire that he only managed to reach the rank of sergeant-major in a CCF, so I outrank him.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, perhaps I may cap that by saying that I only reached the rank of volunteer sub-lieutenant in the Navy.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I note the point that the noble Lord puts forward. It will come as no surprise to
884
the Minister that I shall focus on the issue of the TA, as many noble Lords have done. It is a subject that I raised in the debate on the gracious Speech and one to which I should like to return.
An aspect that surprises me about many of the speeches about the TA by Regular Army officers is the attitude that the TA should be the first to be considered when there are to be cuts, as if the TA, rather than the Regular Army, could somehow absorb the cuts. This is a problematic area and shows the inherent divide between the Regular Army and the Territorial Army, which is well exampled in the attitudes of regular soldiers and territorial soldiers to each other. I believe that healing that rift is very important for any future role that the TA will undertake within the Regular Army.
The cutting of the TA will have a number of devastating impacts. Although I realise that the cuts are less severe than they might have been, one of the problems that they will cause will be a loss of the skill base within the Territorial Army. A major problem with closing Territorial Army bases and reducing the number of establishments is that a number of posts will disappear. Many territorial soldiers will be unable to move from one position to another and gain experience in different units. I speak as a member of the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers and as someone who has seen the loss in the skill base at first hand. It is difficult to build up the required number of courses on the limited man training days available, especially when one has to put people on courses which will last a number of weeks but, because of the limited man training days, they cannot do those courses and meet their camp commitments.
The second impact will be on the link to the local community. I was pleased that in the previous Session the Minister declared that the link with the ACF would not be affected by the cuts. I was gratified that the ACF, which has an important role, especially in recruitment, was to be saved and that drill halls associated with it would be preserved. However, if the link with the community is broken in too many areas there will be a direct impact on the recruitment ability of the Regular Army. For many TA soldiers, especially the younger ones, the TA is their first brush with military life and quite a number go on to the Regular Army.
The required change in the attitude of the Regular Army to the TA will also be reflected in the position of the regular Army after the SDR. The TA will have a far more important role because so many posts are left unfilled in the Regular Army. The role of the territorials as a base for large numbers of troops can be changed by way of the terms of service accepted by territorial soldiers. Rather than train for a need that no longer exists among units that will never go to war, the Territorial Army can focus far more on training individuals to undertake short-term postings within Regular Army units.
There is a great deal of sentimental attachment to the idea of the Territorial Army having a regimental basis. I understand that that provides a sense of purpose and history to members of the Territorial Army. However, having visited officers' messes to attend Territorial

885
Army regimental dinners, a good indication of the history of the particular unit can be seen from the amount of silver on display. A large amount of silver usually indicates that many units have been amalgamated.
To express a personal view and not that of my party, I hope that the regimental system can be taken out of the Territorial Army. This will cause a great deal of consternation. However, it is extremely important that the individual soldier has a purpose in joining the Territorial Army. What is important is not the maintenance of regiments that may have had a glorious history although little impact on the individual soldier, but the individual unit and the training of the individual soldier. One of the major difficulties of retention of Territorial Army soldiers is that after a period of time they realise it is very unlikely that they will ever have the ability to serve in an operational capacity. That is one of the major difficulties of retention in the Territorial Army.
If members of the Territorial Army could be given a greater sense of purpose or role in the Regular Army it would have two effects. First, it would mean better retention among the Territorial Army. Secondly, it could also prevent the overstretch that often occurs within the Regular Army.
One area that has been focused on by many noble Lords is the medical service. The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, referred to the frightening position in which the DMS finds itself. I hope that the 2,000 in posts in the new formation of the Territorial Army will be new posts. The noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, has indicated that they are not new posts. I hope that the Minister will be able to indicate that they are real new posts. One of the major problems faced by the medical services in the past is that their use has been underestimated. For example, thankfully we did not need the medical services in the Falklands War or in the Gulf War. I have some personal experience because my brother-in-law was in the RAMC during the Gulf War. The picture he painted when he returned was that the Territorial Army provided the backbone to the medical service. Without the Territorial Army is there a backbone to the medical service? Because it has not been needed so far does not mean that in a future conflict it will not be needed.
We come to another issue relating to the Reserve Forces Act which was touched upon by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox; namely, the fear that the NHS and health trusts will place obstacles in the path of surgeons in particular and anaesthetists in training with the medical corps. Bearing in mind that that Act came into force some time ago, can the Minister give an indication whether the NHS or health trusts have imposed conditions? If so, it may cause real difficulties. I do not believe that it would be for any reason other than that the health trusts themselves were overworked and recognised the value of their surgeons.
Many noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, with remarkable tenacity, made reference to nuclear weapons. The SDR sets out the need for a deterrent. We on these Benches support that.
886
The explosive force of the deterrent has been reduced by 70 per cent. Can the Minister tell the House whether at some future point Britain's arsenal will be reduced unilaterally as a positive indication of disarmament? It may also have significant cost implications. If the Russians and Americans are considering a reduction in their nuclear deterrents due to cost implications this must have implications for our nuclear weapons.
Another issue that has been raised is the provision of aircraft carriers. In view of the agreement that has been concluded between France and Britain is it possible for us to share our carrier fleet with the French? I realise that this may be a new concept. One of the major problems with the carrier fleet is that if we have two on line at any one time we will probably require three carriers in case one is in dry dock at any particular time. Is there any possibility of linking up with the French rather than having the duplication that exists at the moment?
Many noble Lords have made reference to the WEU and in particular the question of greater co-operation. We on these Benches support greater emphasis on the WEU rather than on NATO. It will be extremely difficult for us to act in countries like Bosnia if we must rely on the Americans who are not prepared to put troops on the ground. I have witnessed the interaction of the troops of many nations. Recently I was an observer at the Bosnian elections and had the pleasure of witnessing a visit by large number of SFOR troops to my polling station as a grenade had been reported there.
I was disappointed that the SDR made little mention of future warfare. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, raised the issue of cyber warfare. The SDR refers to it as information warfare. Given the terror that the millennium bug is creating at the moment, it would be unfortunate if little work was being done to counter that threat. Can the Minister give any indication as to what preparations the MoD is making in this area of warfare, if any?
I congratulate the Government and the Army on the recent declaration of zero tolerance as regards racial discrimination. Such a statement was given very recently and it is a massive step forward. I believe that the success of the SDR will be seen quite soon, not by the Army but by a very simple indicator; namely, whether people who join the Army see it as a valuable and attractive career for the future.
8.10 p.m.
Lord BurnhamMy Lords, I cannot resist asking the noble Lord, Lord Redesedale, that if we are to share an aircraft carrier with the French, who is going to steer it? Your Lordships have been asked today to, "take note of' the review. In another place six weeks ago MPs were asked to, "approve the conclusions" of the review. I wonder whether that variation in wording is because of the financial implications, which remain ultra vires for your Lordships because there is no doubt that money and the Treasury have had a large part to play. Nevertheless, I am sure that there is general approval for the large amount of work that has gone into the review and also approval for the degree of consultation

887
referred to by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Vincent, which took place before the review was published. I am one of those who complained consistently of the delay in getting it out. It took an extraordinarily long time. The amount of detail may excuse that delay.
I underline that we on these Benches support the bi-partisan approach to a defence policy, for which the Minister asked. I hope that we shall be able to help and that he will take all that is said in the spirit that we are trying to help. It is only as regards the Territorial Army where we may be said to have a fundamental disagreement. My noble friend Lord Cope has clearly laid down as regards one area of the country what seems to be an extraordinary and impractical reorganisation. Your Lordships have discussed the TA at some length. I ask the noble Lord whether adequate attention has been given to its role as a recruitment centre for the Regular Army; as a supplier of reserves and as a centre for social activity in many parts of the country where such a role is urgently needed. The noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, has pointed out the relationship between the regular and cadet forces. I believe that the Territorial Army has much the same role.
It is the convention of your Lordships' House that only the succeeding speaker should pay tribute to a maiden speaker. Almost all of your Lordships ignored that and I intend to do the same. We have had the benefit of the advice of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Vincent. He is the most recently retired soldier. He is very welcome as a partial begetter of the SDR itself. We have had the benefit of hearing from three noble and gallant Lords today. I am only sorry that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, was not here. I know that he deeply regrets that he was unable to speak and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley. I regret that they have been unable to give us a nap hand. I would like to express my personal regret that, following the sad death of Lord Fieldhouse, there is not in this House a recently retired and senior naval officer to advise your Lordships on naval affairs.
In listening to all three noble and gallant Lords today, it has been interesting to note that all three are satisfied with the Government's actions as regards the Territorial Army. That has been reflected in the Regular Army itself. I wonder whether, now that many regular soldiers have had the opportunity of working with territorials, particularly in Bosnia, that they may feel that the Territorial Army has a more important role to fill in its current form than had been previously thought.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, spoke about the company as being possibly the minimum size of a desirable unit for the territorials. I support that. My noble friend Lord Cope spoke about platoons and almost single guns. The Territorial Army must be given the benefit not only in the accounts of working together if it is to be able to act as a formed unit.
Throughout the review we have been told that it is foreign policy based and I accept that. The frontiers of foreign policy are continually moving. Even so, some of the ideas of 1997 and the early part of this year have radically altered. The recent St. Malo concordat, in which the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State
888
were deeply involved, may well bring about a change in what is required. It may cause those responsible to reflect. Here I note that the love-in in St. Malo is countered by the demands of Aero Spatiale that it should have 50 per cent. of the joint company, which has been set up with British Aerospace and the Germans. Life is not easy for any defence or trade and industry Minister. I hope that when the noble Lord winds up he will be able to bring your Lordships up-to-date on all these matters because there is so much that has changed.
In welcoming the SDR, the House of Commons Defence Committee has been fairly critical of some aspects. In its response to the committee the Government have in fact disagreed with the concern expressed that Russia still poses a potential military problem. Let us hope that they are right. In the immediate future that would seem to be undoubtedly the case, but it would be unwise to discard the possible danger entirely. Thus, long-term procurement should be based on a possibility that things may go wrong again. Equally, too much reliance should not be put on the conviction that never again will there be trouble in the Ukraine or Kazakhstan. There must be a significant danger that the desperate economic situation in Russia and the former countries of the Soviet Union, may bring about a desperate political reaction. We have to watch not only the states of the former Soviet Union, but many countries with equal "rogue" tendencies.
We still do not appear to have had a sufficiently informative exposition of the foreign baseline although it is interesting to note that by approving the conclusions of the SDR, honourable Members in another place have given the Prime Minister carte blanche to conduct a foreign policy which would have been the envy of Lord Palmerston.
Apart from foreign policy, there remains a conviction that the Ministry of Defence is still finding great difficulty in keeping its books straight. The recently published Performance Report of the Ministry of Defence for 1997–98 notes the criticisms of the Commons Public Accounts Committee in respect of the MoD accounts for 1996–7. Some consolation is given, but the audit account for the following year still shows things going wrong in 1997–98, with a fairly notable deficit. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, who is not in his place, has tabled a Question with regard to the £34.6 million written off on an aborted MoD computer project. I hoped that the House might have had the reply by today so that we might comment on it. That has not been possible. We await it with interest.
The Minister was reassuring in his speech about the smart procurement initiative. His comments on the development of integrated project teams and a more logical system of spare parts holdings must be welcomed. I wonder whether he can make any comment on something I have been told that despite the idea that everyone should be working together, the RAF is still buying its own vehicles.
On procurement, the layout of Abbey Wood, where so much of this is carried out, still presents problems both physical and in terms of the methods adopted. I hope that the Government will look carefully at the way

889
in which personnel are moved backwards and forwards in particular between London and Abbey Wood. Is any consideration to be given to the decision not to construct No. 6 building at Abbey Wood which would solve many of the problems and enable more people to work together? Having said that, the decision to make the management of logistics a more efficient business is most welcome.
The Minister referred to the number of times I have asked about aircraft carriers. I have indeed done so—almost as many times as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, has asked about nuclear disarmament. However, in the summer the Minister gave your Lordships the assurance that the two aircraft carriers would be built rather than that we "intend to" build them. That assurance was more categoric than anything said in the SDR. It is not doubted by me or any noble Lord here, but we and colleagues in another place have heard many rumours which have cast doubts on the Government's resolution. For that reason I am more than grateful for the reassurances that the Minister has given the House today, with evidence of concrete progress—even if it is concrete only in terms of pieces of paper.
I ask him further to confirm that the design delivery date is still 2012. Advertisements for tenders for the refit of existing carriers seem to suggest that the conunissioning of the new ships might be put off until 2022. The building of the aircraft carriers is crucial to the success of the SDR. Long discussions on whether the air assault force which has been planned should be land or sea based—I believe that argument to be critical to the whole of the Government's foreign defence policy—can only have been resolved in favour of a sea-based defence force which can only be maintained by the building of the new carriers.
The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, said that it was essential that we should go to the crisis. We cannot go to the crisis unless we have equipment in which to do so. Even by 2012 the existing carriers will be well beyond their sell-by date. In any case, they are much too small.
There remains the question of what aircraft to put on the new carriers. I ask the Minister for any comment he cares to make. I am advised that it is unlikely to be the Eurofighter although it could be used in an emergency. There are major problems with the airframe if Eurofighter is to be used for sea-borne take-offs and landings, and the deck of the carrier would probably need to be strengthened.
It seems that the SDR figure of 232 Eurofighters to be built is adequate for foreseeable needs provided that the estimated 80 per cent. in service at any one time can he maintained. It is important from the point of view of the international construction industry that numbers should not be reduced and that a regular programme of building should be maintained. Not only must the aircraft be European, we must have European missiles to put on them. Any difficulties which in an unfortunate set of circumstances might cause the Americans to cause trouble with their export licences would most seriously damage the ability of Europe to maintain an independent defence system.
890
The Minister was asked in another place yesterday whether Eurofighter was on target for delivery starting in 2002 given the estimated overspend in the air equipment budget of £1 billion. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, to comment on the figure and to state whether it will have any effect on the delivery of the Eurofighter.
As I mentioned in the debate on the gracious Speech, the European countries are the allies and not the clients of the United States. Undoubtedly and properly Her Majesty's Government have stood behind the United States, but they should not be expected to do so unquestioningly—even if that is the only way one can obtain equipment.
Another area where there are potential problems is the supply of transport aircraft. Here I hope that Her Majesty's Government will succeed in getting the German Government totally on side with regard to the production of the FLA. The C130J is an excellent machine, but it is too small and one cannot put a Warrior on it. The FLA is an ideal size and can carry anything up to a small battle tank or an Apache helicopter. All these are details of equipment. In general we cannot criticise the thrust of the SDR. However, the SDR seems not to have given sufficient attention to recruitment, overstretch and retention although the Government's intentions are impeccable. We are looking for a small increase in numbers. But will the money be available for them before the designated year of 2004? How are those people to be obtained? I do not believe that equal opportunities legislation, desirable as it is, will do much good in this field. The Government will have to do more in planning and marketing for long-term career opportunities for servicemen and a satisfactory lifestyle for their wives and families if we are to recruit and keep the servicemen we need.
However, with the exception of the plans for the TA, we welcome the review. We take note of it. Your Lordships may and almost certainly will come back to it in the near future. However, I hope that as regards all the fundamental points the Government may be able to carry out their policy with determination and expedition.
8.26 p.m.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, the first and very agreeable task I have is to congratulate the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Vincent of Coleshill, on his maiden speech. I am a little aggrieved with the noble and gallant Lord. It has taken him two years to make his maiden speech in this House, and during that time we have had quite a lot of defence debates. I hope that he does not intend to go AWOL in any future defence debates now that he has made his maiden speech. I cannot understand why the noble and gallant Lord suggests that making a maiden speech in this House was particularly intimidating. Having done so myself, I can tell the noble and gallant Lord that it is nothing like as intimidating as having to follow three field marshals, one after the other, as a Minister. We were all delighted to hear the noble and gallant Lord. I am particularly gratified at the agreeable remarks he made about the Strategic Defence Review. Needless to say, I share with him a view of the importance of the nuclear deterrent. I shall come to that

891
in a moment in response to some remarks by my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Putney and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver.
However, I very much agree with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Vincent of Coleshill, on the importance of NATO, and in particular that it has kept the United States constructively engaged in the affairs of Europe, and, coincidentally, in other parts of the world. I fully understand his concerns—we heard them echoed around the House by many noble Lords—about the degree of overstretch which to some extent will still exist in the Army even after we have recruited up to 3,000 more men and women. I entirely accept what he says about the Army being more heavily committed relative to its total strength than at any time since the 1940s.
The noble and gallant Lord also made the point that the Territorial Army needs more administrative support than is at present available. I am sure my right honourable friend in another place will take careful note of what the noble and gallant Lord had to say on that.
There were so many detailed contributions that it would be impossible for me to attempt to reply to them in the degree of detail that they deserve. I think in particular, but by no means exclusively, of the contributions of the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. They spoke in great detail. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for sending me a copy of the remarks she intended to make. I received it only a few hours ago and was horrified to think how on earth I was going to reply. I hope that she and other noble Lords will accept that if I cannot reply to detailed points I shall deal with them in correspondence.
I have received a note from the Box concerning a remark made by the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, about 2,000 posts in the medical services. I am informed that the 2,000 represents an increase over the existing establishment. However, we are double-hatting 476 bandsmen to augment the medical services. Those bandsmen will perform non-specialist medical roles and the remaining 1,500 will have to be recruited separately, together with the 1,000 or so who are needed where the service is under strength.
Many references were made to the Territorial Army. The Government recognise the concern felt about the future and importance of the Territorial Army. At the risk of repeating myself, I must say again what I said in our previous debate on the TA. The determination of the required strength was made on operational grounds. That came out at about 25,000 men. We then added about another 6,500 men to assure ourselves that we would be able to produce 25,000 whenever necessary. We increased that 31,500 to the present total by a series of add-ons as a result of representations made to us during the consultation period. We wished to ensure that we had as wide a footprint as possible and that the administrative arrangements were as sensible as possible, including arrangements for nuclear, biological and chemical units. So we did listen and considerably expanded the operational requirement of the TA over and above that which was universally agreed by the service chiefs to be necessary.
892
Everything over and above the figure of 31,500 is designed to meet the points made about footprints and aid to the civil power which your Lordships have raised today. I realise that we have not satisfied all your Lordships. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, spoke in great detail about the problems relating to the Territorial Army in Bristol and surrounding counties. Other noble Lords made similar points. On a previous occasion, points were made about North and South Wales and having a single headquarters covering the whole of Wales. We had to try to compromise between getting as wide a footprint as possible and stretching units very thinly. We could have had the units more condensed and of a larger size, but we would have had to sacrifice the degree of footprint which we sought to achieve, and have achieved, over the United Kingdom as a whole.
My noble friend Lord Jenkins of Putney asked about the absence from the SDR of anything about nuclear disarmament. As I have said previously at this Dispatch Box, I can assure him that it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government that we would like a world without nuclear weapons. I have no hesitation in standing at the Dispatch Box and saying that. When we are likely to see it is another matter, but the Government have placed no obstacles in the path of future nuclear disarmament.
At one time I thought it was somewhat improbable to find the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, as a bedfellow of my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Putney in relation to nuclear matters. The noble and gallant Lord invited me to read a recent publication from the Council of Arms Control, of which I am correctly identified as a trustee. I regret to say that I have not found time to read that publication. However, I have had time to read the publication CND Today, the summer edition of 1997 of which contains a blurred picture of the noble and gallant Lord, who is described as an unlikely ally in the fight against Trident. The interesting thing is that the noble and gallant Lord, who I hope is correctly quoted in the document, says,
"I have never seen"—
"never" is the word—
"any point in this country having its own nuclear weapons system at all".
Clearly, the noble and gallant Lord, as he successfully made his way up the slippery pole of advancement in Her Majesty's Army, succeeded in persuading his superior officers and successive Ministers that he was a fellow very worthy of advancement while not concealing from them that he had no interest whatever in the fundamental policy of NATO. I have some news for the noble and gallant Lord—
Lord Carver: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way and hope that he does not mind my correcting him. It has never been a fundamental policy of NATO that this country should have its own nuclear weapon.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, it has been the fundamental policy of NATO, as the noble and gallant Lord would accept, that the nuclear deterrent was the basis on which NATO strategy was determined. I have to say to the

893
noble and gallant Lord, in contradiction of his views, that personally I have always believed in the validity of the nuclear deterrent and I do so to this day. I do not say that just because it is government policy. Unfortunately, I can think of many occasions between 1945 and the break-up of the Soviet empire when we might well have had a third world war break out in Western Europe had nuclear weapons not been available to deter the hotheads on either side of the Iron Curtain.
The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, asked about procurement. We have a project for future Engineer tanks to replace the existing Chieftain-based armoured vehicle launcher bridge and the armoured vehicle Royal Engineer from 2005. We are currently considering bids for feasibility studies. We have also considered carefully an offer from Vickers Defence Systems to supply future Engineer tanks under a Smart procurement proposal. We hope to reach a decision soon.
The noble Earl asked whether the MoD budget was on target for the next two years. The resources needed to achieve the priorities which we set out in the review will in part be achieved by making savings from rationalisation in support areas, a continuing programme of efficiency improvements and Smart procurement. I have no reason to believe that we shall not meet our targets, though that will be difficult. We have accepted them.
I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, welcomed the review and in particular its comments on sea and air lift. He asked about the role of carriers and whether they would incorporate joint floating command posts. It is impossible to answer that question at this time. The suggestion is certainly not excluded. We are at the earliest stage of considering such questions. In fact, we have not yet reached that stage; we are formulating our studies on the shape and size of carriers. However, the possibility is not ruled out at this stage.
The noble Lord, Lord Burnham, asked what kind of aircraft would be on the carriers. Again, it is far too early to answer that. It might be of help to him and your Lordships to know that we have a menu as regards the fast jets of possibly a navalised Eurofighter, which I understand is a physical possibility; of a conventional take-off and landing joint strike fighter; of an advanced form of Harrier, a STOA VL—short take-of-and-vertical landing aircraft; or of a STOA VL version of the joint strike fighter. As I am sure the noble Lord knows, the joint strike fighter may come in as many as three or four versions. There will also be helicopters and air-borne early warning vehicles.
As regards the question of airborne early warning aircraft, I wish to take up a question which my noble friend Lord Hardy raised with me about UAVs. That gives me a great opportunity to embark on one of my hobbyhorses. It is certainly one of the possibilities for the future carrier that the airborne early warning aircraft may itself be an unmanned aerial vehicle. I am told that the United States is already undertaking experiments with the United States Navy for unmanned helicopters in a supply role. I hope that I am gaining a reputation as a fanatic for developing unmanned systems over the
894
whole range of air power and particularly, but not exclusively, for offensive aircraft when it is a question of delivery of munitions.
Many years ago, we saw the first drones come in as target aircraft. Since then, many countries have introduced unmanned vehicles for tactical reconnaissance and target acquisition roles. It will not be very long before we are seeing unmanned air platforms dispensing munitions. It is quite conceivable that we shall also see them fulfilling, in part at any rate, an air-to-air role. As we move into a scenario in which forces are to be armed with beyond visual range air-to-air missiles, with a range of over 100 miles, the question of whether or not you need a man inside the platform which launches that air-to-air capability is a very moot one.
I have asked a question to which I have yet to receive a thoroughly satisfactory reply. I want to know why, if we can make an unmanned vehicle go prancing around Mars on its own, I cannot have one going around Salisbury Plain on its own. I have yet to receive a satisfactory answer to that. As soon as I do, I shall report to your Lordships accordingly.
I am very sorry to see that the noble Earl, Lord Carlisle, is not here. He did give me the courtesy of telling me that he could not be here at this stage. I was sorry to hear that he had never been a chief of defence staff. The only way that I believe that he ever will be is when we have a Liberal Democrat government. I am quite sure that he will be high on the list of candidates when the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, is the Liberal Democrat Defence Secretary. I hope that that message will be passed on to the noble Earl.
The noble Earl asked me whether we are applying all the media resources available to us in order to represent the forces in a good light. We certainly are. I hope that those of your Lordships who attended the Army presentation in Westminster Hall a few weeks ago were satisfied and gratified by the quality of that presentation and will see that the Army yields to nobody these days in the sophistication with which it advertises its wares.
I was gratified to have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, and other noble Lords in relation to what we said about zero tolerance for racial discrimination in Her Majesty's Services. Recently, we had the benefit of a splendid visit from General Powell, who gave us many good ideas in that respect, many of which we shall be implementing in due course.
My noble friend Lord Hardy asked me some questions about the state of the European defence industry. That is a matter with which I find myself quite frequently involved, not only in terms of procurement but also in terms of considering the strategies involved. Co-operative procurement is an extremely difficult and tricky task. I find it no easier today than it was when I was responsible for producing the Tornado some 20 years ago. Regrettably, we had to pull out of the Trimilsatcom project recently because we decided that it was not going to come in on time to meet our requirements. We are proceeding with a national solution.

895
We also have several other projects with our European friends which are offering varying degrees of difficulty; for example, the MR Trigat and the HORIZON Frigate, just to name a couple. As I say, these are extremely difficult matters to handle and they require the greatest concentration both by Ministers and officials in this country and by our allies elsewhere.
Determination of the way in which the defence industry of western Europe is to be restructured is a matter for the boards of the companies involved. They come and talk to us. We merely tell them that we believe that they will have to restructure. They must operate in larger units to survive in the future. That is not only so in areas like aerospace, where it is obvious to everybody that however large a European firm may be, it will still be fairly puny when compared with the resources of Lockheed and Boeing, but also in other activities, particularly in relation to armoured vehicles, where I think I am right in saying that there are something like 16 different manufacturers in Western Europe and only two in the United States. It is clear that we shall not be able to survive if we continue to produce penny packets in individual firms making such equipment.
The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, asked me—and he was kind enough to give me notice of this—about national defence but more particularly theatre defence against missiles. As I understood him, he was more interested in incoming ballistic missiles rather than incoming Cruise missiles. Our attitude to such an attack on our forces in theatre, were it to come about, would depend on the type of warhead being used against us. If it were an incoming conventional warhead, it would be treated just as one treats incoming artillery fire. The fact that it is launched from a greater range does not have much to do with the matter.
If it were—which is rather unlikely because those things are not very effective in a war-fighting scenario—a warhead which contained a weapon of mass destruction—a chemical or biological agent—then we have means of responding. I am quite sure that anybody who was thinking about launching chemical or biological warheads against British troops would think twice about it when he knew the range of fire power and delivery systems available to Her Majesty's Government.
The noble Lord asked me whether I had any information about a specific site just outside Baghdad. The answer is that I do not. If I did, I am not sure that I could tell the noble Lord in this House because that information would probably be highly classified. However, the fact is that I do not have any such information.
It is very unusual to see the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, over there but she is very welcome on those Benches, I am sure. I quite agree with her that there are not enough people in the services. I only wish that we could spend more money on defence. That has always been my message. However, health Ministers want to spend more on health and education Ministers want to spend more on education. I should like nothing more
896
than to have a larger defence budget so that we could recruit more people and reduce the problem of overstretch.
I was glad to receive a welcome, again from my noble friend Lord Hardy and also elsewhere in this House, for the Government's decision that it is possible for our servicemen and service women to walk on the streets in uniform. That will add greatly to our recruiting strengths over the years ahead. It is also an important ingredient in attracting and retaining more recruits to our educational programmes, which are referred to in the Strategic Defence Review. Welcome was given also to the firmness with which this Government are determined to stamp out racism, bullying or harassment of any sort in the services. That is a message not only to those who might be recruits, but also to their parents. I hope your Lordships will play a part in making it clear that this Government, as did our predecessor, have no intention of tolerating practices of that sort in Her Majesty's Services.
I believe that the most important people to influence are the senior NCOs and the commanding officers of regiments. As General Powell said, we must make it clear that their career prospects will be affected if there are any instances of racial intolerance in their units.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He has been extremely informative. However, will he kindly respond to my question in relation to permanent staff instructors? It is particularly important to the background policy of the TA.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I did not come armed with figures in regard to permanent staff instructors. I assure the noble Earl that I shall write to him on the subject as soon as I can.
I have probably trespassed on your Lordships' time long enough. This has been one of the most instructive debates that we have had in the short time that I have been in your Lordships' House. I want to respond to one remark of my noble friend Lord Kennet. I do not agree with him that the Ministry of Defence is not able to protect itself against a hacker's attack. I have reason to believe that we have managed to isolate ourselves to such a degree that it would not be possible for any amateur hacker to obtain entry to our central systems in a way that it is apparently possible in the Pentagon.
There are other systems vital to our national defence, not necessarily in the Ministry of Defence, that could be vulnerable. As my noble friend was pointing out, one of the difficulties is identifying an aggressor or even knowing that there has been an aggressor in the microseconds or nanoseconds in which an attack takes place. We must recognise that the physical security of our IT installations is just as important as the electronic security. I say that to indicate that Her Majesty's Government are seized of the types of threat that may face this country in the future.
I do not advance the proposition that we have solutions, let alone defences in place for all the threats that may be coming down the pike towards us. However, we are seized of the fact that we are living in

897
a technologically fast-moving environment and we are determined to see the defence of the country being put on as firm a basis as possible in the light of the new threats. No country has the answer to them. I am sure that this Government, along with our allies—particularly our American allies—will invest considerable resources in this area.
On that point I agree with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, about the importance of keeping up interoperability with our American friends. It will cost us a great deal of money to do so and that is something that we shall have to consider in the years ahead. I thank your Lordships for your attention.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Police Act 1997 (Notification of Authorisations etc.) Order 1998
8.55 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn rose to move, That the draft orders laid before the House on 19th November be approved [1st Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I beg to move the Motions standing in my name on the Order Paper en bloc.
Part III of the Police Act gives the police, the National Crime Squad, the National Criminal Intelligence Service and Customs & Excise a firm statutory base for their intrusive surveillance operations. These involve entry on or interference with property or wireless telegraphy and that, Parliament has decided, is an essential weapon in the fight against serious crime. The decisions to authorise these sensitive but extremely important operations will continue to be made by chief officers of police, the directors general of the National Crime Squad or NCIS and designated senior Customs officers. But the public interest will be safeguarded by independent oversight in the form of commissioners who are to be serving or former High Court judges.
We had a vigorous debate in this Chamber about these provisions and, significantly because of that, the draft legislation was changed and measures introduced providing quasi-judicial oversight of this process. An Office of Surveillance Commissioners has been established and a computer database developed to support its work. The Prime Minister appointed Sir Andrew Leggatt as Chief Surveillance Commissioner in July and recently announced the appointment of six Surveillance Commissioners—Sir Christopher Staughton, Sir Michael Hutchison and Sir Charles McCullough for England and Wales, Lord Bonomy and Lord Davidson in Scotland and Sir John MacDermott in Northern Ireland. They will be responsible for scrutinising all notifications of authorisations and for giving their prior approval, except
898
in cases of urgency, to authorisations involving the intrusion of dwellings, hotel bedrooms and offices as well as intrusions likely to involve confidential information of various kinds. They will have the power to quash or cancel authorisations which they feel have been improperly given and to order the destruction of records (other than those required for pending proceedings) and the payment of compensation. They will also be responsible for investigating complaints.
The two draft orders therefore represent the final steps in the implementation process. One order relates to the code of practice which will underpin these provisions and the other to the information which must be provided to commissioners on notification of an authorisation, its renewal or cancellation. We had extensive public consultation and considered the responses carefully.
The second draft order gives details of the information which must be provided, as I indicated, with a notification of authorisation, renewal or cancellation of an authorisation. A notification of an authorisation given by an authorising officer—that is, a chief constable or equivalent—must record whether it is a case for which prior approval is required: if it is a case which would otherwise require approval but in which intrusive surveillance has started because of urgency, the grounds on which the case is believed to be urgent; how the authorisation criteria have been met—for example, how the case fits within the definition of serious crime and why the purpose which the action seeks to achieve cannot reasonably be achieved by other means; the identity or identities, where known, of those to be targeted; the property against which surveillance is to take place; the nature of the surveillance authorised and the reason why; whether the intrusive surveillance is considered likely to lead to collateral intrusion on or interference with persons other than the person being targeted by the authorisation; and whether or not it will be necessary to retrieve any equipment used in the surveillance.
The notification of renewal must, in addition, record whether this is the first renewal or every occasion on which the authorisation has been renewed previously; every respect in which the information in the previous authorisation has changed; why it is necessary to continue; the content and value to the investigation of the product so far obtained; the results of periodic reviews carried out by the authorising officer; and an estimate of the length of time the authorisation will continue to be necessary. Any cancellation of an authorisation must record the time and date when the instruction was given to cease surveillance; the reason why; the outcome of the investigation and the nature of any criminal proceedings contemplated; and the arrangements for the storage of material obtained as a result of the surveillance, for its review and destruction when it is no longer of use and for the immediate destruction of unrelated material.
These provisions are welcomed by chief officers. They do not see them as hampering their work or as an additional unreasonable administrative burden. They are very positive about the provisions which they believe will help satisfy the public about the accountability of their decisions. They understand and fully appreciate

899
that any decision they take has to be fully justified to a commissioner or, should the surveillance result in a criminal prosecution, to a court. I commend the orders to your Lordships.
Moved, That the draft orders laid before the House on 19th November be approved. [1st Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we welcome the two Motions. The orders take forward our policy which emanated from the Police Act 1997, part of which the noble Lord, Lord Williams, supported when in opposition.
I have questions on three brief points. First, there are to be six surveillance commissioners. I wonder whether that is enough. Have the Government considered how many cases they will have to look after? Will the commissioners be spread geographically? Will the Government review the number?
Secondly, I note that the annual report will be made to the Prime Minister by the Chief Commissioner. That is provided in Section 3(5) on page 15 of the code. I wonder why it is to be made to the Prime Minister and not to the Home Secretary. If the report is to be on the operation of the whole system, and not just on the detail, I wonder whether that report will be laid before Parliament.
Thirdly, I presume that the whole policy will be kept under review, but I wonder whether there is a plan for the Home Office to conduct an annual review of this new policy and therefore whether a report will be made to Parliament.
Lord McNally: My Lords, when the Home Secretary had the courtesy to send me the code of practice, he wrote:
"I have sought to achieve a balance between the operational needs of law enforcement and, at the same time, ensuring safeguards to protect members of the public from unnecessary invasions of their privacy".
We accept that approach to the orders.
Nevertheless, from these Benches, we make no apology for emphasising the need to take care over civil liberties. That does not mean that we doubt the civil liberty credentials of Ministers any more than we accept the criticism that we may be soft on crime. The point is that when giving power to police authorities, such as this, it is very necessary for Parliament to be aware of threats to civil liberties. That is why, from these Benches, we were extremely vigorous in expressing our concerns during the passage of the Bill.
We have considered the outcome of the consultation. In the main, the Government have listened and have made substantial changes, which we welcome. We believe that the consultation process and the pressure for consultation was worthwhile. It produced some good results. My brief lists some 16 improvements to the code but, as I note the Sudanese team straining at the leash, I shall not detail them now. However, I think that the Minister will be proud to note that we have listed at least 16 improvements resulting from the consultation.
900
There are still problems about a clear definition of "urgency". There is a continuing problem about targeting property where the consent of the owner has been obtained, but where the tenant is the target. In another place my right honourable friend, Mr. Alan Beith, suggested that although the approval procedure is not formally required if a property owner has given permission, the police could still use the procedure anyway. That would not only improve protection for the tenant, but would also benefit the police operationally. We put that forward, as did my right honourable friend in another place, as a constructive suggestion about the codes.
I am sure that the Minister will also be aware that Justice has expressed disappointment at the code's lack of transparency. Justice has urged that the internal review process should be rigorous—that is something about which the Minister has just assured us—and that the range of information to be included on authorisation and notification forms should be broadened.
Within those terms, we see that Ministers have listened and tried to improve the provisions. We say both to them and to the police authorities which will have to use the powers that we understand the operational need for them. We hope that they will understand our continuing surveillance of how they use them in terms of civil liberties.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords. Perhaps I may deal first with the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord McNally. I entirely accept his point that we must strike a careful balance here. It should be not just a cosmetic balance; there should be a continuing, rigorous investigation of whether we have got the balance right. We took a little time over the consultation process and I believe that that was time well spent. We did the same on the Human Rights Act, the Data Protection Act and the Crime and Disorder Act. The outcome benefited from the discipline of listening to other people's views. I am grateful for the noble Lord's generous observations on that point.
The noble Lord will remember the debates in which we both participated in which it was suggested that perhaps circuit judges might be the appropriate reviewing bodies. I never favoured that proposal. The seriousness that we attach to this matter can be seen from the fact that we have appointed Sir Andrew Leggatt, a recently retired Lord Justice of Appeal, as Chief Surveillance Commissioner, and as commissioners Sir Christopher Staughton, Sir Michael Hutchison, and Sir Charles McCullough who is, of course, a senior former puisne High Court judge. We have gone to the same level in appointing also Lord Bonomy and Lord Davidson in Scotland, and Sir John MacDermott in Northern Ireland. I believe that is a fair indicator of the fact that we regard this work as extremely important and serious.
Perhaps I may deal with the points raised by the noble Viscount. We believe that sufficient commissioners have been appointed. When questions were raised during the passage of the Bill, it was difficult to identify precisely the number required. That is the weakness of the existing "non-system". At that time, nobody was

901
certain, but our best estimate following a review a little later was that there would be about 2,550 cases per year. We think that there are sufficient commissioners to deal with that number. However, we can appoint more commissioners if that proves necessary. The report is made to the Prime Minister because these are Prime Ministerial appointments.
If it seems that there are insufficient commissioners, that is a point that one would expect to be raised in the annual report. We shall keep the matter under review. After all, the chief commissioner will report annually on Part III provisions. If he believes that any further tightening or balancing ought to be carried out, we would expect such a senior person as Sir Andrew Leggatt to bring that immediately to the attention of the Prime Minister in the annual report.
As regards more general review, the Home Office will obviously be keenly interested in how things work in practice. We shall have an overview rather than a formal review. I believe that that is the best way to deal with the matter. As I said, I am most grateful for the welcome that has been given to the orders. In respect of any Home Office legislation that I bring forward, I give the following undertaking and repeat what I said the other day. After Second Reading, I give a general invitation to all colleagues in opposition from any part of the House to come, with advisers if they choose, to have ministerial and official briefings before the Committee stage. I believe that to be a useful way of going forward. I am happy to repeat what I said.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Sudan
9.8 p.m.
Baroness Cox Baroness Cox rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their policy towards recent developments in Sudan.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords who are contributing to this debate because I know that there is widespread concern in your Lordships' House which will, I hope, encourage the Government to strive for yet more robust and effective efforts to achieve solutions to the long-running catastrophe besetting Sudan, which has suffered from civil war for most of the time since independence. But the situation deteriorated sharply when the National Islamic Front (NIF) regime ousted the democratically elected government by military coup in 1989.
I work with Christian Solidarity Worldwide (CSW), which is a human rights organisation working for victims of oppression regardless of creed. We always endeavour to hear the viewpoints of different parties to a conflict before undertaking advocacy. Therefore, in the early days of our work in Sudan I visited Khartoum. I met many of the NIF leaders and was present at the celebrations of the fourth anniversary of the NIF' s coup. I and my colleagues submitted our report to our NIF hosts to ensure that they thought it was a fair representation of their views.
902
It was clear from that visit that the NIF is committed to a jihad. Although that word has diverse meanings, the evidence we have subsequently obtained on repeated visits to many different regions in Sudan has demonstrated that the NIF jihad is the most brutal kind. The regime has the blood of countless numbers of its own people on its hands. In recent years of this civil war, over 1.5 million Sudanese have perished, over 5 million have been displaced and the numbers grow daily.
The policies of the NIF regime include military offensives against, and cold-blooded massacres of, innocent civilians; the politics of hunger to drive people from their land—either to perish from starvation or to have to migrate to NIF-controlled territories where those who are African and/or Christian will be subjected to forced Arabisation or Islamisation; the use of slavery on a widespread, systematic scale; and, for those living in the north who oppose the regime, arrest, imprisonment, torture (often in "ghost" houses) and extra-judicial killings.
Those gross systematic violations of human rights have been well documented and widely reported and are incontrovertible. They form part of the indictment of the NIF in UN Security Council resolutions. The regime also stands condemned for supporting international terrorism and there is disturbing evidence of close alliances between the NIF and other terrorist regimes and personnel such as Saddam Hussein, Colonel Gaddafi and Bin Ladin. There are credible reports that Saddam Hussein may have transferred some of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction to Sudan, as well as experts and materials for the manufacture of those weapons inside Sudan. Many experts, such as the US Congressional Task Force against Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare, have raised questions which need to be taken very seriously, as there is widespread concern that the NIF may be developing a terrorist regime in the heart of Africa similar to the regime that Saddam Hussein has imposed on the people of Iraq. The Sudanese people are suffering in ways very similar to the Iraqi people, and the NIF has supported international terrorism, harbouring and training terrorists, and been associated with terrorist activities abroad.
It is against this disturbing background that I highlight some recent events, based on evidence obtained from visits to areas designated by the NIF as no-go areas by United Nations Operation Lifeline Sudan and other aid organisations—areas in Bahr-El-Ghazal in southern Sudan; in southern Blue Nile; in the Nuba mountains; and in eastern Sudan from Kassala province to the southern Red Sea region. Earlier this year, the media exposed the suffering in parts of Bahr-El-Ghazal, with heart-rending pictures of famine caused by draught and/or floods. The NIF regime then opened up previously designated no-go areas to UN OLS and was praised for so doing. This was undeserved because they should not have been no-go areas in the first place.
However, while the NIF was enjoying those accolades, CSW visited areas still designated as no-go and we saw events that the world was not meant to see.

903
We flew over large areas of Bahr-El-Ghazal and saw smoke rising from numerous villages, set alight in massive raids undertaken by NIF government soldiers, the popular defence force mujahadeen and murahaleen. At Wonruk, we found evidence of massacres on a scale that we had never seen before. The nearby market of Aweng Dau had recently been subjected to one of these raids: civilians were attacked by hundreds of soldiers with kalashnikovs, jeeps, fast horses and camels from three sides and were driven into a cul-de-sac where they were slaughtered. We saw those who had tried to escape. We saw that they had been followed into the bush and mown down. We saw hundreds of bodies crudely buried under branches of thorn trees, or bloated corpses lying in the river Lol or scattered through the bush as they tried to flee. They were civilians wearing beads and necklaces.
We followed the swathe of destruction left by the raiders as they spread their carnage from Wonruk to Mayen Abun 20 kilometres away: everywhere burned homes, burned crops, and the cattle which would not go with the raiders were slaughtered their carcasses intermingled with human corpses.
Civilians who had fled to the swamps, where they could not be followed, were living with no mosquito nets and only roots from water lilies for food. It is estimated that between 30,000 and 40,000 were living in those swamps. Others were hiding in the bush with no food and no protection from mosquitoes. They told us that many of their women and children had been taken as slaves. It is too early to obtain accurate figures but credible sources estimated that many thousands were enslaved.
Our pilots told us that they saw similar destruction covering hundreds of miles. The populations of four counties in these Dinka homelands had been subjected to entirely government-made famine and to massacres. The scale and scope of these attacks merit, we believe, the term "genocide"—a term I do not use lightly.
We returned in July with medical supplies and heard that further raids had taken place. We also met many women and children who had been enslaved in recent and previous raids and who had been brought back by peaceable Arab traders. We saw evidence of their maltreatment: African women sexually exploited, with half-Arab babies; scars and beatings; children who had been enslaved for two or three years, only able to talk Arabic and unable to speak their native language. Slavery is widely practised by the NIF regime. How much longer will the international community tolerate this?
I move briefly to a visit a few weeks ago to southern Blue Nile. Our previous visit was in January 1997, when the NIF had just been driven out. It had inflicted a scorched earth policy. Now the situation has greatly improved under SPLM administration. The people can grow crops and their nutritional status is much better. The area is predominantly Moslem, with a Christian minority. There is religious freedom for everyone and both Moslems and Christians live in harmony. The local
904
Imam told us that he is very happy that the NIF regime was driven out. He and his people now enjoy a new freedom. I quote a few words:
"Now, we can pray in peace with no repression. The NIF regime was not pure Islam; it was highly politicised. The regime talked about a jihad. But that is not true Islam. Their jihad was to take freedom away. I would myself be ready to fight against them because as an Imam I do not believe this is a true jihad".
This encounter with the Imam is a reminder that the war in Sudan is not a Christian-Moslem conflict but that Christians, Moslems and traditional believers are united in opposition against a totalitarian regime, which they see violating human rights and ruthless in its determination to exterminate all who oppose it.
This situation is mirrored in the Nuba mountains, where NIF offensives try to force civilians off to peace camps which are little better than concentration camps. Also it is mirrored in eastern Sudan, where the Beja Moslem people also suffer at the hands of the NIF. We have seen many of them driven off their lands into the desert, where they have to scavenge for a living in harsh conditions, with little or no water, food or medicines. We saw evidence of aerial bombardment of civilians with cluster bombs.
The NIF has continued its aerial bombardment of civilians, even during the ceasefire which the Foreign Minister, Derek Fatchett, helped to broker in good faith. The hospital at Yei has been bombed six times this year, on some occasions during the ceasefire. The Roman Catholic Bishop of the Diocese of Torit, Bishop Paride, addressing the Eighth Assembly of the World Council of Churches on December 5th, said:
"I witnessed two bitter bombing raids carried out by the Khartoum Government … There was no military presence in either of the centres where I witnessed the bombs fall. The recipients are simple. struggling, uninvolved civilians … they plant food. They want to eat; they do not want to depend on relief food. Yet … the devilish bombs from above continually rip their ambitions apart. The planes from Khartoum come almost daily".
The Bishop continued with questions which form part of my concluding questions, so I will ask them in his words as a Sudanese Bishop speaking on behalf of his own people. First:
"The suffering people of Sudan hear that great nations have imposed a no-fly zone on the Iraqi Government of Saddam Hussein to protect the Kurds in Northern Iraq. Our people ask: are we not worth human life to be protected from the Sudanese airforce by imposition of a no-fly zone?".
Secondly:
"Recently, we heard that the President of Yugoslavia was forced by Europeans and Americans to stop the massacre of the people of Kosovo, and to pull out his troops or face the wrath of NATO … What about us in Sudan?".
These are the questions that the people of Sudan are asking through their Bishop.
May I add one or two more. First, while supporting the principles embodied in the IGAD initiative and encouraging continuation of peace talks, will the Government ensure that these talks are not being used by the NIF to play for time while it continues to violate the ceasefire and to bomb innocent civilians? Secondly, will they press the international community to redouble its efforts to prevail upon the NIF to open all of Sudan to humanitarian aid organisations and to human rights

905
monitors? Thirdly, while the NIF persists with its policy of no-go areas for UN OLS and other aid organisations, will the Government step up their support for organisations that are willing to work in these places? Fourthly, will the Government strive to maintain and even increase sanctions against the NIF regime if it continues its policies of gross violations of human rights? Concern has been expressed over the Government's apparent willingness sometimes to violate the spirit of existing sanctions—for example, by granting visas to representatives of the NIF. Finally, will the Government pursue more vigorously a commitment to encourage the representatives of the democratically elected Government of Sudan, now in exile, in ways similar to those adopted for the Iraqi opposition?
I conclude by pointing out that there are many similarities between the regimes in Khartoum and Baghdad. Both represent serious threats to international peace and stability; both have inflicted incalculable suffering on their own people and continue to do so. Their people are crying out for peace with justice. Will this Government, committed to the eradication of global poverty and the promotion of human rights, step up their efforts to relieve the suffering of the peoples of Sudan and Iraq? Will the Government see it as in the interests, not only of the people of those countries but of other countries including our own, to increase their efforts to curtail the threats of national and international terrorism posed by those regimes? Until those regimes are brought to account, there can be no peace for their own people, except the peace of the dead; and no peace for the rest of the world, except the deluded peace of the ostrich.
9.20 p.m.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, I am glad once again to be able to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for bringing this subject to our attention and enabling us to talk about it. Perhaps I may say how very much we all appreciate her courage and persistence in bringing us absolutely invaluable first hand evidence of just what is going on.
I have spoken on the Sudan in the past. In July I was elected to be a joint vice-chairman of the All-Party British Sudanese Parliamentary Group. At that meeting there was mention of the British-Sudanese Public Affairs Council, which has an address in London. I asked about the council because it was new to me and I asked how it was being funded. I was told that it was being funded by the Sudanese Government. If that means that the Sudanese Government are becoming increasingly interested in what is said about the situation there, I welcome that. If at least they want to know what is being said here, we may be beginning to have some possible effect in making them think again.
If a report is going back to Khartoum I hope it might mention that there is widespread development of the whole question of devolution. In this country we have had a great deal of it lately, in Scotland and in Wales, and preparations are in hand in Northern Ireland. There are also signs of increasing awareness in England itself about breaking down into smaller units. We know, too, how the independent countries of the former Soviet Union have been established. There seems to be a
906
worldwide trend towards recognising the diversity of religious and ethnic groups. Let us hope that that message goes to Khartoum saying that it is a worldwide trend and that it is not helpful to stand out against it.
We know that the area of Sudan is some 10 times that of the United Kingdom, although the population is only about half of our own. It is an enormous country. The frontiers are to a large extent a relic of the colonial times when some of our colonial administrators were drawing boundaries for fairly arbitrary reasons. I think that the Government in Khartoum should remember that and not necessarily regard their country as one homogenous entity but recognise its increasing diversity. They should recognise in particular that because of the different religious groups it is folly to try to enforce a uniform regime. The specific problems of the Christian and the animists in the southern part of the country should be recognised. It must be said that they are entitled to have their human rights respected.
There is a need for a rethink. The increasing awareness of diversity will not go away because, as the almost exponential growth of communications technology develops, more and more people in that country will become aware of conditions elsewhere. They will become aware of the increasing emphasis on human rights. Therefore a great pressure will build up which the Government really should face up to.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Salisbury intended to participate in this debate, but unfortunately is indisposed. We regret that because we have had a contribution from the Bishops' Bench in these debates. We all recall the value of the visit of the most reverend Primate to the Sudan and the influence of that visit which gave great encouragement to the Christians there and did much to draw attention not only in this country but also in other parts of the world to the situation there.
I wish to mention the persecution of Christians. A report was published in the spring of 1997 by the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, Issue No. 1426–1693, Volume 5, No. 2 which states,
"Though religious persecution is being experienced by people of different faiths (Moslems, Hindus, Jews, Christians, Bahais and others) the overwhelming majority of cases worldwide have to do with Christians. This situation reflects the fact that Christians are today the single most persecuted religious group in the world".
As we have heard, nowhere is this truer than in the Sudan.
I urge the Government to concentrate their efforts to try to get across to the Sudanese that the situation in their country will become increasingly the focus of world attention, not only in the United Nations but also in other fora. Whilst we welcome the efforts of the aid agencies which have borne some fruit, nevertheless the underlying situation must be tackled.
I hope that what we hear about possible executions of Christian ministers and priests, possible crucifixions, and, of course, the slavery which has been mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, will be assiduously pursued by our Foreign Office Ministers and that they will make the most urgent and strenuous representations to prevent any further such barbaric acts in the Sudan.

907
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for introducing this debate and for enabling us once more to draw attention to this dreadful situation.
9.27 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I was interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, said about the Sudanese foundation appearing at the annual meeting of the British group, as I wrote to Mr. Hoile, the director of that foundation, on a couple of occasions, to ask him to let me have a copy of the report and accounts of his outfit. I never received a reply. It is good to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, that Mr. Hoile receives all his money from the Sudanese Government. I hope that those who receive his literature will take careful note of that.
I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, has said about the fantastic work undertaken by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and her immense energy and courage in pursuing the cause of the oppressed in many areas of the world, not only in Sudan but also in Burma and Armenia. We know of her courage under fire in such places. The work that she does in Sudan is only one of the many examples of her courage. Therefore it is a great privilege to take part in this debate and to discuss once again the important matters that the noble Baroness has raised.
Although I hold no brief for the NIF regime, I contend that the US attack on the alleged chemical weapons factory in Khartoum was not justified by international law and was a political error. I said that to the Foreign Secretary at the time. The Americans produced only the flimsiest evidence for their claim and did not agree to a Sudanese proposal that an independent investigation should be commissioned to which they would have given facilities for conducting tests on the spot. The UN Charter prohibits the use of force by one state against another except for action taken collectively with the authority of the Security Council under Article 42, or in the exercise of self-defence under Article 51, when an armed attack occurs on a member state. In the latter case, the use of force is expressly limited to a period before the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. That means that the circumstances must be such that if the Security Council had had the time, it would have taken measures broadly in line with those taken by the state claiming to act in self-defence. In the case of the bombings of the US embassies in Dar es Salaam and Nairobi, the UN would not have authorised military action on the lines of that taken by the United States, and the American action was therefore unlawful.
The NIF regime has an appalling record of human rights violations, of which the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, reminded us again. She mentioned the policy of deliberately causing mass starvation by excluding the UN's Operation Lifeline Sudan or any other relief operations from Bahr El Ghazal at the beginning of this year, affecting a quarter of a million people in that area as well as 400,000 people in the Nuba mountains. That
908
issue is highlighted in the annual report of Human Rights Watch, just published. The report states that in the Nuba mountains,
"the government continued its efforts to starve civilians out of rebel-held areas into government 'peace villages'. Army troops and Nuba collaborators captured and relocated or killed civilians. They looted and burned villages, animals and grain. A permanent government blockade, in place since the beginning of the war, barred all UN relief operations and even traders from the rebel areas of the Nuba mountains. A private assessment in March estimated 20,000 civilians there were at risk of starvation".
As a result of the world's expressions of horror at the pictures of emaciated people in rural Bahr El Ghazal on the TV, the government of Sudan were compelled to allow relief operations in that part of the country, and the most recent report from Mr. Mohammed Saleheen, the Khartoum representative of the World Food Programme, says that the area is now out of intensive care but still in need of treatment. However, he says that a new humanitarian crisis was developing in Juba, the largest town in the south, as a result of clashes between government troops and the SPLA in eastern Equatoria. Barges are on the way down the Nile carrying 1,000 tonnes of food, which was formerly enough to feed the inhabitants of Juba for some two months, but may not be enough for a population swelled by internally displaced villagers fleeing the conflict areas and dependent entirely on aid. Mr. Saleheen also says that the rainfall was late this year and floods damaged the crops, impairing the region's ability to contribute to its people's sustenance.
Mr. Saleheen does not even mention the Nuba mountains. Perhaps the Minister could say whether that is because the World Food Programme does not have access to the region and thus no information is available to it. What efforts are we, and the European Union as a whole, making to persuade the NIF to open up that region and allow international agencies to save the people from starvation and massacre?
The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, mentioned the case of Kosovo, where we were prepared to use force if Milosevic had continued with a policy similar to that being conducted in the Nuba mountains. The Minister said during a discussion on Kosovo that in a situation of extreme humanitarian disaster we should have been justified in using force there if Milosevic had continued with his policies, in order to prevent extreme humanitarian disaster occurring in that territory. But we cannot depend on such statements, even when they are as authoritative as those of the Minister.
There is an urgent need to define a "right of intervention", a term that authorities sometimes use following Resolution 688 on Iraq. At that time I asked the then Secretary of State, now the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, whether he thought we should seek to amend the Charter to clarify the circumstances in which the international community should have the power to intervene to prevent megadeaths. He thought it would be virtually impossible to get agreement on this issue because states had acceded to the Charter readily for the protection it gave them against international intervention. But, if we do not make the effort, there will be collective action in only a very limited number of cases where the interests of the great powers are not

909
affected. Are the Government prepared to give some thought to this problem in the light of the difficulties that have arisen in Sudan?
It is not only in the south that human rights are violated by the regime in Khartoum. There were many detentions following a series of bomb explosions in Khartoum in June and a high-profile trial of 20 detainees and another six in absentia started on 5th October. The ringleader of the plot was alleged to be Father Hillary Boma, Chancellor of the Archdiocese of Khartoum, and there was another priest among the accused, Father Lino Sebit. It was reported that Father Boma was made to confess in order to stop the torture of his priestly colleague. None of the defendants was allowed to speak to counsel before the opening of the trial, which was before a military tribunal, even though all but one of the defendants were civilians. Eighteen of the 20 were Christian. According to the Washington Post of 3rd December, the two priests could face crucifixion if they are convicted, and this trial is seen as part of the general policy of persecuting Christians, to which the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, referred.
Since 1983 nearly 2 million people have died from war and war-related causes in Sudan. Four and a half million have been displaced or have fled the country and 2.5 million are threatened by starvation and disease, largely created by the government and its warlords. This situation cannot be tolerated on the eve of the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I urge the Government to do everything in their power to bring about a settlement of the conflict which will allow the people of the south to rule themselves and to spread to the whole of Sudan, in the words of the FCO mission statement, the human rights, civil liberties and democracy which we demand for ourselves.
9.37 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, it is remarkable that in a country with one of the worst records for human rights and civil liberties the ordinary civilian people are so patient and long-suffering. It is also remarkable that humanitarian aid is getting through and that the NGOs and UN agencies are able to sustain life, perhaps more constantly and cost-effectively than has ever been the case in Bosnia or Iraq. There is a desperate war going on. Most Europeans are unaware of it. The world has failed to resolve it. But contact between the Sudanese and outsiders is as warm as it has ever been. It is a tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and others who visit Sudan that friendship and hospitality are so often highlighted. I should like to mention here the courage of the noble Lord, Lord Deedes, who still makes a habit of visiting war-torn areas of Africa.
We need to preserve this other, positive image of Sudan. To quote briefly from two young teachers from the Sudan Volunteer Programme:
"The Sudanese are the most friendly people I've ever met … they are so warm and welcoming despite the hard conditions";
and,
"Sudan left me feeling privileged to have access to a country which has so much to offer me which beforehand had been so unknown".
910
I visited Sudan in the 1980s on behalf of Christian Aid to see the work of the Churches in the north and the south. There is something unusual about a country devastated by years of war which still allows aid workers to travel and diplomats to search for solutions at every level. I too am sorry that the right reverend Prelate is unable to be here to describe his recent visit to the Episcopal Church. Many NGOs and Churches are actively working for a peace agreement. It is primarily for the Sudanese to find their own way, but it is not impossible, as it sometimes seems, for outsiders to make a contribution.
With 1.5 million deaths, 4 million to 5 million displaced inside and outside the country, 2.6 million still at risk of starvation, of whom 1.2 million are out of reach in war zones, and the war spilling further into neighbouring states, it is surely time for the outside world to take a more active interest.
There are many parties to the Sudan war beyond the advertised struggle between the GOS and the SPLM/A. There are factions on both sides that are hopelessly split into warring divisions. In the south and east both the Dinka and the Nuer peoples are tragically divided by their sponsors and are now fighting their own brothers. The GOS was recently so frustrated by its militia in Juba that it disarmed it. The maverick former SPLA commander, Kerubino Bol, has managed to change sides at least three times. It is said that when both sides of a conflict are weary and torn apart that is the moment for reconciliation. Yet so long as outsiders, including major powers, provide military support there will always be someone somewhere with enough arms to carry on.
There are some amazing stories of rescue operations, and I shall mention just one. Some noble Lords may have seen a BBC2 programme last month made by Sudanese film-makers about the de-mining work of OSIL (Operation Save Innocent Lives) to provide a safe passage for both local people and relief aid on its way to Bahr-al-Ghazal. In the past year the OSIL team has removed and destroyed 110 anti-tank mines, 1,421 APMs, 609 unexploded cluster bomblets and over 12,000 pieces of unexploded ordnance. One night in September a cluster bomblet dropped by a GOS Antonov entered the leg of a woman who was holding her baby in Yei hospital. It did not explode. A Sudanese engineer from OSIL removed it, without the help of any anaesthetic, so that the mother and child survived. This is a story of Sudanese courage that is repeated many times by the NGOs who work there.
The Sudan war is not confined to Sudan. I was recently in Uganda and again heard stories of atrocities by the Sudan-based Lord's Resistance Army. As part of its grisly war with the Ugandan Army it abducts teenage Ugandan children on the Gulu-Kitgum road, forces them into conscription and brutalises them into compliance. The army must now escort buses and taxis to ensure that the children get to school or take their examinations. Stories about the LRA are well documented. A couple of aid agencies are involved in helping to rehabilitate the children, but no one is trying to prevent it happening. There are many stark cases of human rights abuses in central Africa, but surely this is one to be followed more closely.

911
Aid has continued to reach the people of Bahr-al-Ghazal through the UN and larger aid agencies despite the civil war. However, as the Secretary of State often says, the problem is one of access. At this moment a convoy of seven barges, organised by WFP as part of Operation Lifelife Sudan, is carrying 2,500 tonnes up the Nile from Kosti to Juba. On the way it will deliver food across battlelines and distribute it to some 400,000 people on both sides of the war. These operations recall the Sarajevo convoys. They are among the most courageous being attempted in any war zone. Apart from occasional breakdowns, as occurred in January, they have been remarkably successful. Thanks may be due to the GOS and the SPLM for co-operating with OLS. Yet there are many areas outside the extended ceasefire lines like the Nuba mountains where there is no co-operation, where fighting continues and where over 1 million people are at risk from starvation because they are unable to go back and plant in time for the harvest.
The Minister will set out the UK's record, which will speak for itself. It is a good record. On the humanitarian side, the Government have supported the NGOs throughout, in spite of the Secretary of State's well-publicised intervention during the emergency which may have even helped the appeal. The pro-US position of Her Majesty's Government following the bombing of the Shifa pharmaceutical factory in August has been an embarrassment, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, implied, especially as no one has seen any of the US intelligence reports about the alleged involvement of bin Ladin. However, if the Government can even now make a clean breast of it, surely the way ahead is open for a resumption of normal diplomatic relations.
The humanitarian agencies have a strong interest in the return of our embassy staff to Sudan. I have heard nothing but praise for the way in which Ambassador Alan Goulty and his staff took the side of aid workers and found ways through labyrinthine bureaucracy to secure permissions and safe transit through Sudan. Although I acknowledge that they can still do much, even at a distance, I am sure that the Minister will do everything that she can to ensure that they return to the Sudan soon.
We read a lot about the IGAD process, but years have elapsed and, useful as it has been, many believe that it is time to look at alternatives. Both the GOS and the southern forces have a strong respect and affection for Britain. It may be possible for us to take a more independent line in the Security Council. The Government's response to the report of the International Development Committee urging a new initiative was perhaps, with hindsight, too cautious.
As a result of a powerful recent briefing by four leading aid agencies calling for a more effective peace process and a new humanitarian initiative, the United Nations may finally be notching up Sudan at least above its lost cause status. In some ways only countries like Britain, directly involved and working through the Security Council, can persuade the US to revise its confrontational stance.
912
In conclusion, there are signs that the parties would like a new way out, which may be possible for outsiders to help to negotiate. Every effort must be made to extend the ceasefire from Bahr-al-Ghazal to other areas to allow aid through and to restart the peace process with greater political will demonstrated at the highest level.
9.45 p.m.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I, too, would like to thank my noble friend very much for introducing this debate once again to your Lordships' House. Again, I would like to express my immense admiration for the courage and energy which she shows in bringing this matter before us after her trips made in great danger through that country.
As in the debate a year ago, I would like to concentrate primarily on the peace process. To pick up two points which the noble Earl has just made and endorse them to the Minister, I, too, have received requests that surely the ambassador can return to Khartoum. As I understand it, only Sudanese are currently manning our embassy there. Are we not yet ready to take that step and send the ambassador back, which would be a positive move in the peace process?
Following on what the noble Earl said about the four international NGOs meeting representatives of the Secretary General's office, I would like to say what an encouragement it has been that the UN has sent Sir Kieran Prendergast to visit that region of the Sudan. He has great experience throughout eastern and southern Africa. His going there seems to have been of encouragement to the Sudanese, even if only because it symbolises that the UN is now paying attention to the Sudan.
There is also great encouragement from the fact that the ceasefire in Bahr-al-Ghazal is holding, allowing food to be distributed for relief in that area. In any event, there would be a serious food shortage in that part of the Sudan because of the weather conditions. But the shortage has been made catastrophic and approaching mass starvation because of military action in destroying villages and crops and forcing people out of the areas, as has been said.
I ask the noble Baroness what proposals the Government have for the IGAD meeting in February. I was helped by a letter I had from her right honourable friend the Minister of State about the Government's proposals in the summer, but I wonder how that is moving at the moment.
Previous ceasefires in the Sudan have broken down. I am wondering—and other people have mentioned this—whether there should be an international monitoring team to monitor the ceasefire in the Sudan. I do not know whether many of your Lordships watched the "Panorama" programme on Rwanda last night showing the disaster of Unimar there. I certainly have doubts. It came over to me during that programme that as long as Unimar was in Rwanda many thousands of lives were

913
being saved. The genocide in Rwanda accelerated enormously from the time that Unimar was called out. Therefore I believe that there is a serious case for having an international monitoring team at the right moment in the Sudan.
My second point is for IGAD to extend the ceasefire to all other contested areas. I hope that the Minister will be able to say that that is government policy.
One proposal mooted by the Sudanese Churches is to bring the southern troops south of the 1956 boundary line and to keep the northern troops on the north side. That is a possible historical boundary for a ceasefire. It might also have the advantage of clarifying which group of fighters is on whose side. As the noble Earl said, people change sides and it is not always clear who is fighting for whom. A fixed boundary line could clarify the issue.
Thirdly, I hope that in February IGAD will settle the process towards self-determination for the south. All parties in the process have agreed it in principle. Monitors would be needed to assess the process. However, I hope that in February concrete steps can be taken towards the self-determination process. If so, the grassroots peacemaking and reconciliation that are taking place could lead towards development and reconstruction.
I ask the Government three questions on their policy. I appreciate that on Thursday in Vienna they aim to bolster human rights. I warmly welcome that aim and hope that the result will be positive for all those nations which suffer so drastically. First, will the Government consider supporting NGOs where Operation Lifeline Sudan is not working? I believe that to be the case in the southern Blue Nile region. Food, medicine and education are badly needed in those areas. I know that at one stage the Government were limiting their support to OLS. I hope that they are now moving more widely afield.
Secondly, there is a great need to help civil administrations in those countries which have been set free from the NIF. I hope that the Government can give support in the setting up of the administration and in training people to administer those areas of the country.
Thirdly, I warmly welcome the recent meeting between the Government and various agencies, Churches and societies working in Sudan. I hope that it will be an ongoing programme. I am grateful to the Government for asking for co-operation and partnership between government and the Churches, and warmly welcome the help that I received on a number of issues. I hope that it will be an ongoing relationship, because the Churches can achieve a great deal. The economic and social infrastructure is damaged almost but not entirely beyond repair in many areas and the support of the Government would be helpful.
From its historic as well as current position, the UK must play a leading and positive role. Two million lives have been lost in the past 40 years in the Sudan and it is important that once and for all we put a stop to that. I very much hope that when the noble Baroness winds up she will be able to give encouraging news on the Government's policies in the Sudan.
9.55 p.m.
Lord Birkett: My Lords, I join noble Lords in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, on introducing this short debate and on her continuing courage and determination over the issue of Sudan. I cannot add to her graphic description of the misery and plight of the Sudan. However, one thing in particular appals me. It is that the atrocities she described and the tyrannies which prevail should be in the name of religion. The idea that a holy war should have anything to do with this appals me. I have always thought religion to be a matter of private conviction, private conscience and private philosophy. Once it becomes a tool of government policy, or is urged as a form of patriotism, tyranny is the invariable result. Religious wars and religious persecutions throughout history have produced as much slaughter and human misery as territorial greed, dynastic vengeance or ethnic hatred. And not just ancient history. The last decades of the 20th century have been as bloodstained and ignoble in that direction as any in the chronicles of man's inhumanity to man.
I urge on the Government everything that the noble Baroness urged. I can only echo her plea to them to do whatever they can. But I ask myself, how is one government to persuade another of their inhumanity when that other government are armoured with all the paraphernalia of fundamentalist righteousness? I side with the noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, in believing that the government of the Sudan must somehow be persuaded that the rest of the world, not merely your Lordships' House, regard their behaviour as intolerable in any modern society. Something must be done to stop it. If they cannot stop it themselves something else must be done. But until they realise that the world regards them as anathema to ordinary decent behaviour nothing much will happen. I wish the Government in that endeavour every possible success. I hope that they will be able to pursue the matter with all the diligence at their command.
9.57 p.m.
Viscount Torrington: My Lords, some 30 years ago I had the privilege of flying a small single-engined aeroplane from Uganda to Cairo. In the course of that trip, I flew up the Nile, visiting most of the towns in the Sudan from Juba in the south to Atbara in the north. The thing that most impressed me about the country, in particular in the south, was how lush and green it seemed to be. It was probably the rainy season at the time. One saw a land with enormous potential for agriculture, tourism and wildlife. It is with a terrible sense of sadness that for the past 30 years one has watched an almost continuous civil war and its appalling escalation since the arrival of the NIF government.
My noble friend Lady Cox has adequately described the terrible events which are taking place and there is nothing much I can add. However, I wish to touch on an issue which, in the face of all the human suffering, is perhaps rather minor. It relates to the effects of the Sudan conflict on the neighbouring countries. I am a trustee of several wildlife charities, in particular of Save the Rhino International. That charity has given considerable funding to the last population of northern

915
white rhino which live in the Garamba National Park in the north eastern corner of what used to be Zaïre, now the Democratic Republic of Congo. Unfortunately, the recent events and civil war there caused the administrative personnel in the park to have to be withdrawn. During that time, the rhino and the elephants—the last rideable elephants were the remnants of King Leopold's elephant corps—have largely vanished, disappeared. That is due largely to poaching from starving people coming across from the Sudan.
As the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, mentioned, the effects on Uganda have been appalling. I had first-hand experience of that in June, in that I am a director of an oil company which was undertaking a seismic survey in the Western Rift Valley. Just outside Fort Portal there is a school where 80 children were herded by the Lord's Resistance Army into a dormitory. The dormitory was then set on fire and all the children died. That is an extremely evil terrorist group which tries to give itself an air of Christian respectability but is reputed to be financially and logistically supported by the NIF Government as a way of deflecting Ugandan Government support away from assistance to the SPLA. Whether or not that is true, the cost to Uganda in providing a measure of security in the north-eastern part of the country is a very heavy burden indeed.
I believe that it was the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, who said that the fundamental problem in the Sudan is that we have a Moslem north tied to a Christian and animist south by the stroke of a 19th century bureaucrat's pen. So many of Africa's international boundaries are merely the result of administrative convenience. Little account was taken of ethnic identities. I found it extraordinary that so few African countries have fallen apart. I can really only think of Ethiopia and Eritrea and that was perhaps not a colonial accident. One remembers the Biafran civil war and the Katanga secession attempt. But all of those seem to have been sat on by centrist governments wanting to hold on to resources quite regardless of the ethnic discontent.
Elsewhere in the world, the break-up of Czechoslovakia and the separation from Russia of the Caspian republics, although sadly not the break-up of Yugoslavia, show that separation, devolution, can be achieved without unacceptable strife, often to the benefit of all parties. Even in this country, I fear that we may have a fault line for a future break-up.
However, there must be a strong case for loosening the formal links north and south in the Sudan—devolution, as the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, called it. Clearly, the Sharia legal system is anathema to the southerners. It is possible—we know it in this country—to have two separate legal systems operating together. We have English and Scottish law. There is a splendid example in China now with the basic law operating in Hong Kong separate from the People's Republic of China. Therefore, it can be done. Surely some sort of federal arrangement which recognises those ethnic realities must be the answer for the Sudan.
We all have a few doubts about whether a fair solution to the country's problems is possible under the present NIF government. Their occasional charm
916
offensives do nothing to suggest that they have any commitment to real democracy and, if my noble friend Lady Cox is right, they surely do not. I hope that Her Majesty's Government, with their commitment to an ethical foreign policy and a fresh approach, can bring real weight to bear on that problem and a solution for that unhappy country. I look forward to hearing whether the noble Baroness has any thoughts on new initiatives in that regard.
10.2 p.m.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I too take this opportunity to thank my noble friend Lady Cox for securing this important debate this evening. I pay tribute to her for her timeless work for victims of oppressive regimes with the organisation Christian Solidarity Worldwide.
It is almost exactly a year since your Lordships last had an opportunity to debate events in the Sudan and government policy towards it. In the year that has passed, the brutal policies and practices of the NIF regime continue to put at risk the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent people both in Sudan and abroad. In the past 12 months, the regime's vicious war strategy, which continues to bankrupt the country financially and spiritually, and its support of international terrorism have both delivered deadly consequences.
On the one hand, the famine has locked southern Sudan in its fatal grip while on the other, the United States was provoked into launching an air strike against a suspected chemical weapons facility in Khartoum. There have been some small sparks of hope in the past year and I pay tribute in particular to the work done by the Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in his efforts to secure the extension of the limited ceasefire in Bahr al Ghazal. In the short term that has without doubt alleviated a humanitarian catastrophe of unthinkable proportions.
In his absence the noble Lord, Lord McNair, asked me to place on record his personal hope for closer links between the British and Sudanese Governments, and I do so. However, in June the United Nations officially declared the situation in Sudan to be one of famine, as almost one-tenth of the entire Sudanese population face the prospect of starving to death. The famine has been no arbitrary act of nature; of that there can be no doubt. It is true that southern Sudan is at risk of chronic humanitarian problems every year when droughts devastate crops and displace populations. But the primary cause of this year's famine was war and the tactics of war in which the men, women and children of southern Sudan were used as human pawns as access to vulnerable populations was denied by the Sudanese Government earlier this year.
It is also true that the situation in Sudan raises important questions as to the effectiveness of the current international response to humanitarian disasters. Nevertheless, whatever the cause of the disaster, when people are starving to death they must be fed. They must not be forced to pay the price for the follies of their leaders.

917
The humanitarian aid operation in the ceasefire-for-famine zones has begun to pay dividends. But we are only too well aware of the potentially transient nature of this improved situation. In this House we are all agreed that the only long-term solution to the cycle of humanitarian disasters in Sudan is lasting peace agreed through a negotiated political settlement. A long-term solution to this conflict which, as noble Lords pointed out, has killed over 1.5 million people and devastated the Sudanese economy, remains regrettably as elusive as ever.
Reports have been received that fighting has intensified in recent weeks and that aerial bombardments have been resumed in the south. Given that the Foreign Secretary said that the Government will make it a priority for diplomacy in Africa to build peace and prevent conflict, since without peace nothing else is possible, can the Minister say what action the Government intend to take in the future to instil in both parties—that is, the government of Sudan and the factions in the south—the confidence to pursue peace negotiations within the IGAD framework? What efforts are the Government making to persuade both sides to extend the ceasefire beyond January?
I turn briefly to Sudan's status as a rogue state and a refuge for foreign terrorists. It is a matter of record that the government in Sudan actively sponsored international terrorism and continue to do so. We give our full support to the Government's position that terrorism must be fought in all its forms wherever it may occur and whatever its motivation. However, given the questions raised over the use of the facility following the attack both before and during this debate, is the Minister in a position to confirm the belief of the US Government that the Al-Shifa factory site in Khartoum was indeed a chemical factory, capable of producing a deadly series of chemical weapons and not a pharmaceutical plant as claimed by the Sudanese Government?
Furthermore, can the Minister tell the House what reply the Government have given to the invitation from the Sudanese Government for a United Kingdom verification mission to examine the Al-Shifa factory site? What assessment have the Government made of the reports of dispatches of the German Ambassador to the Sudan, Walter Daum, that the Al-Shifa factory made only medicines and that it was neither protected nor kept secret? What action are the Government taking to investigate the grave concerns that the NIF is working closely with both Saddam Hussein to develop both chemical and biological weapons and with the terrorist Osama bin Laden to launch new terrorist attacks in the future? Does the Minister now have independent substantiated evidence to back the United States' view that, first, Iraq helped Sudan to develop chemical warfare capabilities, given that in March the Foreign Office was unable to confirm that? Secondly, do the Government have evidence that the export of veterinary drugs from the Shifa factory to Iraq may have been used to help cover the export of agents of chemical weapons?
In conclusion, I pay tribute to the work of the British Council which this year celebrated 50 years of operating in the Sudan. I mention also the work of the Malik
918
Society through its project to bring back the last of Lord Kitchener's famous gunboats—the "Malik"—for preservation and restoration in this country. In its way the society does much to foster a spirit of co-operation and understanding between the United Kingdom and the Sudanese people. I hope that the Minister will agree.
10.10 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I too pay tribute to the work and witness of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. I am delighted to take part in the debate which she has instigated. It is a further tribute to her that at this late hour so many of her noble colleagues have stayed to contribute. I believe that is primarily because of the inspiration she has given them and because of their desire to support her in every way that they can. She is an outstanding example of that famous quotation from the great Burke that it is enough for injustice to triumph that good men remain silent. The noble Baroness is a good woman who does not remain silent and she encourages others not to remain silent either.
It would not be appropriate for me to repeat what has been said so eloquently by so many noble Lords on the terrible record of what is happening in Sudan in terms of lives lost; refugees who number, we are told, between 4.5 million and 5 million, and the number of people now registered as facing starvation. It is perhaps one of the worst records of any country in the world in a deeply blood-stained and in many ways profoundly disturbing century which is now reaching its end.
Having said that, I echo what was said most eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan: this is not, as some people pretend it to be, an act of God. This year's Economic Nobel Prizewinner, Professor Amartya Sen, Master of Trinity College, Cambridge, has pointed out that there are no known records of serious famines in any democracy in the world. Famine is, in many ways, an outcome of a brutal government, combined with natural problems and natural disasters. However, in a democracy, the attention of the whole society is drawn to the problems of those confronting hunger and starvation. Virtually any decent state attempts to deal with that situation. Even India, for all its poverty, has not suffered the systematic famine and starvation of a potentially richer country, such as Sudan. Therefore, one cannot allow the government of Sudan to escape substantial responsibility for what is happening. That government know very well that the opportunities to deal with the suffering of their people lie before them and that many members of the international community would be more than happy to try to take part in alleviating such suffering.
There has already been much description of the destruction of farmland, crops and animals and what one can only describe as something close to genocide. The noble Viscount, Lord Torrington, referred to the destruction of the environment and nature in what was once a relatively rich and plentiful country.
We need not rely on only our own evidence; there have been consistent and continuing reports by the former United Nations special rapporteur, Mr. Gaspar Biro,

919
about what has happened over many years in Sudan. It is perhaps worth mentioning that only today an article appeared in the New York Times written by that distinguished leading academic lawyer, Mary Glendon, in which she described Sudan as,
"the worst human rights violator in the world today".
I believe there is a serious problem which perhaps has not yet been addressed in the debate. I refer to the willingness of the government of Sudan to manipulate the goodwill and charity of many non-governmental organisations. I would not be critical of the Secretary of State for International Development for drawing attention to the fact that in her view it was not so much yet more charitable funds that were needed, as willingness and political intent on the part of that government to facilitate access to the poorest parts of the country, to enable transport to be provided, and to direct to their citizens the results of the charitable reaction of much of the world.
Looking back, there is little doubt about the way in which the government of Sudan have literally manipulated Operation Lifeline Sudan by, in effect, blackmailing non-governmental organisations with a terrible choice: either allowing people to starve because of an unwillingness to accept the conditions laid down by the government of Sudan; or, alternatively, accepting those conditions and, therefore, becoming unwillingly in part complicit to the very policies that that government have conducted. I believe this to be one of the most difficult moral questions that anyone has ever had to confront. Indeed, I do not blame the Secretary of State for drawing attention so bluntly to this particular and terrible dilemma.
Perhaps I may repeat the question that was so eloquently asked by the noble Lord, Lord Birkett. Something must be done: but what can be done? I believe that many bodies are involved and I should like to say a few words about each of them. First, the United Nations is involved but, in my view, it has not given as much support over the years to the Special Rapporteur it has sent to the Sudan as it should have done. I hope that the present Secretary-General of the UN, Mr. Kofi Annan, will make every possible attempt to indicate that he cares very much and takes most seriously the reports coming out of Sudan.
Secondly, and still in the context of the UN, we need to look very sharply at the massive exports of small arms—bluntly, some of it from both the US and Europe—which are swamping the Sudan. Indeed, I understand that over 90 per cent. of its budget now goes for the purchase of weapons. The Sudan is as good an example as any in the world of those who put kalashnikovs ahead of bread and those who put warriors ahead of children. It is time we drew attention to that fact and attempted to stop the source of arms supplies to that country.
Thirdly, there is the responsibility of the regional body; namely, the Organisation of African States. Over the weekend I had the privilege of attending a conference on human rights in Valencia, which was attended by, among others, the Secretary-General of the
920
Commonwealth, Chief Anyaoku. He made the point that it is important that regional organisations take responsibility increasingly for breaches of human rights within their own region. Frankly, it is important that those who are parts of a region, whether it be in Africa, Asia or Latin America, recognise their responsibility for ensuring that the rule of law in their region is upheld. Therefore, because I think like a politician, I ask: what can we actually do? I hope that the Government and others will draw the attention of the regional body—the Organisation of Africa States—to the need to ensure that standards are maintained in the Sudan. That will eventually reflect favourably on Africa.
Fourthly, there is the United States. I believe it has a large responsibility in the matter, not least because in 1994 the administration of President Clinton went along with the attachment of conditions by the then government of the Sudan—indeed, the current government—to the operation of the NGOs through the Sudanese lifeline. That administration accepted the idea of access and, for that matter, of provision of aid being essentially conditional upon the will of the government of Sudan. If we draw the attention of Congress to the outrages in the Sudan, not least against Christians, I believe that we could get a response that might surprise us. In any event, the United States has a major responsibility not just to punish what it may regard as events in Sudan about which there is perhaps not quite enough proof but also, more precisely, what is happening internally to Sudanese citizens.
Finally, there are the NGOs themselves and the question about how far they can indicate that, at the very least, the International Red Cross and other bodies should have access to the so-called "peace camps"—that ironic phrase—which house the peoples of the south in what can only be described as something like modern concentration camps.
I conclude by asking the Minister a question. We are told by some, including, among others, my noble friend Lord McNair, that there is now some light dawning in Sudan; that the ceasefire may last beyond the end of the year; that the government have announced their intention to adopt a new constitution which allows multi-party politics; and that, in addition, seven factions of the opposition have now signed the Khartoum peace agreement. I must express some scepticism. Will the Minister say something about these more recent developments in Sudan in her reply? Will she say whether, in her view, they mean anything very solid? Finally, will she say whether Her Majesty's Government will seek the support of the United Nations, the OAS and others in trying to bring about the resumption of civilised and humane behaviour in a country which was held up as a model of what could be the case in Africa, and has now perhaps the lowest standards achieved in that troubled continent.
10.20 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, I too am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for bringing the recent developments in Sudan to the attention of this

921
House. I thank her for the advice that she continues to offer to the Government. As the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, said, the House knows that the plight of the Sudanese people is a subject close to the heart of the noble Baroness. I applaud her for continuing her efforts to improve their situation and indeed for her great courage in doing so.
It is also a subject to which the Government attach great importance and one to which we have devoted a great deal of effort in recent months. This year has indeed seen appalling levels of human suffering in Sudan. Humanitarian agencies assessed that famine threatened some 2.6 million people with starvation, and fighting continues in a war that has gone on, with only one significant break, for more than 40 years.
The Government were quick to respond to the humanitarian crisis. In February, we pledged an initial £4 million in response to the United Nations 1998 Consolidated Appeal for Sudan. At that time, we made it clear that we stood ready to provide further assistance. We have since allocated a further £24 million. The UK is one of the largest bilateral donors. We have committed, both bilaterally and through the EU, over £180 million to the Sudan and Sudanese refugees since 1991, and we stand ready to provide more assistance as the need arises.
But money is only one part of the answer and is only one part of the Government's response. Pictures of starving children in the press and on television are extremely moving—I am sure that we all respond to them—but they do not explain the context of such tragedies, nor do they approach the real roots of the problem, as many of your Lordships have pointed out.
The only long-term solution to this ghastly catalogue of humanitarian disaster detailed by the noble Baroness is the solution advocated by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan—a peace settlement that respects the rights of all the people of Sudan and allows them to rebuild their lives. There will be no end to the horrors of starvation, displacement and other innocents suffering until there is an end to the civil war, as the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, wisely told us.
The Government have therefore been active in promoting the peace process in Sudan with the international community and in the region. Only if Sudan is moved up the international agenda so that interests and efforts are focused on the war and not only on the humanitarian situation will consistent pressure be brought to bear on all sides to the conflict to convince them that a peaceful settlement is the only solution. That was a point made forcefully by the noble Lord, Lord Birkett.
Her Majesty's Government have therefore raised the issue within the EU on a number of occasions. As presidency, on 1st May we issued a statement calling on all parties to implement an immediate ceasefire and urging them to make every effort to come to a comprehensive peace agreement. At the end of June my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary chaired a discussion in the GAC on proposals for a mission that was about to take place. A number of member states are now, as a result, taking a more active interest in the Sudan.
922
In addition, at our instigation, Sudan was discussed at the UN Security Council in May and we have taken part in briefings in July, October and November. The Secretary General now has an excellent Special Envoy for Humanitarian Affairs in Ambassador Vraalsen and, following a visit to the region in November by the Under-Secretary General for Political Affairs—in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams—the UN is now actively considering what further role it might play.
However, such international interest needs a focus. The UK has long supported the Inter-Governmental Authority on Development—IGAD—peace process as the best chance to bring to an end the civil war in Sudan through a negotiated settlement. As well as encouraging IGAD directly, we have also played an active role this year as members of the IGAD Partners Forum—the IPF—of western donors.
My right honourable friend the Minister of State, Derek Fatchett, attended a meeting of the IPF in June in The Hague at which he put forward a proposal for a mission to the region to explore the possibilities of securing a break in the fighting in the areas most affected by the humanitarian crisis. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, for his generous words about my right honourable friend which I shall be very happy to convey to him. Following that meeting, my right honourable friend visited Nairobi and Khartoum in July. During his visit both sides agreed to a three-month ceasefire in Bahr-al-Ghazal which, following further representations, has been extended for a further three months.
This agreement has allowed much needed food and medicine into the areas badly affected by famine. In answer to the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, about humanitarian aid, the United Nations agencies now tell us that the situation has stabilised in most of that region. But it will be some time before people are able to feed themselves and there will be a substantial and continuing need for humanitarian assistance in 1999. We shall continue to work with the United Nations to ensure that this is delivered effectively and efficiently. I can specifically assure the noble Baroness that we shall also continue to press for access to all areas where there is such a need for humanitarian assistance. In answer to the important point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, it is essential that the ceasefire remains in place and that it covers as large an area as possible.
We hope also that the ceasefire will give confidence to the two parties to pursue broader humanitarian and peace agreements within the IGAD framework. The noble Baroness is of course right. We must not see a delay. That is why Her Majesty's Government have been pressing hard for this to happen now, seizing on what we see as a real window of opportunity created by this initial progress and the focus that is now being brought to bear by the international community.
In answer to some of the specific and important points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, perhaps I may go into some of the detail of what has happened most recently and cover, too, some of the

923
important points raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford. Only two weeks ago, two important meetings took place in Rome. First, the IGAD Technical Committee on Humanitarian Affairs met. Out of that meeting came two tripartite agreements—between the Government of Sudan, the Sudan People's Liberation Movement—the SPLM—and the UN. One a security protocol; the other an agreement on means to operate road and rail corridors—the key to tackling the issue of land delivery of relief and an issue raised during the visit of my right honourable friend to which I referred earlier. Again, these not only addressed vital humanitarian issues but should also give further confidence to the parties to tackle more difficult issues.
The second Rome meeting of the IPF, which includes the United States, Canada and Japan as well as the western European countries, sent a clear, strong and, I hope, united message from the international community to the parties and to the mediators. Recognising the current weaknesses of the IGAD regional grouping, we welcomed Kenya's intention to resume "shuttle diplomacy" and urged IGAD to enter into an accelerated and sustained negotiating process.
In answer to the points raised about the IGAD in February, we believe this is an urgent matter. It is a matter that needs addressing now. That is what Her Majesty's Government are intent on doing. We also offered financial and technical support to strengthen the IGAD structures and we shall follow this up with considerable vigour.
Questions have been raised during your Lordships' debate, notably by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, about access. While there is some NGO presence in the most vulnerable parts of the Sudan we remain concerned that there are some areas, notably in the Nuba Mountains, as the noble Lord pointed out, where the Government of Sudan refuse access to OLS and where there are clear humanitarian needs. To answer the specific point of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, Her Majesty's Government continue to press the Government of Sudan to allow access to all vulnerable areas in the Sudan and are working closely with the United Nations towards an improved OLS operation to strengthen the UN's hand in dealing with the Sudanese authorities.
In answer to the point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, we are willing to support agencies outside of OLS where there are unmet priority needs, but we shall work only with those international organisations that are experienced in working in an effective and impartial way with the complex political emergencies that have emerged.
In answer to the points raised by my noble friend Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe—I am sure we all join with him in regretting the absence of the right reverend Prelate, who I am sure would have brought much wisdom to bear this evening—the British staff from the embassy in Khartoum keep in close touch with the Churches. They have done so in the past and are now doing so in the rather attenuated circumstances which prevail. HMA Khartoum raised the subject of the
924
destruction of the Churches with a National Islamic Front leader. Certainly there is discrimination, but the case for persecution is, I think, less clear.
The noble Lord also referred to the difficult case of the two Catholic priests who may face crucifixion. The two priests are among 26 defendants currently being tried for plotting and carrying out the Khartoum bombings in late June and the trial is still continuing. The law in the Sudan provides for corpses to be crucified after hanging, although I should point out to the noble Lord that in recent trials the President has commuted the death sentence to a sentence of imprisonment. I assure my noble friend that we are watching this difficult, unpleasant issue as closely as he would wish.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, before the noble Baroness leaves that point, I hope I may ask her one other question. Does she know whether there are any non-governmental organisations or others observing that trial in view of the fact that a new group of people was substituted for those first apprehended with quite different charges being brought for the same crime? That seems, to say the least, a little troubling.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I do not know what NGO access there is to the trial. As I am sure the noble Baroness will appreciate, NGO access to trials is often a difficult issue. However, I shall make inquiries among officials and write to the noble Baroness on that specific point.
I turn to the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, on the attack on Al-Shifa. The Americans told us at the time that they had compelling evidence proving that the plant was involved in the production of chemical weapons. They said that they had physical evidence of key chemical weapons precursors. We believed that the United States would not have taken the action it did unless it had evidence that it believed was compelling. I am sure the noble Lord does not expect me to go into the details of intergovernment communications and intelligence reports. As the noble Lord is aware, no governments ever do that. But that is what we believed to be the case at the time.
We have raised these issues of the use and manufacture of chemical weapons with the Sudanese Government in the past. Her Majesty's Government strongly believe that the solution is to encourage the Sudan to become a party to the Chemical Weapons Convention. Given that, we could circumvent the endless cycle of allegations and denials as to whether weapons of mass destruction are being made in the Sudan, because a proper verification regime would be put in place.
In that connection, as the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said, the United States is a key component in making significant progress in the Sudan. We work closely with the United States in all our initiatives. It, too, believes that the solution to this issue is a peace process that actually works. We are keeping our lines open to the opposition. The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, asked specifically what we are doing in that regard. My right honourable friend the Minister of State has met

925
the former Prime Minister. We respect the integrity of governments abroad. We have been through these issues before in relation to other countries, but we keep our lines open in a way that I hope the noble Baroness finds helpful.
The noble Viscount, Lord Torrington, raised the issue of Sudan's neighbours. We are aware of reports of involvement of the Sudan with neighbour states, and vice versa. Again, we return to the central point that a resolution of the civil war would facilitate peace in the region as a whole, and that is the key to the Government's policy.
I therefore hope that our objectives are clear to your Lordships: an end to starvation and suffering in the Sudan and hence an end to the fighting. At the same time as continuing to press for improvements in the way relief is delivered, we shall pursue the peace agenda
926
with the IGAD and with international partners. We shall also maintain a dialogue with all parties, including pressing them to respect human rights. I recognise that we shall be in a better position to pursue these objectives when we have British staff back in Khartoum. I assure the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, that we are working towards that end. We are looking to the future and the benefits of dialogue.
To answer the final specific point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, I suspect that I have been rather more upbeat this evening in giving the Government's assessment of what is happening. I do not apologise for that. Her Majesty's Government believe that we have given peace in the Sudan a new priority in our thinking, efforts and policies, and we shall continue to do so.
House adjourned at twenty-three minutes before eleven o'clock.

  Indonesia: Elections
  Indonesia: Elections
  Development Council, 30 November
  Development Council, 30 November
  Miners' Respiratory Diseases
  Miners' Respiratory Diseases
  Renewable Energy: Task Force
  Renewable Energy: Task Force
  School Building Repair Work
  School Building Repair Work
  Merrywood and Pen Park Schools, Bristol
  Merrywood and Pen Park Schools, Bristol
  CJD and Smoking: Deaths
  CJD and Smoking: Deaths
  Medical Expenses: ECJ Judgment
  Medical Expenses: ECJ Judgment
  Diabetic Pen Needles
  Diabetic Pen Needles
  Parliamentary Counsel
  Parliamentary Counsel
  Bombing: Authorisation
  Bombing: Authorisation
  Agriculture Council, 23–24 November
  Agriculture Council, 23–24 November
  Horses: Artificial Insemination
  Horses: Artificial Insemination
  Bone-in Beef
  Bone-in Beef
  Intervention Board Executive Agency: Annual Report
  Intervention Board Executive Agency: Annual Report
  Agriculture: Support Package
  Agriculture: Support Package
  Bio-Invasion: Preventive Measures
  Bio-Invasion: Preventive Measures
  Sheepmeat Surplus
  Sheepmeat Surplus
  Pelagic Freezer Trawling
  Pelagic Freezer Trawling
  Fishing Vessel Engine Power
  Fishing Vessel Engine Power
  Service Married Quarters: Renovation
  Service Married Quarters: Renovation
  Army Recruitment
  Army Recruitment
  Armed Forces: State of Readiness
  Armed Forces: State of Readiness