Sitting of 9 July 1998

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

  LLOYDS TSB BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Order for Third Reading read.
  To be read the Third time on Thursday 16 July.

Oral Answers to Questions
  EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

    Education Action Zones
    Mr. John Gunnell: What is the timetable for (a) applications and (b) decisions on the remaining education action zones which come into effect in 1998–99. [48088]
    Mr. Phil Willis: What plans he has to increase the number of education action zones in the next four years. [48094]
    The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): We had 60 applications for the present bidding round, 25 of which have been chosen to commence from September and/or January 1999, each receiving £750,000 a year for at least three years from public funds and £250,000 from other sources.
    Mr. Gunnell: I thank my right hon. Friend for that information. Can he confirm that the Leeds local education authority can submit an application in the second phase of announcements for zone status for the inner-south Leeds family of schools, having withdrawn its earlier submission owing to reconsideration of the future for Middleton Park high school in my constituency? Will such an application get equal consideration alongside those remaining earlier submissions?
    Mr. Blunkett: I am happy to confirm that applications from Leeds on the lines that my hon. Friend outlined would indeed be welcome. I was greatly impressed with the east Leeds initiative when I went to see it earlier this year with Madame Cresson, and I know the excellent work that is being undertaken by the schools, the governing bodies and the local education authority in Leeds. Should we be fortunate enough next week to secure the resources in the spending review to expand the
    1220
    number of education action zones in the remainder of this Parliament as we intend, Leeds will be a welcome bidder indeed.
    Mr. Willis: I am deeply grateful to the Secretary of State for his final comments. He will know that my former school, John Smeaton community high school, was part of that east Leeds consortium and those words will be welcome there. Does he agree that the Liberal Democrats have strongly supported the introduction of education action zones? Indeed, we welcome their expansion, provided they are successful. Does he also accept that if an education action zone fails, it is the local education authority that has to pick up the pieces, so it is important that LEAs have representatives on education action zone forums?
    Mr. Blunkett: We see education action zones as a partnership. Sometimes the LEA is the chair, sometimes business, and sometimes the schools have led the bid, as is the case with east Basildon and Croydon. Wherever the leadership comes from, partnership is crucial. The representation of all interests ensures that they can work together. Although I share the hon. Gentleman's sentiments about that partnership approach, the pieces would have to be picked up by all working in and being educated in the zone—the schools, the governing bodies and the LEA would be included, but parents and children would be at the receiving end. Our task is to ensure that education action zones do not fail, but we should learn the lessons from them and spread what works best as quickly as possible to the remainder of the education service.
    Mr. John Cryer: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is some concern about the commercial input in certain education action zones? Can he specify exactly what will be the role and input of companies such as Shell in the zones?
    Mr. Blunkett: I want to make it clear that I greatly welcome the tremendous commitment and enthusiasm that is being shown by business, in both cash and kind, to education action zones. I deprecate the abuse that some companies received at the hands of the broadcast media when we made the announcement. The spectacle of Jeremy Paxman and others attacking those who were giving freely of their time and committing their resources, equipment and materials was a disgrace.
    We welcome commitment—whether from Shell, British Aerospace, Marks and Spencer or BT—such as that in Hull, where British Aerospace is linking Hull with Rotterdam, and that in north-east Lincolnshire and Grimsby, where assistance is being given to link every home to schools, so that the network can provide education in the evenings, at the weekend, in the holidays. It is the beginning of a process for the future which will be achieved only if people come together and commit themselves to making it work.
    Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: Schools in education action zones will be buying books, computers and equipment from companies that operate for profit. Does the Secretary of State have any objection in principle to

    1221
    schools or schemes buying management or teaching services from companies that operate for profit, such as the Edison project in the United States?
    Mr. Blunkett: I should be extremely careful not to endorse any private enterprise that is engaged in the education system, as I would disqualify it automatically from any future partnership or bidding process. As people buy equipment, design, cleaning and other services, we will expect the education service, not just in education action zones but elsewhere, to buy expertise wherever and whenever it is required. I make it clear again, as I have done publicly before, that education is not for sale. Education action zones are not the beginning of a process of privatisation.

    Further Education Colleges
    Ms Beverley Hughes: What plans he has to ensure that the members of the boards of corporations of further education colleges are representative of the communities they serve. [48089]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Dr. Kim Howells): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State published on 5 March a consultation paper, "Accountability in Further Education", which addresses the matter. Responses are invited by 24 July.
    Ms Hughes: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. May I inform him that, on a recent visit to my local further education college, I discovered that, of the 22 board members, seven represent staff and six represent local schools and business? Another eight—the single largest group—were appointed by the funding council; and of those, only one lives in the area served by the college. The other seven live up to 30 miles away in highly suburban areas, which are very different from the inner city where the students come from. There is no one from a minority ethnic community, despite the composition of the student group, and there are no parental links among that group with the college. Does he think that right?
    Dr. Howells: I certainly do not think that that is right. We recommended in our Green Paper "The Learning Age" a great deal more accountability for the boards of further education colleges. The changes that we are proposing are designed to assist that process. For example, we shall restore the ability of local authorities to provide governors. Arrangements will be monitored very rigorously by the Further Education Funding Council, and the findings will be available publicly as part of its inspection reports.

    Welfare to Work
    Mrs. Linda Gilroy: What steps he is taking to help people who are unemployed and over the age of 25 off benefits and into work. [48090]
    The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): My right hon. Friend the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities and I launched on 29 June the programme for adult long-term unemployed people,
    1222
    providing £75 a week subsidy, advice and counselling on the lines of the initial gateway for the younger unemployed, and up to a full year's full-time education for those for whom it is appropriate. In pathfinder areas, we are also providing forward funding for the skills initiative, which will help to overcome the skills shortage that has been identified so far by our skills task force.
    Mrs. Gilroy: I thank the Secretary of State for that reply. Does he agree that, for the 678 people in my constituency who are over the age of 25 and have been unemployed for two years, the new deal represents a good deal to help them back into employment? Is he satisfied with the progress in the pilot employment zone in Plymouth, which has already attached 50 people to personal advisers who are identifying personal barriers to getting back to work and staying in work?
    Mr. Blunkett: I am very pleased to give the employment zone and those who got it off the ground the credit that they deserve. It is an excellent initiative and we hope to be able to build on it. We are delighted with the progress made in offering the adult unemployed a real opportunity. Major companies right across the board have been prepared to sign up to the programme since 29 June, and an extra £479 million of new money is going towards helping the longer-term unemployed, on top of the £450 million that is already being put in through the Employment Service, training and enterprise councils and local enterprise companies in Scotland. That makes it possible to give hope to the long-term unemployed at the same time as investing in the future of young people.
    Mr. Andrew Rowe: Is the Secretary of State aware that some elements of the voluntary sector, especially those with long experience of helping people back into work, have been rather disturbed by some of the language used by his Department, which appears to imply that they have no role in the programme? Will he take this opportunity to say that that is not the case?
    Mr. Blunkett: Yes, I am happy to do so. In each of our initiatives, as I said earlier in relation to education, there is an emphasis on partnership. The voluntary sector and those with long-standing experience have an essential part to play not only in delivering the programmes but in giving advice on imaginative ways in which we can re-engage with those who, often through no fault their own, have been out of employment for a very long time.
    Mr. John Healey: Does my right hon. Friend agree that programme centres have proved more successful and more popular among the long-term unemployed, whom they were designed to help, than the Employment Service jobsearch programme? Is he aware that Rotherham is one of the national pilot centres, and that one of our two programme centres, run by QMAT—Quality Management and Training Ltd.—will celebrate tomorrow its 300th client placed in work? Given that the pilot programme centres have already proved their worth, what plans are there to extend the centres throughout the country?
    Mr. Blunkett: I am delighted to commend the work that has been done in Rotherham, and those 300 people

    1223
    have clearly benefited greatly from programmes tailored on a modular basis to their specific needs. The same principles are beginning to be applied across the board. Employment zones, with the personal job accounts, are also a new and imaginative way of making progress. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities and I want to build on the experience that has been gained and develop the programmes more widely.
    Mr. Paul Keetch: Is the scheme under the new deal for unemployed over-25s compulsory? The design document suggests an element of compulsion, but it is not exactly clear. If there is compulsion, does the Secretary of State agree that, to offer no fifth option for the unemployed under 25 might be acceptable, but to offer no third option for the unemployed over 25 is not acceptable?
    Mr. Blunkett: Attending for interview is compulsory, but taking one of the options available in the programme for the longer-term unemployed is not. When we develop our pilot programme from November, with £129 million of new money and programmes tailored for the 12-month to 18-month unemployed, further options will be available based on the principles set out for the under-25s.
    Mr. Andrew Reed: I welcome the announcement that the over-25s will benefit from the new deal. In my constituency, the vast majority of the unemployed are over 25. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that one of the pilot projects to be launched later this year will be in Leicestershire; and that we are still on schedule to get the over-25 unemployed in my constituency back to work as soon as possible?
    Mr. Blunkett: Yes, I can confirm that that will be one of the pilots, with Fernley business services. It will provide a way for us to test out the most effective and imaginative ways of ensuring that we put behind us the scourge of allowing people to languish on the unemployment register without the prospect of being able to earn their living.

    Unemployment
    Sir Teddy Taylor: What assessment he has made of the likely trends in unemployment in the UK over the next two years; and if he will make a statement. [48091]
    The Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities (Mr. Andrew Smith): By long-standing convention the Government do not publish forecasts of this kind.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: While some of us think that the general outlook is rather depressing, does the Minister accept that the special problems of seaside towns like my constituency, where unemployment is particularly high, deserve his attention? One of my wards has 25 per cent. unemployment, yet we are denied all kinds of grants because we are counted as being in travel-to-work areas where unemployment is much lower.
    Would the Minister be willing to have a special look at this problem, particularly over the next two years? Would he discuss with other colleagues in the Cabinet the
    1224
    possibility of changing the travel-to-work area basis for grants, bearing it in mind that in Southend we have lots of unemployment but no grants whatever?
    Mr. Smith: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, we have as part of the new deal and our wider welfare-to-work initiative looked at the problems of seaside areas and the particular issues of seasonality as a factor in unemployment, and we have amended the criteria for early entry to the new deal programme to allow personal advisers the discretion to admit people early where seasonality and the pattern of work have been damaging prospects for employment.
    I hope that the hon. Gentleman and other colleagues who represent seaside areas will acknowledge that we appreciate their particular needs. The hon. Gentleman referred to definitions of areas for particular help, and the matter is under consideration. It is primarily the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade; I shall make sure that the hon. Gentleman's concerns are drawn to her attention.
    Ms Hazel Blears: As my right hon. Friend is aware, the Manchester City Pride partnership responsible for delivering the new deal in Salford has applied to be a pilot project for the extension of the new deal to the long-term unemployed. Would not that be an excellent way to attack the unemployment problem, particularly in inner cities? A key issue for people wanting to become self-employed and to start their own business is access to capital, but in many inner-city areas, that is difficult. What help can the Minister provide to ensure that unemployed people have a real chance to set up their own business and so reduce the unemployment which is the scourge of many inner-city areas?
    Mr. Smith: As part of the new deal for the young unemployed, help and advice will be available on progress to self-employment, and that will include advice on access to capital. As part of the new deal for the long-term unemployed, which started on 29 June, we shall extend access through work-based training to self-employment help and business start-up support. Where local TECs, like City Pride, can make that available, that will also be a feature of all the pilots which will be starting in November. I cannot endorse any particular pilot because we have to make a selection judged on the merits of the case, but I recognise the high quality of the delivery of the new deal for the young unemployed in Manchester.
    Mr. David Willetts: The Minister may not want to forecast unemployment now, but before the election he was happy to promise that he would make savings in benefits to unemployed people in order to spend more on education. Will he confirm that the number of unemployed people claiming benefit is now rising? Is that why the Government are incapable of delivering their pledge to raise the proportion of GDP on education spending?
    Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman would do well to recall that since the Government were elected to office, employment has risen by 300,000, unemployment claimants are down by 270,000, and International Labour Organisation unemployment is down by 265,000.

    1225
    The hon. Gentleman referred to recent trends. In the first quarter of this year employment increased by 60,000 and unemployment decreased by 35,000.
    When the public hear these claims from the Opposition, they will not forget that it was the Conservative Government who took unemployment above 3 million, who condemned more than 1 million young people to unemployment, and who presided over interest rates at 15 per cent., inflation at nearly 10 per cent., and record levels of bankruptcies and repossessions. There can be no return to the boom and bust and the incalculable damage inflicted on the British people by the Conservative party.

    Moral Instruction
    Mr. Tony McWalter: If he will issue guidance to schools to develop the capacity of school students to reason about moral issues; and if he will make a statement. [48092]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Ms Estelle Morris): The advisory group on education for citizenship and democracy has identified moral reasoning and responsibility as a vital component of citizenship in its initial advice and will be making final recommendations in July.
    Mr. McWalter: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and for her interest in the question. Does she accept that many people leave school with an elementary or poor grasp of moral concepts and moral reasoning, and that perhaps we should get on with this matter with rather more haste than we have so far?
    Ms Morris: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. We could not have acted with more haste—we set up an advisory group that has looked at this issue, among others, and reported within the first year of the Labour Government. I look forward to further recommendations from the group and in due time to seeing citizenship, which includes moral reasoning, represent a full part of the curriculum for all our students.
    Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Does the hon. Lady agree that denominational schools are well placed to make a contribution in this process? Does she share my concern that, having gone out to public consultation on the issue following a previous outcry, the Liberal Democrat-controlled Devon county council has introduced a charging regime on parents who want to send their children to denominational schools, using figures described by the principal of Cuthbert Mayne school as nonsensical? Is it possible that, in the study that the hon. Lady mentioned a few moments ago, she might consider the question of denominational transport? While it clearly is not her fault that this situation has arisen, she is now in a position to do something about it.
    Ms Morris: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on managing to bring denominational transport into a question about moral reasoning. It is for him to deal with what local Liberal Democrats are doing in the area that he serves. I agree with the first part of his question, however. I am greatly persuaded when I visit denominational schools in my constituency and beyond
    1226
    that they have a clear understanding of the shared values of the religious community. Part of the work on this aspect of education involves the encouragement of all our schools to acknowledge the shared values that are so important to every community—both school communities and the wider community.
    Mr. Eddie O'Hara: Does the Minister agree that the way to develop moral reasoning is not only to impart knowledge to pupils but to give them the opportunity to put that knowledge into practice by interacting in curricular and extra-curricular activities? That is a good example of how both didactic teaching and active learning have their part to play. Those who overemphasise passive learning are pointing the route towards moral illiteracy among pupils.
    Ms Morris: I have some sympathy with what my hon. Friend says. It is important to remember that giving children the opportunity to develop moral reasoning is not about telling them blindly to obey what other people say but about teaching them to become active citizens, to understand shared values and to grasp why there is a need for right and wrong both in school and in the wider society. That is what we aim to do with the extra emphasis that we are putting on citizenship. We want to enable students to grow up to be full and active citizens. That means teaching why we have right and wrong and why moral values are so important to society.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: Is it not ironic that politicians should be talking about giving moral guidance to schoolchildren in a week in which the phrases "cash for access" and "Tony's cronies" have passed into the political lexicon? Is it not doubly ironic that this talk should be happening at a time when religious education and religious moral guidance are continually under pressure in schools?
    Ms Morris: It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman should raise that issue—one that I thought might be raised. One of the reasons why we set up our advisory group on citizenship, including moral reasoning, so speedily was that we saw the lack of ability to develop moral reasoning in the past as one explanation of why the previous Government thought that it was acceptable to receive cash for questions.

    Local Education Authorities
    Mr. Mark Todd: What proposals he has to redress inequities in resources allocated to local education authorities. [48093]
    The Minister for School Standards (Mr. Stephen Byers): We are currently reviewing the education standard spending assessment formula and the additional education needs index with the objective of achieving a fairer system. Decisions will be taken in the autumn.
    Mr. Todd: I thank the Minister for the time that he spent meeting representatives of two deprived schools in my community, Newhall infants and Church Gresley St. George's. May I draw his attention to comments made by David Hart, the general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers, who described the current

    1227
    system for allocating money to schools as grossly unfair? May I also draw his attention to the discrepancy between Derbyshire, where a primary school child receives support to the tune of £1,275 a year, and Kensington and Chelsea, where a child has £2,384 spent on his or her education? Can he explain or justify such a difference?
    Mr. Byers: I do not intend to justify a system that we intend to change. We inherited from the previous Government a system under which the additional education needs index, which is supposed to measure poverty, lists Torbay as being more impoverished than Sheffield, and Barnsley as being in less poverty than Bournemouth. The system is clearly fundamentally flawed, and we will change it to ensure a fairer system for counties such as Derbyshire so that money can be invested in schools in areas that deserve funding.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: Do I take it from that reply that the Minister does not deny a report in the Evening Standard a week ago that the Government plan to transfer funding from London to other parts of the country? [HON. MEMBERS: "Good idea."] My constituents will be interested to hear that. As the Minister is undertaking a review, will he consider seriously the need to increase funding in London because of huge cost increases exemplified by an alarming increase in vacancies for teachers in the metropolis?
    Mr. Byers: We will move to a fair and transparent system for allocating resources. The standard spending assessment regime is only one part of the picture, and it must be considered alongside the comprehensive spending review, which will be made known to the House next week. Together, the review and the new assessment regime will put in place financial support so that every school can deliver high standards and the quality of education that our children deserve, both in London and elsewhere.
    Ms Joan Walley: I thank the Minister for turning his attention recently to the needs of education in Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire. His review of the SSA will be crucial in dealing with the year-on-year cumulative underfunding our schools have suffered. May I refer him to the recent Coalfield Communities campaign report, which will tell him that educational achievement in Stoke-on-Trent averages 30 per cent. whereas the national average is 45 per cent. Will his fair and transparent review take into account the needs of Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire?
    Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend has been a strong campaigner for schools in her constituency and in Staffordshire. I am sure that the steps that the Government have already been able to take to assist schools in her constituency are making a difference at long last. However, that is only a start. Step by step, we must continue to invest properly and effectively in schools in her constituency and other parts of the country. I am confident that the outcome of the comprehensive spending review next week will bring money to modernise our schools system, money for reform and money to deliver the quality of education that our children deserve and our nation needs.
    Mr. David Willetts: Does the Minister agree with the Secretary of State, who admitted to the Select
    1228
    Committee on Education and Employment the other day that the proportion of national income devoted to education fell during the Government's first year of office compared with our last year in office? Does he agree that that is the opposite of what Labour pledged to the electorate? Will he say how much it would cost to meet the pledge to increase educational expenditure as a proportion of national income?
    Mr. Byers: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was referring to the budget for 1997–98, which was set by the Conservative Government when the hon. Gentleman was in office. I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I condemn the fact that a reducing proportion of national wealth was going into education, but that is the legacy of his Government. Next week, it will begin to change because we shall have the outcome of the comprehensive spending review when Labour's priorities will be identified. They will include not waste, but education, health and other areas in which people want investment.
    Mr. David Drew: What progress has been made on the stripping out of common costs? It is bizarre that while the cost of employing a teacher in most parts of the country is similar, that factor is not taken into account in the standard spending assessment.
    Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend raises an important point about the area cost adjustment factor in the education standard spending assessment. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is the lead Department on those matters, but I confirm that it has begun a review of how that factor works within the SSA. The outcome will be announced some time in the autumn.

    Grammar Schools
    Mr. Graham Brady: How many representations he has received from parents of grammar school pupils in the recent consultation document. [48095]
    The Minister for School Standards (Mr. Stephen Byers): The draft grammar school ballot regulations were issued for consultation on 3 June. The consultation period is continuing and will end on 31 July.
    Mr. Brady: I thank the Minister for that answer. Will he accept my warm congratulations on the wisdom that he and his colleagues have shown in selecting Ashton-on-Mersey school in my constituency as a beacon school? Does he agree that that is a tribute to a selective system of education that is working well? The pupils who do not go to grammar schools in the borough of Trafford, far from being consigned to failure at the age of 11 as he and Labour Members suggest, are consigned to beacon schools. Is that not a tribute to a system of education that has some of the best results in the country?
    Mr. Byers: No, it is a tribute to a Government who are prepared to put dogma to one side in the interests of children. The 75 schools that we announced as beacon schools on Tuesday demonstrate a range of abilities and talents, whether they are selective, non-selective or comprehensive. Wherever they are, if good work is going on, we want them to share the secrets of their success.

    1229
    We will put the interests of children first and we believe that the interests of all children are best served in a non-selective education system.
    Mr. Damian Green: I am interested by the Minister's comment that he is against dogma, but against selective education as a matter of dogma. Among the 75 beacon schools that he identified this week as providing best practice was Torquay grammar school. Will he confirm that he would not want that school to be changed in any significant way because he has identified it as a beacon school? Will he urge local Labour activists to desist from any attempt to change its status, lest parents, governors and teachers at the school think him guilty of hypocrisy?
    Mr. Byers: The future of Torquay grammar school is a matter for local parents in Torquay, as is appropriate. I have no doubt that if a school is doing well, it will have parental support and there is nothing for it to fear. Let us be open. The policy of the Labour party and the Government is clear. We are not going to return to the days when at 11, the majority of our children were condemned as failures so that a few could have a superior education. Our goal in government is to ensure that all children have a high-quality education, and we intend to achieve it.

    Family-friendly Employment
    Mr. Vernon Coaker: What steps he is taking to promote family-friendly employment practices. [48096]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Alan Howarth): We are working across Government to promote family-friendly employment policies in a range of ways. My Department's contribution includes the national child care strategy and publicising the business case for such policies.
    Mr. Coaker: Does the Minister agree that this is a most crucial area of Government policy and that, if we are to bring about change in the country, family-friendly employment practices are extremely important? Does he agree also that there is a long way to go in terms of increasing employers' awareness of all that is available and bringing the standards of practice of the poorest employers up to the standards of the best?
    Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. There is much happening through the national child care strategy and the policies set out in the "Fairness at Work" White Paper, which reflect the importance that my hon. Friend and I and the Government attach to family-friendly policies. I appreciate that it is a complex story, and we shall make every effort to explain the case. We have produced a summary version of our Green Paper on child care, which is available on the internet and in a range of languages in accessible formats. We are supporting parents at work by producing a pack for employers. This afternoon, I shall meet Joanna Foster, head of the National Worklife Forum, which is a campaign sponsored by industry to make the case for family-friendly policies.
    1230
    I shall brief business men next week for an hour at breakfast—when I hope that my hon. Friend's alarm clock will not have gone off.
    Mr. Roy Beggs: Does the Minister accept that more families now depend on the income of both parents to ensure reasonable living standards for them and their children? Does he accept also that, although the situation will be improved by the introduction of the minimum wage, more friendly employment practices would be achieved if employers provided more flexible working hours for mothers of young children and creche facilities for the children of working mothers?
    Mr. Howarth: I agree very much with the hon. Gentleman. More and more employers are recognising the business case for family-friendly employment practices. Such practices mean that they will be able to recruit from a wider pool of labour and retain workers whom they have trained to skill levels. Productivity will be greater because there will be less stress and absenteeism among the work force. Employers can help in a variety of ways: by supporting the child care costs of staff, sponsoring places in out-of-school clubs and holiday play schemes, linking their employees with child minding networks and operating flexible working hours and term-time working. In all those ways, employers can help their colleagues in work to balance their obligations to the employers with their obligations to their families.

    Child Care
    Mr. Tony Clarke: What steps he plans to take to ensure the safety of children in child care facilities. [48097]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Alan Howarth): The welfare of children under the age of eight in day care facilities is protected by statute under the Children Act 1989. This Department and the Department of Health jointly published a consultation paper on 27 March which poses a range of questions about the future regulation of early education and day care.
    Mr. Clarke: Is the Minister aware that only one in three child care workers are subject to police checks and that this is due largely to inconsistencies among local authorities? Some local authorities check only their staff while others check their staff and those in the voluntary sector. In light of the Government's planned increase in child care provision, will the Minister ensure that there is greater consistency and access to police checks, thus affording more protection to our children?
    Mr. Howarth: The safety and welfare of children is paramount among our concerns. We shall focus on it continuously in the expansion of child care that we are determined to bring about. Part X of the Children Act 1989 requires local authorities to register and inspect day care settings and child minders and, in that context, to satisfy themselves that a person is fit to care for

    1231
    young children. Many local authorities use police checks, but that is not at present a statutory requirement. That is a key issue in our consultation.
    Miss Anne Begg: What arrangements he intends to introduce for the delivery of the national child care strategy at local level. [48098]
    The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): Local child care partnerships—forums in Scotland—will be established and built on in every area of the country. They will enable us to use the £12 million that we have allocated this year to establish the structures for the development of the child care strategy of the future, building on the Green Paper "Meeting the Childcare Challenge".
    Miss Begg: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that there is still great variation in both the quality and level of child care, depending on the locality in which one lives. In my own constituency, a play group will not be meeting next year because it failed to find suitable accommodation. What was lacking was co-ordination to make sure that all the different aspects of child care that make up a child care strategy were in place in a locality. May I urge my right hon. Friend to ensure that such co-ordination is present in each locality, to make sure that the different elements required to make up a full strategy are in place?
    Mr. Blunkett: The local partnerships will ensure not only that there is co-ordination, but that we do a thorough audit of what already exists; that we put in resources to save projects that are viable and popular but are currently threatened; that we build on those by expanding those partnerships to incorporate new child care facilities, including the voluntary and private sector; and that we prepare for the introduction of the working families tax credit child care disregard, which will make it possible for millions more parents to take advantage of satisfactory, high-quality, properly inspected child care—[Interruption.]—in a way that has never before been possible in the United Kingdom and was never even thought of by the Conservative Members who are currently barracking me.

    National Music Service
    Mr. David Kidney: What standards he will set the national music service for the teaching of music. [48099]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Ms Estelle Morris): We have no plans to create a national music service. However, I can assure my hon. Friend that we do recognise the contribution that music can make to every child's education, and its importance in supporting children's cultural, spiritual and social development. That is why my Department's recent consultation paper, "Fair Funding: Improving Delegation to Schools", proposes new funding arrangements to protect existing local music services.
    Mr. Kidney: In Staffordshire, there is an excellent music service, as I am sure the capacity audience who were at Birmingham symphony hall last Sunday will testify, after hearing 1,000 Staffordshire schoolchildren perform before them. My hon. Friend's consultation on possible central funding of the music service is of concern to areas such as Staffordshire that already have an excellent service. Will she assure me that there will be no dumbing down of music teaching in Staffordshire in the event of moving to central funding? The objective of equal access to music, both learning and performing, is excellent, but will she take the time to ensure that any change in funding leads to effects that are harmonious, not discordant?
    Ms Morris: I am sure that last Sunday's performance by Staffordshire schoolchildren at the international convention centre, which is a very special hall in Birmingham, was well worth attending. I assure my hon. Friend that the reason for the change is to protect music services, because they have not been protected in the past and year on year, there have been cuts that have damaged what is an essential part of a child's education and development. I can give my hon. Friend the assurance he seeks that the change is not about dumbing down, but about enhancing and extending opportunity, so that never again will music in our curriculum be threatened as it has been in the past.
    Mr. Nicholas Soames: In endorsing the words of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) about Staffordshire children's musical ability, may I say that the same is true in my constituency and in West Sussex? I am sure that the Minister knows that anything that she and the Government can do to improve music teaching and the music service in this country will be greatly welcomed. However, does she agree that there is an opportunity to establish regional centres of excellence for music teaching? Perhaps it would be a good idea to select one or two schools in each region that have exceptional musical skills and to channel children to those schools for special teaching.
    Ms Morris: The hon. Gentleman has raised that question with me before and I have said that we are sympathetic to the idea. That is why we are putting far more resources into the specialist schools initiative, which now allows schools to make bids to specialise in music. One or two weeks ago, I was able to announce the first of the specialist schools that will concentrate on music; I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that.
    I know that the hon. Gentleman will also welcome, as has been welcomed throughout the education and music world, the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport that we shall launch the youth music trust, which will enhance opportunities to learn and practise music, not only in school, but outside school. We are determined that music will play its part in the exciting programme of out-of-school learning that the Government have launched. Children will have the opportunity to spend extra time on and to have access to extra expertise and resources in learning and practising music, as in many other subject areas.

    New Deal
    Mr. Ivan Lewis: If he will make a statement on the voluntary sector's contribution to the new deal. [48101]
    The Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities (Mr. Andrew Smith): I very much welcome the important contribution that the voluntary sector is making to the new deal. It has been involved from the initial planning and design stages to the delivery of gateway services and the provision of work and training opportunities. Those are now operating throughout the country, with scores of voluntary sector organisations involved, making places for thousands of unemployed young people.
    Mr. Lewis: I welcome the central role that voluntary organisations have been given in delivering the new deal programme across the country and in my constituency. Will my right hon. Friend consider the problem that is increasingly experienced by voluntary organisations with existing projects that are working across Employment Service boundaries? They are finding it difficult to gain access to the contractual process because they are not confined to one geographical area, but their innovative projects would give young people the opportunities that they need to gain skills. Will my right hon. Friend clarify how such organisations that work across geographical boundaries can gain access to the new deal so that they can offer opportunities?
    Mr. Smith: Yes, the new deal is a flexible and pragmatic programme, and we are developing it in response to need and potential. We are currently reviewing the operation of contracting in the new deal. There is nothing to prevent any voluntary organisation from contracting for more than one unit of delivery in the new deal, but I realise that the co-ordination of that might involve complexities that would particularly tax smaller voluntary organisations. I will ensure that the review considers that issue and that appropriate guidance is given, because we want to make the most of the enormous potential offered by the voluntary sector.
    Mr. Don Foster: In view of the success in the pathfinder areas of the voluntary sector option in the new deal for the under-25s, will the Minister explain why there is not a similar option for the over-25s? Will he explain in more detail his plans for voluntary sector involvement in the new deal for the over-25s, particularly in view of the answer that he gave earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch)?
    Mr. Smith: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred in an earlier response to voluntary sector involvement in the new deal for the over-25s. I underline that the new deal for the long-term unemployed not only fulfils our manifesto commitment to make available subsidies of £75 a week to employers taking on unemployed people over 25 who have been out of work for more than two years, but goes well beyond that commitment in opening up thousands of full-time education and training opportunities. What is more, in the pilots that we are developing for November, which will open up opportunities to 90,000 people who have been
    1234
    unemployed for 12 or 18 months, there will be a specific range of options, including the full involvement of the voluntary sector, for which the hon. Gentleman asks.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: The Minister will remember that a few weeks ago, I mentioned the good work of Skillshare in my constituency, which provides much of the work that Skillshare does in other parts of the country and is under threat of closure because of the withdrawal of funding by Lancashire county council. The Minister has written to me about that, although he offered no hope whatever, but will he today congratulate Skillshare on obtaining funding from a trust set up by Ultraframe, a private firm in my constituency? Its owners, John and Rosemary Lancaster, have today guaranteed funding for the next 12 months. Will he also take a fresh look at ways in which he can assist organisations such as Skillshare to ensure that they will have some hope of life after the 12 months is up?
    Mr. Smith: I commended Skillshare, along with other voluntary sector providers to the new deal, in my answer to the hon. Gentleman last month. As he says, I have written to him, and I have encouraged those in the field to make contact with Skillshare to find out what help can be made available. This is not, perhaps, the week unreservedly to endorse any commercial sponsorship arrangements without knowing the details, but if Skillshare is able to continue to provide good-quality support to programmes that help the hon. Gentleman's constituents, no one will welcome that more than me.

    GCSE Students
    Mr. Barry Sheerman: If he will estimate how many students achieving average and above average results at GCSE level do not continue into further education. [48102]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Dr. Kim Howells): The youth cohort study of 1996 showed that 44 per cent. of all GCSE candidates in England achieved at least five passes at grades A* to C. Of those, some 2 per cent. did not go on to any form of further education or training.
    Mr. Sheerman: I am grateful for that information, but it does not exactly square with what I have from the House of Commons Library, which suggests that only 90 per cent. of high-ability students go on to further education and that about 40 per cent. of average students are lost to further education. Even if we split the difference, the situation is serious. Could not my hon. Friend encourage sixth-form colleges and the rest of the further education sector to take a leaf out of the book of the private sector, and to start looking at their supply chain to see what happens to good-quality students who fail to go on to A-levels and university? Saving those kids before it is too late must be the best investment that could be made in the education sector.
    Dr. Howells: We are revamping the careers service to concentrate on precisely those young people who appear to be dropping out when they should be going on to further study. It was a great pleasure for me this morning to launch a new initiative called the Eagle campaign,

    1235
    linking St. John's college, Cambridge, with Lambeth local education authority. It will try to construct compacts with schools in the area to encourage children to reach for the sky in their educational attainment. That is important. Far too many of our universities tend to look beyond the towns and wards that surround them and search nationally for students, when they should be looking on their own doorstep and finding out how to encourage young children to raise their aspirations and sense of self-esteem so that they go to university and good further education colleges.
    Mrs. Theresa May: If further education colleges are to encourage more students to come through their doors in the innovative way suggested by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), they need to retain their independence and flexibility in order to innovate and provide the courses that best meet the interests of the local community and local employers. Is the Minister aware of the concern in the further education sector that the Government might reduce independence and impose the dead hand of centralisation on the sector? Will the Minister take this opportunity to give some comfort to the sector by assuring it that at least the Government will not reduce the proportion of business governors on the corporation bodies of further education colleges?
    Dr. Howells: We are not interested in placing dead hands on anything; we are interested in tearing off the dead hands that the previous Government imposed on so much of the education system. We will open up the accountability of further education college boards so that they reflect the communities that they serve. That means that they will be able to tap the full potential of the community, not just friends of business men who happen to have been placed there by the previous Government.
    Ms Margaret Hodge: Does my hon. Friend agree that the previous Government's legacy of the worst participation rate of 16 to 18-year-olds in education of
    1236
    any of our major competitors is disgraceful? Will he give serious consideration to the proposal in the report by the Select Committee on Education and Employment to abolish child benefit and transfer those resources to a means-tested allowance for students as an incentive for young people to remain in education?
    Dr. Howells: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friends in the Department are looking very closely at post-16 provision in this country. In doing so, we shall talk to every other Department in Whitehall about how it might be possible to move towards the optimum in terms of persuading young people to partake in education and training after 16. We shall be looking at every possible means of attaining that; no holds are barred.
    Mr. Tim Boswell: At least the Minister spared us the suggestion that his aspiration is to ensure that all children are above the average, but leaving that aside, will he acknowledge that the most important thing is to cause them to aspire to achievement, and to provide the means of giving them the information to achieve their full potential? In that connection, will he remember the importance of the further education colleges and—despite his somewhat grudging remarks—the remarkable fact that, when a previous Administration gave them their independence and released their energies, the level of participation and of involvement rose with unprecedented speed?
    Dr. Howells: I would be the last person to begrudge the achievements of further education colleges. I believe that they have done a superb job, especially given the appalling situation in which they found themselves under the previous Government. That is why two thirds of them found themselves in very difficult financial circumstances, and why they must cut their way out of the jungle of absurd bureaucracy that characterises the brokering of education in further education colleges in this country.

Business of the House
3.30 pm
Sir George Young: May I ask the Leader of the House to give us the business for next week?
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 13 JULY—Opposition Day (17th allotted day). Until about 7 pm, there will be a debate that the Opposition have entitled "The Crisis of Manufacturing and the Deterioration in Industrial Relations". That will be followed by a debate that they are calling "Incompetent Management at the Department of Social Security". Both debates will arise on Opposition motions.
Consideration of a Lords amendment to the Teaching and Higher Education Bill [Lords].
TUESDAY 14 JULY—Estimates Day (2nd allotted day).
There will be a debate on the UK beef industry, followed by a debate on the structure and funding of university research. Details will be given in the Official Report.
At 10 pm, the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.
Remaining stages of the Registration of Political Parties Bill.
WEDNESDAY 15 JULY—Until 2 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) (No. 2) Bill.
Consideration of any Lords amendments that may be received to the School Standards and Framework Bill.
THURSDAY 16 JULY—Debate on public expenditure on a motion for the Adjournment of the House, which will follow a statement on the White Paper on public expenditure, which will take place on the previous Tuesday, the 14th.
FRIDAY 17 JULY—Debate on NATO enlargement on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
The provisional business for the following week will be as follows:
MONDAY 20 JULY—Second Reading of the Northern Ireland Bill, which will be published next week.
TUESDAY 21 JULY—Opposition day (18th allotted day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, the subject of which is yet to be announced.
WEDNESDAY 22 JULY—Until 2 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Consideration of any Lords amendments that may be received to the Government of Wales Bill.
Progress in Committee of the Northern Ireland Bill.
THURSDAY 23 JULY—Consideration in Committee of the Northern Ireland Bill.
FRIDAY 24 JULY—Consideration in Committee of the Northern Ireland Bill, which I envisage will be brought to a conclusion on Monday 27 July.
The House may also be asked to consider any Lords messages that may be received.
1238
[Tuesday 14 July 1998:
Estimates Day [2nd allotted day] Class IV, Votes 1 and 2: Intervention Board-Executive Agency and Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in so far as they relate to the UK beef industry. Relevant reports: third report from the Agriculture Committee, Session 1997–98, on "The UK Beef Industry" (HC 474) and the Government's response thereto (HC 720). The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Intervention Board departmental report 1998 (CM 3904). The second report from the Welsh Affairs Committee, Session 1997–98, on the "Present Crisis in the Welsh Livestock Industry" (HC 447).
Class V, Vote 2: Department of Trade and Industry: Science in so far as it relates to the structure and funding of university research. Relevant reports: the first report from the Science and Technology Committee, Session 1997–98 on "The Implications of the Dearing Report for the Structure and Funding of University Research" (HC 303-I) and the Government's response thereto (HC 799). The Department of Trade and Industry's departmental report: "The Government's Expenditure Plans 1998–99" (Cm 3905).]
Sir George Young: The House is grateful to the right hon. Lady for next week's business and for an indication of the business for the following week.
This morning we had further leaks from the Government, this time on the roads programme. Does that not underline the need for a statement on the much-delayed White Paper? Can the right hon. Lady help the House by saying when that might be?
When might we debate the reductions in the defence budget that were announced in yesterday's strategic defence review? Have we lost the two remaining one-day debates on the Army and the Navy?
Last week, my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) asked for an assurance that the Government's proposals on the North sea oil tax would be given in an oral statement. The Leader of the House could not give an assurance at that time, as she had not considered the matter, but there is much uncertainty on that, and it is of great interest in Scotland. Can she give an undertaking that that decision will be announced in an oral statement?
In the light of the difficulties that have confronted the Government over recent days, on which the Leader of the Opposition focused with such effect yesterday, may we have a debate on the new rules of conduct that are being circulated by the Cabinet Secretary, so that the House can judge how effective they might be in disengaging Ministers and their special advisers from the rest of the circle that the Prime Minister built up around him in opposition?
Finally, can the right hon. Lady shed any further light on the likely date of the summer recess? Last week she said that it was clear that the House could not rise before the end of July. I appreciate the turbulence in the programme, but if she could share her latest thinking with the House, we would all be grateful.
Mrs. Taylor: I shall try to be as helpful as possible. On the suggestion of a leak on the roads programme, I did indeed hear some of the speculation this morning, all of which concluded with comments to the effect that the

1239
Deputy Prime Minister had all the schemes on his desk and had yet to make decisions, so I do not think that the decisions have been taken, let alone leaked.
I hope that we can have a statement on the White Paper on transport before the House rises. There is great pressure on time, but I am looking to find time for such a statement.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about a debate on the strategic defence review and the days on the Army and the Navy. I believe that it will be possible to have those debates in the spillover period. If so, it will of course be possible for the views of the Select Committee on Defence to be taken into account—I understand that the Select Committee intends to comment on the defence review.
I cannot guarantee the right hon. Gentleman the statement that he requested on North sea oil. There are many decisions still to be made and many demands for a statement. Some judgment must be exercised.
The right hon. Gentleman says that the new rules of conduct are to be circulated by the Cabinet secretariat. Perhaps I may remind him what the Prime Minister said yesterday:
"I have instructed the Cabinet Secretary, therefore, to revise the rules that we inherited that govern such contracts and to strengthen them in any way that he thinks fit."—[Official Report, 8 July 1998; Vol. 315, c. 1065.]
We are working to the rules of the previous Government, and if there is a need for strengthening, that will happen.
The announcement of any recess is always subject to the progress of business: that is especially so this year. With that proviso, I hope that it will be possible for the House to rise on Friday 31 July, but I cannot yet guarantee that, as we still have some extremely important business, including the Northern Ireland Bill, which I mentioned in my statement. We must make progress on that and on other outstanding matters that have yet to be debated in the House.
Mr. Richard Burden: Will my right hon. Friend have further discussions with the Opposition about the timetabling of their business and the issues selected for debate? I ask that in the light of events last Friday, when Opposition Members—one of whom, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), I see in the Chamber—talked out the Fireworks Bill. They implied that in doing so, they had the support of the firework industry. However, they had no such support and have been told so by representatives of the firework industry, who said that the actions of the Opposition could contribute directly to an increase in firework-related accidents.
As Opposition Front Benchers stated that they wished to give the Bill a fair wind, will my right hon. Friend propose to the Opposition that they make some of their time available, so that we can ensure that firework-related injuries go down rather than up as a result of irresponsible actions of Opposition Members?
Mrs. Taylor: Many people both outside and inside the House would be appalled at the behaviour of those who sought to prevent that Bill from making further progress last week. Firework-related accidents are an important issue. I hope that those who stopped the Bill will have a clear conscience because they will bear a great deal of
1240
responsibility for any further problems that might arise. The Opposition said that they would give the Bill a fair wind. They acted irresponsibly, and I can well understand why my hon. Friend and others say that the whole procedure for private Members' Bills must be considered by the Modernisation Committee.
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Given that the timetable is under pressure and that the Leader of the House is anxious, through her Committee, to reduce the number of late sittings, will the right hon. Lady acknowledge that the Government could make a contribution by accepting on Monday the amendment passed by a substantial majority in the other place? Will she acknowledge the comment of Lord Russell that, if the Government do not accept that modest and reasonable amendment, it will raise the question of whether they want a revising Chamber?
When will the Prime Minister either correct or confirm his statement that medical students will be exempt from student fees? Obviously, those students would like to hear him confirm that that is Government policy.
May I endorse the plea by the shadow Leader of the House for an early statement on North sea oil and gas taxation? The Leader of the House may be surprised to hear that The Press and Journal (Aberdeen) led on that story this morning. Tens of thousands of jobs are at risk as a direct result of the Government's failure to give a clear statement on something that they promised in April.
Mrs. Taylor: I have nothing to add on the last point.
We shall not accept the Lords amendment in Monday's debate. Indeed, I have found that accepting amendments rarely leads to shorter debates, but we shall not support the amendment because we do not think that it is right. The hon. Gentleman quotes Lord Russell; I remind him that Lord Dearing spoke and voted for Labour's position on the matter.
Mrs. Linda Gilroy: Reference has already been made to the demise of the Fireworks Bill. We spent five hours debating a range of narrow amendments, and at the conclusion of the debate we were discussing a tidying amendment. The Bill has been thoroughly scrutinised in both Houses and has been through both Houses' full procedures. May I seek discussions with the Leader of the House about what opportunities might be available to bring back the most essential parts of that measure? I know that the CBI's explosive industry group has written to my right hon. Friend to say that it considers the consequences for firework safety in the millennium celebrations to be extremely grave.
Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend makes an extremely serious point. Many of us were pleased when she decided to introduce that private Member's Bill on such a serious safety issue. As she points out, the CBI and many others are extremely concerned that we should make progress. I can make no promises about future progress, but I am certainly willing to meet her and to discuss the matter.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: In view of the unfortunate connotations of the way in which the Labour party's ridiculous campaign on cool Britannia has gone,

1241
will the Leader of the House try to make time for the House to debate the British Council, which does invaluable and remarkable work for this country overseas? To my shame, its budget was cut under my Government and it needs more resources to enable it to carry forward its remarkable work of promoting British culture throughout the world.
Mrs. Taylor: I am not sure about the hon. Gentleman's reference to cool Britannia, but I endorse what he says about the good work of the British Council. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House have been happy to help the British Council from time to time and we appreciate the good work that it does. There will be an Adjournment debate on the issue next Wednesday morning, so perhaps the hon. Gentleman could catch Madam Speaker's eye then.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Will my right hon. Friend arrange a debate on early-day motions 6 and 318?
[That this House should impose new restrictions on the activities of potentially-corrupting commercial lobbyists in influencing parliamentary decisions, in order to improve access to Government and honourable Members by those groups and individuals who cannot afford to employ lobbying organisations.]
Both were tabled more than a year ago; the first calls for a new, rigorous system for controlling lobbying in the House, and the second draws attention to the dangers of insider information being supplied to lobbying firms by new employees who were previously employed by political parties.
Although a great deal of humbug has been spoken over the past few days, it is worth recalling that, only two years ago, many Conservative Members were described as having their snouts so deeply in the trough that all that could be seen of them was the soles of their feet. We have a serious problem: we have failed to control lobbyists whose main work is to ensure that their rich and powerful clients become richer and more powerful, to the detriment of other clients and other people who cannot afford their services.
Mrs. Taylor: I agree with my hon. Friend that a great deal of humbug has been spoken on this topic in the past few days. He will recall that Lord Nolan considered controlling the activities of lobbyists and decided that there were important restrictions in terms of taking further action. Many of us would be concerned if it was suggested that the House of Commons should license lobbyists and give a seal of approval to certain ones, which is one of the proposals that has been made. I accept that there is concern about certain activities; the House should make it clear that the allegations have been about the way in which lobbyists conduct themselves, not about the way in which Members of Parliament or Ministers conduct themselves.
Mr. Michael Colvin: The right hon. Lady confirmed that there will be a debate on the strategic defence review when the House resumes after the recess. Will she confirm that it will be a two-day debate? To assist the House, I can confirm that the Select
1242
Committee on Defence will have a report ready on the strategic defence review. The dates of the recess are immaterial to us, because we shall be working throughout the recess to get the report ready so that hon. Members can take it with them when they visit the beaches. Our job has been made somewhat easier by being able to start on our study four weeks earlier than expected because of the leaks that have taken place.
Mrs. Taylor: I hope that the Select Committee on Defence did not waste too much time on the various and conflicting so-called leaks that were circulating in advance of publication. I confirm that I should like to provide time for a two-day debate—obviously that will be subject to further discussions through the usual channels—and I am pleased that the Select Committee will be able to do its work. I am happy to confirm that many Select Committees do extremely good work during the recess, which knocks on the head the idea that the recess is simply a holiday for hon. Members. A lot of work is done, not only by the Select Committee on Defence, but by many others.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there should be new legislation regarding the activities of lobbyists, especially in the light of the fact that in the past few days there has been an opportunity for us to clean up the Augean stables? Fortunately, that opportunity has come at the beginning of the Parliament, not at the end. Does she agree that the day that lobbyists become more important than Ministers and Members of Parliament will be the day that democracy dies?
Mrs. Taylor: I remind my hon. Friend of what I said about the Nolan committee. His basic point about lobbyists being more important than Members of Parliament is very alarming.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: During yesterday's defence statement, I strenuously, but unsuccessfully, attempted to catch your eye, Madam Speaker. I fully realise, being of limited physical stature, why I was not called.
Will the right hon. Lady confirm that there will be no further statements by any Defence Minister before the debates in the overspill? I ask that because I clearly heard the Secretary of State for Defence say yesterday that the Minister for the Armed Forces would be making further statements about the Territorial Army very soon. Will she please clear the matter up? It is extremely important to both Welsh regiments, and I hope that she will be able to give some assurance about this delay.
Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman asks that there be no further statements. I hope that he is not suggesting that no further details should be given, and that no questions should be answered by the Department. We now have the strategic defence review, and hon. Members will be able to read it. The normal decision-making process will continue, and if other information should be made available, that will be done in the usual way.
Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick: May I bring to my right hon. Friend's attention the fact the Commission for Racial Equality has decided that the

1243
leaflet distributed by Poplar and Canning Town Conservative association in Newham in May this year is in breach of the guidelines to which all political parties signed up, in that it contained offensive material? My local newspaper, the Newham Recorder, also regard the leaflet as racist. Despite having written to the Leader of the Opposition three times, I have yet to receive a response with the Conservative party's official view of this literature.
May I also draw to my right hon. Friend's attention the fact that there is a by-election in Custom House and Silvertown ward in Newham? In conflict with the spirit of the Registration of Political Parties Bill, which is going through Parliament at the moment, a candidate is standing in that by-election under the name of Real Labour. Coincidentally, four of the persons nominating the Real Labour candidate had nominated Conservative candidates at the borough elections in May. Should time be set aside to debate the dirty tricks that Poplar and Canning Town Conservative association seems to be playing?
Mrs. Taylor: All of us should be concerned if offensive material such as my hon. Friend describes is being circulated. I hope that the Opposition Front Benchers will ensure that the Leader of the Opposition replies to my hon. Friend soon.
As my hon. Friend said, the Registration of Political Parties Bill is before the House. I am not sure whether there will be scope for him to raise this matter on Tuesday. Descriptions of candidates, nominations and the use of terminology are being investigated by the Home Office, and ideas have been sought to ensure, for example, that candidates cannot abuse the names of other political parties. I shall certainly draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the Home Secretary's attention.
Mr. Stephen Day: In her statement, the right hon. Lady said that she hoped that the Government would be able to announce the results of the review of the roads programme before the House rises, which is welcome news. It is essential that she is clearer about the Government's intentions and that she guarantees that a statement will be made before the House rises. If decisions about bypasses and major road schemes were to be made when the House was not sitting, and if those decisions were adversely to affect areas such as Cheadle—where we desperately await completion of the Manchester airport eastern link road—the people of Cheadle and elsewhere would be furious with the Government.
Mrs. Taylor: I said that I envisaged a statement on the White Paper and that the roads review announcements would follow that. I shall ensure that hon. Members receive proper information, and I expect that to be available before the start of the recess.
Dr. George Turner: The Government have made it clear that they intend to replace the existing standard spending support for local authorities with a much fairer system. Will my right hon. Friend assure us that the House will have an opportunity to discuss that issue before decisions are taken, so that we do not whinge afterwards? She will be aware that Labour Members represent the majority of rural constituencies. The history of spending has dominated Government
1244
support in the past, and we are frightened that the history of spending in the past 18 years could determine that of the next three. Will she assure me that the House will be given a proper opportunity to influence what happens, and that we will debate the issue before decisions are taken?
Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend will understand that there is no scope for a debate on this matter in the near future. However, there are many other ways in which hon. Members can influence the decisions of Ministers. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions has published a range of consultation papers, and has invited comments from anyone who wants to contribute to that decision-making process.
Mr. Eric Forth: Will the Leader of the House please provide an opportunity, next Thursday and every subsequent Thursday, for the Prime Minister to come to the House to correct the obfuscation and errors of fact that he perpetrates each Wednesday?
Mrs. Taylor: There is absolutely no need for such a statement.
Mr. David Winnick: If the situation at Drumcree were to worsen, would the Leader of the House consider arranging a statement that would—I hope—give members of all parties in the House an opportunity to make it clear that the rule of law must prevail? Should it not be made clear that the recommendations of the Parades Commission—which was set up with the authority of Parliament—should not be ignored, that both communities are expected to accept such recommendations and that there must be no repeat of what happened 24 years ago, when the undermining of the rule of law led to action by mobs in the street? In those circumstances, I hope that the Opposition will make it clear that they fully support the Government's attempts to ensure that the rule of law prevails in Northern Ireland. I see the hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), the Opposition spokesman on Northern Ireland, nodding in agreement.
Mrs. Taylor: I hope that circumstances will not arise in which such a statement is needed.
I believe that all hon. Members are very concerned about the position in Northern Ireland. We all hope that the progress made so far in the peace process can be maintained, and I think it is incumbent on all of us to do everything that we can to maintain it.
Sir Robert Smith: Is the Leader of the House aware that Ministers promised an oil taxation consultation paper in mid-April?
Will the right hon. Lady find time for a debate or statement on a wider issue affecting the North sea—the Government's position at the conference on the Oslo-Paris convention, involving the removal of oil platforms and discharges of nuclear waste? Surely it makes sense for the House to debate the Government's position before the OSPAR conference, rather than being faced with the rubber-stamping of a decision made at the conference after it is over.
Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman must understand why it is not possible for me to find time for such a

1245
debate. It may be appropriate for him to apply for an Adjournment debate; but we shall have the usual three-hour Adjournment debate before the summer recess, at which issues of that kind—along with any others that concern hon. Members—could be raised.

Royal Assent
Madam Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Registered Establishments (Scotland) Act 1998.
Pesticides Act 1998
Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) (Amendment) Act 1998
I have been extremely remiss. I was going to allow the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) to catch my eye at the end of business questions. Will the Leader of the House allow me to call him now?
Mrs. Taylor indicated assent.
Madam Speaker: It is my fault; I am so sorry.
Sir Patrick Cormack: I am extremely grateful to you, Madam Speaker, and to the Leader of the House.
The Leader of the House will have gathered from the comments of her hon. Friends the Members for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) and for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) that concern about recent events is not limited to Opposition Members. When my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) asked about the new rules of conduct, the right hon. Lady said that new rules were being drawn up; but my right hon. Friend asked for a debate on those rules. May we have a response to that question? If the right hon. Lady cannot promise a debate before the House rises for the recess at the end of this month, may we at least have an undertaking that the rules will be published, and will be widely available?
Mrs. Taylor: I cannot see any prospect of a debate on any improvements that we might make to the rules, which we inherited from the previous Government, in the near future. As for publication, it is currently intended that the same procedures should apply.

National Health Service
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Jane Kennedy.]
3.58 pm
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): As you know, Madam Speaker, it is exceptional for the House to devote a whole day's debate to a celebration, but that is what we are doing today, and it is right that we should join the rest of the country in marking the 50th anniversary of the national health service, which has served our country so well for so long, and in thanking all the people working in the NHS and their predecessors for doing such a wonderful job. There have been church services, a royal garden party, major conferences and hospital open days—even a special rose has been produced—for the 50th anniversary.
On a personal note, it has been a great privilege to take part in the celebrations, to have the honour of being Secretary of State for Health at such a time and to have the opportunity to share in the rejoicing over the success of the most popular institution in Britain. It is all the more a privilege to be a Labour Secretary of State for Health at this time, because the national health service was founded by a Labour Government, is based on Labour principles and is our party's greatest contribution to improving the lives of the people of this country. Since it has existed, no one concerned about their health has had to worry about not being able to pay the doctor.
Fifty years ago, our country was emerging from the aftermath of the second world war. That war—the most destructive in the history of humankind—had dealt a series of body blows to our country and our people. It had laid waste to homes, schools and hospitals, destroyed factories, and blitzed harbours, railways, roads and bridges. Yet despite all those huge problems, a new spirit was abroad. To win the war, the people of this country had worked together and had shared its perils. They were determined to share a better and fairer future. A new bargain was struck—everyone accepted a duty not merely to try to provide for themselves, but to help provide for others. Whoever was doing well would pay in to provide for others who fell ill, lost their job, had an accident or grew old. They could do that in the sure and certain knowledge that if they in turn fell ill, lost their job, had an accident or grew old, others would pay in to look after them.
Thus Labour's welfare state, including the national health service, was born. The NHS was founded on the principle that the best health services should be available to all—the best for all, quality and equality. That appealed to the fair-minded people of our country. It still does. No one dares challenge those principles. No one says that the best health services should not be available to all. Of course, it did not appeal to the Tories, who fought tooth and nail against the establishment of the NHS. They did not merely put up a token resistance; they voted against its general principles and its detailed proposals. The Tories voted 51 times against Labour's proposals to establish the NHS—one vote for every year that we are

1247
talking about and, no doubt, one for the pot. They did not merely vote against it, but denounced it—they railed against it. According to them, the NHS
"will destroy so much in this country that we value."—[Official Report, 1 May 1946; Vol. 422, c. 232.]
It
"would be a fatal step."
It would sap
"the very foundations on which our national character has been built."
One Tory woman Member predicted:
"bitterness will result"
and even went on to say that it
"may lead to civil war".—[Official Report, 30 April 1946; Vol. 422, c. 81–91.]
Another said that it would be
"the death knell of the family doctor"
and another generous spirit said that it was
"a very carefully prepared measure of highway robbery."—[Official Report, 1 May 1946; Vol. 422, c. 205–61.]
All those predictions were made by the Tories under the moderating influence of debates in the House of Commons—what they said outside, God only knows. Since then, some Tories have claimed that they did not oppose the NHS. All that I can say is that they had a funny way of expressing their support.
Despite the efforts of the Tories, in Parliament, in the press, and in the more backward parts of the medical profession, my most distinguished predecessor Nye Bevan pressed on with turning his great vision into reality and, despite everything that they could do to obstruct it, the NHS came into being on 5 July 1948. Because of Tory propaganda, it was not particularly popular up to that point, but no sooner was it up and running than it soared in popularity. It has been that way ever since. The NHS is remarkable; it is one of the few examples in history of something that proved more popular in practice than when it was just a nice theory.
Mr. David Winnick: In view of my right hon. Friend's reminder of Tory opposition to the creation of the NHS, would not it be an appropriate moment for the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), who speaks on behalf of the official Opposition, to apologise to the British people?
Miss Ann Widdecombe indicated dissent.
Mr. Winnick: The way in which the right hon. Lady dismisses the suggestion demonstrates only too well that, had she been around at the time, she would have been the staunchest opponent on the Tory Benches to a concept such as the NHS.
Miss Widdecombe: How does the hon. Gentleman know?
Mr. Winnick: It is obvious from the right hon. Lady's attitude.
Mr. Dobson: To the best of my knowledge, not a single member of the then parliamentary Tory party rebelled
1248
against the Whip, which resulted in 51 votes against the establishment of the NHS. I do not like to demand anything of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe); what she does is up to her.
In 1947 and 1948, some said—and some still say today—that we could not afford the best for all and that the principles of the NHS were not practicable and could not be delivered. The past 50 years have proved them wrong; the NHS has served this country well. Most of the time, most people in most parts of our country have received top-quality treatment and care. The NHS has proved to be the cheapest and most cost-effective health care system in the developed world. That is not despite the principles on which it is based but because of them. Fairness and cost-effectiveness have gone together; they are two sides of the same coin.
The NHS is paid for out of taxation, so it is free to people when they use it. That is not just a fine principle; it is efficient. It avoids the need for costly paperwork that is inevitable in systems in which patients must pay. That is one the main reasons why our system is so cost-effective. Our tax-based NHS puts a bigger proportion of resources into patient care, and a lower proportion into paperwork. That is true even after the worst excesses of the Tories' attempted introduction of an NHS internal market.
The NHS works well in practice. It is not just a success story; it is a brilliant bargain. Let us compare our spending on health with that in the United States. The United States spends twice our proportion of national wealth on health, yet women in Britain live as long as women in the United States, and British men live longer than American men. The state of our health compares favourably with other major European countries, although we spend less on health care. I cannot claim that the NHS alone is responsible for our favourable international health rating, but it is certainly responsible for favourable comparisons on cost. That is a vital economic asset.
At any given level of performance, our system consumes less of the national wealth than others. Its benefits do not stop there. Funded from taxation, it imposes little direct cost on employers. Countries with other systems finance their health care in a way that places high non-wage costs directly on employers; ours does not. That keeps down the cost of employment here and helps our businesses compete in world markets. Our low non-wage employment costs are generally recognised as one of the major attractions for foreign company investment.
One can see why, deep down, the Tories do not like the NHS. The national health service is based on a socialist ethic, it is superior in principle, it works in practice, and it is the most popular institution in the country. It is no wonder the Tories do not like it. It is no wonder they tried to introduce competition and left it in such a state. They left us a system that had set doctor against doctor and hospital against hospital—a two-tier system of health care, underfunded, overworked, overstretched—which managed to keep going only because of the dedication of its staff, who had been battered from pillar to post, whose professional views had been ignored and whose commitment had been taken for granted. It is not enough today to celebrate the past. We must plan for a better future. We have to modernise the

1249
service, and that will take time: a long time. When it takes at least three years to train a nurse and six to train a doctor, shortages cannot be ended overnight.
The new Government have already provided more resources. We have put into the NHS £2 billion more than the Tories planned, and £1 billion more than the Liberal Democrats promised. That is still not enough, which is why we shall shortly announce more money for the NHS for the next three years.
It is not a question only of money. Like everyone working in the NHS, and like patients and carers, we recognise the need to improve and modernise. New hospitals, new plant and equipment, new technologies and new drugs must be provided. New ways of working will be required. New arrangements must be made to enable doctors, nurses and midwives to keep up with ever more rapidly changing technology. Unlike the previous Government, we are consulting the people involved about how best to make the changes that are needed. We have to carry the full support of the professions if patients are to benefit in full from all the new opportunities that modern technology has to offer.
Mr. Simon Hughes: The Secretary of State links the view of the professions and the cost of the health service. Does he accept that all the consultation has shown that there is general agreement among the professions that, merely to stand still, the NHS needs 3 per cent. real growth per year, and that just short of £9 billion has to be announced next week in order to achieve that over this Parliament?
Mr. Dobson: I will save next week's announcement for next week.
Miss Widdecombe: The Secretary of State was not asked to prejudge next week's announcement. He was asked whether he agreed that, in order to stand still, the sum required would be just short of £9 billion. He was not asked whether or over what period it would be made available. Is £9 billion required merely to stand still?
Mr. Dobson: The Tory sum has increased. The last time Conservative Members asked the question, it was £8 billion, and now it has gone up to £9 billion; if I say that we will find more than £9 billion over the weekend, it will go up to £10 billion, and the Liberal Democrats will come in at £11 billion. People have waited for six months or more for the result of the comprehensive spending review, and when they hear it, I hope that they will be satisfied.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Do not leak anything, Frank.
Mr. Dobson: My hon. Friend and I are alike: we never leak anything.
The NHS has been underfunded and beleaguered, and change has come to be seen as a threat. Some economists talk about the threat of people living longer, the threat of new technology or the threat of new drugs—strange people, economists. Think about it: how many of us feel threatened by the thought of living longer? It seems a good idea to most people.
1250
Is new technology a threat? As a teenager in the 1950s, I saw my father waste away and die from kidney failure. Today, the new technology of transplants or dialysis could probably have saved his life. Given the resources and the help to cope with it, new technology is not a threat; it is an opportunity and a promise.
New drugs are another new opportunity. With new drugs, we can cure diseases that not long ago were incurable. A short course of tablets can replace painful, dangerous, invasive surgery. New drugs are another opportunity, provided that the people working in the NHS have the resources and the help and guidance on how best to make use of them.
What have we done since we got in? For a start, we have put together the biggest hospital building programme in the history of the NHS. New hospitals are planned for High Wycombe, Calderdale, Hereford, Wellhouse in Barnet, Worcester, Bishop Auckland, South Manchester, South Tees, Swindon, Bromley, Newcastle, Reading, West Middlesex, Dudley, Walsgrave in Coventry, Central Manchester, Gloucester, University College hospital in London, in my constituency, King's College in London, St George's in London, the Royal London in Whitechapel, Sheffield and Hull.
Mr. Alan Duncan: Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. Dobson: Abide a minute. Work has already started on new hospitals at Dartford and Gravesham, Carlisle, Norfolk and Norwich, High Wycombe, Durham, and Greenwich. What a contrast to the Tory record—£33 million paid out to the lawyers and accountants and nothing got started at all.
Mr. Duncan: Will the Secretary of State give a firm undertaking to the House today that all those hospital building programmes that he has just listed will definitely go ahead?
Mr. Dobson: We certainly intend that they should go ahead—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] It may well be that one or two fall by the wayside, but I have to say that we found them lying on the wayside, left there by the useless lot that we followed. They never got one of them started. The roof has been put on Dartford and Gravesham and I am shortly to do the topping-out ceremony at Carlisle. The only thing that was topped out when the Tories were in was the topping-out of the wallets of the lawyers and accountants whom they got in.
Dr. Peter Brand: Does the Secretary of State intend to rely on private finance initiatives for that impressive list of hospital building? Is there no concern that he might have to up his £9 billion estimate in future years to pay for the enormous revenue tail that the PFI contracts will create for the NHS?
Mr. Dobson: I do not know where people dig these figures up from. Certainly, a substantial number of the ones that I have read out are PFI schemes. I am confident that, whatever else, the hospitals will get built, they will be built on time, they will be built to price, they will come into operation and they will provide a service for people. That is what people want.
Lorna Fitzsimons: My right hon. Friend does himself a disservice and hides his talent under a

1251
bushel. He forgot one very important development. I had the honour to cut the first sod of my hospital in Rochdale, to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the NHS. Would my right hon. Friend like to take this opportunity to rectify his mistake and add Rochdale to his list?
Mr. Dobson: I am delighted to stand corrected and discover that I am not guilty of exaggeration or hyperbole—litotes, I think, is the proper description. I apologise to my hon. Friend and to the people of Rochdale for leaving out their hospital. So we have seven hospitals started, which is a rather better record than that of the mob opposite.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: While the Secretary of State rolls out the achievements of the Government in the past 12 months, will he comment on why waiting lists in Wales have risen from more than 67,000 when the Labour Government took over to 73,000?
Mr. Dobson: They certainly rose in England, but they have stopped rising. I trust that they have stopped rising in Wales, but I cannot give the hon. Gentleman that assurance.
We said that we would help the hard-pressed staff in the NHS and social services cope with the pressures of last winter. And so we did. Over 1,500 special schemes were put in place, funded by the extra £300 million that we found. The result was a brilliant success. The people in social services and the health service worked together and put on the best winter performance in recent times. They dealt with more emergencies than ever before without the chaos and indignities of people waiting for treatment for days on trolleys and mattresses on the floor in what used to be called Bottomley wards.
Dr. Evan Harris: Much of the winter pressures money was given direct to social services to help to unblock jams. It would have been better to give money directly to social services in the spending round rather than make cuts of 1.1 per cent. in 1997–98 and 1.1 per cent. in 1998–99. Those cuts, measured in real terms, and before demography, meant destruction of social services in Oxfordshire and more bed blocking than will ever be undone by extra money for winter pressures.
Mr. Dobson: I am fascinated by the concept of a world before demography, but I must get on. No is the answer. No, no, no. Funding the social services part of the winter pressures effort through the NHS meant that I could guarantee that the money was spent on what it was intended for. If it had been handed out to local authorities, I could not have guaranteed that. I find my relations with the Chancellor of the Exchequer easier if I can guarantee that when he gives me extra money for X, Y or Z, it is actually spent on people in hospitals.
We said that we would get waiting lists down. With the help of the extra £500 million that we found this year, the NHS is doing just that. The lists stopped rising in May, and started to come down in June. I understand that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald will press me "hot and strong"—her words, not mine—about a suggestion that waiting lists are being fiddled in Worcester. I have checked, and the people concerned tell
1252
me that they are doing nothing different from what they have done with waiting lists for the past 10 years. I assume that the presence of the right hon. Members for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) and for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) implies that the right hon. Lady has followed the convention of warning her colleagues to be in the Chamber when she makes her personal attack on their integrity.
What the right hon. Lady does not know is that waiting list figures for Worcestershire have not been reduced by the recent validation process. In fact, the reverse is true. The figures for March include, for the first time, more than 2,000 people who had simply been left off the lists previously. Some of those people should have been put on the list before the general election. I am still trying to find out why they were not.
Waiting lists are coming down, and will continue to come down, as will waiting times. Our waiting lists initiative is not confined to one year, but is part of our long-term programme to modernise the NHS. We are determined to improve health and health care in the most deprived parts of the country, and that is why we have set up health action zones in the South Yorkshire coalfields; Bradford; the east end of London; Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham; Luton; Manchester, Salford and Trafford; North Cumbria; Northumberland; Plymouth; Sandwell; and Tyne and Wear.
To test out the effectiveness of using modern technology, we have set up three pilot schemes for NHS direct—a 24-hour nurse-led helpline—in Milton Keynes; Preston, Chorley and South Ribble; and Newcastle, North Tyneside and Northumberland. The pilots have been such a success that the scheme is being extended to cover more than 10 million people, and that will include Greater Manchester, Birmingham and Cornwall. It will cover the whole country by the end of 2000.
Mr. Richard Burden: May I welcome the choice of Birmingham for one of the new NHS direct schemes? Does my right hon. Friend agree that making good-quality advice available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, is a lot better than having market madness and a two-tier health service available 24 hours a day, seven days a week? Does he further agree that NHS direct will help to boost primary care, and will he look with favour on plans soon to come forward from Birmingham for primary care improvements that will ensure that the people of the city receive the health care that they need and deserve?
Mr. Dobson: I am sure that NHS direct greatly benefits the people concerned. It has another merit, in that it will provide job opportunities for trained nurses who because of injury, often back injury, find that they can no longer use their nursing skills to deal with patients. It has many merits. It is clear that many people are willing to ring the 24-hour helpline knowing that it is there for 24 hours. Some of them, because they are considerate of others, are reluctant to go to accident and emergency or ring for a doctor or ambulance. In some cases, people who clearly would not have rung for an ambulance have rung NHS direct and ambulances have been sent round straight away because the cases were urgent. In many cases, nurses have given immediate reassurance to concerned parents, the children of elderly parents and people worried about their neighbours. It has been a great success and I commend the people who have been carrying it out.

1253
We also promised at the general election that we would conduct an independent review of health services in London. We established the Turnberg review. The report was published and we accepted all its recommendations. With the exception of one or two—far from all—Conservative Members in London, there have been no substantial criticisms of the report or our implementation of it.
As part of our programme to get rid of the divisive arrangements that we inherited from the previous Government on primary care, we have made much progress towards the establishment of primary care groups involving GPs, community nurses and social services. Contrary to Tory propaganda, we reached amicable agreement with the GPs and everyone else concerned.
Mr. Simon Hughes: You gave in.
Mr. Dobson: It is giving in now, is it? The representative of the Liberal Democrats does not believe that the reasonable points that the British Medical Association made on behalf of its members should have been conceded. We should not have given in. We should have stuck it out, behaved like the Tories and ignored the representatives of the profession. That is not the way we operate.
Mr. Hughes: The Secretary of State knows what happened. His Minister of State was faced with the prospect of the GPs making a large protest last week. He negotiated with them the week before and has now delivered primary care groups with seven GPs and a GP in the chair. The groups are meant to represent all the professions and the community. Effectively, they will be run by GPs.
Mr. Dobson: For the first time in the history of our health care, nurses will have a say in what happens in primary care.
Mr. Hughes: The Tories introduced that.
Mr. Dobson: No, they did not. They did not introduce primary care groups in every part of the country. The hon. Gentleman should not reinvent history. He will be claiming that the Liberals invented the national health service next.
Mr. Hughes: We did. [Laughter.]
Mr. Dobson: I have been practising with that fly for some time.
We have other main tasks. We have to provide the staff of the NHS with the education, training and retraining necessary for them to cope with the ever increasing demands of their jobs. We must put in place new arrangements to set and deliver high-quality performance standards across the NHS. We must give more priority to public health and to reducing the inequalities in health that leave poor people ill more often and dying sooner. Once the outcome of the comprehensive spending review
1254
is published, I shall be able to spell out our new arrangements for continuing professional development for all NHS staff.
Let me give a simple example of what is needed. We all still expect nurses to provide tender loving care. These days, we also expect them to cope with using highly complex, high-tech equipment. They cannot be expected to do that without the necessary training and time for training, including training specific to new equipment. When we took office, we discovered that there is no machinery in the NHS to set performance standards or ensure that they are delivered. Without those arrangements, things go wrong. Nothing is done; people die. That is what happened with the children in Bristol, with breast cancer screening in Devon and Exeter, and with cervical cancer screening in Kent and Canterbury. We are determined to change the NHS, so that such systematic failures never arise again.
Today, the Government are putting quality at the heart of the NHS. We are doing something that no Government have done for 50 years: implementing new mechanisms to set standards, deliver standards and monitor standards. The Government are not prepared to leave quality in the NHS to chance, as occurs at present. Patients deserve a first-class service wherever they are treated.
We shall establish a professional-led National Institute for clinical excellence, to provide authoritative guidance to all health professionals on the latest technologies and drugs. There is no such organisation at present. We shall introduce national service frameworks to lay down what treatment and care should be provided for patients suffering from particular conditions. Except for cancer and children's intensive care, there are no such arrangements at present. We shall place on all local hospital boards the duty of clinical governance, to make sure that standards are met. They have no such duty at present.
We shall establish a Commission for Health Improvement to monitor the performance of every part of the NHS, carrying out a rolling programme of spot checks and troubleshooting. There is no such organisation at present. We shall require all hospital doctors to participate in national external audits. There is no such requirement at present. We shall give all GPs and their patients the right to get information on the success rates of treatments in their local hospitals. They have no such right at present. We shall carry out annual independent surveys of the experience of patients and carers in the NHS, to ensure that their voices are heard and heeded. There are no comparable national surveys at present.
I emphasise that all those proposals have been welcomed by representatives of the professions, which reflects both their commitment and the practical common-sense nature of what we propose. They are some of the practical steps that we have been taking to improve the NHS. We are equally committed to improving the health of the public and reducing inequalities in health. Under the Tories, the gap between rich and poor widened, as did the gap in health. That is true, and I shall give just one example.
In the early 1970s, there was scarcely any difference in the number of deaths from heart disease among men in social class 1 and those in social class 5. Today, men in social class 5 are three times more likely to suffer from heart disease. That constitutes a widening of the

1255
health gap. We are determined to reduce that gap, and the NHS has much to contribute to that process. However, other Departments' programmes will help even more.
Unemployment makes people ill. Our investment of £3.5 billion in the new deal for jobs will help improve the health of the people involved. Bad housing makes people ill, so our £900 million investment in new housing from the takings from the sale of council houses will provide decent homes and improve the health of the families concerned. Low pay makes people ill. Our national minimum wage will improve the health of the worst-off workers. Those and other measures are geared to helping the most deprived families and most deprived neighbourhoods—both have been neglected for far too long.
All those changes simply apply the basic socialist principles of the national health service to modern circumstances. Some people do not like that. Some so-called experts make a living travelling around the world attacking the principles of the NHS and demanding that we abandon its principles and charge everybody for everything. When they are in Britain, they ignore the evidence of the intrinsically cost-effective NHS. When abroad, they ignore the evidence of the intrinsically more expensive systems in the countries that they visit. They are a group of self-perpetuating ignoramuses. However, they are wasting their breath and whoever is paying their travel bills is wasting his or her money.
At the general election, the British people voted for the NHS—free when they need it, paid for by the taxpayer. The Government accept the verdict of the British people. Tories may argue, as some do, for a different system, but the Government are committed to the one we have. Today, we salute the people who work in the NHS—people of all colours, of all races, of all religions and of none. For every minute of every hour of every day of the past 50 years, they and their predecessors have bound up the wounded, healed the sick, cared for the afflicted, comforted the dying and consoled the bereaved. Frustrated by lack of resources and obstructed by archaic systems of organisation, they have never thrown in the towel. They have fought the good fight, but they have seldom received rewards to match their contribution to the well-being of our country.
Fifty years ago, our fathers and mothers—in some cases, our grandfathers and grandmothers—made an act of faith: they agreed to found the national health service. They had faith in the future, faith in the health care workers and faith in the principles of the welfare state. Today, as a country, we are rich beyond the wildest dreams of people in 1948. It now falls to us to renew and modernise the NHS, so that it is fit to face the challenge of the new century and the new millennium. We must not flinch or falter now.
Fifty years ago, people could only hope that the NHS would work. Fifty years later, we know that it works. We have experienced its benefits. We know that Nye Bevan was right when he wrote:
"Society becomes more wholesome, more serene, and spiritually healthier, if it knows that its citizens have at the back of their consciousness the knowledge that not only themselves, but all their fellows, have access, when ill, to the best that medical skill can provide."
It is our job now to make sure that we renew the national health service, so that future generations experience the benefits that he gave to us. Nothing less will do.
4.36 pm
Miss Ann Widdecombe: The Opposition welcome the debate. We are especially glad because, on this occasion, for once, the subject has been raised by the Government. Hitherto, to get the Government to account for their stewardship of the national health service, the Opposition have had to demand the debates. To this moment, we have still not had the debate that we have consistently demanded on the White Paper.
The 50th anniversary is indeed a time for celebration. It is a time to remind ourselves that our health service is a service for the whole nation, conceived and planned by the wartime coalition Government—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—and developed beyond the original scope of its founders by a succession of Governments spanning half a century. The original plans for a universal health service, free at the point of delivery, are in fact more than 50 years old. A White Paper was published by Mr. Churchill's coalition Government in 1944, containing proposals for a comprehensive, free health service.
Our health service is the property of the whole nation, not merely of particular sectional interests, or professions, or political parties. Our health service serves the whole nation, and individuals do not serve our health service by trying to claim sole moral ownership of it, or a monopoly of concern for its best interests.
Our health service is now infinitely more comprehensive than the plan envisaged by its founders. That is its greatest triumph, but it also poses some of the greatest problems. The demand for resources resulting from new technology, pharmaceuticals and changes in society has increased exponentially.
Mr. Winnick: The right hon. Lady mentioned briefly the White Paper produced in 1944, but she sort of skipped the next few years. Will she explain why her party was strongly opposed to the conception of the national health service and why it voted against the measure at every possible opportunity? After all, some explanation would be useful.
Miss Widdecombe: If the hon. Gentleman cares to consult our manifesto of 1945, he will find that the Conservatives were in favour of a universal health service. The difficulties that we had with the detail of the setting up of the health service were reflected in changes that the Labour Government of the day subsequently made. I suggest that he re-research that history, and he will find that what I have just said is true. Until today, I did not know that Beveridge was the property of the Labour party. The hon. Gentleman will find that the national health service is the property of all political parties and the entire nation, and we should be grateful for that.
The previous Conservative Government, contrary to the present Government's propaganda, increased spending in real terms by an average of 3.1 per cent. per annum. By 1997, health spending was three quarters more again than in 1979. We treated 4 million more patients; 6,000 more every day since 1991 than in 1979. Most crucially, those patients waited a much shorter time than their predecessors. The number waiting for over one year was

1257
cut from 200,000 in 1987 to just 15,000 in 1997. Four out of 10 patients on waiting lists were treated within one month and over 50 per cent. within six weeks.
Mr. Bob Blizzard: How then would the right hon. Lady explain the fact that every possible gauge of public opinion—every survey, poll and questionnaire—during the previous Government's time in office clearly showed that very few people thought that the national health service was safe in the hands of the Conservative party? Was that fact not reflected in the general election, in that so few Conservative Members are now on those Benches?
Miss Widdecombe: The disillusion, if there was disillusion, with the degree to which the health service could deliver services was as nothing compared with the disillusion in 1978 when the Labour party completely wrecked the health service by making enormous cuts, causing industrial action, slashing the capital spending programme and reducing the pay of medical staff. We had to rebuild the health service. The Labour party has not delivered on the propaganda pledges that it consistently churned out before the last election.
Furthermore, the last 10 years of Conservative government saw the largest capital building programme in the history of our health service. The Secretary of State read out some schemes today which are very commendable, but more than 750 schemes, worth over £1 million each, were completed in the last 10 years of Conservative government. The capital stock of our health service was modernised to a level unimaginable in 1979.
We have never tried to claim that our health service was perfect, but two thirds of its life has been spent under Conservative Governments, and we can feel proud of its achievements during that time. The Secretary of State has come to the House and, rightly, praised the health service and what it can do now compared to what it could do when he watched his father suffer, praised the new technology that was not available a few decades ago, and praised all those who have worked in the health service delivering the range of care that he described. After giving so much praise, it would have been generous of him, on a day of national celebration of the health service, to give credit where it is due and say that two thirds of the credit should go to us and one third to Labour.
We should be aware that many challenges that face our health service over the next 50 years will be met not by simple, comfortable and neatly packaged solutions, but by resolving very difficult questions, the complexity of which the Secretary of State underestimates, and by the care and dedication of everyone who is a part of the service.
Last May, we were led to believe that our health service was about to enjoy a golden period. It was, apparently, to be "saved". That now seems a very long time ago. Far from being saved, our health service has entered a period of crisis: record waiting lists, fiddled figures, clinical freedom under threat, hospital cuts and closures, GPs forced into collectives, spending cuts, bureaucracy on the rampage and Tony's cronies packed on to trust boards, all against the backdrop of the slickest, spin-doctored public misinformation campaign since the formation of our
1258
health service 50 years ago. It is now time to strip away the sugar-coated sophistry that threatens to suffocate the life of our health service and to expose the dark truths that lurk behind the Government's insidious propaganda, revealing the damage that they are inflicting on the very foundations of the service.
Before the election, the Labour party, deliberately and in its own interests, raised expectations to whip up public discontent with the health service. It did not mention the excellent work that we had done on reducing waiting times, but instead promised to reduce overall waiting lists by 100,000, using £100 million. That was an early pledge. The 100,000 reduction was to be, in Labour's words, "a first step". People could naturally be forgiven for inferring that Labour really meant that and for imagining that early meant sooner, rather than later, as it usually does. They could be forgiven for thinking that, by the time of the next election, waiting lists would have fallen by more, possibly many more, than 100,000, because that was, after all, a first step.
One would not expect the public to think that, within a year of Labour taking power, waiting lists would rise to record levels of almost 1.3 million—a queue for beds which would stretch more than twice the way around the M25. One would not expect the public to welcome the fact that even the Secretary of State for Health believes that it will take five years of Labour government to reduce waiting lists to 1.06 million, falling at a miserly rate of slightly more than 900 a week. One would not expect the public to imagine or understand that routine operations, such as for varicose veins, lipomas and sebaceous cysts, would be cut from general availability in different areas to remove, at a stroke, the possibility of waiting for such procedures.
Mr. Dobson: Will the right hon. Lady tell me—not necessarily now, but in a letter—where the availability of those operations has been withdrawn? She has made that accusation for about a fortnight, but she has not specified anywhere. Her accusation is slightly at variance with her equally misleading suggestion that we are urging hospitals to do varicose vein operations instead of heart transplants.
Miss Widdecombe: I shall indeed give the right hon. Gentleman examples, starting with Lambeth—I have just talked to a consultant who says that he can no longer perform such procedures. A gentleman in the north-west of Manchester was given a date in May 2003 for treatment of his varicose veins. He will have to wait for the next Conservative Government before he can have his varicose veins operation.
Mr. Dobson: He had to wait only until I knew about his position. Now he has an appointment in two weeks. Unlike the right hon. Lady, that gentleman thanked me for my help, in front of two television cameras at Trafford general hospital.
Miss Widdecombe: I am sure that he did because if he was put on a waiting list for an appointment in 2003, when the Secretary of State has been calmly telling the House that nobody is waiting for more than 18 months, he must have been extremely thankful to find that he would not have to wait until 2003.
Mr. Dobson: The 18-month wait is, as the right hon. Lady knows, for in-patients, and she should remember

1259
that this gentleman is an out-patient. Even so, his situation was ludicrous and had to be dealt with. If other people are being given out-patient waiting times of that length, they should get in touch with me and I shall sort out their problems too.
Miss Widdecombe: What those incidents prove is that those people should get in touch with us because every time we have raised a problem in the House, the Secretary of State has rushed out and taken action on it. He is now consulting his pager—does he want to correct the information that he just given me?
Mr. Dobson: My message is that, just before the general election, Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham health authority started restricting access by sufferers of what it described as non-painful varicose veins.
Miss Widdecombe: That is quite correct. Before the general election, the authority said that it would restrict access. Access is now virtually impossible except in cases of serious clinical need.
Dr. Brand: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
Miss Widdecombe: No, I want to make some progress. I have given way four or five times already.
Further, one would not expect the general public to imagine that, to achieve that eagle-like descent of 900 a week, it would cost not £100 million, as Labour promised, but more than £400 million. Any business man who achieved his goal more than three years late and four times over budget would be booted out, with his P45 following by return of post, but the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister tell us that we should be grateful for that masterly piece of mismanagement.
But more than merely hopelessly bungled and inept mismanagement surrounds the Government's dismal failure. We have evidence, previously anecdotal but now documentary, that the Government have been presiding over manipulated waiting list figures. Put simply, they realised that they will not be able to meet their modest pledge by legitimate means, so cheating has started. I shall now give the House an example.
The Alexandra Healthcare NHS trust in Redditch has been told to cut 759 patients from its waiting list. The letter that I have received says:
"The Trust is being put under enormous pressure to remove 759 patients from its waiting list without giving the treatment originally deemed necessary."
Dr. Brand: The right hon. Lady has given many historical references. During an earlier waiting list initiative, plastic surgery centres throughout Britain were told to take patients off the waiting list as of then and a series of operations were abolished overnight. I know of 40 of my patients who were denied even an existence on a waiting list.
Miss Widdecombe: The Government have put the reduction of waiting lists at the centre of their credibility and we are entitled to ask how they are achieving it. That is what I am now asking.
Dr. Phyllis Starkey: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
Miss Widdecombe: No, I want to continue my point about the Alexandra Healthcare NHS trust.
1260
It has been decided that it is politically necessary that those patients do not receive the treatment. The Government's health matters more than the health of the patients. But the political pressure placed on the collection of Labour activists and Tony's cronies appointed to trust boards has been immense. A director was dragged out of a board meeting to take a telephone call specifically to ask him to go back in and try to persuade the board to accept the approach of denying patients treatment in order to fiddle the figures. Another was recently told that he had to produce an urgent briefing for the Prime Minister with an excuse for why waiting lists were rising, not falling.
The 759 patients who, presumably, are being told to get on their bikes are not the end of the story—not by a long way. It is proposed than an extra 2,300 waiting list cases will be slashed from Worcestershire health authority's waiting lists by what is innocuously termed an administrative clean-up. In reality, for patients, that means that the list is to be reprioritised. That is, simpler cases will be treated first at the expense of more complex and perhaps more serious ones—patients left waiting in pain to avoid the pain of political embarrassment to the Government.
Dr. Starkey: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
Miss Widdecombe: In a minute. I want to finish my point on the Alexandra Healthcare NHS trust first.
Perhaps even more serious, however, is that part of that 2,300 clean-up will be removed by reducing the referral rates of general practitioners to the trust. Why do I say that? Do I just imagine it? No, I have here the paper that went to the board:
"The health authority proposed that 2,300 of the 8,000 cases should be removed from the waiting list by a combination of reprioritising the list, administrative clean-up and the reduction of referral rates of GPs to the trust."
Then, with masterly understatement—litotes, I think the Secretary of State called it—the paper states:
"that objective was received by the trust with a great deal of caution and is accepted as, exclusively, a health authority target."
I listened carefully to what the Secretary of State said and I listened to his weasel words. He said that nothing is being done that is different from what was done under the previous Government. Nothing is being done—no. Semantically, that is right. These are proposals for actions to meet his current targets and the pressure that he is putting on chief executives by telling them that they will be sacked if they do not deliver his election pledge.
Mr. Dobson: I am accused of being all sorts of things, but weasel is fairly unusual.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. Such terms are not appreciated. Temperate language is preferable.
Mr. Dobson: I have no attributions from the right hon. Lady for any of the statements that she has made, other than the paper that went to the board. First, I do not know why the board considered the matter in private, because, under the new rules, it should have been considered in public. Secondly, I have a paper here from the regional

1261
office from a man called Steve Hilton, about whom I know nothing, which says:
"Validation like this has been common practice for over a decade."
Nothing new is happening as far as I can make out. Nothing different is being done. As I said earlier, in the previous validation exercise in Worcestershire, 2,000 people were added to the waiting list. We are entirely in the hands of this statistical lunacy to which I referred at the previous Health questions.
Miss Widdecombe: No, there is no statistical lunacy in the clear statement read from papers to the board, which the right hon. Gentleman has, that one of the means of achieving this is to reduce the referral rates of GPs to the trust. In plain English, that means that, unless patients' conditions are very serious, they cannot even get on to the waiting list. Patients will, in effect, be told that they can pay up and go private or sit and suffer.
The hospital has not even been given enough money by the Government to fiddle the figures properly. The special funding, touted so heavily around the media as a panacea for the waiting list funding, is actually short-changing it to the tune of £1.9 million.
If that fiddle—the Secretary of State might prefer to call it a pattern of behaviour—in private or in public, is repeated throughout Britain, it becomes almost impossible to contemplate the damage that is done to patients' health, and the extent to which the fiddled waiting list figures misrepresent the true picture of the mess that Labour has created.
Dr. Starkey: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
Miss Widdecombe: I shall finish my point on the Alexandra Healthcare NHS trust. I have remembered the hon. Lady and when I have finished my point I shall come back to her.
The picture to emerge from this sorry tale of sordid deception is of a Government who will commit any act of manipulation, spin any convenient sophistry and break any trust to present what must be seen not only as a deeply misleading picture of their waiting list disaster, but a highly dangerous practice which can only be harmful to the well-being of patients.
Perhaps I am too harsh. Perhaps I have misjudged the Secretary of State. Perhaps he does not know that that is going on, and would not countenance it if he did. Perhaps he would wish to stop it. I shall give him the benefit of that doubt and suggest what he can do to reassure us.
Will the Secretary of State tell the House in terms that he would rather see waiting lists rise than see fiddled falls that will mislead the public and endanger patients? Will he go further and issue a letter to health authorities informing them that waiting lists are not to be cut by using dubious expedients and specify that that includes removing from the list patients who have not received their treatment, placing pressure on GPs to reduce referral rates, removing the general availability of certain smaller operations, and treating simple but less urgent cases before more complex but important ones? If he will offer that assurance, and if he will send such a letter—
1262
preferably today, but I shall give him until the weekend if he is busy—we can be less suspicious about the Government's attitude to such foul play.
Will the Secretary of State commend—indeed, praise—the whistleblower on the trust? The Secretary of State is keen on whistleblowing. On this occasion, the whistleblowing has been done on his waiting list figures. Will he commend the whistleblower, and will he write that letter?
Mr. Dobson: I do not mind who publishes which of those figures; if the trust had been following the guidance that it has been given, the figures would have been public anyway. I do not know who the whistleblower was. If anyone wants to release such information, he or she should. I am in favour of its being released. I do not think that these things should be done behind closed doors.
In response to the request for an instantaneous letter, most of the things that the right hon. Lady specified are in the instructions to the entire national health service about waiting lists. On the accuracy of waiting lists, when the figures were increasing as a result of tracking down people whose names had not previously been on the list, I have told officials and regional chairmen to get the figures right. The figures need to be right.
The policies of Worcestershire health authority—whose members, I might add, I did not appoint—are, generally, to try to get more people treated, if appropriate, closer to home by their GPs rather than, in some cases, going into hospital. As I understand it, that explains the line in the document about which the right hon. Lady is talking.
If anyone anywhere is fiddling the figures, it should be drawn to my attention and I will stop it. The only purpose of shortening waiting lists is to get people treated, not to do a statistical exercise. I return to the point that, as far as we know, the whole process that Worcestershire health authority is going through is exactly the same it has been for the past 10 years.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I make an appeal to Front Benchers, as Back Benchers want to take part? This is a debate for everyone, so the hon. Lady should not entice the Minister to come in on an intervention. [Interruption.] Order. What I am trying to say is that—
Mr. Dobson: I shall try to resist temptation.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister will try to resist and the right hon. Lady will try not to entice him.
Mr. Duncan: Why not?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Government have an opportunity to reply at the end of the debate, and so do the Opposition. The hon. Gentleman asks, "Why not?" I have to look after the interests of Back Benchers as well as Front Benchers.
Miss Widdecombe: I have seldom found any of your instructions difficult to follow, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but being told not to tempt the Secretary of State may give me the odd piece of difficulty.
Dr. Starkey: Is the right hon. Lady aware that Milton Keynes general hospital, in my constituency, has already

1263
started to reverse the trend, which occurred under the Conservative Government in which she was a Minister, of increasing waiting lists? It held the waiting list increase over the winter to only 29 extra patients; the previous winter, there was an increase of 631. The hospital did so thanks to the £1.1 million of extra money that it got, which allowed it to save more than 4,000 patient bed days. Is the right hon. Lady further aware that the new chairman of that hospital trust is a former official of the Milton Keynes Conservative association, put forward by me and nominated by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State?
Miss Widdecombe: It never surprises me when Conservatives are successful. I must tell the hon. Lady that, of course, none of us has seen the figures, because they have not yet been published. At the moment, the only knowledge that we have of revised waiting lists comes from the Secretary of State's warm and woolly claims. We have not read any detail.
Mr. Blizzard rose—
Miss Julie Kirkbride rose—
Miss Widdecombe: I shall make progress, because you will get cross with me if I do not, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Recently, the Secretary of State for Health announced that no patients were waiting more than 18 months, and that the first step in the delivery of Labour's "early" pledge had been delivered. Unfortunately, as the House knows, that did not happen. Even as he was saying that, we produced the case of a young boy of eight years who had been waiting more than 18 months, in considerable discomfort, for a simple tonsillectomy.
On 16 June, I brought that information to the House. The Secretary of State denied all knowledge, but—as if by a miracle, dispatched at the speed of light—a motor cycle courier was sent on his mission of mercy to deliver, posthaste, an in-patient appointment. The Minister of State, the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn), told the House that the boy would
"have an operation within the next few days, as the NHS trust had always planned."
Presumably, that is now standard procedure in new Labour's NHS. The appointment card will be delivered by motor cycle courier, on the day of an Opposition debate when they raise an embarrassing case, and we shall be told by the Minister that that had been planned by the trust all along. The mother of the boy says that she had an appointment; it was for several weeks later.
Dr. Stephen Ladyman: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
Miss Widdecombe: Mr. Deputy Speaker is not looking. Okay.
Dr. Ladyman: I also have a constituent who has been told that his son must wait six months for a tonsillectomy. He was also told, however, that he could have it the
1264
next day, done by the same surgeon, privately. Will the right hon. Lady join me in condemning that type of queue jumping?
Miss Widdecombe: I shall not condemn anyone having a remedy against the present Government's inefficiencies. [Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
Miss Widdecombe: That was not for me that time, was it, Mr. Deputy Speaker? No.
There is something faintly sinister about all this. It is a bit like the miraculous, phoenix-like rebirth of the Trafford general hospital children's unit, which was "reprieved from closure" two days before the Secretary of State for Health was to make a highly publicised visit. The right hon. Gentleman tells us that he did not know anything about it. Well, I wonder whether he will now do me a big favour and instantly arrange for highly publicised flying visits to Kent and Canterbury hospital, Burford community hospital, many community hospitals in Cornwall and various others that he is about to close. Then, perhaps, the need to save his face will coincide with the need to save those hospitals.
Miss Kirkbride: On the subject of the closure of hospitals, I hope that my right hon. Friend will urge the Secretary of State for Health to visit Kidderminster, where the Kidderminster general hospital, which serves my constituents, faces closure.
On the wider front of Worcestershire, I wonder whether my right hon. Friend has any advice for doctors in Bromsgrove, who feed patients into the Alexandra in Redditch. I shall meet those doctors tomorrow, and I would welcome her advice on what to say to them about how to resist the cynical bully-boy tactics of the present Government, which are preventing my constituents from having their names put on the waiting list for the medical treatment that they deserve.
Miss Widdecombe: It is all right. Now that the subject has been mentioned in the House, I am sure that there will be an instantaneous solution, and that, even now, there will be a rush and a motor cycle will be on its way to those patients. I therefore urge my hon. Friend not to worry too much about it.
Dr. Ladyman: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
Miss Widdecombe: No; I shall make progress. If the hon. Gentleman has a hospital in his constituency, will the Secretary of State visit that hospital, too?
Because the Government have made their rather modest pledge on waiting lists, and associated propaganda, the fundamental goal of their health policy, subsequent media interest and the Secretary of State's obsession have eclipsed many other issues of great importance to patients and the profession. We can see the extent to which the waiting list panic has come to dominate Health Ministers' every thought and act, at the expense of other areas of our health service.

1265
During the 16 June debate on the waiting list crisis, the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Darlington, assured the House:
"The hon. Gentleman asked me for an assurance that no other sector of health care would suffer as a consequence of our getting NHS waiting lists down. I will give him that assurance".—[Official Report, 16 June 1998; Vol. 314, c. 187–89.]
However, it appears that the chairman of the British Medical Association profoundly disagrees with the Minister. On the "Today" programme on Monday 6 July, when asked about giving priority, for political reasons, to patients whose need is less, Dr. Sandy Macara said:
"Unfortunately"
this
"is happening because the Government have put themselves, and therefore all of us, on a most unfortunate hook."
I ask the Secretary of State who is correct. Is Dr. Macara—a figure for whom I understand the right hon. Gentleman has great respect—factually incorrect, or was his Minister in danger of misleading the House on 16 June? No reply comes.
Other areas of our health service are bound to suffer as the Government become increasingly like a one-eyed man over the waiting lists. The changes that they have introduced will only make matters worse for people in lengthening queues for simple operations. Dragooning GPs into collectives and then preventing a collective from choosing which trust to send its patients to will increase the lists and deter trusts from making the improvements that are necessary to ensure a uniform standard of service throughout the country.
Reductions in clinical freedom, imposed through NICE—the National Institute for Clinical Excellence—and backed with cash-limited GP drugs budgets will cause morale to plummet and patient care to suffer.
Mr. Dobson: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
Miss Widdecombe: No, I have been told not to do so.
Mr. Dobson rose—
Miss Widdecombe: The Secretary of State gives in to temptation an awful lot. Will he please be tempted to look again at the bureaucracy resulting from the introduction of NICE, the Commission for Health Improvement, the Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation, local education consortia and the co-ordinating bureaucracy between health and local authorities, which will divert money from front-line patient care into administration? GP collectives alone will cost £150 million a year to run. In short, Labour's White Paper is a blueprint for increasing the people's waiting lists.
Perhaps the situation would not have been so dire, had our health service been given the money to meet the high expectations. Under Labour, however, that has not happened. Our health service is now worse off by more than £800 million over and above inflation than if our average spending levels had been adhered to. That does not take into account money squandered through efficiency losses and unnecessary new bureaucracy.
1266
The mantra that Ministers have repeatedly chanted over the past few weeks is that the comprehensive spending review will lead us to the promised land of health service bliss. I wonder. I have calculated that the Government will have to spend at least £8 billion over three years to stand still and to match average Conservative spending levels. People do not have to take my word for it. Every hon. Member has access to the House of Commons Library, which has independently calculated that my figure is an underestimate, that more money will be required, and that the figure cited by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) is nearer the mark, at £9 billion.
That has been another well-presented, slick PR exercise designed to mislead the public. Now I shall ask the Secretary of State a few simple questions.
Mr. Dobson: I am not allowed to answer them.
Miss Widdecombe: I will incur the wrath of Mr. Deputy Speaker by allowing the right hon. Gentleman to answer them, if he can. I know that the Government like their questions to be helpful, but we will not have a serious debate on the future of the health service by indulging in the good-news culture of his party.
Critical questions must be asked about rationing—which the Secretary of State denies is happening, but it is—rising demand, clinical freedom, recruitment of doctors and the role of the private sector. Those questions are already being debated by sensible people in the health service, but they are not happy bedfellows of new Britain and the new NHS. Such questions cannot be asked helpfully while the Government remain on-message.
How much, over three years, does the Secretary of State believe must be spent on our health service, simply to stand still? I have asked him before, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey has asked him before, my hon. Friends have asked him before and I still live in hope that he might answer. How much will primary care groups, CHIMP, ACRA, LECs and health authority-local authority co-ordinating bureaucracy cost our health service per annum?
Was the Minister of State making an unsubstantiated statement to the House when he assured us that other areas of the health service were not suffering as a result of the Government's obsession with their waiting list publicity? If not, how does that accord with Dr. Macara's view of the situation?
If the Secretary of State could give us the figures, fiddled or not, for over-18-month waiters before the customary time, why can he not give us the full waiting list figures? We are told by trusts throughout the country that a huge amount of time is taken up with supplying information on a weekly basis. If the Secretary of State has asked for weekly reports, how much is that costing and why is that information not released to the public, who are paying for it? Finally, how widespread throughout the country is the manipulation—I even use a neutral word—that we discovered in Redditch?
The Government are obsessed with their own propaganda, but behind it is a catalogue of incompetence, mismanagement and manipulation. They told us that no one was waiting more than 18 months for an operation. That was not true. They told us of 2,000 new beds, which turned out to be mainly recycled or temporary beds.

1267
The Government enjoyed that one so much that they released the same statement twice. All I can say is that, if some of their announcements were about food, there would have been a prosecution. The Government told us that they did not know how many hospitals they would close. They told us that waiting lists were falling, but they have been caught red-handed chucking patients out of the queue.
This is a fiddling, cheating, gerrymandering, dissembling, spin-doctoring, bullying, arrogant Government and they have finally gone too far.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Paul Boateng): The right hon. Lady does not believe that.
Miss Widdecombe: I do believe it and, what is more, the people are beginning to believe it. Running our health service for the benefit of their own PR, not for patients, has come to be the defining feature of the Government, for whom getting headlines is more important than getting results.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the next speaker, may I say that 25 Back Benchers want to speak, on both sides of the House. Hon. Members can draw their own conclusions. Long speeches will squeeze other hon. Members out.
5.16 pm
Mr. David Hinchliffe: I am grateful for an opportunity to make a few observations in the debate. There is a common perception that the political agenda of the two major parties has in, recent years, moved closer together in several policy areas—economic and foreign policy, penal affairs and to some extent social policy. It is no secret that I feel uneasy about that process, but I have a great sense of relief that the outlooks of the two parties on the national health service remain as polarised as ever.
I commend the Secretary of State for his work to ensure that that polarisation remains. He has a remarkable record in defence of the basic principles of the national health service. I commend the Government for their excellent work over the past year in various areas. There is to be an announcement next week on the Secretary of State's record of winning new investment in the NHS, which is remarkable. I commend him on the national health service White Paper and on dismantling the internal market.
Primary care has already been mentioned. I commend the Secretary of State on restating in the White Paper the vision of Nye Bevan in respect of primary care—a vision that has never been delivered since the original plans and proposals were drawn up in the 1940s. I commend the restatement by the Secretary of State and his Minister for Public Health of the crucial importance of public health, an issue that disappeared from the agenda during the Tory years because of the political inconvenience of unemployment, bad housing, poverty and other issues about which the Tories never cared, but which had a crucial connection to the issue of personal health and ill health.
1268
I commend the Secretary of State on developing links with social services and on the impact of the winter beds initiative on the difficulties that have been experienced in the past with lengthy waiting lists. Most importantly, I commend my right hon. Friend on returning to the fundamentals of the national health service—to collectivised, socialised provision, and to a co-operative and collaborative national service. He used the term "the socialist ethic" of the NHS. That is what the Government's policies are all about, and I am proud of that fact.
I was waiting for the shadow Secretary of State to give us some idea of what she would do if, God forbid, she ever came to power. She analysed her version of the Labour Government's record, but I want to know what a Conservative Government would do in the current circumstances. Last week, I had the dubious opportunity of doing a couple of interviews with her in celebration of the 50th anniversary of the NHS. One was on the "Today" programme and the other was on breakfast television. I was interested in her lack of response to my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman), who told us what happened when his constituent was advised to go private. The right hon. Lady's advice to the nation in those two interviews was that people should take out private insurance. The clear implication was that the country could no longer afford a national health service, so people should go private.
Miss Widdecombe: There is a sum of money that goes into the nation's health; some is put in by the state through general taxation and some by individuals and organisations, including trade unions, who take out private insurance. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, if the private element is removed, the total sum that goes into the nation's health is reduced?
Mr. Hinchliffe: What I do accept is that the system that the right hon. Lady offers is very different from what I believe in. I do not believe that, because I am wealthier than someone else, I as a human being have the right to queue-jump over somebody whose needs are greater than mine. I have seen that happen in the context of my family. My father waited for a heart bypass for two years. My predecessor raised the issue with the Minister of State in the previous Government, and my father finally got into hospital after the intervention of the then Minister of State. Having worked hard all his life, my father had retired at 65 and been ill until the age of 67. I vividly remember the man in the next bed telling him that he had gone private and waited for only three months. He had queue-jumped and pushed everybody else back down the queue. That is an immoral system. The shadow Secretary of State professes to be a moral person, but she advocates a profoundly immoral practice. I hope that the Government will do something about that practice because that is the unfinished business of Bevan.
Miss Widdecombe rose—
Mr. Hinchliffe: I have given way once, and I am conscious that many of my hon. Friends wish to speak. The right hon. Lady had a chance to make her point, and I have responded to it.
The Tories regard private insurance as the way forward, but what about those who cannot get it? They should talk to people who are chronically ill, or to those who are fit

1269
and well, but have in their families illnesses that are passed down from generation to generation. They do not feature on the Tory agenda. The right hon. Lady should deal with the concerns of people who do not believe in the system that she advocates because it is profoundly unfair and immoral.
On this 50th anniversary, the key task is to restore the original ideas and framework of the NHS, which has been so damaged by the Conservatives over several periods in government. The shadow Secretary of State said that the Tories had been in power over many years of the existence of the NHS. In this debate, we shall look at the history of the national health service and at what has happened in the past 50 years. In 1974, the Conservative Secretary of State, Sir Keith Joseph, introduced changes to the national health service. At that time, I was a young councillor serving on a local authority. I also worked in a social services department, so I saw the situation from two perspectives—as a politician and as someone who was professionally involved with the national health service. I hope that the Government will repair the crucial mistake that was made at that time, when public health was removed from the local democratic debate.
As a young councillor in Wakefield, I recall discussing smokeless zones, slum clearance, the sexual health of young people and mortality rates. Those key public health questions should be dealt with at a local level, but in 1974, the Conservatives removed that ability and separated public health from fundamental health-related issues, such as housing, the environment, transport, education and, especially, social services.
That Tory decision caused the start of what my right hon. Friend describes as "the Berlin wall"—the divide between social care and health care. We are still trying to deal with the consequences of that totally false divide. It was the beginning of the bureaucratic explosion, which culminated in the internal market with the establishment of unelected, locally unaccountable health authorities. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, I served on Committees considering health legislation with the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley), who was then the Secretary of State, and we spent many hours arguing about the internal market.
In my home town of Wakefield, the functions of one health authority were replaced by four different agencies, which made no sense to me. Most of the time, those agencies were arguing about where the boundaries were, who did what and who was responsible. They were constantly blaming each other. We never saw any real impact of the new money put in by the previous Government because it was wasted in an incredible bureaucratic paperchase, which they introduced because they believed that the national health service should be run on the basis of a market philosophy rather than on the basis of collectivism, in which my right hon. Friend and I believe.
The right hon. Lady will recall that, at the same time, she began the process of the wholesale privatisation of community care, which reinforced the Berlin wall. Elderly people had to pay for services that were previously free at the point of need. That was the Tory Government's record, and people will not forget it easily.
Dr. Harris: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that cuts to social services funding, which the House of Commons
1270
Library figures show were greater than 1 per cent. in real terms in each of the past two years, mean that local authorities and social services must tighten eligibility criteria and put up charges? Thus the desperate, difficult and unfair situation to which he refers gets more desperate, difficult and unfair when social services funding is cut. Those cuts have been made for the past two years, because the Labour party has adopted Tory spending plans.
Mr. Hinchliffe: The hon. Gentleman has been in the Chamber when I have pressed the Secretary of State on the issue of social services. The Select Committee on Health is about to produce a report on that issue, and I am sure that it will help the Government in considering what to include in the White Paper on social care to be published in the autumn. I am optimistic that the Secretary of State will listen to concerns such as the hon. Gentleman and Labour Members have expressed.
I mentioned the pre-1974 structure because I believe that it was a more sensible and effective framework. In a sense, that is the standard by which I judge what the previous Government did and what this Government are doing. I wish to outline some key areas that the Government must address in returning to the framework that we inherited from the Bevan era because they made a lot of sense to people like me when I was working in the system, but they have been destroyed by subsequent Governments and particularly by the Conservatives' internal market.
I welcome the Green Paper on public health and the work by the Minister for Public Health in that direction. I am concerned that the issue of public health is marginalised within health authorities and has shifted away from local democratic debate. We must get it back in the mainstream of democratic debate. I welcome health improvement programmes, smoking initiatives and health action zones, but the Secretary of State will not be surprised to hear me say that I would welcome a more central role for local authorities, which have a great deal to offer. A great deal of progress was made in the past as a consequence of public health being part of their responsibilities.
I want the work that is already done on links with social services to be enhanced. My right hon. Friend knows that I favour moving towards the local government health model; I know that that is not my party's policy, but I support it on the basis of my working experiences. Perhaps I am out of date and have not had his experiences of some rather questionable people in London boroughs whom he would not trust to run the health service—I understand his problems.
Mr. Dobson: Lady Porter.
Mr. Hinchliffe: I missed that one, so I shall revisit it in Hansard.
The organisational split of health and social care is nonsensical; I am sure that my colleagues on the Health Committee would agree that it does not make any sense, whatever solutions we reach when we discuss the matter. I welcome the White Paper's proposals on links with social services in primary care, but we need radically to enhance such links along the lines of those that my colleagues on the Health Committee studied in Northern Ireland.

1271
We went into a primary care centre at which everyone—nurses, midwives, health visitors, care managers and child protection officers—was working in a local GP's surgery, together in one body. That is the system that I experienced before 1974; it was destroyed by the Conservatives, which has taken us so far back in comparison with my career experiences several years ago.
I also want to refer to the continuing concern about the democratic deficit in health, and my discomfort, which I think my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State shares to an extent, at the continuation of the appointments system. I suspect that he has had more difficulties over the past year with who should be appointed and who has been recommended and by whom, and with checking that those people are suitable, than with many other issues. There should be new arrangements giving service users a real voice. Let us get some young mums involved; they are the main users of the NHS, and they should be running it and making the decisions.
That takes me on to my final, local points. Young mums in Wakefield are a concern to me, because a number of policy issues affect them directly in respect of maternity services and gynaecology. I wanted to make a general speech, but it would be wrong not to refer to the serious concerns in Wakefield about proposals in respect of maternity services. I know that I do not look it, but I shall be 50 in October, so I share this anniversary with the NHS. [Interruption.] Who said that?
I share this anniversary with the NHS—I came in during 1948 as well. An excellent example of family planning, I was born at Manygates hospital, three months after the NHS was set up. My children were also born there, but Manygates was recently closed by the Tories on the ground that we needed anaesthetic cover, and that little hospital did not have it. Services had to move to Pinderfields district general hospital but, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State knows because I have raised the matter with him before, there is a proposal to close the maternity unit at Pinderfields. The central argument is that anaesthetic cover is not adequate, which is why services were moved there in the first place.
We were promised a new unit, but we have never had it. I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider this issue, because I think that we are being sold a pup by the health authority. I have a lot of respect for the difficult work that it is doing, but there are serious questions about some of its arguments. For example, it is proposed to move gynaecology and maternity to Pontefract on the basis that the Calman-Hine proposals on cancer will mean that a large part of the gynaecology work load will have to go to Leeds. I have checked the matter factually, and, over the past 12 months, only 63 of 2,179 new referrals related to malignancy of the ovary, womb, cervix and vulva. We have been given the wrong information, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider this issue because the women and the public of Wakefield are facing profound changes on the basis of untrue and misleading statements.
Audrey Wise: Will my hon. Friend also ask the Secretary of State to take another look at how "Changing Childbirth", a useful report based on the Select Committee report to which my hon. Friend and I contributed, is being implemented? It is my strong impression that, having had impetus for five years, we are in danger of forgetting the valuable principles enshrined
1272
in "Changing Childbirth". Our right hon. Friend should look again at that issue for the sake of women awaiting childbirth.
Mr. Hinchliffe: I commend my hon. Friend for her key role in the report, which was her idea. The conclusions have moved things forward radically, but the direct issue in my constituency, and a key question in respect of "Changing Childbirth", is that women should have choice. My constituents are being denied choice, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider that.
The Secretary of State has more than kept the Government's promises nationally. He has an excellent record in his year in the job. The socialist ethic is being restored by the Government, and I warmly welcome that. I look forward to the health service going from strength to strength—in the hands of a Labour Government.
5.35 pm
Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I welcome the opportunity to speak in this important debate. The national health service, its achievements and its future, is a subject which concerns us all. Like the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), I am of the 1948 vintage, and I think that he looks very young indeed.
The hon. Member for Wakefield and I are part of a generation that has a passionate commitment to the health service. I have spent most of my working life working with it, and I should declare an interest: the NHS employs more members of my family than any other employer. The health service is a concern to our constituents, but it is a source of pride to our country as we talk about its achievements and, above all, its culture and ethos around the world.
Much has been made of the socialist contribution to the NHS. Dare I say that it has also led the NHS to be cumbersome, bureaucratic, reluctant to change, paternalistic and unresponsive to patients. That contribution led to many of the necessary changes during the past 18 years. For all the lofty rhetoric over the past year, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. There has been a massive rebadging exercise, and I shall talk through some of the uncomfortable hooks, as Sandy Macara described them, that the Government left for themselves in opposition. They have been working hard to get off those hooks and back on to the programme of evolution and modernisation of the health service.
In opposition, the Government said that they would end the internal market, but they have rebadged the internal market—the distinction between purchasers and providers remains. It would have been strange of them to dismantle a system that the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has been commending to other countries around the world since 1994. The combination of the patients charter, the strategy in "The Health of the Nation" and the establishment of the distinction between purchasers and providers was described by the OECD as putting Britain
"in the forefront of countries attempting to achieve more coherent health policies which recognise that health care is only one part, but still an important one, in improving health."
I welcome the continuation of the internal market, but I deplore the fact that the Government's political rhetoric about ending GP fundholding has resulted in the introduction of far more cumbersome, bureaucratic

1273
GP co-operatives. Whoever would have thought that GPs—all of them—would be forced to become budget holders, for that is the effect of the bounce that they have received from the incoming Government? I dare say that we might, in due course, have done that ourselves, but, when in opposition, members of the present Government would have been deeply irresponsible, and hostile to any such measure. They also said in opposition that they were against hospital closures, and that there would be no more. Since then, they have been back-tracking hard.
This is a difficult issue for us as constituency Members of Parliament, because we all know that our own hospital is a more loved and understood institution than almost any other. The dilemma for any Secretary of State for Health is whether to champion the future—changing technology and styles of health care—and whether to follow the Calman-Hine protocols on cancer treatment. I am delighted that Sir Kenneth Calman was appointed when I was in office; I congratulate him on his achievements, and wish him well for the future.
I commissioned and published the Calman-Hine report. The logic of the expert views on the delivery of health care is to change the fabric—the bricks and mortar. Is the health service its values and its treatments, or is it its institutions? I believe that it is the ethos and the service, and it must look to the future rather than the past.
The Secretary of State will have greater and greater difficulties with his socialist instincts. The introduction of protocols, guidelines and centralising techniques will make change and evolution harder and harder. There is a growing concern that the end of fundholding and many of the other new measures will stifle innovation. It is through innovation that we will conquer the diseases and frailties of the future.
In opposition, the Labour party irresponsibly heralded endless individual cases devoid of a context. The case of Jennifer's ear will be with us for ever. In government, it must tackle the underlying challenges. I wish the Secretary of State well, and I hope that he will do at least as well as we did on funding.
We delivered an average real-terms increase of more than 3 per cent. a year. It is nonsense to say that the Government are spending what we would have spent. Any Health Secretary who lived with the figure in the Red Book would have been deeply humiliated. That was the opening of negotiations: the Health Secretary, with the chief executive of the NHS, then went out to bat with the Treasury so that targets could be met. That is why I had hardly any summer holiday for six years—neither did my successor, and nor, I imagine, will the present Secretary of State.
So far, the Secretary of State has not done well enough. I shall welcome it if he gets the three-year funding package. I do not advise mid-year rescue packages, because they result in shroud waving and crises. People become adept at gaining access to sources of funding. We increased NHS funding by a full percentage point of gross domestic product. I wish the Secretary of State well, and hope that he can say the same when he finishes his term of office.
The local effect is dire. My health authority has had a mere 1.3 per cent. increase. It has an acute shortage of nurses. It may, objectively, have little health need, but it
1274
has massive health demand. It is having great difficulty recruiting staff, and the position will get progressively more difficult as a result of the changes to the formula that the Secretary of State is introducing.
The Secretary of State's approach of naming and shaming officials is unacceptable. I have always condemned him for criticising health managers. When he was in opposition, no opportunity was resisted to attack health managers—I have a list of quotations, if he would like to see it. I am pleased to say that he has made progress, but the Prime Minister still takes every opportunity to attack what he calls "bureaucrats". The managers in the health service, as much as the doctors and nurses, are committed to the general good and to philanthropy: they believe in the service. It is not fair, and not right, for them always to be the scapegoats.
I am sure that the Secretary of State is aware of the growing unhappiness about late-night calls from the boot boys in the Box. People have spoken out about the telephone calls they have received telling them to keep quiet and not to say what they believe. If the Secretary of State wants me to identify those people, I shall do so later outside the Chamber. There is a bullying atmosphere at the centre. People are excluded from policy making, and there is a loss of confidence in his ability to work with people and not make them scapegoats when difficulties emerge.
Mr. Dobson: The only person I named and shamed, so to speak, was the chair of the National Blood Authority, whom I named, shamed and sacked. As I understand it, the right hon. Lady's successor, my predecessor, was broadly sympathetic to my action. Indeed, my announcement was welcomed by the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman.
There is no question of anyone on my behalf trying to prevent people from speaking out. I have made it crystal clear to every health authority and trust that they must dispense with the gagging clauses that were introduced into people's contracts when the right hon. Lady was the Secretary of State.
Mrs. Bottomley: I give the House and the Secretary of State my solemn word that I have heard of repeated incidents of intimidation by his office. I do not want to add to those people's discomfort by naming them now, because that would compound their difficulties. If he is not aware of that intimidation, he should know that people are behaving in that way on his behalf.
There are further allegations of cronyism. The Secretary of State appointed Baronesses Hayman, Jay and Dean. New Labour Members have approached me and commented on their experiences as members of a health authority or trust. It is difficult to understand the high-handed, contemptuous manner in which a great number of people who gave many years' service to the NHS were dismissed. Ann Galbraith from Newcastle, the NHS representative on the citizens charter, is a person of impeccable integrity. She first knew that she was being dismissed when she was told by her successor.
The other day, the Secretary of State accused one of my hon. Friends of being too lazy to make nominations for health appointments. I have made a number of recommendations, but he has dismissed the vast majority of my suggestions and has appointed people of his

1275
choosing. Nolan, when he investigated health appointments, commended the steps that had been taken to introduce panels and to achieve a more open system. The Secretary of State's recent announcements have resulted in a loss of confidence, and we have taken many steps back. It may be that it is early days, and that a great number of appointments have had to be made. I hope that that is the case.
Mr. Dobson: The Nolan panel still exists. Nominations come to me, as they used to come to the right hon. Lady. I make different judgments in some cases. Conservative Members have thanked and commended me for appointing people they have recommended. The right hon. Lady was appointing people for a long time, so perhaps she should get used to the fact that she is no longer doing so.
Mrs. Bottomley: I am much enjoying the fact that I have weekends free and can have a holiday, and that I no longer have the responsibilities of the Secretary of State.
It is interesting that the chairman of the Prime Minister's Labour club, the parliamentary agent of the Chief Whip and the parliamentary agent of the Minister for Local Government and Housing have all been given health appointments. I leave that thought with the Secretary of State. I do not have access to the vast amount of information on each appointment, but those three immediately come to mind, and there are many more.
Ill will in the health service is growing. It is important for people who have to carry out difficult tasks to feel that they have the Secretary of State's support. When they come to the end of their term of office, there should at least be recognition of and gratitude for the steps that they have taken.
Dr. Ladyman: The right hon. Lady mentioned a number of Labour party supporters who have been given positions on health trusts. Is she suggesting that, if she were still Secretary of State, they would not have got those positions? If so, is that not every bit as bad as what she is accusing the Secretary of State of doing?
Mrs. Bottomley: I am saying that many people who have spent many years serving the NHS are affronted by the shabby manner of their dismissal. A vast number of new people have been appointed whose claim for such recognition is not immediately apparent.
Let me now move from the role of politicians to that of professionals. Over the years, their role has changed. They have consistently resisted new developments. Doctors were initially hostile to the introduction of the NHS, and at each moment there has been further resistance. The Secretary of State has recently experienced difficulties of his own, and no doubt there will be more.
Let me comment on each group of professionals, because this concerns the future. First, there are the doctors. There has been a shortage of medical leadership. There is the British Medical Association, the doctors' trade union, and there are the royal colleges, which are concerned with education and training; but neither body contains the courageous leaders the profession needs. In many ways, the management that emerged did so because doctors did not want to take on such responsibilities
1276
I strongly believe that the Secretary of State would do well to do all that he can to encourage medical management—the work of Sir Cyril Chantler and others. Doctors cannot simply resist change, because they are the people most trusted by the public to achieve change with public confidence. Their role becomes more and more difficult as the public expect more: they expect to be treated as partners, and people engage in litigation when they do not receive satisfaction.
Secondly, there are the nurses. Mention has been made of the recruitment of doctors, but the recruitment and motivation of nurses is more important still. There are real difficulties in the nursing profession, and I urge the Secretary of State to give priority to considering how we can make nursing a long-term, rewarding career. During my time in government, we joined Opportunity 2000 in an attempt to become a model employer, particularly of women, providing part-time employment and career breaks.
Finally, there are the health managers. Already, there are stories that health managers are leaving the NHS and finding employment elsewhere, because they do not believe that they are being given recognition and respect by the Secretary of State and his team. I commend the award of a knighthood to Sir Alan Langlands, who, as chief executive, has acted with great distinction.
The appointment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) as shadow health spokesman has been welcomed—for many reasons, but not least because of her reputation for standing up for officials and not allowing them to be fall guys for politicians' policies. I believe that health managers, and all in the health service, will have a staunch ally in my right hon. Friend.
Let me say a little about patients. We talk of a primary care-led NHS: we share that language. Indeed, in many respects the language that we used in government has been taken over by the Labour party. I made any number of speeches about "co-operation as much as competition" and "progress through partnership". Such phrases are now used as if they were a whole new language, representing a new step forward.
The Patients charter represented an important cultural change in the NHS. It meant that patients must no longer be seen and not heard, and put up with a "like it or lump it" service in which doctors spoke disparagingly of them and scarcely attended to their interests. The charter has put great pressure on the service, and has aroused even more expectations in the public.
We now live in a world of increasingly assertive patients. They can call up vast amounts of information about their conditions on the internet, and there are patient self-help groups that encourage them to expect more and more. The challenges faced by the NHS are not due so much to the aging population—which is increasing at only a third of the rate that we have seen over the past 10 years—or to changes in technology, which will lead to savings as well as costs. The real dilemma for the future is caused by a massive increase in expectations. In this consumer society, people want not just their health needs but their health wishes to be met: they feel that they are entitled to more and more.
I am not convinced that the NHS can provide everything for everyone, for free, for ever. The Secretary of State would show more courage if, instead of rebadging

1277
and helping old Labour to accept that new Labour has taken on Tory policies lock, stock and barrel, he re-examined the whole question of priorities. Call it rationing if you will, but I think that priority setting is the right term. We need to know what the NHS will and will not provide: it needs to be more explicit about that.
I was interested in the comments of our former colleague Michael Portillo. If the Government remain committed to low tax, the NHS needs more money. If the NHS is not to become a third-rate service, it will be vital for the Government to meet health wishes and wants as well as providing for health needs. That must come, even if it means more co-payment, more insurance, more charging or a more positive attitude to the private sector. The Secretary of State will serve no one if he keeps his head in the sand.
The issue of prescription charges has become ridiculous. We are talking about higher and higher charges, which fewer and fewer people pay. The exemptions cannot be justified. Before the Secretary of State asks why we did not tackle that when we were in government, let me say that I am not convinced that many people thought that we were short of difficult issues to tackle. Given the patients charter, the health strategy, the health reforms, junior doctors' hours, the research and development strategy and much else besides, I do not think that we could have addressed the issue—but it can be addressed in the first part of a Parliament with a large majority, and I think that the Secretary of State should address it.
I believe that we shall achieve greater understanding, broader co-operation and a more civilised approach to the NHS if there is a wide understanding of what the service is trying to achieve. When it comes to schools, the public understand that exam results are a good outcome measure; the dilemma in the health service is caused by the fact that the public are less aware of what outcome measure they should look for.
The Government have made fools of themselves over waiting lists. In fact, they were the wrong target. We made huge progress on waiting times. If I had been in opposition I would have wanted to move the debate on, because the message had been conveyed that waiting times and waiting lists are an affront to the public. For Labour Members to make so much of the issue, to say repeatedly in the House, "We keep our promises; they broke theirs," and then to make such fools of themselves with such record waiting lists, has done no one any good.
I urge the Government to look for better outcome measures that the public will understand. That will require a greater sense of what I have termed health literacy. The public need to understand the relationship between hospitals and primary care, and the importance of immunisation, screening and other prevention programmes. I commend the King's Fund for setting up citizens' juries, people's panels, which are trying to bring about more recognition and understanding of what the NHS can realistically deliver.
In the past, there was rationing by waiting list and, frankly, by ignorance. If one knew how to get access to the NHS, it was brilliant, but if one did not, no one was going to make it his or her business to help one find out. Waiting lists are to be tackled in due course, I understand,
1278
but the population are generally fascinated by health and are much more knowledgeable, so the rationing that has always existed in the health service will have to become more explicit, which will again require considerable courage on the part of the Secretary of State. Otherwise, the worry is that the articulate will always win over the inarticulate, and the fashionable over the unfashionable.
I am critical of the Government because they have always taken the focus-group-driven priorities. This week, they were rightly condemned by the British Medical Association for focusing on cancer services—they have also focused on paediatric intensive care rather than other services. Those are the priorities of the focus groups, not the community. Yet again, I must point out that the Secretary of State made no mention of the fact that mental illness is one of the greatest causes of suffering and ill health in our community.
Mr. Dobson: Obviously, I shall have to withdraw my compliment to the right hon. Lady. When we went ahead formally with the proposals for changes in children's intensive care, I said that she had originally started the changes, which were continued by her successor. If she is now telling me that we were wrong to do so, I had better not make such references in future.
Mrs. Bottomley: We all like to be flattered and it is a characteristic of this place that people like the credit for success and Pass the buck for failures.
The dilemma is how the Secretary of State can give greater priority to the greatest health needs, not the most fashionable causes of concern. There is no doubt that mental health is the priority that we have to tackle. In "The Health of the Nation", I insisted that mental health should be one of the priority areas. I am pleased that it is included in his document, but there is no mention of it in many of his publications and there was no mention of it yet again today. I urge him to ensure that whenever he considers health priorities mental health concerns are at the top of his list.
Dr. Harris: Does the right hon. Lady agree that cuts in social services impact on mental health? That is one of the areas of the NHS that is most sensitive to cuts in social services because of their role, and it is vital that, if the Government allow health and social service authorities to work together, they should be allowed to stress their own priorities instead of having to bid for money for cancer services or paediatric intensive care, for example, when that may not be their priority locally.
Mrs. Bottomley: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman, and he is well aware of my preoccupation with the fact that the attack on local government has meant that it is ever harder for social service departments to undertake their responsibilities and act in partnership with the voluntary and private sectors and the NHS.
As we face the future, we must accept that there has been extraordinary progress. The changes that we set in motion have left the NHS stronger and the population healthier. I was never able to fathom why the Labour party voted against the introduction of targets for immunisation, cancer screening and the capitation system, which gave more to inner-city areas with the new GP contract. More than any other step, that ensured that the poorest areas received the health care that some of the most prosperous were getting.

1279
I am pleased that the Secretary of State has evolved the London implementation zone concept into health action zones. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence is a good step forward in the establishment of evidence-based medicine, although I do not know how one can justify all the expenditure on the launch, the rhetoric and glamour of NICE when the NHS research and development budget is being cut following the Culyer commitment to a 1.5 per cent. target. That is being widely questioned. So far, under the Secretary of State there has been a triumph of style over substance. For the future, I want him to have a triumph of courage over fashion.
6.4 pm
Mr. Denzil Davies: I shall not detain the House as many of my hon. Friends wish to speak. I suppose that it is inevitable in debates on the health service that there should be calls for more money. Most people realise that, even if it is forthcoming—money is never easy when one is in government—it is important to target it and ensure that it arrives at the point at which it is supposed to arrive; in a large organisation, it is never easy to pursue the money to ensure that it arrives at its destination. Also, debates on the health service are inevitably a combination of the general and the particular—the general problems and principles and also particular problems.
I must briefly raise one matter that relates to my constituency among others in south-west Wales. I hope that the problems that I raise will lead to a general inquiry and to concern. In what I am about to say I am not picking a quarrel with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or anyone else, and I do not expect the Minister who replies to deal with my points, because the matter relates to Wales, the Secretary of State for Wales has responsibility, and I have no quarrel with him about the health service, either.
Dyfed Powys health authority covers more than my constituency, and encompasses five hospital trusts. Recently, it published a strategic document—a financial recovery plan. The right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley), a former Secretary of State, talked about language, and when I read the document I detect the language of that ridiculously named and conceived internal market—a fundamental contradiction if ever there was one. Perhaps my points relate merely to language and there is not a problem, but the so-called financial recovery plan—it is actually called the "Financial Recovery Five Year Plan" and I am not sure whether that it is also some sort of contradiction, but I will let it go—properly states that the health authority has sat down with the five hospital trusts and tried to work out income and expenditure for the next five years, adding them all together. That is a commendable effort. However, the figures seem horrendous—they may not be large in terms of national expenditure, but they are quite large for us in south-west Wales.
The figures are not necessarily relevant to my case, and I merely mention them for accuracy, but for the year 1998–99 there is to be a shortfall, for the health authority and/or the trusts, of just over £20 million. Presumably that means that, in April 1999, the people who run those organisations will have a shortfall—they will have no money, which is the simplistic way in which I would have looked at it. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is a graduate of the London school of economics and no
1280
doubt understands those things better than I do, but a shortfall of £20 million is a lot of money for someone from west Wales.
With commendable clarity, the recovery plan goes on to say that, if certain things are not done by the end of the five years, the shortfall will be around £73 million—it is cumulative. The health authority proposes certain measures and says that certain things will be done to try to reduce the shortfall. I will not comment on those, but they will obviously involve some difficulties.
Even after the five years and the attempts to reduce the shortfall, we read—in curious language, which reflects the odd accounting world in which hospital and health trusts seem to live—that it will still be £62 million. They manage to reduce the shortfall over five years by about £10 million or £11 million.
What happens at the end of years one, two, and three? Does the manager of Dyfed Powys health authority go down the road to the Abbey National or NatWest and say, "I have a shortfall of £20 million. Could I please have an overdraft"? Does he borrow £20 million from the Welsh Office? There used to be something called the Public Works Loan Board. I remember, as a Treasury Minister, very late at night, trying to introduce orders to change the rate of interest that the board charged. No doubt it does not exist in that nomenclature any more; I am sure that it has another name.
I hate to mention something as antediluvian as the public sector borrowing requirement; I believe that it is all cash flow now. Perhaps that is the problem. What do such managers do when they end up with a cumulative shortfall? It is a fair question, which I ask rhetorically, to which, no doubt, the Welsh Office will provide answers at some time. The document is a curious presentation of an accountancy exercise which flies in the face of any basic rules of accountancy. I suspect that that shows the fundamental contradiction in trying to run an NHS internal market and present it in management and accountancy-speak.
On the basis of the document, the health authority and hospital trusts that cover my constituency and my constituents will be £62 million in the red at the end of five years. Perhaps the money will be forthcoming. There is certainly nothing in the document to tell my constituents that it will. I am not saying that the money will not be forthcoming. I am sure that the Welsh Office will do its utmost to ensure that the problem is resolved. I must read the document from my point of view. It came in the post last week, and it seems to cause certain problems.
The document assumes that capital private finance initiative moneys, as they are called these days, will provide £13 million—or whatever—for the health trusts. I do not know the possibility in south-west Wales—its gross domestic product results in a relatively poor area—of grand or, indeed, semi-grand PFI projects. Perhaps such projects are impossible.
Dr. Brand: Does the right hon. Gentleman share the concern of Unison, which lobbied the House yesterday, about the effects of the PFI? Will it not have disastrous consequences for the budget in Dyfed Powys, given that up to 30 per cent. of revenue can be tied into private sector contracts?
Mr. Davies: I have no idea; I am not arguing for or against the PFI I am merely saying that one of the

1281
assumptions in the document, which enables the health authorities to arrive at a better figure, is that PFI moneys will be available. I do not know whether that will be so.
The document states:
"The key assumptions included in the plan represent major risks."
It is assumed:
"There will be no underfunding of inflation."
That is curious language. I assume that it is supposed to mean that the Government will link any available money to inflation—the retail prices index, RPI, minus X or Y, or plus Z. I remember that, at one time, there was a special health service inflation, a pensioners' inflation and a Ministry of Defence hyper-inflation, which I suppose is still around. I take the phrase about inflation to mean that, somehow, £62 million will still be required and that inflation, be it 0.5 per cent. or 3 per cent., will have been taken into account.
There is an assumption in the document that there will be no underfunding of cost pressures. I do not live in the world of health professionals; I am not an expert on the health service. Some of these debates tend to be rather inbred. I am not quite sure what underfunding of service developments or cost pressures means—except, I suppose, there are always cost pressures. The document makes very large assumptions, yet, if everything goes right, the health authority will still be £62 million in the red at the end of five years. Perhaps I should look forward to five years' time. Perhaps the figure is unrealistic.
Under the curious sub-heading "Balancing the Recovery Plan", the document states:
"It is obvious that in its current form the Recovery Plan does not balance."
Indeed; perhaps I spent too long trying to point out that fact. There has been lots of work, and we have lots of paper and many figures, yet this curious recovery plan is not a recovery plan at all. Not only will patients suffer: the plan will not recover. I do not know whether most other health authorities release documents in such a form and use such language.
The document does not really tell us where the £62 million will come from—except that the final paragraph says:
"Trusts have indicated that they will require £15–17 million in cash in 1998/99."
We are back to our friend the cash flow. Dairy farmers in west Wales used to think that they were rich when the milk cheque arrived every month, and no doubt bought their wives new clothes or themselves a new tractor. They were not really rich. Now, the milk cheque does not even make them feel rich.
The underlying asset valuations and accountancy in those days was probably pretty wobbly. As far as I can tell, accountancy in the document is pretty wobbly too. Perhaps the matters are not presented in the right way and should be reconsidered. I hope that the money will be available. I make neither claim nor criticism. As an ordinary Back Bencher, I find such a document extremely worrying, to say the least.
To introduce a Welsh note, there will be a Welsh Assembly after 2000. If one discounts the first year and a half of the cumulative deficit—about £30 million—when the Government or the Welsh Office will be responsible,
1282
one is left with a debt of £30 million, which will be the Welsh Assembly's responsibility, unless the Government wipe it out. I am sure that this will be considered an esoteric, internal Welsh point. The Welsh Assembly will have a block grant and be able—at least in theory, although in practice it is not so easy—to shift money from one head of expenditure to another. What will happen to my health trust's huge deficit and my hospitals?
I have no doubt that such matters will be addressed and—I hope—resolved. Nevertheless, I have a real problem with them, which I hope my right hon. and hon. Friends will consider. Perhaps they can look at the way in which such matters are presented, and encourage a move away from this crazy world of pretending that we are in an internal market and that the normal rules of accountancy apply. Income, expenditure, assets, recovery plans and such ridiculous jargon does not apply—and cannot be applied—to the national health service.
As I said, I have no quarrel with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or anybody else. I am sure that he, like my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, will consider the matter.
6.18 pm
Mr. Simon Hughes: I cannot comment in detail on the Dyfed Powys finances of which the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) spoke, but the issues that he raised relate to a problem that is endemic in the health service. We have had a tradition of having to budget year by year, when planning of any public service should be for the medium if not the long term. He also said that he was not arguing for more resources, but he must know that if his trust, like many others, has shown a deficit this year and last year, that is because there is a cumulative deficit in the health service generally, which can be addressed only by reducing services or spending, or by additional money.
Over the past week, like many other hon. Members, I have tried to do my bit to pay tribute to the national health service on the occasion of its 50th birthday. I did a loop of visits, starting and ending in my constituency. I started by talking to users of mental health services from Lady Gomm house, which is run jointly by social services and the health authority in Bermondsey. On Saturday, I went up to the Freeman cancer centre in Newcastle, where, on a personal note, one recent patient of that premier cancer centre was the late wife of my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). I understand that she had good and loving care and attention there.
On Sunday, I went to Stepping Hill hospital in Stockport, near where I was born, with the hon. Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell), and looked at paediatric and maternity services. That evening, I came back to Guy's hospital in my constituency, which I visit often and about which I have often spoken to the Minister.
All the staff at those places wanted more resources for nursing, mental health care, night and weekend cover and other services. The Freeman cancer centre needs more plant and buildings. People go there with worrying, often terminal, conditions. Ladies and gentlemen have to use the same toilet facilities, there is no shower and the curtains do not even go round the beds. That is not acceptable in 1998. At Stepping Hill, the paediatric

1283
services are being rebuilt in a new building that staff had been waiting for and greatly welcome. The common, underlying theme is that people in the health service give loving care and attention and nearly always do competent, professional work, as patients almost always acknowledge. They said as much to me in Newcastle, Stepping Hill and at Guy's—although at Guy's people complained that the lunch on Sunday was pretty grim, which is a little matter that I shall take up with the authorities.
This debate is about the achievements and the future of the health service. In a non-party way, I pay tribute to all those who have had responsibility for the health service, for its inception and continuation over 50 years of service to the public. It works; it is cost-efficient, taking only 6.5 per cent. of gross domestic product; it is hugely effective in delivering health improvement: things may not be perfect, and other countries may do better on certain measures, but death rates have gone down and longevity has gone up; and it is the most popular public service by miles.
The Secretary of State for Health, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and I were in Manchester on Sunday morning for a Granada television programme. A couple of hundred ordinary users of the health service, randomly chosen from around the country, were assembled for the weekend and were given information and given the chance to quiz experts and also the three of us. They were asked several questions both before and after the weekend.
When asked whether the Government should spend more on the health service, 71 per cent. said yes before the weekend, and 76 per cent. after. Before the weekend, 1 per cent. said that the Government should spend less, and nobody said so after. There is a pretty good public consensus that the health service needs more funds.
When asked who should pay, 58 per cent. before the weekend said that the Government should put in money for everybody, but 75 per cent. after. The proportion who said that the Government should pay only for those who cannot afford it went down to 22 per cent. after the weekend. Not a single person after the weekend—down from 2 per cent. before—said that health care should be paid for through private medical insurance.
Before the weekend, 57 per cent. said that they were satisfied with how well the NHS catered for everyone's needs, and after it 70 per cent.
There is a high satisfaction rate, agreement that more money is needed and a widespread belief that funding should be through taxation.
I am sorry that the Secretary of State is not here. I was somewhat offended by his failure to acknowledge that the NHS was not only a socialist idea. Beatrice Webb had the idea in the 1920s, and of course I acknowledge that she was a socialist, but it was taken up by Keynes, and it was Beveridge—a Liberal both here and in the other place—who came up with the plan.
Mr. Brian Sedgemore: It is ours.
Mr. Hughes: It is not the hon. Gentleman's at all.
1284
In his book, "The Five Giants—A Biography of the Welfare State", speaking of Beveridge's description of the five evils that the health service and other services were intended to tackle, Nicholas Timmins said:
"In that one ringing paragraph Beveridge encapsulated much of post-war aspiration. By seeking not only freedom from want but a national health service, improved education, full employment and an attack upon Squalor…he gave the vital kick to the five giant programmes that formed the core of the post-war welfare state: social security, health, education, housing, and a policy of full employment".
I do not either in any way underestimate the work done by Nye Bevan, because I believe that pluralist politics and the recognition that we have all contributed are simply a matter of honesty. But for the Secretary of State not to have mentioned Beveridge struck me as selective amnesia nearly to the point of self-denial.
Over the 50 years, during which, sadly, my right hon. and hon. Friends and I have not been in government, and for much of which the Tories have been in office, there has been significant improvement in the health service, and many measures taken by the Tories over those years have consolidated the service. No Tory leader and no Tory manifesto—just as no Labour or Liberal Democrat manifesto—has ever argued that the NHS should be dismantled. None of the three main parties in the House has ever taken the position that the national health service should be other than free at the point of delivery.
Of course, some individuals, in the Tory party and elsewhere, may have argued differently, but the great commendation of the health service is that, 50 years on, it is still the view of the three great parties of this country that it should be free at the point of delivery. The sooner we can concentrate on the issues on which there is real debate, the sooner we shall serve the public well.
Dr. Ladyman: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that two individuals who are now Conservative Members, one of whom is a Front—Bench spokesman—the other one may be, but I am not sure—proposed what they called a pill tax, and a charge for every single NHS service? Those hon. Gentlemen are gaining preferment in their party and may one day be in positions of significant power.
Mr. Hughes: I have tried to make the broader point. We could all make nitpicking points. I am not going to do that. The three main parties' positions for 50 years on keeping the NHS have been consistent in their generality. The sooner that the hon. Gentleman and his friends remember that and we start having a debate about how we get the best health service free at the point of delivery instead of artificial debates about things that may interest us in here but do not matter a jot to people out there, the better we shall be serving the public.
Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hughes: No, I will not give way for the moment.
I applaud some of the things that the previous Government did, such as the work to advance the importance of research and development and education and training and to develop mental health services, pursued by the two previous Secretaries of State. I applauded them for those policies when the Conservatives were in power, and I applaud them now.

1285
I applaud some of the things that the current Government have done. They have accepted that we must bring health and social services closer together. My party goes further and argues that they ought to be merged. I strongly believe that in a few years they will be merged. It is a nonsense to have a national health service and locally run social services—one free at the point of delivery and the other charged differently depending on the area. I think that in Great Britain, as in Northern Ireland, we should have merged health and social services soon.
I welcome the Government's announcement the other day of a decision to set up a Commission for Health Improvement. My party's manifesto said that there should be an inspectorate for health and social care. Every doctor's surgery, hospital and health centre should be inspected, as schools are inspected by the Office for Standards in Education. The commission should have teeth and should be able to regulate.
I welcome the fact that the Government are concentrating on clinical excellence. It is nonsense that so many things are done that are not proven to be good for anyone. I welcome the fact that people will be free to speak out when things are going wrong. A restriction was imposed by the previous Government, which we opposed.
I welcome the end of fundholding. The differential between fundholding and non-fundholding GPs allowed some people to jump the queue. I welcome the Minister of State's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) last week, in which, for the first time that I remember here in this place, he conceded that in effect we have rationing because there is differential service provision in different parts of the country.
I welcome the fact that the Government admit that more money is needed. I have done this job for a few years and I have always been clear that we have rationing. We have rationing now and we shall always have rationing. Bevan was clear from the beginning that not all national health services could be introduced at the beginning. Services depended on the funds. I would far rather that availability decisions were made publicly and accountably than that they were made by the professionals privately. The sooner that we get a system for sorting that out, the better.
I will not rehearse in this debate the difficulties that the Government are in with their waiting list pledge. The Government know my view. They made the wrong commitment. It should have been on waiting times, not waiting lists. In any case, to take 100,000 people off a waiting list of 1,300,000 is hardly radical socialist nirvana. To take one out of 13 people out of the queue for treatment is hardly a revolution. The Government's pledge is modest, weak and rather feeble as well as the wrong one.
We are troubled, as my colleagues demonstrated yesterday, that many community hospitals are under threat. Horncastle hospital in Lincolnshire, which I know because my grandmother used to live in the town, has closed and 27 others are under threat in various ways. I hope that following the comprehensive spending review announcement next week, one of the things that the Government say is that they will review decisions in every part of the country where a community hospital is under threat in the light of the additional money. The point made
1286
by the right hon. Member for Llanelli applies very well. It would be nonsense for a hospital to be closed this year to balance budgets, when more money will be in the kitty that might allow it to remain open next year. We really must have a longer-term view.
The Government in the end wobbled and fell over tobacco sponsorship. They promised in the manifesto:
"We will therefore ban tobacco advertising."
That was a promise for this Parliament. That is why parties produce manifestos. Yet we shall not have the ban until the next Parliament. Everyone knows that this has been a bit of a bottling out. I am sorry about that, because stopping youngsters smoking is one of the key health strategy objectives that we should pursue.
The health service is safe not in our hands but in the hands of the professionals who work for it. We are desperately short of professionals. I hope that the Government, with the money that is announced next week, will make it clear that one of their priorities is to retain and recruit the professionals whom we need. We cannot expect the health service to do what we want unless the 8,000 nurse vacancies, the GP vacancies, the hospital doctor vacancies, the consultant vacancies and others are filled as soon as possible. Personnel planning has been very bad in the health service, and we need to remedy it as a priority.
I ask Ministers to consider giving financial incentives to students to go into health and related professional disciplines in return for a commitment to stay with the health service, as the armed services and the private sector often do. We should make sure that never again do we face the problem that a staff nurse in Newcastle and I discussed. When nurses reach a certain grade in the health service, they can gain further promotion only by leaving nursing to become a manager. We must allow people to continue to get more money while continuing to do their professional job.
We must end the system whereby independent pay review bodies recommend that nurses, doctors and dentists are paid more, and the Government say, "Oh no, you can have only half now and half later." That has devastating effects, and Parliament has no say. My party has been clear. Governments may not have the money sometimes, but only this House should overrule a pay recommendation. Ministers should not do it without putting their decision to a vote in the House. We in the House should be accountable if we do not honour a pay recommendation. This year, the nurses were furious. There was plenty of money in the kitty and they could and should have been paid.
We must consider—Ministers are doing so—a more flexible employment system, so that people can stay on the payroll for the whole of their professional life, even if it means that they do 20 hours a week for a period and 10 hours for another period. That would be much more valuable.
Dr. Harris: On staging of the pay awards, the Minister looked puzzled when my hon. Friend said that there was plenty of money in the kitty. Surely the point is that, however much money there is in the kitty, it is more expensive to fail to stem the rising tide of disillusionment and loss to the nursing profession and medicine by undermining morale and staging pay awards than to pay

1287
the money up front, thereby avoiding the need to pay for expensive advertisements and to go to Finland, Australia and New Zealand to find nurses.
Mr. Hughes: That is certainly the case put to my hon. Friend, to me and to others. I think that Ministers know that that is the truth. I hope that they will never make the same mistake again.
We need a massive programme of capital renewal to improve the plant of the health service. I say to colleagues on the Labour Benches that if they keep going down the road of the private finance initiative, they will have to answer the allegation that they have privatised more of the health service than the Tories ever did. That is the truth of the PFI route. My hon. Friends and I are clear. I have here two medical colleagues who both believe, as do others, that the PFI is inappropriate. It is not strategic. It allows a bottom-up approach rather than strategic planning. At the end of the day, it costs more as well as resulting in a loss of control.
I hope that we shall ensure that we have enough money in the kitty to fund staff and capital programmes. The Minister of State and the Secretary of State derided both me and the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald when we put some figures on the table. I do not intend to play a bidding game, but I shall put a figure on the table. We need £8.8 billion more for the NHS to be announced in he comprehensive spending review next week if the NHS is to stand still. [Interruption.] I will show the hon. Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) the figures if she does not believe me. They are figures produced by the Library and available to her.
Laura Moffatt: It is a stupid game.
Mr. Hughes: It is not a stupid game. I will tell the hon. Lady. If she thinks that she can go out of here defending something that does not give the NHS a real-terms increase next week, we shall harry her and her colleagues like hell until the next election.
My colleagues who shadow Treasury Ministers have made our position clear in our alternative Budget. We believe that the NHS should have 5 per cent. more in real terms this year, and 4 per cent. in real terms for each of the remaining years of this Parliament. In real terms, that would mean £11.5 billion more in next week's review. I shall happily go through our figures with the Minister of State if he wants. If the Government come up with more, we shall not outbid them or ask for an increase. We have costed what is needed, and we believe that it is £11.5 billion, the figure by which we shall judge the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Health. If they produce less than that, we shall give them a hard time. If it is as low as £8 billion or £9 billion, I promise them that they are in trouble.
Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman is talking much good sense about the amount required for the NHS to stand still. Will he confirm that in addition to the £9 billion needed for that, we should consider the huge extra cost of administrative reforms being set in motion by the Government? That must be removed from any increase announced next week.
Mr. Hughes: The right hon. Lady was with me until that point, but I cannot agree with her assertion. Increased
1288
bureaucracy was a legacy of her Government. The new Government can reduce the amount spent on bureaucracy, although some items in their programme will add unnecessary bureaucracy, for example, the way in which primary care groups are structured.
I want to conclude, to let other hon. Members speak. I hope that over the next 50 years the NHS becomes more democratic, although I am troubled that that is not happening yet. The Minister has told me that he will not reinstate the democratically elected regional health authorities that we ought to have in England to do strategic planning. There should also be locally accountable health authorities.
Health and social services should merge. We must give more resources and attention to mental health, which, in spite of all our fine words, remains an under-resourced service. Mental health is of equal importance to physical health, as Bevan made clear from the beginning of the health service. We must regulate the unregulated professions allied to medicine, such as psychology, and also those who practise alternative therapies. We must not cut back on research and development. The public health laboratory service has been cut back in recent years, and even with no extra money it does excellent work.
As the Prime Minister said at Earl's Court last week, we must realise the benefits of information technology. The health service is, in many ways, terribly old-fashioned. It is nonsense that we cannot see the information held on us, or transport it to other areas or have it passed from general practitioner to hospital, through information technology. The NHS must get its IT right.
The NHS must continue to exist in the community. It must be where the people are. The doctor on duty at Victoria station should not be from the private sector; he or she should be from the NHS. The NHS should be in the shopping malls, or wherever people are in the evenings, at weekends, 24 hours a day. The NHS must respond to the changing life styles of Britain in the years ahead.
One way to remove unnecessary political argument from the NHS would be to create a forum for debate outside this place among the professions, the patients and the public. I do not pretend that a standing conference for the future of the health service is the only model, but such a conference could come up with ideas and a strategy for the future. We should ensure that the public are as involved in the health service in future as they have been committed to it in the past. The NHS is the best of British institutions. We all have a duty to make it stronger in every year ahead.
6.44 pm
Jane Griffiths: I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for drawing the broad picture of the number of new hospitals being opened or nearing completion after so many years of stagnation in the national health service. The previous version of the private finance initiative in the health service foundered repeatedly. In Reading for example, there were repeated promises that a new hospital would be built under the PFI to replace the antiquated buildings on two sites, which serve a population of more than 200,000. Year after year, the promises came to nothing. Huge sums were spent on consultancy and feasibility studies, but there was no new

1289
hospital. Finally, last year, under a Labour Government, the PFI was reviewed, and we achieved a hospital building programme.
Dr. Brand: That is fascinating. Is the hon. Lady saying that the Labour Government are better at implementing Conservative policy and doing what the previous Government wanted to do?
Jane Griffiths: Absolutely not. If the hon. Gentleman allows me to finish my point, he may understand it a little better.
The constituencies of hon. Members on both sides have benefited from that programme, although not only because of the PFI. More than £90 million in NHS finance has at last been found for two hospitals, and those projects are in progress. The Royal Berkshire and Battle hospital in Reading has already achieved a new maternity block and a gynaecological day case unit. I had the privilege of visiting it last Monday, where Joshua Gledhill was born on Sunday, the 50th anniversary of the establishment of the NHS. He can look forward to modern, excellent, local NHS facilities—although I hope, of course, that he will not have to use them often.
If we look back 50 years ago, when the proposal to establish the NHS was being debated, we find that the fine claim that everyone has always supported the NHS was not quite true. The Conservative former coalition Health Minister, Henry Willink, now deceased, was often said to have had his own plans for a national health service before the Labour Government were elected in 1945. Henry Willink is, incidentally, well remembered in Reading, not least because Willink school in Wokingham—I fear that the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) is not here—is named after him. As a former Conservative Minister, he described the proposed service as an idiosyncrasy that
"will destroy so much in this country that we value."
He said:
"I could never vote for it or indeed abstain from voting against it."—[Official Report, 1 May 1946; Vol. 422, c. 232–42.]
It was said in the debate that if the Bill came to pass, the doctors of the future would be worse than the doctors of the past. We should remember the true state of opinion 50 years ago, and we should look forward.
I am proud to echo my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's salute to all the authors of the NHS, and to those who work in it today. We must look to the next 50 years. The Government have brought it back from the brink, and it will go on to a better future.
6.48 pm
Mr. Stephen Dorrell: The Secretary of State began his speech by saying that the debate had been organised by the Government to provide the opportunity for a national celebration of a national institution. That would be welcome, and I hope that that will prove to be the debate's dominant tone. He had a strange means of launching that national celebration because, having declared that that was his objective, he launched into a party political diatribe that would go down well in Holborn and St. Pancras, or in front of other Labour
1290
audiences, but would stretch the credulity of any audience not packed with old Labour Members. It used to be said of Lord Whitelaw that there was a Whitelaw bluster ratio. He believed what he was saying in precise inverse proportion to his bluster at the Dispatch Box. If we apply that principle to the Secretary of State's speech, I think well enough of him to believe that he was convinced by very little of the rhetoric that he was using.
One example of high bluster ratio was the Secretary of State's comments on the private finance initiative. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and I have debated the PFI on several occasions. I am a strong supporter of the PFI. I congratulate the Secretary of State on the progress that he has been able to make in implementing a policy that we developed during our period in office, as the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand) rightly told the hon. Member for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths).
The Secretary of State said that he gone to top out the new Dartford hospital and that a roof was being put on it. He noted that building was proceeding on the hospital in Norwich and that it would soon have a roof. He appeared to be asking the House to believe that that was all done, in the 15 months after the general election and when both projects are well over £100 million in value, from a standing start by the new Labour Government. Life is not like that.
I congratulate the Secretary of State on continuing to implement a policy that will prove to be an important step forward in the development of the NHS. I was associated with it as Secretary of State for Health and before that as Financial Secretary to the Treasury, when I was responsible for pushing through the early development of ideas on the PFI.
I trace some of my interest in the subject to my early days as a junior Health Minister at the start of the 1990s when I was told that I was responsible for what in those days was called "unconventional finance". I inquired what it meant and after a little briefing, it became clear that in the NHS-speak of the time, it meant what the rest of the world regards as conventional finance because it is a more flexible and efficient means of managing a capital programme. I am pleased that over the years we have been able to move the NHS from regarding private finance and the private management of capital developments as a discrete minor interest, dealt with by the junior Minister responsible for unconventional finance, to regarding it as a core part of the NHS capital investment programme.
More fundamentally, the debate allows us to look back at what has been achieved by the national health service and look forward to what it needs to be in future. I regard the NHS as one of the things that we have got right in Britain over the past 50 years. I do not propose to inquire into the words in Hansard by various spokesmen in a debate that took place five years before I was born. That is not salient to modern politics. The NHS is a great British success story for which Governments of both major political parties have been responsible. As my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State said, it is statistically true that the Conservative party has been responsible for more of the development of that great British success story over the past 50 years than has the Labour party. I do not seek to draw party political advantage from that but to celebrate a great British success story.

1291
There are two fundamental reasons why I regard the NHS as something of which we should all be proud. The first is the most fundamental reason of all: the social policy objective that the NHS delivers. I do not believe that health care is simply another consumer service. One can examine that with any amount of academic analysis, but I do not find it very useful. There should be something in our bones that tells us that access to health care and the availability of the skills of doctors and nurses to sick people should be decided by a principle different from those that determine access to the majority of other consumer services in Britain.
The national health service has been built to deliver a simple social policy objective. High-quality care should be available to any sick person who needs it on the basis of their clinical need, without regard to their ability to pay. It is a simple, powerful idea on which the NHS has been built by parties of both political complexions throughout the past 50 years. There is virtually unanimous agreement about it among the British electorate. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey rightly said that that principle has not divided the major parties since the earliest days of the NHS. In truth, it is sufficient reason by itself to support the British national health service on the basis on which it has developed.
I said that there were two reasons for supporting the British NHS. The first is by itself sufficient, but there is another reason for supporting our model for the delivery of health care which is also by itself sufficient and compelling. Put together, the two arguments create a knock-out case. Not only does the British NHS deliver equitable access to health care, by international standards—this point is inadequately recognised—it delivers the world's most efficient health care system. That is not the same as saying that there are no inefficiencies in the health service or no opportunities to improve its efficiency. Of course, its efficiency can always be improved, but it is a simple fact capable of relatively easy confirmation that the British NHS is the world's most efficient means of delivering health care to a population.
The World Health Organisation publishes a range of public health indicators: life expectancy, infant mortality, recovery rates from the major life-limiting diseases. It is not my case that Britain is in first position on all those measures. That is not true. Britain is in the middle of the pack for performance on those major public health indicators. Where Britain is in a league of its own is in the efficiency with which we use resources in the delivery of health care to achieve those public health objectives. These are statistics that are perhaps better known than people realise, but their message is inadequately recognised.
Taking public and private health spending together, Britain spends less than 7 per cent. of national income on health care. In France and Germany, perhaps our main European comparators, the figure is roughly 9.5 per cent., and in America 14 per cent. I may be a simple man, but this is a pretty simple test of efficiency. It delivers the same result for a lower cost input, and I know of no better definition of efficiency than that. Whether we consider the NHS as an instrument of social policy or of economic policy reducing the national overhead in the delivery of health care to the population, there is a compelling, convincing, knock-out case in favour of our approach to the delivery of health care.
1292
It is interesting to examine what some people say when presented with the figures that I have cited regarding the proportion of national income spent on health care. I shall identify two reactions so that I can demonstrate why I think that they are wrong. The first reaction is occasionally identified with the British Medical Association and other interest groups that press the Government to spend more money than Chancellors or Health Secretaries feel able to recommend. That argument says, "Look, in Britain we spend only 7 per cent. of national income on health care, but elsewhere in Europe they spend 8 per cent. and, in France and Germany, they spend 9 per cent. Why don't we spend 9 per cent.?"
There are all kinds of arguments in favour of increasing expenditure on the delivery of different parts of the NHS, but that is the weakest of them all. It is simply an argument for driving up costs. Anyone who wants to make the case for increasing health spending must prove the benefits in terms of output and public health gain. We must not simply drive up costs in order to make our health service as inefficient as those on the continent—that is the most stupid argument of all—or as monumentally inefficient as the system in the United States, which spends double the share of a higher national income in order to produce a worse public health outcome. That is not a very strong argument.
I also reject another, more insidious, argument. There are those who make a different comparison using the same international figures. They say that, if we look behind the public and private health spending total in Britain, we will see that the proportion of health spending committed privately is very low by international standards. That is also true. The figures are quite interesting. In Britain, of the total of just under 7 per cent. of national income that is committed to health care, 16 per cent. comes directly from individuals by way of a private spending decision. In other words, that funding does not come from taxation. In France, the figure is 22 per cent.; in Germany, it is 26 per cent.; and, in the United States, the figure is more than 50 per cent.
Some conclude from those statistics that, therefore, we should increase the share of Britain's health expenditure that comprises individual private spending decisions. It is worth pausing for a moment to reflect on that argument. In each of those countries where private money constitutes a higher share of total health spending, the tax-funded health spending is a higher proportion of health spending than in Britain. So the idea that there is a saving to the taxpayer does not stand up to analysis.
However, I have a more fundamental objection to that argument. It seems to me to be the ultimate irony that, although we begin by recognising that Britain has the world's most efficient health care system, we look around the world to see how others are doing it—recognising that their systems are less efficient than ours—and propose changing our system to make it more like those more inefficient systems. I have never heard that argument explained convincingly.
You do not have to take my word for it, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There are other more surprising and less predictable advocates of that point of view. I was struck by a quotation from Lord Lawson on that subject in a book that was widely and favourably reviewed as a thought- provoking and thoughtful retrospective on his time as Chancellor. Speaking, not as Chancellor of the Exchequer, bound by collective responsibility and

1293
unwillingly supporting socialised health care because that was the policy of the time, he told the story of why, as Chancellor, he had concluded that the national health service was the right model for Britain and that it would be wrong to try to encourage more private money to play a part in the delivery of NHS services. He wrote:
"We looked…at other countries to see whether we could learn from them; but it was soon clear that every country we looked at was having problems with its provision of medical care… They were all in at least as much difficulty as we were, and it did not take long to conclude that there was surprisingly little that we could learn from any of the other systems."
I think that that is an interesting reflection from a source that is less predictable than others quoted in the debate. I agree strongly with Lord Lawson's conclusion.
Ever since its foundation, the NHS has been the subject of virtually continuous re-examinations by those who are convinced that it cannot work. In the year that I was born, Rab Butler—to take another less predictable contributor to the debate—was convinced that the NHS could not work and, as Chancellor, he set up the Guillebaud commission in order to prove it. It is interesting to examine—as I did as Secretary of State for Health—the arguments that led to the establishment of the commission, which finally went public in 1953. It was claimed that pressures would make the national health service insupportable and that it would collapse under the weight of its own contradictions by 1960.
Let us look at what was going to make that happen in the view of 1953—the arguments have a familiar, contemporary ring. In 1953, people were convinced that the NHS would not work because of, first, a rising elderly population and, secondly, the rising cost of modern medicine. With due deference to my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley), the third perceived pressure then was exactly the same as it is now: the rising expectations of the post-war generation.
Those who claim that the NHS cannot work have not only 50 years of history against them—in 1953, at least Rab Butler had the excuse that it was an untried, bold experiment—but 50 years of arguments that have been proved wrong. The pressures—no one who has been Secretary of State for Health would deny that those pressures exist; they are meat and drink to the Secretary of State—are reconciled better in this country through our structures than by any other system so far developed elsewhere.
I believe that those who are concerned about the next 50 years of the national health service would find it more instructive to look at the history of the service under Governments of both political complexions in order to understand how those pressures have been reconciled with an affordable burden for the taxpayer during the past 50 years, rather than speculating in theory without looking at the evidence of how that success story was achieved. There are three specific lessons to learn from that history, which I believe is more instructive than the theory.
Mr. John Gunnell: The right hon. Gentleman's comments encompass the fact that this Government are far more ambitious than he was as Secretary of State for Health. It is very clear that our
1294
interpretation of health care includes social care. There seems to be a great difference between the way that this Government approach health and social care—I have seen that in my capacity as a member of the Health Select Committee that studied relationships between those areas—and the proposals that the right hon. Gentleman left us in a social services White Paper, which made it clear that his vision of the health service did not include social care in the way that the Government's vision does.
Mr. Dorrell: I have read with considerable care the Government's White Paper, "The new NHS: Modern—Dependable" and I shall comment later on one or two of the points that it contains. However, I have to say that, although the hon. Gentleman might hope that the Government intend to embrace the whole of social services within the national health service commitment of a tax-funded service available on the basis of need to all those with an established clinical need, and that that is to be the idea that underwrites the future development of social services, it is not in the White Paper. I make it clear that I do not agree with the conclusion, but I do not think that the Minister of State agrees with it either.
Turning to the key lessons that I draw from history about how we deliver successful NHS care in Britain, the first concerns the question of the global level of resources. My right hon. Friends the Members for South-West Surrey and for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) drew attention to the fact that, over the 18 years that the Conservatives were in office, real-terms expenditure grew, on average, by 3.1 per cent. per annum. That is not only the record between 1979 and 1997; it is the record of the previous Government in office between 1974 and 1979; and it has been established on several different occasions as the long-term trend rate at which the real budget of the NHS has to grow in order to accommodate the pressures that exist within the NHS.
In other words, if we are to continue the lesson of our own history and accommodate the pressures within the NHS, what we must expect is that, in the long run, there will be a gentle rise in the share of national income that is committed to the NHS. That rise is not a huge one—nobody should take fright from it; anyone who wants to take fright should simply remind himself of how much all our comparator countries end up spending on health care when they try the different systems that people recommend to us. However, it is true that there is a gentle long-term rise in the share of national income taken by health expenditure. That should not be surprising: society becomes richer and one of the things on which developed countries want to spend more of their money is improving health care delivery, increasing that spending at a rate somewhat faster than the increase in GDP.
One of the challenges I offer to the Secretary of State is that, following the Government's spending review, if they really want to underwrite their commitment to continued development of the national health service on the basis of a model that has proved to work over the past 50 years, they should at least be able to say, as they have said in respect of education, that health will, under a Labour Government as under their predecessors, take a rising share of national income. The Prime Minister has made that pledge in respect of education and, if the Government mean what they say about the continued development of the NHS in line with the model that we have seen work over 50 years, a commitment in words

1295
that the Government will ensure that, over the life of this Parliament, the share of national income committed to the NHS will rise, would be a means of underlining their commitment to continuing to deliver that model.
Frankly, I doubt whether the Government will be able to deliver the model if they do not steel themselves to the commitment to ensure that, by the end of this Parliament, health takes at least 0.1 per cent. more of GDP than it did at the beginning of the Parliament. I remind the Government that, in the period 1979–97, the share of GDP taken by health rose, if memory serves, from 4.5 per cent. to slightly less than 6 per cent.—rather more than one full percentage point over 18 years. The Government cannot do the same over five years, but the least they can do is ensure that they avoid what happened when Labour was in office in the late 1970s, when the share of national income taken by the health service fell. I apologise to the Minister for lowering the tone, but, if he wants his commitment to the continued delivery of the health service to be taken seriously, that must not be allowed to happen again.
Therefore, first, we must make the same commitment to health that the Government have made to education: a rising share of national income. Secondly, comes the question of priorities.
Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: The right hon. Gentleman has been making some interesting comments, clearly designed to be a shot across the bows of the right-wingers who currently prevail in the shadow Cabinet. However, before he moves on, may I draw his attention to a written answer that the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn), gave to the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) on the subject of NHS capital spending? That answer revealed that, on average, between 1978–79 and 1997–98, the percentage net real-terms growth under the Conservatives was minus 0.6 per cent., whereas in the first year of the Labour Government, growth increased by 4.9 per cent. I am not a supporter or a fan of the right hon. Member for Horsham, but I shall warm to him if he continues to elicit such useful information on the Conservatives' record in comparison with ours.
Mr. Dorrell: I spoke about the capital programme at the beginning of my speech. As I said on numerous occasions when I was Secretary of State for Health, the capital programme of the NHS, under Conservative and Labour Governments throughout its 50-year history, is an object lesson on how not to manage a capital programme. That is why, as Financial Secretary to the Treasury, I pushed through the changes in the rules on the private finance initiative. It is why, as Secretary of State, I tried to develop the PFI in the national health service. It is why one of my first remarks this evening was to congratulate the Secretary of State on his continued and successful prosecution of a Tory policy.
The second issue that the Government must face and continue to face, if the NHS model is to continue to be delivered successfully, is how the NHS addresses the question of priorities. Every Secretary of State is told, "You must not use the dreaded 'R' word," and every Secretary of State develops his or her own circumlocution—hon. Members can read Hansard to satisfy themselves that I am sufficiently wedded to my ways not to use the dreaded "R" word. However, every
1296
Secretary of State develops the essential language to ensure that the NHS must address questions of priority in the use of taxpayers' resources. It is simply a rewording of the central founding idea of the NHS: if we say that health care should be available on the basis of need and not the ability to pay, that means that we inquire where need arises, we rate one need against another, we set priorities in the use of taxpayers' resources and we target the resources on need. If the health service does not believe that, I do not know what it believes, for that is what the health service is there for.
The NHS must take a disciplined approach toward deciding what its priorities are and then use the resources available to it to deliver those priorities. The Secretary of State has to give a lead in that process, but it must involve the whole service. There will always be those doctors who say, "That is a matter for politicians. You set up a committee to decide what we should or should not prescribe," but the fact is that the process has to involve the whole service, including the Secretary of State. I commend the Secretary of State on his work on developing ideas for improved assessment of quality and effectiveness in the delivery of health care. I think it fair to say that that work develops some of the ideas in "A Service with Ambitions"—to pick up the point made by the hon. Member for Morley and Rothwell (Mr. Gunnell) about the ambitions for the health service. One of the purposes of "A Service with Ambitions" was to encourage development of new ideas on the measurement and monitoring of quality through the NHS, which is something that we sought to develop when we were in office.
The Secretary of State was kind enough to refer to the development of paediatric intensive care units as being one of the differences of nuance between me and my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey. I take the strong view that it is hard to think of a higher priority in the delivery of health care than the provision of high-quality intensive care treatment to very sick children. I said that I thought that such care ought to have a very high priority.
It is also necessary to make decisions that are less popular than others. At the end of the previous Parliament, I was responsible for confirming the screening committee's decision that we should not run a national prostate cancer screening programme because the case for that was not as strong as the equivalent case for women on breast cancer screening and it would not have represented a good use of NHS resources on a properly prioritised basis.
Those are two examples of decisions that I made. I am prepared to acknowledge that I left behind unfinished business. One example is in vitro fertilisation. An orthodoxy developed that IVF is a luxury. I never shared that view. If we take the view that health care ought to be available to people on the basis of clinical need, not ability to pay, I do not understand the argument that an infertile couple should be able to have a baby if they can afford private IVF treatment but the infertile couple who cannot afford IVF, but whose clinical status is such that it has a reasonable chance of success, cannot have a baby. I do not agree with that argument. Deciding such priorities is one of the remaining challenges for the health service.
Another example that is increasingly covered in the literature is access to kidney dialysis. Historically, the priority attached by the health service to the development

1297
of easy-access dialysis units is not, in my view, as high as the clinical priority would justify. I have offered the Minister of State two less comfortable examples of difficult questions that the Government must face. They must ensure that questions of priority and clinical standards are decided.
I conclude my remarks about priority by underlining the point that we cannot leave the medical profession out of those decisions. We cannot allow to develop the frame of mind that such decisions are for politicians and managers, and that the health authorities must simply provide lists of what resources are available. Of course, guidance can be given and an emphasis suggested, and I have said that that is what the Secretary of State should do, but in the end the judgment of the clinical priority of one patient against that of another must involve the patients' clinicians, particularly their doctors. The overwhelming majority of doctors want to work in a tax-funded service where clinical priorities determine the use of resources, so they must be involved in making those decisions.
Finally, I come to the issue that is critical to the efficient use of resources in the health service: the importance of ensuring that decisions are made as locally as possible. As I have said, I have read the White Paper and I agree with much of its content, but there is some with which I disagree. It builds on the approach that we adopted in government, and I do not deny that some changes still needed to be made when we left office.
I am particularly pleased, since I was given such stick at the time, that the Secretary of State is wholly unpersuaded by the Labour party's rhetoric about the two-tier service. If different primary care groups are making different decisions about their priorities, it is, of course, inevitable that some groups will be more successful than others. Inevitably, the care available to the patients of one group will be, in some respects, different from the care available to those of another group. That is the purpose of having different groups. People in the health service can then find new means of delivering care and order their priorities to reflect those of their patients.
I regret that fundholding is to end. Primary care groups would have been more successful if membership of them had been voluntary, but I certainly do not disagree with the idea behind such groups. I could hardly do so because they were made possible by the National Health Service (Primary Care) Act 1997, for which I was responsible. If those ideas are to work, the Secretary of State must allow different groups of local managers in different parts of the health service to reach different conclusions. Otherwise, it is all a sham. There will be local variety in priorities and ideas, and that must be reflected.
My central argument is that if we continue to develop the health service on the path that has proven successful in its first 50 years, that success story should be supported on both sides of the House. There are those who say that the problems that have existed since the day the health service was founded have suddenly become insoluble, and I fear that those people are in danger of proving yet again the truth of the old adage that to every difficult problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious and wrong.
7.25 pm
Mr. Brian Sedgemore: The right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) is genuine Front-Bench material and I am sure that he will have every chance of replacing the lady of the night if he keeps up his form. I was interested in his notion, with which I broadly agree, that infertile people have a right to treatment because infertility is an illness. I wonder what he thinks about the similar problem of impotence and whether impotent people should have the right to take Viagra. Perhaps he can tell us about that on another occasion.
It is a genuine privilege to participate in this historic debate to celebrate 50 years of the people's national health service, which was set up by the people's party—old Labour. The last time I intervened in the House on the subject of health, I was accused of being a new Labour crawler when I praised the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Health for their heroic decision to save St. Bartholomew's hospital and suggested that the Secretary of State would find himself in the pantheon of the gods when the definitive history of the world came to be written. It is not my fault that we have a wildly popular and hugely effective Secretary of State.
A few weeks ago, the Secretary of State went to a dinner given by the alumni of St. Bartholomew's hospital and the medical college. He told us that his son had said to him, "Come on, Dad, tell the truth. By the time you retire, what will you have done that you could tell people had affected the world and done some good?" My right hon. Friend said that he had thought long and hard and eventually said, "I have saved St. Bartholomew's hospital." Even as he spoke, all the alumni, professors and consultants leapt from their seats, as though an electric charge had gone around the room, and cheered and cheered. That is the kind of popularity that we want our Ministers to have. Old Labour or new Labour: this is our health service and today we rejoice.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) claimed that Beveridge had thought of and created the health service. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has many good features—he is probably kind to animals and, for all I know, he loves children—but he is a rotten historian. I have here what is probably the definitive biography of William Beveridge by José Harris, which concentrates for most of its 500 pages on the Beveridge report of 1942 and all its complexities. Its main source is no fewer than 500 boxes of Beveridge's personal papers, which were deposited in the British library of political science.
Harris's conclusion about the argument that we are having tonight is that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is right and the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey and the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) are wrong. On page 459—this is the definitive judgment—he says:
"He"—
Beveridge—

1299
"was rather embarrassed by his reputation as 'father of the welfare state'… He was even more embarrassed when people referred to him as creator of the National Health Service—insisting that this term could only be applied to the Labour Minister of Health, Aneurin Bevan."
Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Sedgemore: No, the hon. Gentleman has had his say. Beveridge knows his own views better than the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Hughes: If the hon. Gentleman has read all that book and all the other books about Beveridge, he will know perfectly well that Beveridge, because he was modest, was clearly saying that he was happy to be associated with the report, which dealt with many other things, but that, because the detail of the NHS legislation was left to Bevan and others at the beginning of the Government, the model proposed was a Labour creation. He was clearly never embarrassed about the idea.
Mr. Sedgemore: I honestly do not think that the hon. Gentleman understands the complexity of Beveridge's political beliefs. At some times, he was a pure free marketeer; at others, a statist. But on the NHS he was clear—the credit went to Bevan, not to himself. It had nothing to do with modesty; it was due to the fact that he constantly changed his mind about what kind of programme he wanted after he had produced the Beveridge report of 1942. If the hon. Gentleman is claiming that he has read it, I suggest that he re-read it and try to understand words in their ordinary and natural meaning. That is what we lawyers were taught to do, and that is what politicians should try to do.
It is a shame that we will not be having a vote in the House tonight whereby we can condemn Conservative Members for seeking to destroy the NHS with their internal market reforms, which showed that, while they know the price of everything, they understand the value of nothing.
Tory opposition to the creation of the NHS was writ large in the debates in 1946 in the House. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave some examples—I can understand why the right hon. Member for Charnwood does not want to talk about such things—but perhaps I can mention a couple that my right hon. Friend did not mention.
On 1 May 1946, Sir Harold Webbe, Conservative Member for Westminster Abbey, completely lost his marbles, referring to the
"deplorable, reactionary, and destructive proposals…now before us."
He then had the temerity to compare Nye Bevan to Adolf Hitler when he described the creation of the NHS as a
"hotchpotch of political prejudice…and a very large measure of intuition… I do not want to remind the Minister that the last leader of men who relied on his intuition is dead and his country in ruins."—[Official Report, 1 May 1946; Vol. 422, c. 271–74.]
Sir Harold, a knight who in argument regularly moved from false premises to false conclusions by way of faulty logic, was unfit to lick Nye Bevan's boots.
Two months later, on Third Reading on 26 July, Mr. Linstead, Conservative Member for Putney, where I used to live, set out to reinvent the Conservative party in its 19th-century image as the Stupid party, when he said:
1300
"We find this Bill remote in principle, in practice and in spirit from those conceptions of what a health service should be."—[Official Report, 26 July 1946; Vol. 426, c. 400.]
We have just heard the right hon. Member for Charnwood say that the NHS is the best thing that the world has ever known. That is because those conceptions that were damned by the Tory party in the House in 1946 have survived for 50 years intact and, while Labour stays in power, they will live unto eternity.
Bizarrely—I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald has left the Chamber—the Conservative health team today is led by a person who admits that she is unfit to be Secretary of State for Health. The right hon. Lady is now here, so perhaps I can repeat that. Bizarrely, the Conservative health team today is led by a person who admits that she is unfit to be Secretary of State for Health. Her unfitness stems from shrivelled and irresponsible attitudes based on trashy theology towards sex education in schools, the use of condoms and abortion.
The right hon. Lady's views on condoms stem from an apparent belief that God has ordained that every sperm should have an equal chance of impregnating the egg. I imagine that she goes around from church to church and climbs into the pulpit holding up a placard on which is written, "God believes in equality for sperms. Do you?" My answer is that I do not believe that, and nor can any Secretary of State for Health who is concerned for the health of the nation.
Any Secretary of State for Health has to accept not only that sex is fun, sex is cool, sex is hot, but also that unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases can destroy people's lives. Those problems, like sex, may be a foreign country in the minds of chilling theologians, but they have to be understood and dealt with by Secretaries of State for Health.
As a member of London Brook, I wonder how the shadow Secretary of State for Health will approach the summer of love project for holidaymakers which the Brook advisory centres intend to run in July and August by giving free advice and condoms to holidaymakers.[Laughter.] The project—not at all laughable actually—is aimed at preventing teenagers from catching sexually transmitted diseases while on holiday and arises out of a recent survey which showed that 24 per cent. of young adults had sex with one or more new partners on holiday, yet most did not use condoms.
I very much hope that, before the next century begins, services that are related to women's rights and that are readily available through the NHS and Government support in England, Wales and Scotland will be made available in Northern Ireland. It is disgraceful that there is little or no sex education in schools in Northern Ireland, and less sex education than in schools in the Irish Republic, and that there is rabid opposition to organisations, such as Belfast Brook, that encourage safe sex through the use of contraceptives. It is equally deplorable that abortion is illegal in that part of the United Kingdom, and that, if Sinn Fein comes out in favour of abortion, as apparently is forecast—that is what we were told when I sat on some adolescent hearings a few weeks ago—it will be the first political party in Northern Ireland to do so. Good luck to Sinn Fein if it has the courage to do that.

1301
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State may, like his forebears, consider Ireland to be a upas tree of woe in this respect, but I would hope that he will have a word with Northern Ireland Ministers, who have been just a little reticent on these subjects.
I end my brief contribution not by ingratiating myself with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, but by congratulating him on the galaxy of good works that he has initiated. They include the establishment of a health action zone in east London—local Members of Parliament, including me, will meet tomorrow morning to discuss future action on that subject with the East London and the City health authority—extra funds for the Homerton hospital in my constituency; the promise of a new hospital in Whitechapel, although there are concerns about the way in which the private finance initiative will work here and elsewhere; steps to improve primary health care; and, of course, saving Bart's.
Next week, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be coming up with extra billions and billions of pounds for the NHS—
Mr. Skinner: Twelve billion pounds.
Mr. Sedgemore: I have no inside knowledge, but my guess is £10 billion.
The future of the people's NHS is safe not only in our hands, but in the hands of its brilliant, dedicated and hard-working staff.
7.37 pm
Mrs. Marion Roe: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me in today's debate to mark the 50th anniversary of the NHS.
Not only as an NHS patient, but as a former governor of the St. Peter's group of hospitals in London, a former member of the South East Thames regional health authority and chairman of the Select Committee on Health for five years, I have always taken a special interest in health matters.
The NHS is the largest employer in Europe and I first place on record my personal tribute to the doctors, nurses and all personnel involved in delivering health services. Nor should we forget those undertaking research and the voluntary organisations such as the hospice movement. For the past 50 years, that dedicated band has made the national health service what it is today: an institution of which the whole country should be proud.
Secondly, however, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) said, one should acknowledge that, for 35 of its 50 years, the health service has been supported by Conservative Governments. More important, the health service has received real increases in funding in excess of inflation in all but three of those 50 years—and the three years in which there was a real reduction were the Labour-administered years of 1976, 1977 and 1979.
Undoubtedly, the Labour Government's funding for the NHS still does not match Conservative spending policies, and will not be sufficient to enable them to deliver on the promises that they made to the public of reducing the
1302
length of NHS waiting lists and spending more money on patient care. All the evidence is that, for real health benefits, it is the Conservatives on whom the country and the sick can rely. The facts show that to be the case.
Today, however, is not a day purely to dwell on party politics; we are also here to celebrate the national health service and its successes. The service is admired throughout the world, providing guaranteed, comprehensive, 24-hour care irrespective of colour, creed or wealth. Its hospitals meet the demands of acute illness, medicine, surgery, paediatrics, gynaecology and a host of other specialties.
Enormous strides have been made in the management of mental illness and disability. Far more health care is being moved to the community, so that patients who, as recently as 20 or 30 years ago, would have stayed days or weeks in hospital need be in hospital for their treatment for only a matter of hours, and can then be supported by nursing and other staff at home.
In 1948, if a child was admitted to hospital, he or she commonly stayed weeks, months or even years. Children with major disabilities often spent their whole childhood in an institution, and those with a learning disability their whole lives. Hospitals usually forbade visitors, so opportunities for contact with family or with the local community—and even facilities for play or education—were rare. Even health care professionals rarely had specific training in children's needs. The NHS has radically changed all that.
Nowhere is the service more popular and more effective than in primary care. I believe that the general practitioners are the jewel in the crown of the NHS. The service has undergone dramatic changes as medical knowledge has improved. Many of us well remember the GP of the 1950s, resplendent in his three-piece suit, working from his house, supported by his wife, who worked as his nurse and receptionist. He—in the 1950s it was almost invariably "he"—offered a basic sickness consultation service, with little in the way of outcome other than a prescription or referral. General practice has changed out of all recognition. It has become primary care, offering a comprehensive diagnostic and preventive service, meeting ever-increasing expectations from an increasingly demanding population.
During the past 15 years, consultations have increased by 60 per cent. I am glad to say that GPs have risen to the challenge. Doctors now work in groups, from well-equipped, purpose-built premises providing a host of additional services—family planning, maternity services, immunisations, minor surgery, health screening and child surveillance. Many of those GPs are now women, increasingly highly trained and with additional skills. The total number of GPs increased from 28,000 in 1982 to more than 32,500 by 1995 and, during that time, the average number of names on a GP's list decreased from 2,100 to 1,800 per doctor.
I have been proud to support and encourage a range of excellent developments during the past 15 years. My constituency has the first surgery to provide a purpose-built preventive care unit, the first surgery to open a fully equipped operating theatre with recovery beds, the first surgery to sign up to the fundholding scheme. I have witnessed the wonders of cardiotocography—the technique whereby information about the heart and circulation of an infant developing in a pregnant woman can be recorded and sent down a

1303
telephone line to a consultant in a hospital miles away. In short, I have witnessed an explosion in the range and complexity of care provided locally for patients by what is now known as the primary health care team.
Let us give credit where it is due. Those successes have been due to the visionary and progressive health policies operated by the Conservative Government since 1979, including the provision of funds for new buildings, the encouragement of schemes to encourage practice staff and programmes to finance computers. The changes in the GP contract have resulted in considerable improvements in service provision as a consequence of the introduction of a range of item-of-service and target payments, as well as capitation payments and allowances.
What has been the outcome? Immunisation rates for diphtheria, tetanus and polio increased from 82 per cent. in 1981 to more than 95 per cent. by 1995, and, even more spectacularly, those for whooping cough increased from 46 per cent. to more than 93 per cent. during the same period.
Healthy children are much more likely to become healthy adults, and we must always ensure that we invest in the future. Let us not forget that our NHS provides services for all children while, in 1998, 14 per cent. of children in the United States of America lack state or private health insurance. For women, cervical screening rates now exceed 70 per cent. in most practices. What a success for the GPs. I believe that we should acknowledge that success.
Our primary care is the envy of the world. It provides a cost-effective, high-quality service. It has been able to develop more quickly than ever before as a result of the previous Conservative Government's policies, which placed the general medical practice at the heart of medical care and made the GP the gatekeeper.
What are the challenges of the future? Good practice is not always implemented for children. They are still admitted to adult wards. They still remain in hospital rather than leave, because only 50 per cent. of the country has community children's nursing services, although I am delighted by the recent announcement of community children's nursing services specially for children with a life-threatening or life-limiting condition, as a memorial to Diana, Princess of Wales. Too often, staff have not received specific training in children's needs; too often the service is fragmented, and too often it is based on traditional custom and practice.
We know that respiratory conditions, especially asthma, are increasing and now affect 70 in every 1,000 of the population. Although death rates are decreasing, chronic illness as a whole is increasing. Fifteen per cent. of under-fives now suffer from a chronic illness, as do 60 per cent. of 70-year-olds. Mental health services are coming under increasing and intense pressure as a result of the inexorable increase in mental illness. Much work is still to be done in those areas.
During the next five years, there will be a serious shortage of doctors and nurses because of retirement. There are 1,000 GP vacancies at the moment. The Labour Government have not honoured their pledge to reduce waiting lists, which have lengthened by 133,000 in a year. In any case, as I said in the Chamber previously, I believe that the Government should be concentrating on reducing waiting times. That is where the focus should be. GPs are
1304
concerned that, with the new arrangements for primary care groups, all their achievements under the previous Conservative Government might be undermined.
The 50th anniversary of the NHS is an important landmark in health care in Britain. We have seen tremendous successes in improving the quality of life of our population over the past 50 years. Our goal must be to make sure that those achievements are not undermined, but enhanced—high-quality, effective health care matched by value for money. Let there be no mistake. All Governments will face the problem of infinite demand to be met by a finite budget.
7.50 pm
Mr. Peter L. Pike): I am glad to have an opportunity of speaking in the debate. I was born in the constituency of the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe), 11 years before the national health service was formed. She described a pregnancy in modern-day Broxbourne, but I am sure it was not like that in 1937. The hon. Lady also reminded me of the concern shared by many women that automatic recall for breast and cervical screening stops at 65. At least women who have a history of cancer should be identified and called back for regular checks.
I recall the birth of the NHS and recognise the significance of the debate today. Whether or not Beveridge was responsible—I do not dismiss the importance of the Beveridge report—I thank Nye Bevan, Clem Attlee and that Labour Government for having the guts to go ahead and implement the national health service. I have been an in-patient, as have my wife and two daughters. I thank the NHS, as do millions of others who depend on it for their GPs and primary care, and for hospital care. We depend on the NHS for the service that it provides, and we thank it for being there when we need it.
I recall that during the 1992 general election campaign, I was suffering from a shoulder that had been broken in five places, and my wife was having a major operation for cancer. Ironically, although I did very little in the election because of that, my majority increased.
Two former Secretaries of State have spoken in the debate. The right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) suggested that we were appointing cronies. That is outrageous when one considers what the Conservative Government did for 18 years. In my area, Miss Muriel Jobling was well respected as a person who fought for the health service. I do not know her politics. She is active in the hospice movement and elsewhere, but because she did not implement the Tory Government policy speedily enough, she was removed overnight and replaced by Mr. James Rawson, who later had to resign. Hon. Members may remember that Burnley NHS trust had a major problem when for a few days, we had no manager, chief executive or chairman because for various reasons, they all had to disappear.
Mr. Rawson was typical of the Tory party's appointments. He was seen canvassing in the next constituency with John Lee, the Tory candidate. When challenged, he said that he was Mr. Lee's national health service adviser. I pointed out that he did not come out canvassing with me, as my national health service adviser.
I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it clear that the three main criteria for appointments to trusts and health authorities

1305
are, in addition to ability, that candidates should live in the area and use the NHS. I congratulate him on that. We are already beginning to see a major improvement in the people serving on those bodies.
The second former Secretary of State who spoke, the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell), made an extremely good contribution to the debate. I do not agree with everything that he said, but I hope that he is asked to design the Tory party's health policy. However, I also hope that he remains on the Opposition Benches for the rest of his political career.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) spoke about the private finance initiative. I recognise the benefits of the PFI in the short term, but we must consider the long-term implications. I acknowledge the short-term advantages that a capital fund could deliver now, but I am worried that if we are not careful, there will be revenue and other implications in years ahead that could squeeze the budget. I respect what my right hon. Friend is doing for the NHS and I know that he will fight for resources. It is important that we get the funding issue right.
If we look at the way in which health authorities and trusts are operating now, after 14 months of a Labour Government, it is clear that they are much more open and honest. That encouraging change is partly due to the new people serving on those bodies, but more importantly, they recognise that there is a new agenda and that the Government have a positive approach.
I shall quote from the response by the East Lancashire health authority to the Green Paper, "Our Healthier Nation". It stated:
"The East Lancashire Health Authority welcomes the publication of this Green Paper on people's living conditions and public health. We are pleased to have the opportunity to respond to it.
The Green Paper is strong on analysis, including a clear recognition of the interplay between many factors, operating at a range of levels, on the health of populations and subgroups. There is a strong case made for investing in health for the benefit of the whole country, in the same way as we might invest in education or research.
East Lancashire is an area of generally poor health and we welcome this analysis. Among the main wider influences on local health are a legacy of industrial manufacturing; a preponderance of low skill based and low paid employment; a large proportion of pre-1919 housing, much of which fails the housing fitness definition".
My right hon. Friend has persuaded his Cabinet colleagues that the health service cannot be compartmentalised and judged in isolation from social issues such as housing and poverty. My area has a tremendous amount of poor housing. I lived in it for many years, and it has improved, but there is still much substandard housing. Local people worked in the coal mining industry, where the working conditions were obviously bad for their health. Others worked in the textile industry. Steam was pumped into the cotton mills for the benefit of the cotton, but not for the benefit of the workers. They, too, suffer health problems in their old age, which we must still deal with.
Burnley has a high rate of premature deaths, particularly in the urban areas. The most common causes of death are heart disease, stroke, respiratory diseases and lung cancer. There are also high levels of self-reported,
1306
limiting, long-term illness—in other words, people who cannot lead a full life because the state of their health restricts what they can do. Again, the greatest prevalence is in the urban areas.
Burnley also has major problems in respect of dental health. Burnley's children have the worst dental health in east Lancashire, and east Lancashire has the worst dental record in the country. I had some difficulty myself a few weeks ago. I had been a national health service patient with the same practice since it opened in 1963, but my original dentist had retired and I had been put with someone else. She was changing to part-time work because she had a young child. She was a good dentist and I fully understood her reasons, but because I wanted to be seen on a Friday, she transferred me to another dentist. The first time that I went to see him, he had transferred to another practice and I had to be seen by someone else.
These days, many people cannot get a national health dentist. Indeed, in some places, it is absolutely impossible to do so. The previous Government virtually destroyed the NHS dental service. The Secretary of State and his team need to look at re-creating the dental service.
Dr. Ladyman: I was wondering whether my hon. Friend would be interested in my experience. I had a very good national health service dentist until a few weeks ago when he committed the crime of becoming 65. Under the current rules, he must now either go into private practice or work for somebody else. I have thus lost my NHS dentist for no good reason.
Mr. Pike: My hon. Friend makes a valid point.
A number of issues need to be looked at. For example, why do dental practitioners have one of the highest suicide rates in the country? The pay system for dentists is wrong and needs to be completely reviewed, which may require a major rethink.
People are entitled to a national health dental service. I must admit that, when I was given my bill after my last visit, I said, "I am a national health service patient," and I was told, "That is a national health service bill." It seemed very high to me.
I wish to outline a point that the Multiple Sclerosis Society put to me on the availability of treatments. It says:
"The Government has now provided more information about its plans to give more central guidance on the effectiveness of treatments. The new National Institute for Clinical Excellence will give guidance about the effectiveness of new treatments.
Ministers have said that they expect the guidelines to be implemented consistently across the NHS and have said they will monitor compliance with this guidance.
Ministers have hinted that purchasers may be forced to comply with this guidance if variations in health care persist. The MS Society believes that the Government should make an unequivocal commitment to ensure that guidance is implemented across the UK.
The history of beta interferon's introduction to the NHS shows that health authorities have systematically refused to comply with national guidance and have disputed judgements made by specialists at a national level."
I hope that my right hon. Friend will give a commitment to ensure that there is compliance in that respect. I accept that it is fair enough if it is determined that a treatment is not appropriate in a specific case, but it must be a medical decision. Moreover, the medical

1307
decision must be the same in Burnley as it is in Broxtowe, South-West Surrey and Wakefield. We need consistency across the board, not simply in respect of beta interferon and MS.
Incidentally, Burnley health care trust welcomes the additional moneys that have been made available to reduce waiting lists, which have allowed it to appoint new consultants in a number of areas and ensure continuity in that respect. We are all waiting to see what the spending review will yield.
The Labour Government have made a good start on the national health service. My right hon. Friend has spoken many times about the ship moving in one direction and having to change direction. As the captain of the ship, he is doing a good job. The national health service is much safer in the Labour party's hands. I hope that we remain in control of it so that, in another 50 years' time, we can celebrate its centenary.
8.4 pm
Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate and to follow the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), who referred to aspects of improved health care. The Southern health board lost a distinguished director of social services because, when the health board was regrouped, the role of the social services directorate was restricted and he felt that that was limiting its work. He returned to a position here in England where he had responsibility, among other things, for housing, which is an important factor if we are to have good health care.
I was trying to remember whether I was ever at a 50th birthday party at which people raked over the stories of the birth. When women look back to childbirth—men do not do so—they usually pay tribute to the midwives, but rarely say anything about the obstetricians. The humorous aspect of tonight's debate is that we have spent some time raking over who did it. Perhaps there is a lesson to be learnt from that.
I was privileged to be at a thanksgiving service for the 50th anniversary of the NHS on Sunday in St. Anne's cathedral in Belfast. Incidentally, no Minister was able to be there and I was the only politician, apart from the deputy lord mayor of the city. I have a commitment to the health service. For 19 years, I ministered in a Belfast congregation. The first Minister of Health in Northern Ireland, the late William Grant, who introduced the health service in Northern Ireland, had been a member of that congregation, and I had contacts with members of his family. For four years, I was an assistant chaplain in a hospital and I have done some 25 years of regular pastoral work in hospitals. At a personal level, I have always been committed to the national health service.
I join those hon. Members who have paid tribute to developments in the health service. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) referred to the availability of the 24-hour service. In one sense, there has always been a 24-hour service through the emergency services. His remarks reminded me of a doctor in a village in Northern Ireland who said that he was always glad when Tuesday and Thursday nights came because the local cinema was open and that reduced the number of people who came to his surgery. Many came just for company and a chat, but they wanted something from the doctor as well. I wondered about the staffing of the 24-hour service.
1308
We must examine the use of the language of accessibility. The White Paper says that one of the main points about the service is that it should be "prompt and accessible" right across the country. If accessibility has been defined as medical help being available to everyone at the point of need free of charge, that is one thing, but in rural areas of Northern Ireland, people think of accessibility as being the possibility to get to hospital in the shortest possible time. As hospitals in rural areas have been closed, people are not terribly happy. We must at least use language that does not mislead people into thinking that they will receive something that cannot be delivered.
I agree completely with the concept of local responsibility for implementing national standards, and I look forward to those standards being set. I have a word of caution, however, arising especially from recent debates about the tragedies in Bristol. I received a letter from a specialist in my constituency who felt, first and foremost, that, at times, the media highlight the issues but do not give the whole story. In the light of debates in this place, I was equally concerned, because I am mindful that there are people in the medical and surgical profession who protect their reputations rather than serve their patients.
I have in mind a surgeon who gave dedicated service over many years. He had realised that he was gifted and had skills, and he had to evaluate whether he could help his patients. Anyone who has been treated by a doctor or who knows someone who is being treated by a specialist will be aware that individuals hear what they want to hear and, quite often, may misunderstand what the specialist is saying. In this modern world, we have almost deified doctors and think that they have a cure for virtually everything.
The surgeon whom I have in mind always did his best to explain things to patients, and many people were cured, made recoveries and had three, four, five or even 10 extra years of quality of life, but there were more casualties in his surgery than in others. Some patients decided, "It's too risky, I'm not taking it. I'll die anyway, so there is no point in doing anything." Doctors are evaluated by their peers, who have to judge them, but we should be careful of condemning specialists, because they have difficult tasks to perform in making diagnoses and prescribing medicines.
The White Paper refers to cutting bureaucracy. I have no difficulty with efficiency, but how are we to cut bureaucracy? When I was a member of the Health Committee, there were those in the early days of programmes for changing NHS care who shouted about too many managers. I noticed a significant change, and in one of our investigations, I challenged a specialist in the care of children about the concept of management. He was honest and said, "We don't want fewer managers. We want more money." The average doctor does not consider himself or herself to be a manager. Doctors believe that their time should be spent mainly in clinical services.
We need good managers—people who know what is going on and can keep a grip on things—but how will we cut bureaucracy? When we were reducing the number of health boards in Northern Ireland and developing trusts, GP fundholders and multiple fundholders, there was a subtle exodus from the boards into funds and trusts. Job

1309
protectionism is found in most areas of life, and we must be careful about how we cut bureaucracy and have an efficient health service at the same time.
Although we have a good service in Northern Ireland—tribute has been paid to the combination of health and social services, and I recognise that health boards in Northern Ireland have more functions than health boards here—I still find it difficult to accept that for 1,700,000 people, we need a Department of Health and Social Services, a health management executive, four area boards and 20-odd trusts. That seems to be out of kilter. We have to examine that structure and cut it down to size, without moving that bureaucracy into other areas.
I could make a lengthy contribution, like some hon. Members, but others want to speak. I shall, therefore, simply issue a word of caution. The White Paper says that
"management costs will be capped in health authorities and Primary Care Groups and the Government will continue to bear down on NHS Trust costs. Transaction costs will be cut."
I remember rows in this place about the capping of local authorities. What happened when local authorities did not have the money that they thought was needed to provide even social services? We should be careful when we talk about capping management costs, because management will find ways in which to keep their budgets going and someone else may suffer. Usually, the people who suffer most are in the front line or at the coal face.
I shall curtail my comments, but I must refer to the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore). It was fascinating to discover that the Government do not propose to delegate powers over abortion within the devolution of powers to Scotland. The hon. Gentleman referred to that, and also referred to poor sex education. I do not know how many schools he has visited in Northern Ireland, but I believe that there has been a tremendous improvement, as there has in other places. I have noticed that, even where there are Brook clinics which, supposedly, cut the number of unwanted pregnancies, the number continues to grow.
Here in England, no one should kid themselves that such clinics are the answer to the problem. The people of Northern Ireland have not gone down the road of social abortion, so to suggest that they should have such clinics imposed on them against their will hits at a basic concept of democracy. I was fascinated when the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch cheered on Sinn Fein. He may have been unaware that, although that party supported the extension of the Abortion Act 1967 to Northern Ireland, its supporters largely did not like it. Sinn Fein had to turn the legislation down, and tone down its position dramatically.
In debates such as this, we think about the disposal of innocents with potential for development, so perhaps there is something to be said about the fact that credence was paid to Sinn Fein, the masters in disposing of people.
8.18 pm
Ms Joan Ryan: I make my contribution on behalf of my constituents in Enfield, North, who have had first-hand experience of the differing approaches to the national health service of the Labour Government and their Conservative predecessors.
1310
I shall elaborate on those differences, but I should first congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health on two major achievements. The first is his programme for the future of the NHS, focusing provision on patient need, and delivering for that need through primary care commissioning. I am proud to tell hon. Members that that approach has been pursued for some time by dedicated and far-sighted GPs and primary care professionals through the total care project in my constituency.
The second achievement is that the Secretary of State has managed to restore the public's faith in the national health service. Their faith has been sorely tested by the policies of the previous Government, who are now consigned to the Opposition Benches as a consequence, among other things, of their policies.
The people of Enfield, particularly those in Enfield, North, depend for their acute health care provision on Chase Farm, North Middlesex, the Whittington, and Barnet general hospitals. Several hon. Members will be well aware of the recent histories of those hospitals. Other hon. Members may find the experiences of north London residents illuminating.
Under the last two Conservative Governments, each of those hospitals and their services were either threatened or seriously undermined. The people who were dependent on them and their services were faced with an ever-changing landscape of secondary health care provision, which destroyed the morale of national health service staff and the confidence of the public.
The threat to the accident and emergency department of the North Middlesex hospital was fought off through the campaigning of local people and on the strength of their arguments. The threat not just to the accident and emergency department of Chase Farm hospital but to its very existence in any shape or form was also fought off by local campaigning, which was strongly supported by our local newspaper, the Enfield Advertiser.
The threat to Barnet general hospital was lifted, only for the neighbouring Edgware hospital to be identified for closure. The previous Government closed Edgware hospital as we approached the 1997 general election. The Labour Government have since established a community hospital at Edgware. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) and all those locally who resisted the closure of Edgware hospital and fought for and achieved the community hospital.
There is a pattern to this history. It is a pattern of arrogant disregard for the opinions of health service professionals; of disdain for the people who are dependent on the Government to provide a decent health service; and of incompetence. The decisions taken by the previous Government were frequently reversed, only to be reintroduced somewhere else. Each time—with the unfortunate exception of Edgware—the Tory Government were forced to back down when their misjudgments were exposed. The history of the NHS may record that those hospitals survived the Tory years, although scarred, but it will not record the consequences of their bungling on the day-to-day management of those hospitals.
Chase Farm hospital in my constituency is an excellent facility. It engenders a sense of loyalty in the local community that it serves so well, which is not uncommon among good hospitals across the country. What is also not uncommon is the fact that it has more than once faced the

1311
threat of closure despite a remarkable performance record. It has managed to survive the years of illogical planning under the previous Government. It has managed to survive in a climate of uncertainty about its future and in an environment in which its neighbouring facilities were constantly in fear of closure. It has managed to survive the folly of the internal market through skilful management of tight budgets and by tailoring its services to the people it serves. It has drawn on that invaluable resource in the NHS: the commitment, dedication and professionalism of its staff.
As we stand here today in the glow of the 50th anniversary celebrations of the founding of the national health service, I am proud to be associated with a Government who see their tenure of office as a chance not just to rebuild the NHS, but to develop it for the future. The Government have rejected the Tory approach of conflict before consultation and destruction before design. I am sure that this is a matter of relief throughout the country, but we in London have particular reason to feel relieved about the change of Government and the change of approach.
The Tories commissioned the flawed Tomlinson report, which claimed that London's acute health facilities were over-bedded. That report has been superseded by the Turnberg report, which painted a picture that was much more readily identifiable by Londoners. It was apparent to all that London was not over-bedded, and that, in particular, the care of the elderly and those with mental illness was falling far short of what was required.
However, it is not right merely to blame the Tomlinson report. It is the Government's responsibility to make decisions. It is their responsibility to make the right decisions.
What should we have expected from the Tories? While we are celebrating the creation of the national health service 50 years ago, it is appropriate to reflect further on the contributions of some of the Members of the House during that incredible post-war period and the debates that set the course for the NHS. It is an enjoyable subject for Labour Members, who should feel proud to follow in the traditions of the great Nye Bevan and his colleagues. However, I suspect that a few Conservative Members will know enough about the Tories' behaviour in those debates to hope that their shameful contributions are left hidden on the pages of Hansard in the Library, away from the scrutiny of the public, but I am sorry to disappoint them.
The record of the debates exposes the Tories' contempt for the national health service even then, as they fought to prevent it from ever coming into existence. As the Secretary of State said, they voted 51 times against the National Health Service Bill of 1946. Next year, perhaps the NHS could celebrate a year for each one of those votes: 51 times. What were they voting against? What was it that they so feared? It is hard to ascertain from the transcript of the debates whether they knew that themselves.
My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths) told us about Henry Willink, who claimed that the Bill threatened
"the patient's right to an independent family doctor".
He said that the Bill would
"destroy so much in this country that we value."—[Official Report, 1 May 1946; Vol. 422, c. 223–32.]
1312
He may have had a point if we value poor health, inequality and injustice.
Richard Law, quite shockingly, said:
"the doctors of the future will not be as good as the doctors of today."—[Official Report, 30 April 1946; Vol. 422, c. 81.]
How would he explain that comment in the light of the fact that, since the foundation of the NHS, life expectancy for men has risen from 66 to 74 years, and for women from 71 to 79 years? I accept that that is not the only factor, but it is a significant one.
I, too, read with some disgust the comments of Viscountess Davidson, who predicted "civil war". That was a bit strong, although there was something of an uprising in her constituency of Hemel Hempstead on 1 May last year, because that seat is now held by Labour. The constituents of Pudsey reacted the same way last year, although I am sure that it was not simply a late reaction to Colonel Stoddart-Scot, who held the seat in the Conservative cause in 1946. He thought that the Bill
"does nothing for positive health, and gives no assurance to the people that the hospitals will generally reach a higher standard."—[Official Report, 2 May 1946; Vol. 422, c. 365.]
Given what future generations of Tory Health Ministers have got up to, he should have been congratulated on his foresight.
I could make the same point about the constituents of Putney—who famously returned a Labour Member—and others, but my point has been made. Each of the seats I have mentioned was held by a Conservative before the last election, and they all came to Labour. The ever-present threats in the past 10 years
to north London, especially the Enfield-based hospitals, was a strong factor in Enfield returning three Labour Members in place of three Conservatives. The British people, who cherish our national health service, trust Labour. That is because the Labour Government have embraced and reaffirmed the values of the NHS: the simple values of equality in health care, and the commitment to prevent ill health as much as to cure it.
Labour's programme is firmly rooted in the prevention of ill health. Prevention is possible only by pursuing the Government's broad approach to defeating the causes of ill health. We have already seen some of their measures to combat poverty, poor housing and unemployment: structural issues that cause and promote poor health. That approach is reinforced by the development of primary care, and has already been recognised in my constituency.
The family doctor—the GP—is the foundation of the national health service. That is as true today as it was in 1946, whatever Mr. Willink may have claimed. The scrapping of the abominable internal market and the move to primary care commissioning recognises that. As an aside, while we are on the subject of the internal market, I can tell the House that the other day I heard some non-executive members of a local hospital trust having a little chat, and they referred to the Secretary of State who introduced the internal market as a "regular kind of guy". I could not quite agree with that, until I realised that they probably meant "regular" in the medical sense.
In Enfield, North, there are exciting developments for our primary health care, with the establishment of modern facilities in the constituency. I recently attended the opening of some of those facilities, and was impressed by what I saw. In particular, the new Eagle house centre in Ponders End is continuing its marvellous tradition in

1313
modern premises and facilities. Dating from 1729, Eagle house has played a central part in the history of the area, having sheltered local residents from everything from religious persecution to first and second world war air raids.
In large new premises, the centre will be a base for health visitors and district nurses, and will provide a wider variety of services than ever before. There will be enhanced teaching and education facilities, better capacity and equipment for minor surgery and individual consulting rooms for general practitioners. The practice will serve a relatively deprived population from a range of ethnic backgrounds, in an area where the unemployment rate is about 14 per cent. The practice and its team have been key players in the delivery of primary care in Enfield, and I am delighted to say that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will formally open the facility later this month.
I have also visited the medical team from the Riley house surgery, who recently held an "asthma care day" in a local community hall. They are taking care to the community, involving people, and being accessible. On the day of the anniversary of the introduction of the NHS—last Sunday—I was asked to open the new Jephcott suite at the White Lodge medical practice in Enfield town. That is another new primary care facility in my constituency that is developing better conditions for patients and their families.
Finally, let me return to the benefits of Labour's approach for acute health care in Enfield. After the years of uncertainty and gloom, there is a new spirit of partnership in north London. That is evident in the preferred partner working arrangements between Chase Farm and Wellhouse NHS trust at Barnet general hospital.
The two hospitals have been working together since January—two hospitals, six miles apart, serving the same population with the aim of delivering the very best health care, in which quality and meeting patient needs come first. Those two hospitals are no longer pitted against each other in competition, but are able to work together. We look forward to the progress of their partnership, and recognise the good sense of arrangements that will benefit our local population.
Given the improvements in life expectancy I mentioned, if the Government continue with the same level of success, perhaps many of us who are here today will be back in the Chamber celebrating the centenary of the NHS in another 50 years.
8.32 pm
Dr. Evan Harris: I am delighted to speak for the first time in a major NHS debate. Because of the paucity of NHS debates, there have been few long enough for two Liberal Democrats to speak.
I am particularly pleased to follow an enjoyable, interesting and powerful speech from the hon. Member for Enfield, North (Ms Ryan), who gave a history lesson for the Conservative party; but I intend to deal with the present situation, and to ask the Minister a number of questions relating to how we deal with quality in the NHS, how we deal with the distortion of clinical priorities by politicians, and how we deal with rationing. The
1314
Government have now admitted what is obvious to everyone in the NHS—that, to a certain extent, rationing takes place, both in itself and on the basis of postcodes. I also want to give the Minister some advice—as I would give advice to any potential Treasury Minister—about how to save money in the NHS by getting rid of false economies.
There has been a great deal of discussion today about how much should be spent on the NHS. I do not want to repeat what has been said by many speakers about the need to provide money to cover not just inflation, but NHS inflation. What has disappointed so many NHS professionals, so many people whose families use the service and so many patients and patient groups is not only the underfunding of the service over the past 20 years—18 years of Conservative government, but 20 years of Conservative spending plans—but the contrast with slogans that raised expectations before the last election, claiming that waiting lists would be shorter and that "Things can only get better".
Two weeks before the election, I was working hard in my constituency, canvassing and talking to people who had been my patients. At that time, it was said at a Labour party press conference that there were "14 days to save the NHS". We knew then that, if Labour stuck to Conservative party spending plans, however, it would take at least two years—and even now we remain to be convinced that the NHS will be saved even after two years of Labour government.
The first page of a press release that I received from Labour party headquarters told us that the NHS was in a mess, but Labour could save it in 14 days. It then quoted what a Dr. Evan Harris of the BMA had said on "Kilroy". If the Government are using "Kilroy" as a source of evidence-based policy, I am concerned; but I think that they chose the right author of such policies.
I was quoted as saying that there was a two-tier system—that the patients of non-fundholders would have to wait longer than those of fundholders, and that those who had to wait longer were "stuffed" unless they were very fortunate. In fact, my point was that, even if we got rid of fundholding, there would still be a huge difference in status between those who could not afford private treatment and those who could. While long waiting times and the underfunding of some Cinderella specialties continue, there will continue to be a two-tier system—waiting times of 12 or 15 months on the NHS, or of 15 days privately. That is what I opposed.
When the press asked me whether, as a Liberal Democrat candidate, I endorsed the Labour party's taking my name in vain and supported its policies, I said that I could not see how the two-tier system that I had been quoted as condemning could be got rid of while Labour stuck to Conservative spending plans. I think Labour Members now recognise the damage—the increase in waiting times and waiting lists—that has been done.
Let me now deal with the issue of improving quality in the NHS. I think it rather unfair of Ministers to say that that has been a random occurrence in the past, left entirely to chance. I know that doctors, nurses and other professionals think carefully about their work in the NHS. After their day is finished and they stop being paid—I know that this was true of me, but I think that it was more true of my colleagues, as I was busy with politics—they go to the library to read the latest research, in their own time, with the aim of applying it to their practices.

1315
If the Government intend to make external audit compulsory, as they should do, and if they want to ensure that not only new but existing treatments are of the best possible quality and are shown to be effective, investment in research must be a priority. Sadly, the NHS research and development budget has fallen in the last two years, year on year in real terms. It is difficult to see how we can secure the new evidence we need for the National Institute of Clinical Excellence at a time when R and D funding is falling.
It will be difficult to get the best out of compulsory audit and clinical governance if those who work in the health service—doctors, nurses and those in the professions allied to medicine—are not given time within working hours. It requires an increase in the number of nurses, rather than vacancies. It will also mean an increase in the number of doctors, and it will mean dealing with the recruitment crisis in professions allied to medicine.
The problem relating to doctors is one of which I have particular knowledge, because I worked in medical education and training. There is a shortfall in the number of students coming through medical school who will be the consultants of the future; last November, the Government's own advisory group recommended an increase in the annual output of medical schools of 1,000 trained medical students—trainee doctors five years down the line. We are now waiting to find out whether the Government will implement the advice of their advisory group. If they need to do so, they must bear it in mind that they will see the fruits of that investment only in 10 years' time, which may be rather longer than some patients and some of my former colleagues are prepared to wait.
At the moment, we are taking in doctors from overseas to fill the gap. Only 38 per cent. of new General Medical Council registrations last year were for people trained in the United Kingdom. The European Union will reduce the number of doctors it produces, so we will not be able to rely on them any more, and it is wrong to bring doctors here from developing countries, allegedly to train but often merely to be exploited for service in staff grade, or other non-consultant posts, to make up the shortfall.
I was sad to hear that a leading academic from the Sudan has been headhunted to work in psychiatry in this country when, with his skills and the Sudan's investment in his training, he should be working there. That is also the case with other developing countries: their doctors should not be working to prop up our underfunded health service.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said, during the most recent Health questions we were delighted to hear the Minister of State agree, in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb), that some drug treatments that were probably not effective were being introduced into the NHS too quickly. I agree, and it is important to ensure that pharmaceutical companies and the NHS—or both in partnership—get better information about which groups of patients some apparently widely applicable drugs will work well for.
The Minister of State also agreed that some drugs that are clearly effective are being introduced too slowly, which is an example of rationing. They are being introduced too slowly not merely because of ignorance but because of funding problems, and some of them have been around for some time.
1316
Another example of rationing is the long waiting time for some operations, and the fact that certain operations that used to be offered on the NHS are simply not available any more. My hon. Friends the Members for Southwark, North and Bermondsey and for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand) and I have been saying since May 1997, and before that, that the reduction of waiting lists by the deletion of certain operations from NHS indicators was rationing by another name.
Mr. Jim Cunningham: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that his hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) accepted that there would be rationing in the national health service? He even quoted Aneurin Bevan to substantiate his argument.
Dr. Harris: I am not sure that I fully understood the hon. Gentleman's point, but I hope that this will answer it. We recognise that rationing takes place. The problem is that the people of this country have never been told at a general election that the NHS is anything other than a universal service, available to all and free at the point of delivery. At the last election, they were told that they could have a wonderful health service and that it would get better, but that no one would have to pay any more and it was a universal service.
Opinion polls have consistently found that people would be prepared to pay more for a health service that was truly universal and readily available. There will always be some need to wait for the sake of efficiency, but waits of more than six months are unacceptable for people who have paid their taxes.
People would be prepared to pay a little more for a decent health service. It is not fair for the Government or Labour Back Benchers to say, as the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) did, perhaps inadvertently, that health authorities should pay for prescribed beta interferon on demand, and for all the other drugs for which there are guidelines. Some treatments do not have guidelines. For certain Cinderella specialties, there are no clearly measurable outcomes. We can ask whether beta interferon is being given to all patients with multiple sclerosis whose consultant neurologists feel that they can benefit from it. Mental health services and services for the care of the elderly have no such parameters.
Health authorities are left with the problem of a demand for beta interferon and for expensive new anti-psychotics as well as statins, all of which are proven and effective treatments. They cannot raise funds locally, but people are blaming them for the rationing—I hope that the Government will not blame them for that.
It is the Government's responsibility at least to initiate a public debate about whether people want such treatments to be widely available and whether they would be prepared to pay more through taxation for them—whether through taxes on cigarettes, the closure of loopholes in the health service, or income tax. That was our platform at the election, as it was for education. It is the Government's role to initiate such a debate, as they have finally recognised that rationing takes place.
If the Government think that there are problems with beta interferon, which would at least reduce in-patient costs if it produced health improvements, and if they think that there will be benefits from prescribing statins to

1317
reduce blood cholesterol through the reduction in coronary artery disease, they will see the long-term benefit of the appropriate prescribing of effective medicines.
However, with the new drug Viagra, there will be no down-the-line financial benefits to the health service, as the Minister knows and as has been reported in the press. It is likely to be a popular drug in all senses of the word, but it is also likely to be widely applicable. The Government will find it difficult to ration it through referrals to consultant urologists, who will have little time to do anything other than the impotency work-ups on patients referred by general practitioners. That nettle will have to be grasped, and there will be an opportunity for the Minister or a colleague to do so in an Adjournment debate next Tuesday, when we will discuss how Viagra can be prescribed.
My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I will work with the Government and the pharmaceutical industry to solve the problem of how to ensure that effective drugs are introduced, when they are known to be effective, and not rationed by postcode. There will be an outcry about Viagra if we see not merely treatment by postcode, which is what is happening now, but sex by postcode, as was reported in the papers following a debate at the British Medical Association.
The Government's policies on waiting lists have distorted clinical priorities. My hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey said today, and has said on many previous occasions, that the concentration on waiting list numbers rather than waiting times is causing immense problems for people who may need expensive operations but will be moved further down the queue because health authorities—on pain of the sacking of their managers and chief executives—have to get the numbers down.
I challenge the Minister to reassure me that, for the waiting list initiative, the format of operations planned matches pretty exactly the range of operations already in the contract. In other words, will he assure me that there will not be proportionately more small operations, for example on ganglions, and that there will be as many, if not more, hip replacements? People waiting for the latter are in pain, their movements are restricted, and they need the support of social services.
That is a problem, and if we keep concentrating on Government-sponsored initiatives with a clear outcome, such as waiting lists, we will not provide services where there is no clear outcome, such as in mental health and the care of the elderly. The false economy of taking money from social services, which suffered real-terms cuts in the past two years even before demographic increases are considered, and putting it into the NHS, must become clear to the Government when they recognise that patients cannot be discharged from hospitals because social services do not have the money to pick up their funding in nursing homes. The threatened closure of two community hospitals in Oxfordshire is a case in point.
Finally, I have two questions for the Minister. First, will he place in the House of Commons Library the figures that the NHS executive gathers on bed blocking, to show whether the winter pressures money and other
1318
such schemes really reduced the number of delayed discharge days or the bed blocking from which hospitals were suffering?
Secondly, does the Minister accept that, if it can be shown that it would be a false economy in Oxfordshire or elsewhere to close community hospital beds—the Liberal Democrats are not wedded to any particular bricks and mortar, because it is beds and services that count—health authorities should be allowed to use this year the money that may be available next year to provide the services that patients, many of whom are elderly, deserve, and for which they have paid taxes over the past 50 years?
8.49 pm
Dr. Howard Stoate: As one of the few proper doctors in the House, I am particularly grateful for this opportunity to speak. I think that I am only one of two who continue to do a small amount of work in the national health service. I also want to declare my great pride in being part of the work force that has ensured that the health service has been the envy of the world over the past 50 years. I hope that all hon. Members are able to join me in thanking all NHS staff on behalf of all our constituents.
Whenever I get the chance, I take a look at the various publications that are sent to general practitioners' surgeries. Apart from articles concerning my own activities, there are occasionally other interesting articles. Quite recently, I came across an interview with the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), the shadow Secretary of State for Health, in Doctor on 25 June, in which she was described as a hardliner. She claims much for her Government's record on the NHS between 1979 and 1997. Fortunately, the electorate did not believe much of what she or the previous Government said, and voted instead to defend the NHS.
The article makes it clear that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald has learnt something from my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of Health. She says that she will be listening to people's suggestions, taking the debate to the country, coming up with a strategy that can be tested on experts and putting policy to the people. If only the Conservatives had done that through their 18-year stewardship of the NHS. The internal market, which set parts of the health service against each other, was not tried and tested before its implementation, and we are having to sort out the mess that they left behind.
At least in 1998, the Conservative Front-Bench team claims to support the NHS. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) pointed out, however, the right hon. Lady seems to want to introduce far more private health insurance. I am particularly opposed to that line of thinking, for one simple reason. Let us suppose that a young male driver of a Lamborghini finds that his insurance premiums go through the roof. He can always sell his Lamborghini and buy a Lada. If, on the other hand, the same young man happens to have diabetes or a chronic mental health problem or renal failure, what can he do? He cannot just take his renal failure elsewhere and try to get a better quote for his health insurance.
There is a simple inverse law: those in most need are the least insurable. That will always be so; it is the same anywhere in the world. In any example, such as house or

1319
car insurance, the inverse law applies. As bad luck would have it, those most in need tend to be those least able to pay. They suffer a double whammy. We know from statistics that the Department of Health releases frequently that people in difficult social circumstances are also those who happen to suffer the worst medical problems. For all sorts of good reasons, introducing more private health insurance in the NHS would be a disaster.
I should like to concentrate on what is happening in my constituency. In Dartford, we are at the forefront of the new NHS, preparing for the changes of the new millennium. On Saturday, I was pleased to attend the topping-out ceremony for the new hospital in my constituency—the first to be built under the private finance initiative—to serve the needs of Dartford and Gravesham. The Government ensured that legislation was in place to allow the private-public partnership between the NHS trust and Tarmac to go ahead to build the much-needed facility in north-west Kent. I am pleased that the project is on time and on budget. Many eyes are on it, and are willing it to be a great success. If, as I believe, it lives up to our hopes, it will form a template for many similar schemes.
My hon. Friends the Minister and the Paymaster General joined me and my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond) in September to mark the start of work on the hospital. I hope that it will not be long before they and other colleagues join me to mark the opening of the hospital. It will be a flagship for the NHS, and shows what a Government who are committed to the health service can do. It would never have happened without the tremendous effort of all those involved and the vision of Ministers to will it into being.
Earlier this year, community trusts in north Kent merged to form the Thames Gateway NHS trust. The trust is seeking to make savings by streamlining management and administration so that more money can go into patient care. At the same time, economies of scale and merging of expertise will lead to improved standards. As long as the quality and availability of care at local level are preserved and—I hope—enhanced, I see nothing wrong with trust mergers, either to create a larger geographical area or, vertically, to integrate health care for a locality.
All the developments in Dartford and Gravesham are supported by significant amounts of extra cash, which has gone into the NHS since we were elected last year. West Kent health authority has received £26 million of new money. That includes £5 million to tackle waiting lists, so that we can make our own contribution to meeting the pledge to reduce over the life of this Parliament the number of people waiting for hospital treatment. Waiting lists in Dartford and Gravesham are already lower than they were in May 1997. The Dartford and Gravesham NHS trust will have an extra 48 beds to treat even more patients.
GPs and community nurses in Dartford and Gravesham are pioneering our plans for primary care groups in a pilot project. Fundholders and non-fundholders alike have embraced the idea with enthusiasm. I am sure that there will be lessons to be learned from their experiences, which will benefit the implementation of primary care groups throughout the country next year. I applaud the efforts of the British Medical Association and Ministers to ensure that such groups work. As with any venture of such vision, there have been some tough negotiations on both sides, and I understand the threat that such change may
1320
pose. I hope that some of the groups will try to be even more innovative than the guidelines propose and that, in time, groups will experiment with ways of working together.
Someone who has not visited north-west Kent may imagine a leafy idyll. They would, of course, be right. However, we have many pockets of deprivation, and West Kent health authority thought that it was worth while submitting a bid to form a health action zone. The bid was unsuccessful, but many useful lessons were learnt. The health authority has already begun to work with county and borough councils, and they will be in a good position to work on a health improvement programme for west Kent when we implement the plans for a healthier nation.
Our plans are for the next 10 years; we shall be working on many elements during the lifetime of this Parliament and the next. The agenda is full, but I should like to encourage the prioritisation of some items. Recruitment and retention continues to be of concern, particularly in primary care. We need to research the causes of the shortage of doctors and nurses who want to enter primary care. We need to improve undergraduate medical education, vocational training and continuing education, so that general practice becomes more attractive. Efforts are already being made to provide more flexibility for doctors. That needs to continue and develop. There is particular pressure in inner cities, and incentives should be considered to attract new doctors to fill gaps.
I would welcome an early response from Ministers to the findings of the Campbell committee. One thousand new medical students will take time to work through their training, but there will be plenty of work for them to do when they qualify. With encouragement to enter primary care, they will go a long way to filling the gaps that are appearing.
No debate about the success of the NHS can ignore the enormous contribution made by Britain's innovative and successful pharmaceutical industry. It is one of our largest exporters and leads the world in research and development. I hope that that vital part of our research base is not forgotten when, this year, the Government renegotiate the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme, which sets the basis for the price paid for drugs by the NHS. Many new drugs are available, as hon. Members have mentioned. We need clear departmental guidelines on how they should be used. It is very important that new drugs are put into perspective rather than introduced through the media and through patient demand, without proper regulation and control and a balanced approach on how best they should be used.
During this 50th anniversary celebration, there have been many welcome announcements from my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Health. The Prime Minister launched the innovation fund, which will demonstrate that the division and competition of the internal market are not necessary for new ideas to develop. The NHS, during this period of co-operation, will see innovation flourish.
There are many beacons of excellence in the NHS. Their example should be celebrated and shared throughout the NHS, so that everyone can benefit from good practice. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State launched the drive to improve quality of care in the NHS. Doctors

1321
welcome the promise of national guidelines, and we shall ensure that they are adhered to. Patients will be asked regularly how they think the NHS is performing.
I am sure that everyone in the NHS is hoping to hear about funding for the future. Of course, we cannot expect to have the result of the comprehensive spending review before time, but it is clear that the £2 billion of extra money so far is not enough for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and there has already been a hint of money—a lot more money—from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and that is very welcome.
I look forward to next week's announcement, confident that it will fulfil our manifesto commitment to raise spending in real terms every year. I know that the workers at the front line of the NHS will spend the money efficiently to improve patient care.
We can look back to 1948 and celebrate the life of the NHS, but we must also look forward. As Nye Bevan said, the NHS must always be changing, growing and improving. At no time has it been better prepared to face the challenge of the new.
8.58 pm
Mr. David Amess: I welcome this debate to celebrate the national health service and its achievements and talk about its future. Unfortunately, I missed the opening exchanges. I believe that they were splendid. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) is not here at the moment, but I certainly agree with what he said.
There has been a familiar tone to the debate. We can talk about history, but the reality is that for 35 of the 50 years during which we have enjoyed the national health service, the Conservatives have been in power. Labour Members have chastised Conservative Governments for what they did, but in a democracy, if the people had been unhappy with the way in which the Conservatives were running the health service, they could have voted them out.
My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South was also right about abortion, embryo research and related matters. I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore). When I talk about the achievements of the national health service, I certainly do not include the huge number of babies who have been aborted.
It is an absolute disgrace that we can now abort up to term on the basis of disability. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority is a fiasco. The idea that experiments can be done on embryos up to 14 days and that inspectors can magically deal with the situation is absolute nonsense. It is a further disgrace that, when I tried to introduce a Bill to stop sex selection, it was defeated overwhelmingly, and largely by women Members.
We should not take pride in that aspect of the health service, but we should celebrate its achievements. People are living longer; more premature babies are surviving; and the general public are healthier than ever. We can see immediately in schools that children are much healthier than ever, and for that we should thank every doctor, nurse and other member of staff in the national health service.
1322
Let there be no doubt that, were it not for the army of volunteers throughout the country, we would not have the magnificent health service that we do. One has only to look at America: when President Clinton was first elected, he tried to persuade Congress to deliver a national health service, and they spent two years debating it before deciding that it was simply not possible. I am sure that, if we were starting from scratch today, we would also find it impossible. We have a magnificent health service, and we should all delight in it. It is the envy of the world.
Like other hon. Members, I was present on Sunday at local celebrations in my constituency. Southend hospital was recently recognised with the award of associate university teaching hospital status, making it an integral part of London university. That demonstrates the high quality of its education facilities for clinical staff. We are also very proud to be recognised as a major cancer centre, and in December last year we were awarded the King's Fund organisational audit accreditation award, about which the Government should be delighted, because it means that there could be no better administration than that at Southend hospital. Fairhaven is a magnificent hospice in Southend, and only two weeks ago, the Duke of Gloucester opened our children's hospice, which is the only one in an area that includes the whole of Essex and part of London.
Mental health is an extremely difficult matter to deal with, and not everyone wants to talk about it, as the Minister will know only too well. We have difficulties in Essex at the moment, and I am sure that he and his colleagues are trying to deal with them.
Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Amess: I certainly will, but I am trying to co-operate to allow another Labour Member to speak.
Mr. Thomas: On the subject of difficulties, the hon. Gentleman will know that his party does not have a policy on the health service at the moment. In terms of future policy, does he agree with the vision of the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) or the vision of the right-wingers in his party who support some form of privatisation or charging?
Mr. Amess: I made a big mistake in giving way. What the former councillor for Westminster had to say did not add anything to the quality of this serious debate on the national health service. As far as the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the Conservatives are concerned, we have lost the plot. Labour is the Government and the Conservatives are the Opposition. The Conservative party has nothing whatever to be ashamed of with regard to our management of the NHS. My right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) was an excellent Secretary of State for Health, and the present Government are trying to copy much of what he and his predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley), did. But as we are increasingly finding out, they are not making a terribly good job of delivering Conservative party policies.
I move on to the second part of my speech, which is on the future and politics in the NHS. One or two hon. Members have said, "Oh well, it is no good talking about

1323
appointments. Let's look at what the Conservatives did." Again, we have lost the plot. It was the new Government who on 1 May, celebrating with "Things can only get better", said that we would not have any politics in the NHS. Yet only four Conservative councillors as against 111 Labour councillors have been appointed to trust boards. Labour introduced a new criterion into the appointments process. It wrote to council leaders rather than to chief executives of local authorities. Conservatives have been largely excluded from the appointments process.
The final joke on politics is this. I have nothing whatever against the individuals who have been appointed as chairmen in my area, but when two names are submitted to me as the local Member of Parliament, and they are both Labour activists, that says it all. Even more bizarre, the press release on the new appointments starts off by saying that "Labour activist" X has been appointed. It is no good the Secretary of State for Health saying that there are no politics in the NHS when people are being told to push out press releases saying that new appointments are of Labour activists.
One of my local cancer consultants has made a number of good points about cancer treatment. This might be a controversial point, but I watched two weeks ago the television programme that showed someone dying. I as an individual thought that that was a great mistake, but there it is, it was shown. The current maximum number of new patients seen by a consultant clinical oncologist should not exceed 350 per year. The Board of Faculty of Clinical Oncology recommends that the maximum number of new patients seen by a consultant clinical oncologist should not exceed 315 in any one year. I should like the Minister of State to write to me on a later date to tell me whether he agrees with that suggestion. If he does, given his Government's position on hospital waiting lists, how does he intend to resolve that problem? The other point about cancer treatment concerns the machinery that is used. Many cancer consultants are very concerned about the age of the machinery that they are using. Will the Minister write to me about what his Department intends to do about that?
Another constituent who is an eye consultant has brought it to my attention that one in five of the doctors who qualify in the United Kingdom are lost to the NHS within 10 years. The British Medical Association helpline receives 6,000 calls a year from doctors who are stressed and feel that they cannot continue to work. Will the Minister let me know what the Government will do about that?
The Prime Minister used to jump up at the Dispatch Box to rubbish Essex county council after it had been controlled by the Conservatives for only seven weeks. After 15 months of a Labour Government, however, anything that goes wrong can still be blamed on the Conservatives. The Conservative Essex county council has addressed bed blocking and put £4 million into the service, so that 450 people in hospital beds can go to residential homes.
I shall write to the Secretary of State on behalf of United Response, which delivers quality services in the community, and which wants to raise a constituency point.
1324
Every parliamentarian should rejoice in the achievements of the wonderful NHS. The Conservatives have for 35 years assured its future. It is now up to the new Labour Government to do the same.
9.10 pm
Mr. John Heppell: I congratulate the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) on his brevity. He was much quicker than I expected.
The Ulster Unionist party is the only one not to have claimed credit for the national health service tonight, and even it claimed a connection. The truth is that the people of the United Kingdom formed the NHS, and they did so by electing a Labour Government with the vision, commitment and political will to do so in the teeth of opposition from the Tories who fought it tooth and nail. The Liberals have claimed the credit, too. I accept that an individual, Beveridge, had something to do with the creation of the NHS, but he did not do as much as Nye Bevan. In reality, in 1945, the Liberals had no real political influence, and they had not one iota of influence on the NHS. Nothing has changed there of course.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), I share a birthday with the NHS; mine was in 1948. I was reassured by what the Secretary of State said today, but the most reassuring thing that I have heard is that my hon. Friend is older than me. I was an NHS baby, as were my children and my grandchildren, and as are the 2,000 NHS babies who will have been born today. As a child, I broke my arm, and an ambulance came to take me to hospital, just as 8,000 ambulances will have arrived to take people to hospital today. Whenever I was ill, I went to the doctor, as 700,000 people will have done today. When I had toothache, or before I got it, I went to the dentist, just as 130,000 people will have done today.
All that is part of the success of the NHS, but its real success lay in taking away the fear of illness that so many people had before its foundation. I have a fair appreciation of the NHS; indeed, I am often passionate about it. I was amused to hear the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) give her romantic vision of a general practitioner. I had a mental picture of James Herriot, until I remembered that he was a vet. Well, if we cannot be romantic, or sentimental, about the NHS, what can we be romantic or sentimental about? It is an institution that everyone loves. The people who really appreciate the NHS are the generation before mine. They knew what it was like not to have it.
Mr. Jim Cunningham: Does my hon. Friend agree that a major feature that made the national health service what it was, leaving politicians to one side, was the efforts of the staff over the past 50 years, especially through the 18 years of turmoil under the Tories?
Mr. Heppell: That is very true. I and my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield did not suffer the problems that the national health service had. We were not battered by the Tories at birth or for the past 18 years, but looking at the three of us, people would think that the national health service came out with the best health. The NHS has survived in spite of Conservative Governments, not because of them.
The generation before mine were the people who formed the NHS. They knew what the fear of illness was like. They knew what it was like to have brothers, sisters,

1325
wives, daughters and sons suffering illness or injury while being unable to get adequate treatment. They knew what it was like to live in a country where treatment depended either on charity or ability to pay. That is why the NHS was formed and why people feel so strongly about it now. That is why this Government will ensure that the NHS is not only saved but modernised and improved.
Mr. John Hayes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Heppell: No. The hon. Gentleman has only just come in. I worry about the lapses of memory of Conservative Members.
Mr. Jim Dowd (Lord Commissioner to the Treasury): Where are they?
Mr. Heppell: There are more here now than there have been during the rest of the debate. The Tories say how good things were under them. Many of the new Members will not remember the 1996 debate here. I showed the House these headlines from my local paper: "Government health warning", "Excellence at risk", "Longer to wait", "Ambulance fears", "Treatment limits", "Cancer plan threat".
Miss Widdecombe: Tell us about the 1978 headlines.
Mr. Heppell: You were in. It was 1996. The man quoted in those headlines was a Conservative appointee to the health authority in Nottingham. Even more important was a later report that showed that 350 operations were postponed because of the winter crisis in 1996. People will not forget the many people who lay injured or ill in corridors on trolleys that winter. They were not there in the winter of 1997 because we did something about it. We delivered when your Government could not.
Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman is brandishing a set of headlines. Does he remember the headlines of 1978, when his Government were coming to the end of their unlamented period in power? We were glad to see the end of it. Far short of lying around in corridors, patients could not get into hospital at all. Medical staff were on strike and the ambulance men were out. The junior doctors threatened industrial action. Everyone's pay was going down in the health service. People could not get treated and the nation threw his lot out.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. That was an extremely long intervention.
Mr. Heppell: I remember the problems of 1978 but I also remember the problems of 18 years of your Government.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must use the correct parliamentary language.
Mr. Heppell: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
1326
The Government have done many things that directly affect the people of Nottingham. I have little time, so I will concentrate on the fact that since coming to power, we have put an extra £20 million into Nottingham health authority and £2.36 million to help with the winter crisis. That was extra money that was not planned before this Government came in. The cash increase for 1998–99 was £14 million when it would have been only £6 million under your Government.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must concentrate and get the parliamentary language right.
Mr. Heppell: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am getting carried away by my own rhetoric.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: We have rules about parliamentary language so that hon. Members do not get carried away.
Mr. Heppell: I shall ensure that I do not make any more mistakes in terms of parliamentary language and sit down, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
9.19 pm
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: It is right for the House and the country as a whole to celebrate 50 years of the national health service. The United Kingdom national health service is the best, most comprehensive and integrated service in the world, and it is noted as such wherever one goes. Whether one travels to north America or to other countries in the European Union, one will find that our national health service is envied throughout the world. We should be proud of that fact. We owe a great deal to the nurses, doctors, paramedics, auxiliary service staff and all those who work in the national health service.
I was privileged to serve for a time as Chairman of the Health Select Committee, and I have been involved in health and social service issues for most of my political career. The health service is supported by the overwhelming majority of people in this country, whatever their party political affiliations.
Mr. Ivan Lewis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Winterton: I am sorry, but I promised to speak for only two minutes, and I shall try to keep within that time constraint.
Governments should appreciate the widespread support that the health service enjoys. I only wish that there were more consensus across the House as to how the health service should be organised and managed. One of my greatest honours was to be made a vice-president by the Royal College of Midwives on the strength of the maternity services report produced by the Health Select Committee when I was its Chairman.
We should value the national health service and seek to work across the Chamber on its behalf. It is appreciated by the overwhelming majority of people in this country and, if we did that, they would appreciate the House a lot more.
9.21 pm
Mr. Jim Cunningham: I obviously do not have much time left in which to speak about the national health service. However, it is important to pay tribute to the loyal national health service staff who have worked hard over the past 50 years. We must remember also those people who fought for the national health service before it was established. Hon. Members have mentioned tonight people such as Aneurin Bevan, but we should also remember others such as Beatrice Webb. I shall not say who thought of doing what, but, at the end of the day, it was a Labour Government who introduced the national health service. It was not an easy task for the Attlee Government to create the national health service, and they spent hundreds of hours in negotiation with the British Medical Association alone.
I acknowledge that the Government intend to spend about £30 million on improving health services in the west midlands. Coventry will receive £1.7 million and there is a new private finance initiative of £174 million for the city. In addition,£1.2 billion will be spent nationally on the national health service. The Government have already spent about £300 million in meeting the pressures of last winter and more resources will be spent on creating 3,000 new beds.
I pay tribute also to the NHS staff in Coventry. Last Sunday, the staff and I took a birthday cake around the two remaining hospitals in Coventry to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the NHS. We heard some interesting comments and I noticed that morale had improved as a result of the Government's actions. We still have a long way to go, but we have the lifetime of this Parliament and probably beyond to put right the mess created by the previous Government over 18 years. Finally, I again pay tribute to all the great pioneers of the national health service.
9.24 pm
Mr. Philip Hammond: I am delighted to take the opportunity of this debate to salute the achievements of the national health service over the past 50 years and the achievements of all those who have given their time and dedication to it. However, it is also time to take stock of the issues facing the service now and the longer-term challenges.
This has been a high-powered debate, with one current Secretary of State and two former Secretaries of State taking part. The current Secretary of State was somewhat predictable, reiterating the rhetoric with which we have become familiar. He listed the pet schemes and initiatives that are no substitute for additional resources across the board. He failed to mention the pressing issues in respect of mental health, disability and care of the elderly. He did not mention dentistry, chiropody, physiotherapy, or the other professions allied to medicine. Although he mentioned the NHS direct scheme, he did not mention the threat to community pharmacy presented by the Government's Competition Bill.
The other rather predictable aspect of the debate has been the short canter around what was or was not said in the 1940s—about a decade before either the Minister of State or I was born. The Labour party is not in a position to lecture anyone on the evolution of ideas in political parties. We certainly would not need to go back 50 years to find examples of views held by current members of the Government that have, shall we say, matured over time?
1328
The hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) told us that the socialist ethic has been restored to the Government's health policy, which leads me to wonder whether his pager is working properly, and he told us that the debate on health was as polarised as ever.
My right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) said that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery and mentioned the rebadging of our policies that has been a hallmark of the Labour Government when trying to avoid acknowledging the debt that they owe to the initiatives of the Conservative Government. She also raised the important issue of the anti-management culture of the Labour Government and the bullying of managers by the Secretary of State's office. She cited one example, of which we have heard several, of health service managers either leaving, or seeking to leave, the service because they are fed up with the way in which they are treated and because they feel undervalued.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) addressed the Secretary of State's claim to ownership of the health service. Although not noted as a friend of the Conservative party, he acknowledged our role in consolidating and strengthening the NHS over the 50 years of its existence. He demolished the Secretary of State's spurious claims to ownership of the NHS.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) gave a ringing endorsement of the effectiveness of the NHS. He demonstrated, if demonstration was ever needed, that where there are disagreements or nuances of opinion about the NHS, they are not along party lines, but across the party political divide. The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) did likewise.
My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) rightly drew our attention to the importance of GPs and the role they play in the service. She highlighted the role that a primary care-led service has in delivering the cost-effectiveness that is an important hallmark of our NHS. She also drew attention to the staff shortages that ought to be one of the Government's primary concerns when considering the NHS. In the next three years, 24 per cent. of all the nurses active on the register will reach retirement age. That is a time bomb ticking under the Government and a problem that we expect them to address as a matter of urgency.
Seven months ago to the day, the Secretary of State presented his NHS White Paper to the House, yet this is the first chance that we have had in Government time to discuss the subject of health. That tells us something about the Government's priorities, or perhaps their reluctance to expose their performance on health to scrutiny.
Mr. Ivan Lewis: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the two most telling contributions to the debate by Conservative Members was that of the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), who was removed from his post as Chairman of the Health Select Committee because he was brave enough to express grave concern about health policy under his Government? The other telling contribution was that of the former Secretary of State for Health, the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell), who felt obliged in the debate to speak to right-wingers in his party about laying down a marker for

1329
the appropriate future of the health service. Were those not the two most significant contributions and do they not demonstrate why the Conservative party is not fit to be in control of our national health service?
Mr. Hammond: I do not intend to get involved in a discussion about the relative merits of my right hon. and hon. Friends' contributions to the debate. We need to move the debate forward, not dwell on the past as Labour Members are so anxious to do.
The timing of the debate is no coincidence. The week after the 50th birthday of the NHS, the Government seek to bask in the reflected glory that properly belongs to the men and women who have devoted themselves to the service over the past 50 years. The week before the announcement of the comprehensive spending review, the Government seek to take credit for an as yet unannounced increase in NHS spending, which may or may not be enough to make an impact on the pressing issues that the NHS faces.
The Conservative party, like all parties in the House, is committed to the NHS and its core principles. As my hon. Friends have said, we have had stewardship of the service for more than two thirds of its existence. Between 1979 and 1997, NHS spending grew by 3.1 per cent. per annum in real terms. The annual number of treatments increased by more than 3 million over that period. The numbers of nurses, midwives and doctors increased dramatically. We are rightly proud of those achievements, but we should like to enter the second half-century of the NHS looking to the future. To do so, we need to move away from the sterile arguments of the past, but we find that the Labour party has come into office carrying the baggage of its rash promises and the opportunistic criticism that it made in opposition of every action that the previous Government took on the NHS.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) said, the Labour party's pre-election rhetoric led many folk who knew no better, and some who ought to have known better, to believe that all the NHS needed was a Labour Government. The Minister will remember Lee Bosley, and probably his mother, who, when that whole sorry business was over, said to me, "What really gets me is that some people were stupid enough to believe Labour and vote for them."
The Labour party in opposition refused to acknowledge the huge achievements in the service over the previous 18 years and pretended that it would tear them down. It dug itself into a hole with promises that it need not have made, was advised not to make and cannot deliver. Today, those "early promises" are costing British patients and taxpayers dear. Our health service is being driven by the primary objective of getting the Government off a political hook of their own making.
Listening to the Secretary of State congratulating himself on the fact that, apparently, waiting lists have started to fall, one would be forgiven for thinking that the early pledge was only to allow waiting lists to increase by 140,000 before gently turning them around and bringing them back to their original level. The Labour party chose the wrong target. It misled the electorate. It has failed to deliver on that target. We could forgive all that, but we cannot and will not forgive the Secretary of State's
1330
coercion of the entire system to achieve the ridiculous target that he has set himself. It is ridiculous not because we say so, but because, without exception, professionals in the NHS say that it is the wrong target and it is addressed in the wrong way, at huge cost to the needs of patients across the country.
If the Minister of State believes, as he told my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) the week before last, that no other part of the health service is suffering as a result of the focus on elective surgical waiting lists, he needs to get out of Richmond house and talk to doctors, nurses and NHS managers throughout the country. He should ask them whether that is the best use of the available resources.
Mr. Hayes: The Minister should speak not only to those professionals but to the people in the communities that are faced with hospital closures. My constituency is faced with the closure of our local hospital. Throughout Lincolnshire and other counties across the land, community hospitals are being closed, and people are amazed at the contradiction between that and the claims that Labour made before the election.
Mr. Hammond: My hon. Friend makes a helpful contribution. One of the advantages of being in opposition is that we can talk to doctors, nurses and health professionals throughout Britain. I understand that Ministers are burdened with their boxes and are forced to spend more time than they would like in Richmond house.
Doctors are pressured to work extra hours. In some cases, they are bribed to work extra hours. We have heard examples of doctors offered 10 times their usual sessional payments to work an extra shift to help clear waiting lists. Can that be a sensible use of NHS resources?
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): Where?
Mr. Hammond: If the hon. Gentleman would like the information, I will send it to him. It came to us from the Hospital Consultants and Specialists Association, citing specific examples, and I shall write to the hon. Gentleman tomorrow with the details.
We are not talking about extra hours to deal with major clinical priorities. If you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, were a trust chief executive and you were told that your job was on the line if you did not get waiting lists down, what would you do? You would not attend to the most complex and difficult cases; you would deal with the trivia, the easy and the cheap procedures. You would do the grommets, the hernias, the wisdom teeth. Such actions will get the numbers down, but do nothing to address the real health care priorities in Britain. It is a cynical diversion of scarce resources. The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), who is no longer in his place, addressed the Minister specifically on that and I hope that the Minister will answer him.
Next week, we will hear from the Government how much new money the NHS will get. As my right hon. and hon. Friends have said, that announcement must be a minimum increase of between £8 billion and £9 billion per annum over the current annual level and achieved by 2001–02. We shall be looking for a plain-speaking announcement, couched in terms of annual spending

1331
increases—no funny figures, no fudging, just a simple figure that people can understand and compare with what has gone before. If that announcement stands up to analysis, and if it delivers real new money over and above the trend rate of real growth that the Conservative Government established during 18 years, we will welcome it. Whether it delivers the increased real growth in practice will depend critically on the Government's ability to meet their own inflation targets, and so far the omens are not good.
How will the money be distributed? How much will be ring-fenced into the Secretary of State's pet projects? How much will be available to NHS managers to spend across the board on the expansion of day-to-day services?
Several hon. Members have emphasised the Government's wide view of what constitutes health care, embracing, according to some Labour Members, everything from social care through housing to unemployment and low pay. I hope that the announcement of £X billion next week as an increase in the health budget will not be disseminated across that wide range of Government activity. I hope that we shall not find that some of the money is draining away to other areas which have traditionally been the responsibility of other Departments. [Interruption.]
The Secretary of State mocks that idea from a sedentary position, but at the margin there are areas where money from the health service budget could be allocated to other budgets that have traditionally been separate. We saw that happen with the winter pressures money, when cash was deliberately moved through the health budget to local authorities for social services purposes. We seek an assurance that next week's announcement will be an announcement of money for use in the NHS, not money to be channelled through health for use in other areas. The Government have already broken their promise not to raise taxes. We must hope, as a minimum, that the tax hoard that they have been collecting will at least come back in part to the NHS.
Before the general election, the Labour party deliberately raised expectations that waiting lists would be slashed, resources increased and hospital closures halted in order to entice voters into the polling booths, only to dash them. Waiting lists have soared. Real spending increases have been lower than the average of the 18 Conservative years. Scores of hospitals face closures, mergers or downgrading. In opposition, Labour criticised the staging of pay increases; in government, it staged them. In opposition, Labour cynically attacked the operation of the internal market; in government, seeing that it worked, Labour retained the essence of it.
Patients will understand what is going on, because they will live with the consequences. No matter what the statistics tell him, Joe Public will know from experience, and from the experiences of his family, friends and neighbours, whether the Government's promises to deliver a better, more effective health service have been kept. Moreover, if he voted Labour because of its pledges on the NHS, he will know that he has been conned. He is the one who will pay the price for the diversion of resources away from the real priorities, the most pressing areas of clinical need, and into the massaging of figures to suit the Government's need. It is the allocation of resources, not by doctors, but by spin doctors.
1332
There lies the challenge for all Governments. The public, the users of the service, are interested, not in statistics, but in receiving quality care when they need it. Their perception of that care will be shaped partly by their expectations, and the Prime Minister would be wise to reflect on that before he makes any more rash promises about a wait-free accident and emergency service.
However, let us rise above the short-term issues—the political knockabout. Let us assume that the Government, in an almighty act of contrition, acknowledged the achievements of the past two decades in the health service, recognised the folly of their own adventure into the cul-de-sac of waiting list manipulation, and acknowledged the complexity of the challenges confronting the NHS. If they were to embark on a constructive, non-partisan debate about the future of the health service, we would welcome that, the vast majority of professionals in the service would welcome it and the public would welcome it.
What would that debate address? Several hon. Members have acknowledged that there is cross-party consensus on the objectives of the modern NHS: the cost-effective provision of state-of-the-art, free-at-the-point-of-delivery health care on the basis of clinical need. The political debate surrounding the NHS is not about objectives but about how best to achieve them.
Fifty years on from the foundation of the service, Britain is a very different place. We are living longer, we expect higher standards of health care and we are immensely wealthier. When the service was created, the range of treatments available was limited, not by rationing, but by the level of development of medical technology. The question whether procedures or treatments should be available is now becoming a burning issue. The forthcoming availability of Viagra may focus public attention on that issue. We are told that the costs of providing Viagra could be £1 billion a year, and many people will question whether that is a proper use of NHS resources.
The great British public know that health care is rationed, even though they will never hear that word from the Government. Most of the public understand and accept that a system such as ours requires some element of rationing, but they do not accept that the rationing that takes place should be arbitrary or should be done behind closed doors. The first subject for national debate, therefore, is how we prioritise need and how we define the limits of our publicly funded health service in a way that is fair and equitable.
The second subject for debate is how we provide the resources for the health service that the British people need and expect in the 21st century. That debate must be undertaken on the basis of pragmatism—a desire to deliver the best possible health service to the people of this country—not on the basis of political dogma.
We on the Opposition Benches will not shrink from criticising the Government if they fail to deliver on their reckless pre-election pledges, nor shall we shrink from criticising them if they simply divert money from more important things to achieve them. We shall attack changes that are proposed for ideological or political reasons, and that are flawed as a result. We shall continue to be proud of the success of the Conservative reforms of the health service, while never falling into the arrogance of imagining that there was not scope for improvement and

1333
evolution. We shall challenge and test the Government on their innovations—such as the National Institute for Clinical Excellence—searching for weaknesses, seeking ways to improve, as is the Opposition's duty.
Above and beyond that, when the Government are ready, we shall be ready to engage in the bigger debate: the debate about the scope and resourcing of our health service for generations to come, because that is what matters to the British people as we enter the new millennium.
9.43 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): Over the past few weeks, the entire country has been celebrating the 50th anniversary of the national health service. It is appropriate that the House should take part in those celebrations this evening. Many of us have visited towns and cities over the past week and seen a national celebration of a national institution that is still the envy of the world, as the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) pointed out.
For me, it has been a special privilege to be a Health Minister in this 50th year, as I have been able to meet so many people who have contributed so much to the national health service over those 50 years. At the outset, I pay particular tribute to the staff of the NHS—the 1 million people who work in the health service today, and the many millions more who have contributed so much to the service of others during the past five decades. As my hon. Friends the Members for Enfield, North (Ms Ryan) and for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham) reminded the House, all of us who depend on the health service owe those people an enormous debt of gratitude, and it is right that we record that.
During the progress of the National Health Service Bill through the House, Nye Bevan predicted what the health service would bring to our country. He said:
"I believe it will lift the shadow from millions of homes. It will keep very many people alive who might otherwise be dead… It will produce higher standards for the medical profession. It will be a great contribution towards the wellbeing of the common people of Great Britain."—[Official Report, 30 April 1946; Vol. 422, c. 63.]
Nye Bevan was right. Fifty years on, it is impossible to imagine life in Britain without the national health service, and we should all be proud of what the NHS has achieved: the great advances in medicine, the improvements in life chances, the banishing—as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) rightly said—of the fear of becoming ill. We should also be proud of how those achievements have been made, through the simple but practical principle of providing care on the basis of need, and need alone.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health had the pleasure of meeting one of the first patients to be treated in the NHS, a lady called Sylvia Diggory, who is still alive and well today, I am pleased to say. She aptly summed up the achievements of the NHS and what it means. She said that we should be proud of our country because, "We still have a health care system where, if you collapse in the street, they feel your pulse before they feel your wallet."
The Government abide by the principle on which the Labour Government created the health service 50 years ago—that the best health services should be available to
1334
all on the basis of need, not on the ability to pay or who the patient's GP happens to be. We were elected in May last year to make sure that the country once again has a national health service that is true to those founding principles.
The 50th anniversary of the NHS has been accompanied by much comment about its past, and much more comment and speculation about its future—about whether the NHS is sustainable as a comprehensive service providing care free at the point of use, funded from general taxation. That debate has been going on for 50 years.
Fifty years ago, the Opposition Benches, just as now, were filled with people who believed that that could not be done. This evening, we have seen a spectacular rewriting of history on those Benches—cases of selective amnesia on a grandiose scale. Thanks to my hon. Friends the Members for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths) and for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore), we have unearthed some of the history that the Tory party would prefer to forget: not just that the hon. Friends of the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) 50 years ago voted against the National Health Service Bill once, twice or three times—that might have been reasonable, as there may have been points of detail that were not quite right—but that they voted 51 times against the National Health Service Bill. Some things never change.
We heard from the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley), for example, who questioned the ability of the NHS to progress in the next 50 years as it has over the past 50 years. She hinted that the future of the NHS must lie in rationing and charging, and many supposedly well-informed commentators share that view. However, the Government reject that analysis. As the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) rightly said, the NHS, funded from general taxation, is the best, most efficient, most cost-effective and fairest means of providing health care. We have given the world something that we should be proud of: a system that works, is efficient and is fair.
I pay tribute to the compelling speech by the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell). He argued the case for a modern health service based on its founding principle: to provide care on the basis of clinical need. He rightly pointed out the great clinical and economic advantages of that approach, because it is inherently more cost-effective and efficient than alternative systems of health care provision.
I do not know whether it was deliberate, but the right hon. Gentleman's speech was in marked contrast to that of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) to the Conservative Medical Society. She posed many questions about the future of the national health service and came up with precisely no answers, apart from one, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) rightly said—the need for what she called "a flourishing private sector" in health care. What a starting point for someone who aspires, at least on the face of it, to being the Secretary of State for Health.
There could not be a clearer difference between the Conservative party and the Labour party on the future of the health service. Our starting point is not to persuade people to opt out of the national health service; it is to

1335
make the NHS the best health care system, public or private, in the world. That is our ambition, and it should be the right hon. Lady's, too.
Miss Widdecombe: May I put two questions to the Minister? First, do his remarks suggest that the Government want to ban the private sector? [Interruption.] That is the logical conclusion of what he is saying. Secondly, as I told the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) earlier, there is a sum of money that goes into the nation's health, some of which comes from general taxation and some from private health insurance, individual payments and large organisations such as trade unions. Does the Minister accept that, if we remove completely the private element of that money, the only effect is to reduce the total sum that goes into the nation's health?
Mr. Milburn: The answer to the right hon. Lady's first question is no. In answer to the second, I refer her to the speech of the right hon. Member for Charnwood, which extolled the virtues of a system of health care funded from general taxation, in which the priority is to see year-on-year improvements in the public's health service.
Mr. Dorrell: The Minister said some kind things about my remarks earlier this evening. I am, indeed, fully committed to the principle of high-quality, universal provision through a tax-funded national health service. However, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) asked a different question. Does the Minister accept that it is a paltry definition of a free society that people are free to spend their money on foreign holidays or on Mars bars, but not on their own health? Is it not part of a free society that we have a high-quality, tax-funded health system and that, alongside that, people can choose whether to spend their money on their health if that is what they choose to do?
Mr. Milburn: Of course, that is a matter of individual choice. The difference between my party and the right hon. Gentleman's is that we do not believe that the public should subsidise private medicine, which is why we have ended public subsidies to private health insurance.
Mr. Simon Hughes: My colleagues and I share the Minister's conviction that the objective of those in charge of the national health service should be to ensure that the health service increases the proportion of the population that it serves so that people do not gain advantages through paying. The test is whether the health service improves to the extent that there is no advantage in going private and everybody can be served by the public sector.
Mr. Milburn: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right; that should be the ambition for our health service. We should be encouraging people to opt into it rather than out of it.
I paid tribute to the right hon. Member for Charnwood, who made a genuinely compelling speech, but the only problem is that, in government, he did not always practise what he preached this evening. He lectured the House about the dangers of importing an alien ethos into the NHS, and about people from our country examining health care systems abroad. The problem is that that is precisely what happened when he and his right hon.
1336
Friend the Member for South-West Surrey were in charge, when we had this crazy internal market in the NHS. The internal market introduced competition, but the founding ethos of the NHS, and the way in which it works day in, day out, is based on co-operation and partnership rather than competition.
Mr. Dorrell: I thank the Minister for giving way again. I promise not to weary the House too often with these exchanges, but if the previous Government imported ideas on the proper management of a public sector health service, why does he think that, once we had introduced those changes, a considerable amount of ministerial time was consumed by people coming from France, Germany, the United States, New Zealand and Australia to see what we had done? We had delivered a more flexible public sector health service ahead of other countries, and the flow of ideas was not from them to us, but from us to them—and, belatedly, to the Labour party.
Mr. Milburn: That was a good try; if that was why those people visited this country, they were wrong, as the right hon. Gentleman is wrong. His system—the internal market—failed and left the NHS with record debt, record levels of decay in capital infrastructure and record levels of demoralisation among staff.
Over the past year, the new Government have been righting the wrongs that the previous Government introduced to the NHS, and we are restoring partnership to the heart of it, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) rightly said. That is not all; we have embarked on a 10-year modernisation programme, because however much the founding principles of the NHS still have resonance today, as they of course do, and however great its achievements—they have been immense—the NHS has to change, as all hon. Members recognise.
The NHS has to move on, keep pace with change and with public expectations and become far more modern and dependable in the way in which it operates. The Government were elected with a mandate not only to change the NHS, but to modernise it. We are modernising the NHS, by making it more responsive to the needs of its users; cutting waiting lists and cutting waiting times; introducing new, easy-access services such as NHS direct; and using the information technology revolution to give patients and staff instant access to test results and booked admissions.
We are modernising the NHS, secondly, by putting quality at the top of the agenda; placing new duties on trusts to assure quality and introducing new quality assurance systems in every part of the NHS; and implementing new standards—jointly drawn up by the Government and the professions, as the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) wanted—to provide guarantees to patients that, wherever they are treated, they will receive a first-class service in the NHS.
Thirdly, we are modernising the NHS by making sure that the needs of patients, not the needs of any institution, are the driving force for change. We want patients to receive more integrated forms of care than was possible under the old internal market. Whether staff work in the health care sector or the social care sector, they know that elderly people, disabled people and people with mental health problems need the support of not only the NHS, but social services and housing services.

1337
That is why we shall place new duties of partnership on the NHS and local government, create new co-operative ways of working between health and social services and set up new health action zones to modernise services and tackle health inequalities. This partnership approach recognises that the job of improving the nation's health is not only for the NHS. It requires action to cut unemployment, to build homes, to improve the environment and to tackle deprivation—to tackle the root causes of ill health.
The Government's programme—including getting councils to build homes again, the new deal and the minimum wage—amounts to the biggest anti-poverty, pro-health crusade that this country has seen in more than two decades. It will do what no Government, Labour or Tory, have ever done: it will improve the overall health of the whole population while improving the health of the worst-off at a faster rate.
That is an ambitious agenda for Government, and we make no apologies for that. We do not pretend that it can be achieved overnight, but we believe that our programme will, over 10 years, see the NHS getting demonstrably better year by year. Fifty years ago, neither staff nor patients could have dreamt of what the NHS is able to do today: heart transplants, keyhole surgery and telemedicine. The NHS tomorrow and over the next 50 years will do things that are now beyond our wildest dreams.
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

SCOTTISH GRAND COMMITTEE
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 100 (Scottish Grand Committee (sittings)),
That the Order of the House of 30th April relating to sittings of the Scottish Grand Committee be varied by substituting for the words 'Tuesday 14th July' in paragraph (4) of the Order the words 'Tuesday 21st July'.—[Mr. Jon Owen Jones.]
Question agreed to.

LANDMINES BILL (PROGRAMME)
Ordered,
That the following shall apply to proceedings on the Landmines Bill—

1. Proceedings on the Bill shall be completed at the sitting on Friday 10th July.

2. Proceedings on Second Reading shall, unless previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one and a half hours after the commencement of those proceedings.

3.—(1) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House shall, unless previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at the end of the allotted periods specified in the following table—

Proceedings

Allotted period after the commencement of the proceedings specified in column 1

Clauses 1 to 5

two and a half hours

Clauses 6 to 29, new Clauses and new Schedules

three quarters of an hour

(2) On the conclusion of proceedings in Committee, the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any
1338
Question, and if he reports the Bill with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill, as amended, without any Question being put.
4. Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading shall, unless previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion a quarter of an hour after the commencement of those proceedings.
5. Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill at the sitting on 10th July.
6.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;

(c) any Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;

(d) any Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded; and on a Motion made for any new Clause or new Schedule, the Chairman or the Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(2) If two or more Questions would fall to be put—

(a) under sub-paragraph (1)(c) on amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, or

(b) under sub-paragraph (1)(d) in relation to successive provisions of the Bill, the Chairman or Speaker shall instead put a single Question in relation to those amendments, Motions or provisions.

7. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply to proceedings on the Bill.
8. No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which proceedings on the Bill are taken.
9. If a Motion is made by a Minister of the Crown to vary or supplement the provisions of this Order in relation to proceedings on the Bill, the Motion may be proceeded with, though opposed, at any hour and the proceedings on that Motion, unless previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion three-quarters of an hour after thay have been commenced.—[Mr. Jon Owen Jones.]

PETITIONS

  Imphal Barracks (York)
  10 pm
  Mr. Hugh Bayley: I wish to present a petition signed by the lord mayor of York and supported by the signatures of the lord mayors of Leeds, Sheffield, Hull and Newcastle, the mayors of Sunderland, Durham, Hartlepool, Middlesbrough, Richmond in Yorkshire, Ripon, Harrogate, Scarborough, Wakefield, Calderdale, Doncaster, Driffield, Hornsea, Grimsby, North Lincolnshire, Kirton in Lindsey, and the chairs of Alnwick district council, Wear Valley district council and Wansbeck district council, which states:
  To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
  The Humble Petition of the Lord Mayors, Mayors and Chairs of Councils of the cities, boroughs and districts located in the Number 2 Region of the Armed Forces of the United Kingdom sheweth
  That the said Petitioners support the continued presence of the Army's 2nd Division Headquarters at Imphal Barracks in York, and are opposed to any move of this command of soldiers based in the region to Edinburgh.

  1339
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House makes representations to Her Majesty's Government about the importance of retaining the Army's Northern Division Headquarters at Imphal Barracks in York.
  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
  To lie upon the Table.

Wirral Metropolitan College
10.2 pm
Mr. Ben Chapman: There is great concern in Wirral, South about the plans of the board of Wirral Metropolitan college to close the Carlett Park site. That facility is a highly prized asset to further education in the area, and my constituents are outraged at the prospect of its closure. The petition, containing some 7,000 signatures, calls for a review by the Further Education Funding Council of the decision by the board of Wirral Metropolitan college. It states:
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House shall urge the FEFC to consider the residents' plight and investigate the reasons for the closure of a much used and highly valued local education facility, without which further education in this part of the Wirral would surely suffer.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
To lie upon the Table.

Keresforth Centre, Barnsley
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jon Owen Jones.]
10.3 pm
Mr. Eric Illsley: I am pleased to have secured this debate on continuing care and respite facilities for people with learning difficulties. The Keresforth centre looks after people with learning difficulties in my constituency. It is fitting that I am able to debate this health issue relating to my constituency so close to the 50th anniversary of the national health service, and immediately after a debate devoted to the NHS. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Health and his colleagues—especially my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—for their stewardship of the Department since the election.
My constituency has benefited from the extra money that the Government have provided for the waiting list initiatives. It has also been made part of a health action zone covering Barnsley, Doncaster and Rotherham. That is particularly important in my area, which has a higher than average proportion of elderly infirm people and a very large number of elderly people suffering industrial diseases—a legacy of our industrial past. I sincerely hope that our health action zone status will help to deal with the problem, but I believe that, despite all the problems that Barnsley has now and has suffered in the past, ours is the lowest-funded health authority in the country; so we are somewhat hampered.
I want to discuss learning disabilities and long-term continuing and respite care in the Barnsley area, with particular reference to the Keresforth centre. My attention was drawn to some of the problems surrounding the centre by a number of elderly carers who wrote to me or visited my advice surgery. They were worried about staffing levels and problems in attracting staff; but on further investigation, and following discussions with the health authority, the community and priority services trust—which is responsible for the centre—and the local authority, problems came to light that went a little further than the immediate question of staffing levels. I refer to long-term planning problems.
There is a short-term problem in relation to the improvement of facilities, but what I want to discuss specifically is how, in the light of changes that have occurred over the past few years, we can make plans to deal with the problems of people with learning disabilities. In my constituency—and presumably throughout the country—there has been an increased demand for continuing care for such patients.
As my hon. Friend the Minister said when winding up the last debate, that is partly because the NHS now enables those people to live far longer than they could in the past. Planning assumptions made many years ago about the throughput of patients, how long carers would have to look after their children and so forth, must now be re-examined. Carers who are now elderly are looking after their adult children, and finding that respite care is not readily available because of the increase in demand for existing facilities.
A number of factors contribute to the present position. I have mentioned the longevity of patients, but there is also the increase in the number of emergency admissions.

1341
Such issues are well understood by Barnsley health authority and Barnsley metropolitan borough council—and, as I have said, by the trust that is responsible for the Keresforth centre. Blame should not be apportioned to anyone; it is a case of flagging up the issue for future reference, and considering how it can best be dealt with.
All the organisations that I have mentioned reacted swiftly when the issue was raised a couple of weeks ago, and the health authority has not been slow to provide money for the recruitment of nurses to alleviate the staffing problems that led to our investigation.
I also pay tribute to the staff of the trust and, in particular, those at the Keresforth centre, who do a difficult and demanding job. They perform their tasks well. I visited the centre two or three weeks ago, and was impressed by the difficult job that the nurses have to do, and the surroundings and circumstances in which they do it.
The problem is one of recognising the increased need in the area and providing for it—planning now for increased facilities. We have to start planning now.
The Keresforth centre opened in 1984, which was not long ago, yet the planning assumptions on which it was based are now somewhat out of date. At that time, most of the long-term care for learning disability was provided out of district. The centre opened with 48 beds in the day hospital, and grew to a maximum of 68 beds with day hospital and community mental health teams by about 1989. Unfortunately, there was little investment in the centre after that, and it suffered continuing problems.
The buildings which make up the centre were built for able patients. At the time, the people with learning difficulties for whom the centre was to cater were ambulant—they could walk about and use the facilities. Now, more and more patients are severely disabled and require wheelchair access, for which the facilities simply were not built, so there are immediate access problems.
Due to the increased demand, patients now have to share bedrooms and facilities. Some rooms are shared by four adult people with learning disabilities. As I said, those people are living longer—into adulthood—and they have problems of dignity and privacy. Some patients even enter into relationships with other patients, and they do not have the privacy to pursue those relationships with some dignity. Thus the facilities available for patients cause problems, which obviously causes friction, especially with patients with challenging behaviour—I understand that they are on the increase.
Responsibility for the buildings passed to the local authority, and, as my hon. Friend knows well, during the 18 years of Tory government—in particular since 1990—my local authority suffered greatly because of the amount of revenue support grant it receives as a result of the standard spending assessments. The money simply has not been there to invest in that provision. Sadly, one of the houses within the complex closed in 1995—an example of what the health service has done is that the initial cost of the buildings to the health service was 20 per cent. above average, and now it is 20 per cent. below average. The authority has gone a long way to improve its financial position in that regard.
The inadequacy of the buildings is compounded by increased demand. The learning disabled are living longer, which again is a tribute to the NHS. Assumptions were
1342
made on that basis. The number of severely disabled people has increased. Previously, there was a 50:50 split between the severely disabled and the mildly and moderately disabled. Now, the majority of patients are severely disabled. Emergency admissions have to be dealt with by the Keresforth centre, as that is the only remaining flexibility within the system, and it puts an extra strain on the availability of beds.
An increasing number of clients have challenging behaviour, which basically means violence. It is not a case of a patient being difficult to handle or a little boisterous, but of a patient going up to a nurse with a knife—that is difficult behaviour with which to deal. The result is a waiting list for placements at the Keresforth centre and a reduction in respite facilities for the elderly carers whom I have mentioned, many of whom are finding it very difficult to manage.
One carer appeared in a short television programme about the Keresforth centre. Mr. Madeley is 88 years old and cares for his 54-year-old disabled daughter. On national television, he repeated the claim that he has made many times, that he wishes that his daughter dies before he does, because he does not know what will happen to her if he is no longer able to care for her. Such a problem is not confined to Barnsley; there are carers of that age group all over the country. I came across a reference to one carer in Sheffield who, at the age of 95, is caring for an adult child. How can such people cope and look after their children in such circumstances?
Some of the letters I have received are very moving. One is from a Mrs. Robinson, who looks after her brother. She writes:
"It is hard enough for me to let my brother go for respite care, but I need the break now and again to spend more time with my husband, daughter and son."
That lady must have a very understanding family.
A letter from Mr. and Mrs. Dobson—no relation to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, I assume—states:
"We are the parents of Shaun, aged 31, who suffers from severe learning difficulties, epilepsy and double incontinence. He requires and receives lots of love, care and attention."
Their son attends the day care unit.
Mrs. Crossley writes:
"My son is 25 years old and is severely mentally handicapped…hyperactive and incontinent."
The father of the 25-year-old is in his 70s. He is also worried about provision for his son after he passes on.
Staffing shortages at the Keresforth centre have, to some extent, been resolved. Every one of the letters that I have read out, and all the others that I have not, pay tribute to the staff, who do a marvellous job. They were originally employed to look after more able patients, but now look after more severely handicapped patients and those with challenging behaviour. The centre had some difficulty in finding suitably qualified staff, but the health authority came forward with additional funding to help to attract staff to Barnsley. I hope that, next year, further help will be made available.
There is a problem, and it is increasing as more and more pressure is put on the system. Elderly carers worry about what will happen to their adult children, and the number of patients is increasing. There appears to be no available funding for at least three years to expand and improve bedrooms and facilities at the Keresforth centre.

1343
Can my hon. Friend the Minister say anything to encourage us on that front? At the same time, will he take a long-term view and especially consider the nationwide problem of elderly carers? Then, we can begin to plan for their future and perhaps relieve some of their worries.
10.17 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) on his choice of subject for this debate. It is of great importance to many people because it concerns not just people with learning disabilities but, as he rightly pointed out, parents, relatives and friends of people with learning disabilities.
My hon. Friend raised the particular issue of the Keresforth centre in Barnsley. Like him, I pay tribute to the staff who I know from what I have read have done a sterling job, often in extremely difficult circumstances. The joint review of Barnsley social services, which was undertaken in January and February last year, concluded that services for people with learning disabilities were of good quality. That is important and, I hope, offers some assurance at least to friends, relatives and carers of those who are provided with important services in that area.
I am pleased that the local statutory authorities are now fully aware of the concerns that my hon. Friend raised, and are seeking to address the problems. Barnsley health authority, Barnsley Community and Priority Services NHS trust and Barnsley borough council all acknowledge that there is a shortfall in community placements. They are holding discussions to find ways of addressing the problem.
I gather that there was a very constructive meeting last night. I do not know whether that was a coincidence, or whether this debate has acted as a spur. There is clearly joint ownership of the issue, and a recognition of the need to provide group homes for individuals with learning disabilities currently living in the community, where their current care arrangements are likely to break down.
The health authority has responded to the pressure on learning disability services by making some additional investments. For example, it has put in an additional £140,000 a year to increase nurse staffing. It has also put in £16,000 to maintain the provision of respite care.
The authority recognised that, because of the increasing dependency of residents at the Keresforth centre, there was a need for more nurses in the unit, and it recently increased the number of full-time nursing posts by four, as the first instalment of an acknowledged greater need. It also upgraded all vacant posts to E grade, and by the end of last month all posts had been filled. Furthermore, it created a separate fund to start addressing the need for long-term continuing care packages.
Both the health authority and the local authority recognise the need for more residential places, and the effect that those would have on the provision of respite care. They recognise the importance of working together to make the best use of available resources.
My hon. Friend asked about funding for Barnsley health authority, and I understand the problem. We increased Barnsley's allocation this year by nearly £6 million—a 5 per cent. increase in cash terms—to £110 million. It is nevertheless the health authority furthest from its capitation target, and we are committed to bringing all health authorities to their targets as soon
1344
as practicable. That is why Barnsley health authority received the highest growth in percentage terms this financial year of any health authority in England. Who knows—before long there might even be some more good news around the corner.
The issues that my hon. Friend highlighted are important nationally as well as locally. They reflect the fact that the pace of change in all walks of life has increased. Advances in medicine and science are helping people to live longer and better than ever before. Those are surely welcome developments. Patterns of family life are changing, and public expectations are rising, especially in what people seek from their public services.
People with learning disabilities and their carers are rightly expecting more from services than they did in the past. That is a welcome development. Many people with learning disabilities now aspire to a home of their own and a job, when previously their future would have been life in an old long-stay hospital or attendance at a large adult training centre. People with learning disabilities are also living longer, and an increasing number of people with multiple disabilities are surviving into adulthood.
In order to meet the pressures that those welcome developments bring, the health and social care systems need to change and to work more in concert. As my hon. Friend knows, the Government are determined to break down what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State rightly called the Berlin walls between health and social care which work against the provision of well-co-ordinated services.
That is particularly true in the field of learning disabilities. People with learning disabilities can be on the fault line of the divide between health and social care. A recent national inspection of learning disability services found that successful arrangements for services for people with learning disabilities crucially depend on social services departments working together with other agencies, especially health, housing and further education. Where such arrangements are not in place, users are less well served. The measures that we are taking should make it easier for authorities to work more closely together.
My hon. Friend rightly referred to the breaking down of barriers that is epitomised by the successful bid for a health action zone in his area. Indeed, I was pleased earlier this year to launch the health action zone in the South Yorkshire coalfields. I know that a huge amount of hard work went into preparing the bid. An even greater amount of work is now going into making it successful and making it work on the ground.
The zones are at the forefront of the implementation of our plans to improve health and health care. They are the most vivid expression of a new spirit of partnership between organisations which, after all, have a common purpose—to improve the lot of local communities. That is certainly epitomised by the South Yorkshire coalfields HAZ, which is led by a partnership of health authorities and the metropolitan councils.
To give substance to the co-operation that will be necessary in the future, a new statutory duty of partnership will be placed on local NHS bodies to work together for the common good and to ensure that local government services and NHS services work in a much more integrated fashion than has perhaps been the case in the past. Before too long, a White Paper will be published on the development of social services and significant work on the regulation and inspection of services.

1345
My hon. Friend referred to the important role played in his local community, and communities up and down the country, by people who care for others. The Government value the vital role that carers play. Carers are a hugely important part of the fabric of our society. Caring is something that touches us all, and I know of the difficult decisions that families sometimes have to take.
My hon. Friend has raised those issues here this evening. As he said, carers often take on enormous responsibilities at a significant cost to themselves. That is why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister recently announced that he had asked my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to lead a Government-wide review of measures to help carers. The aim is to develop an integrated approach to carers across government as part of a new national strategy for carers. We want to address carers' concerns and give them more support than they have at the moment, which is what my hon. Friend's constituents are rightly crying out for.
In considering the needs of carers, we have recognised the importance of good-quality and accessible respite care to them and the people whom they care for. There is a lot more that we can do to ensure that appropriate and cost-effective services are available. The social services inspectorate has almost completed a project on short-term breaks for carers.
The aim has been to examine what works and why in the organisation, delivery and quality of short-term breaks. This has been done through a review of current
1346
research on the subject and by fieldwork visits to schemes of particular interest. We hope that the resultant report will assist authorities to drive up standards and get better value for money in this important component of their services.
Nationally, we have in place a programme of work to support the development of better services for people with learning disabilities, including increasing training levels and investing in initiatives to improve the recruitment, retention and return to practice of trained staff, who are desperately needed, especially in the learning disabilities field. However, it is for the local statutory authorities to determine the pattern of services to be developed locally in the light of local needs and resources.
As I said, a joint review of Barnsley social services, conducted by the Audit Commission and the social services inspectorate early last year, concluded that services for people with learning disabilities in Barnsley were generally of good quality. My hon. Friend has rightly drawn attention to the concerns of his constituents about the current levels of services and the future for their sons and daughters who have learning disabilities. The local statutory authorities fully recognise the need to develop the local capability to deal with demand and are seeking to address the problem. I have asked my officials to continue to monitor the situation in the hope that things can improve locally.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Ten o'clock.

TREASURY

  Royal Mint
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what options are under consideration for the Royal Mint; and if he will indicate in respect of each option whether consultants have been engaged. [49417]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The terms of reference for the review of public/private-partnership options for the Royal Mint are:To advise Treasury Ministers on the options for a public/private partnership for the Royal Mint to enable it to take advantage of new commercial opportunities. In considering these options, the review will take into account the views of affected stakeholders and assess the implications for:

  the security and competitiveness of supply of UK circulating coins;

  the net cost to Government of UK circulating coins;

  possible UK entry into stage 3 of economic and monetary union;

  enhancing the Royal Mint's ability to take advantage of existing and new commercial opportunities;

  the public-policy aspects of coinage, including design, choice of denominations and commemorative issues;

  the staff of the Royal Mint, including their conditions and terms of service;

  the need for, and requirements of, legislation; and

  the speed with which change can be implemented.

  The review will also employ consultants to advise on (i) potential purchasers and partners, including institutional investors, for the Mint; (ii) the current market for coin supply, feeding into our consideration of how privatisation might be effected and competitiveness of supply ensured; and (iii) the impact of the euro.

  The review will report to Treasury Ministers by the end of September.

  All options, including full and partial sale and other forms of private-sector involvement, will be considered by the review.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 29 June 1998,Official Report, column 28, what assessment he has made of the percentage risk of default if the financial markets had issued a Channel Tunnel Rail Link guarantee. [49444]

  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 7 July 1998]: As my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister made clear in his statement of 3 June 1998, Official Report, columns 367–84, the Government consider the risk of a liability being incurred under the guarantees to be given over the bonds which will be issued by London and Continental Railways to be remote.

  ICL Pathway Project
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) when the Government will set up the review of the ICL Pathway Project; who is undertaking it; and who has been invited to give evidence to it; [49504]

  (2) what are the terms of reference of the Government review of the ICL Pathway Project; and when it is due to report. [49505]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  [holding answer 8 July 1998]: My officials are working with officials from DSS and DTI to monitor the progress of this important PFI project, as is usual for projects of this scale and complexity. Ministers are being kept fully up to date with progress.

  Default Interest
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the extra revenue arising from the increase in default interest for(a) late payment of VAT, (b) air passenger duty, (c) insurance premium tax and (d) landfill tax. [49669]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The increase in revenue resulting from the recent increase in the rate of default interest is estimated to be some £20 million in a full year. The majority of this will be in respect of late payment of VAT; the amounts relating to the other taxes are expected to be negligible.

  Smuggling
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many recorded instances of cross-border smuggling of(a) petrol, (b) alcohol, (c) smoking materials, (d) animals and (e) videos there have been in each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [48360]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 6 July 1998]: The table shows the number of detections by Customs and Excise of goods smuggled from the Irish Republic into Northern Ireland:

  Instances of cross-border smuggling 1995–1998 (to date)

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  Hydrocarbon oils1

  6

  3

  3

  32

  Alcohol2

  19

  29

  21

  10

  Tobacco2

  24

  48

  67

  7

  Alcohol2,3 and Tobacco2,3

  19

  31

  13

  19

  Videos

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Animals

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1Figures include all hydrocarbon oils detections, not only petrol

  2All detected at premises in Northern Ireland. Information is not available as to whether the smuggling route used was via mainland UK or the Republic of Ireland, however intelligence suggests that both routes are used

  3Instances where both alcohol and tobacco goods were the subject of the smuggling attempt

  I regret that no figures are available for years before 1995.

  Falkland Islands
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what powers he has to levy taxes on the Falkland Islands. [48344]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 6 July 1998]: None.
  571
  The Falkland Island Councillors made a generous offer in 1994 to share revenues from oil production with HMG and we agreed that we should now discuss arrangements for this in a spirit of co-operation and partnership.

  Capital Gains Tax
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many taxpayers paid capital gains tax for the last tax year for which figures are available; and what was the total amount of revenue raised. [48086]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 6 July 1998): It is provisionally estimated that 110,000 taxpayers had capital gains tax liabilities of £1.4 billion for 1996–97, the latest tax year for which information is available.

  Kyoto Protocol Targets
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the advantages of introducing additional tax incentives to help the Government achieve their target under the Kyoto Protocol. [48975]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government plan to consult later this summer on policy options for delivering its legally-binding target under the Kyoto Protocol, and for moving beyond that towards its domestic aim of a 20 per cent. cut in carbon dioxide emissions on 1990 levels by 2010. Within industry, the Government believe that economic instruments may offer the potential to achieve greenhouse gas reductions cost-effectively. The Chancellor has asked Sir Colin Marshall, assisted by a Government Task Force, to consider whether and, if so, how best to use economic instruments—such as an industrial energy tax and/or other market mechanisms—to improve the business use of energy and to help reduce emissions of greenhouse gases from this sector.

  Pharmaceutical Industry
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue the Treasury received from the United Kingdom pharmaceutical industry in the last financial year. [47802]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The corporation tax liability of businesses classified to the pharmaceutical industry in respect of accounting periods ending in the financial year 1996–97 is estimated at £400 million.

  Pension Funds
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on progress in respect of measures to allow the streaming of income for pension funds invested in balanced authorised unit trusts. [49164]

  Mrs. Liddell:
  This proposal has been put to the Government. It is under review.

  Inland Revenue
  Mr. Rammell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the Inland Revenue's fixed profit car scheme rates to take account of increases in the costs of motoring. [48983]
  572
  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue's authorised mileage rates (used in the fixed profit car scheme) are fixed each year. The rates for 1998–99 were announced last December. A similar timetable will apply to setting the rates for 1999–2000.

  Duty Free
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if ferries en route to France via the Channel Islands will after 1999 be able to sell duty free goods. [48756]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Yes. The Channel Islands are excluded from the fiscal territory of the European Community so journeys to and from the Channel Islands and an EU Member State are not affected by the abolition of intra-EU duty free sales from 30 June 1999.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if ferries which sail out of EU waters and immediately return will be able to sell duty free goods after 1999. [48757]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The European Commission has set out in a working document its view on the arrangements which should apply to sales on board ships following the abolition of intra-EU duty-free sales after 30 June 1999. They express the view that duty-free sales of goods to be carried away will not be allowed on intra-EU voyages—even if part of a ship's voyage is in international waters. Duty-free sales of goods for consumption on board will continue to be governed by the national provisions of member states until the Council adopts Community provisions on stores for boats and aircraft. Commission chaired discussions at official level are underway to work out the detail of these arrangements.

  Public Corporations
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list those public corporations that will be evaluated for possible changes in fiscal rules; and when such changes are likely to be announced. [48760]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  The public corporations included in section 3.4 of the Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report (published 11 June) under the paragraph headed "Additional flexibility for large public corporations, which are not dependent on government grants, to put them on a more commercial footing" are the Post Office, British Nuclear Fuels Limited, National Air Traffic Services, the Commonwealth Development Corporation, the Royal Mint, the Tote, the Crown Estate Office and Channel 4 Television. Compared with the regime for public corporations in departmental expenditure limits, these largely self-funding public corporations will have more flexibilities to manage their spending between years, within agreed limits on external finance from 1999–2000.

  The way of measuring the impact of these public corporations on the fiscal aggregates is unchanged.

  Millennium Experience
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what tax deduction has been made available for sponsorship of the Millennium Experience; and what estimate he has made of the cost to the Exchequer in lost revenue. [48830]
  573
  Dawn Primarolo
  When calculating business profits for tax purposes, the general rule is that a deduction is allowable for tax purposes where expenditure is revenue in nature and incurred wholly and exclusively for trade purposes. This rule applies to sponsorship payments, as it does to business expenditure generally. The availability of a tax deduction for business expenditure on sponsorship payments when calculating business profits will always depend on the particular factors of the donor business. No information is available about sponsorship payments to the Millennium Experience qualifying as a deduction for tax purposes, or of the cost of the tax relief.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the cost to the Exchequer per unemployed person per year in terms of unemployment-related benefits and forgone taxes where the calculation assumes the person to have been on average earnings. [48247]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The average level of unemployment-related benefits per unemployed person per year, and the direct taxes paid by (or on behalf of) people with average earnings are provided as follows. These figures are not, however, a complete assessment of the exchequer costs of changes in unemployment. Such an assessment will depend upon the reasons for the change, and the extent to which it affects the sustainable level of employment. This in turn requires an analysis of the direct and indirect effects on the wider labour market and the economy as a whole—including the effect on inflationary pressure and the policy response to it. It also needs to reflect the fact that unemployed people do not, on average, move into jobs with average earnings.

  The average cost of unemployment-related benefits per unemployed person per year, in 1998–99 benefit levels is around £3,850, with the entitlement of individuals around this average depending on their particular circumstances. For the purposes of calculating this figure, unemployment-related benefits are defined as Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA), and Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit payments to people in receipt of JSA.

  In 1998–99, a single person in employment for a full year on median earnings (£337 per week) would pay £4,400 in income tax and employee National Insurance Contributions (NICs). In 1998–99, a married couple with one member of the couple in employment for a full year on median earnings (£337 per week) would pay £4,100 in income tax and employee NICs. These figures assume that the individual has no income other than earnings from employment, is not eligible for Mortgage Interest Relief, and that they pay contracted-in employee's NICs. The figures ignore indirect taxes. An employer would pay £1,800 in employer NICs in respect of an employee on median earnings.

  Low Pay
  Mr. Woolas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what estimate he has made of the net wage at 1998–99 prices for a single person, working 39 hours a week for(a) £3.60 an hour, (b) £3.70 an hour, (c) £4 an hour and (d) £4.26 an hour for (i) 1997–98, (ii) 1998–99, (iii) 1999–2000 and (iv) 2000–2001; [48186]
  574
  (2) what estimate he has made of the net wage at 1998–99 prices for a married person with (a) one child and (b) two children under 12, who is the main wage earner, working 39 hours a week for (i) £3.60 an hour, (ii) £3.70 an hour, (iii) £4 an hour and (iv) £4.26 an hour for (1) 1997–98, (2) 1998–99, (3) 1999–2000 and (4) 2000–2001. [48185]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The table gives the weekly net income (at 1998–99 prices) of a single person, a married couple with one child, and a married couple with two children, at different hourly wage rates.

  As the final column of the table shows, the National Minimum Wage and Budget measures such as the Working Families Tax Credit will mean a significant boost for low income working families: every family with children will be guaranteed an income for full-time work of at least £180 a week.

  Family type

  Hourly wage rate (at 1998–99 prices)

  1997–98 (at 1998–99 prices)

  1998–99

  1998–99 (including Budget measures due to be introduced in 1999–2000

  Single person

  £3.60

  119.36

  119.53

  120.81

  £3.70

  122.09

  122.26

  123.54

  £4.00

  130.28

  130.45

  131.73

  £4.26

  137.22

  137.47

  138.75

  Married person, one child

  £3.60

  176.46

  176.20

  193.91

  £3.70

  177.28

  177.02

  195.14

  £4.00

  179.74

  179.48

  198.82

  £4.26

  181.82

  181.59

  201.98

  Married person, 2 children

  £3.60

  198.09

  197.85

  218.06

  £3.70

  198.91

  198.67

  219.29

  £4.00

  201.37

  201.13

  222.97

  £4.26

  203.45

  203.24

  226.13

  The income figures are net of Income Tax (including Working Families Tax Credit in the last column), National Insurance Contributions, Child Benefit and Family Credit (where appropriate). The figures do not include any Housing Benefit or Council Tax Benefit the households may be eligible for; this would depend upon rent and council tax bills. The net incomes shown would be higher if these benefits were applicable and included in the figures.

  The figures assume that the earner is paying contracted-in employees' NICs', that they have no other, non-earned, income, and that they work 39 hours a week.

  Figures for 1999–2000 and 2000–2001 are not available; they will depend upon any changes in tax and benefit rates and the rate of inflation.

  The Bank of England has played a leading role in facilitating preparation for the euro in the financial sector. All indications are that the City is ready for the launch of the euro and expects to maintain its position as Europe's leading financial centre.

  Ms Ryan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many people in full-time employment in the Greater London area currently earn less than the proposed national minimum wage development rate for 18 to 21-year-olds; [49458]
  575
  (2) how many people in full-time employment in Enfield currently earn less than the proposed national minimum wage development rate for 18 to 21-year-olds; [49455]

  (3) how many people in the constituency of Enfield, North earn less than the proposed national minimum wage, broken down by (a) gender, (b) age (c) ethnic origin and (d) full or part-time employment. [49457]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Chief Executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Ms Joan Ryan, dated 9 July 1998:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary questions (49455, 49457 and 49458) on earnings.
  The national minimum wage (NMW) will become effective in April 1999 and has been set at £3.60 for employees aged over 21. A development rate of £3.00 per hour will apply for employees aged 18 to 21. The proposals also include a provision for a rate of £3.20 which will apply to those over 21 years receiving accredited training during the first six months of a new job with a new employer, but we are unable to provide data on this. Workers aged 16 and 17 and all those on apprenticeship with be exempt.
  The Low Pay Commission, in arriving at their recommendations, had to adjust 1999 pay rates to 1997 values. Their methodology produces £3.40 and £2.80 as the 1997 values of the government's preferred rates and I have provided supplementary data for these levels.
  The new Earnings Survey (NES) does not collect information on the ethnic origin of employees, therefore figures for this element of the question cannot be given.
  The preferred method for assessing the coverage of the proposed NMW is to present adjusted NES and Labour Force Survey (LFS) data for the number of employees earning less than the proposed NMW rates. This method adjusts for the fact that the NES is based on a one per cent. sample of employees in the PAYE system and is therefore likely to under-represent relatively low paid staff, earning below the tax-threshold, and in particular those who work part-time. It is not possible to use this method for the data requested for these areas and, where it is available, data, solely from the NES, have been provided in the attached tables. Regrettably, NES cannot provide statistically reliable estimates for much of the information requested for Enfield North constituency and Enfield borough.
  The extent of the bias in the NES data may be estimated for Greater London by using the adjusted NES and LFS data for all employees. This suggests that the estimate of the overall proportion of full-time employees aged 18 to 21 years earning below £3.00 could understate the true position by as much as 12 percentage points. The equivalent figure for those aged over 21 years earning below £3.60 is 2 percentage points. However, because the bias has been estimated on the basis of all employees, it would be wise to treat these figures as broadly indicative rather than as precise estimates for full-time employees.
  NES—April 1997 (GB)
  Employees, whose pay for the survey period was unaffected by absence.

  Greater London—employees aged 18 to 21 on all rates of pay

  1Percentage earning

  Less than £2.80

  Less than £3.00

  Full-time males

  2.3

  3.1

  Full-time females

  4.0

  4.7

  All full time employees

  3.2

  3.9

  1Hourly earnings excluding overtime and shift payments (£)

  576

  Enfield North constituency—employees aged 18 to 21 on all rates of pay

  1Percentage earnings

  Less than £2.80

  Less than £3.00

  Full-time males

  2—

  2—

  Part-time males

  2—

  2—

  All males

  2—

  2—

  Full-time females

  2—

  2—

  Part-time females

  2—

  2—

  All females

  2—

  2—

  All full-time employees

  2—

  2—

  All part-time employees

  2—

  2—

  All employees

  2—

  2—

  1Hourly earnings excluding overtime and shift payments (£)

  2A reliable estimate is unavailable

  Enfield North constituency—employees aged over 21 on adult rates of pay

  1Percentage earnings

  Less than £3.40

  Less than £3.60

  Full-time males

  2—

  2—

  Part-time males

  2—

  2—

  All males

  2—

  2—

  Full-time females

  2—

  2—

  Part-time females

  2—

  2—

  All females

  6.0

  7.3

  All full-time employees

  4.6

  4.6

  All part-time employees

  2—

  2—

  All employees

  6.0

  6.7

  1Hourly earnings excluding overtime and shift payments (£)

  2A reliable estimate is unavailable

  Enfield borough—employees aged 18 to 21 on all rates of pay

  1Percentage earnings

  Less than £2.80

  Less than £3.00

  Full-time males

  2—

  2—

  Full-time females

  2—

  2—

  All full-time employees

  2—

  2—

  1Hourly earnings excluding overtime and shift payments (£)

  2A reliable estimate is unavailable

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Caplin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the working families tax credit is to be delivered through the PAYE system by adjusting PAYE code numbers; and if he will consult employers about the workings of the system. [50366]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC) will be introduced in October 1999 and paid through the payroll from April 2000. Inland Revenue consultations, aimed at minimising any extra work for employers, are continuing. An initial conclusion is that it would not be practical to use the employee's PAYE code to pay the Working Families Tax Credit. Although much work remains to be done before the detailed shape of the new scheme is settled, the current working assumption is that employers will be notified by the Inland Revenue of the amount of WFTC due to an employee and that this will be added to the employee's pay and paid through the PAYE system.

  Lobbyists
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to(a) record each contact by a lobbying organisation with (i) Ministers and (ii) civil servants and (b) publish details of such contacts. [49534]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by the Prime Minister today,Official Report, column 600.

  Growth
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the level of economic growth in 1999. [49628]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The March 1998 Budget forecast showed economic growth of between 1¾ and 2¼ per cent. in 1999. Developments since then have been broadly in line with our expectations, both in terms of total output and also its composition.

  Income Tax
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answers of 20 April 1998,Official Report, columns 400–02, and 5 June 1998, Official Report, columns 386–90, if he will provide comparable figures for two earner married couples where the income is split between them in the ratio of 60:40. [49187]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The information requested is contained in the table.

  Two earner married couple with income split in the ratio 60:40—for the 1998/99 tax year

  Gross income (£ per week)

  150

  200

  250

  300

  400

  NICs

  3.88

  9.76

  14.76

  19.76

  31.76

  Income Tax

  0

  2.38

  12.25

  22.75

  49.05

  Tax and NICs as percentage of gross earnings

  2.6

  6.1

  10.8

  14.2

  20.2

  Net Income

  146.12

  187.86

  222.99

  257.49

  319.19

  Equivalised Net Income

  146.12

  187.86

  222.99

  257.49

  319.19

  Notes

  1. The figures are calculated on the basis that all earnings are from employment and that there are no other sources of income.

  2. The Married Couples Allowance has been allocated to the person earning 60% of the total.

  3. The standard McClements scales have been used to determine equivalised income. This is the same process that is used in the DSS's Households Below Average Income publication.

  Some of these families may also be entitled to housing benefit and council tax benefit. However, as this will depend upon the composition of the housing costs (between mortgage payments, council tax, and rent) housing benefit and council tax benefit have been left out of these figures.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how staff numbers in his Department have varied between 1 May 1997 and 31 March 1998. [48874]
  578
  Mrs. Liddell
  Staff numbers1 in HM Treasury are as follows:

  1 April 19972

  1 January 19982

  Percentage change

  Permanent

  888.0

  897.5

  +1.06

  Casual

  26.0

  26.0

  0.00

  1Figures are shown as whole time equivalents

  2Data are not readily available for either 1 May 1997 or 31 January 1998 and would involve disproportionate cost to obtain

  Note:

  On 5 January 1998, 95 permanent staff were transferred to the Treasury from the Department of Trade and Industry's Insurance Directorate under a machinery of government change. The vast bulk of them will move again to the Financial Services Authority in due course.

  Public Debt
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give his reasons for defining a prudent level of public debt as being below 40 per cent. of GDP; and how this compares to the current level of public debt in each EU country. [47034]

  Mr. Darling
  The Government's policy on the level of public debt is explained in section 3.2.4 of the Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report published last month.

  A comparison of net public debt as a proportion of GDP is set out in the table. These are based on OECD figures where available, and otherwise on European Commission data for gross Government debt.

  General Government net financial liabilities (per cent. of GDP)

  1997

  Finland

  -5.3

  Luxembourg1

  6.7

  Sweden

  21.6

  Denmark

  40.6

  France

  43.0

  UK

  43.7

  Netherlands

  45.0

  Austria

  45.9

  Germany

  49.5

  Spain

  51.8

  Portugal1

  62.0

  Ireland1

  66.3

  Greece1

  108.7

  Italy

  108.8

  Belgium

  118.4

  UK (whole public sector)2

  43.3

  1Figures for these countries are gross rather than net (European Commission)

  2End-March 1998

  Economic and Finance Council
  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the Council meeting of the Economic and Finance Ministers of the European Union held on 6 July. [50215]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I attended the Economic and Finance Council—ECOFIN—of the European Union in Brussels on 6 July. Given that this was the first Council of the Austrian Presidency, we discussed only one item of substantive business in formal session. The Council heard and then commented on the work programme of the Austrian Presidency for ECOFIN over the next six
  579
  months. I and other Ministers welcomed the broad themes set out by Minister Edlinger, which largely take forward work from the previous six months, as anticipated in the Cardiff European Council Conclusions. During discussions, several Ministers paid tribute to the UK Presidency's handling over the past six months, and welcomed the progress made.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Welsh Assembly
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the President of the Council what proposals she plans to make regarding the ability of hon. Members to ask questions of Ministers on matters that have been devolved to the National Assembly for Wales following the election of the Assembly. [49711]

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  I have no immediate proposals for any change in the procedure for questions. I understand that the Procedure Committee will be conducting an inquiry into the implications for the House of devolution. Any suggestions from the hon. Member will be welcome. The Government will consider carefully any recommendations the Committee makes.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Government Policies
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the projects undertaken by his Department since 1 May 1997 to research public reaction to(a) Government policies and (b) potential new policies; and if he will place the results of the research in the Library. [46686]

  Mr. Fatchett
  In line with the practice of successive Administrations, the Department consults the public, interested parties and client groups by way of consultation papers, White Papers and discussion on a wide range of policies and proposed legislation. There have been no major exercises since 1 May 1997 researching public reaction to Government policies or potential new policies; nor has the Department published any White Papers. We did however, commission a survey on attitudes to Europe in November 1997. A copy of the results has been placed in the Library.

  Landmines
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the use of anti-personnel mines will be included in the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. [49338]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Our intention is get landmines universally banned.

  The Statute of the International Criminal Court is still being negotiated. We support proposals for the Court to be able to try war crimes which are recognised under customary international law. Despite the signature of the Ottawa Convention, the use of anti-personnel landmines does not at present come into this category. But landmines, like any other weapon, might be used in a way that would contravene international law. Under the
  580
  proposals which we support this could well lead to the user being prosecuted at the International Criminal Court.

  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what attempts were made by Her Majesty's Government to amend Articles of the Ottawa Convention on Anti-Personnel Mines to permit British personnel to assist members of the armed forces of a state that is not a party to that convention to lay anti-personnel mines. [49671]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  None.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the indemnities relative to the Sierra Leone arms investigation will come into force. [50318]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To assist Sir Thomas Legg to complete his report as soon as possible, the indemnities will come into force on 10 July.

  Nigeria
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what indications have been received from the Nigerian Government regarding the timetable for(a) the release of political prisoners and (b) the restoration of democracy and human rights. [49698]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We still await an announcement by the Nigerian Government of the timetable for the release of detainees and the restoration of democracy and human rights.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent visit of the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) to Nigeria. [49663]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  I visited Nigeria on 25–26 June representing both my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the EU Presidency. I had a constructive meeting with General Abubakar. He set out his ideas for the way ahead, stressing the need for all Nigerians, including those in exile, to be a part of the process. I stressed the importance of an inclusive political process leading to the early restoration of democratic civilian rule.

  I was deeply saddened by the death of Chief Abiola on 7 July. He had been in detention since 1994 and we had repeatedly called for his release, most recently during my visit. It is particularly tragic that he died at a time when Nigeria had embarked on a process of reconciliation, and we believed his release to be imminent.

  During my visit I also called for the release of all other detainees. It is essential that General Abubakar now does this and makes an early announcement about the restoration of civilian rule. I also encouraged General Abubakar to allow the UN Commission on Human Rights Special Rapporteur to visit Nigeria in accordance with his mandate.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to visit Nigeria. [49664]
  581
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has no immediate plans to visit Nigeria.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received from UK companies about Nigeria. [49665]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  I am in correspondence with the West Africa Committee who represent the majority of British companies active in Nigeria.

  Lobbyists
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to(a) record each contact by a lobbying organisation with (i) Ministers and (ii) civil servants and (b) publish details of such contacts. [49536]

  Mr. Fatchett
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given today by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister,Official Report, column 600.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Gender Impact Assessments
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Attorney-General, pursuant to the answer of 24 June 1998,Official Report, columns 557–58, prior to 18 May, what mechanisms were used to determine how legislation passed in the current session would affect women; what consultation he had with women's organisations; and if he will make a statement. [49089]

  The Attorney-General
  Guidance for policy appraisal for equal treatment has been available since 1992. Application of the guidance has been the responsibility of individual departments. The only item of legislation for which my department has been directly responsible, the Law Officers Act 1997, did not by its nature, raise an issue of possible differential impact on women.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Employees (Health and Safety)
  Mr. Plaskitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to ensure that employers reduce to an acceptable level risks posed to the health and safety of employees using public roads while at work. [48748]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Road Traffic and related Acts provide the legal framework for driving on Britain's roads. All drivers, including those who drive as part of their employment, are obliged to obey these laws.

  The safety of company car drivers (as distinct from people whose job is specifically driving related e.g. HGV and bus drivers) is of concern. We believe the best way forward is for employers to foster working practices which encourage responsible driving. We have supported
  582
  the work of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents in producing its guidance document "Managing Occupational Road Risk" published earlier this year, to help organisations to develop an effective management approach. We will continue to encourage employers to adopt such an approach, which could have wider benefits in addition to road safety.

  Local Authority Transport Schemes
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much money in each of the past five years each eligible local authority has received from the European Regional Development Fund; and what(a) road and (b) other transport schemes have been supported under this scheme. [48917]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I have placed a copy of the information requested in the Library.

  Landfill Tax
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what account will be taken of the increase in landfill tax levy from April 1999 when calculating local authorities' standard spending assessments for 1999–2000. [48911]

  Mr. Raynsford
  In calculating Total Standard Spending for 1999–2000, the Government will take into account spending pressures facing local authorities, including the increase in landfill tax, as well as the opportunities for local government to make savings.

  Sewage Treatment
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will respond to the Second report of the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee, Sewage Treatment and Disposal (HC 266-I). [48943]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government aim to respond to the Report later this month.

  Lorries
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answers of 18 May 1998,Official Report, column 219, and 15 June 1998, Official Report, column 39, if drivers of lorries engaged in international haulage are required to be in possession of a CMR, goods in transit insurance document; and what role this document will have in assisting the enforcement authorities to distinguish the origin and destination of journeys, if it is decided not to allow five axle lorries weighing 40 tonnes to operate in the domestic market. [48944]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Goods carried by road for hire or reward on international journeys to or from the UK, except between the UK and the Republic of Ireland, are covered by the Convention on the contract for the international carriage of goods by road (CMR) and are required to be accompanied by a CMR consignment note. This requirement does not apply to goods being carried by own-account operators.
  583
  As indicated in my answers of 18 May and 15 June, Official Report, columns 219 and 39 respectively, enforcement issues will be taken into account when considering whether or not to allow 40 tonne lorries for domestic as well as international movements in the UK. A decision will be announced in the forthcoming White paper on Integrated Transport.

  Road Development Projects
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many properties have been purchased for road development projects in the Greater London area by his Department in each of the last three years; and at what cost. [49278]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The total number and value of properties acquired by the Highways Agency in the Greater London Area in the last three years are as follows. The summary relates to properties acquired in connection with trunk roads only.

  Financial year

  Number acquired

  Purchase price (£)

  1995–96

  66

  15,605,000

  1996–97

  22

  1,647,050

  1997–98

  33

  5,063,770

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the potential threat to the environment in the United Kingdom posed by nuclear installations which are not millennium compliant in former Warsaw Pact countries. [49259]

  Angela Eagle
  No specific assessment has been made of the potential threat to the UK environment posed by overseas nuclear installations which are not millennium compliant. However, the UK has been active in the International Atomic Energy Agency and via our own embassies in seeking to raise global awareness of the problem. We are continuing to encourage all countries to recognise the need to take immediate action in this matter.

  Site/application

  Local authority

  Number of parking spaces

  Decision

  Strayfield works, Strayfield Road—12 houses

  LB Enfield

  48

  Awaiting public inquiry

  Hackney Wick Greyhound Stadium—16 screen multiplex cinema

  LB Hackney

  1,250

  Awaiting public inquiry

  Wealdstone Town Centre—Superstore, retail and residential units

  LB Harrow

  776

  Awaiting public inquiry

  Key Site 1, Hounslow Town Centre—25 screen multiplex cinema, bingo hall, shops restaurant and town square

  LB Hounslow

  1,296

  Awaiting public inquiry

  Mr. Casale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will list the development proposals within London where more than 50 car parking spaces are planned and where a decision to grant planning permission has yet to be including for each(a) the total number of parking
  584
  The UK has well developed National Response Plans—including continuous operation of the RIMNET system—for dealing with overseas nuclear incidents which might pose a threat to the UK environment.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mr. Snape
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will review the costs and benefits of the environmental protection works associated with phase two of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link, between Ebbsfleet and King's Cross. [49467]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Few CTRL works in phase two are concerned exclusively with environmental protection and decisions on extensive tunnelling were taken for engineering reasons as much as for environmental reasons. It is not practicable, therefore, to separate environmental protection costs from the total.

  Orange Badge Scheme
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what are the terms of reference and timescale of his Department's review of the Orange Badge Scheme. [49553]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  There are no plans for a formal review of the Orange Badge Scheme at this time.

  The Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee (DPTAC)—our statutory advisers on the transport needs of disabled people—are currently drafting a paper on the Scheme, which they are proposing to put to Ministers shortly. We shall need to consider very carefully what DPTAC have to say before deciding what, if any, review of the Scheme might be appropriate.

  Development Proposals (London)
  Mr Casale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and the Regions if he will list the development proposals within London which he has called in since 1 May 1997 on the ground of possible traffic generation including for each(a) the total number of car spaces proposed and (b) the decision reached. [49366]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Four planning applications in London have been called in since 1 May 1997 where the Secretary of State has indicated that traffic generation is one of the issues of which he specifically wishes to be informed in reaching his decision.

  Space proposed and (b) the London borought in which it is proposed; [49367]

  (2) whet record are maintaind by his Department on the extent of car parking provision associated with development proposels under consideration within the planning process in London. [49368]
  585
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  My Department does not hold this information.

  Waste Disposal Authorities
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to consult on proposals to institute the change to a tonnage based levy for statutory joint waste disposal authorities announced in March. [50128]

  Angela Eagle
  When announcing the change from a council tax to a tonnage based system for the apportionment of Joint Waste Disposal Authorities levies, I requested officials in my department to work out methods for such a system and to discuss them with the local authority associations. Proposals have now been developed on how to apportion authorities' contributions on the basis of the amount of waste they deliver for disposal in a preceding period. The aim is to reflect the service each authority draws from the JWDA and to provide encouragement for waste minimisation and other sustainable methods of waste management. The more successful authorities are in minimising waste and diverting it to other forms of sustainable waste management such as recycling and composting, the less they will deliver for disposal and the less they will pay. As I said in March, this will form one more element in our policy to encourage waste management options higher up the waste hierarchy.

  A consultation document will therefore be issued today to local authority associations, the JWDAs and their constituent authorities. It remains our intention to have an efficient and effective default system in place in time for the 1999–2000 levy and I would very much welcome their responses to our proposals.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the Minister for Local Government and Housing plans to respond to the letter of 16 April 1998 from Mr. John Booth, on electoral registration. [48682]

  Mr. George Howarth
  I have been asked to reply.

  This letter was transferred to the Home Office from another Government department on 30 April. My officials have now written to Mr. Booth in response to this and to his further letter of 30 May.

  Sellafield
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will arrange a meeting with the Director-General of the Health and Safety Executive and Chief Inspector of the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate in respect of the current safety status of the high-activity liquid radioactive waste tanks at Sellafield. [47878]

  Mr. Battle
  I have been asked to reply.

  The UK's independent nuclear safety regulator, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), has made clear that it is satisfied that arrangements for the management by BNFL of liquid High Level Waste (HLW) are adequately safe. This Department is in regular contact with HSE and
  586
  NII. Its views on liquid HLW storage at Sellafield were set out in a report published in December 1995 entitled 'Safety of the Storage of Liquid High Level Waste (HLW) at BNFL Sellafield', a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. The UK's independent Nuclear Safety Advisory Committee (NuSAC) has also recently examined the safety of HLW storage at Sellafield. NuSAC concluded that there were no immediate problems and supported BNFL plans to vitrify liquid HLW as soon as practicable.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many prohibition notices have been issued to BNFL at Sellafield under section 22 of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974, since it entered into force. [47874]

  Mr. Battle
  I have been asked to reply.

  The independent Health and Safety Executive only keeps records on prohibition notices for ten years. Since 1988 there have been three prohibition notices issued to BNFL Sellafield under Section 22 of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974. These all related to non-nuclear aspects of safety: one relating to a drilling machine in an engineering workshop, and two relating to protection of people carrying out construction work at roof level.

  Lobbyists
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make it his policy to(a) record each contact by a lobbying organisation with (i) Ministers and (ii) civil servants and (b) publish details of such contacts. [49539]

  Mr. Prescott
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given today by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister,Official Report, column 600.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Immigration (Internet)
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 6 April 1998,Official Report, columns 31–32, if he will place a copy of the instructions to the Immigration Service and his Department's staff on dealing with immigration cases on the Internet. [50228]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Further to my announcement of 6 April 1998,Official Report, columns 31–32, I am pleased to announce that a copy of the disclosable version of four of the six volumes of the Immigration Directorates' Instructions (IDIs) is being placed on the Internet. The material is subject to periodic review and revision.

  The Government are committed to ensuring that these instructions are as widely available as possible and arrangements are also in hand to place a paper-based copy of the IDIs at various selected sites around the United Kingdom. This will provide an alternative means of access for those without direct access to the Internet. I will arrange for a copy of the list containing details of the selected sites to be placed in the Library and on the Internet.

  Life Imprisonment
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he intends to make changes to the review procedures in cases of persons sentenced to life imprisonment. [50369]

  Mr. Straw
  Under the present arrangements announced by previous Home Secretaries, most recently on 7 December 1994,Official Report, columns 234–35, by the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), the first Parole Board review in the case of a life sentenced prisoner begins three years before the expiry of tariff. The purpose of this review is normally to enable the prisoner to be assessed for, and, where appropriate, transferred to, open conditions (category D) where he or she may be tested in conditions of lower security, fully assessed by staff and prepared for release. A further Parole Board review is then held to determine whether the level of risk is low enough to enable the prisoner to be safely released on life licence. Where the level of risk is considered to be acceptable, the objective is to release the prisoner on or very shortly after tariff expiry.

  The need for two or more reviews and the average time of eight and a half months to complete each one make it very difficult for this objective to be achieved. Of the 109 life sentenced prisoners who were released on life licence between April 1997 and March 1998, only one was released on tariff expiry. A further 31, who could have been safely released at or close to tariff expiry, were released within 12 months. I have therefore decided to make some adjustments to the review timetabling arrangements to reduce delays by enabling prisoners whom it is safe to release but who are currently being released within 12 months of tariff expiry to be released on tariff or shortly afterwards.

  In future, the first Parole Board review for mandatory and discretionary life sentenced prisoners will be brought forward by six months to start three and a half years before tariff expiry, but normally only where the prisoner has been in category C prison conditions for 12 months or more at that point. Cases falling just outside the 12 month criterion, and cases where exceptional circumstances exist, will be considered for early review on their merits.

  In addition, reviews for all mandatory life sentenced prisoners who are in open conditions will commence 18 months after arrival rather than after two years as is now the practice. I am satisfied that this will still allow ample time (at least two years) in open prison for the prisoner to be fully tested, assessed and prepared for release. This change will bring the timetable for the review of mandatory life sentenced prisoners into line with that for discretionary cases in which there is a statutory entitlement to a further review on the second anniversary of the conclusion of the previous one. In order to avoid disrupting the scheduled offending behaviour programmes and pre-release preparatory work for those already in open conditions, this new arrangement will apply to those transferring to open conditions from 1 August.

  The statement of 7 December 1994 also announced the abolition in discretionary life sentence cases of the ten year Ministerial review to consider whether there were any grounds for bringing forward the date of the first
  588
  Parole Board review. The purpose of that review had been to identify any special circumstances or exceptional progress which might justify bringing forward the date of the first Parole Board review. I have decided that this review should also be abolished in mandatory life sentence cases. Those convicted of murder are now fully informed about the tariff-setting process and may make representations at any time about the length of their tariff. In addition, they may at any time make representations for their tariff to be reduced to take account of exceptional circumstances, including exceptional progress in prison. Those sentenced to be detained during Her Majesty's pleasure have an annual review of tariff by officials and a Ministerial review at the halfway point. In these circumstances, the ten year review is now redundant.

  Infanticide
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many children under the age of 14 have been murdered by their parents in England and Wales in each of the last three years. [49477]

  Mr. Michael
  The table shows the number of offences recorded as homicide in England and Wales, as at 1 August 1997, where children under the age of 14 years were killed by their parents:

  Year

  Number

  1994

  52

  1995

  46

  1996

  58

  Figures for 1997 are not yet available.

  Telephone Interceptions
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many telephone interceptions were authorised by his Department in(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98 and (c) 1998–99 to date; and if he will make a statement. [49696]

  Mr. Straw
  The annual reports of the Commissioner appointed under the Interception of Communications Act 1985 list the number of interception warrants issued by the Home Secretary in the course of each year. In 1996, 1,073 telecommunications warrants were issued by the Home Secretary. In 1997, the number was 1,391. During the period 1 January to 30 June this year, 816 such warrants were issued by me.

  Prison, Agecroft
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how the PFI contract awarded to UK Detention Services to build and operate a new prison in Agecroft, Salford, will be accounted for in the Government's accounts. [49666]

  Ms Quin
  We have taken advice from Her Majesty's Treasury and the National Audit Office and we are satisfied that the underlying assets of the contract for the new prison to be built on the Agecroft site at Salford will be off balance sheet. This means that the capital expenditure incurred by the Prison Service as a result of the contract is amortised over the 25 year contract.

  Diarmuid O'Neill
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many members of the Police Complaints Authority and staff have been assigned to investigate the shooting of Diarmuid O'Neill in each month since September 1996; and how many staff hours were expended each month. [48366]

  Mr. Michael
  One member of the Police Complaints Authority (PCA) and one caseworker have been assigned to this case since it was referred to the PCA for supervision of the investigation in September 1995. The PCA does not record its staff time expended on individual cases.

  In accordance with standard practice, the investigation by the Metropolitan Police into the shooting of Mr. O'Neill was deferred until the completion in December last year of criminal proceedings against those arrested in the same operation.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the Police Complaints Authority to complete its investigation into the shooting of Diarmuid O'Neill; and when he expects the family will be notified of the full circumstances of his death. [48367]

  Mr. Michael
  I understand that the Police Complaints Authority (PCA) expects the investigation to be completed by the end of August. The Crown Prosecution Service and the PCA will then consider whether any criminal or disciplinary proceedings should be brought against any of those involved in the case.

  A police report on Mr. O'Neill's death will also be submitted to the coroner. The coroner's inquest will inquire into the cause of death and the circumstances in which it occurred, unless these have already been established by criminal proceedings following the PCA investigation.

  Pregnant Prisoners
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the impact of recommendations contained in the Department of Health White Paper "Changing Childbirth", on pregnant women in prison; what timetable for implementation of proposals in the White Paper was proposed by Her Majesty's Inspector of Prisons; and what is the current timetable. [48368]

  Ms Quin
  The Prison Service is committed to implementing, in partnership with the NHS and within the constraints necessarily presented by the facts of custody, the recommendations of "Changing Childbirth".

  The timetable proposed by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons was that these recommendations be implemented by December 1997, an earlier target date than that to which the NHS was committed. Progress is being made in line with developments in local NHS maternity services.
  590
  In the meantime, the Directorate for Health Care is developing a standard for women's health. The new standard, which is expected to be completed by March 1999, will incorporate objectives and outcomes drawn from "Changing Childbirth" and such further guidance from the Department on Health as becomes available in the course of its development.

  Strip Searches
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the conclusions and recommendations of the review evaluated by his Department into strip searching procedures; and if he will place a copy in the Library. [48369]

  Ms Quin
  The Prison Service review of searches of the person, which has proved to be more complex and wide-ranging than originally envisaged, will be completed by late summer. A copy of the final report will be placed in the Library.

  Criminal Cases Review Commission
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to receive the first annual report of the Criminal Cases Review Commission; and if he will place it in the Library. [48370]

  Mr. Michael
  I have already received a proof copy of this Report, and hope to be able to lay it before each House on 20 July. Copies will also be placed in the Libraries.

  Race Relations Forum
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the terms of reference of the Race Relations Forum; how many staff of what grade are attached to it; what decisions were taken at its first meeting; and what is its postal address, telephone, fax number and E-mail address. [48371]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Race Relations Forum was established for the purpose of giving ethnic minority communities a voice at the heart of government. It is intended to complement the existing channels of communication. The first meeting took place on 23 June and was chaired by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. The Forum's terms of reference were discussed but not finalised. We will publish them once they have been agreed. As an advisory body, it is not the role of the Forum to take decisions. We are, however, considering the points members made.

  The Secretariat to the Forum is provided by a Grade 7 civil servant, a Higher Executive Officer and an Executive Officer.

  Its postal address is The Race Relations Forum Secretariat, Race Equality Unit, Room 1272, Home Office, 50 Queen Anne's Gate, London SW1A 9AT. The secretary's telephone number is 0171 273 2792, fax number 0171 273 3771. There is no e-mail address.

  Police Records
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the procedure in relation to the destruction of a suspect's police records(a) if the victim decides not to press charges and (b) if the Crown Prosecution Service decides not to prosecute. [49073]

  Mr. Michael
  Save in exceptional circumstances, details of cases which are discontinued are deleted from the Police National Computer and fingerprints and other samples taken from a suspect are destroyed within forty-two days of notification of the decision not to proceed. This does not apply in cases where the offender is cautioned.

  The retention of local police records in these circumstances is an operational matter for the chief constable concerned.

  Prisoners (Condoms)
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what plans there are to improve prisoners' access to condoms; [48762]

  (2) what plans there are to include condoms in the health pilot schemes currently providing disinfectant tablets to Class IV drug users in prisons. [48761]

  Ms Quin
  Prison doctors are able to prescribe condoms to individual prisoners, on application, where, in their clinical judgment, there is a known risk of HIV infection. We have no present plans to make condoms more freely available to prisoners, either as part of the pilot project for the reintroduction of disinfecting tablets or generally.

  Prisoner Releases (Northern Ireland)
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with the Government of the Irish Republic about the possible release of prisoners convicted of terrorist offences repatriated to the Irish Republic following the Belfast Agreement. [48947]

  Ms Quin
  As part of the 10 April Belfast Agreement, both the British and the Irish Governments agreed to put in place mechanisms to provide for the accelerated release of prisoners. The release of prisoners within the Irish Republic, including those repatriated from England and Wales, is a matter for the Irish Government. However, discussions are taking place about the effect of the Republic's proposals for the accelerated release of prisoners on those prisoners repatriated from England and Wales.

  Crime Statistics
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many offences were recorded per 1,000 population by(a) the Metropolitan Police and (b) police elsewhere in the country in (i) 1996–97 and (ii) 1997–98, (1) in total, (2) of violence against the person, (3) sexual offences, (4) of robbery, burglary, theft and handling stolen goods, (5) of fraud, (6) of criminal damage and (7) of other notifiable offences. [49437]
  592
  Mr. Michael
  The available information is given in the table. Overall figures for England and Wales, excluding the Metropolitan Police, in 1997–98 are not yet available.

  Notifiable offences recorded by the police

  Offence

  1996–97 Number per 1,000 population

  1997–98 Number per 1,000 population

  Metropolitan Police

  Total all offences

  112

  103

  Violence against the person

  7

  7

  Sexual offences

  1

  1

  Burglary, robbery and theft and handling stolen goods

  77

  70

  Fraud and forgery

  5

  6

  Criminal damage

  20

  18

  Other offences

  2

  2

  All forces except Metropolitan Police

  Total all offences

  92

  1—

  Violence against the person

  4

  1—

  Sexual offences

  1

  1—

  Burglary, robbery and theft and handling stolen goods

  66

  1—

  Fraud and forgery

  2

  1—

  Criminal damage

  18

  1—

  Other offences

  1

  1—

  1Not available

  Prison Officers
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to change the current qualification requirements and training for prison officers working with juveniles in young offender institutions or adult prisons. [49352]

  Ms Quin
  The Prison Service in partnership with the Trust for the Study of Adolescence (TSA), have developed a specialist training course on the "Nature of Adolescence: Working with Young People in Custody". The Prison Service is working towards national accreditation for this course, which it is intended will form part of basic training for all prison officers who are going to work in establishments holding juveniles from November 1998.

  In addition, a course on "Understanding and Working with Young Women in Custody" has been developed with the TSA. It is intended that national accreditation will also be sought for this course. Trials in September this year will incorporate this training package into the basic training for prison officers going to Styal and Send women's prisons, which hold a proportion of juveniles.

  There are no current plans to change the qualification requirement for prison officers working with juveniles.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the average turnover of prison officers in each young offender institution in England over the last five years. [49351]

  Ms Quin
  These figures are not collated centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Closed Circuit Television (Gloucestershire)
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what financial assistance he will
  593
  provide in the current financial year to Gloucestershire district councils that wish to install CCTV cameras within their areas. [49246]

  Mr. Michael
  A total of £9m has been provided in 1998–99 through the Home Office Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) Challenge Competition to fund CCTV schemes in England and Wales, of which around £1.5m will be used to fund 32 schemes successful under round four of the competition. The remaining £7.5m will be used to honour existing schemes inherited from previous rounds of the competition, including £16,840 paid to Gloucester City Council for a CCTV scheme in Brunswick Square, Gloucester. In total, over £453,000 has been paid to nine schemes in Gloucestershire under the four Home Office CCTV challenge competitions. They are:

  Location

  Amount (£)

  1

  Cirencester town centre and integral parking, public transport and business area

  70,000

  2

  Gloucester city centre

  10,000

  3

  Coleford town centre

  80,000

  4

  Cheltenham town centre

  29,000

  5

  Cinderford, Lydney and Newent

  130,050

  6

  Brunswick Square, Albion Street and Brunswick Road, Gloucester

  25,261

  7

  Gloucester Docks

  14,639

  8

  Stroud town centre

  62,199

  9

  Dursley town centre

  31,996

  No other payments are due from the Home Office CCTV Challenge Competition to partnerships in Gloucestershire.

  Immigration Appeals
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many applications were made by his Department for leave to appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal in non-asylum cases in the period 31 May 1997 to 1 June 1998; and how many were(a) granted, (b) refused and (c) withdrawn; [49319]

  (2) how many applications were made by his Department for leave to appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal in asylum cases in the period 31 May 1997 to 1 June 1998; and how many were (a) granted, (b) refused and (c) withdrawn; [49313]

  (3) how many applications were made by individual appellants for leave to appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal in asylum cases in the period 31 May 1997 to 1 June 1998; and how many were (a) granted, (b) refused and (c) withdrawn; [49314]

  (4) how many applications were made by individual appellants for leave to appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal in non-asylum cases in the period 31 May 1997 to 1 June 1998; and how many were (a) granted, (b) refused and (c) withdrawn. [49320]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The available information is that, in the period 1 June 1997 to 31 May 1998, a total of 13,242 applications for leave to appeal to the Immigration 594
  Appeal Tribunal were lodged, of which 9,536 related to asylum cases and 3,706 to non-asylum cases. In the same period, 12,616 applications for leave to appeal were decided by the Tribunal, 9,150 in asylum cases and 3,466 non-asylum cases.

  Statistics of the breakdown of Immigration Appeal Tribunal applications in asylum cases are not available for the full period requested. However, between June and December 1997, it is estimated that of 5,824 applications for leave to appeal to the Tribunal, 99 per cent. were lodged by the appellant and just over 1 per cent. by the Home Office. In the same period, 5,319 applications were decided, of which approximately 18 per cent. were granted leave to appeal, 17 per cent. to the appellant and 1 per cent. to the Home Office.

  I regret that the detailed breakdown requested for non-asylum cases, by appellant and type of decision, would be available only from the inspection of individual cases files and therefore at disproportionate cost.

  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. McNulty
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what additional costs are incurred within London for policing; and what allowance he makes for this in funding the Metropolitan Police. [49416]

  Mr. Michael
  The additional costs incurred within London for policing fall into two broad categories: firstly, its capital city function—as permanent seat of government and primary location of the Royal Family—and, secondly, its national function (on behalf of the Government).

  In 1998–99, £151 million was made available to the Metropolitan Police as a special payment in recognition of this capital city and national function. The special payment is paid as 100 per cent. Home Office grant.

  Police (Compensation)
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 17 June 1998,Official Report, column 222, how much was paid out by the Metropolitan Police in compensation cases in the last year for which figures are available. [49282]

  Mr. Michael
  The Commissioner has provided me with the information set out in the table. During 1996–97, settlement of a number of actions was delayed while claimants awaited the outcome of the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Thompson and Hsu v. the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (1997) 2 All ER 762. Settlement of the delayed actions had inflated the number of cases settled in 1997–98.

  Damages in respect of civil claims

  Number of claims completed in 1997–98

  Cost (£000) in 1997–98

  Court awards

  39

  530

  Out of court settlements

  278

  2,431

  Association of Chief Police Officers
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department from whom the Commissioner of Police
  595
  of the Metropolis sought clearance to take up the positions of (a) a director of ACPO Ltd and (b) a member of the Executive Committee of ACPO; and what payments or reward in kind attach to the position. [49312]

  Mr. Michael
  The Commissioner did not need to seek clearance to take up the position of a member of the Executive Committee of the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO). Members of the Executive Committee of ACPO are regarded as Directors of the Association, which has the status of a private company limited by guarantee. The constitution of the Executive Committee is a matter for ACPO itself. No payments or rewards in kind are attached to the position of Director. I draw the attention of the hon. Member to my letters of 10 and 26 June and 8 July, offering to assist him with his concerns if he will outline or explain what has led to his interest in this topic.

  Lobbyists
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to(a) record each contact by a lobbying organisation with (i) Ministers and (ii) civil servants and (b) publish details of such contacts. [49540]

  Mr. Straw
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to him today by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister,Official Report, column 600.

DEFENCE

  Strategic Defence Review
  Ms Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which front-line aircraft squadrons will be disbanded as a result of the Strategic Defence Review. [50396]

  Mr. George Robertson
  We considered this matter very carefully and decided the most effective way to meet the reductions in the Tornado F3 and Tornado GR forces was to disband two squadrons. In order to minimise disruption for Service personnel and optimise running cost savings, No 29(f) Tornado F3 Squadron at RAF Coningsby and No 17(F) Tornado GR Squadron at RAF Bruggen will be disbanded by 1 April 1999.

  There will be no redundancies as a result of this decision. We wish to place on record our recognition of the distinguished role these squadrons have performed over many years.

  Naval Aircraft Repair Organisation
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key targets have been set for the Chief Executive of the Naval Aircraft Repair Organisation Defence Agency for 1998–99. [50370]

  Dr. Reid
  In respect of financial year 1998–99 (prior to the formation of the Defence Aviation Repair Agency) the Director General Aircraft (Navy), acting as Owner of the Agency on behalf of my hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence under the terms of the Agency's framework document, has set the following key targets:Quantity
  Target—to achieve 98 per cent. of scheduled quantity of MoD sales orders in year.
  596
  Customer Quality Satisfaction
  Target—to achieve no more than 56 customer complaints.
  Timeliness
  Target—to achieve 95 per cent. of the delivery dates agreed with the MoD customer.
  Cost
  Target—to achieve a full operating cost of £117.5M by 1 April 1999, assuming constant output. (Equivalent to a 9.5 per cent. reduction in real terms from the 1995–96 baseline).
  Volume
  Target—to utilise 100 per cent. of the available capacity by ensuring existing and, when required, additional customers furnish the programmes work against which resources have been allocated.

  Indonesia
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 10 June 1998,Official Report, columns 609–11, concerning military personnel serving in Indonesia, what is the period of their deployment; to which units they are attached; where they are deployed; and what their duties are. [49421]

  Mr. George Robertson
  In my answer to the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. M. Campbell) on 10 June 1998,Official Report, columns 609–11, four members of the UK armed forces were listed as serving in Indonesia. They included the Defence Attaché and a supporting Warrant Officer based at the UK Embassy in Jakarta, who are both on a three-year tour which ends in 2000. The other two were RAF Loan Service Personnel stationed at the Perkanbaru air base in Indonesia. They were assisting with the introduction into service of the Hawk aircraft, purchased under a contract signed in 1993, by providing pilot training to the Indonesian Air Force. Their task in Indonesia has since been completed and both officers have now left.

  Challenger 2 Battle Tanks
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress of the production of the Challenger 2 battle tank. [49304]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 7 July 1998]: Following the successful completion of production reliability growth trials, deliveries of Challenger 2 tanks resumed in January 1998. Deliveries to the first regiment were completed in June 1998, and deliveries of the second regiment are on course for completion by the end of December 1998. The programme remains on schedule for all 386 tanks to be delivered by February 2002, at which stage all our armoured regiments will be equipped with Challenger 2.

  Lobbyists
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to(a) record each contact by a lobbying organisation with (i) Ministers and (ii) civil servants and (b) publish details of such contacts. [49537]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister today.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what contingency plans his Department is making in the event of the failure of computer systems to recognise the year 2000; when he expects them to be in place, and tested; and if he will make a statement. [48844]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  The Department for Culture, Media and Sport is reviewing its contingency plans in the light of the possible disruption to computer systems due to the Year 2000 date change. The revised plans will reflect the compliance work currently under way and be informed by the state of readiness of those suppliers upon which the Department depends. The plans will be developed and tested over the coming 12 months to ensure that they are in place in good time for the critical dates involved in the Year 2000 date change.

  Tourism
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to increase the popularity of the United Kingdom as a tourist destination. [48689]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  We plan to publish a comprehensive strategy for tourism later this year. The strategy, which will draw on the recommendations of our Tourism Forum Working Groups and the findings of our Departmental Spending Review, will address the promotion of Britain as a tourism destination as well as many other issues.

  Lobbyists
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make it his policy to(a) record each contact by a lobbying organisation with (i) Ministers and (ii) civil servants and (b) publish details of such contacts. [49533]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given today by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister,Official Report, column 600.

  Benefit review

  Period of fieldwork

  Results reported to Ministers

  Results published

  Income Support (First Review)

  October 1994–December 1994

  March 1995

  July 1995

  Unemployment Benefit

  October 1994–December 1994

  March 1995

  July 1995

  Housing Benefit1 (First Review)

  June 1995-September 1995

  December 1995

  January 1996

  Retirement Pension

  October 1995–December 1995

  February 1996

  March 1996

  Invalid Care Allowance

  January 1996–March 1996

  July 1996

  July 1996

  Disability Living Allowance

  March 1996–April 1996

  September 19962 and

  February 1997

  November 19963

  Income Support (Second Review)

  August 1996–October 1996

  July 1997

  July 1997

  Child Benefit/Child Benefit (Lone Parent)

  August 1996–October 19964 and

  December 19976 and

  July 1998

  January 1997–August 19975

  June 1998

  1Benefit Review of Housing Benefit carried out under the aegis of the Department's Headquarters, Housing Benefit Security Branch

  2Headline results

  3Detailed results

  4First phase (involving customers receiving Child Benefit/Child Benefit with Lone Parent increase and Income Support concurrently)

  5Second phase (involving customers receiving Child Benefit/Child Benefit with Lone Parent increase but not Income Support)

  6Results of the Child Benefit/Child Benefit (With Lone Parent increase) reviews, were deferred while additional work was undertaken, including a further analysis of the findings from previously completed Benefit Reviews, to ensure that the results accurately differentiated between fraud and other error

  Broadcasting (Listed Events)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport at what intervals he plans to undertake future reviews of major events listed under Part IV of the Broadcasting Act 1996. [48442]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  I shall review the list regularly in the future.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Pension Funds (Ethical Investment)
  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps she will take to ensure that members of pension schemes know the policies of their trustees on ethical investment; and if she will make a statement. [50367]

  Mr. Denham
  The Government are minded, subject to the normal consultation requirements, to introduce regulations which would require occupational pension fund trustees to set out in their Statement of Investment Principles to what extent, if any, ethical and social considerations are taken into account in their investment strategy.

  Lobbyists
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will make it her policy to(a) record each contact by a lobbying organisation with (i) Ministers and (ii) civil servants and (b) publish details of such contacts. [49546]

  Mr. Denham
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answer from my right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister today.

  Benefit Reviews
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in which month and year the fieldwork began on each of the main reviews of benefits carried out by BA Security; and in which month and year in each case the report on the methodology and findings of the benefit review was(a) presented to Ministers and (b) published. [48810]

  Mr. Denham
  The information is set out in the table.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how staff numbers in the Lords Chancellor's Department have varied between 1 May 1997 and 31 March 1998. [48873]

  Mr. Hoon
  The staff numbers in post on the dates requested are as follows:

  Staff in post in the LCD as at 1 May 1997

  Agency

  Permanent

  Casual

  Total

  LCD Headquarters

  855

  52

  907

  Court Service

  9,196

  609

  9,805

  Public Trust Office

  537

  15

  552

  Northern Ireland Court Service

  638

  24

  662

  Total

  11,226

  700

  11,926

  Staff in post in the LCD as at 31 March 1998

  Agency

  Permanent

  Casual

  Total

  LCD Headquarters

  835

  28

  863

  Court Service

  8,717

  561

  9,278

  Public Trust Office

  547

  13

  560

  Northern Ireland Court Service

  630

  19

  649

  Total

  10,729

  621

  11,350

  Smuggling
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the consequences for small businesses in Wales of the crossborder smuggling of(a) alcohol and (b) petrol. [49563]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have been asked to reply.

  I have no information about the consequences of alcohol smuggling relating to Wales in particular. However the Government are very much aware of the illegal trade in alcohol and tobacco goods and its effect on the legitimate trade. In his July Budget last year the Chancellor announced a review to examine the effects of alcohol and tobacco fraud, smuggling and cross-border shopping, 2 July 1997, Official Report, columns 303–17. The Government will announce their proposals as part of the outcome of the Comprehensive Spending Review. I have no evidence to suggest the smuggling of petrol is a problem in Wales or anywhere else.

PRIME MINISTER

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Prime Minister how staff numbers in his Office have varied between 1 May 1997 and 31 March 1998. [48923]

  The Prime Minister
  Staff numbers in my Office on 1 May 1997 are not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. For staff numbers at 1 April 1997 and 1 April 1998, I refer the hon. Member 600
  to the answer I gave to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) on 23 April 1998, Official Report, column 675.

  Government Aims and Objectives
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister if he plans to publish the annual report on the achievement of the Government's aims and objectives before the summer adjournment. [49305]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 7 July 1998]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) on 22 June 1998, Official Report, column 350.

  EU Meetings
  Mr. Trend
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to place(a) in the Library and (b) on the internet the agenda of every European Communities meeting at which representatives of Her Majesty's Government are in attendance. [49647]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government have taken extensive steps to ensure greater openness in the EU and enhanced parliamentary scrutiny of its activities. We already announce by written parliamentary question each month the subjects expected to be discussed at forthcoming meetings of the Council of Ministers. These are available on the House of Commons website. In addition, in agreement with the European Legislation Committee, arrangements for more detailed pre-Council scrutiny have recently been established on a trial basis.

  Lobbyists
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to(a) record each contact by a lobbying organisation with (i) him and (ii) civil servants at No. 10 Downing Street and (b) publish details of such contacts. [49543]

  The Prime Minister
  The First Report of the Nolan Committee on Standards in Public Life expressly recommended against the establishment of a public register of lobbyists. There was no indication in the evidence to Nolan that there was impropriety in meetings between Ministers or officials and lobbying organisations. Ministers and civil servants receive deputations from many groups who are concerned to press their own interests or those of their clients, which Ministers and officials take due care to consider within the wider public interest and Government policy. In addition, some lobbyists may attend meetings with Ministers and civil servants but as part of a delegation led by an MP or outside interest group, and the information will not therefore be separately identifiable. It would not therefore be practicable to keep a register of such contacts.

  Disability and Access
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Prime Minister from which organisations Government departments seek advice on access issues. [49554]
  601
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government consult a wide range of organisations with an interest in disability and access questions.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Malawi
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance she will give to Malawi to deal with the effects of(a) climate change, (b) HIV and (c) malnutrition. [49258]

  Clare Short
  We are preparing a new Country Strategy Paper for our programme in Malawi, which will cover these among other issues. A copy will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Lobbyists
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make it her

  Education Authority schools, 1993–94 to 1997–98 Number of teachers working full-time and part-time in schools at September1

  Number of teachers by mode of working

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  full-time

  part-time

  full-time

  part-time

  full-time

  part-time

  full-time

  part-time

  full-time

  part-time

  Scotland

  45,496

  12,399

  45,626

  12,368

  45,432

  11,615

  45,011

  11,515

  44,453

  11,347

  Aberdeen City

  1,613

  638

  1,633

  662

  1,627

  657

  1,628

  596

  1,625

  548

  Aberdeenshire

  2,023

  1,205

  2,042

  1,183

  2,026

  1,099

  2,024

  1,135

  2,028

  1,042

  Angus

  979

  325

  998

  312

  998

  301

  985

  309

  975

  347

  Argyll & Bute

  840

  275

  840

  292

  842

  275

  828

  300

  817

  301

  Clackmannanshire

  438

  92

  425

  94

  417

  99

  418

  110

  425

  100

  Dumfries & Galloway

  1,357

  580

  1,375

  575

  1,376

  550

  1,318

  523

  1,358

  510

  Dundee City

  1,388

  281

  1,418

  269

  1,422

  257

  1,439

  235

  1,354

  230

  East Ayrshire

  1,109

  228

  1,112

  215

  1,118

  196

  1,111

  167

  1,099

  175

  East Dunbartonshire

  1,035

  235

  1,040

  197

  1,044

  177

  1,048

  190

  1,050

  227

  East Lothian

  662

  190

  677

  191

  688

  162

  687

  178

  726

  172

  East Renfrewshire

  787

  167

  789

  150

  791

  186

  799

  201

  803

  192

  Edinburgh, City of

  2,937

  716

  2,972

  730

  2,972

  640

  2,926

  554

  2,932

  573

  Eilean Star

  341

  360

  341

  331

  343

  352

  344

  329

  332

  337

  Falkirk

  1,217

  253

  1,196

  278

  1,194

  225

  1,197

  253

  1,225

  297

  Fife

  3,264

  681

  3,284

  717

  3,307

  633

  3,321

  507

  3,311

  484

  Glasgow City

  5,483

  757

  5,409

  827

  5,269

  770

  5,196

  753

  4,842

  766

  Highland

  2,175

  923

  2,175

  946

  2,184

  820

  2,168

  891

  2,143

  816

  Inverclyde

  837

  126

  824

  145

  814

  153

  780

  161

  783

  158

  Midlothian

  692

  307

  708

  256

  746

  206

  719

  241

  729

  240

  Moray

  789

  446

  799

  430

  801

  449

  786

  406

  794

  336

  North Ayrshire

  1,245

  264

  1,233

  267

  1,219

  248

  1,219

  277

  1,211

  263

  North Lanarkshire

  3,265

  424

  3,285

  415

  3,214

  443

  3,176

  443

  3,110

  480

  Orkney Islands

  221

  144

  223

  143

  225

  133

  220

  135

  229

  136

  Perth & Kinross

  1,068

  429

  1,110

  409

  1,111

  393

  1,115

  361

  1,093

  356

  Renfrewshire

  1,577

  262

  1,574

  261

  1,558

  300

  1,522

  295

  1,496

  298

  Scottish Borders

  900

  416

  913

  402

  914

  362

  917

  395

  917

  379

  Shetland Islands

  320

  220

  333

  200

  318

  218

  323

  219

  332

  221

  South Ayrshire

  998

  217

  995

  204

  1,019

  181

  996

  179

  976

  201

  South Lanarkshire

  2,827

  371

  2,824

  377

  2,816

  352

  2,763

  421

  2,697

  437

  Stirling

  748

  219

  737

  235

  731

  197

  729

  201

  733

  206

  West Dunbartonshire

  967

  195

  961

  193

  940

  187

  921

  195

  888

  194

  West Lothian

  1,394

  453

  1,381

  462

  1,388

  394

  1,388

  355

  1,420

  325

  1The number of part-time teachers includes a small number who work on a part-time basis in more than one school or in more than one sector of a particular school

  Source:

  School Census
  602
  policy to (a) record each contact by a lobbying organisation with (i) Ministers and (ii) civil servants and (b) publish details of such contacts. [49544]

  Mr. Foulkes
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to him today by my right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister,Official Report, column 600.

SCOTLAND

  Teachers
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many teachers in each council area in Scotland in each academic year from 1993–94 to 1997–98 were employed(a) full-time and (b) part-time; and how many had (i) permanent contracts, (ii) non-permanent contracts for over 12 months, (iii) contracts for three to 12 months and (iv) contracts for less than three months. [48752]

  Mr. Wilson
  The information which is available is set out in the table.

  Deaths
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each month for 1990 to 1997 the number of death in Scotland. [49188]

  Deaths by month of registration, Scotland, 1990–1997

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  19971

  January

  6,884

  6,014

  5,894

  5,762

  6,008

  5,793

  7,141

  7,104

  February

  4,958

  5,218

  5,274

  4,913

  4,884

  4,964

  5,049

  5,070

  March

  5,091

  5,046

  5,343

  6,084

  5,355

  5,507

  4,770

  4,505

  April

  5,276

  5,451

  5,040

  5,361

  4,744

  4,722

  5,138

  5,058

  May

  5,144

  4,974

  4,666

  5,049

  4,937

  5,232

  4,944

  4,706

  June

  4,685

  4,466

  4,962

  4,948

  4,706

  4,684

  4,252

  4,655

  July

  4,805

  4,861

  4,684

  4,571

  4,345

  4,663

  4,926

  4,586

  August

  4,734

  4,500

  4,630

  4,921

  4,753

  4,571

  4,504

  4,226

  September

  4,198

  4,453

  4,710

  4,722

  4,786

  4,371

  4,397

  4,565

  October

  5,211

  5,328

  4,960

  4,930

  4,854

  5,046

  5,054

  5,025

  November

  4,960

  5,024

  5,117

  6,531

  4,710

  5,086

  4,630

  4,495

  December

  5,581

  5,706

  5,657

  6,257

  5,246

  5,861

  5,849

  5,589

  Total

  61,527

  61,041

  60,937

  64,049

  59,328

  60,500

  60,654

  59,494

  1Provisional

  Trout Fishing
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much financial support his Department or its agencies have given for(a) the current financial year and (b) 1997–98 to the trout fishing industry; and for what purposes. [49286]

  Mr. Macdonald
  Trout fishing rights are privately owned and those involved are responsible for funding. However, as part of its general activities my Department's Freshwater Fisheries Laboratory at Faskally undertakes research into various aspects of trout.

  Dyslexic Children
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what measures he has taken to assist dyslexic children in Scotland. [49341]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Government are investing £56 million over 5 years in an Early Intervention Programme to improve basic literacy and numeracy skills in the early years in primary school. This includes £4 million for special educational needs staff training which may include training related to dyslexia. This is in addition to the continuation of the £1.5 million per annum In-Service Special Educational Needs Training Grant for staff at all levels of schooling which may also include training related to dyslexia.

  In addition The Scottish Office is engaged in a £30,000 project, announced in December 1997, in partnership with the Scottish Dyslexia Trust which will provide specialist training for up to 165 early years primary teachers on dyslexia awareness and early identification.

  Grant will be provided also to the Scottish Dyslexia Forum to run 4 regional seminars in 1998–99 on dyslexia issues for education authority staff in Scotland.

  Prison Population
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the prison population in each of the last 10 years; what are his estimates for the prison population for the next five years; and if he will make a statement. [49344]
  604
  Mr. McLeish
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Mr. McLeish
  The information requested is provided in the table. Projections are available for the years 1998–99—2000–01 only: beyond three years their accuracy is less reliable and the further ahead a series is projected, the greater the scope for departure from the projection.

  The prison population reflects the crime rate, the extent to which crimes are cleared-up, the use of custodial remand by the courts and the independent sentencing decisions of the Scottish courts.

  Year

  Average daily prison population

  1988–89

  5,168

  1989–90

  4,886

  1990–91

  4,738

  1991–92

  4,897

  1992–93

  5,395

  1993–94

  5,588

  1994–95

  5,630

  1995–96

  5,632

  1996–97

  5,992

  1997–981

  6,059

  Projections

  1998–1999

  6,350

  1999–2000

  6,550

  2000–2001

  6,650

  Provisional

  Breast Cancer
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to make Tamoxifen available on prescription to women with breast cancer in Scotland. [49343]

  Mr. Galbraith
  Tamoxifen is available on prescription to women with breast cancer in Scotland.

  Science Teachers
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many science teachers will be employed in schools in Scotland in 1999. [49342]
  605
  Mr. Wilson
  This is a matter for local authorities. The latest available figures relate to 1994 and the table shows the number of full-time equivalent teachers in Scottish secondary schools by main teaching subject. The next data collection from teachers will be in September 1998.

  Subject

  Number

  General Science

  104

  Biology

  1,219

  Chemistry

  1,360

  Physics

  1,146

  Cullen Inquiry
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the source of all the evidence which was submitted to the Cullen Inquiry which has not yet been published. [49263]

  Mr. McLeish
  A list of sources of submissions selected in evidence was published as Appendix 4 to Lord Cullen's report, "The Public Inquiry into the Shootings at Dunblane Primary School on 13 March 1996" (Cm 3386). There is at present no list of submissions and their sources that were sent to the Inquiry but were not used in evidence. The submissions themselves have been deposited in the Scottish Record Office on behalf of the Secretary of State for Scotland. Lists are being prepared by Scottish Record Office staff but are not yet available.

  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will place in the Library a list of (i) all evidence submitted to the Cullen Inquiry, (ii) all evidence which is yet to be published and (iii) all evidence or submissions on which a restriction as to future publication has been placed. [49264]

  Mr. McLeish
  (i) and (ii) A list of submissions selected in evidence was published as Appendix 4 to Lord Cullen's report, "The Public Inquiry into the Shootings at Dunblane Primary School on 13 March 1996" (Cm 3386). A full list of submissions, both selected and not selected to form part of the written evidence before the Inquiry, is being prepared by the Scottish Record Office and will be placed in the Library as soon as it becomes available. Very little of the evidence before the Inquiry has been formally published.

  (iii) There is no restriction on future publication of any formal submission of evidence whether used or not used at the Inquiry.

  Government Expenditure and Revenue
  Mrs. McKenna
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to produce an updated Government Expenditure and Revenue in Scotland report, last published in November 1997. [50368]

  Mr. Wilson
  The next edition of the Government Expenditure and Revenue in Scotland report, covering the period 1996–97, will be published in mid-November 1998.

  Interception of Telecommunications
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many telephone interceptions were authorised by his Department in(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98 and (c) 1998–99 to date; and if he will make a statement. [49697]

  Mr. McLeish
  The annual reports of the Commissioner appointed under the Interception of Communications Act 1985, which are presented to Parliament, list the number of interception warrants issued by the Secretary of State for Scotland in the course of each year. In 1996, 228 telecommunications warrants were issued by the Secretary of State. In 1997 the number was 256. During the period 1 January to 30 June this year, 138 such warrants were issued by the Secretary of State.

  In his most recent report (Cm. 3678), the Commissioner notes that the number of warrants has increased, and says
  "The extent of this increase in interception would be a matter for grave concern if it indicated any relaxation of the strict criteria laid down by the Act for the issue and renewal of warrants. I am satisfied that no such relaxation has occurred& The value of interception in the protection of national security and the prevention of serious crime can hardly be overstated".

  University Students
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many applications for undergraduate degree courses there have been in the current year to each university in Scotland from pupils attending schools(a) in England, (b) in Wales, (c) in Northern Ireland (d) outside the UK but within the EU and (e) outside the EU. [49710]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS) does not release applications data on an institutional basis. The table shows total applicants through UCAS to Scottish higher education by domicile of students. Data on institutions which do not use UCAS are not held centrally.

  UCAS applicants to Scottish Higher Education, 1998 entry by domicile of applicant

  Domicile of applicant

  1998–99

  Scotland

  27,325

  England

  25,615

  Wales

  923

  Northern Ireland

  6,543

  Rest EU—Eire

  2,810

  Rest EU—Continent

  2,935

  Non EU

  5,395

  All applicants

  71,546

  Source:

  UCAS, all forms recorded by May 16 1998

  Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many undergraduates are currently at each Scottish university who are ordinarily resident in England and what is this figure as a percentage of the total undergraduate population in each university. [49706]

  Mr. Wilson
  The information is shown in the table.
  607

  Undergraduate students in higher education institutions in Scotland 1996–97 by domicile and institution

  Undergraduates from England

  Total undergraduates

  Percentage of total undergraduates

  University of Abertay Dundee

  211

  4,177

  5.1

  Edinburgh College of Art

  432

  1,297

  33.3

  Glasgow School of Art

  267

  1,239

  21.5

  Moray House Institute of Education

  24

  1,466

  1.6

  Northern College of Education

  *

  1,161

  *

  Queen Margaret College

  380

  3,230

  11.8

  RSAMD

  90

  412

  21.8

  St. Andrew's College of Education

  *

  592

  *

  The Scottish College of Textiles

  88

  701

  12.6

  The Robert Gordon University

  290

  7,859

  3.7

  The University of Paisley

  103

  8,457

  1.2

  Glasgow Caledonian University

  287

  11,929

  2.4

  Napier University

  712

  9,772

  7.3

  University of Edinburgh

  5,747

  14,180

  40.5

  University of Glasgow

  1,695

  17,077

  9.9

  University of Strathclyde

  502

  13,316

  3.8

  University of Aberdeen

  1,047

  8,862

  11.8

  Heriot-Watt University

  764

  3,926

  19.5

  The University of Dundee

  1,323

  9,017

  14.7

  University of St. Andrews

  2,043

  4,903

  41.7

  The University of Stirling

  987

  6,260

  15.8

  Scottish Agricultural College

  87

  961

  9.1

  Total

  17,102

  130,794

  13.1

  Note:

  To preserve confidentiality some small values are give as '*' but are included in the total

  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many current undergraduates at each university in Scotland attended(a) Eton College, (b) Wellington College, (c) Charterhouse and (d) Westminster school, as part of their secondary education. [49708]

  Undergraduate students in higher education institutions in Scotland 1996–97 by institution and last school attended

  Westminster

  Wellington

  Eton College

  Charterhouse

  Total

  University of Edinburgh

  41

  49

  109

  43

  242

  University of St. Andrews

  *

  *

  12

  12

  32

  Other institutions

  *

  *

  *

  *

  12

  Total

  *

  *

  *

  *

  286

  Notes:

  1. To preserve confidentiality some small values are given as '*' but are included in the total

  2. Other institutions include Edinburgh College of Art, Napier University, University of Glasgow, University of Aberdeen, The University of Dundee and The University of Stirling

  3. The figures include students from all domiciles

  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many applications for undergraduate degree courses there have been in the current year to each university in Scotland from pupils at(a) Eton College, (b) Wellington College, (c) Charterhouse and (d) Westminster school. [49709]

  Mr. Wilson
  Data on applications made through the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS) are not available broken down by schools or institutions. Data on institutions which do not use UCAS are not held centrally.

  Petrol Stations
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he proposes to take in order to provide assistance for petrol stations in rural Scotland. [49705]
  608
  Mr. Wilson
  Information on students who spent part of their secondary education at a particular school is not available. However, information on students at Scottish higher education institutions whose last school attended was Eton College, Wellington College, Charterhouse or Westminster school is given in the table.

  Mr. Macdonald
  In addition to the schemes to provide rate relief to rural retail outlets, including petrol stations, and the derogation obtained from the Petrol Vapour Recovery Directive, petrol stations will benefit from the Rural Transport Funding Package announced as part of the Budget. Four hundred thousand pounds a year for three years is being targeted at assisting qualifying petrol stations with capital costs arising from complying with regulations.

  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many petrol stations are eligible for rates relief under the terms of the Local Government and Rating Act 1997; [49701]

  (2) if he will estimate the cost in terms of lost business rate revenue of granting all petrol stations in

  609
  rural Scottish communities with a population of 3,000 or less 100 per cent. business rate relief; [49702]

  (3) how many petrol stations have (a) applied for and (b) received rates relief under the terms of the Local Government and Rating Act 1997; [49703]

  (4) if he will estimate (a) the average rates bill paid by petrol stations in rural communities in Scotland with a population of 3,000 or less and (b) this figure as a percentage of their total operating costs. [49704]

  Mr. Macdonald
  It is estimated that there are 350 rural petrol filling stations in settlements of less than 3,000 population which may be eligible for rates relief under the provisions of the Local Government and Rating Act 1997. The total estimated cost of providing 100 per cent. rate relief to these filling stations, based on an estimated average rates bill of £1,255, would be £0.44 million. The rate relief provisions which came into effect from 1 April 1998 are administered by the local authorities, and details of the numbers of filling stations applying for and being awarded rate relief are not held centrally. The Government do not hold detailed figures for the total operating costs of rural petrol stations.

  Lobbyists
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make it his policy to(a) record each contact by a lobbying organisation with (i) Ministers and (ii) civil servants and (b) publish details of such contacts. [49531]

  Mr. Dewar
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given today by my right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister,Official Report, column 600.

HEALTH

  Trusts and Health Authorities
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if the requirement for NHS trusts and health authorities to eliminate, by 31 March 1999, their aggregate net deficits brought forward at 31 March 1998, has the overall effect of eliminating the 2.2 per cent. real increase in spending planned for the English NHS as between 1997–98 and 1998–99; [46270]

  (2) if the English NHS trusts and health authorities are required, by 31 March 1999, to eliminate their aggregate net deficits brought forward at 31 March 1998. [46268]

  Mr. Milburn
  [holding answer 16 June 1998]: Health authorities and National Health Service trusts are expected to balance income and expenditure within the financial year. Not all reported in-year deficits are indicative of underlying financial problems. Some are described as "technical" and may be caused by the application of Generally Accepted Accounting Practice.

  Aggregate deficits are the sum of in-year deficits. Many of these will be caused by the summation of technical in-year deficits, or, in the case of health authorities, inherited on their formation from former district health authorities and family health services authorities.
  610
  Health authorities and NHS trusts are not expected to eliminate their aggregate net deficits where these are technical and/or inherited from former health bodies. The real increase in planned spending between 1997–98 and 1998–99 will not be materially affected by the current level of aggregate net deficits.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the aggregate net deficit of English NHS trusts and health authorities carried forward at 31 March 1997; and what further net deficits were incurred in the year to 31 March 1998. [46269]

  Mr. Milburn
  [holding answer 16 June 1998]: The aggregate net deficit of English National Health Service trusts and health authorities carried forward at 31 March 1997, as reported in their 1996/97 audited accounts, was £484 million.

  Information from the 1997/98 financial year is not yet available.

  Health Spending
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health by how much health spending would increase in(a) 1999–2000, (b) 2000–01, (c) 2001–02 and (d) 2002–03 if the real annual rate of increase were the same as the average rate of increase over the period 1978–79 to 1997–98. [46433]

  Mr. Milburn
  The real terms growth in National Health Service total expenditure for the period 1978–79 and 1997–98 was 2.9 per cent. net and 3.0 per cent. gross. On that basis, the increases in expenditure would be as set out in the table.

  Projected increases in NHS expenditure

  £ million

  Years

  Net increase

  Gross increase

  1999–2000

  2,035

  2,169

  2000–2001

  2,110

  2,251

  2001–2002

  2,224

  2,376

  2002–2003

  2,347

  2,508

  Note:

  The gross domestic product deflators published on 17 March 1998 have been used for the years 1999–2000 and 2000–01. A deflator of 2.5 per cent. has been used for later years, in line with that for 2000–01

  Diabetes
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will introduce a national screening programme for diabetes for those over 40 years of age, who are overweight and have a family history of diabetes; and if he will make a statement. [49280]

  Ms Jowell
  The National Screening Committee, which offers health Ministers advice about the case for introducing or changing individual screening programmes, has not yet considered the case for a national screening programme for diabetes. However, the Committee will be considering the emerging evidence as part of its future programme of work. Any decision on the introduction of a national programme will be made in the light of that consideration.

  Bedblocking
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) of 11 November 1997,Official Report, column 538, concerning bedblocking, when his Department plans to issue revised guidance on hospital discharge procedures. [49571]

  Mr. Milburn
  Departmental officials are reviewing the existing hospital discharge guidance to see whether it needs to be updated, new guidance needs to be issued or other action taken.

  Alzheimer's Disease
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 10 July 1997,Official Report, column 586, if he will implement the recommendations contained in the report, "No Accounting for Health", from the Alzheimer's Disease Society. [49570]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Alzheimer's Disease Society plays a valuable role in providing support, information and advice and commissioning research into Alzheimer's Disease and other forms of dementia. The Society's report, "No Accounting for Health", published in 1997, made a number of thoughtful recommendations on the development of policy.

  Although not directly in response to "No Accounting for Health" we are undertaking a number of initiatives which will address the Society's concerns. For example, the National Health Service Executive's priorities and planning guidance for 1998–99 includes the development of a range of recovery and rehabilitation services for older people and the development of a national framework for multi-disciplinary assessment of older people in acute and community health care settings. In addition, the significant role carers play is being recognised and taken into account by the Government in my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's recent announcement of the carer's strategy.

  The Royal Commission on Long-Term Care for the Elderly, announced on 4 December 1997, Official Report, columns 489–99, is examining the short and long term options for a sustainable system of funding of long-term care for elderly people in the United Kingdom, both in their own homes and in other settings. It is expected to recommend by the end of the year how, and in what circumstances, the cost of such care should be apportioned between public funds and individuals.

  Winter Funding Initiative
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 27 November 1997,Official Report, column 651, concerning the Winter Funding Initiative, what estimate he has made of the amount transferred to social services departments. [49572]

  Mr. Boateng
  Of the £159 million allocated to health authorities in England, over one fifth (some £35 million) was transferred to social services departments.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), of 27 January 1998,Official Report, column 197, concerning additional winter support, what is
  612
  his Department's estimate of the number of initiatives funded by winter pressures money; and how many of these initiatives continued after 31 March. [49573]

  Mr. Milburn
  The £159 million allocated to health authorities in England last autumn funded some 1,500 initiatives. Where appropriate, schemes have continued after 31 March 1998 funded from health authorities' general allocations. Information on this funding is not available centrally.

  Access Committee for England
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what factors led to the decision to cease funding the Access Committee for England. [49555]

  Mr. Boateng
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply to the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) on 6 April 1998,Official Report, columns 126–27.

  CJD
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what action his Department is taking to discover methods of treatment for people who may be infected with new-variant CJD; [49658]

  (2) what reports he has received regarding chemicals which can prevent the transmission of spongiform encephalopathies, with particular reference to (a) potentially new-variant CJD from blood transfusion and (b) CJD from growth hormone; what action his Department is taking to investigate the use of these chemicals; and if he will make a statement. [49657]

  Ms Jowell
  In November 1996 the Department published its "Strategy for Research and Development Relating to the Human Health Aspects of Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies (TSEs)". One of the aims of this strategy is the development of curative treatments for patients with new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. A project for the design and synthesis of potential chemotherapeutic agents for the treatment of TSEs is being funded over a three year period beginning in July 1997 by the Medical Research Council, which also organised a meeting last year between industry and researchers on possible strategies to develop therapies.

  We are aware of research findings on the apparent inactivation of the scrapie agent in animal models which indicate that treatment with certain chemicals might have an inhibiting effect on the transmission of TSEs. Before any such chemicals could be licensed for use as an intervention in humans it would need to be proved safe and efficacious. Following discussions between officials and external scientists we are expecting, as a first step, specific research proposals to explore the efficacy of these chemicals.

  Lobbyists
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to(a) record each contact by a lobbying organisation with (i) Ministers and (ii) civil servants and (b) publish details of such contacts. [49545]
  613
  Ms Jowell
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave today,Official Report, column 600.

  Departmental Reviews
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list, for each of the last four years, all departmental

  Date of establishment

  Name of chairman

  Departmental Inquiries

  Inquiry into the London Ambulance Service

  10 October 1994

  William Wells

  Committee of Inquiry into the Personality Disorder Unit, Ashworth Special Hospital

  7 February 1997

  His Honour Peter Fallon QC

  Inquiry into the former paediatric cardiac surgery service at the Bristol Royal Infirmary1

  Not yet established

  Professor Ian Kennedy

  Departmental Reviews

  Investigation into neurosurgery patient transfers

  7 February 1995

  William Wells

  Review of the Regulation and Inspection of Social Services

  22 September 1995

  Tom Burgner

  Children's Safeguards Review

  17 June 1996

  Sir William Utting

  Review of patient-identifiable information

  28 October 1996

  Dame Fiona Caldicott

  Review of the written consent requirements in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990

  6 February 1997

  Professor Sheila McLean

  Review of Prescribing, Supply and Administration of Medicines

  21 March 1997

  Dr. June Crown

  Review of the evidence relating to silicone breast implants implants

  4 June 1997

  Professor Roger Sturrock

  Review of the law relating to surrogacy

  11 June 1997

  Professor Margaret Brazier

  Review of the latest information available on inequalities in health

  7 July 1997

  Sir Donald Acheson

  Independent Advisory Panel for the review of London's Health Services (Strategic Review of Health Services in London)

  20 June 1997

  Professor Sir Leslie Turnberg

  Review of cervical screening services in Kent and Canterbury Hospitals NHS Trust

  23 June 1997

  Sir William Wells

  Independent Review of proposals for the transfer of bulk blood processing and testing from Liverpool to Manchester

  14 August 1997

  Professor John Cash

  NHS Charter Advisory Group (Review of NHS Charter)

  8 October 1997

  Greg Dyke

  1On 18 June 1998, Official Report, columns 529–30, the Secretary of State for Health announced that an inquiry into children's heart surgery at Bristol Royal Infirmary will be established shortly

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Braille
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to make Braille copies of Acts of Parliament available. [49104]

  Dr. David Clark
  We have no current plans to make Braille copies of Acts of Parliament available. Previous discussions have taken place with the Royal National Institute for the Blind as a result of which it was concluded that there was unlikely to be sufficient demand to make it a viable proposition. The RNIB has, however, a no-charge licence to reproduce Acts of Parliament in Braille, Moon, audio tape and Braille-coded floppy disk formats and will supply an Act in one of these formats in response to requests which they receive. Officials from my Department are currently exploring with RNIB whether their production arrangements can be assisted by delivery of the text of Acts in electronic formats.

  Lobbyists
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make it his policy to(a) record each contact by a lobbying organisation with (i) Ministers and (ii) civil servants and (b) publish details of such contacts. [49542]
  614
  linquiries and reviews instigated by ministers which have been chaired by individuals outside his Department; and in each case if he will give the date of establishment and the name of the chairman. [46833]

  Ms Jowell
  The information requested is in the table.

  Dr. David Clark
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to him today by my right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister,Official Report, column 600.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Teacher Shortages
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the current level of teacher shortages in secondary education; and what proportion of secondary school teachers are on temporary or supply contracts. [48100]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  In January 1998 there were 968 vacant teaching posts in secondary schools in England. Data on the proportion of secondary school teachers on temporary or supply contracts are not collected. I can however tell my hon. Friend that, in January 1998, 12 per cent. of the contracts of teachers in regular service in the LEA maintained nursery, primary and secondary sector in England were temporary; and that some 3,900 supply teachers were used on 15 January, the date of this year's Schools Census. (Some of the supply teachers will also be holders of temporary contracts.)

  Schools (Worship)
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to change the law requiring collective worship in schools. [48104]
  615
  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Government remain committed to the current statutory requirements; the School Standards and Framework Bill is applying these requirements to the new school framework with minimal adjustments.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what recent representations he has received on the level of unemployment in Essex. [48105]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  We have received no recent representations.

  New Deal
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what progress is being made with regard to the implementation of the new deal for over-25s. [48106]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The New Deal for long term unemployed adults aged 25 and over started across the country on 29 June.

  Ms Blears
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what support exists through the new deal for unemployed people who want to start their own businesses. [48110]

  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what provision is made under the new deal for an unemployed person to start their own business. [48121]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  If a young person aged 18–24 years who is in the New Deal Gateway expresses an interest in starting their own business, they will be referred to a training provider who will conduct a basic awareness and information session which lasts up to a day. They will then be referred to a short course, or one to one counselling, depending on their needs, learn about self employment and put together their business plan.

  Some young people will leave New Deal after this stage to become independently self-employed or take a Job. Others may enter the Employment Option and set up and run a small business. For up to 26 weeks they will receive training and support and an allowance. Any profits from the business are put into an escrow account.

  The young person will continue to receive support from a mentor, appointed by their training provider, for up to 2 years after leaving the option and while they continue to trade.

  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what will be the nature of help offered to unemployed people over 25-year-olds in the pilots announced in the Budget. [48113]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The November pilots will make available 90,000 places for people reaching 12 or 18 months unemployment, with a range of innovative help, tailored to the needs of each individual, including gateway advice, helping with jobs, and entitlement to a mandatory period of work experience and training.
  616
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the progress of the new deal in Birmingham. [48127]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  New Deal for 18–24 year olds was launched in Birmingham on 6 April 1998. As at 3 July, 1,799 young people have started on the New Deal Gateway; 1,310 clients have been referred to specialist agencies for additional help. 397 companies have signed employer agreements.

  A business coalition including members from leading Birmingham firms is advising on implementation and marketing of the programme.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many young people in the Christchurch constituency have joined the New Deal initiative since it was launched; how many have been placed into jobs; how many have been placed on to options; and how many employer agreements have been signed. [48816]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  On the 25 June I made public the latest statistical data for New Deal for the period 5 January to 29 May 1998. This information has now been placed in the Library along with the statistical information on each of the New Deal Units of Delivery. Christchurch constituency falls within the Dorset Unit of Delivery. It is, of course, early days for this ambitious undertaking, but I am encouraged by the progress of New Deal so far.

  The Employment Service District Manager in Bournemouth and Poole, Letty Scott, is always on hand to discuss New Deal in the hon. Member's local area.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people have found employment under the New Deal scheme in(a) the north-west and (b) Chorley. [48449]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  On 25 June I made public the latest statistical data for New Deal for the period 5 January to 29 May 1998. This information has now been placed in the Library along with the statistical information on each of the New Deal Units of Delivery. Chorley constituency falls within the Central Lancashire Unit of Delivery. It is, of course, early days for this ambitious undertaking, but I am encouraged by the progress of New Deal so far.

  The Employment Service District Manager in Preston and Fylde, Jackie Mason, is always on hand to discuss New Deal in my hon. Friend's local area.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many of the jobs created through the New Deal scheme have been full-time jobs in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) the North West and (c) Chorley. [48450]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The New Deal is not intended to be a job creation scheme; rather it is a central part of the Government's strategy to promote long term stability and sustainable growth. By improving the employability of the most disadvantaged we will improve the efficiency of the economy.

  However, the number of vacancies that have been advertised to New Deal participants up to 5 June 1998 is over 19,300 nationally; over 2,400 in the North West Region and; over 100 in the Central Lancashire Unit of

  617
  Delivery which incorporates the Chorley constituency. At this stage it is not possible to give a breakdown of how many of these vacancies are full time and part time.

  Child Care
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what research he has evaluated on the effect of affordable child care on rates of participation in the economy. [48107]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  We have evaluated a range of research and are commissioning further work to inform the development of the National Childcare Strategy. We know, for example, that more than 40 per cent. of main carers enjoyed an improvement in their labour market position when their children attended schemes set up under the Out of School Childcare Initiative.

  Mr. Plaskitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what arrangements he proposes for delivery of the national child care strategy at local level. [48117]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I refer my hon. Friend to the oral answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Alan Begg),Official Report, column 1237.

  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to improve the training and qualifications of child care workers. [48124]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  A skilled and competent workforce is a key factor in ensuring good quality childcare. The Green Paper, "Meeting the Childcare Challenge", sets out our proposals for improving training and qualifications for people who work with children.

  We will establish a clear and comprehensive framework of training and qualifications for the early years and playwork sectors. We have asked the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority to work with the National Training Organisations and others to take this work forward.

  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many childminders are registered with each local authority in England; how many children aged(a) under five and (b) five to 11 years are cared for by registered childminders in each authority; and what was the average charge for each full-time place in each local authority area. [48982]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The latest available information on numbers of registered childminders and available places for children aged under five and five to seven in each local authority area in England is shown in the Department of Health Children's Day Care Facilities at 31 March 1997 publication, copies of which have been placed in the Library.

  Information on charges levied by childminders is not available centrally.

  Ms Southworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has for providing appropriate information services as part of the National Childcare Strategy. [48111]
  618
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  We are consulting through our National Childcare Strategy Green paper,Meeting the Childcare Challenge, on how to ensure good quality information services in all areas which meet parents' needs. We want all information services to meet minimum standards specified at national level, and we plan to support a national childcare helpline.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will ensure that the new Further Education Funding Council funding for childcare-inclusive learning and basic skills summer schools are available to all FEFC-funded learners. [48974]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 3 July 1998]: The FEFC intends to make the new funding for childcare provision available to both colleges and sponsored external institutions. The Council has already allocated the funds available for the basic skills summer schools and, in doing so, encouraged colleges to develop local partnerships involving external institutions and other organisations. Colleges will also be encouraged to involve external institutions and independent specialist colleges in the development and delivery of training for the second stage of the Inclusive Learning quality initiative.

  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what guidance has been issued to local authorities in respect of the child care requirement arising from the implementation of the New Deal for Lone Parents. [48980]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The New Deal for Lone Parents includes help for lone parents to obtain information on childcare and some funding for necessary childcare when they attend interviews or take part in training or Employment Service programmes.

  At national level, officials from my Department, the Department of Social Security and Employment Service have been discussing the provision of childcare with a range of interested bodies. At local level, the Employment Service is networking with childcare providers to be able to guide lone parents to childcare provision. At both levels local authorities and their representative bodies have been involved.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he expects to be able to report on the results of the consultation exercise on special educational needs. [48108]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  There have been many thoughtful comments on our Green Paper on Special Educational Needs. Taking account of these, and of advice from the National Advisory Group on Special Educational Needs, we expect to publish an action programme in the early autumn.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he is taking to help children with behavioural problems who have special educational needs. [48109]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Our guidance to local education authorities on behaviour support plans underlines the links to be made with their Special Educational Need policies; more detailed guidance later this year will set out good practice on discipline and on emotional and behavioural
  619
  difficulties. We shall announce further practical support in an action programme following up our Green Paper on Special Educational Needs.

  University Campus, Cornwall
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will assess the advantages of establishing a university campus in Cornwall. [48112]

  Dr. Howells
  I welcome the initiative taken by the three higher education institutions in Cornwall to form a new partnership to develop plans for improving the quality and range of higher education opportunities in Cornwall in conjunction with other interested bodies in the region. The first stage will be an assessment of the likely level of future demand for higher education opportunities in Cornwall.

  National Reading Year
  Mrs. Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on plans for the national year of reading. [48114]

  Mr. Byers
  We are planning to launch the National Year of Reading on 16 September. It will be supported by large numbers of private and public sector organisations, and will be linked to a major media campaign to encourage reading. Detailed information can be found at the National Year of Reading website on www.yearofreading.org.uk.

  A-levels
  Mr. Fabian Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to reform the A-level system. [48115]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government announced on 3 April their response to the Qualification and Curriculum Authority's advice, in the light of the recent Qualifying for Success consultation on post-16 qualifications, on how best to implement our commitment to support broader A levels and upgraded vocational qualifications, underpinned by rigorous standards and Key Skills. Revised GCE A level syllabuses, a new one year AS qualification and modifications to the Advanced GNVQ are due to be introduced from September 2000.

  Schools (Funding)
  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has further to increase funding for schools; and if he will make a statement. [48116]

  Mr. Byers
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will announce in due course future funding plans for education in light of the Comprehensive Spending Review.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what advice is given to grant-maintained schools about consulting parents on school hours. [48118]
  620
  Mr. Byers
  Governing bodies of grant-maintained schools decide when sessions should begin and end on each school day. Guidance was provided in the Department's Circular 7/90. This states that, before making changes, the governing bodies of GM schools should take account of the views of those primarily affected, including parents.

  Grammar Schools
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations he has received from grammar school governors about his policies on grammar schools. [48119]

  Mr. Byers
  The Department received some 180 responses last autumn from grammar schools in response to the consultation letter about future admissions arrangements for grammar schools. This figure includes responses from chairs of governors and also from grammar school headteachers. We are currently consulting on the draft grammar school ballot regulations. Responses have been requested by 31 July.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations he has received from school heads regarding the relationship between lowering class sizes and parental choice. [48120]

  Mr. Byers
  We are currently analysing responses to the consultation on the draft class size regulations and guidance. We will place a copy of the analysis in the Library of the House once we have completed it. Other than any responses which may have been made to the consultation, we are aware of no representations from headteachers concerning the relationship between lowering class sizes and parental choice.

  School Phobics
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what provision he is making for children who are school phobics. [48122]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Local Educational Authorities must make arrangements for the provision of suitable education for children who are "school phobics". The Department supports the work of Local Educational Authorities in this area through its standards fund grants.

  Further Education Colleges
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations he has received regarding off-site collaboration between further education colleges and industry and commerce. [48123]

  Dr. Howells
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received a number of representations on this issue from a number of hon. Members and Further Education college principals, from the Confederation of British Industry and the Engineering Employers' Federation.

  Education Action Zones
  Mr. Lock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what criteria he has set for defining income for the education action zones recently announced; and if he will make a statement. [48125]

  Mr. Byers
  The Government will provide a direct grant of up to £750,000 per zone per annum. Additionally, each zone will raise £250,000 a year from independent sources. Contributions towards this can be in cash or kind.

  Temporary Classrooms
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many temporary classrooms were in use in local education authority schools in England in(a) 1996–97 and (b) 1997–98. [48126]

  Mr. Byers
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the impact of minimum wage legislation on the costs of education authorities. [48103]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  It is for individual Local Education Authorities to assess the impact of the New Minimum Wage, and to take the management action necessary to ensure fair pay for their employees.

  Local Authorities (Pilot Schemes)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the pilot schemes announced since 1 May by his Department that involve local authorities in a lead or partnership capacity; if he will list each of the local authorities involved in each case; and what revenue and capital funding each local authority will receive through the pilot in (i) 1997–98, (ii) 1998–99, (iii) 1999–2000 and (iv) 2000–01. [45333]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 11 June 1998]: The Department has announced a number of pilot schemes which involve local authorities. They are shown in a list, copies of which have been placed in the Library.

  Access Committee for England
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will publish the findings and conclusions of the review undertaken by his Department of the Access Committee for England. [49556]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) on 2 July 1998,Official Report, column 267.

  Teachers' Pay
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the real rates of increase in each teachers' pay award since 1990. [46938]

  Mr. Byers
  The following figures show the real increase in teachers' pay, as measured by the GDP deflator, in each financial year in comparison with the previous financial year.
  622

  Year

  Percentage

  1990–91

  -0.1

  1991–92

  6.3

  1992–93

  3.6

  1993–94

  -1.4

  1994–95

  1.4

  1995–96

  -0.1

  1996–97

  0.1

  1997–98

  0.4

  1998–99

  0.6

  Mansfield High School
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment for what reasons technology college status has been removed from Mansfield High School. [48166]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 30 June 1998]: Mansfield High School's Technology College designation has been withdrawn from 31 August 1998 because of irregularities in its application which have been discovered and brought to the Department's attention. Had these been discovered at the time, the school's Technology College application would not have been successful.

  Public Registers
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the public registers which his Department has responsibility for. [47356]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 29 June 1998]: The DfEE does not have responsibility for any public registers.

  Gender Impact Assessments
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will place in the Library copies of gender impact assessments which have been undertaken in respect of legislation introduced in this Parliament; if he will make it his policy to do so in respect of future legislation; and if he will make a statement. [47023]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Women on 24 June 1998,Official Report, column 557.

  Lobbyists
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make it his policy to(a) record each contact by a lobbying organisation with (i) Ministers and (ii) civil servants and (b) publish details of such contacts. [49541]

  Dr. Howells
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to him today by the Prime Minister,Official Report, column 600.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Lobbyists
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to(a) record each contact by a lobbying organisation with (i) Ministers and (ii) civil servants and (b) publish details of such contacts. [49532]

  Mr. Morley
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to him today by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister,Official Report, column 600.

  Quarantine
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for what reasons the publication of the Kennedy report on quarantine regulations has been delayed; and if he will make a statement. [49633]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Advisory Group on Quarantine has a large volume of evidence to assess, and its Chairman has advised us this has taken longer than expected. It is essential that this be done thoroughly, so that the Group's report will be sound. After the Group's report is received, it will be published, and a full public consultation held.

  Mr. Townend
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the Advisory Group on Quarantine is expected to report. [48984]

  Mr. Rooker
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on 17 June 1998,Official Report, column 251.

  British Cattle Movement Service
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many, and what proportion of the total, of the explanatory leaflets issued by his Department's British Cattle Movement Service to livestock farmers were wrongly addressed; what representations he has made to the EU Standing Veterinary Committee on this matter; and if he will make a statement. [49681]

  Mr. Rooker
  We issued approximately 109,000 leaflets on the Cattle Tracing System last week; we estimate that around 50 per cent. had the wrong name matched to the address. The problem arose from a software programme error which has now been resolved. The error concerned the production of address labels only and does not affect the integrity of the Cattle Tracing System database which the BCMS will run. While deeply regrettable, this provided an unexpected early and successful test of the BCMS helpline which the leaflet promoted. A letter of apology has been sent to livestock farmers which again gives the BCMS Helpline details in case they missed this last week. The Standing Veterinary Committee has no locus in this matter.

  Antibiotics
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to the reply by the Government to the Fourth report from the Agriculture Committee on Food Safety (HC 331), what steps he proposes to discourage the use of new antibiotics as a prophylactic in animal husbandry. [49453]
  624
  Mr. Rooker
  No veterinary medicinal product is authorised for use unless it satisfies statutory criteria of safety, quality and efficacy. The Government are advised on this by the independent scientific Veterinary Products Committee (VPC). In considering any new application for the authorisation of an antibiotic veterinary medicinal product, the VPC has consistently discouraged prophylactic use.

  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has to encourage a reduction in the use in livestock farming of antibiotics(a) for routine prophylactic purposes and (b) as growth promoters; and if he will make a statement. [49454]

  Mr. Rooker
  No veterinary medicinal product is authorised for use unless it satisfies statutory criteria of safety, quality and efficacy. The Government are advised on this by the independent scientific Veterinary Products Committee (VPC). In considering any new application for the authorisation of an antibiotic veterinary medicinal product, the VPC has consistently discouraged prophylactic use.

  The use of additives in animal feedingstuffs, including growth promoters, is subject to controls under Directive 70/524/EEC. The recent reports from the Agriculture Committee and the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology have been referred to the Veterinary Products Committee. The Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food is also expected to report later this year. We will act on this independent scientific advice.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the species of(a) farm animals and (b) birds that routinely receive antibiotic growth promoters in their feed. [49076]

  Mr. Rooker
  Additives to animal feedingstuffs are authorised for use in the European Union in accordance with the provisions of Council Directive 70/524/EEC as amended. The Annexes to that Directive list eight authorised antibiotic growth promoters, which may variously be added to the feed of food-producing animals under the conditions laid down in the Annexes. I will write to my hon. Friend with a set of the Annexes, and I will make them available in the Library of the House shortly.

  Cattle Tag Identification Systems
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps his Department is taking to amend the EU directive on cattle tag identification systems to allow the use of a lighter nylon cartridge tag. [49252]

  Mr. Rooker
  The relevant EU legislation would need to be amended by the European Commission, not the Department, in order to allow the use of the tag concerned as the primary identification tag for cattle.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if the welfare implications of using a lighter, nylon cartridge tag were investigated by his Department during the consultation period prior to the EU decision on cattle tag identification systems. [49251]
  625
  Mr. Rooker
  Eartags approved for use under earlier EU legislation were re-examined by MAFF prior to being approved for use under the 1997 legislation. This re-examination included consideration of the welfare implications of using all previously approved eartags including the nylon cartridge eartag.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what systems of tagging were considered by his Department during the consultation period prior to the EU decision on cattle tag identification systems. [49250]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Department undertook full consideration with interested parties on the 1997 EU legislation, which includes specifications for cattle eartags, prior to the adoption of this legislation by the EU.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what veterinary advice his Department has received about the number of cattle which will be vulnerable to infection and potential life-threatening complications following removal of existing tags and re-tagging to comply with the EU directive on cattle tag identification systems. [49249]

  Mr. Rooker
  I shall take veterinary advice into account when considering whether cattle tagged with Cooper Marketing tags should be re-tagged.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the number of cattle in the United Kingdom which will need to be re-tagged with plastic tags following the EU directive on cattle tag identification systems. [49248]

  Mr. Rooker
  The EU legislation agreed in 1997 does not require general re-tagging of cattle. A specific and limited problem has arisen recently following the failure in some cases of one eartag company, Cooper Marketing Ltd., to provide tags which meet EU and UK requirements. Cooper Marketing Ltd. has been excluded from supplying Ministry approved cattle eartags, and the Department is currently considering whether any re-tagging will be necessary.

  European Union Enlargement
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement as to the impact of European Union enlargement on the British farming industry. [49277]

  Mr. Rooker
  The enlargement of the European Union is one of the key challenges facing the EU. Its impact on the British farming industry will depend on the terms of accession of each acceding country.

  Pig Exports
  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many pigs were exported for breeding purposes in(a) 1992, (b) 1993, (c) 1994, (d) 1995 and (e) 1996. [48025]

  Mr. Rooker
  Information on the numbers of pigs exported, or certified for export, specifically for breeding purposes from 1992 to 1996 inclusive is not available.626
  However, information recorded in the official Overseas Trade Statistics shows the total number of pigs exported from the UK.

  Year

  Number of pigs

  1992

  411,239

  1993

  165,663

  1994

  190,383

  1995

  234,997

  1996

  347,442

  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many pigs were exported to Spain for(a) slaughter, (b) further fattening and (c) breeding in (i) 1992, (ii) 1993, (iii) 1994, (iv) 1995 and (v) 1996. [48026]

  Mr. Rooker
  Information on the numbers of pigs exported, or certified for export, to Spain for(a) slaughter (b) further fattening and (c) breeding purposes from 1992 to 1996 inclusive is not available. However, information recorded in the official Overseas Trade Statistics shows the total number of pigs exported from the UK to Spain.

  Year

  Number of pigs

  1992

  11,173

  1993

  2,529

  1994

  3,770

  1995

  17,392

  1996

  20,293

  Farm Subsidies (Payment in Euros)
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if the proposed EU agrimonetary system operational from 1 January 1999 will permit member states not joining the euro zone to pay their farmers EU farm subsidy payments in euros, if so requested. [48617]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  The Commission's proposals on the future of the agrimonetary system suggest that Member States not participating in the Single Currency from 1 January 1999 will be able to offer Euro payments after that date under certain circumstances. Member States' plans for making such payments would need prior approval by the Commission.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list those organisations which have requested him to consider allowing UK farmers to receive EU farm subsidy payments in euros. [48618]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  We are currently in the process of consulting interested organisations on the future of the EU agrimonetary regime. The question of making CAP payments in Euro is one aspect of that consultation, which is not yet complete.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if it is his intention to enable farmers to receive EU subsidy payments in euros as from 1 January 1999, if they so request; [48615]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the preparations his Department is making to enable farmers to receive their EU farm subsidy payments in euros, if they so request, from 1 January 1999. [48620]
  627
  Dr. John Cunningham
  We are currently examining the possibility of offering operators the option of receiving CAP subsidies in Euro after 1 January 1999. We would need to be sure, before offering such an option, that any changes to the system could be achieved without jeopardising standards of service offered to recipients of CAP subsidies.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will assess the(a) advantages and (b) disadvantages to UK farmers of receiving their EU farm subsidies in euros, from 1 January 1999, if they so request. [48616]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  No overall assessment has been made of the advantages and disadvantages of farmers receiving CAP payments in Euro: the value of such a mechanism would vary depending on the circumstances of individual farmers.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what factors underlie his decision to prevent UK farmers from receiving EU farm subsidy paid in euros, from 1 January 1999. [48619]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  No decision has yet been made on whether UK farmers will be able to receive CAP subsidies paid in Euro after 1 January 1999.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list each of the other EU states not joining the single currency on 1 January 1999, which will be allowing their farmers to receive EC subsidy scheme payments in euros. [48609]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  The other Member States not joining the Single Currency on 1 January 1999 have not yet indicated their intentions with regard to the payment of CAP subsidies in Euro.

  RSC Performance data (%) for financial year 1997/98—(unless otherwise specified)

  Total percentage

  Arable Area Payments Scheme Oil Seeds

  Main payments

  99

  Advanced payments

  99

  Final payments

  99

  Beef Special Premium Scheme

  Advance payments (1997)

  96

  Balance payments (1996)

  100

  CID applications issued (1997)

  99

  Premium paid CIDs issued (1997)

  99

  Suckler Cow Premium Scheme

  Balance payments 1996

  99

  Advance payments 1997

  99

  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances

  Claims 1997

  99

  Sheep Annual Premium Scheme

  Claims marketing year 1997

  99

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas

  Applications

  82

  Claims

  96

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas Conservation Plan

  Applications

  87

  Claims

  96

  Farm and Conservation Grant Scheme 1989

  Plan claims

  98

  Farm and Conservation Grant Scheme 1991

  Plan claims

  86

  Farm Woodland Premium Scheme

  Applications

  93

  Claims (1997)

  80

  Injurious Weeds

  Complaints

  98

  Pilot Nitrate Sensitive Areas Scheme

  Claims (1997)

  77

  New Nitrate Sensitive Areas Scheme

  Applications (1997)

  98

  Claims

  99

  Protection of Badgers Act 1992

  Licence applications

  99

  Strychnine Permits

  Applications

  99

  Rural England White Paper
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which organisations attended consultation meetings with Ministers held in connection with its production of the Rural England White Paper, Command 3016. [48608]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  As the right hon. Member will no doubt recall, a number of seminars and other meetings took place in 1995 prior to the publication of the previous administration's White Paper "Rural England" (Cmnd 3016). They were attended by a range of organisations representing rural interests.

  Beef Labelling Scheme
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in which other EU member states farmers will be required to pay for registration in connection with entry to a beef labelling scheme; and in each case how much is to be charged. [48610]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  In the majority of member states, including the United Kingdom, no fee is charged for approvals under the Beef Labelling Scheme. We understand that in Germany, however, approval fees are charged. The fees vary between DM 800 and DM 2900 depending on the complexity of the application. Because the Scheme applies to operators between abattoir and retail level, farmers as such do not need approvals unless they are also engaged in retail or wholesale activities.

  "Commitment to Service"
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress his Department has made in meeting the service delivery targets set out in "Commitment to Service". [50319]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  The table sets out the performance achieved by Regional Service Centres during 1997/98 against the targets published in the Charter document "Commitment to Service", second edition.
  629

  RSC Performance data (%) for financial year 1997/98—(unless otherwise specified)

  Total percentage

  Agricultural Wage Inspections

  Complaints

  92

  Wildlife and Countryside Act

  Licence applications

  98

  Correspondence

  Answered within 10 working days

  98

  Complaints

  Numbers receiving response within 10 working days

  89

  Notes:

  1. The Five Year Set Aside Scheme closed for new applications on 30 September 1996. Performance data are therefore not included in the table. Similarly the Farm and Conservation Grant Scheme (1989) Non-Plan Claims has also been omitted: this scheme closed on 19 February 1996

  2. Ten complaints were referred to the MAFF Adjudicator during the year. 3 of these were upheld, 6 were not upheld. One case is outstanding, pending the conclusion of legal action by the complainant

  3. The relatively high failure rate for ESA Applications and ESA Conservation Plan Applications is due mainly to problems associated with IACS reconciliation. In the case of F&CGS 1991 Plan Claims, it is due to small numbers of claims giving rise to a disproportionate number of complex problems

  4. The relatively high failure rate for the FWPS Claims and the Pilot NSA Claims are due to the diversion of staff resources to higher priority work

  5. The total percentage has been calculated by setting the entire number of applications or claims cleared within the target time, against the total number received. Applications and claims not cleared due to reasons beyond our control (incorrect information supplied by applicant, etc.) are not included as failures to meet target

  6. The Farm and Conservation Grant Scheme (1991) Plan applications, the Farm Diversification Grant Scheme (Capital Items) Claims, the Farm Diversification Grant Scheme (Feasibility and Marketing) Claims, and the Agricultural Improvement Scheme Plan Claims have all been omitted from the table, as the numbers involved are de-minimis

WALES

  Gender Impact Assessments
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to the answer of 24 June 1998,Official Report, columns 557–58, prior to 18 May, what mechanisms were used to determine how legislation passed in the current session would affect women; what consultation he had with women's organisations; and if he will make a statement. [49087]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  Guidance on policy appraisal for equal treatment has been available since 1992. The Welsh Office has had its own internal guidance in place since July 1994 on ensuring that equal opportunities are properly taken into account in framing policy and legislation.

  I hold regular meetings with my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan), for Conwy (Mrs. Williams), for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Ms Lawrence) and for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) to discuss a range of issues affecting women. I have also met representatives of the Equal Opportunities Commission Wales, the Wales Assembly of Women, the National Federation of Women's Institutes and Mewn Cymru. I took the views of equality organisations into account in framing the Government of Wales Bill, which includes specific provisions on equality of opportunity.

  My Department is currently reviewing the mechanisms available to take forward mainstreaming of Departmental policies to provide a firm basis from which the National Assembly will work and is maintaining contact with the Equal Opportunities Commission Wales on this subject.

  Disabled Voters
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received concerning access
  630
  for disabled people to polling stations during Welsh Assembly elections. [49324]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  I have received one letter. The provision of polling stations is the responsibility of the acting returning officer who must provide a sufficient number of polling stations and allot electors to the polling stations in such a manner as he thinks most convenient. The returning officer is required, so far as is reasonable and practicable, to select as polling stations only those buildings which are accessible to voters who are disabled.

  My officials are having regular discussions with representatives of the elections administrators about arrangements for the Assembly elections. This matter will be raised with them.

  Lobbyists
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to(a) record each contact by a lobbying organisation with (i) Ministers and (ii) civil servants and (b) publish details of such contacts. [49530]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to him today by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister,Official Report, column 600.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Lobbyists
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make it her policy to(a) record each contact by a lobbying organisation with (i) Ministers and (ii) civil servants and (b) publish details of such contacts. [49535]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister today,Official Report, column 600.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Small Firms Loan Guarantee Scheme
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many loans under the Small Firms Loan Guarantee Scheme have been written off in each of the last 10 years; and for what amounts. [49310]

  Mrs. Roche
  The number and value of payments made against the guarantee for loans issued under the Small Firms Loan Guarantee Scheme in each of the last ten years was:

  Payments made

  Gross cost (£ million)

  1988–89

  1500

  8.9

  1989–90

  608

  10.1

  1990–91

  1,161

  21.7

  1991–92

  1,777

  31.6

  1992–93

  1,720

  22.4

  1993–94

  1,216

  16.3

  1994–95

  1,163

  22.1

  1995–96

  1,556

  34.6

  1996–97

  1,885

  43.4

  1997–98

  2,246

  50.1

  1Estimate

  Nuclear Reprocessing Industry
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment she has made of the implications for the nuclear reprocessing industry in the United Kingdom of the decision by the German Government to ban the transport of spent fuel. [48074]

  Mr. Battle
  The German ban on the transport of spent fuel arose from contamination found on French flasks. I understand that the UK nuclear reprocessing industry is co-operating with the German authorities to help ensure a timely resumption of spent fuel transports from Germany, in accordance with the appropriate national and international regulations. In the interim BNFL have postponed shipment of flasks from Europe.

  Price Maintenance (Medicines)
  Mr. McWalter
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate her Department has made of the cost to public funds of the legal proceedings in the Restrictive Practices Court to be brought by the Office of Fair Trading in its attempt to end resale price maintenance on over-the-counter medicines. [48241]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 6 July 1998]: Referrals to the Restrictive Practices Court are a matter for the Director General of Fair Trading. I am asking him to write to my hon. Friend.

  Departmental Reviews
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list the reviews her Department, or its predecessors, initiated in the(a) 1974–75, (b) 1979–80 and (c) 1992–93. [48522]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 6 July 1998]: This question cannot be answered without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Information Technology
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will place in the Library a copy of the Government's response to the EU Commission communication dated 14 March 1998, relating to proposed changes in the rules and procedures for public procurement of IT equipment, software and services. [49447]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 7 July 1998]: The Commission's Communication 'Public Procurement in the European Union' set out the Commission's thoughts on the way forward in the light of responses to its 1996 Green Paper. The Communication went wider than the procurement of IT equipment, software, and services, in particular in encouraging the development of electronic procurement, and promised a number of specific proposals for clarifying the legal framework and bringing it up to date. The Government welcomed these developments and the United Kingdom Presidency was able to secure Community-wide support for them in the Internal Market Council on 18 May. In the circumstances, a written response was unnecessary and much will now depend on the detailed proposals which the Commission will make over the coming months.

  Export Licence Applications
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many export licence applications were refused by the Export Control Organisation during each of the four-week periods used by her Department from 6 March to date. [48225]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 30 June 1998]: The Export Control Organisation's computer databases have been interrogated and numbers of applications for Standard Individual Export Licences and Open Individual Export Licences refused in full for each period are as follows:

  Period

  Standard individual export licences

  Open individual export licences

  7 March 1998 to 3 April 1998

  4

  1

  4 April 1998 to 1 May 1998

  8

  0

  2 May 1998 to 29 May 1998

  8

  0

  This information should be considered in light of my answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford) on 30 October 1997, Official Report, columns 870–71.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list the average times taken to process export licence applications in the periods(a) 1 May 1996 to 1 May 1997 and (b) 1 May 1997 to 1 May 1998. [48226]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 30 June 1998]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) on 23 February 1998, Official Report, column 103.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list the total number of export licence applications processed by the Export Control Organisation in each of the four-week periods used by her Department
  633
  from 6 March to date broken down into (a) those circulated to other Government departments and (b) those not circulated. [48224]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 30 June 1998]: The information, beginning with the four-week period nearest to the date specified, is as follows:

  Period

  Applications circulated to other departments according to their policy requirements and completed during the period

  Applications not circulated to other departments and completed during the period

  7 March 1998 to 3 April 1998

  1,039

  111

  4 April 1998 to 1 May 1998

  704

  145

  2 May 1998 to 29 May 1998

  710

  94

  This information was taken from the Export Control Organisation's management data which are compiled in order to monitor performance at processing applications for Standard Individual Export Licences. The performance measures do not apply to applications for Open Individual Export Licences (due to the very wide variations between goods and country coverage of such licences) or licences covering Iran or Iraq or exports which are subject to control solely because of United Nations Sanctions.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many export licence applications waited more than 20 days for a decision in each of the periods(a) 1 May 1996 to 1 May 1997 and (b) 1 May 1997 to 1 May 1998. [48230]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 30 June 1998]: The Export Control Organisation (ECO) measures its performance against two aims:
  to provide a substantive response to an application within 20 working days of receipt for applications that need to be circulated to other Government Departments according to their policy requirements ("circulated cases"), and
  to provide such a response within 10 working days of receipt for applications dealt with by DTI itself ("non-circulated" cases).

  The ECO's management data on the processing of licence applications are compiled on the basis of four-week periods. For the period 1 May 1996 to 2 May 1997, 3,661 applications which were circulated to other Government Departments according to their policy requirements did not meet the performance target.

  For the period 3 May 1997 to 1 May 1998, 5,174 applications which were circulated to other Departments did not meet the performance target.

  Records are not kept in such a way as to be able to identify non-circulated cases which took more than 20 working days to complete.

  Plutonium
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the United Kingdom's civil stockpile of plutonium, with particular reference to the risk of nuclear proliferation. [48931]
  634
  Mr. Battle
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers given to similar questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies) on 30 January 1998,Official Report, column 415, my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker) on 2 December 1997, Official Report, columns 163–64, and my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy, (Mr. Moonie) on 2 June 1998, Official Report, column 162.

  In particular, I would refer the hon. Member to the conclusion of the Statement referred to in the answer given to the hon. Member for Croydon, Central, which is available in the Library of the House.

  Medicines
  Mr. McWalter
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what costs have been incurred by the Office of Fair Trading in preparation for legal proceedings in the Restrictive Practices Court to end resale price maintenance on over-the-counter medicines. [48239]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 3 July 1998]: The preparation for legal proceedings in the Restrictive Practices Court is a matter for the Director General of Fair Trading. I am asking him to write to my hon. Friend.

  Mr. McWalter
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what research she has evaluated into the comparative price of over-the-counter medicines in the United Kingdom relative to other EU countries; and if she will make a statement. [48232]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 1 July 1998]: The DTI has not carried out such research, since the Director General of Fair Trading is responsible for monitoring the market where there are competition problems and for any studies of which result from this.

  Mr. McWalter
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment she has made of the impact of the loss of resale price maintenance on over the counter medicines on small businesses, with particular reference to pharmacies. [48213]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 30 June 1998]: The Director General of Fair Trading has published details in his January 1998 report "Material Changes in the Medicaments Markets since 1970", a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Energy Review
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) when she plans to complete her review of electricity pool pricing; [48592]

  (2) if her pool price review will require some coal-fired power stations to switch to base load and gas stations to peak load. [48593]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 2 July 1998]: I expect to receive the advice of the Director General of Electricity Supply on the Review of Electricity Trading Arrangements this month. I will announce my decision after considering that advice.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is her forecast of electricity prices to domestic consumers for the next three years(a) on the basis of inherited policies and (b) taking into account her

  635
  statement on her review of energy sources for power generation of 25 June 1998, Official Report, columns 1169–72. [48590]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 2 July 1998]: The precise path of electricity prices will depend on market developments. We inherited an electricity market containing basic flaws which have tended to act to the disadvantage of coal and customers alike.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which specific proposals in her Energy Statement of 25 June 1998 will act to reduce consumer prices of electricity. [48589]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 2 July 1998]: I refer the right hon. Member to the consultation document on the Review of Energy Sources for Power Generation published on 25 June 1998 and, in particular, to paragraph 13 of Chapter 4 and paragraph 17 of Chapter 5.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations she has had from the gas industry concerning her electricity review. [48588]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 2 July 1998]: I refer the right hon. Member to Annex 2 of the consultation document on the Review of Energy Sources for Power Generation, published on 25 June 1998.

  Gas-fired Power Stations
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what forecast she has made of the effects on employment levels in(a) the construction and (b) the gas industry arising from her policy on new gas-fired power stations. [48586]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 2 July 1998]: The proposals announced for consultation on 25 June 1998 were about energy policy, not employment in particular sectors. Our proposals would bring lower electricity prices, more effective competition, and secure and diverse energy supplies. This will be good for jobs across the economy.

  Business Innovation
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on trends in expenditure on business innovation over the last year. [48338]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 2 July 1998]: The annual R&D Scoreboard provides an important international benchmark of the funds UK companies invest in R&D as part of the innovation process. The 1998 Scoreboard, published on 25 June, lists the reported R&D expenditure over the last financial year of over 500 UK companies. This shows an overall increase of 6.2 per cent. in R&D expenditure to £10.5 billion, with several business sectors (including engineering, media, support services, and telecommunications) showing sizeable increases in R&D expenditure. In addition, the pharmaceuticals sector now leads the world on R&D investment as a proportion of sales, while the increase in R&D shown by the healthcare sector was three times the international average. Although there can be no room for complacency, as the 1998 CBI Innovation Trends Survey shows, it is clear that many UK businesses are investing in innovation and R&D on a par with the best in the world.

  Post Office
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when in the autumn she will announce her policy for the Post Office. [48557]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 2 July 1998]: I will present the Government's proposals on the Post Office's future organisation, structure, and financing as soon as I am ready to do so.

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) how businesses will be expected to account for the value of accommodation when complying with the minimum wage; [48857]

  (2) how the value of accommodation will be assessed when setting the minimum wage. [48858]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 3 July 1998]: The government are considering the detailed implementation of the Low Pay Commission's recommendation on taking accommodation into account as an offset towards payment of the minimum wage, and will make their approach clear in the draft regulations on which we have made a commitment to consult.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is her Department's average response time to correspondence from members of the public; and how such response times are monitored. [48667]

  Mrs. Beckett
  Information on the average time taken by my Department to respond to correspondence from members of the public could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. One of the six service standards for central Government requires Departments to set a target for responding to letters from the public. All management units in my Department are required to have systems to monitor performance against this standard. I understand that a report on the performance of the main Departments against the six standards in 1997–98 is being prepared for the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and will be made available to the House shortly.

  Sellafield
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what dispersion modelling her Department has evaluated in respect of a breach of containment accident at the Sellafield high-activity liquid waste storage tanks, arising from(a) an earthquake, (b) a tank explosion and (c) a malicious attack. [47877]

  Mr. Battle
  It is not for the Department of Trade and Industry to evaluate the consequences of possible accidents at nuclear installations. The independent Health and Safety Executive (HSE), which is responsible for regulating safety at UK nuclear sites, has looked at all credible risks to safety associated with the storage of liquid High Level Waste (HLW) at the Sellafield site. HSE's views on this, including an assessment of the risks from earthquake and aircraft crash, as well as fire and explosion hazards, were set out in a report published in
  637
  December 1995 entitled "Safety of the Storage of Liquid High Level Waste (HLW) at BNFL Sellafield", a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  Strict security arrangements are in place at Sellafield to protect the site against malicious attack. These arrangements are kept under regular review.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) of 24 June 1998,Official Report, column 500, if she will make a statement on the specific work being conducted on safety at Sellafield by the Nuclear Safety Advisory Committee; and what is Government policy on the public disclosure of papers or other documentary materials provided to NUSAC by nuclear operators. [48908]

  Mr. Battle
  The Nuclear Safety Advisory Committee (NuSAC) advises the President of the Board of Trade and the Health and Safety Commission. Its current programme of work includes several items related to the management of safety at Sellafield, specifically the storage of spent fuel, fuel production facilities, and the decommissioning of silos and ponds.

  The public disclosure of NuSAC papers and other material passed to NuSAC is governed by statutory requirements. Release of environmental information is governed by the Environmental Information Regulations 1992. Any information supplied to NuSAC which was obtained through the exercise of regulatory powers conferred under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974, is covered by the restrictions on disclosure provided for in Section 28 of that Act. Section 28 places restrictions on the disclosure of regulatory information, but also provides for exceptions to these restrictions. For example, HSE has the power to make regulatory information public at any time if it believes that this is necessary to discharge its statutory functions to protect the health and safety of workers and the public. NuSAC publishes a biennial report and regularly reports on specific areas of its work.

  Serial Publications
  Ms Squire
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which British companies have made applications to the European Commission DGXIII in respect of funding to create union lists of serials &c.; what advice the UK National Focal Point gave in respect of each application; which projects it supported; and if she will list the reasons for the advice and support in each case. [48453]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 3 July 1998]: It is not the practice of the European Commission to publish details of applicants in answers to calls for proposals, but full details of all participants in successful projects are published widely, including on the Commission web site at http://www2.echo.lu/.

  UK National Focal Points, or similar advisory bodies, provide advice on request direct to potential applicants for European Union funds under certain programmes rather than to the Department of Trade and Industry. Advice or support provided is a matter between the advisory bodies and the recipient.
  638
  Ms Squire
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment(a) her Department and (b) the UK National Focal Point have made of the application from the Scientific Documentation Centre Ltd. to INFO 2000 for a European resource of serials. [48452]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 3 July 1998]: Scientific Documentation Ltd.'s application to the INFO 2000 programme was in response to the Call for Proposals (Official Journal No. C381 of 16.12.67) to stimulate the development and use of multimedia information content, directed at the exploitation of content resources in the public sector. Decisions on proposals under this call are a matter for the European Commission, as advised by an independent panel of evaluators and taking into account opinions given by Member States. The Commission plans to tell applicants its decisions on the call in the near future.

  There is no National Focal Point for INFO 2000. However, advisory support is provided through MIDAS-NET which, in Scotland, is based on Scottish Enterprise, who discussed the application with Scientific Documentation Ltd. Neither Scottish Enterprise nor the Department of Trade and Industry made an assessment of the proposal. This is the function of the evaluators appointed by the European Commission.

  Euro Compliance
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what meetings she has had with financial institutions on the issue of reprogramming computers to make them euro compliant at the same time as having to make them year 2000 compliant; [47042]

  (2) what research her Department has evaluated on the problems of making computer systems euro compliant at the same time as making them year 2000 compliant; [47050]

  (3) what assessment she has made of the technical implications of the introduction of the euro, with particular regard to computer systems; [47005]

  (4) what research her Department has undertaken to assess the cost to the United Kingdom economy of reprogramming computers to make them euro compliant. [47045]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I have been asked to reply.

  The UK will not be joining the single currency on 1 January 1999. Therefore, while the launch of the euro and the Millennium both have IT consequences, they have very different implications with regard to resources and timing. For the majority of firms in the UK, the IT implications of the launch of the euro will be secondary to strategic considerations.

  Lobbyists
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make it her policy to(a) record each contact by a lobbying organisation with (i) Ministers and (ii) civil servants and (b) publish details of such contacts. [49538]
  639
  Mrs. Beckett
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to him today by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister,Official Report, column 600.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much inward investment came to the United Kingdom in(a) the latest quarter for which figures are available and (b) the same quarter in the previous year. [49194]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  During the first quarter of 1998 overseas direct investment in the United Kingdom was worth £10.2 billion, compared with £8.9 billion a year earlier.

  ICL Pathway Project
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when she expects the ICL Pathway Project to be implemented in all Post Office outlets. [49506]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  [holding answer 8 July 1998]: Current plans provide for all post offices to be automated by the end of 2000.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade in how many Post Offices the ICL Pathway Project is being trialled at present. [49507]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  [holding answer 8 July 1998]: At present 204 post offices in the North-East and South-East of England have been automated and are paying Child Benefit by Payment Card as part of a limited trial.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Manchester.

Royal Assent
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Registered Establishments (Scotland) Act,
Pesticides Act,
Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) (Amendment) Act.

Know How Fund: Expenditure
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire, and at his request, I ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they propose to increase resources for the United Kingdom Know How Fund as a means of strengthening links with central and east European states now preparing for future membership of the European Union.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, expenditure on the Know How Fund is set to remain broadly at current levels over the next three years. Of the countries preparing for EU accession, expenditure will increase for Bulgaria and Romania, where incomes are lower, social problems are more pronounced and progress in transition has been less rapid. In central European countries where economic reform has progressed further, assistance will be gradually reduced.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, in thanking the Minister for that Answer, perhaps I may say that many of us in the House have great sympathy with his aim of concentrating on areas of great poverty. But, given the great importance over the next few years of establishing democratic institutions in central and eastern Europe prior to countries entering the European Union, will he consider some increase of a temporary nature for this purpose only, as the Know How Fund has not been increased over the past couple of years?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the strategy for the Know How Fund has been to concentrate more on the areas of greater need and is not solely related to the countries seeking membership of the EU. In fact, the biggest programme is in the Russian Federation. There are other steps which the Government, bilaterally and
1358
multilaterally, are taking to improve the democratic and administrative structures in the countries seeking accession, principally the one being co-ordinated by the Commission which involves twinning between EU countries and applicant countries.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Know How Fund is largely British staffed, that it enjoys a very high reputation for its projects in the countries concerned, and that its influence is way out of proportion to the modest funds it has available?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am very happy to endorse that view. To my knowledge, it is almost entirely British staffed and it is certainly appreciated by the representatives of the applicant countries whom I meet.
Lord Judd: My Lords, can my noble friend say what arrangements are in place to evaluate the sustained progress and performance after a particular phase in the Know How Fund has come to a conclusion? The objective is surely to ensure that the people of the countries themselves are taking things forward and that we are not increasing dependency.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the principal method of assessing progress and performance comes in the review process and the screening process for the applicant countries, both the first six moving towards formal negotiations and the other five. In that context the effects of the Know How Fund and other forms of assistance will be assessed.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the vital importance of the Know How Fund to the three Baltic States, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania? Will he join me in congratulating the Strathclyde police authority, which has done so much to establish a democratic police force in Estonia, where there is enormous crime, often promoted from outside that nation's borders. Will the Minister assure us that the Know How Fund will not be decreased in respect either of assistance to the police force of Estonia or of language training through the British Council?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, there will be continuing assistance on that front to Estonia. However, the general picture is as I stated, that there will be a slight reduction in the total amount of Know How Fund expenditure in the Baltic States.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, does the Know How Fund extend its operations to helping less developed countries to adopt the latest techniques in banking, not least correspondence banking?
Lord Whitty: Yes, my Lords. The skills transferred via the Know How Fund include those related to financial services and advice to other enterprises on the banking aspects of their operations.
Lord Moran: My Lords, will the Minister bear in mind the need to help countries in eastern Europe to

1359
put right the legacy of huge environmental damage which many of those countries inherited from the communist regimes and the valuable part the Know How Fund can play in helping them to do that?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Know How Fund is essentially to provide expertise. Some of these problems also require substantial amounts of money which would come under other programmes, mainly EU rather than British.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I agree with all the favourable comments made by noble Lords about the Know How Fund and its excellent work. But can the Minister tell us the current situation with regard to the balance of funds for that fund and the overall development fund for the poorest nations of the world?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, Know How Fund expenditure, excluding emergencies, is about £80 million of the total Department for International Development budget. It is therefore a relatively small expenditure because it concerns the transfer of expertise rather than the provision of whole projects. It does not divert from the general strategy of the department to concentrate on the areas of greatest poverty.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I thank the Minister for mentioning Bulgaria. Given that it is the third poorest country in eastern and central Europe, will the Minister give the House assurances that high priority is accorded Bulgaria by the Know How Fund and that it will definitely be maintained?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I believe that I can give that assurance. As I indicated in my original Answer, Bulgaria and Romania in particular need some concentrated activity. There have been very severe economic setbacks in Bulgaria as well as slower progress towards meeting the requirements for accession to the European Union.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, may I commend the Know How Fund for choosing partners in the countries in which it works and say in particular how very important is the work that it is doing in Russia in trying to establish democratic political parties in a still very chaotic political scene?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as I said, the largest single activity is in Russia. That is partly because of tremendous problems in both democratic and economic development. It includes areas of social expenditure as well as the more traditional areas.

Beach Pollution: Clean-up Schemes
3.14 p.m.
The Earl of Kinnoull The Earl of Kinnoull asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress is being made to clean up polluted beaches in England and Wales; what is the role of water authorities in the process; and what funds may be available from the European Union.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, considerable progress has been made with compliance with the headline standards of the Bathing Water Directive, rising from 66 per cent. in 1988 to 89 per cent. in 1997, in England and Wales. The Government expect further progress as more improvement schemes are completed. However, the results for 1997 went against the improving trend with a very small fall in compliance compared to the previous year. The role of the water companies is to maintain or improve the sewerage infrastructure to meet the Environment Agency's discharge consent conditions which are set so that the Bathing Water Directive standards are achieved. Funds are not available from the European Regional Development Fund for works which are required to meet EU directives, but in some instances funds may indirectly help progress in cleaning up beaches.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her helpful reply. Does she agree that our beautiful coastline and beaches are very much national assets? Does she further agree that as a baseline the continuation of the coastal discharge of raw sewage and untreated waste water less than a mile off shore is not acceptable in today's environment? I would add that despite the vigilant monitoring of the quality of the bathing water by the Environment Agency, which gives great public assurance, we need more. Will the Minister consider her department taking a fresh look at the matter, along with the water companies and the Environment Agency, focusing on the need for future investment to hasten the modernisation of the treatment works in order to deal with waste water around our coasts?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I certainly agree with the noble Earl that our beaches and coastline are great national assets and that we need to protect them. It was for that reason that my right honourable friend Mr. Michael Meacher called on the Environment Agency and the water companies to take urgent remedial action in the kinds of instances which the noble Earl described and to report on the prospects for compliance with the directive and on the action needed in the case of persistent failures. The Government will not be satisfied until we are regularly achieving close to 100 per cent. compliance.
As regards investment, we are looking at the possibility of providing more to improve bathing waters under the current periodic review of water

1361
company price limits. Other measures which would help to improve compliance are the completion of the bathing water improvement programme; the urban waste water treatment directive programme, and the EA policy introduced last year requiring design and guideline standards where secondary treated effluent may impact on bathing waters.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that when I was a Member of the other place, the whole of the Durham coastline fell within my constituency, and much of my time was spent dealing with the fact that the golden sands—which they were in those days—were being transformed into a black mess because of the dumping of coal waste into the sea? All the pits have now closed, but the problem does not seem to be improving. Can the Minister say whether any research has been done into this matter? If she does not have the answer to hand—which she probably does not—would she care to write to me about it?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I shall certainly write in detail to my noble friend. I know that the beaches around Easington certainly had the problem that he described and was concerned with when he was the constituency Member. I understand that there is a reclamation scheme to clean up those beaches. The cost is being met through millennium funding. I understand that it is being brought forward by a consortium of local partners. The Environment Agency is advising on the proposals and their environmental impact. The aim is to reclaim those beaches and perhaps give back to the noble Lord his golden sands.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, is the Minister aware that European Union structural, cohesion and regional funds are being used by other countries for that very purpose: to clean up their beaches and to make sure that raw sewage is pumped further out than one mile from the coastline? As that is the case, is there any merit in suggesting to the Minister's right honourable friend either that application be made to the EU to get funds for this particular area of the United Kingdom—most of the United Kingdom does not qualify for such funds—or that application be made to the EU that this particular area of responsibility should be taken outwith the structural, cohesion and regional funds and put into a certain fund to which the United Kingdom can apply for this purpose rather than have it fall on the water companies?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I shall certainly consider that suggestion. My understanding is that moneys from the regional development fund are not available simply to meet the requirements of directives. However, as I said in my Answer, a variety of projects are funded under the ERDF, including infrastructure projects which might involve tourism. It
1362
may be possible through such funding to take action to improve bathing water standards. I shall investigate the issues raised by the noble Baroness.
Baroness David: My Lords, can the Minister please give us any reassurance about what seems to be an absolutely appalling situation in the Fal Estuary at the moment and, with the summer coming and children and everybody else using many of the beaches around the Fal estuary, can the Minister tell us whether South West Water is really going to have what seem to be several months to try to get the matter right?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I saw the reports, which were confirmed yesterday, that the Falmouth and Truro Port Health Authority served an abatement notice on South West Water requiring the company to cease to discharge sewage effluent from the new outfall at Blackrock on the grounds that the port health authority considers the discharge to be a nuisance and prejudicial to health within the meaning of the law. As I understand it, that is now an issue for the courts to resolve. It is for South West Water to show whether it has used the best practical means to prevent or counteract the effects of any nuisance which may have been caused. If bathing waters are affected, the Environment Agency will obviously have an interest in this.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, does the Minister agree that in relation to its total coastline the Isle of Wight has the cleanest beaches in the United Kingdom?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I understand the loyalty to the Isle of Wight which is displayed by the noble Lord. However, last year there was quite a serious problem—
Noble Lords: Ah!
Baroness Hayman:—with leakages between foul sewers and drains contaminating the bathing water. However, action is being taken and I hope that it will resolve the problems that were experienced last year, lead to further improvements in the future and to the reinstatement of the high quality to which the noble Lord referred.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, although beaches need to be cleaned up as soon as possible, given the loot that has been acquired by those who own the private water monopolies, could we not ask them to pay for this to be done rather than fund it from public sources?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, that is exactly the issue under consideration in the periodic review of water company price limits. My right honourable

1363
friend the Secretary of State will be giving advice on the extent of the environmental improvements that he expects the water companies to make.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Next Question!

Association of Chief Police Officers
3.23 p.m.
Lord Norton Lord Norton asked Her Majesty's Government:
To what form of accountability they consider the Association of Chief Police Officers' resolutions relating to matters of public interest should be subject.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, the Association of Chief Police Officers is not part of the Home Office. It is not accountable to the Secretary of State for the Home Department or any other government department. As I have explained previously, the association is a provider of professional policing policy advice. It is a useful source and has a very constructive relationship with the Home Office. It is only one source to which the Government turn for advice. Policy determined by ACPO is not binding on individual chief constables.
Lord Norton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. ACPO Limited passes resolutions which affect potentially every man, woman and child in the country and I should like to draw the Minister's attention—
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Norton: My Lords, I apologise. May I draw the Minister's attention to a policy adopted by police forces concerning the insurance industry, with which I have a connection? With the leave of the House, I shall read that policy. On 12th January 1978—20 years ago—ACPO's policy recommendation was that the supply of routine information relating to theft, loss and burglary would no longer be given to insurance companies and that that co-operation would be discontinued. Does the Minister think that that is in the public interest?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, there may have been such a resolution 20 years ago. I am not aware of whether that is still ACPO's policy. I repeat what I have already said: if ACPO comes to a certain conclusion, that is a matter for ACPO. It is entitled to its views. Whether we all agree with every one of those views is another question. I repeat that ACPO's policies are not binding on individual chief constables, who remain locally accountable under the existing arrangements.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some of us are puzzled by this Question? Is it not obvious that it is highly desirable
1364
that the Home Office and, for that matter, the public deserve the frank opinion of the leaders of the police service and that anything that is done to inhibit chief officers from giving their advice would be extremely injurious to the national interest?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am a little puzzled about this Question—and I am even more puzzled by many other Written Questions which are answered at substantial public expense and at considerable official inconvenience, but I answer them. I cannot alter my Answer from day to day because it remains the same: ACPO is a body with substantial, independent, informed expertise. We value its co-operative assistance, as do many other bodies.
Lord Rowallan: My Lords, is it not a fact that ACPO receives considerable funds from the Government to the tune of nearly £0.5 million, in addition to receiving further funds of nearly £1 million from police authorities throughout the country, and that, as it is a limited company, those funds do not appear in ACPO's books?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, as I have said previously, the Home Office allocated £458,000 to the costs of running the secretariat and the local authorities provided £330,000 in 1996–97 and £669,000 in 1997–98. Those sums did not appear in ACPO Limited's accounts because ACPO Limited was not then constituted. For the future, ACPO Limited, now being a public limited company, will have to produce its accounts in the format required by the companies legislation. That is what I said on the last occasion that this Question was put to me in the past few weeks.
Lord Judd: My Lords, further to his answer to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, does not my noble friend agree that the Association of Chief Police Officers makes extremely interesting and important announcements and comments on some of the major social issues facing Britain at the moment and, by its comments and insights, informs the whole process of policy formulation to a very valuable extent?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. There are important public debates, some of which are reflected in your Lordships' House, and ACPO plainly has a proper, important and central role to play in the conduct of those debates. It adds value to the public debate.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, given the comparatively large sums of money which the Minister mentioned, can noble Lords and Members of the other place see the advice which has been given by ACPO? Is the Home Office ever in a position to ask ACPO for advice on particular issues, and, if so, will the Minister ask ACPO to give advice on the policing of gypsy sites, which has been a matter of considerable complaint recently, particularly after the incident in which a six year-old boy was killed during an eviction on a site in Enfield last October?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the advice given is often published. I refer, for instance, to the

1365
excellent Home Office report on intimidation and vulnerable witnesses, into which ACPO had an input. If one wants to read such reports, one can generally see what ACPO's policies have been. If there is any specific question about police misbehaviour, that should be directed to the chief constable or the police authority concerned. If the noble Lord has no satisfaction, I shall then be perfectly happy to take up the matter myself. However, I do not believe that the relationship between ACPO and the Home Office is at all secretive.
The Earl of Lytton: My Lords, does the Minister accept that one of the reasons for the continued line of questioning by noble Lords on the Floor of the House and in Written Questions is his failure to provide me and other noble Lords with any details of the activities of ACPO beyond a two-item breakdown of an annual Home Office allocation of £458,000? Does the Minister agree that that does not amount to transparency or accountability?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the last time I answered this Question I said that the sum of £458,000 contributed to the cost of staff salaries and other administrative costs, such as stationery, cleaning and communications. We do not give that as a global sum to ACPO but pay specific invoices. I am content that that is proper accountability of public funds.

Government Documents: Disclosure
3.31 p.m.
Lord Renton Lord Renton asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether their policy of more open government enables secret departmental information to be disclosed to people with a commercial interest in it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, of course not. Disclosing confidential official information that would give someone an improper financial advantage is a serious disciplinary offence, and in some circumstances it may be a criminal offence.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer so far as it goes. Can he inform the House why there have been so many leaks and premature disclosures of government documents in the past 12 months? Does he agree that the time has come for the Government to insist that civil servants and others in their employ should at last honour their contracts of employment?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, of course the Government insist that those in their employ honour their contracts of employment. Yesterday the Prime Minister said:
"I have instructed the Cabinet Secretary … to revise the rules that we inherited that govern such contacts and to strengthen them in any way that he thinks fit. In particular, there can be no circumstances that ever justify either passing confidential or inside information to a lobbyist, or the granting of any improper preferential access to, or influence on, Government. These rules will
1366
be strengthened and they will be published. Anyone found breaching them will be out on his ear".—[Official Report, Commons, 8/7/98; col.1065.]
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, can the Minister inform the House when the proposed freedom of information Bill is to be introduced which is the supposed flagship of the Government's policy of openness? Can the Minister say whether it will lead to redundancies among spin doctors on the one hand and lobbyists on the other?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord well knows that the preparation of a freedom of information Bill is well in hand and will be available for introduction next Session, if it is included in the Queen's Speech.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, do the Government recognise that they have brought many of these woes on to their own head? Has the attention of the Government been drawn to the excellent first letter in The Times yesterday by the director-general of one of the major trade associations which states that the way in which the Government now formulate and announce policy, in many cases bypassing normal civil service channels, has given rise to this new industry that has brought such wrath upon their heads?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have read that letter, which is as unspecific as the second question of the noble Lord, Lord Renton. If the noble Lord wishes to ask me about any particular example in which information has been given other than to Parliament I shall gladly answer, but it is very difficult to answer generalised allegations.
Lord McNally: My Lords, I should declare an interest as a director of a company that has a public affairs division. Will the Government respond to a united call by the industry for a proper register in Parliament of those who act as lobbyists? Does the Minister agree that if the Government set standards perhaps by a return to more formal decision-making in Whitehall, backed by a freedom of information Act and a register, that will do a great deal to restore public confidence?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as the noble Lord well knows, some of the allegations that have been made in recent days relate to firms that are members of the professional organisation to which he refers and some that are not. Clearly that raises the question of whether official recognition should be given in the form of a register to a proper professional organisation. I have no doubt that my colleagues will consider that. The noble Lord is also right that the Government's freedom of information proposals which so far are only in the form of a White Paper will contribute to a proper relationship between government and the outside world.
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, although the word "lobbying" has become somewhat discredited in recent days, there are

1367
perfectly proper uses of lobbying represented by the many national charities with which Members of your Lordships' House are connected?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is proper that public sector organisations, charities and businesses should seek to have their views represented to government. It is essential for government business that those interests should be represented in a proper and responsible way.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the Government should listen rather less to the coterie of lobbyists and advisers who make up the inner circle of those close to the Prime Minister and Ministers and considerably more to your Lordships' House, in particular the wise advice that this House gave to the Government on Tuesday of this week? Furthermore, will the noble Lord make available a list of all contacts between Market Access, the company that employed the hapless Mr. Draper, and Ministers since 1st May last year?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord is trying his luck if he asks me to deal with the Teaching and Higher Education Bill in response to the original Question. The answer to his second question is, of course not. It would be utterly absurd for the Government to list contacts between Ministers and outside bodies. Once one started to do that one would spend more time recording than making policy.
Lord Renton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that a freedom of information Act might make matters worse? Is it not better to strengthen the Official Secrets Act?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord is right that the Official Secrets Act is very narrow. Since I signed it many years ago it has been narrowed so that now it covers only intelligence, defence and international relations. There may be some point in extending the scope of the Official Secrets Act. I acknowledge the force of the point that the noble Lord makes. But that is certainly not an alternative to proper freedom of information legislation, which is the intention of the Government.

Business
3.39 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I have given prior notice to the Government Chief Whip to raise an important matter; namely, whether or not there should be a debate in your Lordships' House before the Summer Recess on the question of reform of this House. At the same time, perhaps I may also ask the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip whether he is in a position to furnish noble Lords with the Recess dates. Can he confirm that he has no intention of allowing the House to rise beyond 31st July which would be regarded by
1368
this side of the House at least as a hostile act? Can the noble Lord also confirm that so far this Session this House has witnessed a great deal of co-operation from all sides? We have used an unprecedented amount of time on the Moses Room Grand Committee procedure. We have expedited the Government's business. This month we have sought to ensure that the Government get on to the statute book two important pieces of emergency legislation.
I wrote to the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip exactly three weeks ago. I received a reply to that letter on Monday of this week. The request was a very simple one; that this House should be allowed to debate its future before it rose for the summer.
There was a reason for that: first, to inform the Government of the views of this House; secondly, since the Government have recently made an announcement that they are now willing to provide an options paper in the shape of a Green Paper at some point in the autumn, it would help to guide the Government on the drafting of that document; and, thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, to avoid the many misconceptions of government Ministers that we have seen so visibly over the past few weeks.
I have now received a reply from the Government Chief Whip who stated that it was not possible to provide for such a debate before the end of July and before we rose for the summer. I have two questions for the noble Lord. First, is he now able to reconsider that position; and, secondly, can he confirm that the Green Paper will be published by the time we return for the spill-over? It has struck me on many occasions recently that there is an absurdity in the fact that the only place in which the reform of your Lordships' House cannot be discussed is in this Chamber.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, perhaps I may say a few words on this point of which the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, was good enough to give me notice. I agree with him that there should clearly be a debate in this House on the future of this House. On the other hand, I cannot say that I regard it as a hostile act were we to have that debate after the Summer Recess. Clearly, it must be in this Session of Parliament. That is a critical point.
Secondly, again, I would not regard it as a hostile act were we to have to sit into the month of August, given the fact that there is a precedent, I understand, for a Conservative government doing precisely that when I do not believe that any of us took a similar position.
I believe that there is an urgent need for more collaboration between the usual channels—and indeed other parts of the House, for that matter—in terms of how we consider legislation. We have all been exposed in recent weeks, particularly on education Bills, to never-ending Second Reading speeches on amendments, where there is not the remotest relevance between the speeches being made and the terms of the amendments

1369
which are nominally before the House. I hope that in any further discussions there may be between the usual channels, that issue will be addressed.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, before my noble friend replies, I endorse the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris. It is in my memory that at the same time in the parliamentary timetable of 1980 the Commons sat into the second week of August. It did so because the government at that time felt, despite no doubt valiant efforts to reach agreement, that they had to proceed with their business. Will my noble friend take it from me that if to get the Government's business through he needs to come before the House and indicate that the House will sit in August, while it would be regrettable, it is not a hostile act?
Secondly, will my noble friend tell me whether serious discussions are going on in an attempt to meet the twin imperatives; that is, the Government's business, and the possibility of finishing, as we would all wish, before the end of July? The question of the over-spill date and its length clearly comes into it, but I hope that my noble friend will not fall for the argument that unless he agrees to what the Opposition ask for be will be in trouble. Without that, we are already in trouble.
Earl Russell: My Lords, does the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip agree that the expeditious conduct of business calls for flexibility on both sides? Does he further agree that it calls for flexibility in Whitehall as well as in Parliament? Will he note that of the two departments with which I deal most regularly, the Department of Social Security has consistently tackled that very much better than the Department for Education and Employment? Will he make that view heard inside Great Sanctuary Buildings?
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, it ill behoves the Opposition to criticise the present Government for sitting into August. I have voiced criticisms previously that governments seek to push far too much business through both Houses in too short a Session. The problem is that governments—it does not matter what colour they are—just want to push through masses of legislation which cannot be properly discussed and digested in both Houses. I appeal to my Front Bench to review that, and to ensure that in the next Session of Parliament we have a programme that can be properly discussed and properly digested by both Houses of Parliament so that we do not have to sit into August, and can discuss in both Houses the legislation which comes before us in a proper and considered manner.
The other point I wish to make is that I think a number of people in this House are a little resentful of the fact that Members of another place are being sent home for a fortnight's holiday in their constituencies because they are not wanted. At the same time, I must remind the House, if it needs reminding which I do not believe that it does, that this is not a remunerated House. People here are being sent missives every week telling us to be here at all costs. There is a requirement to be here sometimes until three o'clock in the morning. That is not good enough.
1370
In the most friendly manner, I say to my noble friends on the Front Bench that I should like them to use their influence-o-what influence they have—within the Cabinet to try to ensure that we have a much more balanced programme which can be properly discussed in both Houses in a reasonably leisurely way.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord to desert the standpoint of political egocentricity and remember all the House servants who serve us faithfully and well the whole year through, and who are as deserving of their holidays as we are?
Lord Carter: My Lords, I can perhaps start by answering the question about the Summer Recess. The noble Lord the Opposition Chief Whip seems to be slightly obsessed about the date of his summer holiday. I would be grateful if he would not put questions to me which seem to be based on the assumption that I came up the Clyde on a bicycle. It would have been possible for me to have made an announcement today, but I did not wish in any way to pre-empt the noble Lord's remarks or the views of the House. Under those circumstances, I hope the House will forgive me for remaining silent a little while longer.
Perhaps I may remind the House that the previous administration sometimes announced the Summer Recess with as little as eight days' notice. I wish that I could say that the House will rise on 17th July, but it will not. However, your Lordships may be encouraged to know that my holiday does not begin until 16th August. That is a provisional date, and I have made arrangements to be kept in touch with the Business of the House while I am away.
I thank the noble Lord the Opposition Chief Whip for his remarks and for giving me notice that he intended to raise the subject today. Until I heard his remarks I was not sure of the point that he was intending to raise. I was a little surprised that the noble Lord felt it necessary to raise these matters on the Floor of the House rather than away from the Chamber. It is not the first time in recent weeks that he has done so. I hope that he is not seeking to impose upon your Lordships' House a form of regular weekly Business Questions as happens in another place. I am sure the House would agree that that is not how we do things here, as the noble Lord well knows.
That aside, I shall answer the noble Lord as follows. He did indeed write to me requesting a debate on the reform of the House of Lords by mid-July. After consulting my noble friend the Leader of the House, I replied that the Government agreed that there should be a debate on reform. We would wish to see a two-day debate on reform in the spill-over. The Government believe that such a debate would be of value and want it to take place at the best time for the House. It was my view and that of my noble friend that a debate in the spill-over would allow noble Lords time to gather their thoughts over the Summer Recess and to return refreshed. It would also avoid this important debate taking place in the next few weeks when the workload is very heavy.

1371
Perhaps I may respond to points made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell. Support from the Liberals is always welcome. I take the point about debates on amendments; I am sure we can discuss it through the usual channels.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, mentioned flexibility and the differing response he had from two departments in Whitehall. That surprised me because I always have had the feeling in this Government that relationships between departments were a seamless robe. I shall draw his remarks to the attention of the people concerned.
That is all I wish to say at present. We expressed our view clearly to the noble Lord. I hope to tell the House the date of the Summer Recess as soon as I can. There is a very heavy workload. As noble Lords know, we have been given extra business. We feel that the two-day debate on reform, with which we agree, should be held in the spill-over.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip for his kindness in answering fully the questions I put to him. It is not my intention for this to become a weekly event. However, it is an important issue which needed to be raised rather more widely than the usual channels.
I asked one further question. Can the noble Lord reply? If we are to have a debate in the spill-over, shall we be able to have before us the Green Paper, or the options paper, that the Government have promised? In other words, will it be published by the time we return in October?
Lord Carter: My Lords, the date of publication of the Green Paper has not yet been decided. It will be published, and the Government's plans and proposals will be made available when we are ready.

Government of Wales Bill
3.52 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords. I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 80 [Grants to Assembly]:
Lord Roberts of Conwy Lord Roberts of Conwy moved Amendment No.103:
Page 41, line 23, after ("State") insert (",recognising the needs of Wales in relation to the United Kingdom as a whole,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 80 of the Government of Wales Bill deals with the all-important matter of government grants to the national assembly for Wales. Our first amendment requires that the Secretary of State should recognise the needs of Wales in relation to the United Kingdom as a whole. We withdrew a similar amendment in Committee because
1372
the noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General said unequivocally in winding up the debate at col. 923 of the Official Report of 9th June:
"The amendment would require changes to, or even the complete abandonment of, the Barnett formula and I have already said that we have no plans to do that".
The Minister's assertion was based on his understanding, stated at col. 924 of Hansard, that the Barnett formula,
"is based solely on applying a particular formula to increase the baseline figure year on year. It is not calculated by reference to need. It is simply a formula".
However, opinion clearly varies on that point. The formula has a bearing on need according to the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, himself. He said at col. 904 of Hansard, with reference to the formula,
"It is more than being based only on population … as my noble friend rightly said"—
he was referring to the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan—
"it is based on the needs of the population. And rightly so: it should be based on the needs of the population".
So we have a clear difference of view on the relationship between the formula and need.
The noble Lord, Lord Barnett, thinks that the formula should now be revised. So does the Welsh Affairs Committee, which agrees with the Treasury Select Committee. Paragraph 90 of its report states:
"The needs assessment within the formula should be brought up to date".
If the Government are determined not to change the formula for the time being, so be it, although one must wonder just how long their resolution will last. The Government may come under mounting pressure for change.
In those circumstances, I find some attraction in Amendment No. 105 put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, to the effect that Ministers should have regard to the Barnett formula while it prevails and to any new arrangements that develop from it; and that the assembly should be consulted on any successor arrangements.
Amendment No. 103 goes beyond the annual increases or decreases in spending to which the Barnett formula applies. It goes to the heart of the matter: the basic allocations. It asks that they be based on the needs of Wales as assessed in relation to the rest of the United Kingdom. That is an area which requires a fresh study if the needs of Wales in the context of the United Kingdom are to be fairly addressed. If there is no commitment to the principle of a proper needs assessment study, the Government must understand that there will be continuing concern and that every shortfall in grants to whichever sector complains of inadequate resources will be attributed to the arbitrariness of Ministers and possibly even to the careless attitude of the Government towards Wales and its people's interests.
The sheer bareness of this grants clause, its lack of any underlying principle, its total dependence on the discretion of Ministers, give no security whatsoever to

1373
the assembly about the resources that will be made available to it to meet future needs. That causes us grave concern.
As it stands, the clause will cause endless argument and trouble. It provides no reassurance and no guarantee that present levels of spending will be maintained or that the differential per capita spend will continue. Ministers—indeed all your Lordships—will know that in 1995–96, for example, government expenditure per head in Wales was some £4,352, £609 more than was spent in England. The Scottish differential was rather more at £871. The Northern Irish figure was still higher at £1,396. Of course there were good reasons for the different spend per head.
The quality of many of our services in Wales depends on that differential. There is no underpinning for it in the Bill. Therefore devolution is a financial gamble so far as concerns Wales, and its outcome is not known. All we can do is hope that the assembly will have at least the planned 2.75 per cent. increase in spending promised over the next three years to meet the inevitable additional costs of assembly government and the high expectations generated. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, my Amendment No. 105, which is a re-run of the rehearsal which took place on this issue in Committee, is grouped with this amendment.
In a sense, I no longer need to make the speech I would have made because the Government have made it for me. I have in my hand off the late train to Paddington a copy of Pathway to Prosperity: A New Economic Agenda for Wales (FFordd i ffyniant agenda economaidd newydd i Gymru). The document is signed by the fair hand of the Secretary of State Mr. Ron Davies. Paragraph 3.1, entitled "Where Are We Now" states:
"Although Wales has recovered well from profound economic change, the Welsh economy currently creates less wealth than many regions of similar size in the industrial nations. Judged against European standards, Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per head in Wales is 80 per cent. of the European Union EU average (the lowest of any G.B. region). Estimates of the GDP for west Wales and the Valleys suggest that it is likely to be just over 70 per cent. of the EU average, and for East Wales over 90 per cent. Outside Europe, the comparison suggests that Wales performs much less well than, for example, US states with similar populations".
I shall not go through the whole document. However, I wish to emphasise that it seems to me that the Government must respond to themselves in terms of what has been set out in the document.
That issue was debated in a quite sparkling and intelligent debate opened by my right honourable friend Dafydd Wigley on disadvantaged areas in Wales. I shall not quote from my leader. However, the House can be assured that my right honourable friend in the other place spelt out the analysis which is contained in the paper. He spelt out the further need for partnership of investment between public and corporate private investment. He spelt out also the importance of creating, in terms of development, an emphasis on regional
1374
growth in the west and the valleys based on the growth of SMEs. That is something which the Welsh Office also emphasises.
How are we to do that? How are we to ensure a partnership of the corporate sector, the commercial sector, the workforce and the public sector in Wales through the national assembly and its powers to achieve it? It seems to me that that can be done only through a real assessment of the public spending needs.
I do not argue—and I do not want to argue—any kind of special case for Wales. I do not believe in special cases for any region or nation as against another. In this sense, I am supporting the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, because I am arguing for a proper assessment of the needs of the Welsh economy and the social, environmental and other services provided within that economy and society, and the need for an objective assessment. That is why I am again pressing Amendment No.105 to put the Barnett formula on the face of the Bill.
In particular, I seek a firm assurance as regards subsection (4) of my Amendment No. 105 which provides that:
"The Secretary of State",
whoever he or she may be, and I do not wish to reopen the debate that we had on the last day on Report,
"shall consult the Assembly concerning any proposals by Ministers … to introduce changes to the arrangements referred to";
that is, the Barnett formula.
I seek an assurance from the Minster that it is the Government's intention in assessing the economic performance of the assembly and its impact on the Welsh economy and its position as set out in the Government's own paper Pathway to Prosperity that it shall have regard to the Barnett formula.
I also seek an assurance that it will develop on from that along the lines proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, in our earlier debate in Committee. The formula should be brought up to date and a needs assessment should take place. I look forward to those assurances from the Minister that the Government intend to act on the Pathway to Prosperity. It is by far and away the best analysis of the Welsh economy produced by any government. What we need now is action and support in terms of public spending.
We are speaking before the Welsh Grand Committee Debate on this issue at Merthyr Tydfil on Monday and before we know the result of the comprehensive spending review. All those issues are crucial to ensure that the Welsh economy has the benefit of action by the national assembly with its economic powers in a way which seriously improves our present condition in relation to other nations and regions. After all, in my book at least, the test of the assembly will be the extent to which it will provide genuine sustainable development in the economic, social and environmental sense.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, the various stages of the Bill have illustrated the inadequacy of the Barnett formula. Its foremost critics have been the noble

1375
Lord, Lord Barnett, himself and also the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, who was head of the government when that formula was introduced.
And yet, the White Paper on which the Bill was based said that,
"Annual changes to the Welsh Block will be calculated by the population-based formula used at the moment … The Government will publish the rules under which the Barnett formula currently operates … The formula will be up-dated from time to time to take account of population changes".
That population-based formula has not succeeded because the empirical evidence suggests that the economic situation of Wales has been in steady decline during the period that the Barnett formula has been in operation. It has been in decline in the sense that Wales has the lowest gross domestic product in Great Britain—only 83.1 per cent. of the United Kingdom average—the lowest personal disposable income in any region in the United Kingdom and average earnings are the second lowest in Great Britain. Economic inactivity in Wales is more than 4 per cent. higher than it is in England. Those are the words of Mr Peter Hain in another place.
If one adds to those criticisms the statistics which show the poor health of the Welsh population, the poorer housing conditions and the lower education achievements, the only conclusion which one can reach is that Wales needs more funding than has been previously provided under the Barnett formula.
As at present exists, the Barnett formula does not allow for an increase in resources. It follows that I have every sympathy with the sentiments which lie behind the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy. But I still maintain my opposition to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, which would seek to enshrine the Barnett formula in statutory form in a way which we see to be completely unacceptable.
At present, the measure says that:
"The Secretary of State shall from time to time make payments to the Assembly out of money provided by Parliament of such amounts as he may determine".
I would hope that given that wide discretion, the Government will move away from the Barnett formula; will enter into positive discussions with the Welsh assembly when it is formed; and will arrive at a suitable sum of money which will meet the needs of the Welsh people.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, clearly my reading over the past 24 hours has been the same as that of the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas. I too have in front of me Pathway to Prosperity published by the Welsh Office and the Official Report of the debate in another place on 8th July. On this occasion I find myself agreeing with the noble Lord and able to support both amendments.
The noble Lord who has just spoken referred to the decline of the Welsh economy. Anyone who has read Pathway to Prosperity would feel that that was a distortion of the picture painted. I read just one sentence
1376
from the document. The words at paragraph 3.1 are perhaps more accurate when they say that:
"Although Wales has recovered well from profound economic change, the Welsh economy currently creates less wealth than many regions of similar size in the industrial nations".
That seems to me to be a question of fact that few could challenge.
I should like to focus on one other point made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas. He criticised the amendment tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, on the grounds that it seeks to enshrine the Barnett formula in the legislation. I do not see how it could do so when it also refers specifically to,
"any future arrangements which may be substituted for it".
I should like to dwell a little longer on the Welsh Office document produced by the Secretary of State to which I have referred. I believe that it is directly relevant to the amendments that we are now debating. To begin with, I turn to the conclusions contained in Chapter 9 and the astonishing and, I believe, wholly inaccurate statement:
"For the first time Wales has the opportunity to direct its own economic destiny",
together with the further words in the same chapter, which state:
"Our success in achieving the vision will be judged against how well we do in closing the GDP gap, raising employment rates, increasing average earnings, and spreading prosperity".
My criticism of the document is not that it is not a rather good analysis of the condition of Wales, the problems confronting it and the challenges that it faces, but the fact that it contains a number of statements which I believe are misleading about the powers of the assembly to do much about the situation.
I do not criticise the general tone of the document; indeed, there were times when I thought that, perhaps, the words drafted by my noble friend Lord Roberts of Conwy and myself a decade or more ago had been lifted from the records of the Welsh Office and reproduced. One of the most curious references—
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, I am much obliged. Although I accept that some of the wording may be the same, will the noble Lord accept that, this time, the figures are different? Indeed, never before has the 200,000 job shortfall been so clearly and cruelly identified.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, it is true that the shortfall has been identified, though I believe that that particular section is a subject for debate and analysis in itself. I am saying that most of the words contained in this document might have been drafted by a succession of Secretaries of State; indeed, they have been incorporated in speeches made by a succession of Secretaries of State over the past 20 years. However, none the worse for that is the fact that they are now brought together in a coherent whole which paints an overall picture.
It is a little curious that the document suggests that the assembly is likely to produce a degree of consistency and stability and that things will not change abruptly every time there is a change of Secretary of State. The reality is

1377
that things have not changed abruptly. There has been a consistency perhaps going back even to the time of the last Labour government when they introduced the legislation that set up the Welsh Development Agency. That was certainly carried forward during the time when I and my noble friend Lord Walker were Secretaries of State and through the time of the policies pursued by my noble friend Lord Hunt. I suppose I have to acknowledge that there might have been a minor diversion from that path during the time when Mr. Redwood was in charge of our affairs. However, things were restored pretty quickly on to the same track when the present Leader of the Opposition was Secretary of State for Wales.
The interesting thing about the document is the way in which Mr. Ron Davies has now joined that succession of Secretaries of State and the remarkable consistency with which he appears to be following the policies and objectives that we pursued. It is a welcome conversion: I shall not say on the road to Damascus, but there are policies espoused in the document and descriptions of the role of the private sector and of the need for partnership that I would not perhaps have expected to hear from Mr. Davies just a few years ago.
Therefore, I welcome the fact that we have a document which sets out the problems which confront us in Wales and the challenges that we face. But the fact is, as clearly set out by the Secretary of State in his introduction, the Welsh economy is part of a UK economy trading in a single European market and monetary and fiscal policies are set at the UK level. It is also quite clear that we are part of a European community and that the policies of the European Union are of central importance to Wales. Against that background, I find it hard to see quite how the assembly is to have the control of its economic destiny in the way suggested in the document. I fear—as, indeed, one Member of Parliament suggested in the debate in the other place to which I referred earlier—that much of what is entailed in the reorganisations that will be carried out as a result of the Bill will have only a marginal effect.
However, what is absolutely clear is that, in so far as the Welsh assembly is to have an influence and be able to use the powers that it does have—entirely the same as the powers that the Welsh Office, essentially, now has—much will depend on its ability to use the resources made available to it by the Government through the Barnett formula as it now is, or through any substitute which replaces it.
What is also clear is the fact that the requirements will change from time to time. Again, it was pointed out in the debate in another place on 8th July that we are about to see a reorganisation of regional policy boundaries, which will have a profound effect on Wales. Indeed, some very important questions were asked in the other place about how the financial consequences were to be funded and what scope there would be for providing the funds required to deal with the problems identified in the valleys and west Wales.
Perhaps I may say here that, although there has been a switch in the economic situation in Wales with growing problems in the west, I believe that the problems of the valleys may be of a different nature and perhaps may be solved in a rather different way. There have been great
1378
economic changes, many of which have provided a foundation for future prosperity in employment in the valleys. The firms, the technologies and the new industries that are referred to in the document are all in close proximity to the valleys, linked by the improved road and rail facilities which now exist. In the valleys we are suffering from the understandable social consequences that are the hangover from the long period, the many decades, of industrial change and decline. As the people who suffered most from those changes reach retirement age and a new generation takes over, I think we may find a new sense of energy and confidence coming to the valleys, together with a reduction in the problems with which we are confronted at present.
The real problems are further west. The document wisely points out that, whatever policies are pursued by the so called new "powerhouse" and the Welsh assembly, it is firms which decide where they will be located. Those of us who worked hard over long periods of time to bring new industry into Wales will know that we also worked equally hard to ensure that quite a lot of that industry went to those western parts which are afflicted by the present problems. However, one cannot dictate such matters: one can only encourage and assist. At the end of the day firms will go to the location where they believe they can prosper. There is nothing in the document which really suggests that there are new solutions. I give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, the noble Lord is treating us to a most interesting and informed debate, but, with the greatest respect, I should like to turn to the amendments. Can the noble Lord marry the population-based approach of the Barnett formula, as advocated in Amendment No. 105, with the emphasis on the needs of the Welsh people, as set out in Amendment No. 103?
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, that is precisely why I support my noble friend's amendment which mentions matters being relative to the UK as a whole. That applies not just to population but to the changing needs of regions in the UK as a whole, and to the possibility, implicit in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, that the Barnett formula may have to be changed and replaced. That is exactly the argument I was coming to. Anyone who has seen the changes that have taken place, not just in Wales but also in the English regions and in cities such as Newcastle and Glasgow—to pick out two obvious examples—will realise that we are in a changing world where the industrial and social conditions in 10 or 20 years' time will be different from those which exist today, and still more so from those which existed 10 or 20 years ago.
In successive years I sat through Cabinet committees in which all my colleagues reached considerable agreement—except with the Secretary of State for Scotland—that Scotland was over-provided by the special arrangements. I do not think that situation has changed. For the reasons that have been referred to, in terms of the relative prosperity of people as measured by GDP per head, I believe that the needs of Wales have

1379
probably grown. Therefore, I believe that there is now a need to review the Barnett formula. I believe there will be a need to change these arrangements in the future. What I find difficult to accept is the reluctance of Government to acknowledge these facts and to make some arrangements in the Bill before us.
I also find it difficult to make judgments as to the adequacy of the arrangements when we cannot get any answers out of the Government about the necessary detail. I shall not repeat all the important questions that were raised by Mr. Wigley in another place. He asked some pretty important questions about the present funding under the Barnett formula, the changes which would occur if there were changes in the map and the resources which would be made available. Mr. Alan Williams asked some equally significant questions. What was extraordinary about that debate was that when Mr. Hain replied he gave no answers at all. Indeed, so far did he fail to do so that it was almost insulting. When he replied to Mr. Rowlands' question, he produced that old non-answer; instead of answering the question that was asked, he said that it was clear that the Tory strategy on job growth would not have solved the problem that Mr. Rowlands had identified. However, he had been asked how the present Government would solve that problem.
At a time when we have this document before us, when these points have been identified with the clarity of the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, when legitimate questions are being raised, and when we are being asked to pass a Bill in which the funding of the Welsh assembly is of central importance, we are entitled to have some answers. Perhaps it was symptomatic of the Government's attitude that it took a lot of effort on our part to ensure that copies of this document were placed in the Printed Paper Office of this House. Originally they were not sent there. They were sent to another place but apparently they were not thought initially to be necessary for this House although we were to debate Welsh affairs today. I had to apply pressure to persuade someone in the Printed Paper Office to collect copies of the document so that we could read it before this debate. However, there were copies in the Library.
We cannot be treated like this. I hope that we shall be given some clearer answers today about the future funding of the assembly and if the Government seek to reject these amendments I hope that they will give some clear reasons for doing so. These amendments appear to be wholly sensible and do not impose any great problems or burdens on the Government. They provide a foundation for better arrangements for the long-term future. I support them.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, in rising to support my noble friend on the Front Bench it would be wise for the House to remind itself that what we are discussing is not an exclusively Welsh problem. We are discussing a United Kingdom problem, of which Wales is but a part. On the matter of finance, although this may sound a tough way of putting it, the case for finance for Wales is easier to make than the case for additional finance for
1380
Scotland because Wales is relatively less well off than many parts of the country. That point was clearly made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford.
That said, the Bill as drafted says nothing about how money for Wales is to be calculated. I have had long experience of permanent division between a lower level of authority and government over matters of finance. There was never satisfaction. We had the most sophisticated, detailed formula that government statisticians could devise which changed annually to take account of the changes that were occurring. There was permanent dissatisfaction. The financial arrangements on which the national assembly has to run will be either the foundation on which the whole edifice stands successfully, or the rock on which the ship founders. The key is how we make the arrangements in this Bill. That is an important matter.
At the moment, the Bill contains nothing. It simply says that the Secretary of State will make payments although there are statements elsewhere which give some guidance and put some flesh on that, for which we should all be extremely grateful. However, the difficulty that we all need to face is the following. This matter will be discussed more and more, not specifically in relation to Wales but also in relation to the other regions of England and in particular to Scotland. If the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, were present, he would speak up for some of the English regions. He would be right to do so. If we do not put on the face of the Bill some such words as my noble friend on the Front Bench suggests, we leave an opening for the future which will be likely to cause the same kind of dissatisfaction which existed for so many years—and which still exists—in local government where one is dealing with a different form of devolved authority, but (dare one say it?) one that has real tax raising powers. If they ever escape from capping, there is some way in which they can help themselves which the national assembly for Wales will not have available to it.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Rees: My Lords, this cluster of amendments brings us to the heart of one of the central problems of devolution. I have no doubt that the same range of problems will occur when we discuss the Scottish devolution Bill again in Committee. It is idle for the Government in their more bombastic moments to suggest that Wales or the assembly will have control of the economic destinies of Wales. Of course, it can make an important contribution, but the economic destinies of the United Kingdom, for example, do not lie entirely within its powers or those of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We must get our own situation as a country, and we must get our own situation as a Province—if I dare call Wales that—into perspective. Nonetheless, it is important that we should consider what will be the financial underpinning available to the assembly when it applies its mind—as I am sure it will—from time to time to the economic problems of the Principality.
It does not assist the debate to suggest that Wales is in a state of total demoralisation and economic collapse. No one is able to speak with more authority and with more approval from his colleagues than my noble friend

1381
Lord Crickhowell, who did so much to improve the economic and social state of the Principality. I am sure that he would be the first to admit that it is possible to take matters slightly further. We shall study the situation critically over the years to see whether the present Government have improved on the efforts of the previous government.
One recognises that Wales, like many of the outlying parts of the United Kingdom, has a special range of problems which may have to be treated in a special way and may deserve special financial support. It is rather idle to imagine that the Government could devise a detailed financial framework for the operation of the Welsh assembly and Wales in respect of legislation. Had they tried to do so, in the event, we should probably find it more uncomfortable than the looser, more general terms employed in Clause 80 and subsequent clauses. I am sure that the Government wish to see a fair approach to the financial problems of devolved legislatures. Approaching matters in that light, let us see what they have achieved.
I shall turn in a moment to the detailed phraseology. It raises some interesting questions which I hope the noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General will take up in replying. First, let us consider the special problems that arise in parts of the United Kingdom such as Wales. I am sure other noble Lords, who have greater knowledge of, let us say, the north-east, Cornwall and similar areas will say that they have a similar range of problems. I am not sufficiently equipped to deal with those problems. The virtue of the amendment in the names of my noble friends Lord Roberts and Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish is its reference to:
"recognising the needs of Wales in relation to the United Kingdom as a whole".
That is very important. Those of us who are fortunate enough to come from or live in Wales are concerned with the problems of the Principality. Any financial settlement that is worked out must take account of that fact. If we were to achieve—by the eloquence that comes all too readily to people of Welsh descent, to the tedium of debates on the subject in this Chamber!—too favourable a settlement, it would generate hostility, jealousy and friction throughout the United Kingdom. In that case, we should not be able to sustain the settlement over the years. What we are looking for is a fair settlement. That is why I find the words of the amendment particularly appropriate—
"recognising the needs of Wales in relation to the United Kingdom as a whole".
I now turn to the attractive amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas. It returns to the Barnett formula, which the noble Lord touched on. We have had the advantage of hearing the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, speak on the formula which he evolved. Subsequent Chief Secretaries have grasped it with gratitude, as slightly simplifying their tasks.
The Barnett formula is all right to a degree, based on population and other factors. I very much doubt whether it could be encapsulated in a piece of detailed legislation short of about five appendices. That would no doubt generate a whole range of debates upon which we should not wish to embark. It was a useful, slightly
1382
rough and ready tool, which enabled one, during the course of the public expenditure round, to shorten—only slightly—the debates that one had with colleagues, and particularly with the Secretary of State for Wales in relation to the basis for the package for Wales. It was not by any means the sole determining factor. It was merely the base from which one started. Problems were thrown up during the course of the year which went way outside the Barnett formula. So let us not imagine, even if it could be formulated in legal terms, that it would resolve all our problems. What we need to have set out is a general principle.
The noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General is listening closely. When he comes to reply, if he does not feel able to recommend the adoption of this amendment, perhaps he will tell us how the Government propose to approach the financing of the problems with which the new assembly will be concerned.
I do not have the Chancellor of the Exchequer's words in front of me, but I understand that he is rather in favour of a triennial settlement. There are certain constitutional difficulties. Anyone who has spent even a short time examining Treasury matters will know that supply is voted on an annual basis. It might be of assistance if the government of the day could indicate in broad terms what their plans in that area would be for three years or so. It would be very helpful for a new assembly, coming afresh to Treasury questions, to have some indication beyond merely the current financial year. I am sure that the Solicitor-General's brief is bristling with textual criticisms which his devoted civil servants have devised. However, if he can rise above the detail for a moment, perhaps he could indicate some sympathy with the approach enunciated in Amendment No. 103.
Returning to Clause 80, perhaps the noble and learned Lord will enlighten us. The clause is interesting. It is divided into two subsections. Subsection (1) deals only with the money provided by Parliament. Perhaps other noble Lords are better acquainted with these constitutional details. I wish to know what other moneys the Government have in mind in relation to subsection (2), and moneys paid out by,
"Any Minister of the Crown, and any government department",
and not necessarily moneys provided by Parliament. What is the precise distinction? What are those moneys?
I wish to make a practical suggestion, which I hope will commend itself to the Committee and to the Government. I wonder whether, in practical terms, it would not be better if the moneys, even though disbursed over various fields of governmental activity, were in the first instance channelled from central government through the department of the Secretary of state for Wales rather than being diffused over the whole area of government. Then, both in Wales and in the Westminster Parliament, we should know whom to approach in the first instance if detailed questions arose. I do not think that the assembly itself would want to have dealings with a whole range of government departments, or indeed quangos or other bodies if they are embraced by Clause 80. That might make for a slightly tidier approach to the whole question.

1383
I do not want to cover ground that has been more ably covered by other noble Lords. The approach embodied in the amendment is both sympathetic and practical. I hope that the Government will give an appropriate response.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, when noble Lords debated in Committee the very important question of the financing of the assembly, it seemed that a number of specific questions arose. Listening from the Cross Benches, there seemed, on some of them, a clear preponderance of arguments. The first was: should the basis of the finance be a Barnett-like formula? Although that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, with his authority, disagreed, it seemed to me that there was a clear preponderance in favour of that.
Perhaps the most powerful argument was advanced at Second Reading and in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, and I ventured to try to endorse it. Once there is that formula, one has to take into account its limitations. It does not cover the whole of the field of finance; it applies only to the year-on-year increase in expenditure.
Secondly, it is clear that, even when the formula was enunciated, it was out of date because it was based on statistics of the late 1970s. Therefore, in my respectful submission, the formula needs to be brought up to date.
Thirdly, there is another, quite different formula, which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, in Committee, and by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, today and in Committee; namely, that governing local authority finance.
Under the Barnett formula, Wales comes off badly, for the reasons that have been put forward so cogently. On the other hand, I gather that, under the local government formula, Wales benefits, on the whole. It seems to me clear that there must be some review if the Barnett formula is to be used.
I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, and the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Elis-Thomas. I again emphasise, as did the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, the words,
"and any future arrangements which may be substituted for it".
That is very necessary under the circumstances.
Perhaps a minor question is whether the formula should be expressed on the face of the statute. It seemed to me that as to that matter opinions were very nicely balanced, although personally I agree with the way it was put by my noble friend Lord Elis-Thomas.
In view of all the points to which I have referred, it seems to me that the line taken by the Government embodies the worst of all the solutions. They say that they will proceed on the Barnett formula but will have no review of it, no review of the financial implications and no update, nothing which the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, himself advocated; namely, a review and, as he put it, a Barnett formula Mark II. I fully support the amendment moved from the Opposition Benches and, it seems to me, the perfectly compatible amendment tabled by my noble friend.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I hesitate to speak in this debate, but the Barnett formula has been mentioned. It used to be my hobby and so I should like to examine the question. I believe that the Government have decided, in both this Bill and the Scotland Bill, that the formulation of the financial part will be very general, leaving a lot of scope for administrative and political settlement. The amendments before us seek to put some more structure into the Bill. I wish to argue that that is not always desirable. Even people who want more money may regret putting something on the face of the Bill because it may cause problems.
Any formula—even the Barnett formula—which simply increases expenditure over a certain base eventually takes into account needs, because population is a rough indicator of need. One could make it more complicated, but it does take into account needs. What else would it do? Another formula could be to say, for example, that the larger the population, the more the needs; the lower the relative income, the greater the needs. The difficulty would arise from the weights that one puts on these two elements, as well as from the numbers. Numbers become a matter of great argument. Revised population numbers are available only every 10 years. One might get oneself into a formula which was so rigid that one could not do much about it.
I believe that in this kind of devolved financial situation there will not be much change from one year to the next with regard to the proportion of money going to Wales or to Scotland. No one imagines that a government would come to power and cut even as much as 10 per cent. We are talking about small adjustments, which, in my opinion, should be left to the ongoing political process between the Secretary of State for Wales, the assembly and the Cabinet rather than be set in a rigid formula, which would lead to great sorrow later on.
As an example—not with regard to a financing formula—I remember that when the Conservative Government came into power they did not like the way the inflation formula was calculated. They thought that, if they calculated a tax-and-price index, inflation would look lower than it looked in the CPI. They soon found that the tax-and-price index did not do what they wanted it to do and so they quickly dropped it. I have spent a great deal of my life making up formulas and I caution noble Lords about getting into that.
It should be sufficient if it is understood and recorded in Hansard—and I am sure my noble friend will say this from the Front Bench—that, by and large, no one envisages any drastic alteration to the rough proportions in which the money is spent. As noble Lords have said, other moneys which are not in the Barnett formula are given to Wales, for example through MAFF or the Ministry of Transport. There may be special schemes, for example. Therefore the Barnett formula does not represent the total amount of resources which go to Wales. It is more flexible to leave things unsaid, especially if one wants to negotiate more money in the future.

1385
I wish to mention one more point, which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell; namely, the European dimension. At the moment structural funds come to Wales, or to some parts of Wales, through the European Community. We know that that formula is also about to change drastically, first with the Agenda 2000 document, which will be decided next March, and, secondly, with enlargement. The existing 15 members will all receive less money than they have been receiving. We should be thinking about such matters as how Wales and other regions will deal with the fact that European funds coming to the UK will be smaller than at present. That is something outside the Barnett formula which is definitely worth thinking about.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I listened with great care to what my noble friend Lord Desai said, but I have to say that there is concern in Wales that there is no reference in the Bill to the guiding principle which should govern the funding of the assembly. The issue before the House is whether the Bill should contain such a guiding principle.
Amendments Nos. 103 and 105 were discussed in Committee. I was in sympathy with the principle behind both amendments, in particular the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts. However, we were told in Committee by my noble and learned friend the Solicitor-General that the Government were rejecting the relative needs criteria because,
"The amendments would require changes to, or even the complete abandonment of, the Barnett formula".—[Official Report, 9/6/98: col. 923.]
That argument has not been addressed this afternoon. To my way of thinking, the risk of abandoning the Barnett formula is unacceptable and that is why I cannot support Amendment No. 103.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, in fact, I addressed the very quotation to which the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, referred. I pointed out that there was a difference of opinion as to the content of the Barnett formula because the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, referred to the element of need as well as population involved in that formula. Therefore, I could not understand how the recognition of need as in our amendment would enforce the abandonment of the formula.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I accept that correction. I was five minutes late coming to the debate and no doubt that is why I missed the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Roberts.
I turn now to Amendment No. 105, also discussed in Committee. This amendment requires Ministers to,
"have regard to the arrangements known as the 'Barnett formula'".
My noble and learned friend the Solicitor-General was opposed to the inclusion of the reference to the Barnett formula being on the face of the Bill because it,
"would mean that the whole system would need to be built into the Bill and we do not believe that it would he helpful or practical to freeze the detail in statute".—[Official Report, 9/6/98; col. 923.]
Must the whole system be built into the Bill? Is it not possible to insert in the Bill a reference to a guiding principle which would not involve the freezing of any
1386
details? What worries many people in Wales is that we have no assurance that the present arrangements or the underlying principle will continue to apply, particularly if the Welsh assembly and Parliament are under different political control, as might frequently be the case in the future. Therefore, it is not this Government's intention that worries me, but that another Parliament of a different party may not adhere to the present arrangements.
I believe that I speak for a number of people who wrote to me expressing the wish to see a guiding principle in the Bill, not just the details. The financial settlement—as was mentioned by one or two speakers this afternoon—is one of the major pillars which underpin the devolution settlement. Another Parliament, at some time in the future, should not be in a position to remove or weaken that pillar without at least the need for primary legislation to get around the provision which an amendment would insert into the devolution Act. I believe that we could be accused by a future generation of not having thought as carefully as we could about the financial arrangements if the Bill proceeds without an amendment to Clause 80.
The Solicitor-General (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, this is an important aspect of the Bill; namely, the funding mechanisms. We had a full examination of these matters in Committee because, in effect, both these amendments appeared during the Committee stage of the Bill. The issues raised by the two amendments concern the framework of the funding mechanism for the new assembly. I hope that I will be forgiven by the noble Lords, Lord Crickhowell and Lord Elis-Thomas, if I do not go into a detailed debate of the present Welsh economy. If I can, I shall focus on the actual drafting of the Bill.
As noble Lords pointed out, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Rees, the present drafting says that,
"The Secretary of State shall from time to time make payments to the Assembly out of money provided by Parliament of such amounts as he may determine".
That gives the Secretary of State a wide discretion as to what he gives. Amendment No. 103 in effect proposes that that should be restricted by reference to the fact that he must be involved in,
"recognising the needs of Wales in relation to the United Kingdom as a whole".
That is the effect of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, says that we should build into that the provision that Ministers of the Crown, in determining how much they should pay to the Welsh assembly, should have regard to the Barnett formula or anything else that replaces it. The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, support both amendments at the same time.
The Government's position, in summary, is this. There is no practical scope for entrenching in the Bill either a kind of rolling needs assessment, as the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy,

1387
suggests, or of the Barnett formula, or whatever replaces it, as the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, suggests.
I recognise that these are important issues and, with your Lordships' permission, I shall go into what I submit are the main points in support of the Government's position. First, we have had debates in Committee and again today as to the shortcomings of the Barnett formula. I adopt what was said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale; that is, that on the last occasion when we debated this, the balance of the argument was overwhelmingly in favour of the Barnett formula being preserved in relation to Wales. Indeed, that was the view of the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, and in the course of the Committee stage he made it clear that he did not wish to endanger the Barnett formula in any way.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, perhaps I can obtain a clear understanding of this matter from the Solicitor-General. Is he saying that,
"The amendments would require changes to, or even the complete abandonment of, the Barnett formula"?—Official Report, 9/6/98; col. 923.]
Does that apply to Amendment No. 103, which is our amendment?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I believe that the answer is yes. The Barnett formula applies by reference to a formula based on population increases that are to apply in England in relation to public expenditure. The amount of the increases therefore is not based on "need"; it is based simply on the application of a formula.
As a matter of law, it would be impossible for the Minister to say that he is having regard to, or recognising the needs of the people of Wales—I am not sure I have the exact wording—if all he was doing was benefiting from whatever the formula produced. It is a completely different approach. I fear therefore that the answer is that I stand by what I said at the Committee stage.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I am sorry to persist with this point. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord appreciates its importance. Is he saying that the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, is wrong in describing the formula as being based on more than just population; that it is based on the needs of the population? And rightly so, it should be based on the needs of the population. Is he right or wrong?
5 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I do not wish to set myself up in any way against the noble Lord, Lord Barnett. The nature of the Barnett formula does not involve, as a matter of practicality, a Minister saying, "What are the needs of the people of Wales? What are the needs of the people of England? Therefore, let us give to each one of those two components of England and Wales that which they need". It is simply, for all the reasons gone into on the last occasion and
1388
today, the application of the formula. I am not sure that the quote from the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, would necessarily involve disagreement with what I am saying. I am sorry that he is not in his place so that he can give an answer himself.
As far as the Government are concerned, there is little doubt in their minds that it is a matter of approach to the framework. If the approach that the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, proposes in his amendment were adopted, then we would be forced to abandon the Barnett formula. I do not believe that that is what the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, wants, I do not believe that that is what this House wants, and I do not believe that this is what the people of Wales want.
Lord Desai: My Lords, perhaps I may help my noble and learned friend in this respect. It is perfectly possible for an economist to say that a population is an indicator of needs, but to put it on the statute book, that needs are to be taken into account, may require to do more than just consider population. That is essentially what one would say, that taking account of population is a way of taking account of needs. It is not needs as such. That would require a much more elaborate formula. Perhaps I am reconciling what my noble and learned friend has said and what the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, said.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, it could also indicate his understanding of the wording of Amendment No. 103. I fully understand the words "recognising the needs of Wales", but what does the noble and learned Lord assume is meant by
"recognising the needs of Wales in relation to the United Kingdom as a whole,"?
Does that mean in relation to the needs of the United Kingdom as a whole, or what meaning does he attribute to it?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Desai for what appears to be a reconciliation of the Government's approach and the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Barnett. It seems to me to be a perfectly sensible way of reconciling the two positions. On the basis of what the noble Lord, Lord Desai, a very eminent economist, has said, there is no real distinction between what I am saying and what the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, has said.
Secondly, I come to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, has raised. What indeed is meant by,
"recognising the needs of Wales in relation to the United Kingdom as a whole,"?
It is difficult to say what is meant by that. Perhaps the question should be better posed to the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, than to myself. Who is to say what are the needs of Wales? It is a subjective matter on which the amendment offers no clues whatever.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. I do not speak for the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, entirely on these matters, but I do speak with one voice with the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, this afternoon. We both quoted

1389
the same paragraph, which is paragraph 3.1 of Chapter 3 of the Government's clear document Pathway to Prosperity. Will my noble and learned friend the Solicitor-General, agree that the comparisons between Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom, the rest of the European Union and the rest of the world, in terms of the present performance of the economy, GDP per head and so on, are absolutely objective indicators of the needs of the Welsh economy in society?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, perhaps I may remind the House that we are on Report. The convention of the House is that on Report, once the Minister is speaking, it is not usual for noble Lords to make a second speech.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, for that protection. May I answer the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas? I am not taking issue at all with any part of the analysis in Pathway to Prosperity. The point I am raising is what does the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, mean? I am taking it one stage further and asking what protection it gives to the people of Wales when you are dealing with a concept so nebulous, so ill-defined and which gives such a wide power that it may not really add very much to the existing situation?
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, said, may I ask the noble and learned Lord's view? Surely, these two amendments are taken together. In other words, the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, is taken together with a reference to the Barnett formula. The Barnett formula includes a reference to deferential income, does it not?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the essence of the question was that if we take both together you can make it clear that needs equals the Barnett formula, so why do you have a reference to needs at all in those circumstances? You are saying that you can continue to apply the Barnett formula. If that is what you want to do, you do not have the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, but you have the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas. Why should one fall over backwards to have contradictory amendments? With the greatest respect to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, I do not think that is a sensible suggestion so far as concerns framework.
Perhaps I may go back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. I believe, for the reason he indicated in his question to me, that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, offers precious little assurance to anyone. The right honourable Member for Wokingham in another place, Mr. John Redwood, certainly had his views of what the needs of Wales were when he was Secretary of State. He had a fondness for returning money to the Treasury which he thought Wales did not need. Who could interfere with his assessment of the needs of Wales? I do not need to dwell on the merits of his approach, save to say that there were many in Wales who did not necessarily agree with it.
1390
I fail to see how the noble Lord's amendment will prevent that, or worse, happening in the future. I submit that the noble Lord's amendment would give the Secretary of State just as must discretion as Clause 80 does now. Combined with its undermining of the Barnett formula, I fear that it would leave the assembly in a very precarious position indeed.
In the light of that and of the noble Lord's comments, to which I have already referred, that he had no wish to imperil the Barnett formula, I hope that he will not press his amendment to a vote tonight.
I turn next to Amendment No. 105, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas. I recognise and share the noble Lord's concern about preserving the Barnett formula, as I know do noble Lords on all sides of the House. It is simply a question of how best to do that. I do not go as far as the noble Lord and suggest that the Barnett formula should be reviewed. As is known, and was made clear throughout, there is no intention to review the Barnett formula.
I do not see the amendment of the noble Lord effectively preserving the Barnett formula. If there were any purpose in placing the Barnett formula on the face of the Bill it would surely be to ensure that it continued to be applied. That must involve more than "having regard to the formula", as the amendment of the noble Lord puts it. One can have regard to something but, ultimately, decide not to act on it. A real safeguard would involve giving statutory force to the full block and formula rules. The noble Lord has, of course, not attempted to do so. I have to say that this means that his amendment would also provide scant assurance to anyone.
In any event, enacting the block and formula rules would be a Herculean task. The rules do far more than apply a simple multiplier to an easily discernible sum of English expenditure, as your Lordships will see when we publish the full rules in due course. For instance, any changes in the scope of the Welsh block, such as will arise when the assembly takes on responsibility for the Forestry Commission in Wales, needs to be reflected in the rules as do any changes in the population multipliers.
Even if it were possible to pin the rules down to a statutory form, they would need to be regularly revised for many of the same reasons. That would mean primary legislation on an annual basis once population multipliers are reworked annually from 1999 to 2000 onwards, or else some power to change the formula by order. No doubt your Lordships would see the latter—namely, an order-making power—as preferable for technical matters such as these. That being so, I would submit that the effect would not be greatly different from Clause 80 as it stands. Such an order-making power in the hands of the Secretary of State would give him almost the same discretion over assembly funding.
I appreciate that the Government's repeated resistance to amending this clause may smack unduly of defensiveness. That is not so. I genuinely see no practical alternative to the course we have taken. We have given undertakings that Barnett will remain and that any changes to it will involve full consultation with the assembly. We have published the principles of the

1391
formula and will publish the full rules so that everyone knows what to expect. If noble Lords or Members in another place had devised a workable alternative, we should have been only too glad to consider it. I regret, though, that they have not and I must therefore suggest to the noble Lord that he does not move his amendment.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, once again we have had an interesting debate. Perhaps I may refer to the Solicitor-General's remark to the effect that the Government might appear to be on the defensive. I think that they are very much on the defensive on this issue. I am still not absolutely clear in my mind why our Amendment No. 103 would mean the abandonment of the Barnett formula.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for their support. I am grateful, too, to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, who is absolutely right in saying that there is concern in Wales about the absence of a key underlying principle for this clause. It is an extremely bare clause and gives no underpinning whatever for any principle whereby:
"The Secretary of State shall from time to time make payments to the Assembly".
This is a matter of fundamental importance not only to the assembly but, as my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith said, to the United Kingdom as a whole. The problem will not go away. It will stay with us. My guess is that the assembly will raise expectations and will require considerable resourcing, as the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, intimated when he read sections from The Pathway to Prosperity and referred to the needs of Wales.
All we are asking for is a fair basis for the settlement, as indicated by my noble friend Lord Rees. The noble Lord, Lord Desai, is right in saying that we anticipate that we may not receive as much as we have done in the past from the European Union because of enlargement and other factors. That makes it all the more essential that we should know on what principle the assembly is financed.
The noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General said that we did not require a rolling principle of the kind that we have put forward in Amendment No. 103. However, I say to your Lordships that the clause as it stands is totally lacking in any kind of principle and, depending as it does entirely on the discretion of the Secretary of State, is totally unacceptable. I detect that the feeling of the House is very much in support of the position that we have taken on this amendment. But in view of what the Minister said and the doubt that he has cast, and persists in casting, on the continuance of the Barnett formula, I have no option but to withdraw the amendment for the time being. But we may well return to it at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Roberts of Conwy Lord Roberts of Conwy moved Amendment No. 104:
Page 41, line 28, at end insert—
("( ) The Secretary of State may designate payments for the provision of services by the unitary authorities in Wales.
( ) The Assembly shall not use such payments for any other purpose.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships will see that we have two amendments on the Marshalled List relating to local authority finance. The first, Amendment No. 104 to Clause 80, empowers the Secretary of State to designate payments for the provision of services by unitary authorities and prevents the use of such payments for any other purpose. Our second amendment, Amendment No. 210 to Clause 113, requires the assembly to consult the Partnership Council before it allocates funds to the unitary authorities.
These amendments reflect a variety of concerns, the first being that local authorities should be adequately provided for and properly enabled to provide services of good quality. As has already been said today, traditionally Welsh local authorities have been generously supported by central government through the rate support grant because of the comparatively low rateable values prevailing in Wales. Low rateable values reflect the character of the housing stock and the general levels of income, which are well below the United Kingdom average.
A higher proportion of local authority costs met by the rate support grant means that levels of service—educational, social and so on—can be maintained at United Kingdom national standards. It is clearly important that after the assembly assumes control of allocations to local authorities the authorities should not be put in a position where it is impossible for them to maintain services at an acceptable level.
Why, one asks, should that happen? The answer lies in our anticipation that the assembly will face ever-growing demands upon the limited resources available to it. That is very clear from the Bill. The assembly may well be tempted to reduce its allocation to local authorities, especially since they have the ability to raise their own council taxes, an ability that is likely to increase, certainly if rate capping is ended and the business rate returns to local authority control.
One way of trying to stop such regressive action would be to ensure that the assembly consults the Partnership Council before allocating funds to unitary authorities. I dare say that that is not a complete action in itself which might prevent local authorities from increasing taxes at the behest or under the influence of the assembly. But at least the assembly will then be fully aware of local authorities' financial needs and requirements and their estimate of their electors' ability to pay, and to pay more
The alternative approach is for the Secretary of State to hypothecate the sums payable to unitary authorities when he makes his grant allocation under Clause 80 and to ensure that such sums shall not be used for any other purpose. We are talking about a substantial sum; it is about one-third of the £7 billion budget of the assembly.
I believe that there is a degree of hypothecation under the present system, although theoretically the Secretary of State may allocate the contents of his block as he wishes. But the truth is that the Welsh local authority annual settlement has to take into account the similar settlement in England—there is some reference to it—and the previous year's settlement in Wales.
What concerns us is that there are no constraints on the assembly. It could come to some pretty revolutionary decisions. As I said, we are talking about a very large sum—it is almost one-third of the assembly's entire budget—and radical changes could affect the quality of service that people receive in their communities and from their local authorities. The Secretary of State, as the source of grants for the assembly, must be interested in the destination of those moneys. The amendment that we propose would enable him to exercise a modicum of restraint on the assembly in this all-important area of local government finance. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, perhaps it might assist your Lordships' consideration of these amendments, which relate to local government finance, if I were to give a brief summary of the functions with respect to that finance which we intend the assembly to have. We propose that the assembly should inherit from my right honourable friend the Secretary of State all his functions with respect to council tax and non-domestic rates, such as the powers to make regulations about administration of these taxes and the arrangements for appeals.
The non-domestic rate multiplier for Wales increases each year by the retail prices index. While there is no power to increase the multiplier by more than the rate of inflation, there is a power—currently vested in the Treasury—of allowing the annual increase to be less than RPI. We propose to transfer this modest power to the assembly. If it chose to exercise the power and local government spending was not being reduced, any shortfall in non-domestic rate income would have to be made up either by the assembly increasing the amount of revenue support grant that it provides to local government or by increases in the amount of council tax raised by councils.
The most significant responsibility to be vested in the assembly will be that of deciding the local government revenue and capital settlements for Wales. The assembly will decide the total amount of revenue funding to be provided to local authorities in the form of revenue support grant and specific grants. The whole assembly will vote on the local government finance reports, which are currently debated in another place, and the formulae that are used for distributing the funding. The assembly will issue basic and supplementary credit approvals to county and county borough councils and national park authorities. Finally, the assembly will have available to it the capping powers which are currently in the Local Government Finance Act 1992, although, as your Lordships will know, we shall bring forward proposals that will put an end to crude and universal capping.
1394
Amendment No. 104 (proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy) would permit the Secretary of State to designate payments for the provision of services by unitary authorities in Wales and would not allow the assembly to use this money for other purposes. This would be fundamentally at odds with the spirit of devolution. The assembly will be an elected body responsible to the people of Wales. It will be for it to decide its priorities, and it would be quite wrong for this legislation to allow the Secretary of State to specify how it should spend its money and to bind its hands.
More fundamentally, the amendment would be in conflict with the statutory functions for deciding local government funding that we intend the assembly should have. The Secretary of State would in effect be able to usurp or override the assembly's decisions; for example on revenue support grant, which, as I have indicated, will be voted on by the assembly as a whole. It cannot be a desirable outcome that the assembly's discretion should be fettered as the amendment proposes.
We have heard from noble Lords opposite on more than one occasion about tax raising powers by the backdoor. There has always been the ability to alter the share of local government expenditure that is met by council tax. Those decisions are taken by the Secretary of State now. The difference is that under our proposals those decisions will be taken by a body that is directly accountable to the Welsh electorate, and it is that that the amendment seeks to prevent.
Amendment No. 210 would require the assembly to consult the partnership council before allocating funds to unitary authorities. The provision for the Secretary of State to consult local authorities already exists in Section 78 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988, which requires him to,
"consult such representatives of local government as appear to him to be appropriate".
This duty will pass to the assembly. It will be open to the assembly to consult the partnership council if it so wishes, so there is no need for provision to be included on the face of the Bill.
My noble and learned friend Lord Williams of Mostyn was chided last week for allegedly seeking to let nanny into the nursery. I must say to noble Lords opposite that these amendments go well beyond that. By allowing the Secretary of State to hypothecate the assembly's funds, it would mean nanny would not even need to enter the nursery: she could keep a rein on her charges by remote control.
Someone has to determine local government funding in Wales. The question is simply whether it should be a directly elected assembly, backed by a partnership council, or the present system under which the Secretary of State takes the decisions. I must say I am disappointed that noble Lords opposite have chosen the latter course and sought, perversely, to impose centralist controls in a devolution Bill. I must therefore urge your Lordships to reject these amendments.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General for his reply. Nevertheless, he has not really answered the key

1395
point about these amendments, which seek ultimately to prevent the assembly from increasing taxation, albeit through local authorities, and in a sense by the backdoor. The key point that I was making to the noble and learned Lord was that the assembly can, as he has confirmed, reduce the rate support grant and thereby force local authorities to increase the level of council taxes.
As I said, I do not believe that that would be acceptable to us in Wales because of the circumstances of the population, low rateable values and so on and all that that entails. After all, it is the key reason why we have had the comparatively high level of rate support grant in past years in Wales. Quite apart from the uniform business rate, the direct rate support grant runs to about 70 per cent. of total local authority spending in Wales compared with about 48 per cent. in England in 1996–97. Therefore, it is very important to the people of Wales to ensure that the assembly does not have the power to increase taxation on them. It was never put to them in a referendum, as it was in Scotland, that the assembly should have such a power. That it should have such power exercised indirectly through the local authorities and an increase in council tax is totally unacceptable.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Does he accept the argument that was put forward in Committee; namely that the people of Wales have an opportunity to take a view as to whether the assembly should increase or decrease its support to local government by voting at elections both to local authorities in Wales and to the national assembly, probably for the same parties? Therefore, does not the noble Lord accept that this is part of a democratic political process and will be resolved in that way rather than through legislation and on the face of this Bill?
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, it is very seldom indeed that increases in taxation feature on any election platform. If they do, it is usually in a misleading way. We are well aware of pledges not to increase taxation which have been made and which have promptly been abandoned. Indeed, we have seen increases in taxation under the present Government which were certainly not referred to at the time of the last election.
I believe that the Minister has underestimated the concern in Wales about this issue and the anxiety there to ensure that the assembly should not have any influence over taxation. We believe that it would have such a power through the local authorities. Indeed, the Minister has confirmed that. It is with that very much in mind that I wish to take the opinion of the House on this amendment.
5.31 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 104) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 73; Not-Contents, 113.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Annaly, L.

Kenyon, L.

Baker of Dorking, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Beloff, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Berners, B.

Long, V.

Biddulph, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Biffen, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Birdwood, L.

McConnell, L.

Bowness, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Marlesford, L

Burnham, L. [Teller.]

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Butterworth, L.

Mersey, V.

Cadman, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mottistone, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Carnock, L.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Colwyn, L.

Norrie, L.

Courtown, E. [Teller.]

Northesk, E.

De Freyne, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Prior, L.

Downshire, M.

Rankeillour, L.

Dundee, E.

Rees, L.

Effingham, E.

Rennell, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Renton, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Romney, E.

Rotherwick, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Rowallan, L.

Harlech, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Harrowby, E.

Strathcarron, L.

Holderness, L.

Sudeley, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Swansea, L.

Howe, E.

Swinfen, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Vivian, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Addington, L.

Falkland, V.

Ailesbury, M.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Gallacher, L.

Berkeley, L.

Gilbert, L.

Blackstone, B.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Borrie, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Burlison, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Burton, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Calverley, L.

Grenfell, L.

Carlisle, E.

Hacking, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Hanworth, V.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Haskel, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Hayman, B.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Healey, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

David, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Hoyle, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Hughes, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Desai, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Dholakia, L.

Dixon, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Donoughue, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Jeger, B.

Dubs, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Dunleath, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Eatwell, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Longford, E.

1397

Lytton, E.

Shepherd, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Shore of Stepney, L.

McNair, L.

Simon, V.

Mallalieu, B.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Milverton, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Mishcon, L.

Swinton, E.

Monkswell, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Taverne, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Thurso, V.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Rea, L.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Weatherill, L.

Richard, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Whitty, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Russell, E.

Williams of Elvel, L.

St. Davids, V.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Winston, L.

Serota, B.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.40 p.m.
[Amendment No. 105 not moved.]
Clause 81 [Statement of estimated payments etc.]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendments Nos. 106 to 112:
Page 41, line 29, leave out ("of the Assembly").
Page 41, line 32, after ("that") insert ("financial").
Page 41, line 34, after ("that") insert ("financial").
Page 41, line 37, after ("that") insert ("financial").
Page 41, line 41, at end insert ("financial").
Page 42, line 7, after ("that") insert ("financial").
Page 42, line 11, leave out ("of the Assembly after the first") and insert ("after the first financial year of the Assembly").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 82 [Loans to Assembly by Secretary of State]:
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 113:
Page 42, line 32, leave out ("made with the consent of the Treasury").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 113 is the last in a series of amendments that I have tabled to leave out unnecessary verbiage in this already extensive Bill. With this amendment is grouped Amendments Nos. 114 and 115. In submitting that these are unnecessary expressions and provisions I would not like it to be thought that I am critical of the draftsman. I presume to believe that this is a very well drafted Bill, all the more so because in a number of respects it breaks entirely new ground. Where the draftsman has included unnecessary expressions it is because they have always been put in. One supposes that originally a clever young recruit to the office of the parliamentary draftsman inscribed something on a card index. That was transferred to a Hollerith and I do not doubt that today it is on a computer. It pops up quite unnecessarily. This is the clearest example because it is
1398
not pretended that these words have any positive effect. If they are left out exactly the same happens. Nor on this occasion is it claimed that by leaving them out it may give rise to an argument, however far-fetched, based on the omission. It is simply a question of whether or not we are to countenance the continued inclusion of words that are entirely unnecessary.
Clause 82 deals with loans to the assembly by the Secretary of State. Subsection (2) provides:
"The Treasury may issue to the Secretary of State out of the National Loans Fund such sums as he needs for making loans under this section".
Subsection (6) provides:
"The Secretary of State may from time to time by order made with the consent of the Treasury substitute for the amount specified in subsection (5)"—
that limits the loan to £500 million—
"such greater amount as is specified in the order".
Not only does the ordinary machinery of government make it absolutely certain that the Treasury's consent is required but, as the noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General has himself pointed out, the Treasury stands on the route between the Secretary of State and the National Loans Commissioners so that his consent is all the more necessary in this particular case.
The present score in trying to purge this Bill of unnecessary provisions stands at one all. But things are rather better than that. My first amendment sought to leave out a provision that a vacancy in membership did not impair the operation of the assembly. That was quite unnecessary. Even though I counted that as minus one, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, moved a similar amendment to the Scottish Bill, which is outstanding, so by no means do I despair of the Government seeing some sense in this matter.
Moreover, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, asked me to withdraw yet another in this series of amendments so that he could consider it. That can mean one of two things. It may mean that there is an ongoing argument in Whitehall as to whether or not an obvious concession should be made. Alternatively, it may be a coded word to say that the amendment will in due course be favourably considered and may possibly be redrafted by the draftsman. Therefore, the score is rather better than one all. In addition, I count confidently on adding another one this time to the positive side.
The noble and learned Lord would not have attained the eminence that he has in his competitive profession if he had lacked forensic courage. It was particularly marked on this occasion when the matter was debated in Committee. He said that the words were entirely unnecessary and reinforced that by drawing attention to the fact that the Secretary of State could not get at the National Loans Commissioners except via the Treasury. He said that although the words were unnecessary, to include them would not be a subject for criticism; on the contrary, it would be a subject for congratulation. As I have said, there is forensic courage. I believe that I have accurately summarised what the noble and learned Lord has said, but if he wishes I shall quote his precise words. I understand that the noble and learned Lord does not require that.
Therefore, the argument was that the words were unnecessary but that it was a matter for congratulation to include them because it made plain what was to happen. There is no limit to that argument. It is for that reason that I have tabled two further amendments to tease the noble and learned Lord. Subsection (6) would read:
"The Secretary of State may from time to time … with the written consent of the Treasury sought and granted during normal office hours",
and so on.
I hope that the noble and learned Lord will not say that that is frivolous. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, who is in charge of the Bill, will not say that they are unnecessary, with which I entirely agree, because he would then be cutting the ground from under the feet of the noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General who takes credit for including a completely unnecessary provision.
I do not know how the noble and learned Lord or the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, will respond. If they oppose the amendment—their names have not been added to it—I hope that they will make it clear that it is not government policy invariably to include unnecessary expressions in order to make the meaning plain. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords—
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I should have thought that the noble and learned Lord would have anticipated that there would be substantial support for the point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, who, as he informed your Lordships, supported me in the House last night when I moved a similar amendment in relation to the Scotland Bill.
The matter was put fully and clearly by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. I add just one further observation. If the score is at one all, and a further goal is not scored, it will be necessary to have a penalty shoot-out which would be an unsatisfactory way of resolving this important issue. The noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General was courageous on the previous occasion. I hope that he will be similarly courageous tonight and accept the amendment.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I hope that the way the Government accept, from time to time, drafting changes proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, or anyone else who suggests them, indicates that we do not obdurately defend the drafting, come what may, but we look to see whether we can improve it wherever possible. Despite the force, eloquence and persuasive way in which the point was put, I submit that it is not a good point on this occasion, essentially for two reasons.
It is right that the Treasury would be bound to consent to the exercise of a power such as this. I regret that I cannot accept the noble and learned Lord's argument that the existence of such a practice—namely, that it has
1400
to consent—makes the provision that he seeks to remove otiose. Understood and accepted practices such as that are all very well, but the argument, "We do not need a provision on the face of the Bill, because everyone knows it happens anyway", is somewhat undermined by the fact that everyone does not know.
The noble and learned Lord knows, and I dare say that many noble Lords know it also, that the Treasury controls the purse strings, but that is not to say that members of the assembly, or the interested lay person trying to make sense of the assembly's powers and its relations with the UK Government, will know. I therefore respectfully submit and repeat to the noble and learned Lord that it is a good thing for the process to be set out on the face of the Bill so that everyone knows what happens.
It is not right to say that it is unnecessary as a matter of drafting, because it rightly sets out what the process is. It adds to the transparency of the process. There is also a more substantive point. As part of the transfer order process under Clause 22, we propose to remove many Treasury consents. That is part of the rationale behind paragraph 8 of Schedule 3. The assembly will thus not need to seek the Treasury's approval in the vast majority of cases where the Secretary of State does now.
While I accept that that process is somewhat removed from that of raising the assembly's borrowing limit, it would be prudent, in the context of devolution generally, to make clear exactly where the requirement for Treasury consent remained. Again, I do not believe that the noble and learned Lord's amendment would help the understanding there. There is a sound basis for including the words. It is helpful rather than unhelpful, and avoids any problems where there are certain areas where we are removing the need for Treasury consent.
I turn to the other two amendments, which I assume are teasing rather than probing or serious amendments. I should not have thought that it was necessary for the consent to be described in writing, because it is axiomatic—
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord accept from me that it is invariably in writing?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I accept that entirely. I would not deny it for one moment. That is why I say that it is otiose to put it in the Bill. As for the suggestion that it should be given in normal working hours, I cannot see any reason why a consent given at 7.30 p.m. in the hard-working Treasury should be regarded as ineffective, and have to be given at 9 a.m. the next morning. I see no basis for either of those amendments. Even though the noble and learned Lord is looking for another score, I respectfully ask him to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has done, as we expected, quite valiantly. I do not know whether any noble Lord was in the other place when a similar defensive argument was put up by the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Mr. Glenvil Hall. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, will remember

1401
that. Mr. Oliver Stanley said that the Financial Secretary had shown the same courageous spirit that had inspired some of the most indomitable defences in the history of the British Army which had led to some of our greatest military disasters.
The noble and learned Lord really made just one point. He knows, I know, and all your Lordships know, that the consent of the Treasury is necessary and will be obtained, but he said that the members of the assembly and the members of the public may not know that. That is entirely irrelevant. All we are concerned here is with the Secretary of State. It is he who must seek the consent of the Treasury. I am glad that the noble and learned Lord did not, at any rate, assure your Lordships that it is now a general principle of government legislation to include admittedly unnecessary verbiage in order to make things plain and transparent. However this is not the sort of point upon which it is convenient to divide the House. Therefore, protesting at the defence we have heard, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 114 and 115 not moved.]
Clause 83 [Accounts relating to loans under section 82]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 116:
Page 42, line 35, leave out ("of the Assembly").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 86 [Statement of proposed expenditure etc.]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendments Nos. 117 to 122:
Page 44, line 2, leave out ("of the Assembly after the first") and insert ("after the first financial year of the Assembly").
Page 44, line 4, leave out ("that") and insert ("the financial").
Page 44, line 8, leave out ("that") and insert ("the financial").
Page 44, line 10, leave out ("that") and insert ("the financial").
Page 44, line 13, leave out ("that") and insert ("the financial").
Page 44, line 17, leave out ("that-) and insert ("the financial").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 88 [Accounts relating to funds paid to Assembly for lending]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 123:
Page 45, line 1, leave out ("of the Assembly").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 93 [Expenses, fees and accounts]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendments Nos. 124 and 125:
Page 47, line 35, leave out ("of the Assembly after the first") and insert ("after the first financial year of the Assembly").
Page 48, line 1, leave out ("of the Assembly").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 97 [Preparation and audit of Assembly's annual accounts]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 126:
Page 50, line 36, leave out ("of the Assembly").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 104 [Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in Wales]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendments Nos. 127 and 128:
Page 54, line 23, leave out ("of the Assembly").
Page 54, line 32, leave out ("of the Assembly").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
6 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 129:
Page 54, line 36, leave out ("provision consequential on this section)") and insert ("further provision about the Chief Inspector)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 129, I speak also to Amendment No. 133. Amendments Nos. 129 and 133 are intended to allow provisions in Schedules 6 and 7 to have effect before the establishment of the assembly. Amendment No. 129 relates to the Office of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector and Amendment No. 133 to the Forestry Commission.
On Amendment No. 129, paragraph 5(1) of Schedule 6 requires Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools to keep proper accounting records, and we believe it would be sensible for these to commence on 1st April 1999 so as to coincide with the current system of financial years. However, the new financial arrangements for the funding of the chief inspector's office cannot come into effect prior to the establishment of the assembly.
The keeping of accounting records under paragraph 5(1) of Schedule 6 is related to the provisions in Clause 104 but it is arguable that Clause 104(6), as presently drafted, would prevent paragraph 5(1) from being brought into force so that it takes effect from 1st April 1999. The amendment to Clause 104(6) is to remove that doubt and to produce sensible accounting arrangements.
In respect of Amendment No. 133, it is also the Government's intention that paragraph 1 of Schedule 7, which deals with the exercise of the Forestry Commission's functions in relation to Wales, should be brought into force before the establishment of the assembly. An order will be made under paragraph 1 to amend the Forestry Act 1967 so as to convert Great Britain duties to duties applicable to Wales, England and, if the Scotland Bill is passed, Scotland.
Clause 105(5), as currently drafted, may leave an impression that the provisions of Schedule 7 are directly consequential to Clause 105. This is not the Government's intention and Amendment No. 133 is a drafting improvement to clarify the position. I repeat: these amendments are simply to produce a rational accounting regime in both respects. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in Wales]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendments Nos. 130 and 131:
Page 89, line 20, leave out ("of the Assembly").
Page 89, line 30, leave out ("of the Assembly").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 105 [Forestry Commissioners]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 132:
Page 55, line 6, leave out ("of the Assembly").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 133:
Page 55, line 16, leave out ("provision consequential on this section)") and insert ("further provision about the Forestry Commissioners and the exercise of their functions in relation to Wales)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Roberts of Conwy Lord Roberts of Conwy moved Amendment No. 134:
Leave out Clause 105.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, there is a great deal of concern about the proposal to split responsibility for the Forestry Commission between the three countries. That concern arises despite the reassuring assertions that overall strategic control of forestry will remain on a Great Britain basis.
I understand that the current responsibility of the Secretary of State for Wales and the Secretary of State for Scotland will be devolved to the Welsh assembly and the Scottish parliament. The Scottish parliament will have primary legislative powers in this field—perhaps I should say "wood" on this occasion because it clearly is tomorrow to fresh woods and pastures new!
We have the word of the Secretary of State for Wales when he addressed a Committee of the whole House. On 2nd March (at col. 710 of the Official Report) he said:
"On matters that operate GB-wide, it will be necessary for the Ministry of Agriculture, the representative of the Welsh Assembly, and the appropriate Minister in the Scottish Parliament to agree".
Agreement may not always be as easy as it sounds in this context, especially when national interests conflict and when the unified commission to which we have been accustomed is financed from three separate sources, as is proposed, each with the power to vary its financial contribution.
Those of us who have had some experience of such divided funding know how wrong it can sometimes go. However, the key question is this: who is to have the final say in the event of a disagreement between the three participants in the decision-making process—the assembly, the Scottish parliament or the Ministry of Agriculture? Who will be the lead Minister responsible for forestry after devolution? I cannot find the answer to that question.
Clause 105 concentrates on the funding issue. It is clear from subsection (3) that the whip hand rests with the assembly which,
"shall have regard in particular to what it considers the Commissioners need to spend in order effectively to discharge their functions in relation to Wales".
An element of second guessing seems to be involved here. I find that somewhat disconcerting. Forestry is important to the Welsh economy and to the environment. The forest area in Wales covers about
1404
12 per cent. of the total land area, and about half of that is controlled by the Forestry Commission. Current Welsh timber production represents 15 per cent. of the British total. Self-evidently forestry is important.
The employment aspect of forestry is of particular concern bearing in mind the current plight of the farming industry in rural areas. About 4,700 people are employed in forestry and allied industries in Wales. Of those, 1,270 are employed by the Forestry Commission and 1,700 in the wood processing plants which have invested heavily in Wales. We have already heard mention of companies such as Shotton Paper, Kronospan at Chirk and BSW in mid-Wales. It is important that the industry is properly handled and not sidelined in any way.
It is reassuring to know that the forest enterprise will continue to operate on a Great Britain basis. We are also told that the Forestry Commission will prepare three separate corporate plans for England, Scotland and Wales covering all the commission's objectives, including conservation. That is welcome. We hope that the plans will be complementary too. When we discussed the forestry issue in Committee on 9th June, my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish spoke of some of the disadvantageous situations that could arise in the event of a conflict of interest between the three countries. That is why we are concerned with the provision in Schedule 7 which would allow the Secretary of State by order to change the Forestry Act 1967 which is a fundamental piece of legislation in this area. However, one can also see how such a change might be necessary if, for example, the Scottish parliament were to decide unilaterally to establish its own Forestry Commission independent of the body covering England and Wales.
The Minister is well aware of our doubts as to whether the division of responsibility proposed is good for forestry in Britain as a whole, good for the commission or good for Wales. We are doubtful whether the scheme will work satisfactorily in practice and sure in our minds that the scheme proposed is inferior to the current unified approach, which makes business and commercial sense. It is that sacrifice of business to political expediency that some of us find worrying.
There are certain Great Britain matters which are not being devolved. Broadcasting is a very good example. I shall not expand on that, but it seems to me that forestry is one of those businesses that we have found through experience is best run on Great Britain lines. Therefore, there is an argument which we should expect to hear from the Government as to why forestry is being devolved and whether that is in the best interests of the industry and in the best interests of Wales in particular. I beg to move.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I have not spoken on these forestry clauses nor, indeed, I confess, have I studied them very carefully. I was absent when they were debated in Committee. However, there are one or two points which I should like to raise and some questions that I should like to ask.

1405
I must declare an interest. I was a forestry Minister for eight years and one of the perks that I inherited, I am glad to say, was a bunch of keys which opened all the forestry gates anywhere in the United Kingdom. It is extremely important for me, living in a heavily forested valley, as it enables me to reach parts of the countryside which it would otherwise be extremely difficult to enter.
I look back to the period when forestry Ministers acted together under the leadership of the Secretary of State for Scotland. The Ministers from Wales, England and Scotland met together and decided forestry policy. That worked effectively and the Forestry Commission worked effectively.
My noble friend Lord Roberts of Conwy has raised some important questions about how the Forestry Commission is to run its affairs when three different bodies—a legislative assembly, an assembly with limited powers and a Ministry—will all have different responsibilities for one organisation. As someone who was chairman of a large organisation covering England and Wales—the National Rivers Authority—I can only say I am thankful that I do not have to run that particular body and co-ordinate its affairs effectively.
Indeed, my noble friend has raised the point about those organisations which have not been divided up in quite that way. The Environment Agency is a case in point. The organisation has been kept on a centralised basis with national legislation but certain aspects of its responsibilities are to become those of the assembly.
I do not argue at all that the assembly should not have a significant role in this regard because quite clearly, as my noble friend said, forestry is extremely important economically in Wales and for environmental reasons. Therefore, I am concerned about the practicalities.
I make one other point and it is in relation to Schedule 7. We have been told in the course of debates that certain provisions must appear on the face of the Bill in order to make things clear to those who must operate them. If anyone believes that Schedule 7 makes anything clear to anybody, I must disabuse them of that fact. If one tries to interpret the meaning of Schedule 7, even the most agile among us and those most experienced in dealing with parliamentary drafting may have some difficulty.
As I understand it—and this is the point on which I seek clarification—it arises from Clause 105 which appears to deal only with questions of funding. Therefore, the ability to change things under sub-paragraph (2) of Schedule 7, which deals with the power of the Secretary of State to amend legislation, can arise only out of Clause 105 which deals with funding issues.
It may go further. If it does, I want to know. Are we in a situation where the assembly can influence what the Forestry Commission does by saying, "We are not prepared to spend as much as you want to spend", or, "We interpret the functions laid on us by statute in that way and after discussion with you, we think that they should be administered in this way"; or has it the ability to ask the Secretary of State by order fundamentally to change those functions under this sub-paragraph in the schedule?
1406
I just want to know how far we are simply dealing with judgmental decisions about the application of existing functions and their financing and how far we are facing the possibility that the assembly, although it does not have legislative powers, will be able to ask the Secretary of State to make fundamental changes to the functions of the Forestry Commission and perhaps alter entirely the way it operates.
I apologise for raising those detailed questions at this stage, but sometimes one is forced by amendments which are moved to look again at clauses. As I say, I had some responsibility for forestry in Wales over a long period and, at present, I do not understand how the provisions will work, or what is the scope of the assembly or the Secretary of State to change the statutory basis or the functions which are to be operated.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, in the past I have been fortunate to receive some extremely good advice from the local Forestry Commission officer. Indeed, I still use his advice and did so this week. Will that relationship still continue? But, more important, will my Forestry Commission officer be put in the position of having to serve two masters so that when I ask him a question, he may be forced into saying, "I am only the Forestry Commission officer. I can deal with that, but you will have to go to someone else who deals with the assembly side of forestry matters"? That is all I wish to ask, but I hope the Minister will be able to say that one person will be able to deal with all the matters.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I do not quite follow what is the purpose of the amendment. Paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 transfers to the assembly the functions of the Secretary of State as they presently exist in forestry. But the proposal in the amendment is to delete from the powers of the assembly any issue concerning funding. Therefore, the assembly is presumably to talk and to discuss and to lay down policy, but is not to have the ability to provide the funds to carry out the policies upon which it has decided.
Paragraph 1 of Schedule 7 states:
"The Secretary of State may by order make provision for securing … (b) the exercise of functions by the Forestry Commissioners in relation to Wales free from so much of any requirements as would oblige them to have regard to circumstances outside Wales or to interests other than those of Wales".
It seems to me that what lies behind that schedule is the intention to give to the assembly the widest discretion to lay down policy guidelines and if policy guidelines are laid down, surely the funds must be available to carry out those policies.
I heard the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, say that forestry is important to the economy and it certainly is. I know of the importance to the community in North East Wales of two of the firms to which the noble Lord referred—Shotton Paper and Kronospan. Of course, very wide forestry areas exist in North and mid Wales.
The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, suggested that it made business and commercial sense to keep forestry on a United Kingdom basis. But I heard no argument which

1407
sustained that proposition in any way. He simply said that it is best run on Great Britain lines. In my respectful opinion, such an enunciation is not right.
It is not sufficient for the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, to say that he wants to retain the keys to all the gates in the United Kingdom; indeed, if it comes to that, he can do as the Liberal Democrats do and climb over the gates in Scotland and in England. So that is no argument. We have heard no argument whatever for removing from the functions of the assembly the power to fund its policies. I give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I am much obliged. I was of course taking our Committee debate on 9th June as read. During the course of that debate, my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish outlined the position whereby many of our industries in Wales draw their supplies from other parts of the UK. I believe that he had in mind the scenario where, for example, it might be the case in the future that Scottish forestry policy could handicap our industry in Wales from using the product of the Scottish forest. It is quite clearly conceivable that these nationalist policies might be pursued to the disadvantage of the individual countries.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for referring me to the Committee debate. I wondered at the time whether the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, was looking at the issue from a Scottish rather than a Welsh perspective. Indeed, I made that comment before. From a Welsh point of view, it seems to me to be entirely appropriate that Wales and the Welsh assembly should have power not merely to set forestry policy but also to fund it.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I did not join in the debate in Committee because I was still trying to understand what the Wales Bill was about and, indeed, what the difference was between Wales and Scotland. As a small landowner with an estate in Scotland, I believe that I can honestly say that I am probably more involved with the Forestry Commission than almost any government department outside those which deal with farming.
One requires a licence for thinning, for planting and felling; in fact, one requires one for almost everything that one does. Equally, there are different grants available for planting different types of trees. It would be a great pity if the standards set by the Forestry Commission in the past were to vary among England, Wales and Scotland. I do not believe that that would be in the best interests of any country.
Moreover, one of the very few times that I am involved with VAT on my estate is when I am felling trees. One has to charge VAT as regards forestry. It is a pity that forestry is not regarded as a crop in the same way as is agricultural produce. I will never know what the difference is. Almost everything produced on a farm is zero rated as regards VAT, whereas, just to put the other side of the picture, rents are exempt. That can be a complication. As this Bill is a little further ahead in its passage than the Scottish one, I am a little concerned
1408
that there may be differences which I do not believe will be in the best interests of the four countries involved, including Northern Ireland.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, pointed out, Amendments Nos. 134 and 135 would radically affect Clause 105. We had a lengthy debate on forestry in Committee. Therefore, I shall follow the example set by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, and not revisit every particular grove that we raddled about in at that time. I did not find what the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, said on 9th June to be persuasive; indeed, I do not find it any more persuasive now.
The commissioners may be accountable to the assembly in relation to their functions in Wales. I cannot accept the rather overheated suggestion that, because this concerns accountability to the Welsh assembly, there might be adverse commercial consequences. I see nothing in that argument. Of course, the forestry industry is very important to Wales. After all, it owns 120,000 hectares. The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, has already indicated the employment consequences of its existence in Wales, as well as drawing our attention to the fact that 15 per cent. of the total British output is produced in Wales. We believe that that is a very good reason for putting the funding of its functions in Wales into the hands of the assembly. Obviously, as a consequence, the commissioners would have to be fully accountable to the assembly for their activities in Wales. We would say that that is simply one of the points of devolution.
After all, different institutions are sometimes established in the Welsh context and exist at present. I have in mind the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales, which deals with the appropriate areas in Wales only and on a Wales-only basis. There is a completely different funding council for England, and I have not come to the conclusion that that is a disadvantage to Wales or indeed to England.
Section 1(2) of the Forestry Act 1967, which is referred to in paragraph 1 of Schedule 7, charges the commissioners with the duty of promoting the interests of forestry, the development of afforestation, the production and supply of timber and other forest products in Great Britain. There is nothing in the Bill anywhere which can affect those duties, either now or in the future. All that an order under paragraph 1 of Schedule 7 could do would be to allow England, Wales and Scotland to be substitutes for Great Britain, thereby producing the consequence that the commissioners would be allowed to exercise their functions separately in respect of England, Wales and Scotland. We believe that that is an essential part of our proposals for devolving responsibility for forestry, and that it is entirely consistent with our proposals for wider democracy.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, is quite right. Paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 devolves to the assembly the present functions of the Secretary of State for Wales relating to agriculture, forestry, fisheries and food. Moreover, Clause 105, especially subsection (1), provides the funding mechanism.

1409
At present, the Secretary of State for Wales is the forestry Minister for Wales. He has to exercise his functions jointly with the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Scotland. We need the ability contained in paragraph 1 of Schedule 7 to split the joint functions so that the assembly, the Scottish Executive and the Minister of Agriculture can deal with matters in their appropriate areas.
To answer specifically the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, I should point out to him that there is no reason why he should not carry on in exactly the same way. The commission will not lose any of its powers. There is no reason at all why the present regime should not continue. However, bearing in mind the sensitivities and delicacies of this area, I should stress that the present role of the Secretary of State for Wales will fall to the assembly in relation to Wales and Wales alone. I am sure that the noble Lord will receive the same co-operative response in the future because the commission official will be reporting to the commissioners but they will be accountable and funded in an all-Wales context.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, I should point out that it is also important to realise what paragraph 1 of the schedule does and does not do. It does not allow for the abolition of the Forestry Commission; it does not allow for the establishment of a separate commission for Wales. The important distinction—and I agree that it is an important one—is that it simply allows for the commissioners' functions to be made separately exercisable for Wales. I hope that that is a useful clarification of what I agree is perhaps a rather cloudy schedule, at least unless one sat down for a day or two with a wet towel and a hot pot of coffee to consider it.
In many ways, this debate comes down to a difference in approach and a different principle. We believe that the point of devolution is to devolve the powers of the Secretary of State to the assembly. We do not believe that the suggestion put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, is realistic. We feel—this is the principle—that you need to trust the people. It is said that duplication or triplication will be difficult, but is it all that different from the position of the planning inspectorate agency, which is funded by two government departments, the DETR and the Welsh Office, or that of the Environment Agency, which can do better because it is funded by three departments, the DETR, MAFF and the Welsh Office?
If the dispute cannot be resolved, the assembly's duty is perfectly plain; it is set out in Clause 105. It has to fund the Forestry Commission's activities in Wales. It will not be on every occasion that a conclusion about Forestry Commission policy in Wales will be identical to that on policy and strategic planning in England or in Scotland. There is no real reason why every decision should be identical in every circumstance.
I think there is a difference of principle here. We believe that the powers ought to be devolved; that is what Schedule 2 says. Clause 105 provides the funding mechanism and Schedule 7 is limited in the way that I have indicated. I hope that is sufficient explanation to
1410
induce, coax and cajole the noble Lord into accepting that his amendments are wholly misconceived and to withdraw them.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his comments. There is a difference of principle here. We believe that the Forestry Commission operates best on a Great Britain basis, and that difficulties will arise if the functions are exercised separately in the three countries simply because of the accountability for the exercise of those functions which will obviously differ as between England, Scotland and Wales.
There is, of course, the point that the Scottish parliament will have primary legislative powers while the assembly will not, and that the Scottish parliament can make separate provision in Scotland. I shall certainly consider what the Minister has said. In that spirit, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 7 [Forestry Commissioners]:
[Amendment No. 135 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendments Nos. 136 to 138:
Page 92, line 31, leave out ("of the Assembly").
Page 92, line 43, leave out ("of the Assembly").
Page 94, line 21, leave out ("of the Assembly").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 136 to 138 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 139 and 140 not moved.]
Clause 106 [Community law]:
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 140A:
Page 55, line 24, at end insert—
("(1A) Subsection (1) does not apply in the case of a Community obligation of the United Kingdom if—

(a) it is an obligation to achieve a result defined by reference to a quantity (whether expressed as an amount, proportion or ratio or otherwise), and

(b) the quantity relates to the United Kingdom (or to an area including the United Kingdom or to an area consisting of a part of the United Kingdom which includes the whole or part of Wales).

(1B) But if such a Community obligation could (to any extent) be implemented (or enabled to be implemented) or complied with by the exercise by the Assembly of any of its functions, a Minister of the Crown may by order provide for the achievement by the Assembly (in the exercise of its functions) of so much of the result to be achieved under the Community obligation as is specified in the order.
(1C) The order may specify the time by which any part of the result to be achieved by the Assembly is to be achieved.
(1D) No order shall be made by a Minister of the Crown under subsection (1B) unless he has consulted the Assembly.
(1E) Where an order under subsection (1B) is in force in relation to a Community obligation, to the extent that the Community obligation involves achieving what is specified in the order it is also an obligation of the Assembly (enforceable as if it were an obligation of the Assembly under subsection (1)).").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 140A I shall speak also to the other amendments in this group standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn.
Clause 106 provides for a Community obligation of the United Kingdom also to be an obligation of the assembly to the extent that the assembly can implement or comply with it. Clause 108 deals with the United Kingdom's international obligations which generally do not form part of domestic law, and provides override powers for the Secretary of State to ensure that the assembly complies with these obligations.
The Government have identified a gap in the provisions, namely the various obligations of the United Kingdom which are expressed in quantitative terms, such as an amount, proportion or ratio. We shall bring forward equivalent amendments to the Scotland Bill at the appropriate time. If I could give an example, the Kyoto agreement provides for emissions in greenhouse gases to be reduced over the next 15 years.
Amendments Nos. 140A and 148A confer on Ministers of the Crown the power to specify, by order, the assembly's share of such quantitative obligations; and the time by which any part of the result to be achieved by the assembly is to be achieved. The power is conferred on a Minister of the Crown and so in theory could be exercised by any Minister. However, the Government expect that, because of their importance, decisions on these orders and on the use of the override powers in Clause 108—to which I shall return shortly—would be taken by Ministers of Cabinet rank.
In making an order, a Minister would have to have regard to what the assembly can achieve within its powers. The amendments require that the assembly must be consulted before any order is made, and Amendment No. 231A provides for the orders to be subject to the negative resolution procedure in Parliament.
It would be for the assembly to decide, in exercising its various functions, how best to achieve its share of a quantitative obligation, although in the case of the international obligations covered by Clause 108 a Minister could direct the assembly to take or not to take a particular action.
It is often the case that a long timescale is specified for the implementation of a particular target. In such circumstances, the United Kingdom Government need to be sure that the assembly will be taking appropriate interim steps to meet its share of the target. The Government will give further urgent consideration to these matters, and I therefore want to give the House notice that it may be necessary to return with further minor amendments on this point at Third Reading.
Amendments Nos. 140E, 142A and 143A provide that the override powers in Clause 108 can be exercised by a Minister of the Crown instead of by the Secretary of State. Your Lordships will appreciate that many of the quantitative obligations relevant to the assembly will be in the field of agriculture, and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food does not fall within the
1412
term "Secretary of State". The other amendments to Clause 108 in this group are minor consequential drafting changes.
Amendment No. 140B provides that it is ultra vires the assembly to do anything which is incompatible with its share of a Community quantitative obligation. Amendments Nos. 148B and 148C adapt the judicial dispute mechanisms in Schedule 8 so that a question whether the assembly had failed to comply with a duty imposed upon it, including a question whether the assembly had failed to comply with an obligation which is an obligation by virtue of Clause 106, would be a "devolution issue" which could be referred to the Judicial Committee. This would cover such things as failures by the assembly to comply with its share of a Community obligation.
Likewise, a question whether a purported or proposed exercise of a function by the assembly is, or would be, outside its powers by virtue of Clauses 106 or 107 would also be a devolution issue: this encompasses whether the exercise of a function would be incompatible with the assembly's share of a Community obligation.
These amendments ensure that, where appropriate, a share of the United Kingdom's Community or other international quantitative obligations can be specified for the assembly; and that the assembly will be obliged then to meet that share, while leaving the assembly to decide how best to do so. I beg to move.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, I welcome these amendments. I wish to flag up their importance in terms of the way they set for the assembly an agenda for meeting international obligations on sustainable development and other issues relating to environmental control. I believe that we have over 300 various international treaties and protocols relating to the environment, in addition to those aspects of European Community law which place an obligation upon member states in this regard.
Increasingly now—this will probably be the case in the forthcoming informal summit to be held under the Austrian presidency in October—the level of the European region or the small nation is seen as an appropriate level for implementing environmental protection measures and sustainable development measures as they apply to protocols and quantitative and qualitative standards of this kind. I know, for example, that the sustainable development round table is soon to take evidence on the effectiveness of the new arrangements in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales for delivering sustainable development. I am certain this is one of the aspects it will wish to study.
I also know that the European Environment Agency is increasingly looking to partnerships with the regions through the various centres of excellence in the regions and their various topic centres. It is looking to the regions as partners in the whole area of implementing sustainable development. These amendments bring a new clarity to the Bill. I very much welcome them.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, we, too, welcome these amendments. First, I should thank the

1413
noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, for sending me a letter explaining their purport. They are perfectly fair amendments to enable Wales to undertake its appropriate share of a United Kingdom obligation to achieve an overall result that is quantifiable.
It is clear that no order can be made by a Minister without consulting the assembly. We believe that that is right. I suggest that the Minister could belong to any government department and, most likely, to the department with the task of achieving a particular result.
The noble Lord explained in his letter that the Minister concerned might be the Minister of Agriculture, who,
"does not fall within the term 'Secretary of State'".
Will the noble Lord confirm that that is all that lies behind the change in terminology, and that the Government do not anticipate the demise of the office of Secretary of State for Wales or Secretary of State for Scotland in the not-too-distant-future and that is part of the reason for the change?
On another small point, presumably "Minister of the Crown" does not cover an assembly Secretary, or indeed a member of the Scottish executive.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, first, we do not envisage the demise of the Secretary of State for either Wales or Scotland. Secondly, "Minister of the Crown" does not include either an assembly Secretary or a member of the Scottish executive. So I am able to give the noble Lord the confirmation that he seeks.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 140B:
Page 55, line 29, at end insert ("or an obligation under subsection (1E).").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 107 [Human rights]:
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 140C:
Page 55, line 36, leave out from ("tribunal") to end of line 39 and insert (", or
(b) to rely on any of the Convention rights in any such proceedings,
in respect of an act unless he would be a victim for the purposes of Article 34 of the Convention if proceedings were brought in the European Court of Human Rights in respect of that act.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to the other amendments in this group standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn; namely, Amendments Nos. 140C, 140D, 230A, 231B and 234A.
The House agreed to government amendments in Committee that were intended to bring the provisions of this Bill into line with those of the Human Rights Bill. On further reflection, we think it is necessary to return with further government amendments to Clause 107 and other clauses, although they do not alter the substance or effect of those provisions.
These amendments are necessary because it is probable that the Human Rights Act will not be brought fully into force by the time that the assembly is established and assumes its functions in the early summer of 1999. The Government have decided that the assembly should be bound to observe the convention rights from the outset, and the amendments before your Lordships today are intended to ensure that Clause 107 can operate effectively in the period before the Human Rights Act is brought into force.
Amendment No. 140C amends subsection (2) of Clause 107 so that a person could not bring proceedings about an act of the assembly relying on subsection (1) unless he would be a victim for the purposes of Article 34 of the Convention if proceedings were brought in the European Court of Human Rights in respect of that act. The amendment removes the reference to the equivalent provision in the Human Rights Act, so the effect of the subsection is unchanged.
Amendment No. 140D alters subsection (4) of Clause 107, by replacing the reference to damages which could not be awarded "by virtue of that Act" with a form of words that has precisely the same effect. However, the new form of words copes with the position where the Human Rights Act is an Act but has not been brought into force.
Amendment No. 140D also inserts definitions of "the Convention rights" and "the Convention" in a new subsection (5). The changes to Clauses 155 and 156 are consequential on that.
Finally, Amendment No. 230A inserts a specific transitional provision into Clause 153, so that Clause 107 can operate successfully in advance of the Human Rights Act coming fully into force. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, from these Benches I indicate a welcome for, and acceptance of, the amendments. They seek to address a concern that I raised some months ago when the Human Rights Bill was debated in this House. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General will forgive me if I say that the experience of the Government in having to introduce amendments at Committee stage and then amend them on Report, illustrates the value of a revising Chamber. As the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay of Cartvale—whom I am happy to see in her place—will appreciate, that is a live issue in debating the Scotland Bill.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I recognise that the amendment is necessary in order to bring this Bill into line with the Human Rights Bill. As the noble and learned Lord the Minister knows, I disagree profoundly with the "victim" test in the Human Rights Bill. It is an alien import from a completely different purpose under the convention and is used in a way that is against principle and will damage the effectiveness of the Human Rights Act when it comes into force. This provision is consequential on decisions taken in relation to that Bill. I should not like the absence of any voice on my part to be taken as an assent to the principle. However, I agree with the amendment as a consequential amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 140D:
Page 56, line 5, leave out from ("award") to end of line 6 and insert ("in respect of an act any damages which it could not award on finding the act unlawful under that subsection.
(5) In this Act "the Convention rights" has the same meaning as in the Human Rights Act 1998 and in subsection (2) "the Convention" has the same meaning as in that Act.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 108 [International obligations]:
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 140E:
Page 56, line 7, leave out ("the Secretary of State") and insert ("a Minister of the Crown").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 141:
Page 56, line 8, at end insert ("treaty").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, with the leave of the House I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 142 to 148. This group of amendments was drafted and tabled before I had the opportunity of seeing the government amendments, beginning with Amendment No. 140A and running through to Amendment No. 148B, which form part of two fairly large groupings dealing with this clause. Therefore, I readily accept at the outset that the drafting of my amendments may not be entirely easy to reconcile with the drafting of the various government amendments, to which no objection is offered.
Nevertheless, I shall press on with my amendments in a probing frame of mind and seek to explore with the Government why it is that the Secretary of State is being given, in regard to the Welsh assembly, the right to intervene as set out in subsections (2) and (3) of the clause in relation to what are defined as "international obligations".
My amendments have two purposes. The first is to seek to define "international obligations" and "international legal obligations" constituted by a treaty, convention or other agreement, seeking to refine the term "international obligations"—or "international obligation", as it will become after the Government's amendments are agreed to—in order to make it clear that what we are talking about is not a general understanding that may be entered into between the United Kingdom Government, on the one hand, and another nation state, on the other, but international legal obligations which are binding on the United Kingdom under international law.
The second purpose of the amendments is to make it clear that, if the Secretary of State is of the view that what the Welsh assembly has done, or refuses to do, is incompatible with such international obligations, he has the option of going to the court for a declarator or declaration to that effect, or, alternatively, taking action by order, which is the purpose of my Amendment No. 144. To some extent this matter is already dealt with in subsection (3) of Clause 108, but the provision in Amendment No. 144 is in broader terms and the power is not limited to revoking subordinate legislation.
A similar clause in the Scotland Bill has been described as being of the nature of a colonial governor's power Bill, entitling the Secretary of State to march in and order the Scottish parliament about. I do not believe that such an approach would be desirable if one was trying to encourage a devolved body, whether it be the Welsh assembly or the Scottish parliament, to be seen to be as independent as is possible within the devolved framework in which it will act.
I fully accept that the Secretary of State may require to have residual powers. Indeed, in the Scotland Bill it is intended that the power should not only extend to international obligations but also where there is concern about the interests of defence or national security. I should be interested to hear from the Minister whether it is proposed to bring forward similar amendments to this Bill.
I believe that the Secretary of State should either go to the court for an order on the legal issues that arise, or, if he is satisfied that he is right in law, should exercise the power which I seek to give him by Amendment No. 144. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, my comments here relate to Amendments Nos. 141 to 148, which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, has proposed to Clause 108 of the Bill. I believe it would be helpful to your Lordships' consideration of these issues if I first provided the House with an explanation of the Government's thinking with regard to the need for the clause.
The provisions of Clause 108, as currently drafted, ensure that Ministers will have the power to prevent the assembly from taking action which is incompatible with the international obligations of the United Kingdom. No such intervention will apply in respect of Community law and convention rights as the Bill, in Clauses 106 and 107, places an explicit requirement on the assembly to observe such obligations. This is possible because these obligations form, or soon will form, part of legislation made by the Westminster Parliament for the United Kingdom and will thus become part of the domestic law of this country. However, as far as Clause 108 is concerned, it is not the case that all international obligations of the United Kingdom have been incorporated into domestic legislation. Thus the reserve power in Clause 108 is a deliberate one to allow Ministers to intervene if the assembly is considering an incompatible action or has already taken it.
Furthermore, not all international obligations are in the form of treaty. Some—for example, the Rio Declaration on the Environment and Development—take the form of conventions, protocols or heads of agreement. As a consequence, Amendments Nos. 141 and 146, which seek to insert the word "treaty", may have the effect of leaving the United Kingdom Government without the power to deliver certain obligations to which they are committed, to the extent that they are ones which fall within the competence of the assembly.
Amendments Nos. 142 and 143 would remove Ministers' power to direct that an action may or may not be taken, and instead allow the Secretary of State to

1417
apply to an appropriate court for a declaration that an action is incompatible with international obligations or that action is required by the assembly to give effect to an international obligation. In addition, and consequential upon the earlier amendments, Amendment No. 142 goes on to allow the Secretary of State to make rules to define the applicable court.
Amendments Nos. 141, 142, 143 and 146 would introduce a serious weakening of Ministers' powers to take action. The Government firmly believe, for the purposes of Clause 108, that action by order would be the more effective mechanism for safeguarding the United Kingdom's international obligations. The order-making power would, of course, be subject to parliamentary procedures and scrutiny, which would not be the case if the courts were given a role in these matters.
Amendment No. 145 is consequential to others in this grouping, but by itself the amendment would oblige the Secretary of State to consult with the assembly only when he was prepared to exercise his order-making power under Clause 108 for action to be taken to remedy assembly subordinate legislation, or that which could be revoked by the assembly, which is incompatible with an international obligation.
It appears odd that those on the Front Bench opposite wish to strike out only part of the consultation provision set out in Clause 108(6). In any case, if the assembly's actions, or proposed actions, were seen to be in breach of an international obligation and the Secretary of State was minded to take appropriate action, this is already covered, as subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 108 give the Secretary of State the power to direct the assembly that action should or should not be taken. The amendment is therefore unnecessary.
Amendments Nos. 147 and 148 attempt to provide a definition of the international obligations for the purposes of Clause 108. As I have indicated, international obligations can take many forms and it would be counter-productive to attempt to define them in the way proposed by these amendments.
I hope that, in view of the explanations I have given, the noble and learned Lord will be minded to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General for a very full explanation of the reasoning behind this clause. As I indicated, in the light of all the government amendments, I have no intention of pressing my amendment to a Division. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 141.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 141A:
Page 56, line 9, leave out ("obligations") and insert ("obligation").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 142 not moved.]
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendments Nos. 142A and 142B:
Page 56, line 11, leave out ("the Secretary of State") and insert ("a Minister of the Crown").
Page 56, line 13, leave out ("obligations") and insert ("obligation").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 143 not moved.]
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendments Nos. 143A and 143B:
Page 56, line 15, leave out ("the Secretary of State") and insert ("a Minister of the Crown").
Page 56, line 17, leave out ("obligations") and insert ("obligation").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 144 not moved.]
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendments Nos. 144A and 144B:
Page 56, line 24, leave out ("this section") and insert ("subsection (1),(2) or (3)").
Page 56, line 27, leave out subsection (6).
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 145 and 146 not moved.]
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 146A:
Page 56, line 29, leave out from first ("international") to ("not") in line 32 and insert ("obligation" means an international obligation of the United Kingdom other than—

(a) an obligation under Community law, or

(b) an obligation").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 147 and 148 not moved.]
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 148A:
Page 56, line 33, at end insert—
("(7A) A Minister of the Crown may make an order containing provision such as is specified in subsection (7B) where—

(a) an international obligation is an obligation to achieve a result defined by reference to a quantity (whether expressed as an amount, proportion or ratio or otherwise), and

(b) the quantity relates to the United Kingdom (or to an area including the United Kingdom or to an area consisting of a part of the United Kingdom which includes the whole or part of Wales).

(7B) The provision referred to in subsection (7A) is provision for the achievement by the Assembly (in the exercise of its functions) of so much of the result to be achieved under the international obligation as is specified in the order.
(7C) The order may specify the time by which any part of the result to be achieved by the Assembly is to be achieved.
(7D) Where an order under subsection (7A) is in force in relation to an international obligation, references to the international obligation in subsections (1) to (3) are to an obligation to achieve so much of the result to be achieved under the international obligation as is specified in the order by the time or times so specified.
(7E) No order shall be made by a Minister of the Crown under subsection (2),(3) or (7A) unless he has consulted the Assembly.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 8 [Devolution issues]:
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendments Nos. 148B and 148C:
Page 94, line 38, leave out ("incompatible with Community law or any of the Convention rights)") and insert ("outside its powers by virtue of section 106(2) or 107(1))").
Page 94, line 42, leave out ("Community obligation which is an obligation of the Assembly)") and insert ('obligation which is an obligation of the Assembly by virtue of section 106(1) or (1E))").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
7 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 149:
Page 95, line 41, leave out ("Judicial Committee") and insert ("House of Lords").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 149, I shall, with the leave of the House, speak also to the amendments which run through to Amendment No. 169.
These amendments return to an issue which I raised at Committee stage; namely, whether the ultimate court of appeal on devolution issues should be the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, restricted as the Bill provides to those members of the Privy Council who have held office as Lords of Appeal in Ordinary or who hold or have held high judicial office, as that term is defined in Section 25 of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876. That is one alternative. The other is that the ultimate court, as this amendment seeks to bring about, should be the Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House.
In replying to the debate on the last occasion, the noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General set out three reasons why the Government considered that the Judicial Committee was the appropriate body to be the final arbiter on constitutional matters which will arise as devolution issues after the coming into being of both the assembly and the Scottish parliament.
The first reason he gave was that the Privy Council had experience of acting as the constitutional court of appeal for the colonies and various parts of the Commonwealth. The second was the need for it to be a flexible mechanism to deal with such disputes promptly—the suggestion being that by adding to the judicial workload of the Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House, it might be impossible to achieve sufficiently prompt decisions. The third reason was that the larger number of judges that would be entitled to sit if the jurisdiction was placed with the Judicial Committee would be an advantage.
I reflected carefully on the detailed reply given by the noble and learned Lord and discussed what he said with a number of Members of your Lordships' House and others outside. Having done so, I remain concerned that the Government have not reached the correct decision on what is clearly a difficult issue. To explain that, perhaps I can give my reaction to the detailed reasons which the Solicitor-General gave.
First, there was a suggestion that the Privy Council had experience of appeals from the colonies and the British Commonwealth. That is entirely correct. But the Bill before us on this occasion—as indeed did the Scotland Bill—will preclude any judges from Commonwealth countries from sitting on devolution issue cases. Therefore, the only members of the Judicial Committee who have experience of such constitutional cases will be those Members of your Lordships' House who currently hold or who have held in the past, office as Lords of Appeal in Ordinary. It is rare that a High Court judge from one of the jurisdictions within the United Kingdom sits as a member of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. That reason therefore does not stand up to detailed scrutiny. The same individuals will be sitting whether the jurisdiction is with the Judicial Committee on the one hand or this House on the other.
The second reason advanced was a need for a speedy resolution of disputes. I accept that that is desirable. But it is equally desirable that the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary should play a major part in the court that ultimately resolves the devolution issue and therefore, if there were to be any suggestion of the existing workload of the Appellate Committee making it impossible for the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary to play a major role in the final court that arbitrates on devolution issues, that would be extremely regrettable. The public will expect the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary to play a role and any problems that that might cause for their workload will require to be addressed by whichever court the jurisdiction is placed with.
The third reason given was that this would admit a wider pool of judges. I fully accept that, as a matter of fact, that is correct. My problem with that reason is that it was not taken into account when the decision was made. When the White Papers were published, it was made clear that it was proposed that the Judicial Committee was to be the final court of appeal. But it was also made clear that those who would sit on the Judicial Committee would be restricted to serving Lords of Appeal in Ordinary. Therefore, not even retired Lords of Appeal in Ordinary would be eligible to sit; only those who currently serve. As a lawyer, I have some difficulty—not for the first time—in accepting as a valid reason for a decision, a reason which was not available when the decision was taken and certainly was not one of the reasons for the decision when it was taken.
I accept that there are differing views on this matter. I accept that the matter is not entirely straightforward. But I firmly believe that on this occasion the Government have got the balance wrong and come to the wrong decision. Apart from the reasons which the noble and learned Lord discussed in his reply to my speech on the last occasion, there are other reasons that should not be forgotten. One is the fact that the decisions of the Welsh assembly, and indeed of the Scottish executive, will be challenged on a variety of issues. In a number of respects, it will be suggested that they acted beyond their powers; in other words, they have acted ultra vires, as lawyers would describe it. In some instances, those vires questions will be devolution issues and in others they will not. Therefore, there is a

1421
serious risk of some cases involving a challenge to the Scottish executive going up one legal route to the House of Lords and, equally, others going up another legal route; that of the Judicial Committee to the Privy Council.
Even the Bill as drafted would not preclude the House of Lords considering and deciding upon devolution issues if it felt it appropriate to do so. Therefore, there is some concern that there will be confusion and that parties may become involved in more than one litigation and, consequently, involved in unnecessary expense.
There is the further reason that I mentioned on the last occasion; that is, that some people hold the view—and it has some merit—that giving additional jurisdiction to the Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House may serve to reinforce the supremacy of this Parliament. I fully accept that, in debating this Bill, those who are taking part in the discussions are not concerned with the threat of nationalism or with the cry for independence which is undoubtedly building up a certain head of steam at the moment in Scotland. But this further way of reinforcing the fact that this Parliament is supreme, and that in judicial matters the Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House is the superior court, is not a consideration that should be thrown away lightly. Others hold the view that if this jurisdiction is placed with the Judicial Committee, it will become an encouragement to having a constitutional court in this country—again, a major issue on which differing views are held. I am against it, but I readily accept that others are for it.
If we are to have a constitutional court, that is a major issue which should be addressed separately, carefully and in a considered manner. It should not be allowed to develop almost unconsciously from a development such as at present, which seeks to put this jurisdiction to the Privy Council.
For all those reasons, therefore, I press Amendment No. 149 as a matter which merits serious consideration by your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, has made an important point. He says that having issues determined by the House of Lords would emphasise the supremacy of this Parliament. But in many devolution issues, if not perhaps in all, the question that will be decided will be the powers of the Welsh assembly as against this Parliament. Therefore, his argument on principle—that the supremacy of this Parliament should be emphasised, should be invoked, when this Parliament is a party to the dispute—seems to me, in principle, to be quite wrong.
The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council takes its jurisdiction directly from the Crown. Traditionally, the Judicial Committee give advice to Her Majesty. It is Her Majesty's order that is made in every appeal that comes from Commonwealth countries, or indeed from other jurisdictions, other areas, where the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has responsibility.
1422
To my mind, if the combatants in a piece of litigation are, on the one hand, the Welsh assembly and, on the other, Westminster, it is far more appropriate that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, taking authority straight from the Crown, should be the arbiter.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I rise with trepidation to comment, as a lay person, on this subject. Some time ago I read a lecture given to Edinburgh lawyers by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, in which he discussed this matter and expressed opinions close to those that my noble and learned friend has expressed. I tried to understand these and I found them somewhat convincing.
It seems to me that on this issue it is extremely important that the process should work, but also that it looks right to people on the ground. These are amendments of high emotion and I am not convinced that in Scotland, at any rate, what was said by the noble Lord from the Liberal Benches is the case. The Judicial Committee and Her Majesty deciding issues will seem strange to people. They are used to the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary making ultimate decisions on legal issues in civil matters, but not in criminal matters in Scotland. They are completely accustomed to that, and I believe that they would accept that. I say that simply as an observer of the scene who is interested in that. Other points which my noble and learned friend made perhaps refute the case made by the noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General at the previous stage, when I listened with great attention.
I understand from the lecture of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and from what my noble and learned friend has just said, that some of the issues which arise may be devolution issues, but some may not be and they may get mixed up together.
The second point which my noble and learned friend made is about what works. One could have the Judicial Committee and the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary deciding issues which are closely related, if not identical. Can the noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General tell us who will win if they decide differently?
7.15 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, rightly pointed out, this raises the question of whether the final court determining devolution issues should be the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council or the Appellate Committee of this House. I gave the noble and learned Lord a full account of our reasoning in Committee. Could I briefly go over it again, without being too repetitive, because the noble and learned Lord has himself gone over it again?
There are, as he rightly identified, three reasons. First, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council already acts as the final constitutional court of appeal for various parts of the Commonwealth and in respect of certain colonies. That is a function which gives it particular experience in dealing with the kind of issues that will arise in relation to devolution. The kind of matters that

1423
will arise in that respect will be issues about the powers of an assembly, so where in a constitutional settlement does power arise? That is the kind of issue that, from time to time, it has to resolve in relation to the written constitutions of other states.
Secondly, and I respectfully admit that this is an important point, the issues that could arise as devolution issues could be of great emotional or political importance at a particular time. Moreover, they will have the debilitating effect potentially upon the progress of certain measures through the Welsh assembly or the implementation of such measures. It is plainly of the greatest importance in these circumstances that those measures be dealt with as promptly as possible.
Thirdly, there is no doubt that the workload on the Appellate Committee of this House is heavy at the moment. If the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is used, as opposed to the Appellate Committee of this House, there will be a greater pool of people who can be used. It means more than just Lords of Appeal in Ordinary; it means anybody who has held high judicial office who is a Privy Counsellor. That provides a much wider pool and it seems to me to be sensible that it should be used. No undertaking was given, or no indication was given, that such people would not be used in relation to Welsh assembly devolution issues. It seems to me entirely sensible that they should.
In those circumstances, one has a court which is used to dealing with the issues; a court which is likely to be quicker than the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords; and a court which has a wider pool from which to draw than the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords. Equally importantly, I believe that that court is held in the widest possible respect throughout the United Kingdom. There could be no doubt about both its ability and its experience to deal with such issues.
With greatest respect to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, I believe that when he referred to the "supremacy of Parliament" he was muddled as to what that phrase means. There is no doubt that Parliament is supreme in relation to the activities of the Welsh assembly, but one is talking there about legislative supremacy and not about the role of a body exercising a court function, resolving disputes between parties.
It seems to me that nobody could possibly doubt that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council was a separate and appropriate body to deal with that. It can deal with it more quickly and it has people experienced to deal with it. I would respectfully submit that the balance of the argument favours the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
I have not had an opportunity to read the lecture to which the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, referred in her speech, but I did not understand her to be saying anything over and above that which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, said. When one analyses it, I believe that the sensible choice is the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. I believe it is a choice that would command widespread respect. Therefore, despite the eloquent arguments put by the
1424
noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, ably supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, I do not believe that there is any reason for the Government to change their mind in relation to that.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I apologise because I have heard only the speech of the noble and learned Lord the Minister. However, having heard his speech, I wonder whether he can deal with a point which concerns me. Has the time not come to have a Supreme Court with one jurisdiction rather than conflict between the Appellate Committee and the Privy Council? There should be a unified court with a constant membership.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, that is a rather wide issue. I do not think that this is the appropriate amendment on which to discuss the question of whether there should be a Supreme Court. I should deal with the issue of conflict, which was raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon. The noble and learned Lord will be aware that paragraph 29 of Schedule 8 to the Bill states:
"Any devolution issue which arises in judicial proceedings in the House of Lords shall be referred to the Judicial Committee unless the House considers it more appropriate, having regard to all the circumstances, that they should determine the issue".
Of all the people in all the world who would be able to decide whether there would be a conflict, I should have thought that the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords would be the best people to judge in any individual case whether there was a risk of conflict. With respect to the noble and learned Lord, I think that that deals with the conflict point.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, with the leave of the House, there is that aspect to the conflict. However, the point that my noble friend Lady Carnegy stressed, on which I certainly intended to touch, was the problem of the Appellate Committee on the one hand deciding an issue one way and the Judicial Committee on the other hand deciding it the other way. My noble friend posed the question: who wins?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, unless they are sitting simultaneously in relation to the same issue, which will never happen, the one will have the benefit of the other. Therefore, they themselves will be in a position to determine what the right result should be in relation to that. So I think that the idea of the conflict to which the noble Baroness referred is unrealistic. The court will have the benefit of previously decided cases both in the Judicial Committee and in the House of Lords before it comes to a conclusion and it will be able to take that into account. As the noble and learned Lord knows, the House of Lords, when sitting judicially, is entitled to depart from its previous decisions.
In any event—and an even better point—paragraph 32 of Schedule 8 states:
"Any decision of the Judicial Committee in proceedings under this Schedule … shall be binding in all legal proceedings (other than proceedings before the Judicial Committee)".

1425
So there are two answers.
I think I have dealt with all the points. The noble and learned Lord has not referred to his other amendments, which deal with costs issues, so I will not refer to those. In the light of my reply, I respectfully ask the noble and learned Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I am grateful, as always, to the noble and learned Lord. It will be one of the regrets of my legal career that I never had the opportunity of appearing against him in court, although, who knows, once devolution issues come thick and fast, we may yet meet.
Perhaps I may begin by responding to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas. I may be wrong but I do not understand that this Parliament will be a party in any legal proceedings in which devolution issues arise. The parties as far as concerns this part of the world will be the United Kingdom Government represented by one or other of the Law Officers. So I think the noble and learned Lord's point may not be, as we sometimes say in the courts, his best point.
The noble and learned Lord more than once stressed that this is a situation where the arguments require to be balanced, and that it is not clear-cut one way. I fully accept, taking one of the detailed points that was raised, that paragraph 32 of Schedule 8 says what it says. But it still seems to me that there is a concern about conflict and there is a concern about some of the wider issues on which I focused. For that reason, I seek to take the opinion of the House.
7.24 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 149) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 39; Not-Contents, 82.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Annaly, L.

Marlesford, L.

Balfour, E.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Biddulph, L.

Mersey, V.

Burnham, L. [Teller.]

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mottistone, L.

Colwyn, L.

Munster, E.

Courtown, E. [Teller.]

Northesk, E.

Cumberlege, B.

Norton, L.

Denham, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Renton, L.

Fookes, B.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Garel-Jones, L.

Romney, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Harlech, L.

Rowallan, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Kenyon, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Leigh, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

McConnell, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Mancroft, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

1426

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Amos, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Ampthill, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Berkeley, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Carlisle, E.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Jeger, B.

Chandos, V.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Judd, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Kilbracken, L.

David, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Levy, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Desai, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Dholakia, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Dixon, L.

Molloy, L.

Donoughue, L.

Monkswell, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Dubs, L.

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

Dunleath, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Eatwell, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Richard, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Gallacher, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Geraint, L.

St. Davids, V.

Gilbert, L.

Simon, V.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Grenfell, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hacking, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Hanworth, V.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Haskel, L.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Hayman, B.

Whitty, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Winston, L.

Hoyle, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

Hughes, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.32 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 150 to 169 not moved.]
Clause 110 [Power to vary retrospective decisions]:
[Amendments Nos. 170 and 171 not moved.]
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 172:
Page 57, line 9, leave out ("Attorney General") and insert ("relevant law officer").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 172, 173 and 175 were originally proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, in Committee. They would allow each of the UK law officers potentially to be participants in proceedings about devolution issues. In bringing these amendments before your Lordships the Government are fulfilling the pledge that I gave to the noble and learned Lord during the Committee proceedings. At that time,

1427
had our procedures permitted, the Government would have accepted the amendments. As it is, we bring them back, with thanks, now. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 173:
Page 57, line 11, leave out ("Attorney General") and insert ("relevant law officer").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 174 not moved.]
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 175.
Page 57, line 27, after ("In") insert ("this section "the relevant law officer" means—

(a) in relation to proceedings in England and Wales, the Attorney General,

(b) in relation to proceedings in Scotland, the Advocate General for Scotland, and

(c) in relation to proceedings in Northern Ireland, the Attorney General for Northern Ireland;

and in").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 9 [Welsh Administration Ombudsman]:
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendments Nos. 176 to 178:
Page 102, line 18, leave out ("of the Assembly after the first") and insert ("after the first financial year of the Assembly")
Page 102, line 32, leave out ("of the Assembly")
Page 102, line 44, leave out ("of the Assembly")
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving this Motion, may I suggest that the Report stage begins again not before 8.35 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Appropriation (No.2)(Northern Ireland) Order 1998
7.35 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Dubs)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Dubs) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th June be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the draft order before us today authorises expenditure of £3,754 million for Northern Ireland departments in the current financial year. This is in addition to the sum of £3,026 million voted on account in March, and brings total estimates provision for Northern Ireland departments to £6,780 million, an increase of 6 per cent. on 1997–98. The order also authorises the use of additional receipts to meet an excess vote in 1996–97.
I would remind your Lordships that the order does not cover the estimates for the Northern Ireland Office on law and order services. As a Whitehall department,
1428
the estimates for the Northern Ireland Office are dealt with separately. However, the public expenditure decisions underlying the estimates for the Northern Ireland departments and the Northern Ireland Office form part of the Northern Ireland block allocation. As such, the Secretary of State has flexibility to reallocate resources within the block in the light of emerging pressures and easements.
Before turning to the contents of the estimates I hope your Lordships will allow me to make a number of more general comments. I am sure that many of your Lordships would share with me the view that the present process of approving this order is not the most effective means of exploring and examining the Northern Ireland Estimates. However, since in the future it will fall to the new Northern Ireland assembly to deal with the estimates and expenditure currently falling to the six Northern Ireland departments—and this may, therefore, be the last occasion on which the order is brought before this House in this way—this would clearly not be the appropriate time to propose change.
I am sure your Lordships will join with me in recognising the possibilities for truly momentous change flowing from the establishment of the assembly and will share with me in the desire to do everything possible to ensure its success. Indeed, given the present difficult circumstances in the Province, I am sure your Lordships will agree that all those who can bring influence to bear in resolving the present situation should be encouraged to do so. Furthermore, I am sure that your Lordships will agree that the initial cost of the assembly at some £9 million is not a high price to pay compared to the cost and consequences of an absence of democracy. Surely we will all accept that locally elected representatives accessible to, and ultimately accountable to, the people of the Province, provide the best possible chance of a lasting solution to the tensions which remain so evident.
The effects of the present, but, hopefully, temporary disruption in the Province, undoubtedly impact on the prospects for economic development, including tourism. Many observers might see these as self-inflicted wounds. However, past achievements have shown that Northern Ireland can and will recover lost ground. For example, the latest available official statistics show that the Northern Ireland economy remains in good health in almost every area. The main economic indicators have, once again, shown very positive results for the Province.
The output of manufacturing and production industries continues to rise at a rate well above that achieved nationally. Over the past five years, Northern Ireland's manufacturing sector has increased its output by almost 24 per cent.—more than twice the rate of growth achieved nationally. There has also been a significant improvement in the Province's gross domestic product relative to the United Kingdom, with GDP per head rising from 78.2 per cent. of the national average in 1990 to 81.2 per cent. by 1996. Furthermore, record employment levels have also been achieved.
The year 1997–98 has also been a record year for investment in the Province, with planned investment by IDB client companies totalling £713 million, an increase of 12 per cent. on last year's figure. This investment

1429
represents the promotion of 7,137 new jobs while safeguarding a further 4,254 existing jobs. Forty-one inward investment projects contributed anticipated investment of over £520 million. This should create a record high 5,064 new jobs, while safeguarding a further 2,483 jobs.
All of this clearly demonstrates the impressive achievements of the Northern Ireland economy which, coupled with the potential for achieving political stability, provides Northern Ireland with an opportunity for a brighter economic future.
In Northern Ireland, as in the rest of the UK, education and health are government priorities. So far as concerns Northern Ireland, additional funding in these and other comparable national programmes is calculated by reference to the Barnett formula which in essence reflects the broad population balance between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. Budget additions to Northern Ireland public expenditure in 1998–1999 include £34 million for education, £44 million for health and £46 million for welfare-to-work. In addition, the Chancellor's package amounting to £315 million, announced on 12th May, provided funding for roads, education, housing and agriculture, including funding through the proposal to transfer the Port of Belfast to the private sector.
I now turn to the main items of expenditure covered by the order as detailed in the estimates booklet. The figures are generally rounded to the nearest million pounds and I shall be as brief as possible to allow maximum time for debate. I shall start with the Department of Agriculture. In Vote 1, net provision of £17 million is to fund EU and national agriculture support measures.
In Vote 2, £130 million is for on-going regional services and support measures. This includes £63 million for the development of the agriculture and agricultural products industries and for scientific and veterinary services. Some £23 million is for farm support, enhancement of the countryside, and fisheries and forestry services; £22 million is for central administration, including information technology and specialist accommodation services, and £7 million is for the rural development programme. Some £17 million is for the Rivers Agency and some £5 million is in respect of processing and marketing and fishing projects which are wholly funded by the European Union.
In the Department of Economic Development's Vote 1, £160 million is for the Industrial Development Board. As the shadow assembly begins to work towards implementing the Belfast Agreement supported by over 70 per cent. of the people of Northern Ireland in the referendum on 22nd May and re-affirmed in the assembly election at the end of June, the prospect of greater political stability provides a unique opportunity for attracting new investment to Northern Ireland. The IDB already offers a very competitive package of assistance to both new and existing firms and together with a more stable environment will further increase the attractiveness of the Province as a good place to do business. This major commitment of resources will enable the IDB to maintain a high level of support towards improving the Northern Ireland economy.
In Vote 2, £117 million is required. This includes £14 million for the Northern Ireland Tourist Board, to assist the development of tourism in Northern Ireland. In 1995, during the previous ceasefires, almost 1.6 million visitors came to Northern Ireland, an increase of 20 per cent. on the previous year. This aptly demonstrates the potential that exists for attracting tourists and increasing the contribution the tourist industry can make to the economy. At present, spending by holiday visitors and domestic holiday makers accounts for 2 per cent. of Northern Ireland's GDP, sustaining in the region of 12,500 jobs. I hope that at the present time, when Northern Ireland is going through what I believe is a short-term but difficult situation, people will reflect on the consequences of their present conduct on the potential for tourism and attracting inward investment.
In Vote 3, £210 million is sought for the Training and Employment Agency; £62 million is to fund 14,700 training places under the jobskills training programme. A total of £32 million is for the Action for Community Employment Scheme, Community Work Programme and Enterprise Ulster which will provide some 5,780 places for long-term unemployed adults in projects of community benefit. A further £23 million is to assist companies improve their competitiveness by developing the skills of their workforce. Almost £40 million under the Government's welfare-to-work initiative will provide a range of employment and training measures within the new deals for 18–24 year-olds and long-term unemployed.
The Chancellor's recently announced initiative will also provide an additional £42 million from November 1998 to assist the long-term unemployed, providing up to 30,000 places. Taken together with the welfare-to-work allocation, this is a substantial commitment by this Government to tackle the root causes of unemployment and provide new opportunities for work.
I now turn to the Department of the Environment, which in Vote 1, seeks £174 million for roads, transport and ports. This includes £138 million for the development and operation of Northern Ireland's public roads system as well as maintenance which continues to remain a priority.
Vote 2 relates to housing, where £267 million will be provided, mainly to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and the voluntary housing movement. When net borrowing and the Housing Executive's rents and capital receipts from house sales are taken into account, the total resources available for housing will be approximately £603 million.
In Vote 3, gross expenditure of £194 million is estimated on the provision of water and sewerage services, of which £87 million is for capital expenditure and £104 million for operational and maintenance purposes, including administration costs.
In Vote 4, £190 million is being sought for environmental and other services provided by a number of agencies including the Environment and Heritage Service, Planning Service, Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland and the Rate Collection Agency; £38 million is

1431
for the important task of urban regeneration measures targeted at areas of social, economic and environmental need. This represents a net increase approaching £5 million more than last year and it is anticipated that these resources, through various partnerships with the private sector, will continue to produce higher overall investment levels; £30 million will be made available under the EU Peace and Reconciliation Programme of which £23 million will be funded from EU receipts.
The estimates for the Department of Education seek a net total of £1,403 million in Vote 1, an increase of 0.5 per cent. on last year's provision. When account is taken of Northern Ireland's share of receipts in each year from the national sale of the student loan debt, expenditure will increase by 3.2 per cent. Vote 1 includes £833 million for recurrent expenditure by education and library boards, of which £1 million is provided under the Government's new deal. This includes £792 million for schools, and £41 million for libraries, youth, administration and other services.
Vote 1 also provides £37 million for boards' capital projects; £50 million for capital projects in voluntary and grant-maintained integrated schools; and £151 million for recurrent expenditure in voluntary and grant-maintained integrated schools. These amounts include £41 million for grant-maintained integrated schools, an increase of £9 million over 1997–98. The provision for boards' and other schools' capital includes some £6 million under the Government's new deal.
Also in Vote 1, £95 million has been provided for colleges of further education, £112 million for local universities and £133 million for student support, including grants and student loans. The vote also covers expenditure on a range of youth, sport, community and cultural activities, including £16 million for arts and museums, and £4 million for community relations. Some £12 million has also been made available under the EU Peace and Reconciliation Programme, of which £9 million is being funded from EU receipts.
The next set of votes relate to the Department of Health and Social Services where £1,601 million is sought in Vote 1 for expenditure on hospital, community health and personal social services, health and social services trusts, family health services and certain other services. This amount represents an increase of 2.3 per cent. on last year's final net provision.
In Vote 3, £25 million is sought for expenditure on grants to voluntary bodies, research, training, bursaries and further education and certain other services.
In Vote 4, £142 million is sought to meet the department's administration and other miscellaneous costs. This includes £93 million for the Social Security Agency, which also takes into account £2 million in respect of administering the welfare-to-work initiatives; £8 million is for the Northern Ireland Child Support Agency; £4 million for the Health Estates Agency and £37 million for the core department.
In Vote 5, £1,766 million is sought for social security benefit expenditure administered by the Social Security Agency. This represents an increase of 8.6 per cent.
1432
compared to forecast outturn for last year. It covers not only the general uprating of benefits from April 1998, but also an increasing number of beneficiaries.
In Vote 6 £348 million is sought to cover expenditure on the independent living funds, motability, housing benefits, the social fund and payments into the Northern Ireland National Insurance Fund.
Finally, I turn to the new Northern Ireland Assembly vote where £9 million is sought for set-up and operational costs. Pending parliamentary approval of the 1998–99 main estimates, arrangements have been made for resources to be advanced from the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund.
I hope that this short summary of the main components of the estimates is helpful. I commend the order to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th June be approved.—(Lord Dubs.)
7.51 p.m.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, it goes without saying that in the light of the Northern Ireland Assembly and the rather exotic base thereon there may be a considerable change to our debates on appropriation orders, if indeed they exist in their present form in future. Local representatives will in many ways, not yet clearly defined even by themselves, become responsible for the administration of the departments listed in the present order. But the Parliament of the United Kingdom will remain in control of the block grant, as will be the case in Wales. There is a certain parallel. In both cases the Treasury will remain the paymaster. It follows that financial accountability to Parliament must remain. It may not be in such detail but in principle there will have to be accountability.
Presumably, the estimates of the Northern Ireland Office will continue more or less in the same categories but under a form of direct control, if not direct rule. Therefore, the position will not resemble the arrangements that existed under the Government and Parliament of Northern Ireland up until 1972. It follows, I hope, that there will remain a Secretary of State for Northern Ireland with Cabinet rank, as in the case of Wales, as I understand it. Scotland may be in a different position even in advance of achieving independence. That is not my ideal but it may prove to be unstoppable.
I turn to Part II, Vote 1: Department of Agriculture. I should like to raise the plight of the pig industry in Northern Ireland. I am aware that the Minister yesterday met representatives of the Ulster Farmers Union. He will have been made aware of the serious difficulties. As I understand it, the first difficulty is the burden of cost arising from the disposal of offal and dead pigs. That cost is now attributed to the producer. It may appear to be a minor matter, but in an industry that is already in serious trouble and in a depressed state it becomes a large minus factor for the average pig farmer.
An additional burden is imposed by the 1991 legislation that requires the conversion of sow stall and tether systems. I understand that the phasing-in period ends on 1st January 1999. It has been put to me that, although the legislation was and is a requirement of the

1433
European Union, other member states, including our nearest neighbour the Irish Republic, do not share the intention to enforce the conversion in their respective territories. My facts may not be entirely accurate and I should welcome any clarification that the Minister may be able to provide. In similar fashion, there appears to be no ban in the Irish Republic, and as I understand it in other European states, on the use of meat and bonemeal in pig feed. Northern Ireland pig producers do not advocate the use of such dangerous ingredients, but find it difficult to understand why competitors south of the frontier should be permitted to retain a feedstuff cost advantage. I trust that the noble Lord, having reflected upon the proposals put to him yesterday by the Ulster Farmers Union, can give the House some encouraging news this evening.
I turn to the Department of the Environment's Vote 3 dealing with water and related matters (as it is politely called). For several years I have pleaded with successive Ministers in various departments for co-operation and co-ordination between the key elements of the Department of the Environment in regard to housing development in general. The roads and planning sectors, which are now subject to agencies within the department, appear to take no account of the non-availability of water and sewerage facilities, which I understand are also under an agency. I offer as a typical example the village of Glenavy in my former constituency, which is about five miles from my home. The planning and roads agencies gave the go-ahead for new housing estates. The builders moved in and the houses were built and occupied before it was discovered that basic services were almost non-existent and certainly totally inadequate. For two or three years residents had the unedifying experience of mobile slurry tankers shuttling from house to house, all made worse by inevitable spillage. The point that I have raised about co-ordination is made more urgent by the creation of three agencies that cover the fields that I have outlined. For the same reason, I caution against rumoured plans to split up the Department of the Environment. That would tend to make for even less communication and certainly less co-operation.
With Glenavy still in mind, perhaps I may mention that just before the fourfold expansion of that village the primary school and Roman Catholic secondary school were closed and demolished on the grounds the respective authorities decided that the roll in one case was seven short of the 200 required to enable the school to remain in operation. That decision was taken because no one had informed the education authority—I do not refer specifically to the department—that school numbers would mushroom within two years. Now the children have to be bussed long distances to inadequate schools.
That leads me to my final point, which is also related to the Department of Education: Vote 1. One of the primary schools to which children are bussed is Ballycarrickmaddy. (In my notes I have spelt the name of the school in block letters. I shall furnish that information to whoever requires it later.) That primary school is well known to my noble friend Lord McConnell. It is a tiny Victorian building, surrounded
1434
by a sea of mud in wet weather. Around the building dotted in a sea of mud like satellites are numerous mobile classrooms. Noble Lords will recall that the Department for Education in Whitehall made a Statement to the House some months ago that funds were to be made available to remove and replace outside toilets in the whole of England and Wales. In that Statement a time limit was set for the achievement of the target. Has that scheme been extended to Northern Ireland? If so, how has it been put into effect in schools like Ballycarrickmaddy, which passed out of my care at the general election but for which I still have a great affection? That school has no covered connections between the satellite portakabins. If that has proved to be impossible given the architectural layout of the complex, I am afraid that the only alternative is a new school.
8 p.m.
Lord Cooke of Islandreagh: My Lords, the Minister suggested that this is not a satisfactory way of handling the order in this House. I agree with him most heartily, because it is a subject upon which there should be detailed questions and answers for each department. We have only an hour in which to complete the debate on this order. There is no time to go though each section of it. For that reason I shall concentrate on the economy, which influences almost everything in the Province.
The Minister gave pertinent figures for the growth in GDP and employment. He has saved me trouble in that respect. The achievement and the steady growth of the Northern Ireland economy and its manufacturing industry in recent years have been outstanding. For much of that, the noble Baroness, Lady Denton, deserves credit. As Minister responsible for the economy in the previous administration, she worked hard, and, what is more important, effectively for the development of the economy.
Looking ahead, I cannot agree with the rosy outlook described by the Minister because for a variety of reasons the immediate prospects are not all good. For instance, the textile and clothing industry is under severe pressure, due partly to the strength of sterling but also because modern machinery and methods are now being employed in the Far East where labour costs are but a fraction of those in Europe. Long-established textile firms are in real difficulty. I trust the IDB is doing all that it can to assist those firms which provide employment for a large number of people and have been stable, in some cases, over several generations.
The most serious threat to the economy of Northern Ireland relates to agriculture. The EU embargo on beef exports by the UK has affected Northern Ireland more than Great Britain because 55 per cent. of beef in Northern Ireland was exported, in contrast to about 10 per cent. or less in Great Britain. At last the embargo has been lifted in Northern Ireland due to the combined efforts of government and the industry, but unfortunately it will take time before exports can be developed to anything like the former level.
The agri-food industry in Northern Ireland is very important. It accounts for 10 per cent. of total civil employment and 8 per cent. of GDP and has sales of

1435
£2.28 billion, of which 53 per cent. is directed outside the Province. In 1997 total income from farming in Northern Ireland decreased by 38 per cent., due largely to the beef crisis, and it is estimated that agriculture output will decrease by a further £50 million in 1998. Already large numbers of small rural businesses are having to cut their workforce numbers. This is very serious because rural areas in Northern Ireland depend almost entirely on agriculture, and the stable social structure depends on it.
My noble friend Lord Molyneaux spoke about the pig industry where there is a crisis. He gave reasons for it. For example, for more than a year the net margin per pig on a birth-to-bacon basis is negative. It varies from a loss of about £2 to as high as £10 per pig. As a result, pig farmers are in serious debt, and there is no sign of how they can get out of it. I know that the Minister is well aware of the situation. I hope that he can give us some suggestions tonight as to how the industry might find its way back to profitability.
In agriculture generally there is money which should be made available to the farmers, many of whom are seriously in debt to banks and to suppliers. For instance, the revaluation of the UK's green pound rate should be paid out. It has already been paid out in all other EU countries. There are other compensation packages approved by the EU and paid out elsewhere. Will the Minister tell the House what action is proposed to make payment of the various grants and compensations which have put Northern Ireland farmers at a disadvantage, particularly compared with their neighbours in the Republic of Ireland? The general belief is that the Republic of Ireland is much more adept at obtaining EU grants and assistance than is the case in the UK. That does not seem to make good sense.
The recent package of financial assistance announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as a peace package has been widely welcomed. The roads scheme which will help the infrastructure is most urgently needed and I hope can be put in hand without delay because of the time taken—a long time in some cases—to obtain planning permissions. Traffic delays in the Westlink in Belfast have a very high cost attached to them and the improvement is long overdue. For instance, freight traffic to and from Belfast Harbour has been restricted for some years.
Industry in Northern Ireland generally has been handicapped and promises to be handicapped for many years to come by something quite unconnected with the value of sterling or lower labour costs elsewhere. The cost of electrical power to Northern Ireland industry is approximately 30 per cent. higher than in GB and domestic customers are similarly disadvantaged and to an even greater extent than our cross-Border neighbours. That disadvantage is expected to widen in the coming years and promises to continue until the year 2010 when the contracts with the generators can start to be renegotiated. The Director General of OFREG is well aware of the seriousness of those differences and has been working hard to reduce the differential. His responsibilities include transmission and distribution
1436
where his action has reduced charges to consumers, but the real problem lies in the high cost of generation, over which he has no control.
The cost of generation in Northern Ireland is 43 per cent. higher than Great Britain. That is a remarkable difference. A recent report by consultants retained by the regulator shows that generating costs in Northern Ireland do not need to be out of line with those elsewhere. The reason for it is the nature of the generating contracts offered by government in 1993. Those power procurement agreements offer a premium for making the power available, and at the time of signing it was not appreciated by government that prices would fall in Great Britain. A premium is offered for increased availability. By improved efficiency, the generating companies have increased availability and reduced the cost. The present Government were not responsible for those contracts, but they must surely appreciate the disadvantage suffered by industry in Northern Ireland which makes it even more difficult to attract new manufacturing industry to the Province.
At the present time the problem has been complicated by the need to plan for the EC directive on electricity trading which will become effective in February 1999. That requires 25 per cent. of the output in Northern Ireland to be opened to competition.
Consultants have been engaged to work out a system which will nominally comply with the EC Directive, and by complexity of arithmetic it may be possible to devise a system but administration costs will be high both to the generators and to consumers. Due to high fixed costs payable under the long-term power purchase agreements I do not see how any system can be devised which will produce overall savings. In fact the costs of administration may lead to some increase in prices, rather than a decrease.
It is generally believed that OFREG is now in discussion with the generators to see whether some reduction in availability payments can be negotiated, but this can only go a small way to reduce the present large differential of 43 per cent. Surely this is the time, when Government are working on the peace package, to become involved in discussions with OFREG and the generator and to work out ways in which all or part of the present contracts can be bought out. There is, after all, £40 million available which was ear-marked by the last administration which could be regarded as an appetizer. A genuine reduction in power costs would send out a very good signal to industry if included as part of the peace package and of course for domestic consumers it would be very, very welcome.
I wish to ask the Minister whether there is provision in the order for civilian victims of violence and for police who have suffered violence. The issue was highlighted by Sir Kenneth Bloomfield in his recent report. The provision is urgently needed.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I wonder whether it assists the noble Lord, Lord Cooke of Islandreagh, if I correct a minor point? The debate is

1437
not time limited. I am not inviting noble Lords who have yet to speak to do so at great length; but it is not a time-limited debate.
Lord Cooke of Islandreagh: My Lords, I thank the Minister for pointing that out. However, 12 minutes was probably reasonable enough given the short time available.
8.12 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I shall not be affected either in length or brevity by the instructions given by the noble Baroness. I thank the Minister for the clear terms in which he presented the order. Perhaps I may say what a pleasure it is in this rather select group of us who deal with Northern Ireland business to follow the noble Lords, Lord Molyneaux and Lord Cooke, who have intimate knowledge and experience of events in Northern Ireland. In particular, the questions on agriculture, which both noble Lords asked, and on power costs, which the noble Lord, Lord Cooke, has pursued tenaciously for some years, deserve serious answers. I hope that they will receive them. Both issues are fundamental to the economy of Northern Ireland.
As the Minister said, this should be, and we all hope is, the last time we deal in this detail with the budget of Northern Ireland. However, it is a particularly important occasion. The order sets the baseline for the first budget of the new dispensation in Northern Ireland, both in the quantum of expenditure and the departmental divisions. If I heard aright, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, called the executive "exotic". It is dangerous for Members of the House of Lords to call any other institution exotic, but let us accept his description. The new executive in Northern Ireland, wrestling with these problems for themselves as Ministers for the first time—albeit within the constraints of the Treasury—will, I am sure, take our discussions tonight as a baseline from which to make their changes. In that sense, the order is important.
When the new assembly discusses the budget next year, I hope that the occasion will be better attended; I have no doubt that it will be. That is the great justification for moving to devolved powers in Northern Ireland: the issues we are discussing tonight are best discussed closer to the people affected by them. They can make the important political decisions relating to those issues.
I have some specific points about which I wish to ask the Minister. My calculation suggested that the education budget had been increased by 2 per cent. I accept that the mathematics of the Minister and his officials may be better than mine. I believe that he gave a figure of 3 per cent. after certain factors had been taken into account. However, I do not find encouraging an increase of 3 per cent. in the education budget as the baseline for future years. We are all agreed that Northern Ireland has one of the best education systems in the United Kingdom. We have to keep it that way. It needs to be improved upon.
We know that the comprehensive spending review is under way. I sincerely hope that we shall see a more generous increase in the education budget in Northern
1438
Ireland. I hope that that will come before too long. It is crucial that as Northern Ireland, we all trust, reverts to the characteristics of a normal civil society the skills conferred by education are the Government's first priority.
I welcome also the fact that more provision has been made for integrated education. As the Minister knows—I have persecuted him and his predecessors on the subject—it is important that in the process of arriving at an accommodation between the two main traditions in Northern Ireland (I trust that we are in the process of doing so) the demands of integrated education which cut across those two traditions are not squeezed out. All the evidence indicates that integrated education makes a significant contribution to people's perceptions of the other community with whom they share Northern Ireland, and is not merely a good way of being educated but makes a contribution which is much needed. The demand by parents and pupils in Northern Ireland still exceeds the supply. I hope that the Government will continue to increase in real terms the budget for integrated education, as they have done this year within an education budget which in real terms has stood still.
The noble Lord, Lord Cooke, spoke interestingly about the economy. There is a danger in taking the current improvement as a permanent condition. We know that the Northern Ireland economy is still disproportionately dependent on government expenditure of one kind or another. We all wish for the Province to have a more robust and less dependent economy. The key is inward investment. I was glad of the tribute made to the noble Baroness, Lady Denton. I am glad to see the Government continuing their efforts to attract inward investment. But inward investment is affected very much by the political atmosphere.
I do not wish to hijack this evening's proceedings by talking at any length about what is happening this week at Drumcree—we should be careful in measuring our words, as the Prime Minister and leaders of the Orange Order were after their meeting today—but I hope that I may be allowed to say this. Every day of bloody-minded intransigence, every burning tyre in Northern Ireland, will quite literally cost us the loss of thousands of visitors. That will cost the Province millions of pounds in investment. It is a matter of the lifeblood of Northern Ireland. The more those people think it is a "Saturday night special", a chance to show off, a chance to indulge themselves, the more I hope they reflect on what it means for the well being and the prosperity of themselves and their families, and the more I hope that it will restrain them at this sensitive time.
Finally, as other noble Lords have done, I refer to the curiously precise figure of £9,277,000 for the new Northern Ireland assembly. I wonder what the last £7,000 is for. Could it be for simultaneous translation from Irish into English in the new Northern Ireland assembly? I am told that that is very much needed because not all the Irish speakers speak Irish that well and therefore, it is extremely important that there should be some measure of translation.

1439
However, let us take that figure of just over £9¼ million. If that is the expenditure on the assembly, where will the other elements of expenditure to enact strands 2 and 3 of the settlement be shown? In which budgetary account shall we see those? No doubt the costs will be smaller than those of the functioning assembly, but I should like to know how they will be budgeted for. Nevertheless, if we can turn the corner of the next week or two and see the assembly working effectively in the autumn, £9 million will be cheap at the price.
8.20 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, although the words a few moments ago from the noble Baroness have loosened my inhibitions as regards making a long speech, I do not intend to delay your Lordships long.
As the Minister said, this order is part of a procedure which we may not need to carry through again in this form. That is extremely welcome on two counts. First, it is welcome because we all hope that the new assembly and the agreement generally can overcome its present troubles. I support in general the remarks which the Minister made about the present situation in the Province, and certainly the effects on the economy are deep and profound, as the noble Lord, Lord Holme, has just said.
The second reason for welcoming the end of this procedure lies behind what the Minister said. Another procedure might work better for probing these figures and expenditure. In such an order, the figures are difficult to follow, even for those, like myself, who have done their best to follow them for quite a number of years in different formats. The figures which the Minister gave in his speech are extremely difficult to relate to the figures which appear in the order. That is in no way the fault of the Minister and I do not suggest that for a moment. It is in the nature of the process. However, it caused me to wonder whether the Minister can tell us anything about how in future those figures may be presented for the part which will remain our responsibility in this Westminster Parliament, even if everything goes smoothly as regards evolution.
I was encouraged that in the recent report by the Chancellor of the Exchequer he was carrying forward the work on resource accounting which was being undertaken in the Treasury while I was there, and to which I made my contribution, in order to reach a situation in which the Government can publish and Parliament can consider in a more meaningful manner the way in which expenditures are divided up, set up between different departments and also between capital and current expenditure. Is it the Government's intention, and in particular the intention of the Northern Ireland Office, to publish figures which will help us and in due course the new assembly as well to fit the figures which we are voting through with the total government expenditure under the different headings?
It would be extremely helpful. It would make the sort of decision which we are taking this evening and all the decisions on finance and expenditure much more like
1440
the decisions taken by the members of an ordinary board of directors, for example, in being able to see what it is that the company proposes to spend in the different areas and decide whether or not they agree with them.
In his opening remarks, although it does not arise precisely out of the appropriation order, the Minister referred to the transfer of the Port of Belfast to the private sector. It will not surprise anybody to know that I support the principle of privatisation. I know that in England certainly port privatisation has proved extremely effective. The Port of Bristol, near where I live, has proved an outstanding example of the effect of privatisation, although in that case the port was owned previously by the city council.
However, I am aware also of some of the special factors in the particular privatisation of the Port of Belfast, which I visited on previous occasions and learned a bit about during my time in the Northern Ireland Office. The Minister may be able to tell me this evening to which part of the public purse it is expected that the proceeds which will accrue from the sale of the port should be credited. It makes a difference because in future there will be two blocks of expenditure—the block including all the matters which we are discussing this evening being controlled by the new Northern Ireland assembly and the new executive, and Her Majesty's Treasury will be leaning over all as usual. It is important to know which part of the public purse will benefit from the sale of the Port of Belfast.
It was claimed, not unfairly and not necessarily prejudging the questions I have asked, in the recent Command Paper 3978 on economic and fiscal strategy that it was included as part of the benefits to the government as a whole. But it due course it will be important to know whether it is assisting Northern Ireland itself where investment is, as other noble Lords have said, so important. Having said that, and with that one particular example, I support the order.
8.26 p.m.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am grateful for the positive and supportive comments and contributions which have been made throughout the debate. I turn first to the question asked by the noble Lords, Lord Molyneaux and Lord Cope, about the new arrangements which will be put in place for these matters when the Northern Ireland assembly is functioning fully. The Northern Ireland Bill, which is to be brought before the other place before too long, will make provision for the financial arrangements under which the new Northern Ireland assembly will operate. It would be inappropriate for me to go into more detail at this stage but your Lordships will have ample opportunity, when that Bill comes before this House, to consider the details of how that new assembly will operate as regards financial control.
The noble Lords, Lord Molyneaux, Lord Holme and Lord Cooke, asked about the crisis facing the pig industry. I have had more than one meeting with representatives of the industry to discuss the difficulties facing pig producers not only because of the depressed state of sterling, which affects other parts of the United Kingdom and therefore is not just a Northern Irelands

1441
issue, but also the particular difficulty after the destruction by fire of a pig meat processing plant in Ballymoney and the effect that that might have on the ability of pig producers to bring forward their animals for processing. That is an immediate difficulty with which my department has been grappling, as has my honourable friend the Minister of State in his responsibilities for the DED and therefore for the future of a possible plant to be constructed, given that the present one has been totally destroyed by fire. That is a short-term difficulty.
The other issues which arose as regards pig production are difficult because the European Union does not make it easy for us, even if we have the money available, to provide the sort of support which we are permitted to provide in other sectors of the agriculture industry.
I should like to write to noble Lords on the point about stalls and tethers because there is a very specific issue involved. The Government's position on animal welfare is a sound one and we do not particularly want to abdicate that position. I appreciate that some of the pig producers may find it difficult to adhere to the new arrangements; but, on the other hand, they have had eight years' notice that the Government intended to introduce them at this time. Therefore, I do not want to give the impression that we will somehow change the policy. But certainly there are some specific points about compliance by other EU countries which I should like to consider.
As regards the point about meat and bonemeal, there is a real difficulty here because, after all, we have been down this path before on the question of the BSE crisis in relation to beef. I do not think that we can go back to a policy—indeed, the noble Lord did not suggest it—where we allow meat and bonemeal to be used as animal feed. However, I appreciate that it makes the playing field less level than it would be in an ideal world. I shall address the matter in letters, if I have not dealt with any other points that have been raised in that respect.
The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, also made a number of comments about various DoE matters. I have to tell him that this Government have no plans to split up the DoE. If that is the wish of the Assembly, then that will be a matter for it to decide. However, we have no plans to split up that department. Clearly the Assembly will need to consider the structure of Northern Ireland departments. As I said, that is a matter for the Assembly and not one for this Government.
I should also tell the noble Lord that the difficulties he said had occasionally arisen as regards an imbalance between housing developments and lack of adequate water or sewerage services is something which I hope will not arise again. Certainly, in the broader context, the regional strategic framework will be looking at these issues, although I appreciate that this may be a matter to be resolved in more detail than that approach is susceptible to. Nevertheless, I hope that that is not a difficulty that will arise again and that housing developments will move in line with additional water and sewerage services where these are necessary in any particular area.
1442
As regards the particular situation at Glenavy—an area which the noble Lord knows well—the water service has planned a new treatment works which will have double the design capacity of the current works from a population equivalent loading of 500 persons to a thousand. Site acquisition has held back the scheme, but it is now scheduled for commencement at the end of this year with completion in 1999.
The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, also referred to the difficulties as regards toilet facilities at Ballycarrickmaddy Primary School near Lisburn. That is a controlled school and, as such, responsibility for toilet and other provisions for the school is a matter for the South Eastern Education and Library Board in the first instance. However, the need to replace the existing premises is acknowledged. The board has recently commenced the planning of a new school. When planning is sufficiently advanced, the school will be considered for a place in the capital programme in the light of the resources available to the education service at the time. The board provided a mobile toilet block, including a toilet for the disabled, at the school three years ago.
The noble Lord, Lord Cooke, and, I believe, the noble Lord, Lord Holme, were concerned about the general difficulties facing farmers in Northern Ireland and the fall in farming incomes which has taken place over the past year or so. I concede that there has been a fall in farm income. Part of the difficulty has arisen from the strength of sterling over the past two years. However, I have to say that all exporting industries have suffered from the strength of sterling. The difficulty is not unique to agriculture, although I accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cooke; namely, that, given the large amount of beef previously exported from Northern Ireland—a market which we are hoping to regain in the coming period—there has clearly been a particularly adverse impact on Northern Ireland producers who are exporting or who seek to gain or recover export markets in the future.
However, my right honourable friend Dr. Cunningham announced two packages of compensation for agriculture on 22nd December and on 3rd February, which I hope have gone some way towards helping farmers, or some farmers, to cope with the very difficult situation that they are in. As regards the question of the Republic of Ireland and its ability to gain money from the European Union, I should point out that the real difficulty is that we are a net contributor to the Union, while the Republic of Ireland is a net beneficiary. Some of the difficulties stem from our being a net contributor. Therefore, as regards some of the money which might be available through Brussels, a large proportion of money from the Treasury is also required in order to match the European money. That has been a difficulty that we have had to face for some time.
The noble Lord, Lord Cooke, talked about difficulties facing the textile industry. It remains a very important sector in the Northern Ireland economy providing some 25 per cent. of manufacturing employment. Of course, there are intense competitive pressures from the low-cost economies and the recent devaluation of some Asian currencies has added to those pressures. However, investment in industry in Northern Ireland continues. In

1443
1997–98 companies created 900 new jobs. Since March, there has been an investment of £8 million in four projects attracting £1.5 million of IDB support. The latter anticipates further job-creating projects in the sector.
The noble Lord asked about the West Link. Yes, the roads programme provides for the commencement of a first-class and overall scheme in the 1999–2000 financial year, with the main element of the work commencing in the following year. That is the earliest start date following the completion of the statutory processes. I agree with the noble Lord that this particular project would very much help in dealing with the cause of enormous delays for motorists, especially for freight traffic going to Belfast harbour. Indeed, that is an important element as regards the competitive position of the harbour.
The noble Lord, Lord Cooke, also talked at some length about the higher electricity costs facing industry in Northern Ireland and the fact that generator costs are 43 per cent. higher than they are in Great Britain. Government policy is to reduce the cost of electricity in Northern Ireland, both to industry and to the domestic consumer. That will be achieved through the introduction of greater competition as regards the energy market. The regulator is already in discussions with Northern Ireland Electricity and the generators on possible ways of reducing generation costs. A progress report by the regulator in February 1998 confirmed that voluntary agreements had been reached on revisions of the power station west and Coolkeeragh contracts and held out the prospect that proposals being developed by the generators in respect of the Ballylumford and Kilroot contracts could also deliver the required benefits. A further progress report is expected in the autumn. If satisfactory voluntary agreements on changes to the contract cannot be reached, the regulator may decide to refer the matter to the MMC.
The noble Lord, Lord Cooke, also asked about payments to victims. There is provision for payments to victims as announced by the Government, but that is not to be contained in these estimates. That will be contained in estimates, which will be brought forward next spring in the supplementary estimates. Therefore, those figures as regards provision for victims will be seen at that time.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme, asked about the increase in education expenditure. The advice I have received shows that, on the basis of like for like, public expenditure on education will be £52 million higher in 1998–99 than in 1997–98, excluding the EU peace-package provision. That represents a 4.2 per cent. increase over the provision for 1997–98 inherited from the previous administration. Therefore, it is better than the figure that I quoted; in other words, if one compares like with like, the figure comes out better. I give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I am much obliged. I must say that that is a most gratifying rate of progress. I should like to congratulate the Minister on
1444
having gone from 3 per cent. to 4 per cent. in the space of one short debate. Indeed, at this rate, we will soon have proper funding for education in Northern Ireland.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I take the noble Lord's point. However, we do listen to what he says and act accordingly.
The noble Lord also asked about integrated education. He will know that the Government are committed to extending integrated education in Northern Ireland, wherever local circumstances and local demand justify it. The figure of £41 million on maintained integrated schools represents an increase of £9 million on the previous year. I believe that to be a fairly hefty increase. I appreciate that the total sector is still small, but we are certainly committed to integrated education wherever local support justifies it.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme, asked about other costs, apart from Assembly costs, as regards giving effect to the agreement. These expenditures will be brought forward in the spring supplementary estimates against the other departments. I believe we shall have a further chance to debate that matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope, asked a question which, as I understand it, concerns resource accounting. I hope that I am right about that. The position is the following. The introduction of resource accounting essentially will bring the Civil Service cash-based finance systems into line with practice in the commercial world. I think the noble Lord was keen on that. It will introduce concepts such as capital depreciation and capital charging into the public sector financial area and as such provide more meaningful information on which to base judgments and take decisions. Challenging targets and clear objectives will be set against which resources will be allocated and utilisation monitored. These should in turn provide better information on which to consider and approve expenditure when debating and considering appropriation matters. I hope from those brief comments the noble Lord will feel that we are moving down the path that he is keen on—I know he has mentioned it in previous debates—and we shall have a system which will be more in line with practice in the commercial world. It may be easier to follow for those people used to the practices in the commercial world.
The noble Lord also asked about the future of Belfast Harbour. The Belfast Harbour commissioners made a suggestion to me about the future of Belfast Harbour. I have asked them to work out the proposals in some detail. These would involve a private/public partnership. When the proposals come back from the Belfast Harbour commissioners they will be subject to consultation before they come to the Government for approval. There is some way to go yet, but I am glad that the noble Lord thinks this is a useful way forward.
The noble Lord also asked about the Chancellor of the Exchequer 's package. As I understand it, that will represent expenditure in areas which in future will come under the assembly. It will concern expenditure in various of the six departments which will come under the new assembly and under the new ministers to be appointed in due course. I think I have dealt with all of

1445
the points that have been raised. I am grateful for the helpful and supportive comments that have been made during the debate.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Government of Wales Bill
8.42 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Schedule 9.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 179:
Page 104, line 34, at end insert ("and
(b) subject to any notes in paragraph 14A(1), the bodies listed in sub-paragraph (1A).
(1A) The bodies referred to in sub-paragraph (1) are—").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, there are many amendments in this group but they all apply to the paragraphs in Schedule 9 to the Bill which are concerned with the Welsh Administration Ombudsman's jurisdiction. I said in Committee that I would need to return on Report to certain issues. These amendments have been brought forward on that basis but we have reconstructed the relevant paragraphs. I hope that makes the Bill clearer.
Amendments Nos. 179 to 198 introduce into this Bill a drafting technique already to be found in the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967. Where a body other than the assembly is listed as within the Welsh ombudsman's jurisdiction, appropriate limits to that jurisdiction can be established by the insertion of "notes" pertaining to the relevant body.
Amendment No. 181 adds to the ombudsman's jurisdiction complaints about the exercise of powers by an urban development corporation wholly in Wales; but just as in England, complaints about an urban development corporation's planning activities are to be excluded from the ombudsman's jurisdiction because there are alternative procedures for dealing with complaints about planning. Accordingly, Amendment No. 188 includes an appropriate "note" excluding the Welsh ombudsman's jurisdiction in such matters.
Amendment No. 188 also gives to the assembly, when it proposes to amend the list of bodies subject to the ombudsman's jurisdiction, the ability to add, omit or amend a "note" in relation to any body. The assembly might decide, for instance, that the National Museum of Wales should be a body within the ombudsman's jurisdiction, but it might wish to exclude from that jurisdiction a particular aspect of the museum's work, such as its collection and preservation policies. That could simply be achieved by the insertion into the list of bodies within jurisdiction the appropriately worded "note".
However, your Lordships will see from Amendment No. 194 that limits are placed on this power to add jurisdictional "notes", so that, for example, no "note" may have the effect of giving the ombudsman jurisdiction in respect of a body's functions not
1446
exercised in relation to Wales; nor may a note give the ombudsman jurisdiction in respect of a body's activities where the assembly does not have functions. And a note could not give the Welsh ombudsman jurisdiction in a matter where the Parliamentary Commissioner already has jurisdiction.
Amendment No. 186 proposes changes to the definition of the sort of "body" which the assembly can add to the list of bodies within the ombudsman's jurisdiction. I indicated this in Committee. Amendment No. 186 makes clear that a government department is not a "body" for this purpose, and so the assembly could not add, say, the Department of Social Security to the Welsh ombudsman's jurisdiction. The power to add "bodies" is to apply only to non-departmental public bodies and the like. Amendments Nos. 187, 190, 197 and 201 all follow from that.
In summary, what is being done here is to specify with greater accuracy what are the bodies which may be added by the assembly to the ombudsman's jurisdiction, and to enable the assembly more precisely to specify what areas of a body's work are within, or excluded from, that jurisdiction. I beg to move.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I have only one query and that is the reference in Amendments Nos. 188 and 194 to,
"otherwise than in relation to Wales".
How far does that definition extend? What exactly is meant by,
"otherwise than in relation to Wales"?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, there may be a particular body which exercises functions within Wales; in other words, what I would call, probably rather bluntly, the territorial jurisdiction of the assembly. Therefore if there is a body within that territorial jurisdiction, it would, or could, fall within the ombudsman's remit. If, on the other hand, the same body exercised functions outside the territorial jurisdiction, that would not be within the jurisdiction of the Welsh ombudsman. I think that is right.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendments Nos. 180 to 195:
Page 104, line 38, leave out ("Commission") and insert ("Commissioners").
Page 104, line 40, at end insert—
("( ) urban development corporations established for urban development areas wholly in Wales,").
Page 104, line 44, leave out from beginning to end of line 7 on page 105.
Page 105, line 8, leave out ("(1)") and insert ("(1A)").
Page 105, line 11, leave out ("other than the Assembly").
Page 105, line 13, leave out second ("paragraph") and insert ("paragraphs 14A and").
Page 105, line 14, leave out ("a government department and").
Page 105, line 21, leave out ("or (in the case of a government department) any of its Ministers").
Page 105, line 23, at end insert—
("14A.—(1) The notes referred to in paragraph 14(1)(b) are—

1. In the case of a body which has functions exercisable otherwise than in relation to Wales (as well as in relation to Wales or a part of Wales) no investigation may be conducted by the Welsh Administration Ombudsman in respect of action in connection with the exercise of the body's functions otherwise than in relation to Wales.

2. In the case of the Environment Agency no investigation may be conducted by the Welsh Administration Ombudsman in respect of action in connection with the exercise of its flood defence functions (within the meaning of the Water Resources Act 1991).

3. In the case of an urban development corporation no investigation may be conducted by the Welsh Administration Ombudsman in respect of action in connection with the exercise of its functions in relation to town and country planning.

(2) Subject to paragraph 15, the Assembly may by order amend sub-paragraph (1) by—

(a) adding any note,

(b) omitting any note, or

(c) amending any note

(3) If and to the extent that a function is exercisable in relation to the Welsh language or any other aspect of Welsh culture, it shall be regarded for the purposes of this paragraph and paragraph 15 as exercisable in relation to Wales.").
Page 105, line 24, leave out from ("under") to ("if") in line 25 and insert ("paragraph 14(4) may only add a body to paragraph 14(1A)").
Page 105, line 31, leave out ("either exercises its functions on behalf of the Crown or").
Page 105, line 32, leave out ("of this paragraph").
Page 105, line 43, leave out from beginning to end of line 11 on page 106.
Page 106, line 12, leave out from ("under") to ("a") in line 13 and insert ("paragraph 14(4) shall not add to paragraph 14(1A)").
Page 106, line 27, at end insert—
("( ) The Assembly may not make an order under paragraph 14A(2) if the result would be that the Welsh Administration Ombudsman could investigate action in connection with the exercise of a body's functions otherwise than in relation to Wales.
( ) In the case of a body which has functions exercisable in a field in which the Assembly does not have functions (as well as in a field in which it does)—

(a) where the Assembly by order under paragraph 14(4) adds the body to paragraph 14(1A) it shall (by order under paragraph 14A(2)) add to paragraph 14A(1) a note relating to the body, and

(b) the Assembly may not make an order under paragraph 14A(2) if the result would be that the Welsh Administration Ombudsman could investigate action in connection with the exercise of the body's functions in a field in which the Assembly does not have functions.

( ) In the case of a body which is an authority to which the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 applies—

(a) where the Assembly by order under paragraph 14(4) adds the body to paragraph 14(1A) it shall (by order under paragraph 14A(2)) add to paragraph 14A(1) a note relating to the body, and

(b) the Assembly may not make an order under paragraph 14A(2) if the result would be that the Welsh Administration Ombudsman could investigate action which can be investigated under the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967.").

Page 106, leave out lines 28 to 33.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 180 to 195 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 196:
Page 106, line 39, leave out ("by") and insert ("(in accordance with paragraph 17) by or on behalf of").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 196 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 199, 200, 202, 203, 205 and 206. These amendments cover three issues relating to ombudsmen. Amendments Nos. 196, 199 and 200 are designed to clarify who may make a complaint to the Welsh Administration Ombudsman. Their effect is to make clear that complaints may be made by individuals or bodies of persons claiming to have suffered injustice in consequence of maladministration, and that in circumstances where the aggrieved individual or body cannot make the complaint, others may act on his or its behalf.
Amendments Nos. 202 and 203 slightly broaden the absolute privilege attaching to statements made in complaints to both the administration ombudsman and the health service ombudsman. As drafted, the Bill attaches absolute privilege to statements made between the member or member of staff of a body subject to investigation and the relevant ombudsman,
"in connection with an investigation".
However, such statements may also need to be made before the formal investigation gets under way—for example, in preliminary inquiries to decide whether a full investigation should be made. The amendments are therefore designed to make that head of privilege consistent with the other heads set out in paragraph 23 of Schedule 9 and to make sure that absolute privilege attaches to all aspects of handling a complaint.
Finally, Amendments Nos. 205 and 206 are drafting amendments designed to apply to the appointment of an acting health services commissioner for Wales the same rules as apply to the appointment of a permanent commissioner; a person may not be appointed as a commissioner if he or she is a member of a health body subject to the health service commissioner's jurisdiction. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendments Nos. 197 to 202 en bloc:
Page 107, line 41, leave out ("(or, in the case of a government department, any of its Ministers)").
Page 108, line 16, leave out ("sub-paragraph (3)") and insert ("sub-paragraphs (3) and (3A)").
Page 108, line 18, leave out ("the person") and insert ("an individual").
Page 108, line 23, at end insert—
("(3A) Where a body by whom a complaint might have been made to the Welsh Administration Ombudsman is for any reason unable to act for itself, the complaint may be made by an individual, or another body, suitable to represent it.").
Page 112, line 4, leave out ("(or, in the case of a government department, any of its Ministers)").
Page 112, line 9, leave out ("an investigation by") and insert ("a complaint to").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 202A:
After Clause 112, insert the following new clause—
("Planning appeals

DETERMINATION OF PLANNING APPEALS
. Where the determination of planning appeals on planning applications under town and country planning legislation has been transferred to the Assembly by an Order in Council under section 22 of this Act, the standing orders must include provision for this function to be exercisable by the presiding officer.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we return to an amendment that I withdrew at some unearthly hour the other night because noble Lords felt it appropriate that I should do so. The purpose of the amendment is to make sure that planning appeals are dealt with as quickly and efficiently as possible. It has to be admitted that that is not the case today. I hope, therefore, that the assembly will take note of this problem.
When I moved a similar amendment in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Williams, pointed out that because I proposed that the final decision should be taken concurrently with the Secretary of State and the assembly, it would complicate matters. I entirely accept the noble Lord's point and I am grateful to him for pointing out my mistake.
However, I am not at all happy with the noble Lord's suggestion that the matter "might" be dealt with by the assembly. He acknowledged that there was a problem to be solved. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, also acknowledged that there was a problem, which I believe he described as quasi-judicial.
The need to solve the problem is in part caused by the present need for farmers to diversify. That is why have tabled the amendment. A recent survey indicated that no less than 40 per cent. of farmers were surviving only because of diversification. I must declare an interest in that I number among that 40 per cent.
However, diversification nearly always requires some form of development—or, as planning law says, change of use. That is where the trouble comes. For under every stone lurks a "Nimby", whose sole purpose, aided and abetted by certain societies, is to stop any development. Unfortunately, Nimbys have more spare time and are considerably more articulate and literate than the usual entrepreneur. They know every trick in the book to prevent development, often by the use of delaying tactics. As noble Lords will know, time is often critical, indeed vital, in any commercial development.
The first stage gives the protesters the opportunity. When the application goes before the local planning authority, great pressure is put on councillors, who, as a result, often ignore planning guidelines. If the entrepreneur—the farmer or businessman—has the stomach (and I can tell noble Lords that it takes some stomach) and the financial resources, he can then go to appeal. If he has a legitimate case, and I emphasise the
1450
word "legitimate", the inspector will rule in his favour. My experience of planning inspectors is that they operate the planning laws in a very responsible way because they have to follow the guidelines, as opposed to the councillors, who follow NIMBY pressure.
Noble Lords may think that the battle, indeed the war—I feel very strongly, having been involved in these matters—is then over. But that is not necessarily the case. The final decision rests with the Secretary of State. In 99 per cent. of cases the Secretary of State will uphold his inspector's decision. But—and this is the point of my amendment—his decision will now be taken over by the assembly. I fear the worst in that case. Like councillors, members of the assembly will inevitably be pressured by their NIMBY constituents.
I accept that the assembly may well delegate that responsibility. However, I am most anxious that this decision-making is done by one individual, someone as impartial as possible. That is why I have suggested in the amendment that it should be the presiding officer.
I do not therefore believe it correct or sensible for noble Lords to leave this decision to the assembly. The pressure will be on members of the assembly at this early stage in office to fudge the issue and appoint a committee. All committees love sub-committees, albeit of three. Three is two too many for sound and quick decisions, which commercial entrepreneurs need. I therefore hope that the Government will accept the reasons why I propose that the presiding officer should do this job. However, if the noble Lord has another individual—I emphasise "individual" not a committee—in mind, I should be happy to hear from him as to who it should or should not be. I beg to move.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, a substantial number of planning appeals have a political dimension. It would thus be unwise to give the presiding officer, who is politically neutral, such a responsibility. The National Assembly Advisory Group has discussed this matter. It came to the conclusion that responsibility should go to the first secretary, and perhaps through him to a relevant subject committee. It may be the wish of the first secretary or the subject committee to appoint a panel drawn from national assembly members to hear such appeals. I do not believe that will find much accord with my noble friend. That procedure would allow political matters to remain the responsibility of politicians.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I have great sympathy with the views expressed. I know that, in many cases, getting planning permission takes three to four years. Even if a building is falling down and is totally obsolete, to get its change of use approved so that it can be developed takes an incredible length of time. If the Government can in any way shorten that lengthy period it would be a tremendous help.
Lord Kenyon: My Lords, in supporting my noble friend Lord Stanley, I should point out that I am a local councillor. He accused us of being "nimby". I think that is the truth. From time to time, local consideration clouds our judgment.
What I see happening in the national assembly is that many of its members will be drawn from the ranks of local councillors. They will go into office with the same sort of political ideas. I strongly support my noble friend's idea that there should be one person in the national assembly who will determine the appeals—not just for the sake of expedience, but for political considerations, to get away from "nimbyism".
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I support the opening sentences of the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley. I very much agree that the determination of a planning appeal under the town and country planning legislation calls for the highest standards of objectivity. However, I am content to leave it to the assembly to decide in standing orders how that function is to be exercised. The noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, suggested one mechanism, but one can think of other options. I would be content to leave the matter to the standing orders of the assembly.
9 p.m.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I rise to support my noble friends, who are clearly concerned about maintaining the integrity of the planning appeals system and indeed the planning system generally. I shall do that by asking a series of questions. How will the planning system work? Who will decide whether to call in a planning application? Who will consider an inspector's inquiry report on major applications of national significance where commercial confidentiality is important? What steps will be taken to safeguard the integrity of such decisions? Those are key questions in the new regime that will apply when the assembly takes over responsibility. We are all familiar with the system that has been in operation to date and are aware how sensitive that system has necessarily been, particularly with a view to maintaining its integrity and general faith in the system.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, all the points that have been made are extremely important. Undoubtedly, any planning system, including an appellate planning system, should be efficient in the sense of being as cheap and as prompt as possible. The kinds of delays that the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, spoke of are quite intolerable. Unfortunately, they are delays that are to be identified, and are notoriously well known, in the present system. It has always seemed to me that the present system could be made to work if one only managed it properly.
The terms of the amendment give the ability to determine planning appeals to the presiding officer of the assembly. I do not believe that that is suitable. It would be as if one were to ask the Speaker in another place to determine planning appeals, because the position of presiding officer is analogous to that of the Speaker; or as if one were to ask someone sitting in the seat presently occupied by the noble Lord, Lord Lye11, to determine planning appeals. I recognise that that point does not go to the substance of the matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, raised two important points. The noble Lord's amendment does not deal with the vast majority of appeals. We all know that
1452
most planning appeals are dealt with by planning inspectors on behalf of the Secretary of State and are familiar with the usual announcement at the beginning, "I have been appointed by … to determine", not "to make recommendations". There is a gap there that would need to be looked at.
The other point is the question of call-ins. Call-ins are rare, but their rarity implies their importance. They normally happen when issues of more than local importance are involved and where there are wider implications for planning policy.
However one worked through the noble Lord's amendment, one would have to distinguish between the present two categories, inspector decisions and call-ins, and I would include in call-ins decisions by the Secretary of State.
There is no reason in principle why the assembly should act in a different way from that which presently applies. That would include the integrity of the planning process and of decisions and respecting commercial confidentiality, which were the last two points that the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, made. We believe that the way appeals and call-ins operate should be dealt with by assembly standing orders.
I recognise that the concern is a legitimate one. The Secretary of State's national assembly advisory group will make a recommendation following its own detailed deliberations of the underlying issues.
The decision-making process must be seen to be fair and equitable, free from any improper taint, free from corruption and reasonably prompt. We believe that standing orders are the way to achieve that. It is perfectly open to the assembly, by virtue of Clause 62, to delegate any of its functions to a committee. I can hear the heart of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, sinking fast, and I notice that his head is shaking vigorously. The assembly might want to sub-delegate the Secretary of State's present function to the first minister. That would be a matter for careful consideration. It would have the advantage of not being a committee—it is always an advantage in Wales not to be a committee. It is possible that a single person making adjudications would do the work more quickly and would perhaps develop a more considered expertise than would a committee, the membership of which might change.
Certainly the presiding officer will not do. With great respect, a little more thought is needed as to how we should deal with inspector appeals. Ultimately, I think the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, is right in saying, first, that these concerns are proper ones and legitimately expressed; and, secondly, that ultimately it is for the assembly, through standing orders, to come to its own conclusion about different aspects of this problem. I recognise this to be a problem—not just for farmers.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, the trouble with the noble Lord is that he can persuade anyone that a person is innocent or guilty, as the case may be, and I am just as susceptible as any jury! I wish to make one or two points. I will put the noble Lord and my old

1453
friend the Chief Whip at ease by saying that I do not intend to divide the House on this amendment, as I had intended to do, because of the noble Lord's remark that he accepts that there is a need for a decision at the end of the day by—I think I have understood correctly—one person. I do not mind whether it is the first secretary or the Secretary of State; but it must be one person. I do not accept the suggestion of my noble friend that it should be a panel; that would be a disaster.
We have discussed this Bill for a long time and, unfortunately—or fortunately—we all have Welsh blood in us. But we have so far achieved little and that is why I want an immediate decision. Let me be quite clear about this. I am an entrepreneur and my family has quite a record, on both sides, of being exceptional entrepreneurs. When one has an idea, one wants to take it forward. If we are put off, we will fight the first few battles, but may then lose faith. I have in mind a specific plan which in fact I won at the time, but would not consider now at the age of 70; I would be broken-hearted. I am sorry to bring money into this cultured debate in relation to the Welsh assembly—I hope I have sympathy with the Welsh culture—but we need entrepreneurs and we desperately need them in Anglesey. Unless we have a simple system it will not work.
Bearing in mind what the Minister says, I shall not press this amendment tonight. My helpers—I was going to say "layabouts"—gave me many reasons why the presiding officer should make the determinations, but I will not go into them because it will delay the House. However, if the noble Lord will offer me suggestions, perhaps by letter—I do not mind if it is the first secretary—I will be happy. Otherwise, I shall bring the matter back at Third Reading with my suggestion, whoever that may or may not be. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 10 [Amendments of Health Service Commissioners Act 1993]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 203:
Page 117, line 35, leave out ("an investigation by") and insert ("a complaint to").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendments Nos. 204 to 209:
Page 118, line 8, at end insert—
("( ) After the definition of "family health service provider" insert—
""financial year" and "first financial year of the Assembly" have the same meanings as in the Government of Wales Act 1998;".").
Page 119, line 42, after ("Wales") insert ("or acting Health Service Commissioner for Wales").
Page 119, line 46, after ("Wales") insert ("or acting Health Service Commissioner for Wales").
Page 121, line 35, leave out ("of the Assembly after the first") and insert ("after the first financial year of the Assembly").
Page 122, line 5, leave out ("of the Assembly").
Page 122, line 16, leave out ("of the Assembly"). The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall move Amendments Nos. 204 to 209 en bloc. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 113 [Relations with local government]:
[Amendment No. 210 not moved.]
Schedule 11 [Relations with local government: supplementary]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 211:
Page 126, line 35, leave out ("of the Assembly").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 114 [Relations with voluntary organizations]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 212:
Page 59, line 17, leave out ("of the Assembly").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 115 [Consultation with business]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 213:
Page 59, line 20, leave out ("such consultation with representatives of business") and insert ("consultation with such organisations representative of business and such other organisations").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this group consists of Amendments Nos. 213 and 214. Amendment No. 213 represents the Government's response to the amendment moved in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas. He proposed a definition of "business" and I said we would consider that sympathetically and return, which the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas has not—that is, he has not returned, though he may have considered the matter sympathetically.
Our amendment includes within the range of consultees, organisations representative of business and such other organisations as the assembly considers appropriate. That clearly is likely to include trade unions, although it may not be the case that they should or will be consulted in every circumstance; and it equally could include other bodies. We have deliberately left the matter at the assembly's discretion to tailor the practicalities of consultation to specific circumstances. But we are quite clear that the assembly will wish to consult representative organisations of business regularly, since the subject-matter of consultation is the impact on business of the exercise by the assembly of its functions. And no organisation will be better equipped to advise the assembly on that than business organisations.
We would expect consultation to be undertaken on behalf of the assembly by the relevant assembly secretary, whose decisions will be informed by that consultative process. It will be he who will be directly accountable to the assembly both for the consultative process and for the decisions informed by it. There will, therefore, be a reporting-back mechanism, to that extent, integrated into the consultative process. We are proposing to give the assembly flexibility as to the

1455
process of consultation but, of course, its decisions on how consultation should be organised will need it to be reasonable, offering relevant organisations, particularly those representative of business, a fair and proper opportunity to express their view. That is the overriding principle.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, who is hopefully engaged in fishing, described me as "crafty enough to see that a small amount of movement would be a good thing", and I was deeply shocked. We did listen to the arguments. I am sorry that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, is not present, but he will read it in Hansard tomorrow. We did respond to the arguments and I think that the adoption of this amendment would be an improvement.
Perhaps I can prospectively resist Amendment No. 214 and it is probably helpful if I do it in this way. This draws attention to the particular need for the assembly to consult trade associations representative of business in rural areas. I believe that it is best left to the assembly. If one makes this amendment then, in due time, someone will wish to make representations for a particular amendment to deal with trade associations in urban areas.
I do not think we should go down that route. The assembly, self-evidently, will want to consult with associations of the type mentioned in the amendment and with associations representing other categories of business as well. It ought to be free to do so, without being divisive and without the apparent fear that it is in some way giving priority to one type of association (namely, rural) over another (namely, urban).
I beg to move my own amendment and, in due time, prospectively, invite the noble Lord to withdraw his.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I knew it was a terrible mistake to be kind enough to say to the noble Lord that I would not have my amendment grouped with his because it allowed him to make those remarks; but that it is not quite in line with what I was going to say.
My amendment follows the debate in Committee on my noble friend Lord Mackay's Amendment No. 247ZA (cols. 1333 to 1379) and resulted in the Government's amendment today that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has just mentioned. Certainly, the noble Lord expressed sympathy. I have to tell him that I am a farmer. I am getting a little worried about his sympathy with no money on the table. We may have trouble at Third Reading. That is all I am saying.
The noble Lord certainly expressed sympathy with the proposal put forward by my noble friend and indeed by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, who understandably is not here, that the assembly should consult with representatives of business. Of course, I count agriculture as a business. Unfortunately, the Government do not really tackle the particular issue. I took particular note of the remark made by the noble Lord, Lord Williams. He said:
"No assembly ought to be required to carry out consultation with representatives of business which it does not consider to be appropriate".—[Official Report, 15/6/98; col. 1338.]
1456
I gained the impression from that remark that if the assembly did not like something then it should not do it. Indeed, I go further than that, in that as the Bill is written—and I shall be interested to know if the noble Lord puts a different view on it—there is no need for the assembly to consult business on anything whatever if it does not think it appropriate. Of course, I am sure that the noble Lord will say that if it took such a line it would soon be out of a job—and maybe eventually the electorate would so decide—but I am not so sure. As I said before, the wishes of the business world and the public particularly the NIMBYs—and I am sorry to come back to them—are often at cross purposes. It might, therefore, be a political decision for the assembly not to consult business and to put its head in the sand, which I am sure we have all done at some stage in our careers.
To return to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, it would not be appropriate to force the assembly to consult. I can, of course, give the noble Lord examples in previous statutes where that has been the case, but he said it was not necessary. I do not really want to go through all the examples that I have been given by my helpers, but perhaps I shall give one because it relates to a person whom we all worship in agriculture; that is Tom Williams. He was the Minister of Agriculture, as no doubt the noble Lord knows, in 1947 when in farm price reviews Ministers had to consult with bodies such as appeared to them to represent the interests of producers in the agriculture industry. I can give the noble Lord many more examples if that is what he wishes.
I come back to my overriding concern. The balance of the assembly is being directed to everything other than business and the production of wealth. It really worries me when I see the difference in the standard of living in farming in Amlwch where I farm and in Oxfordshire. I want the assembly to take this problem on board and to devote if not all then a great deal of its energies to getting us off the poverty line. We are on the poverty line. I do not think the noble Lord realises that. I do. I travel between both farms and I travel up to London. The assembly will not do this unless business—and agriculture is concerned here—is always at the front of its mind.
This is a very small House of Lords amendment towards that. I hope the noble Lord will accept that, after 25 years here, I know the difference between a House of Lords amendment and a wrecking amendment. This is not a wrecking amendment. I would have preferred the amendment moved in Committee by my noble friend Lord Mackay. The Government would not accept it, so I have tabled this very modest one. I am sure the noble Lord will realise that I have borrowed the words of my amendment from Clause 66 where it states that consultation with business must take place where the costs of complying are likely to be significant. I beg to move.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend Lord Stanley. Despite the Government's amendment, the most striking fact about this clause is its brevity compared with the clauses

1457
relating to local government and voluntary organisations. Brevity is no bad thing in legislation, provided that the key points are fully covered. Clearly, my noble friend Lord Stanley does not think that the clause is adequate. He has put down his own extended clause with an emphasis on business in rural areas. Those areas are already suffering an imminent threat as a result of the decline in farming incomes. My noble friend's concern is fully justified and I share it.
There is a broader threat to business, not confined to rural areas, from the recessionary pressures that are now building up in the economy. Successive rises in interest rates and the consequential strong pound are causing difficulties to Welsh businesses generally, especially to the inward investors from overseas, the major part of whose output is exported.
The recession, threatening though it may be according to many observers, has not really hit us hard yet with rising unemployment on any significant scale, but such a situation could develop very soon. I hope it does not happen but I cannot close my mind to that possibility. I do not think the Government should do so either.
During a recession our dependence on wealth producing businesses becomes apparent, especially if they begin to falter and fail. Their substantial contribution to our spending programmes tends to be taken for granted in prosperous times; and of course business likes to be left alone. But there should be close consultation with business in Wales at all times and the assembly should certainly participate in it. That is acknowledged by the Government in their newly-published Pathway to Prosperity: A New Economic Agenda for Wales, about which we heard earlier in the day. The document states that,
"Little can be achieved if everyone is pulling in different directions. The National Assembly for Wales will provide the mechanism for creating consensus and working to common goals".
There are some very good lines in the document such as,
"The public sector in Wales must be clear that its role is to support wealth creation not control it".
The document then goes on to talk about the need to develop partnerships and extend them,
"beyond narrowly defined industrial, commercial or institutional interests".
But it is curious that there is not more about partnership with business in the Bill when there is so much about partnership with local authorities. There is a whole clause and a whole schedule. One can understand the political importance of local authorities and harnessing them to the assembly through partnership to secure co-operation and to avoid possible conflict. The Government have gone to great lengths to achieve that objective. Similarly, the voluntary organisations are also being shepherded into the assembly's fold.
But at the end of the day business, as a major provider of employment and resources, may well be more important than either local authorities or voluntary organisations to the success of the assembly, because it will be judged by the people of Wales by the extent to which Wales prospers or fails in its care. It is therefore essential that the assembly understands the needs of the business community and promotes its well-being. The
1458
assembly must certainly not regard business as a milch cow; a bottomless well of resources; otherwise the assembly may well find that business reacts adversely and either ceases to expand or even begins to withdraw from Wales as the climate becomes too hostile.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, there is no argument that the views of business representatives must be considered by the assembly when exercising a function in the interests of business. That is provided by Clause 115. When we discussed this clause in Committee, I was particularly concerned about the meaning of the word "business". I wanted clarification that it would include, in appropriate circumstances, consultation with the trade unions representing those employed in business. Therefore, I am grateful to the Government for having tabled Amendment No. 213. It meets my concerns.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do remember Tom Williams, because my uncle was a farmer in Llanfarian. The mantra was constantly drummed into me as a child that Tom Williams was the best Minister of Agriculture that there had ever been. Others, more sceptical, had a different view, on the basis that the farmers were extremely pleased with what he secured on their account.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, and I are in agreement. He quite rightly said what I had sought to say earlier, that pressures of regulation and economic hardship are—and I quote his words—"not confined to rural areas". That is precisely the sort of point I was seeking to make, because the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, place particular importance on rural areas. I entirely agree with him that agriculture is a business, and that is why our redraft in Clause 13 is intended to deal with these circumstances. I do not regard the noble Lord's amendment as intended to be, or indeed wished to be, a wrecking amendment. I simply point out that I believe our clause covers all reasonable circumstances.
It is necessary and helpful if I remind your Lordships that if there are existing functions relating to agriculture which are transferred from the Secretary of State to the assembly, and where those existing functions carry with them a duty to consult the relevant bodies, when the functions go to the assembly they go subject to the particular duty to consult. I do not want to go into it in any detail, but one should not overlook the protection given to business by Clause 65 as regards consultation where subordinate legislation may have significant effects. That is not to be overlooked either.
I think that Clause 115, as amended by Amendment No. 213 if your Lordships so agree, is a model of drafting because it bites on the problem and tells the assembly what it must do, which is to carry out such consultation as it considers appropriate. Circumstances vary infinitely. It may be right to consult rural interests in one context together with urban interests in the same context, but sometimes they should be dealt with quite distinctly. We are devolving power and we need to devolve discretion, as well as avoiding over-prescription.

1459
Therefore, I invite the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, to conclude that our amendment gets it about right, particularly when one thinks of what is provided by way of relief and the fact that consultative obligations, when transferred from the Secretary of State, will still inure to the assembly, and when one bears in mind the provisions of Clause 65.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 214:
Page 59, line 20, leave out from ("out") to end of line 22 and insert ("consultation with organisations representative of business, including trade associations representative of business in rural areas, where the impact of the exercise by the Assembly of functions on the interests of business is likely to be significant, and shall carry out such other consultation with business and other organisations as it considers appropriate.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I now have an opportunity to reply to the noble Lord, Lord Williams. I suppose that I can start in this way because I was brought up in Wales. I have a long background in Wales in that my family has lived there for a very long time and, if I may put it this way, I "suffered" under the culture of Wales—and I do not regret that at all.
I am trying to point out to the Government that we only have culture as a result of money. My noble friend Lord Roberts has also tried to put that point. The emphasis of the Bill is wrong. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, is not in his place because I would have a real go at him over this. It is fine to have the culture of Wales. I am delighted by the Welsh language and by Welsh culture. My family has been in Wales for many centuries and I do not want to destroy Welsh culture, but we shall destroy it unless there is enough money. That is basically what my amendment is about. It is about consulting and listening to business
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, led the House slightly off the track when he tried to point out that the assembly has to consult "as appropriate". I tried to say to my wife at breakfast the other day that that was an oxymoron and I was told that it was not—and she is always right; it is not. However, it is very similar to an oxymoron. The provisions say,"You must consult, but only those whom you wish to consult". That means that the assembly can say, "We don't want to discuss this matter with business", and so it does not have to do so.
I am deeply unhappy with the Minister's reply, but I am certainly not going to seek to divide the House on this. I know that my old friend the Chief Whip would be very cross if I invited noble Lords to express an opinion on this matter. I have already spoken to him. However, I advise the Minister to make no mistake about this: I shall bring back a similar amendment on Third Reading, but for now I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 120 [Equality of opportunity]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 215:
Page 62, line 10, leave out ("of the Assembly").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 121 [Sustainable development]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 216:
Page 62, line 29, leave out ("of the Assembly").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 12 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendments Nos. 217 to 219:
Page 128, line 17, at end insert—
("( ) in the entry relating to urban development corporations, after "corporations" insert "established for urban development areas wholly in England",").
Page 128, line 20, leave out from ("Wales") to ("and") in line 21 and insert ("(within the meaning of the Government of Wales Act 1998).",").
Page 128, line 26, at end insert ("(within the meaning of the Government of Wales Act 1998)."").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 126 [Extension of functions]:
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 220:
Page 63, line 28, at end insert ("and
("(c) at the end there shall be inserted—
"The Agency's purposes apply as much in relation to the rural parts of Wales as in relation to the non-rural parts of Wales.".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the permission of the noble and learned Lord, Amendment No. 220 is to be dealt with separately from Amendment No. 223. I find it simpler and perhaps quicker to deal with it in this way. This amendment refers to the Welsh Development Agency Act 1975. Section 2 lists the functions of the agency. In subsection (4) it is provided:
"In exercising their functions the Agency shall have regard to the requirements of agriculture and efficient land management".
I believe that it would reassure rural parts of Wales and farmers if my amendment was included to make explicit that the work of the agency applied as much to the rural parts of Wales as to non-rural parts. I do not ask for a particular balance but I ask that that should be considered. The noble and learned Lord may say that the subsection that I have quoted deals with the problem. However, I differ on that point. As I have been endeavouring to point out throughout our discussions, agriculture has a very different and broader remit from just the growing of crops and breeding of lambs, as much as I would wish that. That activity is now all-embracing. My amendment seeks to emphasise that point. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, Amendment No. 220 was originally grouped with Amendment No. 223. We are quite content that it should be dealt with separately.

1461
Amendment No. 220 reflects an entirely laudable concern for the needs of rural parts of Wales to be embraced fully in the work of the Welsh Development Agency. The noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, made a valuable contribution on this issue during our debate in Committee on 2nd June. I repeat the assurances given at that time that the Government have a clear commitment, which will be inherited by the assembly, to meet the needs of rural communities whether or not they fall within the area currently administered by the Development Board for Rural Wales. One need look no further than Pathway to Prosperity, which Mr. Ron Davies published on Monday 7th July, for a clear and unequivocal statement of the Government's intention to spread prosperity throughout Wales and in particular to ensure that the rural areas and the South Wales Valleys begin to enjoy the economic success which the north east and south east of the country have seen in recent years.
However, there is no need to amend the Welsh Development Agency Act 1975 in the manner proposed by the noble Lord. With the greatest of respect to the noble Lord, there is no need for Amendment No. 220. I am also conscious of the contributions which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has made to our debates to the effect that we should not put into the Bill unnecessary matters because they make it too long. By providing in the Bill for the Welsh Development Agency to assume the geographic responsibilities as well as the functions of the Development Board for Rural Wales, the Government intend that the economic development needs of all areas of Wales shall be given equal consideration as part of an overarching economic strategy for Wales. However, it would not be feasible to make an amendment as proposed by the noble Lord which could be construed as requiring the Welsh Development Agency to devote an even-handed and equal approach to the rural and urban parts of Wales.
The needs of rural Wales are undoubtedly important—I stress our commitment to that—and will be addressed by the agency's new rural policy unit within the context of the overall work of the agency. However, there will be times when the potential gains to the Welsh economy are greater if more resources are devoted to a particular urban project. For example, the LG project will provide over 6,000 direct jobs in Newport and the surrounding areas including the extremely needy South Wales Valleys, but in addition there will be jobs in companies providing services and equipment to LG. It is questionable whether a development of such magnitude would be either practicable or desirable in a rural area. I am sure that many rural dwellers would be horrified at the thought of a large factory sprouting up in their midst. I see the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, nodding.
What the agency will be required to do is to assess the needs of different areas and address them in ways that will be beneficial both to the local community and to the Welsh economy as a whole. The regional directorates of the agency will have the task of considering the different needs and how to make the most of the advantages of each part of Wales.
1462
Perhaps I may emphasise that my comments do not manifest a lack of support for the rural communities of Wales. I am only too aware that parts of rural Wales, particularly the more peripheral areas, are greatly in need of sound economic development assistance, just as parts of urban Wales need assistance in tackling the problems they are encountering.
The problems of rural Wales and the problems of urban Wales would not be served by an amendment of the type proposed by the noble Lord. In the light of that, I respectfully ask him to consider withdrawing it.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I regret to say that I am much irritated by the noble and learned Lord, because I have to accept his argument, and that is humiliating. I refer in particular to his remark that "all matters" should be considered equally. I accept what he says. I am not prepared to accept everything else his noble friend is prepared to say, but on this occasion I believe that the noble and learned Lord had the better of the argument. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 13 [Welsh Development Agency: land provisions]:
Lord Rotherwick Lord Rotherwick moved Amendment No. 221:
Page 138, leave out lines 32 to 34 and insert—
("shall not be used for any other purpose unless—

(i) the land has been acquired compulsorily for that other purpose, or

(ii) the land has been acquired by the Agency from a local authority which could lawfully have used the land for that other purpose without the need for additional statutory procedures or authorisation apart from planning permission, or

(iii) in any other case, the Secretary of State has made an order authorising that other purpose.

(1A) Section 19 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 (special provision with respect to compulsory purchase orders under that Act relating to land forming part of a common, open space or fuel or field garden allotment) shall apply to an order under sub-paragraph (1)(iii) as it applies to a compulsory purchase order under that Act.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 222 and 224. Amendment No. 221 was moved in Committee by my noble friend Lady Anelay. In response, the noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General made two objections: first, he believed that the amendment would inhibit the freedom of the landowner to sell for development land which would accord with the needs identified in the adopted local plan. He argued that it would be inappropriate to extend to land sold by agreement the legislation that applies to compulsory purchase. Secondly, he pointed out that my noble friend had not given full reasons why the extension of the law should be applied.
My noble friend is unable to attend the House this evening. I shall therefore put forward why it is believed that the amendment is necessary. I shall attempt also to explain in more detail than was presented in Committee why an extension of the law should be applied in this case. I therefore apologise in advance for taking more time than I would usually take to move the amendment.

1463
It is a complex matter, and it is important to put the reasons on record so that the Minister may make a considered response.
The fact that my other two amendments are grouped with Amendment No. 221 will mean that my remarks may be lengthier, but overall I hope that by grouping them I will save the time of the House. I am aware that the Minister and several noble Lords have received advance notice of the argument. The Open Spaces Society has very properly circulated in advance of the Report stage a brief to Ministers and other noble Lords, giving details of the legal reasons supporting the amendment.
Schedule 13 paragraph (2) inserts a new Section 21A into the Welsh Development Agency Act 1975. The Open Spaces Society informed me that the proposed subsection (2)(b) of the new section will enable the WDA to acquire by agreement, or, with the Secretary of State's authorisation, compulsorily, land that may be given in exchange for land forming part of a common, an open space or a fuel or field garden allotment, but there is nothing in the schedule or the 1975 Act to compel such an exchange.
The WDA will have complete discretion on whether to use this power, except in circumstances which my noble friend detailed in Committee at col. 1361 of Hansard. However, if the land required by the WDA need not be acquired compulsorily but can be purchased by agreement Section 19 of the 1981 Act would not then apply; and paragraph 8 of Schedule 13 would allow the WDA, subject to planning permission, to use or develop common or open space land for other purposes even if the previous owner—whether a private or public authority—could not have done so without other procedures.
Paragraph 8 is intended to carry forward a power given to the Development Board for Rural Wales most of whose functions are to be given to the WDA. But the comparable provision in paragraph 37 of Schedule 3 to the Development of Rural Wales Act 1976 states:
"Any land to which this Part of the new towns code applies which is or forms part of a common, open space or fuel or field garden".
That schedule, based on new town legislation, would appear to have its origin in the powers exercised by the land authority for Wales. It may also derive from the functions given to the Development Board for Rural Wales under which it was to establish new towns in areas to be designated as such. A new town is a type of comprehensive redevelopment that almost invariably results in a greater amount of public open space within the site of a new town which existed previously. The WDA is not inheriting powers to establish further new towns and the provision such as is now contained in paragraph 8 has never previously been available for unlimited use.
It is proper to question whether this provision should be available to a body which is not subject to direct democratic accountability and control. I argue that no one, least of all me, is attempting to stop landowners, whether private or public, from selling their property by agreement to the WDA even if it wants the land for
1464
purposes which are not in the adopted local plan—and that plan does not limit the extent of the ultimate planning permission. However, I recognise that others may have an interest in the land. If they are tenants they have such rights as are contained in their leases or tenancies. But let us suppose they have common rights or are members of the public who use the area for quiet recreation. They would have no say except through the representations that they can make on a planning application.
This type of land is often a site of special scientific interest, or a nature reserve. The Countryside Council for Wales should have a strong influence when a planning application is under consideration. But its view may not always prevail upon the planning authority which, given a permission on economic or social grounds, it might believe overrides any other designation. At present anyone who wishes to erect a building or a fence, or to construct any other work on common land must obtain the consent of the Secretary of State under Section 194 of the Law of Property Act 1925. He or she is obliged to consider the interests of the commoners and the benefit of the neighbourhood. He or she may require a public inquiry to consider various points of view.
Paragraph 8 of Schedule 13 to the Bill would enable the WDA to ignore that safeguard but put nothing in its place. If the local authority wishes to appropriate a common in its ownership for other purposes, it must first obtain from the Secretary of State an order authorising that under Section 229 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Such an order is subject to compliance with Section 19 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981. The proposed new subsection (1)(a) in my amendment is based on that. I hope that the Minister may either accept the amendment or be willing to recommend a more skilfully drafted alternative. I hope that the Government will bring forward an amendment on Third Reading with the same intention.
I turn now to Amendment No. 222. I shall be brief on both this and my remaining Amendment No. 224. In a number of Acts in recent years, bodies which have been given statutory powers have also been required to think positively about conservation. I understand that Section 1(2)(d) and subsections (3)(h) and (i) of the WDA Act 1975 already recognise the importance of the environment generally. But I am advised that they may need strengthening in line with more modern legislation. This amendment is a simplified version of Section 3 of the Water Industry Act 1991. It has been put in Section 1(4) before agriculture for ease of drafting. As my noble friend Lady Anelay explained in Committee, there is no intention at all of implying that agriculture is lower down the list in the order of importance. The priority is not to rush into a change from the present state which is irreversible.
When my noble friend spoke on this amendment in Committee, the Minister seemed to think that it was intended to duplicate those functions of the Countryside Council for Wales and Cadw. My noble friend stated then that she had no intention of abolishing either of those organisations, both of which she recognised as carrying out excellent work. I am glad to have the

1465
opportunity to add my congratulations to those two bodies on the quality of the work that they do on behalf of us all. I understand of course that the WDA will remain fully subject to environmental and planning law, but the WDA and planning authorities are subject to many pressures and the proposed additional duty is simply there to ensure that the WDA considers carefully its own environmental responsibilities and does not just leave it to others to raise objections.
Finally, I turn to Amendment No. 224. This amendment was also moved by my noble friend Lady Anelay in Committee. It seeks to make clear that businesses may include a recreational activity. There can be no doubt that that is a legitimate function of a public authority which will be permitted under the amended WDA Act. It will often be a legitimate commercial activity that can also be encouraged, but occasionally it may be organised or sponsored by a commercial body or a charity in a manner which is not obviously part of the business of that body or charity.
The amendment is put forward solely to remove any doubt which might lead to hesitation by the agency on whether it can support the project or to ward off an unwarranted suggestion that it may be ultra vires. In Committee, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, kindly offered to contemplate that issue further. Subsequently the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, wrote to my noble friend Lady Anelay on the subject and has placed a copy of the letter in the Library of the House.
The Minister pointed out that paragraph 10(2) of Schedule 14 would amend Section 27(1) of the 1975 Act so as to define "businesses" as,
"any industrial, commercial or professional activities (whether or not with a view to profit)".
He states that the intention here is that that the charitable and voluntary sectors may fall within the scope of that definition. Thus he argues that the legislation would not preclude the agency from offering assistance to non-profit-making organisations.
Can the Minister confirm tonight that the charitable and voluntary sectors will—and I stress, again, the word "will"—fall within that definition? I am concerned that this legislates only that they "may" fall within it. It is important for this matter to be absolutely clear. I should also like to draw the Minister's attention to the penultimate paragraph in his letter. I believe that he may have overlooked Clause 126(2)(a) of the Bill, which adds to the purposes of the WDA the "furtherance" of the "social" development of Wales. I question whether that can be achieved without there being a clear remit covering recreation on the face of the Bill. I should be grateful if the Minister could address those points.
I appreciate that the amendment may not fully resolve the problems that I have raised, but I shall be prepared to return to these issues on Third Reading if the Minister feels unable to resolve them tonight. I beg to move.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, oh dear! I am somewhat concerned about Amendment No. 222 which is tabled in the name of my noble friend, but I am not concerned about the others in the group. Indeed, I am
1466
not concerned about it; I do not like it at all. My problem is that I want the Welsh Development Agency to be a forward-thinking, progressive and business-orientated organisation helping industry and farmers to diversify and remain in business. If, every time it tries to promote a new venture, it has to take account of the birds and the bees—which, I am sorry to say, is what my noble friend is talking about—it will find its hands tied and will spend its time being worried about the do-gooders who, I hope unbeknown to them, crucify employment and productive work.
I dealt more fully with the problem of trying to diversify and encourage employment when I moved my amendment to Clause 112. However, I should like to repeat that wherever or whatever development takes place, there is always a detrimental effect on the environment and culture of the area. That cannot be helped. I make no bones about the fact that my life—and we are all biased by it, I suppose—and work has always favoured production and employment rather than culture, hereditary matters and the birds and the bees. I do not see how you can look after these things and the environment without first making money.
Before your Lordships castigate me as a Philistine, which I certainly am, perhaps I may say rather sheepishly in retaliation—although perhaps I ought not to—that I may be the only Member of this House, probably because of my wife, who has won an award for conservation on my farm. But the point is that that was only after I made it profitable and had taken out a hedge or two, or three; or, indeed, four, if you wish. Therefore, I cannot agree with Amendment No. 222 tabled in the name of my noble friend. All I can say is that he has made me feel considerably happier and younger because it is quite a long time since I disagreed and crossed swords with my own party. I feel much the better for it. I leave it to the Minister to be Solomon between us.
10 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I have some sympathy with the amendment which has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick. I thank him and the Open Spaces Society for having drawn the attention of the House to this distinction between common land which is acquired compulsorily and that which is acquired by agreement. If it is acquired compulsorily the procedure must comply with the Acquisition of Land Act 1981. That offers a degree of protection to the rights of the public and those of commoners which are attached to the land.
In contrast, if the common land is acquired by agreement, as I understand it, there is no statutory provision to safeguard such rights as are attached to the land. Amendment No. 221 is based on Section 229 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. As I understand it, it would extend the law so as to protect the rights of the public and of commoners which attach to common land which has been acquired by agreement. I am sure there is no need for me to remind the House that open spaces are—and I believe have been for about 120 years—in a special position as they provide the general public with access to open country which is

1467
designated as common land or an open space. They need to be preserved, wherever possible, for the benefit of future generations.
Of course I accept the need to achieve sustainable economic growth, particularly in Wales, but nevertheless there is also a need to protect open spaces for the benefit of future generations. I believe the WDA inherits its acquisition of land powers from the Land Authority of Wales. We are told by the Open Spaces Society that it is not aware that the Land Authority of Wales has used the power in circumstances which worry the society. We can take comfort from that statement. It must be borne in mind that under this Bill the WDA will be accountable to the assembly. I suggest that it is for the assembly to decide how the WDA is to exercise its land acquisition powers. I would like to think that the arguments which have been advanced this evening by the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, will be heard and considered by the assembly.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, was kind enough to give us notice before this evening that she would not be able to move her amendments. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, for moving the amendment with such skill and for discussing the matter in such detail, particularly in relation to Amendment No. 221. It is an important amendment and I am glad to have the opportunity to, I hope, put his mind and that of the Open Spaces Society at rest.
Amendment No. 221 reflects the association of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, with the Open Spaces Society and its perfectly legitimate wish to protect public rights over land acquired by the WDA. This was, of course, a matter which we debated in Committee with some interest, although the amendment now proposed, Amendment No. 221, goes somewhat further than the amendment moved by the noble Baroness in Committee.
Amendment No. 221 relates to the provisions of Schedule 13 to the Bill which would insert a new Schedule 4 to the Welsh Development Agency Act 1975. As currently drafted, paragraph 8 to the new schedule does not provide for the extinguishment of common land or public open space rights. It merely provides that where planning permission would allow an alternative use to such land, that use may be implemented, notwithstanding any restriction in any public or local Act of Parliament which operates in respect of the land.
The amendment seeks to impose further conditions on the alternative use of common land or public open space which has been acquired, either by agreement or compulsorily, by the Welsh Development Agency. The alternative use, although authorised by planning permission, would, if the amendment were to be successful, be possible only in three particular circumstances: where the land has been acquired compulsorily, where the land has been acquired from a local authority which could lawfully have used it without additional statutory procedures, or where the
1468
Secretary of State authorises, by order, such alternative use, relying on the procedures provided for in Section 19 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981.
I submit that there is no need for the amendment. Certainly, the proposed powers being made available to the agency will not permit it to act in a draconian manner going around Wales acquiring common land or public open space simply because such land may have a future for development purposes.
The position is that the land acquisition powers set out in Schedule 13 to the Bill are those which have been exercised by the Land Authority for Wales since its inception under the provisions of the Community Land Act 1975. As your Lordships will be aware, the aims and functions of the Land Authority, upon its abolition, will be continued within the expanded Welsh Development Agency. Thus these land acquisition powers have been in existence for over 20 years and exercised by the Land Authority. It is a matter of government policy that the "new" agency will assume the responsibilities undertaken by, and the related statutory powers available to, the Land Authority.
Under our proposals, the agency will be required, by virtue of the new Section 21A in the Welsh Development Agency Act 1975 to demonstrate, before acquiring land either by agreement or compulsorily, that it has given consideration to whether the land in question would be available for development if it did not act and has consulted the appropriate local authorities and the relevant National Park, as the case may be, where planning permission for the proposed alternative use has not been granted. It must also consider the impact of its development intention for the land on those engaged in the construction, agriculture and forestry industries in particular, and the community in general. These are safeguards which already exist and are a framework within which the Land Authority has successfully worked for over the past two decades.
The amendment would be counter to the Government's policy, put in place unnecessary limitations but also impose, uniquely to the agency, that any acquisition of common land or public open space would have to follow the Acquisition of Land Act procedures that otherwise apply only in respect of compulsory acquisition. So in this respect the Welsh Development Agency would be placed in a unique position.
With regard to the noble Lord's wish to protect Wales's open spaces, and therefore to prevent the WDA from insensitive or careless use of the natural environment, may I emphasise that the agency is, of course, bound by any designations under United Kingdom or EC or international law. In such instances, it may not attempt any development without consulting the Countryside Council for Wales, the Government's statutory advisers in Wales. So I submit that there are adequate safeguards already.
I take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, who, for understandable reasons, expressed sympathy to some extent with the amendment but said also that the assembly will be there to see what

1469
the WDA is doing and will look to see how it exercises its powers. That is a further appropriate democratic protection.
Turning to Amendment No. 222, the noble Lord has again manifested his concern for the natural environment and the built heritage of Wales. However, the amendment is identical to that which the noble Baroness moved in Committee. I cannot really add anything further to the comments I made at that time. Suffice it to say that the Government do not consider that the amendment is appropriate.
I am sure that the noble Lord will recognise that, by seeking to turn the Welsh Development Agency into an omnipotent body with the same overarching responsibility for the natural environment as is properly the work of the Countryside Council for Wales, and for the built heritage that is the work of Cadw, the Welsh agency for the preservation of ancient and historical monuments, he is rather suggesting that these fine bodies should be abolished—for they would have nothing left to do were the WDA to take on their functions.
It is incorrect to assume, however, that the agency does not pay regard to its environmental duties. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, stated in Committee that the Welsh Development Agency has,
"actively pursued improvement schemes of benefit to … the general environment",—[0fficial Report, 15/6/98; col. 1355.]
work which the noble Lord said had tended to be overlooked in the great publicity surrounding the agency's successful involvement in securing inward investment for Wales. I would not dispute what the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, said.
Furthermore, I am again indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, who so rightly pointed out in Committee that we must not forget that the main function of the Welsh Development Agency is to further the development of the Welsh economy and,
"to promote business so that our people have work and can prosper".—[Official Report, 15/6/98; col. 1356].
Although the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, put it in a slightly more graphic and self-deprecating manner, one could easily sympathise with parts of what he said in emphasising the need for the WDA to get the economy moving and for there to be a thriving economy. Of course, I would not sympathise with the noble Lord's comment that he was a philistine, save for the fact that he said it himself.
I move on from Amendment No. 222 to Amendment No. 224. Again, this is a matter which we considered in Committee, and my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn, as the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, said, wrote to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, on 24th June, placing a copy of the letter in the Library of the House, explaining why it was not necessary to widen the definition as she had then proposed. That remains the Government's view.
I fully appreciate that the thrust of the amendment now before the House is to protect the interests of charitable bodies and those in the voluntary sector for the valuable work which they undertake across Wales, most noticeably in the area of environmental protection.
1470
As the noble Lord is aware, the definition of "business" in Schedule 10 to the Bill makes explicit provision for the agency to assist not-for-profit organisations. The definition is,
"any industrial, commercial or professional activities (whether or not with a view to profit)",
so, clearly, the agency would not be precluded from offering assistance in the circumstances mentioned by the noble Lord. However, I am sure that he would agree that this would be a matter for the agency to determine, having regard to its own priorities.
The key economic development function of the Welsh Development Agency does not mean that it should not have the scope to engage in social development activities where these could be a useful complement to its economic development undertakings. That is relevant to the underlying issue raised by the third amendment. That is why we have made provision for the social development powers of the Development Board for Rural Wales to be transferred, with the abolition of that body, to the "new" agency, and these powers will be available for use in all areas of Wales.
I hope that I have dealt with all the points raised by the noble Lord, particularly in relation to Amendment No. 221, into which he went with skill and in commendable depth. If I see from Hansard there are points which I have not adequately dealt with, I shall write to the noble Lord. I hope that, in the light of the explanation I have given, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for his courteous and full reply. I also thank my noble and philistine friend, Lord Stanley of Alderley, and the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, for their contributions. These are complicated matters. Like the Minister, I should like to read Hansard more fully tomorrow before deciding whether to take these matters any further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 14 [Welsh Development Agency: other amendments]:
[Amendment No. 222 not moved.]
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 223:
Page 145, line 20, at end insert—
("( ) In section 2(3) (membership of agency) after "local government" insert "agriculture, rural development".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I moved a similar amendment in Committee to provide that the Welsh Development Agency could—not "shall", which I think is where we went adrift before—have a member who has experience in agriculture and rural development. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, said in reply that my amendment would force the Welsh Development Agency to have on its board at least one member with expertise in rural affairs. I hope the noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong, but I do not believe that this amendment would do any such thing. It would merely

1471
add to those already mentioned in the Welsh Development Agency Act 1975. It is stated in the constitution and status in Section 2(3):
"The members of the Agency shall include persons who appear to the Secretary of State to have wide experience of, and to have shown capacity in, one or more of the following, namely, industry, commerce, banking, accountancy, finance, the organisation or representation of workers, administration, local government and matters relating to the environment".
My amendment merely adds the words "agriculture, rural development". Therefore it does not force the Minister to have such a person; it merely allows him to come into that category.
I feel that this is a modest request. As Wales has such a rural character, such a person should be considered as a representative on the Welsh Development Agency. I beg to move.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I rise to support the thrust of my noble friend's amendment in support of agriculture and rural development. In particular, I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to two documents. The first is Pathway to Prosperity, already published by the Government this week; the other is a paper prepared by Peter Medmore, Professor of Rural Studies at the University of Wales, Aberystwyth, The farming crisis and its effect on Wales. That paper draws a grim picture of the plight of the Welsh rural economy as a consequence of the sharp fall in farming incomes. It goes on to refer to a predicted loss of some 5,000 jobs as a result of agricultural decline over the coming decade. One paragraph of the professor's paper is significant. It reads:
"Besides the immediate economic implications, further consequences arise in terms of social infrastructure. Losses of population through migration, which will be heightened as a result of the initial losses of income and jobs, eventually reduce the current grant to local authorities by central government. These changes, together with other private services dependent on rural spending, will reduce the quality of life in rural areas, for instance, making it difficult to support small country schools, contributing to the so-called cycle of cumulative causation that keeps rural economies in a state of underdevelopment".
All that supports what my noble friend has been saying throughout the course of this evening. The noble Lord, Lord Williams—the spectre of rural depopulation—appears to be with us once again, a spectre we had hoped to have exorcized in Wales.
The point is that there is no real recognition of the gravity of the situation in the Government's paper, Pathway to Prosperity. On page 27 there is a section headed, "Action for rural Wales"; but what does that amount to? A Welsh Office junior Minister is apparently to,
"chair a new Rural Partnership for Wales, with a remit embracing the broad sweep of economic, social, environmental and cultural issues of concern in rural communities. Supported by a new all-Wales rural unit in the enhanced WDA, the partnership will examine and prepare options for a rural strategy for Wales as a basis for consideration by the National Assembly. It will also move forward specific proposals to promote the rural economy and to help deal with current problems as and when they arise".
1472
They do not tell us what the proposals are to deal with these current problems, which of their nature are already with us and likely to get worse by the time the assembly is established. That is one of the reasons why the regional committees are so important. They will bring pressure to bear on the assembly and the Welsh Development Agency to act urgently to try to safeguard the rural areas. I hope that it will not be too late and that it will not be a case of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. One step that could be taken is to ensure that there is rather more agricultural and rural representation and thrust in the development agency itself and in its membership.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I think all parties are concerned about the threat to the heartland of rural Wales by the current agricultural crisis that has been so well documented in the publications to which the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, referred a moment ago.
With the demise of the Development Board for Rural Wales, and its functions being transferred to the Welsh Development Agency, it seems to me that it is only common sense that there should be a representative, an advocate upon that board as a member of it. If such a member, representing agriculture and rural development, can be as effective an advocate as the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, has been in the course of this and other debates, then I am quite sure that the interests of the heartland of Wales will be maintained. I support the amendment.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as I said earlier in the course of the debate on Report, the Government fully recognise the needs of rural Wales, that they are undoubtedly important and that they should be addressed by the Welsh Development Agency.
I would love to get into the debate about the rural economy as a whole, but your Lordships will forgive me for not being tempted down that path because I believe that the appropriate course is to address the particular amendment with which we are concerned just now; namely, Amendment No. 223.
The present situation in relation to appointments of board members of the Welsh Development Agency is that the Secretary of State is required to appoint board members with a broad range of experience, and that includes industry which, of course, covers agriculture as well as matters relating to the environment, which clearly can include rural development. It would be a brave person indeed, particularly any one of your Lordships who has heard the speeches made by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, in relation to the nature of agriculture and the business nature of agriculture, who would argue that agriculture should not be regarded as an industry. Thus, the very expertise, which the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, is seeking to specify, is already covered in the Bill as it is drafted.
Furthermore, the House will be aware of the Secretary of State's intention to make appointments to the new WDA board through fair and open competition, having placed public advertisements seeking people from all

1473
walks of life to apply for appointment. I am told that over 200 candidates have made a positive response to being considered for board membership. It is expected that the Secretary of State will announce his decisions on the composition of the board in early autumn.
I hope, in the light of my explanation, that the noble Lord will not feel obliged to press his amendment and will withdraw it.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, in reply to the noble and learned Lord, I am sorry to say that most people do not consider agriculture to be a business, although the noble and learned Lord does. A large number of farmers do not consider it so. Therefore, I rule out his case.
I should like to thank my Front Bench for supporting me. They do not always do so. I do not always support them, so why should they support me? Even more interestingly, I should like to thank the Liberals for supporting me. That was my family's party. They certainly very seldom support me. I hope the noble and learned Lord realises that on this occasion there are three people—myself; you might say a bolshie Back-Bencher, my Front Bench and the Liberal Party—who say that there should clearly be somebody representing agriculture and rural businesses who is available to go on the board of the Welsh Development Agency. I cannot understand why the noble and learned Lord still objects to that. I will come back to it later because, as the noble and learned Lord knows, I agreed with his Chief Whip that I would not be too awkward tonight. But I really am becoming a little short of patience with platitudes from the Front Bench saying, yes, they love me and they love agriculture; but no, they will not do anything about the rural economy.
Let me make it clear that by Third Reading I expect the noble and learned Lord and his noble friend to become a little more accommodating. We feel very strongly about this. The noble and learned Lord and his noble friend keep saying that they feel strongly, but I want money on the table. I am a farmer. I want to see the colour of their money. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 224 not moved.]
Clause 142 [Winding-down]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 225:
Page 71, line 26, leave out subsection (9).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 17 [Audit etc. of Welsh public bodies]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendments Nos. 226 and 227:
Page 163, line 6, after ("all") insert ("or most").
Page 163, line 9, leave out ("in respect only") and insert ("only or mainly in respect").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 147 [Environment Agency]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 228:
Page 74, leave out lines 24 and 25 and insert ("or to").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 151 [Power to amend enactments]:
Lord Roberts of Conwy Lord Roberts of Conwy moved Amendment No. 229:
Page 75, line 42, at end insert (", provided that they are made before the second ordinary election of the Assembly.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is one of 12 Henry VIII clauses in the Bill. In paragraph 8 of its report on the Bill the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee stated:
"The Committee noted that this is, as far as it is aware, the first Bill to contain provisions which in effect define Henry VIII provisions in order to make them subject to affirmative procedure".
The committee went on to say in paragraph 9:
"The Committee considered the Welsh Office's justification for all the powers and saw no need to draw the special attention of the House to any of them".
That is a very favourable report. Nevertheless, these powers are extensive and there are more in the Bill than in any other Bill considered by the committee. Although they are all subject to the affirmative procedure, we believe that their exercise should be time limited if possible. We therefore propose that the powers exercisable under Clause 151 should be confined to the first four years of the assembly's life; that is, in between the first two elections. The powers should not be necessary after the second election. That is certainly our view and I hope the Government will agree. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I understand the point behind the noble Lord's observations, but the purpose of Clause 151 is simply to allow minor technical corrections to other statutes to be made in consequence of the Bill without the need for fresh primary legislation. The noble Lord has, as always, extremely fairly cited the view of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. It is of some significance that the committee did not have any concerns itself.
The Bill has a wide scope and it obviously has a potentially large impact on the rest of the statute book. We hope that we have provided for all such changes on the face of the Bill. We may have overlooked some. I would certainly hope that all such further changes should have been identified by 2003, but we cannot be sure. We think it is prudent that we should not have a time limit on this power.
Perhaps I may stress this point because I think it may be of some assistance to the noble Lord. The power as it stands applies only to legislation passed before or in the same Session as this Bill. Therefore, there is no question of trying to use this power to modify new legislation in the longer term. It only relates to existing statutes or legislation passed within this Session. We

1475
believe that it is prudent to retain the power. Even in the review, for instance, that the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, made today, he rightly touched on many statutes. It is a possibility that there is a clause or subsection lurking somewhere which we have not found and which may not have been ferreted out by the year 2003. Therefore, on the basis of prudence, we believe that it is right to leave this clause unamended.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. As he will agree, it is an astonishingly powerful clause. When he says that it applies only to current or past enactments, I would have thought that that was power enough for any Cardinal Wolsey who may be about. However, having listened to his comments, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 230:
Page 75, line 42, at end insert—
("( ) An Order in Council under section 22 may include any provision that may be included in an order under subsection (1).").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment relates to the ability to enable an Order in Council under Clause 22 to include any provision that may be included in an order under Clause 151. As drafted, Clause 22(3) enables an Order in Council to include any appropriate consequential, incidental, supplementary or transitional provisions, amendments or repeals of enactments. But that only allows amendment or repeal of enactments in relation to powers transferred by the Order in Council.
This amendment would enable such an Order in Council to include other amendments or repeals of enactments which may be appropriate in consequence of the Bill generally. This is a sensible step which will enable a single set of enactments to be covered in just one instrument under Clause 22 rather than have some under that clause and some under Clause 151. That does not extend to the overall scope of order-making powers or reduce the amount of parliamentary scrutiny. It simply allows greater flexibility. It avoids burdening your Lordships and another place with multiple items of subordinate legislation. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 153 [Transitional provisions etc.]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 230A:
Page 76, line 4, at end insert—
("( ) If section 107 comes into force before the Human Rights Act 1998 has come into force (or come fully into force), that section shall have effect until the time when that Act is fully in force as it will have effect after that time.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 154 [Orders and directions]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendments Nos. 231 and 231A:
Page 76, line 11, leave out ("or 144(8)") and insert (", 144(8) or 155(1A)").
Page 76, line 24, at end insert (" 106(1B), 108(7A),").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 155 [Interpretation]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendments Nos. 231B to 234:
Page 76, leave out lines 43 and 44.
Page 77, line 6, at end insert ("and
"Wales" includes the sea adjacent to Wales out as far as the seaward boundary of the territorial sea.").
Page 77, line 7, at end insert—
("(1A) The Secretary of State may by order determine, or make provision for determining, for the purposes of the definition of "Wales" any boundary between—

(a) the parts of the sea which are to be treated as adjacent to Wales, and

(b) those which are not,

and may make different determinations or provision for different purposes; and an Order in Council under section 22 may include any provision that may be included in an order under this subsection.").
Page 77, line 8, leave out from ("year"") to end of line 14 and insert ("means the twelve months ending with 31st March, and the first financial year of the Assembly is the financial year ending with the 31st March following the day of the first ordinary election.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 156 [Defined expressions]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendments Nos. 234A to 238:
Page 77, line 33, column 2, leave out (" 155(1)") and insert (" 107(5)").
Page 77, line 42, column 1, leave out ("(in relation to the Assembly)").
Page 77, line 43, at end insert—

("first financial year of the Assembly

section 155(2)")

Page 77, line 45, column 1, at end insert ("with an executive role").
Page 78, line 13, at end insert—

("Wales

section 155(1) and (1A)")

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Competition Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments and a privilege amendment; the Commons amendments ordered to be printed.
House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes before eleven o'clock.

  Baltic States: Know How Fund Allocations
  Baltic States: Know How Fund Allocations
  Know How Fund: Policy
  Know How Fund: Policy
  Waste Management Proposals
  Waste Management Proposals
  Mobile Phones on Trains
  Mobile Phones on Trains
  Strategic Defence Review: Tornado Squadrons
  Strategic Defence Review: Tornado Squadrons
  Sierra Leone Arms Investigation: Indemnities
  Sierra Leone Arms Investigation: Indemnities
  Government Departments: Assistance with Overseas Sales
  Government Departments: Assistance with Overseas Sales
  CIA Website: UK Profile
  CIA Website: UK Profile
  NATO Actions
  NATO Actions
  NATO and the Baltic States
  NATO and the Baltic States
  Landmines Bill
  Landmines Bill
  Privy Council Dinner
  Privy Council Dinner
  Immigration Directorates' Instructions: Internet Availability
  Immigration Directorates' Instructions: Internet Availability
  Life Sentence Review Procedures
  Life Sentence Review Procedures
  Pregnant Prisoners
  Pregnant Prisoners
  Mr. E. J. Esemuze
  Mr. E. J. Esemuze
  Football-related Offences Overseas
  Football-related Offences Overseas
  Medway Secure Training Centre: Disturbance
  Medway Secure Training Centre: Disturbance
  Imported Coal
  Imported Coal
  Duckett's Cheese
  Duckett's Cheese
  COT Chairman
  COT Chairman
  GCSE and GNVQ Point Score Comparisons
  GCSE and GNVQ Point Score Comparisons