Sitting of 13 April 1999

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

    Builders
    Mr. John Healey: What plans he has to take action against incompetent and dishonest builders; and if he will make a statement. [78815]
    The Minister for London and Construction (Mr. Nick Raynsford): The Government are determined to combat the scourge of cowboy builders, who cause immense misery and serious problems for thousands of consumers and damage the image of the whole construction industry. Our work has taken another major step forward in the last week with the cowboy working group's interim report, which sets out detailed proposals for a practical quality mark and approved-list scheme which was issued for consultation on Friday.
    Mr. Healey: I thank my hon. Friend for confirmation of the plans for the quality mark scheme, which was well received by reputable builders to whom I spoke in my constituency over the weekend, and which promises a way to deal with the cowboys who rip people off with overpriced, shoddy and sometimes unsafe work. Will my hon. Friend give a little more detail of how the scheme will encourage the best and root out the worst? If this voluntary scheme fails, will he undertake to legislate?
    Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The scheme has been widely welcomed by reputable builders who recognise the damage being done to their reputation by the unscrupulous. The quality mark scheme is based on simple principles: builders who subscribe to it must meet guaranteed standards of quality performance and be subject to proper procedures for complaint handling and to disciplinary procedures, and their work must be underpinned by performance and insurance-backed warranties. That assures customers that when they select a builder with the quality mark, they will get a reputable builder, with proper channels of redress if things go wrong and that they will not fall into the hands of unscrupulous cowboys.
    Mr. Eric Pickles: One of the companies in my constituency of which I am particularly proud is Exor Management Services, which has set up the Sinclair vetting directory, which is similar to what the Government are seeking to do. The firm points out that vetting is good only on the day of publication of the list. It suggests that one way to improve the Government scheme would be to introduce continuous vetting, so that someone does not get through the net by being good at just one particular point. Will the Minister agree to his officials meeting my constituent company, as its proposal might avoid duplication and might even save the Government some money?
    Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly fair point. There is a need for continuous monitoring of builders' performance to ensure the integrity of the quality

    3
    mark scheme. He is right to say that the views of the industry should be taken into account, which is why the report has been published for consultation. We shall welcome the views of the hon. Gentleman's constituent firm and others during the consultation period, with the aim of getting the scheme as good as it possibly can be when we come to launch it, we hope in the autumn.
    Mr. David Chaytor: May I bring to my hon. Friend the Minister's attention the activities of a company operating in my constituency? Formerly known as Midland Coating, it went into liquidation and subsequently reinvented itself as Raincheck. That company also went into liquidation and recently reinvented itself as Sealpoint. Will my hon. Friend assure the House that he will discuss the activities of this and similar phoenix companies with colleagues at the Department of Trade and Industry who are well aware of the problem, with a view to taking action so that companies cannot simply reinvent themselves with a different name and continue their unscrupulous activities?
    Mr. Raynsford: We are in close contact with colleagues at the DTI on broader consumer protection issues, including effective measures to be taken against rogue traders. I certainly hope that they will be able to come up with proposals to make it easier to deal with the kind of problems created by the firms to which my hon. Friend refers. The important point about the quality mark scheme is that it will give customers knowledge of reputable firms which meet approved standards; and firms such as those to which my hon. Friend refers will not qualify for the quality mark, so any customers who use them will do so at their own risk.
    Mr. Andrew Stunell: The Minister's announcement is certainly welcome, although some eyebrows have been raised over the membership of the cowboy working party. Does he accept that many of the problems are created by door-to-door building salesmen, especially those in the double glazing industry? Will he assure us that such people will be brought within the scope of the working party's examination? Does he accept that if he were to extend the Energy Saving Trust's scheme, which provides help for poor and low-income families to install energy-saving and energy-efficient equipment in their homes, that would cut off that part of the industry, thus providing good value for the Government and reducing CO2 emissions?
    Mr. Raynsford: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman should have impugned the integrity of the members of the cowboy working party, which is led in a distinguished way by Tony Merricks and which has produced a report that has received widespread support and encouragement from the construction industry. The hon. Gentleman's proposals are slightly odd, given that we have increased the sums available for the home energy efficiency and home agency schemes the HEES and HIA schemes. However, that does not obviate the need for a proper scheme to ensure that any member of the public who is approached by a door-to-door salesman, or by any other builder or person masquerading as a builder, should be able to gauge whether that person is reputable. The quality mark scheme that we propose to introduce will provide exactly that guarantee.

    Rail Transport
    2. Mr. Piara S. Khabra: What is his most recent estimate of the amount of goods transported by rail in 1998–99; and if he will make a statement. [78816]
    The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): The Department's figures for the financial year 1997–98—the last full year for which we have figures—show a 12 per cent. growth in freight carried by rail. That growth continues. In the first half of the financial year 1998–99—April 1998 to September 1998–8.9 billion tonne km of freight went by rail compared with 8.3 billion tonne km over the same period in the financial year 1997–98. That shows an extraordinary increase in the growth of rail freight.
    Mr. Khabra: I welcome the Minister's reply, but what steps is the Department taking to encourage, where possible, companies to use rail instead of road to transport goods? Does he agree that a reduction in the use of roads will help to improve air quality as well as the environment generally?
    Mr. Prescott: It is our intention, as we pointed out in the White Paper on integrated transport, to achieve a sustainable freight system for air, sea, ship, rail and road. We have outlined some of the policies for that. One of the first things that we did was almost to double the amount of freight grants that were available. We have increased that amount again, and it is being fully used. We have also made grants available to freight integration centres and are improving port facilities. All that has led to the increase, and we look to a further one.
    Mr. Graham Brady: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the welcome increases in rail freight can continue only if there is continuing public support for such increases? In constituencies such as mine, densely populated residential areas are being badly affected by vibration and noise from particular flows of freight. That is undermining public support for greater use of rail freight, which is very bad. In October, I raised this subject with the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale). Will he undertake to have another look at rail freight going to the Brunner Mond plant in Cheshire?
    Mr. Prescott: I always talk to my colleagues about these matters. Any transport matter has environmental consequences, whether it be noise or exhaust emissions. Those are a matter of concern in our comprehensive approach. I am pleased at the growth in rail traffic, which has also occurred through the channel tunnel—much of it due to the changes that we have made in policy. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is due to privatisation."] As for those who shout about privatisation, it was an absolute scandal to give away rail companies and pay £250 million, not for those companies but for their bonus of free travel through the channel tunnel.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Government's

    5
    excellent work to encourage the transport of freight by rail will be undermined if Railtrack is not prepared to put money into the pinch-points in the railway system that are holding up the movement of goods? Will he take it on himself to have a short, straightforward, Anglo Saxon conversation with the chief executive of Railtrack about the difference between wish-lists, supported by even more Government money, and investment programmes that could be funded by Railtrack's very large profits?
    Mr. Prescott: Investment is indeed the key. There is not sufficient rail capacity to meet the increasing demands of freight. That is why we have ordered a look at the new rail route to take international carriages, and why we have renegotiated arrangements, which collapsed under the previous Administration, for the channel tunnel rail link. I very much agree with my hon. Friend about wish-lists for investment. As she knows, I have appointed a pretty tough Strategic Rail Authority chairman and a new regulator, who I believe will begin to make a difference in Railtrack's approach to delivering its promises.
    Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Does the Secretary of State agree that we should be doing everything possible to help Railtrack deliver its £27 billion investment programme, which would be the biggest ever investment programme in the railways and the biggest ever investment by a United Kingdom private company? To that end, would not it be sensible to drop the proposal to divert the subsidy from the train operating companies to Railtrack, which exists only to give the Deputy Prime Minister political leverage that he does not require? Precisely who supports his proposal for changing the subsidy arrangements? Does his new rail supremo, Sir Alastair Morton, whose appointment we very much welcome, support the proposal or, like the rest of the industry, does he think that it is absolutely crazy and will endanger the investment that Railtrack is offering?
    Mr. Prescott: It is very difficult to keep up with the Opposition. I read a statement attributed to the hon. Gentleman that he was claiming the idea himself. I was the one who asked the regulator to review the subsidies being given to the franchise operators and to consider whether those subsidies should be given to Railtrack because of the failure to invest in the infrastructure, which my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) mentioned. I made the reference to the regulator and I believe that his report will be out in the next few days.
    Mr. Jenkin: Who supports it?
    Mr. Prescott: I believe that there is considerable support. If the hon. Gentleman reads the Booz Allen report, commissioned by the regulator, which has been published, he will see that we are the ones who are making common sense about the railway system.

    Bus Passes (Pensioners)
    Mr. John Grogan: If he will make a statement concerning progress in implementing the policy of making available half-fare bus passes for all pensioners. [78817]
    The Minister of Transport (Dr. John Reid): We intend to legislate to make half-fare bus passes available
    6
    to all pensioners as soon as parliamentary time permits. It is of course open to individual local authorities to adopt the proposed minimum standard in advance of legislation.
    Mr. Grogan: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he recognise the urgency of the matter and the priority with which many in rural Britain treat this issue, especially in my constituency, where, for example, in market towns such as Tadcaster and villages such as Sherburn-in-Elmet, pensioners have to make do with only £8 a year of bus tokens—enough for three or four journeys a year—in the knowledge that their neighbours in West Yorkshire, in towns such as Weatherby, have access to concessionary travel at 20p per journey off peak? Is not that fundamentally unfair?
    Dr. Reid: I agree with my hon. Friend that any Government committed, as the Government are, to a fairer, more inclusive society would want to ensure that bus travel remains within reach of those with very limited means. That is precisely why we are proposing a guaranteed half-fare scheme for pensioners in England and Wales, with a maximum £5 annual bus pass. I am sure that that, with many other measures that we are taking to increase activity and access and promote growth in the bus passenger market, will be widely welcomed by pensioners in my hon. Friend's constituency and throughout the country.
    Mr. Adrian Sanders: Will the Minister accept that half-fare bus travel is not really enoug—that our pensioners should be entitled to travel at half fare by coach, bus, rail, ferry or any mode of transport, and that our pensioners deserve such a comprehensive scheme?
    Dr. Reid: That is another penny on the tax, I suppose. Of course, in an ideal world, we would like to make half-fare travel even more extensive, but I think that the hon. Gentleman would be churlish if he did not at least accept that the Government's proposals to extend half-fare bus travel to all pensioners throughout England and Wales represent a major advance on anything that has gone before and will be widely welcomed by pensioners in his constituency and throughout the country.

    New Forest
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: If he will make a statement about his plans to introduce new legislation affecting the status of the New forest. [78819]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Alan Meale): We are still looking very carefully at all the issues connected with a possible change in status for the New forest. We hope to announce some conclusions soon.
    Mr. Swayne: Over the last 30 years, on every issue of conservation against development, one or other of the local authorities has backed the developers only to be thwarted by the verderers, exercising their existing powers under the New Forest Acts. Can the Minister assure me, therefore, that he will not produce proposals setting up a new park authority with statutory powers that could restrain in any way the freedom of action of the verderers court?
    Mr. Meale: I assure the hon. Gentleman—as I did in the recent debate in the House, which he initiated—that

    7
    full consideration will be given to the verderers' views and that we envisage no likely change in the role that they undertake at present.
    Dr. Alan Whitehead: Does the Minister accept that it is quite possible to establish national park status for the New forest, which would be very much welcomed by many people living in the area, without necessarily removing the powers of the verderers under certain circumstances or many of the planning powers of the local authority, and that many people would welcome that way forward for the New forest?
    Mr. Meale: I am aware that there is a wide variety of views. Indeed, we have received many hundreds of letters on this subject. There are those who are strongly in favour of national park status and those who are against it in the area concerned.
    Mr. Nigel Waterson: Does the Minister agree that in areas such as the New forest and the south downs, it is far better to build on existing structures that have been proved successful rather than listen to noisy minorities that want national park status? When will the hon. Gentleman announce his final decision on these issues?
    Mr. Meale: I repeat that that will be soon. We are determined to get the decision-making process right rather than to accommodate one side or the other. The hon. Gentleman might consider the views of the Leader of the Opposition who, when recently interviewed by the Southampton Daily Echo, expressed the view that he had no difficulties with national park status in the two relevant areas which adjoin his constituency.

    Freight Costs
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: If he will make a statement on the level of freight costs in (a) the UK and (b) other EU member states. [78820]
    Mr. Mark Todd: If he will make a statement on road freight costs in (a) the United Kingdom and (b) other EU member states. [78828]
    The Minister of Transport (Dr. John Reid): For a typical haulage operator with 50 articulated trucks, if we include social costs, national insurance, corporation tax, labour costs, fuel and excise duty, the additional cost in France. as compared with the UK, is about £425,000 a year; in the Netherlands about £600,000; and in Belgium about £800,000. These issues will be discussed in more detail by the road haulage forum.
    Mr. Williams: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that comprehensive reply. Does he agree, bearing in mind yesterday's truckers' protest, that the general public are presented with only one part of the picture? Will he go in considerable detail through the various factors with the road haulage forum and perhaps prepare and present an agreed report eventually so that there is transparency and so that the general public can understand that road haulage costs in Britain are about a third less than those in France, Germany and Italy?
    Dr. Reid: Yes, I certainly will. The general public are coming to recognise that when all costs are considered,
    8
    the UK haulage industry is more competitive than the majority of its European competitors. There is overcapacity in the industry, and I take that seriously. That is why I am involved in discussions with the road haulage and freight associations on that and other matters.
    It is a matter of deep regret that a militant section of the hauliers have rejected the path of dialogue and have opted instead to disrupt, inconvenience and punish millions of ordinary members of the public while discussions are taking place. I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House would wish to condemn such destructive action.
    Mr. Todd: I certainly thank the Minister for the last part of his reply. I share his view entirely, as I think would my constituents. However, may I ask him three questions on this issue—[HoN. MEMBERS: "No."] I shall do so very quickly. First, my right hon. Friend referred to a 50-truck company. I would be interested—I am sure that the road haulage forum would find it helpful—to explore the position of a smaller company, including its cash flow, as a result of the change in tax status. Secondly, what is the impact on market share over the period in which the increased taxes will be introduced? Thirdly, are there means of measuring the impact on the environment of these taxes so that we can ensure that the outcomes are those that we are seeking?
    Dr. Reid: Yes. At great risk of going on at tremendous length, I think that it would be helpful if we considered some of these issues. I can tell my hon. Friend, for instance, that labour costs are higher for our continental neighbours by more than 55 per cent. in France, 95 per cent. in Belgium and 75 per cent. in the Netherlands. Corporation tax for individual firms—my hon. Friend asked specifically about smaller firms—is higher for our continental neighbours. It is 50.65 per cent. higher in France, 40.17 per cent. higher in Belgium and 35 per cent. higher in the Netherlands. I could go on indefinitely, but I undertake to write to my hon. Friend in answer to those three questions as well as any others he wishes to ask.
    Mr. Tony Baldry: If what the Minister says is correct, hauliers would be flagging out from France, Germany and the Netherlands and joining the United Kingdom truck industry, but quite the opposite is happening. UK hauliers are flagging out and registering elsewhere because, in the marketplace, the costs are cheaper. He cannot be unaware that independent research, supported by organisations such as the Confederation of British Industry, has shown that about 50,000 jobs will be at risk if the Government maintain these policies. The extra costs will be felt not only in the haulage industry, but throughout the whole of UK plc. Will he work out why UK hauliers are moving away rather than companies from elsewhere in Europe coming to this country?
    Dr. Reid: May I correct the hon. Gentleman? The independent research to which he refers was commissioned by the Road Haulage Association; although it may be an honourable organisation, it is hardly independent in the present context. He and his party must be experts on flagging out—they cut their eye teeth on flagging out almost the whole of the British merchant shipping industry. He will be aware, as I am, that the leading exponent of flagging out—to Belize, I think—is the current treasurer of the Tory party.

    9
    On interchange of registration, in an increasingly integrated Europe, some British companies will flag out abroad as some companies from abroad will flag out in Britain. The fact is that all the independent assessments, including the most recent one by KPMG, show that, next to Austria, our road haulage industry is the most competitive in Europe.
    Finally, as millions of people have again been condemned, punished, inconvenienced and disrupted by the militant action this week, it would be useful if, just for once, a Tory spokesman stood up to back the public and said how much the Tories condemn and regret the action.
    Mr. William Ross: The House and the country will no doubt be very interested in the figures given by the Minister, but will he go further and publish in the Official Report all the figures for all the European states, so that we can see what the facts are? Will he understand that those of us from Northern Ireland are particularly interested in the costs vis-à-vis Northern Ireland and the Republic, not least the cost of fuel?
    Dr. Reid: I shall continue to publish as many facts as I can on this matter, because the one way to put the case in perspective is to put as many facts as possible before the public. I have to say that the way to solve problems such as this is through dialogue—not through disruption. We are concerned about the overcapacity in the industry and we want to help the hauliers, which is why I am having discussions with the Road Haulage Association and the Freight Transport Association, but we will not be held to ransom. I only wish that we had some of the courage shown by Conservative Members in standing up for the general public.
    Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Will my right hon. Friend ask his officials, or Treasury officials, to dig out the figures that really matter in this whole argument—the transport cost per tonne per kilometre, by road and by rail, in each European country, including the United Kingdom? I believe that those statistics will reveal the truth. Can we have those statistics published? If we cannot, can we have published some indicators that we all understand and which we can use in explanations to the road haulage industry?
    Dr. Reid: My hon. Friend makes a good point. As he knows, there are any number of potential indicators and statistics can be used, on either side of an argument, to illustrate the case. I will certainly look at that particular method or at any other simplified way of putting the truth of this matter across to the public.
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: If the right hon. Gentleman would agree this afternoon to commission a new report on the facts and figures surrounding the haulage industry, the Opposition would welcome that. But what the right hon. Gentleman said this afternoon will have been listened to with incredulity by the industry. If the British road haulage industry is in such a favourable and competitive position, why are his policies driving large British haulage companies out of the country and small British haulage companies out of business?
    Dr. Reid: I take it that one of the companies to which the right hon. Lady refers is Eddie Stobart, a great British
    10
    success story. Eddie Stobart operates a quarter of his lorries on the continent and he is registering them there. However, the right hon. Lady may not know that Eddie Stobart benefits from the DETR rail freight grants. I shall write to her about how many millions of pounds are involved.
    We shall continue to discuss all these issues in the road haulage forum, but I notice that the right hon. Lady had not one word of sympathy for the public yesterday. Is it not a shameful hypocrisy that the party which, when in government, introduced, maintained and increased the fuel duty escalator, now attempts to abandon it? Is it not a shameful hypocrisy that the party which says that it is against European tax harmonisation now wants our taxes to be dictated by France and Luxembourg? Is it not a shameful hypocrisy that the party which, for 20 years, has condemned every militant action by every section of British workers, has now become the militants friend because it is too frit to stand up against the militant hauliers?

    Concessionary Travel
    Mr. Paul Burstow: What plans he has to review the arrangements for concessionary travel in Greater London. [78821]
    The Minister for Transport in London (Ms Glenda Jackson): Subject to the passage of the Greater London Authority Bill, provision will be made to continue arrangements, including a reserve free travel scheme which ensures that London's pensioners and eligible disabled persons continue to enjoy the benefits of concessionary travel.
    Mr. Burstow: Does the Minister understand that, if just one of London's 33 boroughs refuses to support the concessionary fares scheme, it falls, and, as a consequence, a reserve scheme comes in which costs more, starts later in the day and excludes the use of the railways? Will the Minister, therefore, legislate to ensure that the freedom pass is safeguarded so that, if the worst happens and London's boroughs do not agree among themselves, we can guarantee to Londoners that they will not be the ones to lose out?
    Ms Jackson: The whole point of the reserve scheme is that it guarantees a concessionary fares scheme for pensioners and disabled persons. We will, of course, listen to anyone who wishes to improve the present scheme and will react accordingly.
    Mr. Neil Gerrard: Does my hon. Friend accept that the present reserve scheme is out of date—I think that it goes back to 1985—and depends on the powers that were put in place on the abolition of the GLC? Will my hon. Friend consider bringing that scheme more up to date so that, if we fail to obtain agreement, we at least have a reserve scheme that matches today's conditions, not those of 1985?
    Ms Jackson: The date to which my hon. Friend refers is 1984. As I have already said, we shall listen to anyone who comes forward with improvements to the existing scheme to ensure that pensioners and disabled persons in London can rest assured that their concessionary travel is secure.

    Sites of Special Scientific Interest
    Mr. David Lepper: When he expects to bring forward measures to implement proposals in the Government's consultation paper, "Sites of Special Scientific Interest—Better Protection and Management". [78822]
    The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): Following the recent conclusion to the consultation exercise, to which we received nearly 600 responses, I hope to be in a position to make an announcement very soon outlining how we intend to proceed.
    Mr. Lepper: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the widespread public support for legislation for the greater protection of our wildlife which will be shown this afternoon by 250,000 pledges collected by the Countryside and Wildlife Link which will be presented to hon. Members? Will my right hon. Friend also note that 334 hon. Members have now signed early-day motion 11 in my name in support of such legislation, and agree that a commitment to introduce legislation more securely to protect our wildlife would be welcome? Can my right hon. Friend give a commitment to the early introduction of that legislation?
    Mr. Meacher: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his persistent campaigning in support of wildlife protection. I recognise the widespread support in the country for the strengthening of wildlife protection laws. As the House knows, 335 signatories to an early-day motion is a large number and shows strong support from hon. Members. As soon as parliamentary time permits, I intend to introduce legislation to strengthen the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which is now outdated in significant ways.
    Mr. Simon Burns: I assure the Minister that we shall look forward to his announcement with great interest, because we believe that the 1981 Act needs to be tightened up and improved. Does he accept that the crown jewels of our wildlife heritage, the SSSIs, are in a desperate state? There have been more than 2,000 cases of damage in the past six years, 46 sites have lost their SSSI status and hundreds more have had part of their designated area depleted. Do the Government accept that there is an urgent need to take quick action to prevent further erosion and damage to these important sites? Can the Minister give the House any reassurance that, before further legislation is introduced and enacted, more will be done under existing rules and regulations to tighten the protection of these important areas?
    Mr. Meacher: I agree that, over the years, SSSIs have been significantly damaged. The reasons for that are road building programmes, over-abstraction of water and intensification of agriculture, all of which were significantly increased under the previous Government. We are taking action on all three fronts. Last year, we carried out a review of the roads programme. We are also reviewing existing consents for water abstraction and seeking the time-limiting of all consents. At the negotiations on the common agricultural policy in Brussels and Berlin, we have recently made significant progress on the countryside through the inclusion of the
    12
    rural development regulation and cross-compliance on environmental conditions for agricultural grants. Those measures will reduce the damage that was done in the Tory years.
    Dr. Nick Palmer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that new legislation in this area is not only desirable in principle, but urgent in practice because of the steady deterioration referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper) and other hon. Members? Does he accept that this subject has excited great public concern beyond the usual groups that routinely write to us?
    Mr. Meacher: I accept what my hon. Friend has said. The Government published a consultation paper, "Sites of Special Scientific Interest—Better Protection and Management", last September. The radical policies that it contains were broadly accepted during the consultation process. I repeat that we are seeking the earliest opportunity to introduce a new Bill to give greater protection to SSSIs, which are essential for wildlife.

    London Underground
    Sir Sydney Chapman: If he will make a statement about the Government's policy on (a) investment in and (b) fares on London underground. [78823]
    The Minister for Transport in London (Ms Glenda Jackson): Our policy on investment in London underground is to secure high and stable investment in modernising and maintaining the system. Fares are currently the responsibility of London Transport, but following the establishment of the Greater London Authority, they will become the responsibility of the mayor.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: How can the Minister be confident that private investment in the infrastructure of the London underground will be forthcoming, given that the assets created will remain in or return to the public sector? The Transport Sub-Committee has referred to the public-private partnership as a convoluted compromise. Is not the truth of the matter that the PPP will lead to a lack of adequate investment and a continuation of fares rising above the rate of inflation, in contradistinction to the privatised railways whose fares have gone down in real terms since privatisation?
    Ms Jackson: No. Private sector interest in our proposals for PPP is very strong. As for fare rises, according to the modelling, fares will rise at a rate conforming to the retail prices index plus 1 in 2000-01, and at RPI plus 0 after 2001. That is in marked contrast to the last decade of the last Administration, during which, despite promises to freeze London Transport fares, they rose by 38 per cent. in real terms.
    Mr. Richard Ottaway: Is not the real picture very different? Does the Minister agree that the last Government were investing £700 million a year in the underground, while the present Government are investing £500 million? Does she agree that, while this Government's PPP will raise £7 billion over 15 years,

    13
    the last Government spent that in 10 years? Does she agree that, while the private railways are experiencing rising investment and falling fares, the underground is experiencing falling investment and rising fares, and that, after decades of expansion, no new lines are planned? What on earth has happened to the Labour party's manifesto pledge to improve the London underground?
    Ms Jackson: The last Administration reduced core investment in the London underground year on year. Their only solution to the problems was to wash their hands of the underground by promoting a privatisation that would have reduced the existing network by at least a third, and which received the big thumbs-down from Londoners. Our proposal for public-private investment has been welcomed, and will provide enough investment to ensure that our underground is of a quality fit not only for the people of London, but for the 21st century.

    Rural Bus Services
    Mr. Gareth Thomas: If he will make a statement on rural bus services. [78824]
    The Minister of Transport (Dr. John Reid): Rural areas throughout Great Britain now have new or improved bus services as a result of the new money for rural transport announced in each of the last two Budgets. A total of £150 million over three years was provided for rural transport in last year's Budget, and that was increased by over £20 million in this year's Budget.
    Mr. Thomas: That announcement is particularly welcome in the light of the Conservative party's mismanagement of rural transport.
    First, does my right hon. Friend agree that, when public money is spent on matters such as rural transport, effective consultation is essential if services are to meet needs? That is certainly my experience in north Wales. Secondly, can my right hon. Friend give us some details of improvements in rural bus services?
    Dr. Reid: I agree that consultation is essential. Indeed, local authorities, especially those that are taking the integration of transport and the provision of transport services for those in their areas seriously—the vast majority of which are Labour authorities—are an essential part of an integrated transport policy.
    My hon. Friend asked what effect the grants had had. So far, 55 replies have been received to 73 questionnaires in an initial survey of English local authorities. They show that there are 578 new services, while the frequency or coverage of a further 744 has improved. That is a result of the extra money provided by a Labour Government. Furthermore, the £2.25 million allocated in 1998–99 under the Welsh rural bus subsidy grant scheme?—including £76,000 for Conwy and £91,000 for Denbighshire, both of which are in my hon. Friend's constituency—has resulted in improved and additional services.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: Many villages in my rural constituency will suffer further strain because of the lack of provision of places in schools. In Clitheroe, for instance, many youngsters will have to be bussed miles
    14
    out of their area to attend neighbouring schools. Has the Minister had any discussions with the Department for Education and Employment to ensure that there is better planning in regard to school places, so that youngsters need not travel on buses for many hours and many miles in the morning just to receive a decent education?
    Dr. Reid: We are, of course, grappling with our inheritance from the hon. Gentleman's party. However, we have not only discussed the matter with the Department for Education and Employment, but formed the school travel advisory group, which is examining it closely.
    We are not always helped by Conservative councils throughout the country. For example, only in the past few days, in Norfolk county council—which I believe is the council that covers the area that is represented by the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard)—there was a move to introduce 10 additional double-decker buses to moderate the market for school travel. Unfortunately, that was opposed by the Conservative group on the council. Thankfully, a combination of Labour and Liberal councillors managed to secure that service for local pupils and their parents.

    North-East Regional Chamber
    Mr. Stephen Hepburn: When the regional chamber in the north-east will be officially established. [78825]
    The Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning (Mr. Richard Caborn): We are considering proposals from the north-east regional chamber for designation as the regional chamber for the north-east under the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998. I hope to make an announcement shortly.
    Mr. Hepburn: I thank the Minister for that helpful reply, but is he aware that business people and some council leaders in the north-east see themselves at a distinct disadvantage compared with their Scottish counterparts, who will possibly have the advantage of a Scottish Parliament to champion their cause in terms of job creation and economic prosperity? How will the establishment of a regional chamber in the north-ea0st alleviate those concerns?
    Mr. Caborn: I am sure that my hon. Friend knows that, only 10 days ago, we set up the regional development agencies; they are now in operation. As I have said, the regional chambers will be designated. As part of our total devolution package, we are managing that change very carefully and with the consent of the people. I have no doubt that, some time in the future, the north-east, like every other region, will have the opportunity to decide whether it wants a directly elected regional assembly. That will be done with the consent of the people in the various regions. Indeed, we have managed the devolution package for the United Kingdom in that way.

    Rail Summits
    Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: What plans he has to hold regular rail summits with the rail operators. [78826]
    The Minister of Transport (Dr. John Reid): The February rail summit was a major step towards driving up

    15
    the quality of rail services throughout the country. We want and deserve year-on-year improvements in rail performance. We will hold a second summit next spring to review progress and to maintain the momentum.
    Mr. Mackinlay: Does not the publication today of the independent report to the Rail Regulator give credence to the view of the fare-paying public that Railtrack and the franchise operators are both the same and both to blame for under-investment at a time when they are maximising profits? At a future rail summit, will my right hon. Friend make it clear to both Railtrack and the franchise operators that the profits of Railtrack cannot be shifted to the franchisees when there is a review of access charges? There needs to be discipline in investing in Railtrack—the infrastructure—and a proper service needs to be provided by the rail franchise operators. If not, the Government will need to act.
    Dr. Reid: We are scrutinising today's report carefully. We have made it clear that we support the then regulator's view that not sufficient of the surplus that was generated by Railtrack was going into investment. My hon. Friend can be assured that the Deputy Prime Minister and I will, in future, as we have in the past, insist that the public get the sort of investment from Railtrack that they should be getting to improve railway services.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: Will the Minister confirm that, in 1997–98, Railtrack invested an extra £1.25 billion—an increase of 69 per cent. over the last year before flotation—and that, in the current financial year, a further 16 per cent. increase is planned? While he is on his feet confirming those facts—and the fact that the only thing that has saved the railways is a channel tunnel that was built by the private sector under a Conservative Government and with the involvement of private sector investment—will he have a word with the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning? Can he explain why, although his ministerial colleague promised at the previous DETR Question Time to write to me, despite three chasing calls from my office to his private office, I have yet to have a response on an urgent matter involving my constituents? Is that not disgraceful?
    Dr. Reid: I would rather not comment on the hon. Gentleman's private telephone calls. On investment, I can confirm that the previous regulator took the view that the figures that were being invested by Railtrack were insufficient. He is an independent regulator. I can confirm the figure—which the hon. Gentleman gave—of £1.25 billion for the year before last. I can also confirm that only slightly less than that figure was lost to the public by the Conservatives, who sold off Railtrack cheaply.
    Joan Ruddock: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the problem in my constituency, where Connex South Eastern has been locking out disabled passengers from access to the level platforms by closing side gates, for security reasons? Does he accept that far too many rail companies are disabling their potential passengers by such actions? Will he ensure that a future rail summit will raise that issue, and have on its agenda compliance with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995?
    Dr. Reid: Yes.

    Manchester International Airport
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: If he will make a statement on road links to Manchester International airport. [78829]
    The Minister for Transport in London (Ms Glenda Jackson): We propose to begin a multi-modal study in spring, assessing the transport problems around Manchester airport and the area to the south-east of Manchester.
    Mr. Winterton: Will the Minister tell us whether she is aware that support for the second runway at Manchester airport was given because it was indicated by Government that the appropriate infrastructure to serve the airport, not least the road infrastructure, which includes the Macclesfield to Poynton road improvement, the MAELR road—the Manchester airport eastern link road—and the Poynton bypass, would proceed in a priority programme? Will the Minister come to my constituency to see the increasing devastation arising from increased traffic anticipating the second runway at Manchester airport, so that my constituents are aware that this Government are prepared to take responsibility for a decision that a Government of this country took, and will not allow the environment of the villages of Poynton, Mottram St. Andrew and Prestbury to be eroded, as is happening now?
    Ms Jackson: I should dearly love to visit the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but think that it is highly unlikely that I shall have the time to do so in the immediate future. He spoke of the "appropriate infrastructure", which is precisely what the Government are committed to discovering. We must get away from the idea—the previous Administration were beginning to move away from it—that the only appropriate form of infrastructure is exclusively that which is solely dependent on roads. That is not sustainable, either economically or environmentally.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does my hon. Friend accept that far too many people still have to approach Manchester airport—particularly those who work there—by private car, and that it would be far better if the Government could give priority to getting the tramway system, which is doing so well in Greater Manchester, extended to the airport?
    Ms Jackson: The Metrolink issue has been raised by the Greater Manchester passenger transport authority with both my right hon. Friends and me. We are perfectly willing to listen to the authority's arguments on the matter. The responsibility for the matter is the authority's, and dealing with it must be part and parcel of its local integrated transport plans.
    Mr. Stephen Day: Is the Minister aware—from her comments to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), I take it that she is not—that a third of the Manchester airport eastern link road and the Poynton bypass already exists, but that it does not join the airport and does not go anywhere in the east? I hardly think that it is asking a lot of the Minister to consider coming to my hon. Friend's constituency and to Cheadle to see for herself that that road, which is very much a

    17
    reality in the centre, should be connected to those parts of the infrastructure in the north-west that it was intended originally to serve.
    Ms Jackson: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not take the opportunity to apologise for the previous Administration, who have clearly left a third of a road going absolutely nowhere. As I told the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), we shall start a multi-modal study in the spring.

    Buses
    Mr. David Crausby: If he will make a statement on the latest data on the number of people using buses. [78830]
    The Minister of Transport (Dr. John Reid): The latest figures published by my Department show an overall increase of 1 per cent. in passenger journeys on buses in England in 1997-98. That marks the first reversal of a 50-year decline in bus use.
    Mr. Crausby: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that the thoughtless privatisation of bus services was a disaster? What plans does he have to encourage the greater use of bus services in preference to the private car?
    Dr. Reid: Yes. We have been working actively with local authorities and bus operators through the quality partnerships, and we intend to legislate to introduce quality contracts if necessary. The extra money that we have provided for buses, to compensate for the fuel duty escalator, is a topic of some interest, especially in rural areas. Our efforts have resulted in the historic reversal in the trend that I have already mentioned. Given the long-term trend of decline, the latest patronage figures for 1997-98 are encouraging. We have halted that decline, and passenger journeys in London are up by no less than 4 per cent., and in the west midlands by 5 per cent., compared with the previous year. That is another area in which, after 20 years of the Conservative Government, we are bringing about historic shifts in transport patterns.
    Mr. John Bercow: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's encouragement of bus transport, will he tell the House how many times he has travelled to ministerial engagements by bus since he assumed his present post?
    Dr. Reid: I have travelled by bus, and by tube, on several occasions. Unlike some previous Conservative Ministers, I do not find people who travel by public transport so despicable that I avoid it.

    Alternative Fuels
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: What steps he is taking to encourage the manufacture of compressed natural gas vehicles and the conversion of existing petrol and diesel vehicles to alternative fuels. [78831]
    The Minister for Transport in London (Ms Glenda Jackson): The Energy Saving Trust's powershift programme, funded by my Department, contributes towards the additional cost of purchasing gas and electric vehicles. In the recent Budget, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor reduced duty on compressed natural gas and liquefied petroleum gas by 29 per cent.—a strong incentive to convert to those fuels.
    Mr. Prentice: That was a good answer; we must all celebrate the 29 per cent. cut in fuel duty for gas vehicles in the Budget. However, is it not true that we will never get people to convert their vehicles until there are pumps in filling stations to allow them to fill up their tanks with compressed natural gas? What are the Government doing actively to encourage filling stations to put compressed natural gas pumps on their forecourts?
    Ms Jackson: My hon. Friend is right; there is certainly a need for further improvements in the refuelling infrastructure. However, there are signs that fuel suppliers now have the confidence to invest significantly in gas refuelling facilities, and the recent Budget announcements should provide further impetus for their plans.

    Local Government Finance
    Sir Teddy Taylor: What has been the average rate of increase in percentage terms in the allowable spending of local councils over the past five years; and what is the figure for Rochford. [78832]
    The Minister for Local Government and Housing (Ms Hilary Armstrong): The average allowable increase in the spending of local councils in England over the past five years was 2.7 per cent. For Rochford, it was 2.8 per cent. This year, the Government have not set spending limits for individual authorities.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: As the Minister is aware, Rochford is an area with high unemployment and many social problems, and needs investment—but is she also aware that since the Government came to power, the council has been concerned about the financial nightmare that it has had to face? Is she willing to reconsider the situation in Rochford and tell us in what way grants for the area were increased this year? According to the information given to me, they have not been increased, but fell in real terms.
    Ms Armstrong: The hon. Gentleman will know that the sums that the Government have provided for local government this year are higher than for the past seven years. His local council, which covers Rochford, has not had a spending limit imposed this year. It has increased its budget by 2.8 per cent. Council tax rises are substantially higher in Tory authorities than in Labour authorities. I invite the hon. Gentleman to help us to get the best value from local government by ensuring that authorities use the increased money that they are getting from the Government this year effectively for local people.

Kosovo
3.30 pm
The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): I would like, with your permission, Madam Speaker, to bring the House fully up to date with events in Kosovo. There will be a debate in the House early next week.
NATO's actions continue. Our targets include the Serbian air defence system, the command and control centres of the Yugoslav army and special police forces, the lines of communication that Milosevic uses to resupply his forces in Kosovo, his fuel supplies and, increasingly, the Serb forces on the ground engaged in ethnic cleansing. The armed forces of 13 allies are taking a direct part in the NATO action. I am proud of the full role being played by the men and women of the British armed forces. They have the thanks of the whole House.
Our aims are clear. They were set out again at the meeting yesterday of NATO Foreign Ministers. They are: a verifiable end to all Serb military action and the immediate ending of violence and repression; the withdrawal from Kosovo of Milosevic's military, police and paramilitary forces; agreement to the stationing in Kosovo of an international military force; the unconditional and safe return of all refugees and displaced persons and unhindered access to them by humanitarian aid organisations; and credible assurance of willingness to work on the basis of the Rambouillet accords in the establishment of a political framework agreement for Kosovo in conformity with international law and the charter of the United Nations.
Once we have succeeded militarily we need to negotiate a political settlement based on the Rambouillet agreement. It must be a settlement that brings lasting peace to the entire region. Our action will continue until those aims are met.
There is no longer any serious doubt that the warnings that we gave about Milosevic and his intentions were fully justified. Half a million Kosovar Albanians have fled or been driven out of Kosovo into the neighbouring territories of Albania, Macedonia and Montenegro. In no small measure due to British efforts, those who sought refuge in neighbouring countries are now being looked after and have at least found shelter, food and safety.
I would like to pay tribute to the British troops in Macedonia who built a camp for some 30,000 people inside 48 hours; to the sterling work of my right hon Friend the Secretary of State for International Development in persuading the Macedonian Government fully to open the border; to British non-governmental organisations for their rapid response in getting relief through to the0 refugees; and to the tremendous generosity of the British people, who have already given some £10 million to the Kosovo appeal and added substantially to the £23 million committed so far by the Government. I should like also to commend the Albanian Government, who have been unstinting in providing a welcome to those fleeing from Kosovo.
Our concern is now for those still inside Kosovo. Milosevic's forces continue their ethnic cleansing, but at a reduced level. As a result of NATO action to date, the pace has significantly diminished. His tanks have to conceal themselves from NATO aircraft. His fuel supplies are running low. Some estimate that, taking into account all those displaced over several months, half a million or
20
so Kosovar Albanians have been driven from their homes but remain within the province. Many have sought refuge in the hills and forests of Kosovo. We are looking urgently at all the options to assist them. Let me say this clearly: Milosevic is responsible for the welfare of those people. When we go into Kosovo finally, he will be held responsible for what we find.
Let me deal with some of the wider strategic issues. Some say that NATO should never have acted at all; some say, too soon; some say, not enough. However inconsistent those points, they all deserve an answer. Milosevic's action in Kosovo—the murder, rape and terror that he has visited on innocent people—provides ample justification for military action.
To those who wanted still more negotiation, I say that we struggled for a year to find a solution for Kosovo by peaceful means, despite Milosevic's brutality on the ground. We intervened only when the diplomatic avenue was exhausted, and when the hideous policy of ethnic cleansing was under way. Make no mistake: the brutality was planned well in advance. Even as the Rambouillet talks were continuing, Serb troops were massing in Kosovo and a new offensive was getting under way, with 40,000 troops and 300 tanks assembled. We now know that Belgrade was making detailed plans for ethnic cleansing as early as February.
Five days before NATO dropped a single bomb, Serb forces began a massive new offensive aimed at clearing Kosovo of its ethnic Albanian majority, wiping out their political class and even destroying evidence that Albanians had ever lived there.
To those who say that we should put in ground forces now, as part of a land force invasion of Kosovo, I repeat that the difficulties of such an undertaking, in the face of organised Serb resistance, are formidable. In the present circumstances, the potential loss of life among our service men and women, to say nothing of civilians, would be considerable, and in any event, assembling such a force would take weeks.
Every day, however, by air power, we are causing further damage to Milosevic's military machine: his air defence system is seriously degraded; half his front-line air force is now unusable; the roads and railways supplying his forces in Kosovo are largely cut; fuel is now in short supply, hampering the movement of his tanks and trucks; and artillery and troops on the ground are now being targeted and hit.
We make every effort to avoid civilian casualties, though some casualties will be inevitable in such action, and our attitude stands in sharp contrast to the utter lack of scruple of Milosevic towards the civilian population in Kosovo.
Britain and our forces can be proud of the role that we have played, in both the military campaign and the humanitarian effort. Day and night, our pilots are risking their lives to inflict defeat on Milosevic and our forces are working to help to alleviate the misery of the refugees driven from their homes and their homeland by his policy of ethnic cleansing; and day and night we are also preparing for the job that we have to do when our military objectives are met.
Today I can announce that we are sending substantial reinforcements for that purpose, with a second armoured battle group. At the moment, the British Army contingent in Greece and Macedonia consists of just over 4,500

21
military personnel. The remainder of HQ 4 Armoured Brigade and supporting elements are now being sent to the region—all are currently based at their home locations in the United Kingdom and Germany—taking the total number of UK military personnel in Greece and Macedonia to more than 6,300.
Let me make it clear, for the avoidance of doubt, that those personnel are being sent so that the UK can be in a position to play our proper role in the international effort to ensure that the refugees are able to return to Kosovo in safety.
As I said in my first statement to the House, this action will take time. Dictators such as Milosevic do not bow down at the first setback to their plans, but as the weather improves, his forces have fewer hiding places. When new weapons systems are available, such as the attack helicopters, no Serb unit in Kosovo will be able to destroy a village with confidence that it will not be challenged by more powerful forces.
We continue with diplomacy to back up our military action. Tomorrow in Brussels, I shall meet with my colleagues on the European Council and this meeting is being brought forward to include a session with the Secretary-General of the United Nations. The NATO Alliance has a long-planned summit in Washington at the end of next week. I and my colleagues will continue to remain in close touch with our Russian counterparts, who will have an important role to play when Milosevic is brought to meet NATO's requirements.
As for NATO, we must remain united and resolute. There can be no compromise on the terms we have set out. They must be met in full. We shall continue until they are. Ethnic cleansing must be defeated, and seen to be defeated. Milosevic's policies in Kosovo must be defeated, and seen to be defeated. I believe that we have a clear strategic interest in peace in the Balkans, but this is now military action for a moral purpose as much as a strategic interest. The barbarity perpetrated against innocent civilians in Kosovo, simply on the ground of their ethnic identity, cannot be allowed to succeed.
The conflict we now face in Kosovo is a test of our commitment and our resolve to ensure that the 21st century does not begin with a continuing reminder in Europe of the worst aspects of the century now drawing to a close. I urge the House to continue to give its unfailing support to the men and women of our armed forces and to the values they are striving to uphold on behalf of us all.
Mr. William Hague: We should never forget that in order to achieve peace and security in Kosovo, British service men now risk their lives every day. We should salute their courage and we join the Prime Minister in doing so. On the basis of the Government's assurances about the military situation and what could be achieved, the air strikes have been supported by the Opposition and, three weeks later, we continue to give our support. The Prime Minister will no doubt agree that for the campaign to be successful the strategy must be clear and consistent. I wish to ask him three sets of questions about how we will now proceed.
First, do the objectives of the action remain those that were set out at the start of the campaign? The Prime Minister said in his statement that the Rambouillet accords are still being treated as the basis for a political settlement. Does he believe that the Kosovar Albanians
22
will now require something more than the degree of autonomy set out in those accords if they are to agree to return to their homes? Following this morning's meeting, can the Prime Minister set out in more detail the role that he sees Russia playing both in helping to reach a settlement and in enforcing it? Is it still his view that a peacekeeping force must be a NATO force? The Prime Minister has rightly described President Milosevic as a dictator and spoken of the need for war crimes investigations. How does he view the likelihood of us now being able to negotiate a political settlement with Milosevic?
Secondly, there is the central issue of the Kosovar Albanians. What information does the Prime Minister have on the fate of those who have not crossed the border and, in particular, about the terrible reports of massacres of young Kosovar men and systematic rape of Kosovar women by Serbian forces? What steps is NATO taking to break through the wall of propaganda and to ensure that the Serbian people are made fully aware of the atrocities being conducted by Milosevic and his thugs? The aid agency workers, many of them volunteers, are doing a fantastic job. Can the Prime Minister confirm that it is Government policy, wherever possible, to support the refugees in the region—as they themselves wish—rather than to move them to other parts of Europe? Does he agree that Macedonia needs more assistance, bearing in mind the large number of refugees who remain there and the implications that may have for its stability?
Thirdly, the announcement by the Prime Minister on the deployment of 1,800 more British troops puts the issue of ground forces into even sharper focus. He has said that there was no question of committing ground troops to an invasion of Kosovo in advance of a political settlement. More recently, he stated that he is keeping all options under review. Was the second of those statements intended in any way to modify the first?
Can the Prime Minister give the House any information about reports in the past hour that Serbs have attacked two villages in Albania and abducted three Albanians? Can he make it clear that, if such an incursion were confirmed, it would be treated with the utmost seriousness on both sides of the House?
As the Prime Minister has said, it is vital that this campaign is successful: it is vital for NATO and for the stability of the Balkans but, above all, it is vital for the Kosovar people.
The Prime Minister: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his support, and I shall answer the questions that he has set out.
The objectives remain exactly the same as NATO set them out. In respect of a political accord based on Rambouillet, as I have made clear, the present situation obviously changes the degree of trust—if there ever could be any trust—that the Kosovar Albanian people feel towards Milosevic. However, it is still important that we understand that the basis of an agreement is as set out at Rambouillet.
I hope that Russia's role will be to play a part in bringing Milosevic to the terms set out by NATO. We have kept in very close contact with our Russian counterparts in the past few weeks: my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has been in touch with his counterpart; I have had conversations with Prime Minister

23
Primakov and I have been in touch with President Yeltsin. We are well aware of the need to emphasise to the Russians that we have no quarrel with them, but that the objectives that we have set out must be secured. In our view, the force that goes in must be NATO led. As has been made clear throughout, of course we want to ensure that that international force is allowed to guide people back into their homes in Kosovo, but its core must be NATO led. As for Milosevic himself, I do not think that it is a question of negotiating a settlement, but of him meeting the terms that NATO has set out. There will be no compromise over those terms; they will be secured in full.
In respect of information on the fate of the Kosovar Albanians, we obviously try to obtain the best intelligence as to what is happening inside Kosovo at the moment. In a sense, our concern has shifted. During the first period of time, our concern was for those people flooding across the border and how we could make provision for them. Our concern is now for those displaced inside Kosovo. As I indicated in my statement, we are examining every option for getting help to them. The most important thing is for us to make it very clear to Milosevic, to his generals and to people on the ground that they will be held responsible for anything that they are doing inside Kosovo.
As for breaking through the wall of propaganda, I agree that it would be good if we could do so. However, the media in Serbia are state run and there is no proper news service for people inside Serbia; they are given a wholly one-sided account of what is happening. I believe that many Serbian people would be utterly disgusted if they knew what was being done in their name to innocent ethnic Albanians in Kosovo.
I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman says about the refugees in the region. Macedonia is being given as much assistance as possible, as are Montenegro and Albania. They all need assistance and they all need to know that the international community is behind them in the efforts that they are rightly making to deal with the refugees.
In respect of ground forces, the situation remains the same as it has done from the beginning.
The right hon. Gentleman's final point was about the report—I think that it surfaced at lunch time—about Serb forces going into the border region of Albania. We are trying to get correct information, but my understanding is that there was an incursion into one village that was driven out by Albanian forces. It is another border incident and such incidents have been continuing for some time, but the warning given by NATO yesterday in respect of any attempt to invade the integrity of neighbouring areas remains the same, and our commitment to see it through also remains the same.
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: I am grateful to the Prime Minister for his statement. As he knows, NATO has received steady and unwavering support from those on the Liberal Democrat Benches and will continue to do so.
The Prime Minister has said that President Milosevic is hurting. I imagine that he is, although I am bound to say that I have not yet seen any evidence that he has been
24
forced to do something that he did not intend to do. I say that not because I believe that that situation will continue, but because we have not yet forced him to take such actions. Is it not the case that these operations still have a long way to go and that there will be setbacks, inevitably including casualties, among them no doubt unintended civilian casualties? As we regard those with deep regret, is it not proper that we should nevertheless remember that NATO is not targeting civilians, President Milosevic is? Is it not true that President Milosevic has, over the past year, systematically and brutally used the weapons of state and one of the most powerful armies in Europe to brutalise, rape and murder, and to remove Kosovar Albanians from their homes? Is it not correct to say that three quarters of Kosovar Albanians are homeless, and perhaps 700,000 at President Milosevic's mercy in the forests of Kosovo? Will the Prime Minister give an undertaking that NATO will do everything practical to assist those desperate people?
May I raise three specific points? First, we surely cannot expect Kosovo to remain under Serbian rule. That would be morally repugnant and practically impossible.
Secondly, while it would of course be better to send in ground troops with agreement, will the Prime Minister assure us that President Milosevic cannot have a veto on whether or not we send in ground troops? To give the ethnic cleanser a veto over whether those who have been ethnic cleansed may return would be totally unacceptable.
Thirdly, will the Prime Minister tell us what exactly is meant by a phrase being used by the Ministry of Defence, that ground troops may be used in a "permissive environment"? Does that mean when the risks are permissible? Or does it mean when President Milosevic permits? If it means the former, it is perfectly understandable. If it means the latter, it is intolerable.
The Prime MinisterFirst, on the air strike campaign against Milosevic, we must be aware of two risks—overstating the case and understating it. It is true that we have not yet secured our objectives. That is why the action continues, and it will continue until we do achieve them.
It would be a severe mistake, however, to say that no damage is being done to Milosevic, or that he is not hurting as a result of the campaign. Enormous damage is being done: half his aircraft are unusable, his fuel supplies are extremely low, a huge range of targets has been hit all over Serbia and Kosovo, and his lines of communication and supply are largely down. We are able, particularly as the weather clears, directly to target his troops on the ground. British forces have been part of the sorties that have been successful in that regard.
We must be persistent and patient if we are to see this through, and we have those qualities. I agree with what the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) said about civilians: we will do everything that we can for people inside Kosovo, consistent with the effectiveness of our action.
The right hon. Gentleman asked three specific questions. On the status of Kosovo, I have said what I have said, and people will understand how much more difficult the position becomes as the world sees exactly what has happened to the ethnic Albanian people in Kosovo. It is important to recognise that Rambouillet sorted a lot of potential problems about how a long-term settlement would work. We are carefully considering how

25
that could fit into an overall settlement of stability and peace in the Balkan region. All those matters are being considered in detail.
On ground forces, there is no question of Milosevic having a veto. He has no veto over what we do. However, there is a difference between a land force invasion meeting organised resistance in highly difficult circumstances and a force that goes in to allow people to return to their homes in Kosovo.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me finally about the circumstances in which we use ground forces. I have set out those circumstances clearly. However, sometimes, when I read our newspapers, I fear people may think that all the options are not constantly considered, reviewed and worked on. They are worked on all the time. We have advanced our plans and proposals because we believe that they are the best way forward and the most secure way in which to achieve our objectives.
It is not possible for us—nor should it be expected of us—to go into every last detail of military tactics, strategy and capability when we are trying to conduct a campaign. I am standing in the House of Commons to answer questions, and I hope to give as much information as I possibly can. In Belgrade, there is no Parliament in which Milosevic is being questioned. He is giving no television interviews, and no interviewers are putting questions to his generals about how to proceed. That is one of the great differences between a democracy and a dictatorship, and long may it remain so. Without in any way taking away from what I have already said—I have set out clearly our position on ground forces—it is important that it is recognised that we have considered all the right options, and I genuinely believe that the strategy that we are pursuing is the right strategy for us and for the Kosovar Albanians.
Mr. Donald Anderson: Our own forces and those of our NATO allies deserve our full support. My right hon. Friend has properly said that it would take several weeks before a credible ground force could be assembled. Could he tell the House what is the current state of debate within NATO on training and arming the Kosovo Liberation Army, which knows the terrain and which, in the interim, could harry the Serb forces?
The Prime Minister: Our position on training and arming the KLA remains as it has been—we are not in favour of doing so, not least because of the UN embargo that is in place. We have no plans to change that.
Mr. Tom King: Does the Prime Minister recall saying in his statement that the action will continue? I am sure that almost all hon. Members recognise that it is likely to be quite a long haul. During that long haul, we shall need bases and secure lines of supply. In that context, may I reinforce the comments made about the critical importance of Macedonia and Albania? It now appears that Hungary is moving into the front line as the newest member of NATO, finding itself as a possible supply route to avoid the sanctions which are leading to shortages of fuel and other things. These countries will become absolutely critical if our forces and bases and our ability to provide humanitarian help are to continue.
In connection with the Russian situation, while the Prime Minister pointed out the difficulties of combating Milosevic's propaganda, I do not believe that the Russian
26
people have any sympathy for fascism, fascist brutality and ethnic cleansing on this scale. Not propaganda but getting the truth across as widely as we can through a number of countries which are in a position to help in this respect is equally critical.
The Prime Minister: I agree with both those points, and I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his support. In relation to the bases of supply and communication, we are taking precisely the action that he outlined. What he says about Russia is correct. The Russian people fought in the second world war against the forces of fascism and racism. It is important, as we try to do all the time, to bring home to them and, indeed, so far as we can, to the Serbian people, the fact that our quarrel is not with them, but with the dictator who is carrying out a policy that all decent people, whether Russian, Serbian or of any other nationality, should abhor.
Mr. Tony Benn: If the air war goes on for weeks, months and even longer, with all the death and destruction that it causes, what contribution does the Prime Minister think that it will make to long-term peace and stability in the Balkans?
The Prime Minister: First, the death and destruction is being wrought by Milosevic on innocent Kosovar Albanian people. He is the person who began this policy of ethnic cleansing; we are trying to put a stop to it. My right hon. Friend asks me what contribution we will make. The contribution that we will make is to stop it. That is something that I would have hoped he would support.
Sir John Stanley: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that any partition of Kosovo would be a wholly unacceptable outcome of the barbaric ethnic cleansing that is taking place?
The Prime Minister: I agree with that entirely.
Mr. David Winnick: Is it not of interest that when the refugees, many of whom have been terrorised out of their homes, are questioned, they put no blame on the NATO bombing, but blame those who are responsible—the murderers and rapists ordered by Milosevic and his fellow criminals? Is it not also of interest that when people in Serbia itself—in Belgrade and other cities and towns—are asked by British journalists about what is happening in Kosovo, they either do not know or deny the ethnic cleansing, which was the very reason for NATO's intervention in the first place? Does not that illustrate the fact that those people are being kept in the dark by the state-controlled television and media in Serbia?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The refugees who have gone over the border and those—in so far as we can communicate with them—who are still inside Kosovo have made it quite clear to us that they support the NATO campaign, want it to go on and, indeed, want it to intensify because they know that that is their only chance of returning to their homes in peace.
What my hon. Friend says about people in Serbia is of course right. We can give anyone who wishes copies of the read-out of the Serbian 90-minute evening news bulletins, but they will bear absolutely no relationship to anything that is happening in Kosovo.
Mr. Martin Bell: It is clear that we are in the presence of the greatest war crimes in Europe for more

27
than half a century—genocide, ethnic cleansing, forced marches and the mass expulsion of people from their homes—yet we continue to respond with air power, and air power alone. I wonder whether the Prime Minister can give a single example of air power alone achieving a decisive military objective. Is it not true that circumstances on the ground can be changed only by boots on the ground? Do we not have a moral as well as a military imperative to go for a ground intervention—whether opposed or unopposed?
The Prime Minister: On the air campaign, I refer the hon. Gentleman to what happened in Bosnia some years ago. I simply ask people who say that we should put in ground forces now to reflect on what an undertaking that is. We are taking the action that we are taking because we genuinely believe that it is in the interests of the Kosovar Albanian people, as well as the right course for our military.
Mr. Nigel Griffiths: I have just returned from visiting two refugee camps in Macedonia. The people to whom I spoke want one thing and one thing only: to return to their own homes. They tell me that NATO is the only organisation that can make that possible. They are unstinting in their praise of our military and aid workers, and of the generosity of the British people. Will my right hon. Friend ignore the bad advice of the leader of the Scottish National party and others, and keep up the pressure on the murderous Milosevic regime?
The Prime Minister: We certainly will keep up the pressure. My hon. Friend confirms exactly our understanding of the position of the refugees. What they really want is to get back over the border in safety to the homes and villages that they left. We shall make sure that they do.
Mr. Ian Taylor (Esher and Walton): The Prime Minister is right to stress that the presence of ground forces in the theatre would be very important, even if they ultimately enter permissively, and that a military solution must be led by NATO, otherwise the protection of the Kosovars will not be credible. Will he go a little further and explain what political initiatives he is taking to look for longer-term stability in the region? It is clear that the Russian policy failed because it did not hold back Milosevic, but that some solution will need to involve the Russians if we are to gain the political advantages from NATO's courageous military stance.
The Prime Minister: All I would say to the hon. Gentleman at this stage is that we constantly explore the longer-term strategy necessary with the Russians and others because it is increasingly clear that that must be seen in the wider context of lasting peace in the Balkans. On ground forces, he is right in saying that they must be NATO led. That is not to say that other countries cannot participate. They must be NATO led, however, because that is the only way in which we will secure the safety of people inside Kosovo.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Why does the Prime Minister suppose that the Serb community who live in
28
Britain, who see the television and have access to the newspapers, are 100 per cent. in favour of the stopping of bombing? Will the Prime Minister comment on the judgment of Spyros Kyprianou, having visited Belgrade, that it will go on for 100 days if necessary? That is the nature of the reaction of people who are bombed.
I have one specific question. Has the Prime Minister had across his desk the considered report of the German Federal Criminal Agency—I gather backed by Scotland Yard—which points out that the ethnic Albanian community is the most prominent group in Europe in the trafficking—[Interruption.] I am afraid that this is what the German Federal police say. They say that the KLA is drug financed—this is their view. What is our relationship with the KLA? There is a great danger that NATO has been tricked into being called in as the air arm of a very extreme group. This problem will not be solved by bombing, and some of us ask the Prime Minister to stop it tonight.
The Prime Minister: I can understand my hon. Friend being opposed to the bombing campaign; I really cannot understand his comments about the ethnic Albanian community, or about the KLA. There is no doubt as to who has been in the wrong. The people who cross the border are talking in the most harrowing terms of the rape, murder and brutality that they have witnessed. Those stories are real; that is what has actually happened in the last few weeks. The only way that we can stop it is to make sure that there is some force in the world prepared to stand up to Milosevic and say, "You will pay a price for this; and, if you carry on, you will pay a higher price and a heavier price," until he stops. I confess that I honestly do not understand my hon. Friend's attitude.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman described Mr. Milosevic's conduct as amounting to the murder, rape and terror on innocent people, and he is right; but given that, how can the right hon. Gentleman contemplate entering into an agreement with him? Is there not an inherent contradiction between, on one hand, having a policy of holding Mr. Milosevic and his generals personally liable for their actions and, on the other, seeking to bind them into an agreement? How does he reconcile these two objectives?
The Prime Minister: That is a question that in the end amounts to less than it appears. We are not negotiating with Milosevic on that. We have set down the terms; he has to meet those terms. If he or anyone else has committed crimes and the International War Crimes Tribunal indicts them as war criminals, we shall pursue them exactly as we are still pursuing those people from Bosnia—and we are picking them up, they are being indicted, and they are being taken to The Hague. We shall carry on doing that.
Dr. Phyllis Starkey: My right hon. Friend rightly pointed out the imperative reasons why NATO needed to act to oppose the ethnic cleansing that the Milosevic regime has been responsible for, but will he expand slightly on the long-term settlement that is being explored by NATO and others? Can he assure me that that long-term settlement will not effectively reward ethnic cleansing by redrawing borders to create a series of mono-ethnic states, but will instead

29
ensure that, in the fullness of time—it may be a long time ahead—we can recreate the multi-ethnic state that Kosovo could have been within Serbia if the Serbian Government had respected the autonomy of the region?
The Prime Minister: That is a good question. I believe that it is essential that any long-term settlement is not reached on the basis that we reward or tolerate ethnic cleansing.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: May I welcome the Prime Minister's announcement of the further troop deployment? Will he tell the House whether he and his colleagues in NATO have given any consideration to establishing safe havens along lines similar to those established in Iraq in 1991, which were extremely successful and backed up by coercive air power? Finally, in view of the fact that the refugees will return to a scene of total and utter devastation of their homes and communities, does the Prime Minister consider that it really is a very good idea in the next few days to get rid of a lot of Territorial Army sappers?
The Prime Minister: On the last point, we are quite sure that we have the required capability to carry out all the objectives that we set ourselves, and so does the Army, which is more important. As for the idea of safe havens, we consider all ways in which we can help to get aid to people and ensure their security. However, there are formidable difficulties in such an exercise. Of course, we keep everything under review.
Mr. Clive Soley: As a Member who has more Serbs in his constituency than most other Members have in theirs, may I say to my right hon. Friend that although they are desperately unhappy about the bombing, they know that there is a sense of shame among the Serb people at what is being done in their name? Ethnic cleansing is no part of Serbian culture. Ethnic cleansing is the mirror image of racial purity, which was practised during the second world war against the Serbs. Those thoughtful Serbs among my community know that, and that is the message that we must help them to get over. It is also the message that we must get over to the Serb people generally.
The Prime Minister: It is worth recalling that there are now 3.5 million displaced people in the Balkans as a result of Milosevic's policies. There are 1 million refugees in the European Union; and in Bosnia, before action was taken and the Dayton peace accords were put in place, 250,000 people died.
Mr. Alasdair Morgan: Can the Prime Minister say whether this morning's talks in Oslo have gone some way to making any progress in securing Russian involvement in this area, which I think we would all agree is not only desirable but probably essential for long-term stability?
The Prime Minister: I believe that those talks are going well. As I said earlier, I wish to have the Russians involved. However, there must be no dilution of the aims that NATO has set itself. In particular, we must ensure that there is no compromise whatever over Milosevic's
30
forces being withdrawn from Kosovo, over the international force being in there, or over the people being allowed unconditionally to return to their homes in safety.
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: I can assure the Prime Minister that I share his absolute repugnance at ethnic cleansing. Refugees should have the opportunity to return to their homes in Kosovo. However, may I point out to my right hon. Friend that we must be even-handed and that we must consider also the plight of the 280,000 Serb refugees who were brutally treated in Krajina, many of whom are now in camps in Serbia? What will the Government do to ensure that we are seen to be even-handed in our approach to former Yugoslavia?
The Prime Minister: We strongly condemned the Krajina expulsion. That should show Serb people that we are entirely even-handed. We are against ethnic cleansing from whatever quarter it comes. It would be much easier if we had a Government in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia with whom we could work to debate the civilised principles of international law. We would then be in a far better position to deal with all these problems.
Our commitment to a long-term strategy for the Balkans is clear, but it is very difficult to see how it can be achieved until the policy of ethnic cleansing is not just defeated but wiped out of the lexicon of dictatorship in the Balkans for ever.
Mr. Roger Gale: May I join the Prime Minister in expressing the appreciation of my constituents for the professionalism of our armed forces? Having said that, I remind the right hon. Gentleman of what he said during the recess on television—"You will all be able to return to your homes"—knowing full well that many of "you" were already dead and that many of their homes had already been destroyed.
Did the right hon. Gentleman hear Mr. John Simpson on BBC television last night indicating in effect that the present policy is the best possible recruiting sergeant for Mr. Milosevic among the Serbian population? It may be unpalatable, but when will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that he and his incompetent Foreign Secretary have been bundled by the American Commander-in-Chief into this policy, and that the only way out now—I agree with the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell)—will be boots and armed forces on the ground?
The Prime Minister: First, in relation to the Kosovar Albanians, the hon. Gentleman should go and speak to some of them before he condemns the NATO action. As for reports from Belgrade, I think that it is worth reminding ourselves, every time we get them, that those people are allowed to be there by the Serbian Government. There is no free, independent television or radio in Serbia. Even reports that come from Serbia we should treat with suspicion, when the only things that those journalists are shown are things that the Serbian Government wish them to see.
As for the idea that we were bundled into this action, for a year before we took it we tried every diplomatic avenue. We tried exploring every political possibility. Why does the hon. Gentleman think that we tried, for month after month in the peace talks at Rambouillet, to reach a settlement? Precisely because we knew the

31
difficulties of such a campaign. In the end, I am afraid that—like it or not—in the real world we had either to stand by and allow this policy of ethnic cleansing to go on unhindered or to stand up to it and challenge it—and we have done that.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: May I assure my right hon. Friend that, as one who is just old enough to remember London being bombed at the end of the war, I certainly would like the bombing to end as soon as possible? However, must we not remember—time after time, as he has said—that Milosevic has forced us into this situation? Milosevic has refused—his track record shows it—to stop the ethnic cleansing and the policies that we find totally unacceptable; and this country would have been guilty if we had failed to take action and do something about that.
Is not the simple message to Milosevic, at all times, that he has the solution in his own hands and that he has to go forward from Rambouillet—and the quicker, the better? Does my right hon. Friend accept that countries such as Romania, which are right in the neighbourhood, also fully support the stand being taken by this country?
The Prime Minister: I agree with that entirely.
Mr. Michael Colvin: Does the Prime Minister appreciate that, as a result of the additional deployments of ground forces that he has announced today, nearly half our Army will be on active service, adding to the overstretch that it is already experiencing? Will the Government therefore give serious consideration to reversing their decision to mutilate the Territorial Army, which is our first line of reserve, or at least to postponing any implementation of that decision until after the Kosovo operation is ended, bearing in mind that large numbers of troops will be required on the ground to secure any peace, which is bound to be precarious, once the operation is concluded?
The Prime Minister: The Army has the capability to carry out the objectives that we have set ourselves. I do not want to get into a debate across the Chamber about the TA and so on, but I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that I recall that the Government whom he supported cut our armed forces by about 30 per cent. If we got into an argument of that nature, it would not be one that the Conservative party would win.
In relation to ground forces, it is precisely because we know that we will need a ground force to secure any lasting peace there that we are assembling the forces in the region. We have the forces available to do that.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: Given that what was supposed to be the world's first humanitarian war has turned into humanitarian disaster—with the Kosovars, in the short term, losing a country and the Serbs being bombed into the stone age—will the Prime Minister tell the House what is humanitarian about bombing a factory where workers are trying to protect their jobs? What is humanitarian about bombing civilians on a passenger train? Is it not time to stop the bombing, bring in the United
32
Nations and the Russians and get all parties round the negotiating table? There has to be a political solution at the end of the day; is not it better to start now?
The Prime Minister: There is nothing very humanitarian, either, about ethnic cleansing. As for a political solution, I have to say to my hon. Friend that there has always been one available. There is a political solution available now, but it depends on Milosevic stopping the repression, getting his forces out of Kosovo, allowing an international force in and people going back unhindered to their homes and their villages. Those are the only circumstances in which the NATO action will stop and that is the only humanitarian solution to this issue.
Mr. Alan Clark: Does the Prime Minister appreciate the irony that this week there falls the anniversary of the great Luftwaffe terror raid on Belgrade in 1941, ordered by Hitler in a rage because the Serbs had deposed the corrupt regency, refused to accede to his demands and were siding with Britain? Does he not see that he is straining the credulity of the House by saying that this bombardment is directed against Milosevic's war machine, when he has only to read the report from The Times Bonn correspondent to see that, in the past 24 hours, it has destroyed a plastics factory, scored several direct hits on a bus station and destroyed a white goods factory—in addition, as the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) pointed out a moment ago, to attacking and causing civilian casualties on a train? Does the Prime Minister realise that he is associating the House and the country with a sustained bombardment of a brave and Christian people who have never injured or even threatened a British citizen?
The Prime Minister: We make every attempt possible to minimise civilian casualties, but in actions such as this there will be civilian casualties. But the person who is engaged in oppression and terror is Milosevic in Kosovo. Where are these hundreds of thousands of people coming from, pouring across the border into Macedonia and Albania? They are fleeing from the terror regime that he is visiting upon them. It may be that British citizens are not at risk there, but there are human beings at risk, and we owe a duty, in Britain's best traditions, to support them in their fight for humanity.
Mr. Jim Marshall: May I ask my right hon. Friend two short questions? First, when the Ministry of Defence talks about areas being safe for troops to go to, as the leader of the Liberal Democrats said, are we not talking about peace keeping as opposed to peace making—"permissive" meaning peace keeping, not peace making? Secondly, my right hon. Friend referred to discussions with Prime Minister Primakov and President Yeltsin. Can he give us an interpretation of those discussions to illustrate what President Yeltsin meant last week when he talked about the possibility of a world war and of nuclear weapons being re-targeted on western Europe and north America?
The Prime Minister: I was simply making the point that there is a difference between a land invasion force and a force that goes in to secure people's return to their homeland, and that is what the ground force is there for. In relation to the discussions with the Russians, it is interesting to note that they do not object to the basis of the Rambouillet accords. On the contrary, they could support that. It is true, of course, that they object to the NATO military action. They have made that clear and I do not expect them to change that position. But they are as appalled as anyone else by Milosevic's actions, and it is important to remember that as we try to plot not just the military but the diplomatic path during the next few weeks.

Point of Order
4.24 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. We have always been particularly careful that there should not be insult, intended or unintended, to individuals outside the House. I do not think that the Prime Minister meant it this way, but will he reflect on what he said about John Simpson and, for that matter, by implication, the other correspondents in Belgrade—
Madam Speaker: Order. I clearly heard what the Prime Minister said and it was perfectly in order.

Community Protection (Landfill)
4.25 pm
Mr. David Taylor: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to reduce landfill disposal of municipal and special wastes and to control the location of landfill sites; to require the assessment of the impact of proposed landfill sites on public health, the local economy and the environment; and for connected purposes.
Last autumn, my Countryside Protection (Landfill and Opencast Mining) Bill was given a First Reading. It made provision for a presumption against landfill sites and opencast mines in open countryside. Subsequent announcements by the Government have answered some of the concerns that led me to bring that legislation before the House. Just two weeks ago today, tougher regulations in minerals planning guidance 3 on opencast mining were introduced. I welcome them as they resolve most of my worries about opencasting.
However, a major problem covered by my earlier Bill remains, and is tackled by this Bill. Former mining constituencies such as mine, with a long history of mineral workings, are especially vulnerable to continued planning applications for opencasting and quarrying, which is sometimes linked to a more damaging activity. Opencast mines have an even uglier and more dangerous sibling: landfill sites.
The House will be aware of the study published last summer in The Lancet on a possible link between birth defects and certain types of landfill site. The report said:
"Women who live within 3 km of hazardous waste landfill sites have a 33 per cent. higher risk of having babies with birth defects."
I recognise that the statistical link between toxic landfill sites and the increased incidence of congenital malformations, cancers and cases of Down's syndrome in people living close to them is not necessarily a causal link, but there is sufficient epidemiological evidence to cause political concern.
I welcome the Imperial college statistical survey commissioned by the Government into the patterns of ill health around landfill sites. However, the conclusions of that study are still some years away. Precautionary legislative measures cannot wait that long. The unborn child must not be made to pay for our inadequate planning.
The presence of landfill sites close to local communities raises numerous health, economic, environmental and social issues. Just weeks ago, Leicestershire county council, in a panic about the shortage of landfill capacity, sold the environment of a village in my constituency for a generation. It allowed a huge refuse tip to be placed at the heart of our national forest. The Government office for the east midlands stood idly by, despite the fact that the application was outside national planning guidelines.
I am certain that what is happening to people living in that Leicestershire hamlet of Boothorpe is a fundamental breach of their human rights. Such injustice is echoed in many other places in our country. People's main concern is that old landfill sites are environmental nightmares, and new landfill sites are often as rigorously controlled as Chernobyl. All sites leak pollutants such as methane, which is a potent greenhouse gas, into the surrounding environment, or they leach out into the water table.
36
Landfill sites are still in operation despite the much tougher planning regime I propose, and my Bill would force their operators to meet the wider social costs incurred. It would ensure adequate compensation to communities and individuals who suffer. A compensation regime would deter business and industry from creating landfill sites. Money talks and business listens: voters talk and Governments must be made to listen.
I believe that the Government are listening. They are reviewing their strategy on waste. Their vision incorporates seven key commitments. They propose more recycling and energy recovery. That sounds fine, but let us not ignore the problems. Are incinerators huge and expensive one-stop solutions to a modern society's waste problems—throw them into the oven and, hey presto, they are gone? Not quite. They have three main byproducts: heat, fly ash and air pollution, the last two of which can cause significant environmental problems in their own right.
The Government propose increased public involvement in re-use and recycling of household waste, including perhaps charging for waste disposal. We need challenging and realistic targets. In theory at least, 80 per cent. of waste is recyclable, whereas in reality the national recycling rate is less than 10 per cent. Most other developed nations have far higher rates.
The Government intend to place a strong emphasis on waste minimalisation, and on the need to change the perception of the waste hierarchy. They propose a more creative use of economic incentives and the possible use of landfill tax revenues to fund recycling. They want increased public involvement in the decision-making process, which is a crucial requirement that is tackled by my Bill. I look forward to the announcement about the consultation, which is due very soon.
My modest Bill aims to identify a way ahead for the Government in certain respects. My county council, Leicestershire, is to hold a public inquiry on its waste land later this year. The plan, like others being drafted throughout the country, will define the future direction of waste policy in our area. The big question is: will the council opt for a recycling-led or an incineration-led policy? It is vital for it to get that right, and to avoid like the plague—I use that term advisedly—the use of landfill.
There are those who argue that anti-landfill campaigners are premature or alarmist. I do not accept that. These are great matters, and the public deserve greater reassurance. We want to ensure that landfill disease is not the next BSE.
This, then, is my charter for the healthy disposal of waste. The Bill proposes the establishment of a national landfill policy, consistent with human rights legislation; the banning of new landfill sites within 2 km of residential property, and the closure of existing sites of that kind within a year, or voluntary and compensated relocation of affected residents; an independent inquiry into the failures of landfill regulation, especially the conduct of the Environment Agency and waste planning authorities; independent and continuous monitoring of pollutants and notifiable diseases, the data being freely published to all interested parties; a ban on the granting of permission for, and the immediate closure of, landfill sites where there will be, or has been, a detrimental effect on public health; more Government-sponsored scientific research into the

37
causes of landfill diseases and prevention methods; and compensation for victims, such as children with Down's syndrome or other disabilities.
My Bill proposes the establishment of waste planning authorities to obtain independent health and environmental impact assessments, and a local economic analysis as part of the determination of applications. It proposes the setting up of an independent regulatory body for the planning, licensing and monitoring of landfill sites. It also proposes the full implementation of European waste management, landfill and pollution control directives, and a major review of the Government's hierarchy of waste disposal methods. It proposes a cumulative annual 5 per cent. reduction in biodegradable tonnage going to landfill, with the figure reaching zero by 2020. That is more ambitious than the European directive, under which 35 per cent. will still be landfilled.
In the Palace of Westminster this afternoon there has been a major national lobby, bringing together individuals and groups concerned about the impact of landfill sites on health and human rights. People have travelled here from all over the country; many have come from mining areas such as mine in north-west Leicestershire. The voices of individuals protesting alone are often lost in the winds of indifference, but the voices of campaigning communities can give landfill operators pause for thought, and the voice of a national lobby demanding change must spur Government into action.
Today's protest was called "Community Lobby Opposing Unhealthy Tips"—CLOUT. These communities now have clout, and they are starting to use it. As a Back-Bench MP, I may have relatively little clout, but in introducing my Bill I hope to bring to the attention of a wider audience the concerns with which many who are near such tips must live on a daily basis.
Government can act; indeed, Government must act. I submit that my proposals could form the basis for such action. They are worth while, workable and long overdue, and I commend them to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. David Taylor, Mr. Tony Benn, Liz Blackman, Mr. Peter Bradley, Mr. Jim Cunningham, Mr. Phil Hope, Judy Mallaber, Dr. Nick Palmer, Mr. Andrew Reed, Mr. Alan Simpson, Mr. Dennis Skinner and Mr. Mark Todd.

Community Protection (Landfill)
  COMMUNITY PROTECTION (LANDFILL)
  Mr. David Taylor accordingly presented a Bill to reduce landfill disposal of municipal and special wastes and to control the location of landfill sites; to require the assessment of the impact of proposed landfill sites on public health, the local economy and the environment; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 23 July, and to be printed [Bill 81].
Orders of the Day

  Health Bill [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): I inform the House that Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. I remind the House that there will be a 10-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches throughout the debate.
  4.35 pm
  The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill is an important part of the Government's strategy to build a modern and dependable health service to serve the people of this country in the new century. That is what we promised at the general election and it is a promise that we are keeping.
  The national health service that we inherited was in danger. It had about it an air of inexorable decline. The Conservatives had introduced a competitive internal market, which set doctor against doctor and hospital against hospital. Their misguided introduction of a commercial approach to health care was a costly failure. It shifted funds from patient care to bureaucracy and corroded both the ethics of the medical professions and the philosophy of working together, on which the health service was founded. It also resulted in a two-tier system for patients.
  That the NHS survived owes nothing to the Tory Ministers involved and everything to the hard work of NHS staff the length and breadth of the country. Despite their valiant efforts, the NHS that we inherited was in trouble. Between them, health authorities and trusts had deficits totalling £460 million. Waiting lists were at an all-time high and rising. Capital investment was at its lowest for a decade. The Tory Government had stopped collecting details of pay, so that they could claim that a national minimum wage would bankrupt the NHS. They were not trying to manage the NHS; they had not bothered to find out even how many intensive care beds there were.
  As was revealed in the reports that I commissioned into the scandals in Kent and Canterbury and Devon and Exeter, the standard of breast cancer and cervical screening was not being monitored. The Tory Government had paid £33 million in fees to lawyers and accountants to develop a private finance initiative, but not a single hospital had been started. Highly qualified staff were left to work in rundown buildings, often let down by equipment that failed them. There was a shortage of nurses, but, rather than tackling it, the Tories denied that it existed and reduced the number of nurses who were being trained.
  Assaults on NHS staff were, so the staff said, getting worse, but the then Government did not do anything about it: they could not be bothered even to collect the figures. The private health care sector, which is so dear to the Tories, went virtually unregulated. Mixed-sex wards continued to make life a misery for many patients. In many parts of the country, NHS dentists virtually disappeared.

  39
  The development of information technology systems in the health service was years behind that in many other services and industries. NHS computing was best known for scandalous waste on systems that did not work. Nor was there any long-term strategy to make things better.
  Health professionals had been ignored. The Tory Government had done little to help the profession's strength and self-regulation to raise standards and to benefit patients. Careers were held back and pay held down by archaic grading systems.
  The Tories denied that the increasing wealth gap between the best off and worst off had increased a health gap between rich and poor individuals and rich and poor neighbours. Ministers banned the use of the words "health inequalities."
  In deference to their commercial paymasters, the Tories had refused to ban tobacco advertising. They had helped to form a blocking minority to prevent the introduction of a Europe-wide directive to counter the promotion of cigarettes. Millions of pounds were being stolen from the NHS through prescription fraud. Millions of pounds more that were legally owed to the NHS by road traffic accident insurers were not being collected, so the new Government who were elected on 1 May 1997 had a lot to do.
  Mr. Andrew Lansley: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dobson: No; I will get on.
  The new Government had a lot to do, not just to start to put things right, but to lay the foundations for a modern and dependable health service for the new century.
  We set out in a White Paper our proposals to create a new NHS. We followed that up with further detailed papers that spelt out how we intended to go about it. We published a 10-year strategy to bring information technology in the NHS up to date. We have spelt out our proposals to modernise social services and mental health services. We have published a Green Paper on how we propose to improve public health.
  We have not only said what we intend to do, we have got on with it. For a start, we have invested extra money in the health service. In our first year, we provided an extra £300 million on top of the budget that we inherited. In the year just ended, we invested £2 billion more than the previous Government had planned to spend.
  Over the next three years, as announced in the comprehensive spending review, we shall invest an extra £21 billion, giving the NHS a much bigger annual increase than the 3 per cent. per annum for which all the experts and our opponents had called. The three-year settlement will enable the NHS to plan ahead, in a way which proved impossible in the short-term world of annual settlements.
  Mr. Lansley: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dobson: As you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have announced that so many hon. Members—primarily Labour Members—wish to speak in the debate, I should like to get on with it, so that no one will be excluded.
  40
  In the previous year, £500 million of that extra money was targeted on reducing waiting lists. We promised, by the end of March 1999, to get waiting lists below the figure that we inherited; we did that, and more, by the end of February.
  In the year just ended, making good use of the extra funds that this Government found, the dedicated staff of the NHS have carried out an extra 460,000 waiting-list operations, and dealt with 140,000 extra emergency cases and 150,000 extra first out-patient appointments. That is not to mention the tens of thousands of extra people who have needed an out-patient check-up after their in-patient operation. In the coming year, a further £320 million will be earmarked to bring waiting lists down further, and also to deal with many more out-patients and emergencies and to pilot the introduction of booked admissions systems across the NHS.
  To help deal with the shortage of nurses, we have implemented the Nurses and Midwives Pay Review Body's recommendations—nationally and in full, for the first time in five years—giving all nurses an increase of at least 4.7 per cent., newly qualified nurses 12 per cent., and 70,000 lower-paid nurses at least 8 per cent. Consequently, two thirds of all qualified nurses are now paid £20,000 or more a year.
  We have mounted a very successful national nursing campaign, which has had 53,000 responses. More than 5,000 of the responses were from nurses asking about returning to the NHS. Many of them require refresher courses because they have been out of nursing for more than three years; those courses are being provided free. At least 450 former nurses are already back at work in the NHS because of the initiative that we have taken, and 2,000 extra student nurses are already in training.
  We have provided for extra payments for nurses and other professionals at the top of their grade. In consultation with staff representatives, we propose to replace the current rigid grading systems with ones that reward people for the responsibilities that they take on.
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We heard all that in the Queen's Speech. Are we going to hear anything about the Health Bill itself?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: As hon. Members are aware, we are allowed a fairly wide-ranging debate on Second Reading.
  Mr. Dobson: Opposition Members are so eager to hear our common-sense proposals that they cannot be bothered to hold back for even a moment. They need to know the background to our proposals in the Bill, and that is what they are going to get.
  We shall remove the barriers that are holding back the careers of many nurses and other professionals and holding down their pay. We are also negotiating with doctors on a new consultants' contract and providing better conditions for junior doctors.
  We promised to sort out the Tory mess in the private finance initiative, and we have. We passed a short Bill to clarify the law, and we have launched the biggest hospital-building programme in the history of the NHS, with 15 new hospitals already being built and 16 more on the way. A thousand GP premises are being modernised,

  41
  and we are modernising every accident and emergency department that needs it. We are also using lottery money to help provide newer and more reliable equipment, such has scanners and linear accelerators for the diagnosis and treatment of cancer.
  All that investment will not only help patients and staff, but create jobs in construction, manufacturing and service industries. We have already diverted funds from the bureaucracy of fundholding into breast cancer facilities. In response to the scandals that arose under the Tories, we have set new standards in breast and cervical cancer screening, and put machinery in place to make sure that those standards are met—something that the trio of former Secretaries of State for Health who are on the Opposition Benches today never managed to get round to.
  We have invested £350 million this year in replacing unreliable equipment, both to help patients and to reduce the frustration of staff. With the support of the British Medical Association, we have replaced the divisions between fundholding and non-fundholding GPs with primary care groups, on which all GPs, as well as nurses, the social services and lay members, are represented. I take the opportunity to pay tribute to the medical profession for its voluntary agreement to share decision making in primary care with those other groups.
  The Tory amendment refers to the popularity of fundholding, but many fundholders were reluctant participants in the scheme. Even before the Bill has been passed, only 46 of the 3,383 fundholding practices have opted to remain in the scheme. Only 1.4 per cent. have taken what the Tory amendment calls the "popular option". If the Tories think that something chosen by 1.4 per cent. is popular, we can see why they are doing so well in the polls.
  The Bill provides for primary care groups to progress to becoming primary care trusts, with wider powers and duties to provide and arrange treatment and care for patients. It will abolish fundholding, and thus reduce the bureaucracy arising from commissioning organisations by replacing them with 481 primary care groups, and replacing annual contracts with longer-term service agreements.
  The Bill will give all the national health service organisations a duty of co-operation, in place of the competition that the Tories tried to force on them. It will also require them to co-operate with local councils, and change the law to allow the NHS and local councils to pool budgets and carry further the practical co-operation that they have been putting into practice since the general election.
  The legal changes will remove the last obstacles to those bodies working together to provide joint services for local people—for example, helping old people at home to avoid their having to go into hospital unnecessarily, and allowing them to come out of hospital safely when they have recovered.
  The Bill will also oblige health authorities, in co-operation with the rest of the health service, and with local councils, voluntary organisations and others, to prepare health improvement programmes to identify the health care needs of their areas and then set about meeting those needs.
  Once the Bill becomes law, NHS trusts will be obliged to have in place systems to monitor and improve both the quality of treatment that patients receive and the outcome
  42
  of that treatment. That obligation has never existed before, and it will augment what the professions have been trying to do. To help them in that process, the Bill also contains provisions to modernise and strengthen the self-regulation of the clinical professions.
  What we propose follows extensive consultation with the professions. After Government amendments made in the House of Lords, the Bill commands the support of the relevant professional bodies. Until now, most changes to the arrangements for the self-regulation of health care professions have required primary legislation, which has led to enormous delays and consequent frustration. The Bill will make most changes possible through Orders in Council rather than primary legislation.
  The Bill will also make it possible to meet the aspirations of the professions allied to medicine, and bring into the self-regulatory arrangements a number of professions that are not now legally regulated. All matters central to self-regulation will, rightly, remain with the professional bodies—professional registers, standards of education, guidance on professional conduct and fitness to practise.
  All our initiatives are intended to improve the quality of treatment and care. The main aim of better training, continuous professional development, the professional revalidation now being introduced by the General Medical Council and clinical governance is not to expose failure, but to reduce the number of problems that arise and to deal with them in good time so that matters can be put right before patients suffer. We want no more Bristol scandals and no more need for public inquiries.
  In that spirit, the Bill provides for the establishment of a Commission for Health Improvement to carry out regular independent reviews and investigations and to offer advice and help to health service trusts in their efforts to deliver top-quality care. The system is designed to contribute to improving the NHS.
  An amendment was passed in the House of Lords to extend the commission's duties to cover private acute hospitals. They certainly need to be properly regulated, but the Commission for Health Improvement is not designed to do the job. Under the previous Government, private hospitals were treated as private nursing homes for regulatory purposes. At the election we promised to introduce independent regulation of all residential care. When we do that, we shall need to make special—probably separate—arrangements to regulate private acute hospitals. We shall consult on that shortly.
  Mr. Philip Hammond: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his right hon. Friend Baroness Jay told me, in the presence of her civil servants, that it was no part of the function of the national health service to regulate the private sector?
  Mr. Dobson: And my right hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is not a function of the national health service to regulate the private health care sector, it is a Government function, and we should distinguish between them here and now. If an NHS body was responsible, the first time that it criticised a private hospital or said that something was wrong, some bleating Tories would leap up and say that it was prejudiced.
  At the election, we promised to establish independent regulation of all residential care, and we shall. The body that regulates private hospitals will need to license the

  43
  hospitals, act as a registrar, have a right of access to carry out regular inspections, publish inspection reports and enforce any licence conditions that have been laid down for the protection of the public. As the Commission for Health Improvement will not have any of those powers, it is unlikely to be suitable for the role. Action is clearly necessary to prevent a recurrence of the situation that, as the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) knows, arose in Kent under the Tories when a gynaecologist who had been banned from the NHS for sub-standard work was able to continue to practise at private hospitals.
  The Bill also deals with shortcomings in the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme, which sets the price of drugs used by the NHS. Some companies were refusing to comply with the existing scheme. The estimated cost to the NHS was £30 million a year and rising. Under our proposals the scheme will remain voluntary, but the Bill provides powers to make all concerned comply with the terms of the voluntary agreement. That is fair to the taxpayer and to the majority of pharmaceutical companies, which have always met their obligations under the scheme.
  Mr. John Bercow rose—
  Mr. Dobson: Before anyone leaps up to defend the pharmaceutical industry, I must point out that the Bill, as amended by the Government in the Lords, meets the requirements of the industry. The reputable companies are satisfied with what we are proposing, because they are as sick to death as we are of the freeloaders who are not playing the game. The Tories support the freeloaders who do not play the game. I am confident that the renegotiated PPRS and the new legal powers will offer a good way forward for that highly successful industry, the NHS and the taxpayer.
  Mr. Bercow: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Dobson: No.
  The Bill provides new powers to help tackle fraud against the NHS by a small minority of patients and practitioners at the expense of the honest majority. It also modernises the framework under which trusts operate. That reflects their status as public sector organisations. High-security hospitals will become NHS trusts.
  Our approach is to set quality standards nationally, deliver improvements locally and monitor performance externally. That is why, with the support of the professions, we set up the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, to provide authoritative guidance to all parts of the NHS on the effectiveness and value of new treatments.
  We are introducing national service frameworks to set national standards and spell out the models of treatment and care that should be provided in every part of the country for particular conditions or groups of patients. The first national service frameworks will cover coronary heart disease and mental health, followed by one covering the treatment and care of older people and then one covering diabetes.
  44
  Placing a duty of clinical governance on NHS trusts will help to deliver improvements locally. The Commission for Health Improvement will provide the external monitoring, advice and help that will be needed if targets are to be achieved.
  Mr. Bercow: I am sure that the Secretary of State would not want in any way to give incorrect information to the House. He said that the pharmaceutical industry was entirely content with his proposals to revise the voluntary scheme. Why, then, is the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry objecting to several clauses, and not least to clause 30 because it does not provide explicit criteria or any express requirement of reasonableness?
  Mr. Dobson: The association said that the changes made in the House of Lords have, by and large, met the needs of the industry, and so they have. [Interruption.] If the hon. yapper wants to do something useful, I suggest that he gets on the Standing Committee and tables amendments to deal with the companies that have not been complying with the terms of the PPRS.
  By our extra investment, we are ensuring that the effectiveness of staff is not undermined by out-of-date equipment. We are determined that in future the excellence of staff will be matched by top-quality buildings and reliable, up-to-date equipment and pharmaceuticals. Nothing less will do, for patients or for staff.
  We are committed to investing £1 billion in a long-term strategy to provide the NHS with a top-quality information technology system that works, and to develop an electronic record for every patient that can be accessed by all professionals who need to use it. That way, GPs, practice and community nurses, accident and emergency staff, out-patient clinics, hospital specialists and, eventually, even ambulance paramedics can have access to a reliable, accurate, up-to-date picture of the health record of every patient who comes their way.
  All those improvements in treatment and care are being developed with resources from the modernisation fund that we established as part of the comprehensive spending review. That fund is financing the rapid development of NHS Direct, a 24-hour nurse-led helpline that has proved an enormous success in the three pilot schemes that have now run for more than a year in the north-east, in north Lancashire and in Buckinghamshire.
  NHS Direct now covers roughly 40 per cent. of the country, and by December it will cover 60 per cent. It provides a popular service, especially for older people and young parents. Some 97 per cent. of the users surveyed were satisfied with the service. At my insistence, it offers opportunities for trained nurses who, because of injury, have had to give up work, to use their skills again for the benefit of patients and for their own job satisfaction. I was delighted that several nurses in that group had been taken on by NHS Direct in west Yorkshire, which I visited last week, including one paraplegic nurse in a wheelchair who now feels that there is some purpose back in her life.
  Dr. Jenny Tonge (Richmond Park): I appreciate the good intentions of NHS Direct and of the scheme that has been announced today, but the Secretary of State must be aware that it can be difficult to give accurate information without physically examining a patient. Members of Parliament often get complaints from patients who have

  45
  received misadvice over the telephone from GP deputising services. How does he intend to cover the doctors and nurses who give information, and is he worried that there may be misdiagnoses?
  Mr. Dobson: All the evidence is that it is possible for the finest, most expert clinician, doctor or nurse to give a misdiagnosis face to face. I do not suggest that it is easy to give a diagnosis over the telephone, and other problems arise from that situation, but diagnosis is a relatively imprecise science, or art, at the best of times. The cover that we provide for NHS Direct staff is the same indemnity that is provided for any employed member of the NHS staff. We will clear up any difficulties that arise from advice being given over the telephone which are discovered when the patient visits a GP.
  Some people, including some in the medical profession, expressed doubts about diagnosis over the telephone. In Preston and Chorley, where the scheme has been running for a year, the distinguished director of nursing is using the protocols used by the local NHS Direct scheme for training nurses to work in the accident and emergency department because, she tells me, those protocols are more rigorous than anything that has been used in the past. She knows what she is talking about because she has been involved in the project from the start. I repeat that 97 per cent. of the users are satisfied with the service.
  Dr. Howard Stoate: The real issue in giving telephone advice is not so much whether it is right or wrong, but when it is appropriate to advise the patient to take other action. I am sure that my right hon. Friend agrees that advice given over the telephone could include a recommendation to the patient to see a doctor face to face, or a decision to send an ambulance to take the patient to an A and E department. Provided the person at the end of the telephone is trained correctly in decision making, there should be no problem.
  Mr. Dobson: I almost entirely agree with my hon. Friend, but something will always go wrong. Things go wrong in every bit of the health care system and always will, but through training and substantial effort we can keep problems to a minimum. If someone gets through to the nurse, sometimes they are given reassurance and sometimes they are given advice. Sometimes that advice includes a warning to see a doctor straight away and sometimes a warning to attend A and E as soon as possible. Occasionally, the advice is to stay and wait for the ambulance that is being sent. Generally speaking, most of the clinicians in those parts of the country with an NHS Direct scheme are highly satisfied with the arrangements. That is why several areas are asking for NHS Direct to extend its functions beyond the 24-hour line.
  Miss Ann Widdecombe: No one doubts that even the best diagnosis can go wrong—quod erat demonstrandum. That is not the issue. The issue is whether the Secretary of State accepts—and if not, why not—that if advice is given by somebody who does not know the patient or his history, there is an increased risk of that advice being wrong. The issue is not whether family doctors who give advice face to face are
  46
  infallible; it is whether there is an increased risk of getting the advice wrong if the person giving it has never dealt with the patient before.
  Mr. Dobson: Clearly, it is best if the patient is in front of the person giving the advice and that that person has the patient's full medical history and is able to carry out some tests. However, that is not what NHS Direct offers—it provides telephone advice and help and, in some cases, an urgent attention service. In that respect, it is similar to many out-of-hours services where doctors do not have the records of the patients with whom they are dealing.
  It might not be ideal, but NHS Direct is immensely popular with the public and it would be best if people did not attempt to run it down, because they are running down a large number of highly skilled people—top-quality nurses, advised in some cases by doctors, and good managements—who have taken this opportunity to provide a new additional service as well as everything else provided by the NHS. In some parts of the country, the service is being extended—at the request of general practitioners, so they obviously have faith in it—to provide a gateway to GP services, social services and mental health services.
  As well as taking incoming calls, the nurses can also be used to ring out. Pilot schemes are being introduced in which, during troughs in the number of incoming calls, nurses can ring out to remind patients about out-patient appointments; about the availability of flu jabs; to remind women of appointments for cancer screening; or to check whether a patient, recently discharged from hospital, is okay. Like NHS Direct, all those things go with the grain of what health care staff are already developing locally.
  Today, in Birmingham, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister invited primary care groups to suggest proposals for 20 pilot schemes to develop fast access NHS walk-in centres in towns and cities throughout the country, open from early morning until late at night and at weekends, to provide information—
  Miss Widdecombe: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am aware of your previous ruling that Second Reading debates may go wide, but we have now spent a considerable amount of time hearing about issues that are not part of the Bill. The Secretary of State has spent about 10 minutes on NHS Direct and that has nothing to do with the Bill.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have already explained that the debate on Second Reading can range very widely and I am sure that the Secretary of State will come to the Bill quite soon.
  Mr. Dobson: The right hon. Lady realises that I shall be moving on to matters that she wants to talk about. However, one of the problems is that she does not want to talk about success stories in the national health service; they deeply upset her. The Tories can never make their minds up. When I stood at the Dispatch Box about a month ago to announce the extension of NHS Direct, they welcomed it, but they have now returned to carping mode.

  47
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister invited primary care groups to put forward proposals for 20 pilot schemes to develop fast access NHS walk-in centres in towns and cities throughout the country, open from early morning until late at night and at weekends. They will provide information and advice and will treat minor conditions without appointment. Some will be located next to existing accident and emergency departments and others will be in shopping centres. They, too, are intended to go with the grain of local developments and we shall work with primary care groups and primary care trusts—[Interruption.]—which are in the Bill, to set them up and run them. The trouble is that the Opposition know so little about the health service that they did not realise that the primary care groups and trusts would be involved.
  The Health Bill changes the law to speed up that process. It restores to health professionals opportunities to exercise their clinical judgment, curtailed or taken away by the Tories. It widens the choice open to patients to obtain the most appropriate treatment. it continues the process of reducing unnecessary and expensive bureaucracy in the health service. It will create a stable structure in which a modern and dependable health service can be provided and developed. It puts in place a system for managing the NHS that makes clear who is responsible for quality and performance in every part of the health service. It also makes sure that NHS performance at all levels is properly monitored to secure high standards in every part of the country.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Dobson: No.
  Our national health service has served our country for 50 years. It is the most popular institution in Britain, partly because the people working in it do such a good job and partly because it is a practical demonstration of the benefits of working together. British people are not just pleased that the NHS is there to look after them—they gain deep satisfaction from knowing that it will look after all of us.
  We promised to stop the rot in the NHS, and we have done that. It is not enough, however, just to save the NHS. We are reversing decline and making sure the service's prospects are bright. The British people want to experience a new, modern and dependable NHS that can give easier and quicker access to the top-quality treatment and care that they need, and that draws on new technology to update the best of the old ways of doing things and to develop new ways of providing what patients need when and where they need it.
  That huge undertaking will take a long time to fulfil. It will require leadership and it will depend on professional support. It will require the active involvement of Government, business, local councils, voluntary organisations and individuals, as well as of people working in the NHS. I am convinced that it is the way ahead if we want to make sure that the NHS in the new century will retain, renew and enhance its world renown for fairness, efficiency and quality.
  The Bill is sound common sense. Only a fool would oppose it.
  5.11 pm
  Miss Ann Widdecombe: I beg to move,
  That this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Health Bill [Lords] because it removes choice from both patients and healthcare professionals over appropriate treatment; it removes the highly successful and popular option of fund-holding for family doctors; it imposes unnecessary and expensive bureaucracy and creates further upheaval in the Health Service, which is already under considerable strain; it undermines the competitiveness of the British pharmaceutical industry; and it centralises power in the hands of the Secretary of State, giving him arbitrary authority over the running of the Health Service without sufficient reference to Parliament.
  I could not help feeling sorry for the Secretary of State for Health as he rose to move the Second Reading. There is so little of worth in the Bill that he had to use his whole speech to talk about matters that have nothing to do with it. His must have been the most inadequate presentation of a Bill that I have witnessed during my time in Parliament.
  The Bill, which I, at least, will discuss, does nothing to address the fundamental problems that have existed in our health service since the time of Bevan. We have a three-tier health service. On the top tier are those who receive national health service treatment or who choose to go to the private sector because that is what they want.
  On the second tier are those who do not receive NHS treatment, either because of excessive delays—the number of those waiting more than 12 months has doubled since the Government came to power—or because treatment is not available. Those people do not choose to go to the private sector, but can, sometimes at considerable personal sacrifice, choose the private alternative if they have to. In that category, I include people such as those who have sold their houses to buy beta interferon.
  Mr. Christopher Leslie: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Miss Widdecombe: I shall go through the three tiers, and then I shall give way.
  It is clear that the second tier is being failed, but the third tier is wholly dispossessed. It contains people who cannot receive NHS treatment, either through excessive delays or through unavailability of operations, and who, even if they do not eat, cannot afford to go private.
  Dr. Desmond Turner: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Miss Widdecombe: I shall in a moment.
  Not a single thing in the Bill addresses the problems of the totally dispossessed. On the contrary, the Bill will increase the number of dispossessed, because one of its consistent themes is rationing.
  I have promised to give way to two hon. Members. Unlike the Secretary of State, I shall have the courtesy to give way to Back Benchers from time to time.
  Mr. Leslie: It will be a short intervention. Does the right hon. Lady have private medical insurance?
  Miss Widdecombe: The right hon. Lady does have private medical insurance.
  Dr. Desmond Turner: There is much truth in what the right hon. Lady says, but does she agree that the reasons

  49
  for the health inequalities that she has described are inherent in the system of, for instance, fundholding GPs, for which her Government were responsible, and in the structural problems that her Government built into the health service?
  Miss Widdecombe: The exact opposite is true. I am not claiming and I have never claimed—in the House or outside it—that we created a perfect health service. There are problems in the health service, which the Government would be wise to acknowledge. If the Government acknowledged them, they might address them.
  Mr. Ivan Lewis rose—
  Miss Widdecombe: I am already answering an intervention. I was asked whether fundholding increased the inequalities and led to the dispossession that I have been outlining.
  That dispossession has been a feature of the NHS under successive Governments, because the NHS has not yet found a way—in my view, it will not find a way until we consider some real innovation—of being able to do it all. However, fundholding enabled a doctor to say to a dispossessed patient, "You may not be able to get that treatment here, but I can send you elsewhere to get it." There should have been a levelling up so that every patient had a fundholding doctor, but the Bill levels down and will ensure that no patients have fundholding doctors. When it comes to a choice of treatment, patients will have a choice of one.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Miss Widdecombe: I will presently, but a stack of people are queueing to intervene. I shall address the points as they come.
  The Secretary of State is so amused by the plight of the dispossessed that he is sitting there laughing. I hope that the patients who are watching this debate today because they hope that something may come out of it for them will have observed the Secretary of State and those on the Benches behind him laughing, and will understand that nothing that the Secretary of State is doing will help the dispossessed. All that the Secretary of State and his junior Ministers have done in their time in office is to deny that rationing exists.
  Mr. Ivan Lewis rose—
  Miss Widdecombe: I said that I would give way presently. I shall not forget the hon. Gentleman. He need not give the impression of a jack-in-the-box; I know that he is in the queue, but he can wait.
  As I was saying, the Bill does nothing for the dispossessed. It is well known that the Secretary of State has never yet managed to look me in the eyes when I—oh, he is getting into practice. After the implementation of the Bill, he will have a great deal of difficulty looking the nation in the eyes. In fact, if one looks into the eyes of those behind him, one can already see the beginnings of a terrible doubt about what Labour is doing to the health service. Labour Members' mouths may move in tune with their pagers, but their eyes say something
  50
  rather different. Their eyes say that they are beginning to realise that the Secretary of State does not have some magic solution to enable the NHS to meet every need. I am careful to say "need", not "demand".
  Mr. Lewis rose—
  Dr. Stoate rose—
  Miss Widdecombe: I am going to give way to the jack-in-the-box first.
  Mr. Lewis: I shall address my intervention to the dispossessed on the Conservative Benches. How will the dispossessed or, indeed, anyone else using the NHS benefit from a significant increase in the number of people using private health care, which is the alternative strategy that the right hon. Lady and her party have articulated of late? Roughly what proportion of the population currently using the health service does she believe should be encouraged by a responsible Government to ditch the health service and use the private sector?
  Miss Widdecombe: If the hon. Gentleman would examine what I am proposing instead of being overwhelmed by his own propaganda, he would find that I am not suggesting what he suggests. Any future Conservative Government will continue to increase in real terms, year on year, spending on the health service. There is no question of using the private sector as a substitute for the health service. I admit that no matter how much extra the Secretary of State, I, or anybody else tries to spend on the health service, it will not be able to do it all. In addition to increased spending on the health service, I want a real injection of fresh, new resources into the health service from the private sector.
  Mr. Lewis rose—
  Miss Widdecombe: I have given way to the hon. Gentleman; I am answering his question.
  Dr. Stoate: On that point—
  Miss Widdecombe: Sit down! [Interruption.] Not you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Labour Members can sit down and stay sitting down while I work through this point. The dispossessed—
  Mr. John Austin rose—
  Miss Widdecombe: Sit! Perhaps it would help if I said that I shall make progress before taking any further interventions. That might save Labour Members a considerable amount of exercise. I ask them to stay seated for a while.
  I have already said that the dispossessed are not helped by the Bill. What does the Secretary of State intend to do to assist the dispossessed? According to the Bill, he intends to increase rationing. The theme of the Bill is that we shall have first, as background, a National Institute for

  51
  Clinical Excellence, which will decide on the availability of drugs according to their cost. If the Secretary of State has any doubt about that —
  Mr. Austin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is the National Institute for Clinical Excellence in the Bill? Is it relevant to our discussion?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a matter for debate.
  Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Mr. Austin) was not listening. I said — and he will see it in Hansard — "by way of background". I suggest that he listens a little more and talks less, and then he might understand something. The Bill will follow up NICE with CHIMP — the Commission for Health Improvement, which is in the Bill. I have already said that NICE will ration drugs according to cost; CHIMP will implement that policy.
  Furthermore, under primary care groups, there will be, for the first time, cash-limited drugs budgets. If cash-limited drugs budgets are not an aid to rationing, I do not know what is. On top of everything else, the Bill prescribes control of drugs pricing, so that some drugs could be squeezed out altogether.
  Let us add all that up. There is NICE, by way of background, CHIMP, which is in the Bill, cash limits for primary care groups and control of drugs pricing. Yet, Ministers have denied twice at the Dispatch Box recently that there is rationing in the health service. What will happen is that the number of dispossessed who cannot afford the private sector and who will not get those drugs from the NHS, and who will not get from the NHS other treatments that NICE may decide are too costly, will actually increase, and they will get nothing at all.
  Dr. Stoate: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Miss Widdecombe: No. Will the hon. Gentleman please sit down? He has been told that he will not be successful in his endeavours. I know that doctors like exercise, but I ask him to stay sitting down.
  The Government make their proposals against a background of failure and incompetent management of the health service. First, they have said that they are spending record levels on the health service, and that somehow, that will meet all the problems of the health service — that a Secretary of State with a bit of good will and a bit of extra cash is all that we need to address the fundamental issue of squaring need and supply in the health service.
  The Secretary of State is very fond of saying that he is spending an extra £21 billion. Let us look at the Treasury Red Book and the Government's own figures, which show that expenditure in 1997 –98 was £ 34.688 billion, and that in 2001–02, it is proposed to be £ 45.179 billion. Most people who have reached even 11-plus standard could work out that that difference is not £ 21 billion, but less than £11 billion; that that less than £ 11 billion represents a real-terms increase of 3.8 per cent.; and that, in the five years preceding those figures, the real-terms increase was 3.8 per cent.
  The Secretary of State is very fond of saying that the real-terms increase for the three years from 1998 to 2001 is 4.7 per cent. and is a record, but it is not; because
  52
  between 1990 and 1993, the real-terms increase was 5.6 per cent. That clearly shows that it is impossible to solve all the problems of the health service on money that has increased less in real terms than has been tried in the past.
  Dr. Evan Harris: I do not doubt the right hon. Lady's figures, but does she accept that the only reason that the Government, during their first term in office, will spend less than the previous Conservative Government's record, is that, for two years, the present Government stuck to the very low, even miserly, real-terms increases in the Conservative spending plans? Further, does she recognise that, as no Government would cut NHS spending in real terms, her commitment — just like the Government's commitment —to raise spending in real terms, which could be just inflation plus £ 1, is generally meaningless?
  Miss Widdecombe: I am afraid that the epidemic of not listening has broken out on the Liberal Democrat Benches as well. If the hon. Gentleman had followed the years that I was quoting, he would have found that I am quoting Labour's spending plans. Therefore, there is no magic, fresh expenditure that will suddenly change everything, and there is nothing in the Bill that will suddenly change everything — and, what is more, people know that.
  What does the Bill do? I suppose that it is very good of the Government to propose in the Bill that fundholding be abolished when they have already abolished it. I suppose that it is very good of them to bother to ask for parliamentary consent after the event, but, first and foremost, the Bill abolishes choice, diversity and flexibility. It dragoons general practitioners into massive collectives. Whether their members like it or not, they will have to follow the patterns of referrals and the patterns set down by the committee governing the collective, and they will not have the choice that they would have had as fundholders.
  The Secretary of State tried to say that fundholding was not popular. Perhaps he will tell us, then, why, when we made fundholding entirely voluntary and did not dragoon anyone into it, 60 per cent. of GPs were fundholders, or had applications outstanding to become fundholders, at the time that we left office. If fundholding was so unpopular, why did 60 per cent. of GPs actively join it or want to join it when there was no compulsion, as there would be if the Bill were passed?
  Dr. Phyllis Starkey: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Miss Widdecombe: No. I have made it clear that I am making progress. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State said at one stage this afternoon that he wanted to get on; by the time that he sat down, we were still waiting for him to get on to the Bill. I have at least tried to address the issues in the Bill. I shall now address some of the background about which the Secretary of State made such a performance in his presentation.
  First, waiting lists are not falling. The number of people waiting to see a consultant has increased by 222,000 since the Government came to office. That is not just a statistic because until people have seen a consultant, the urgency

  53
  of their need for an operation cannot possibly be assessed. The Secretary of State has presided over a situation in which keeping down the list of those waiting to have their operation has been achieved by slowing down the rate at which patients enter the list, and by having a massive increase of nearly 250,000 patients waiting to discover whether they can get on to the list in the first place.
  When I raise these matters, the Secretary of State has two or three defences. First, he says, "That may be true, but the numbers on out-patient waiting lists were increasing under the Conservatives." According to figures published by the previous Government — published in exactly the same way as the right hon. Gentleman publishes figures — there were 264,000 people waiting to see a consultant in September 1996 and 247,000 — a fall — in March 1997. From the 247.000 that we left the right hon. Gentleman, he has increased the number to 468,000.
  The second defence that the right hon. Gentleman often advances is, "Yes, it is true that the numbers are increasing, but it is also true that we are treating more patients." It is true that more patients are being treated, but it is true also that in 1995 — 96, we Conservatives were treating 4 million more patients than we had been in 1979. The increase was not a few tens of thousands. Even that increase did not solve all the problems. It did not eliminate all the lists and it did not get rid of waiting times. The fact that more patients are being treated under the right hon. Gentleman proves nothing other than that ever since its inception, the national health service has quite regularly increased the number of patients treated. The right hon. Gentleman is not addressing the problem of the increase of 250,000 people who are waiting to see their consultant in the first place.
  The third defence is, "The problem has nothing to do with the waiting list initiative", but it has. I shall quote from a letter that has been circulated to all consultants in the Salisbury health care NHS trust from the chief executive, who writes:
  "Despite having made good progress … waiting list numbers rose … by some 200 more than anticipated."

  He adds:
  "To achieve our year end target … we need to reduce our current waiting list numbers"
  by about 500. He states that
  "there are only three realistic options".
  The first option is:
  "Reduce the numbers coming onto the list."
  That is clearly set out. That is the way in which the numbers on lists are reduced. Another option is:
  "Use of the private sector."
  That is a commendable option.
  If the reduction in the number on waiting lists means that people who have been waiting are being treated by the NHS, that is to be welcomed. I have no doubt that some of the fall will have been brought about in that way. However, if it is being achieved by slowing the rate at which people enter the lists, or by people becoming so fed up that they go to the private sector or so ill that they die before receiving treatment, that is not such a wonderful achievement.
  54
  Bearing in mind that it was an early pledge to get the lists down to 100,000 below the level that we had left, it has taken the Secretary of State half a Parliament to get down to the level that we left — and with the sort of manipulation that I have been discussing. That is not—
  Ms Julia Drownrose —
  Miss Widdecombesit down for a moment please. I will not give way for the moment.
  That is not a record of which the Secretary —
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I say to the right hon. Lady that it will probably be better if she decides whether to take interventions, and indicates clearly whether she will do so or not, and leaves the rest to me?
  Miss Widdecombe: Quite so, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I will do that.
  That is not a record of which the Secretary of State can be proud.
  Similarly, I have in front of me a letter from the Southampton general hospital trust saying straightforwardly that the surgical waiting list has trebled
  "since the present Government came to power".
  The fact is that there is no magic wand solution that will simply reduce waiting lists. There are many ways of manipulating those lists and the statistics, and there are many ways of triumphantly announcing the statistics, but in the end, if a genuine improvement has not been achieved, patients are being betrayed. Also being betrayed are the doctors and the nurses, who are being obliged to apply distorted clinical priorities to assist that manipulation.
  Against that background, I would have hoped that the Government would have had the courage to address in the Bill some of those fundamental problems and to have tried to find new, exciting ways of increasing the resources available to the NHS. The Secretary of State says, very proudly, that the private sector must be regulated, but the House of Lords has forced that upon him, through a Conservative amendment that has applied to the private as well as the public sector the health improvement initiatives that he says he is introducing into the Bill.
  The Secretary of State boasts that he will have the biggest hospital building programme in history. We had the biggest hospital programme in history. If he achieves his aspiration to outstrip that, I shall be very pleased, but I shall be even more pleased if he acknowledges that he will do that largely through the private finance initiative, which we introduced and set up. That is the use of the private sector.
  Mr. Dobson: If the Tories made such a success of the PFI for major hospital projects, why did they never manage to get one started and why, with their agreement, did we have to clarify the law, which they claimed they had clarified previously? They spent £ 33 million on consultants — not medical consultants, but lawyers, accountants and God knows who — and they never got one hospital built. We are getting 15 hospitals built as a result of sorting out the mess we inherited.
  Miss Widdecombe: First, we built more hospitals than ever before in British history. Secondly, when we set up

  55
  the PFI, the Secretary of State's party opposed it root and branch, although it has now decided that it is the only way forward. Yes, when we set up the PFI, we had difficulties, which the then Opposition were not willing to help us solve, but we got to a point where they were solved and the PFI was in readiness when the right hon. Gentleman took over.
  Why does not the right hon. Gentleman thank us for setting up the PFI? If it is right to use the private sector in that sort of instance, if it is right for consultants to use the private sector to get their lists down and if it is right for certain facilities to be shared with the private sector, why will not he expand that and use the considerable resources of the private sector for the benefit of the NHS?
  The problem with the right hon. Gentleman is that his approach to this matter is that of the dinosaur. In every other Department, partnership with the private sector is now a fact of everyday life. In many Departments, it is being extended beyond anything introduced by the Conservative Government. But apparently, uniquely, in health matters, the Secretary of State wants to marginalise the private sector, giving it no major role.
  Mr. Bercow: In reflecting upon the Secretary of State's attitude to the Bill, is my right hon. Friend not reminded of a former leader of the Labour party and distinguished parliamentarian, Michael Foot, who, in a conversation some years ago, said, "Don't give me facts, they only serve to confuse my arguments."?
  Miss Widdecombe: I am reminded of many things when I look at the Secretary of State. but mostly I am reminded of desperation — sheer desperation. So desperate is he, that he could not even address the Bill when he came to the House to present it. So desperate is he, that he has to manipulate the waiting lists to say that he is moving towards achieving a pledge that was supposed to be achieved early, but, after half a Parliament, is nowhere near being met.
  Dr. Tony Wright rose—
  Ms Drown rose —
  Miss Widdecombe: I have an embarrassment of riches. I shall go for the doctor.
  Dr. Wright: I have been listening carefully to the right hon. Lady's remarks and trying to follow them. She gives a terrifying performance. There is certainly something of the fright about her. The right hon. Lady argues that there are dispossessed people whose treatments will be so expensive that the NHS will not be able to afford them. Exactly how will those desperate, dispossessed people be able to obtain treatment somewhere else?
  Miss Widdecombe: That is the whole point. The whole point of what we are saying is that, if the private sector shares some of the strain with the NHS, the NHS will be freed up to look after the dispossessed. Instead, the Secretary of State wants to keep them dispossessed, and to increase their number and the range of treatments and drugs from which they are dispossessed. That is the
  56
  Government's policy. I cannot imagine that it is one of which the hon. Gentleman is proud, but at least now he may understand what I have been saying.
  Several hon. Members rose —
  Miss Widdecombe: It might be for your convenience, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and for the convenience of the House, if I say that I shall make further progress before giving way. Compared with the Secretary of State, who refused to give way almost consistently throughout his speech, there has been a proper debate from the Conservative Benches today.
  The Bill sets up primary care trusts, but it does not even contain a definition of one. The noble Baroness Hayman was rather embarrassed in the other place when she had to say that the Government would work out a definition. The Secretary of State has introduced a Bill setting up primary care trusts with no adequate definition of such trusts. I am not surprised that he does not address a Bill that does not even tell us what it is about.
  This is a defective Bill, of which we have had a defective presentation by the Secretary of State. The Government have a defective health policy which has resulted in increasing numbers of dispossessed, manipulated waiting lists, longer waiting lists of people waiting to see a consultant and a winter crisis, yet still the Secretary of State tries to pretend that there is something new, modern and vibrant about the declining NHS over which he presides.
  I will not say that the Secretary of State's language has been deceptive throughout, because you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, might call me to order, but it has certainly not portrayed an accurate picture. We all remember the right hon. Gentleman standing up in the House in great triumph saying, "I am providing 7,000 extra doctors". Everyone became very excited until he had to admit that they were just the doctors coming through medical school in the usual way, not "extra" at all.
  There is nothing extra for any NHS patient in the whole of the Bill. There is nothing extra for any NHS patient in the whole of the Government's health policy. However, there is much less. There is much less choice for a patient's general practitioner to refer outside the area or to particular consultants.
  Mr. Dobson: That is not true.
  Miss Widdecombe: It is true, because whereas a fundholding GP could have decided that course of action for himself, a member of a primary care group will be able to do so only if the committee of that group has established that pattern. The right hon. Gentleman has just given an inaccurate portrayal of what PCGs will do.
  We have frequently asked the right hon. Gentleman to guarantee that the choices and services that are now available to patients of fundholders will be available when PCGs are up and running. They are now up and running, and he has still not been able to guarantee that such choices, services and flexibility will be available. Why not? Because quite patently in some parts of the country — the evidence is flowing in — they are no longer available. There is less for NHS patients.
  There will be fewer treatments and drugs available to NHS patients when NICE does its nasty, ugly work. There will be less available to patients when pricing policy

  57
  drives some drugs from the market and when GPs find for the first time that their budgets are cash limited. That is what the Bill provides.
  The right hon. Gentleman talks about removing bureaucracy. It will cost £ 150 million to set up the PCG bureaucracy. He talks about cost-effectiveness. I hope that NHS Direct works, but studies currently show that the average NHS Direct call costs — 20 whereas a call from a GP surgery costs £ 3, so there is not even a saving that can be passed on for the benefit of the NHS patient.
  This ineffective, defective Bill does not deal with the real problems of the NHS. It does nothing to address the single biggest problem that has eaten away at the NHS from its inception — it was recognised by Nye Bevan himself, but is denied by the Government. The NHS cannot and never has been able to do it all. On top of increased resources from Government — which will always be provided under successive Governments — I want to find fresh ways of putting extra resources, facilities and expertise at the disposal of the NHS for the benefit of patients.
  The Secretary of State has sat there and laughed at those patients. He has denied that the dispossessed are dispossessed. He pretends to be spending money that he is not spending, and to be creating extra doctors who are not being created. In the end, he will have to face a reckoning, because the true test of people's satisfaction with the NHS is not Government rhetoric, but patients' own experience. A quarter of a million more patients who are waiting to see a consultant have their own experience. Patients of former fundholders who are now unable to get the same services have their own experience. Patients coming off the lists because they are so desperate that they go private even if they do not want to have their own experience.
  Those people know that the Government are not delivering on the NHS. The Secretary of State should come to the Dispatch Box and apologise for what must have been the most insulting performance that the House has witnessed in some years.
  Several hon. Members rose —
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the next speaker, I remind hon. Members that all Back-Bench speeches will be limited to 10 minutes.
  5.49 pm
  Mr. Kevin Barron: I hope to stick to that time limit, Mr. Deputy Speaker. First, however, let me correct what the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) said about the PFI and our attitude when we were in opposition. The Conservative Government made a complete hash of the PFI —
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: We did not.
  Mr. Barron: Will the hon. Gentleman keep quiet for a few minutes? The Conservative Government did nothing at all. They did not set up a single hospital under the PFI. They introduced a Bill —
  Mr. Fabricant: You voted against it.
  Mr. Barron: Will the hon. Gentleman keep quiet? You introduced a Bill —
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must use the correct parliamentary language. I suggest that the House should settle down.
  Mr. Barron: The last Government introduced a Bill called, if memory serves me correctly, the National Health Service (Residual Liabilities) Bill. The Secretary of State and the Minister who were in charge of that Bill are present now. It was in Committee for two or three weeks at the most. We co-operated fully with the Government, and the Bill completed its stages in the House, but when those in the private sector had another look at it, they said, "It is not good enough: you will have to come back with something else."
  About three weeks before the general election campaign, the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) offered another Bill to the then shadow health team in the hope that they would endorse it promptly and allow its speedy passage, because the Conservatives could not get anything started with the PFI. In the end, he did not give us that Bill, although we would have gladly taken the matter off his hands, because he did not dare to go public about the mess that the Conservatives had made in regard to the PFI. The present Government have embarked on the biggest programme of building major NHS hospitals for years, because the last Government did not know how to handle the private sector in terms of the PFI.
  The Bill makes major changes. I do not know how many Bills providing for structural change in the NHS we have debated when I have been in the Chamber, but there must have been many since my arrival in the House in 1983. It is a great pity that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald does not understand some of the changes in this Bill; I hope to tell her at some stage what I think is likely to happen.
  In fact, I think that the NHS will experience a cultural change. That will not happen overnight — it will take many years — but I believe that aspects of it will challenge parts of the service, although if the service does not change it will not be capable of doing in the next century what it has done in the second half of this one. If it is to retain the admiration and support of its patients and the taxpayer, it must recognise the need for it to change to meet both the expectations of patients and advances in medical science.
  Through the media, patients are becoming increasingly aware of new advances on both a national and an international scale. As they become more knowledgeable, they will expect the best treatments that are available. They will want to know more about the latest drug on the market, and how it could affect them. Professionals in the NHS will have to meet those new demands, and the Bill rightly aims to create a more patient-led service.
  For the first time, a Government are introducing a statutory duty to implement a "quality of care". It beggars belief that any Member should make it clear from the Dispatch Box that he or she does not recognise the fundamental change that such a duty will make to health care. No one who does not recognise that can have read the Bill properly.
  Making quality a driving force for decision making at all levels of the service should guarantee clinical excellence for all patients. I oppose rationing in the NHS, and I hope that every other hon. Member does as well. The Bill will enable us to get rid of it, by ensuring clinical

  59
  excellence for all patients. The establishment of the Commission for Health Improvement is another step forward, although it was dismissed by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald, who seems to oppose the idea of clinical improvement in the NHS. That is ridiculous.
  Independent assessment of local work to improve quality should have been introduced years ago, and the use of a wide range of expertise and experience to investigate problems is also overdue. It should be welcomed by all who work in the NHS. It is clear — my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave a couple of examples — that past performance has been variable. People have been slow to detect and act on lapses in quality, and that is not acceptable.
  The introduction of evidence-based national service frameworks should ensure consistent access to services and quality care throughout the country by setting national standards, and defining patterns and levels of care in relation to specific diseases or parts of the service. My right hon. Friend said that coronary heart disease and mental illness would be among the first conditions to be dealt with by the frameworks, which will be based on the Calman Hine model for the provision of cancer care. The recommendations of what was then the Calman committee were published in 1995. The final recommendation states:
  "The data suggest that the impact of specialised care for common cancers, and probably for many cancers, can increase long term survival by 5-10 per cent., a very important clinical outcome."
  People reading that report might have thought that the NHS could continue to offer all services in all district general hospitals, as it has for years, but the report made it clear that that should end. I am pleased to say that it has in regard to cancer, but it should end in other contexts as well. We should ensure that our clinicians do the best that they can for every patient, regardless of where the service is being delivered. If Opposition Front Benchers are really concerned about what is happening, or should be happening, in our health service, they will comment on that.
  The Bill will provide a new system of clinical governance to ensure that there is continued improvement in NHS trusts and primary care bodies. That is what I look for, as a patient, and what other NHS patients want. We are not interested in arguments about structures.
  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence will be clinician-led. It will give a strong lead, in terms of both clinical services and cost-effectiveness. It will issue new guidelines for the NHS, putting an end to all the mixed messages that people receive about new drugs. How many hon. Members have sat in a doctor's waiting room behind a salesman who wants to sell another message about how his drug is better than those that the doctor already has?
  The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) looks confused. Let me tell him that I have sat in my doctor's surgery, and have seen salesmen waiting to sell their drugs. It is about time that there was a better way of conveying information to doctors.
  We should be concerned about new drugs and treatments. Those in the NHS should understand the clinical effectiveness of drugs better, so that the decisions that are made are the best for patients. A recognition of cost-effectiveness will not necessarily mean the cheapest
  60
  treatment: in certain circumstances, it could mean that NICE will recommend the most expensive treatment if that is best for the patient. We should welcome that, however, as should the pharmaceutical industry.
  It is clear that some drugs benefit only a small minority of people who suffer from a particular condition. The challenge is to identify those who are assisted by the intervention. Expecting the NHS to pay for expensive products that do not work will just bring the pharmaceutical industry, and the NHS, into disrepute. I think that the industry realises that it must sort that out, although I realise that it will not be an easy task. We all know that beta interferon is likely to help approximately 10 per cent. of multiple sclerosis sufferers, but it is more difficult to identify that 10 per cent. That is the real challenge for the pharmaceutical industry and the NHS — and. indeed, for NICE — and it is a challenge that we should support.
  I must say to the right hon. Lady —
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's time is up.
  6 pm
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The Secretary of State for Health attracted to the Chamber three Conservative Members who are former Secretaries of State for Health. We should all have come here out of sympathy with the Secretary of State because his task is very hard, if it is done properly: to prioritise the service and to produce steady development within finite means when demands are ever burgeoning. I regret to say that we were all drawn here by the fact that, in tackling his task, the Secretary of State is getting into a bigger and bigger mess. We all fear that, in relation to how the health service will perform, he is building up for himself considerable problems in the medium term. Our constituents will all feel that winter by winter, as the crises start to reoccur in the system.
  In 10 minutes, I have no time to answer all the points in the Secretary of State's speech, but I do not wish to do so; he sacrificed any sympathy that he might have had from me. He has a standard Opposition-based rant on what the health service was like when he took over. On every occasion he gives an extremely clever, partial and disingenuous presentation of the money that he says that he has, and what he is doing. On each occasion he produces an announcement — today, it was on NHS Direct — to distract the journalists from what the Government are doing. He made only partial references to the Bill.
  The reason why the Secretary of State is getting into a mess is that, as he will discover, however skilful the rhetoric, however good the special advisers and press presentation, he may fool people for a bit, but it is what he does to the health service that will come back to live with him. He will find that the Bill will do considerable harm.
  I anticipate my criticisms by stating what I welcome about the Bill. It does not reverse the reforms of the previous Government. It does not repeal the internal market or anything like it, although that is not a phrase that I would ever use to describe it. I am glad that the purchaser-provider divide is kept completely intact. No doubt it is regarded as clever that contracts are now described as "collaborative understandings", but they are

  61
  still there between purchasers and providers. The Secretary of State is even extending the number of NHS trusts on the provider side.
  The Bill alters what we used to call in the jargon — it is only jargon — the purchasing side: the commissioning of health care on behalf of the patient. The Secretary of State is moving away from fundholding into new primary care groups, which, as I hope to show, are a wholly undesirable change in the system and will, in the long run, have only adverse effects.
  I say in passing — I have no time to say more — that I welcome the fact that elements of quality control are built into the Bill. We began that when we introduced clinical audit into our reforms. When we were in office, we spent our whole time trying to build a more patient-oriented service, and better management of clinical practice and quality, with the support of the best people in the profession.
  An attempt is being made to produce further improvement in performance management, although it is being done in an odd way. We have new acronyms and we have new quangos in the acronym-ridden national health service — CHIMP will now join NICE. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) is right to say that we are not sure what NICE and CHIMP will wind up doing, but they at least are commendable.
  Overall, my judgment of the Bill is that it is centralising in its ambitions, which is a serious mistake in such a giant service: the biggest employer and the biggest public service in western Europe. In its changes to the purchaser-provider divide, the Bill is bureaucratic in the extreme. As the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) said, that will lead to cultural change on the ground. That change will be a stifling of individual initiative by the best go-ahead general practitioners, because that practice will be made more difficult because those GPs will be locked into a group with people who will not want to be as innovative as them.
  The best general practitioners will have to proceed at the pace of the slowest as they try to develop the primary care system. The decision-making provisions in the Bill go back to the worst of the old NHS. Slow, expensive decision making will be conducted by the large committees that are being re-established. I fear that they will not function well.
  Primary care must continue to develop. Every Minister with responsibility for health knows that developing primary services continues to be one of the major priorities in trying to solve the conundrum of how to meet rising demand out of finite resources. However, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald, I fear that primary care will go through a process of levelling down, rather than levelling up, for quite a period once the primary care groups come in.
  I concentrate on the new primary care groups and the end of fundholding; there are other important parts of the Bill about which I have not time to talk. I will not express an opinion on the parts of the Bill that concern the PPRS — the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme — and drug cost provisions. If I did so, I would have to declare an outside interest as chairman of a pharmaceutical wholesale company. 1 make only one comment, which is faintly relevant. One detailed aspect of the primary care groups has been sadly neglected: the role of the
  62
  pharmacists as a profession. The fact that they will have no real involvement in the new groups is not to the advantage of patients.
  Primary care groups are based on the abolition of general practice fundholding. Fundholding was a success. One of the key things that the Secretary of State tried to deny was that we worked to ensure — the best reforms do it — that those who carried out the reforms had ownership of the reforms themselves. The fundholders were volunteers and they were largely enthusiasts.
  Almost 60 per cent. of GPs wished to become fundholders. If we had achieved 100 per cent. GP fundholding, as we did with NHS trusts, the Government would never have dared to reverse the policy. They are going to great and unnecessary lengths to reverse it now. It put family doctors in the driving seat in raising the standard of care in their locality. It gave them new and unprecedented influence over the quality of and access to hospital-based services. It enabled them to concentrate on the needs of their own patients. The benefits from the growing number of fundholders were spreading to the rest of the service.
  In the short time I have left, I mention specifically what I think are the dangers of the new primary care groups. First, they will level the service down. I will not repeat what my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald has said. The best fundholders developed set-ups in their practices that were unprecedented in the NHS: physiotherapy in the practice, consultants coming in for special in-house sessions to deal with people in the surgery, better facilities than ever before for minor surgery by GPs. In many cases, after the Bill, those things will be squeezed out in some practices by constraints on the budget of the primary care group as a whole.
  A second thing will be lost. Compared with the old fundholders, GPs in the new groups will lack the clout and influence over colleagues in hospital-based and community-based NHS services; those fundholders were such a beneficial influence on behalf of patients.
  Practitioners' incentive to achieve efficient practice will be lost in a particular practice because money will be distributed according to historic spending patterns — to practices as a whole. Indeed, the way in which the money is being distributed to the groups rewards the more inefficient practitioners. They will get their historic level of spending, and some more efficient practitioners will be penalised. Under the system, every practitioner will be handicapped by the most difficult GPs in the slowest practices.
  The biggest problem in some primary care groups will be that some GPs will simply not be interested in being involved in such management and development of the service. Keen GPs will probably get themselves elected on to the boards, but they will have no way in which to stop the less keen from inhibiting what they can do. That is a serious problem. The cash-limited budgets that will be imposed on those large, almost unmanageable blocks of GP practices will give rise to particular difficulties, especially as prescribing costs will be imposed on the groups, which will have no ability to hold to account those whose prescribing habits start to exceed the budget.
  My biggest sadness is that GPs will lose that commitment to their own patients and practice and the incentive to drive improvements, which led to benefits on the ground.

  63
  I agree with a local GP, Dr. Simon Fradd, who is deputy chairman of the British Medical Association's GP practitioner committee. He says that the policy is equivalent to rationing and will lead to the refusal of service. I also agree with Professor Maynard, the professor of health service management at York university, who says the same: GPs will be put in a position where they will have to ration care. I hope that I am wrong.
  I take part in health debates because I want the national health service to survive and succeed. However, the Government's party political rhetoric, the partial presentation of the facts, and Bills such as this one will make things worse.
  6.10 pm
  Mr. David Hinchliffe: I should like very warmly to welcome the main thrust of the Health Bill, particularly its three key provisions on quality of provision, emphasising the role of primary care, and especially the long-overdue abolition of the internal market.
  When the history of this phase of the national health service is written, the Bill will be remembered as the end of the privatisation by stealth attempted by the Tories over the past 25 years. I say 25 years because I was working in social services 25 years ago, when Sir Keith Joseph was the Secretary of State and introduced the changes removing the democratic element in health provision from local government to health authorities. His view was that the market had an important role in health provision. Gradually, over the past 25 years, when the Tories were in power, they moved increasingly in the direction of allowing the market to run health care. Current Tory Front Benchers have made it quite clear that they are firmly wedded to the market in health — which is profoundly opposed by most civilised people in the United Kingdom, whatever their politics.
  When the Thatcher Government were elected, in 1979, they realised that the British people would not vote for privatisation of the health service — because a vast, cross-party majority of the British electorate support the central tenets of the national health service, as they have done since the service was started in the 1940s. The Tories therefore began the process of privatisation by stealth, with a range of measures that I should like to mention briefly.
  The first measure to be introduced, in the early 1980s. was general management. Management concepts were wheeled into the national health service that were totally alien to it. More importantly, people from business were wheeled in, although they had absolutely no knowledge of the NHS. A biscuit manager was brought in as the general manager of my health authority, and the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) may well recall the consequent problems that we had in Wakefield.
  The previous Government created a culture of paying for care. Year after year, prescription charges were hiked way above inflation. The Health and Medicines Act 1988 introduced charges for eyesight and dental checks and for preventive health checks. For older people, there were also tax concessions on private medicine, as the previous Government believed that such an incentive should be
  64
  introduced to encourage ever more people into the private sector. The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) nods. He is in favour of people using the private sector.
  The previous Government also instituted the wholesale privatisation of community care. I have received computations from the Library showing that, in the 10 years before introduction of the 1993 community care changes,£10 billion of social security resources were pumped into the private residential and nursing home sector. At the same time as there was a huge expansion in construction of private nursing and care homes, there was a deliberate run down of NHS provision for older people.
  The Bill will reverse that privatisation process. I therefore believe that, in many respects, the Bill's passage will be a major landmark in making the NHS once again conform to Bevan's vision for it.
  The National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 introduced the internal market. During its passage, several Conservative Members made it clear that they believed that the internal market was only a prelude to moving further towards a market system, in which the vast majority of patients would be expected to have private insurance, with only a state safety net for those without it, as in the United States.
  The end result—regardless of what the Tories' reasoned amendment to this Bill states about fundholding—was a two-tier system. In my constituency, I had people who were life-long Tory voters but who objected fundamentally to the fundholding system, which provided them with second-class treatment. The names and addresses of those who came to see me about the way in which the fundholding system operated and impacted on their specific treatment needs are on record.
  I praise the Tories for knowing what they believe in and pursuing those beliefs. Although they were absolutely hammered on the NHS at the general election, they still believe in moving us ever closer towards private health care. In every one of her speeches and interviews, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) has said, "Make more use of the private sector." A couple of weeks ago, the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton made a major speech—in which I was given the great honour of a mention or two—the central thrust of which was that, "We can't afford to pay for a national health service. Get people into the private sector."
  When talking about moving NHS patients into the private sector, Tory Members fail to deal with one specific difficulty: the private sector is staffed entirely by those who were trained in the NHS. Therefore, the more the private sector develops, the more that the NHS will be denuded of staff. They fail also to appreciate—as the Health Committee is discovering in its inquiries—that the quality of care in the private sector sometimes leaves much to be desired.
  I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald has left the Chamber. She mentioned three categories of the dispossessed, but failed to mention a fourth one—NHS patients who wait patiently on a NHS waiting list, until someone from the private sector queue

  65
  jumps, putting everyone back a place. Those people do not have access to the treatment that they need because of queue jumping by people from the private sector.
  Mr. Alan Duncan: Where does that happen?
  Mr. Hinchliffe: There is plenty of evidence of it. The hon. Gentleman need not worry, as I could give him plenty of examples.
  In the few minutes that I have left to speak, I should like to concentrate on a few key matters. As I said, I welcome the Bill's concentration on the quality of provision. In my own constituency, I have been concerned that, in a minority of cases, patients have had a very raw deal from the health service and not received answers to some of their medical problems.
  As I also said, I welcome the Bill's emphasis on primary care. However, I should like to mention one specific concern. I believe that the Bill's vision of involving the social services should go much further, and follow the model provided by Northern Ireland, where there are one-stop shops in general practitioners' surgeries. Northern Ireland's health centres genuinely offer access to child protection, home care, district nurses and various professionals other than GPs. I worked, 25 years ago, as a GP-attached social worker. Gradually, we are returning to that system, which worked so well but was damaged by the reforms introduced in 1974 by the Conservatives.
  I hope that one specific aspect of the Bill—on governance of the NHS—will be dealt with in Committee. I have previously raised concerns about the democratic deficit in the health service, and believe that one reason why some patients sometimes misuse the NHS—by not turning up for appointments, for example—is that they lack a feeling of personal ownership of the service. Within the primary care groups, trusts and the overall service, we shall have to consider how to involve patients in the service, as they currently are not.
  I have also previously expressed my disappointment at the continuation of the system of appointment of officials which was so discredited under the previous Government. Although those who currently hold appointments usually believe in the health service, we still have to ensure that local people who use the service are involved in decisions on the service's direction.
  A key difference between the Government and the Opposition is demonstrated by the Bill's replacement of the duty to compete with the duty of co-operation. It is a fundamental difference between the two sides. I think that the vast majority of people in the United Kingdom—Tories included—believe that the NHS is about co-operation, collaboration and working together. I wish the Bill well in its passage through the House.
  6.19 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Almost two years ago today—when we were about 14 days out from the general election—the Labour leader and Labour spokespeople said that there were only 14 days left for the country to decide whether it wanted to save the national health service. Many of us thought then that we could be well disposed towards Labour's commitment to the NHS. We would rather have
  66
  done what was necessary ourselves, but if we could not be in power, at least Labour would be bold and resolute, and would make flagship proposals to transform our struggling national health service for the better.
  Mr. Patrick Hall: Correct.
  Mr. Hughes: If the Bill is supposed to be the great, bold, dramatic flagship that the hon. Gentleman implies, he should be sorely disappointed. It is a timid little measure. Although some things in it are timely and welcome—as my colleagues in the other place have said, we support those—there is much more that the Government should and could do. Sadly, none of that is in the Bill.
  The Government started off on the wrong tack by saying that their first priority, before any legislation, would be the reduction of waiting lists. There is nothing about that in the Bill, perhaps because the target was wrong anyway. Even if it had been the right target, the bold promise of a 100,000 reduction is still some way off. The figure is down by 50,000 in England, so one in 23 people fewer are waiting; really successful! One in 14 people fewer are waiting in Scotland, and in Wales more people are waiting than when Labour came to office. So far, therefore, there has hardly been a dramatic change.
  The Secretary of State said that the Government inherited a health service in deficit, but if we look round the country we see plenty of health authorities that have started the new financial year this month in deficit.
  The Secretary of State also said that Labour had inherited a health service in which there were many parts of the country where one could not find a dentist. I was in Cornwall the other day with my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed), and my colleagues there have just launched a campaign to try to get a decent number of dentists almost anywhere in the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) keeps trying to make it clear to the Government that although everybody identified the lack of dentists as a major issue, there has hardly been any significant change in numbers.
  There was nothing in the Labour manifesto about the need for more staff in the health service. There was no commitment to employing more nurses or doctors, although everyone else knew that there was a major crisis. We looked for dramatic responses.
  By contrast, some of the things that have happened were not mentioned in the Labour manifesto. NHS Direct must have been dreamed up after 1 May 1997.
  Mr. Stephen Dorrell: They inherited it.
  Mr. Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman, a former Secretary of State for Health, says that the Government inherited the proposal. It certainly was not in the Labour manifesto.
  Mr. Dorrell: It was in ours.
  Mr. Hughes: Indeed it was, as the right hon. Gentleman fairly says. The 20 walk-in surgeries were not in the Labour manifesto, either.

  67
  Labour's great commitment was that the two-tier health service would go, and that there would be an end to the internal market. In one sense the two-tier service will go, in that the Bill will end the division between fundholding and non-fundholding. We welcome that. However, a greater concern for most people is the patchwork nature of the health service. People who live in one place have access to treatment that people who live elsewhere cannot get.
  That problem has not disappeared, and nothing in the Bill will make it disappear. For someone waiting for beta interferon or in vitro fertilisation, that is the issue that matters. It is no good having a national health service theoretically available to all, if it is not available to all in the place where one lives. That is a multi-tier health service.
  The Prime Minister said that the internal market would end, but as the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), another former Secretary of State for Health, rightly said, that has not happened. The internal market is still here; there are still purchasers and providers. Indeed, there will be more people in that equation. Of course, some of the arrangements will be different, but the internal market will not have gone away.
  When the Prime Minister was speaking in the debate on the Queen's Speech, I tackled him about rationing. He said that Labour had proposed the best framework in which to determine priorities. Now, however, although everybody else in the country says that the big issue is how we decide what the NHS should do, how we should pay for it, and why all treatment is not available everywhere, and asks, "Isn't that rationing?" the Government say, "There is no rationing; that is a delusion."
  None the less, the Government have made a proposal to deal with the problem that they say does not exist. It is not, of course, to be dealt with by involving the public, because that would be far too dangerous; the public might want to express a view.
  When my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) spoke in response to the Queen's Speech, he set out the view that we hold today, as we did then—the same view as we have formed about the Bill throughout its progress both through the other place and here.
  For example, all the professionals in England could have been involved in the process, but only some of them have been invited to the table. In Wales, a wider invitation has been sent out for people to take part in the new Labour NHS.
  The Government could also have been bold and followed the logic of all the recommendations from the Select Committee on Health, which is chaired by the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) and includes my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand), about merging health and social services. The logic of that proposal cries out to be heard.
  However, there is only one little proposal about health and social services consulting a bit more. They must still keep two separate managements running two separate regimes, offering services that often overlap, although they are charged for differently. There is no proposal to change that, although I can tell Labour Members that,
  68
  logically, this change will be made. As with much that the Labour party does, the Government will come to the conclusion much later than others who have thought about the subject. For instance, the Select Committee, like the Liberal Democrats, has realised for some time what the right policy is.
  There is nothing in the Bill about one of the issues that we have spent much of the last two years talking about: how do we recruit the people to provide a quality health service? We can produce the most wonderful statements about quality, but if we do not have the staff we will not get the quality either.
  There could have been extra incentives to recruit people and encourage them to be trainees, or to be undergraduates in nursing, physiotherapy or medicine—but there is nothing in the Bill about that. There is nothing about recruitment and retention, nothing about rationing and nothing about resources.
  It might be said that resources are dealt with elsewhere in the parliamentary timetable. That is true, but there could have been something in the Bill that tried to answer the big question about the health service: how do we link the resources with the services that the NHS should provide? Of that there is not a word.
  The Conservative contribution, made by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), who is not now in the Chamber, was interesting. As my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight said at the time, sotto voce, there was something of the Barbara Woodhouse of the House of Commons about the right hon. Lady when she instructed everyone to sit down and be quiet as she set out her prescription for the NHS.
  As I understand it, there are six Tory criticisms of the Bill. The first is that it removes the choice for doctor and patient to send the patient where they think he or she should go. There is some truth in that criticism, and although the amendment made in the House of Lords was a welcome move in the right direction, it was left pretty unclear what the Government think should happen. We shall press them further on that subject.
  The Tories also criticise the end of fundholding. We do not. We think that there should be only one type of doctor's practice, so that people who go to a surgery should not get better or worse treatment, depending on what sort of doctor is there. Such a regime was the legacy of the period when the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe was Secretary of State.
  The Tories say that there is unnecessary and expensive bureaucracy. That is a bit rich, coming from them. They set up the most bureaucratic health service that we have ever had, so their criticism is not easy to support. They also say, "We cannot have any more upheaval." That, too, is a bit rich. Apparently Tory upheaval is fine, but if it is anyone else's upheaval, that is not so good. I lived through the Tory health service reforms, such as the creation of the internal market—and the poll tax too—so I am not sure that people will believe what the Tories say about upheaval.
  There was another argument about the competitiveness of the pharmaceutical industry being undermined. There is a danger of that happening, and we are alive to it; I shall say more later. The Tories also say that the powers of the Secretary of State are being centralised. That is true. One of the great themes of the Bill is providing more

  69
  power for the Secretary of State and less power for the patient, less power for the people. That is a fundamental flaw.
  Over the past two years many of the things that could have been done either have not been done or have been done too late. Spending plans were on hold for nearly 24 months. Staff pay was staged in year one, and many employees have not caught up in year two. The staffing crisis was not addressed for 20 months. As often happens, the Government have been slow to get up and move.
  Then the Government are desperate to be seen to be doing things, even if they have not quite thought through how their actions relate to their other policies. We heard a good example of that today in the statement by the Prime Minister. Only recently have the Government realised that the total waiting time between someone realising that they need treatment and getting it matters. That means not just in-patient waiting time—the time that someone waits to obtain treatment—but the time that they wait to see a consultant in the first place.
  The Government have only just realised that we have a terrible staffing crisis in the health service. I am not sure that they will be able to act in time to do something about it. Ideas such as walk-in high street surgeries and NHS Direct are fine as far as they go, but no one has thought through how they integrate with the local health service and work with the other structures, such as primary care trusts and groups, that are being set up; or how to ensure that the new services do not result in doctors, who are in short supply, being attracted away from areas where they are needed and cannot be replaced.
  We are in favour of innovation. We are in favour of nurses sharing the leadership of local community health groups with doctors. We are in favour of collaboration among professionals—all of them. We are in favour of co-operatives of doctors doing out-of-hours services. We are in favour of telephone advice in the right place, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) said earlier, we must recognise that it has limited value. We are in favour of more self-medication, including alternative therapies. We are in favour of pharmacies having a proper recognised role. We are in favour of the whole range of NHS services, but there should be democratic accountability.
  The Government have missed a great opportunity to bring local health services and local social services together under democratically accountable elected bodies. That would enable the public to participate in decisions, rather than excluding them. The great hidden danger, to which the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe referred, is that those services will be cash-limited and the public will not be able to do anything about it. It is no good giving a lot of money in theory to the health service to be dished out around the country if social services are being stretched and capped and cannot do the job that is expected of them.
  There is not a word in the Bill about regional health services. They exist. There are regional health authorities, but nobody elects them or has any say on strategic planning; they are just appointed. The Bill also fails to provide any greater democratic control at national level in the four countries of the UK, which is where the health service will be controlled after May. Recent figures show a worrying trend for the two years the Government have been in office. The number of recognised Labour party
  70
  people appointed to non-executive posts in health trusts in England has gone up from 8 to 226—an increase from 0.3 per cent. to 9.6 per cent. Needless to say, the other parties are considerably behind.
  There are many amendments that we would like the Government to accept, but we fear that they will not. We would like to remove the difficulty of cash-limiting from primary care groups and trusts and make them accountable, but we fear that the Government will not do that. We would like a better balance of the professions in the primary care trusts so that the chair and the majority—or largest minority—of places are not always reserved for doctors if they want them. That is the deal that the Government made to get the proposals past the doctors. We would like to know why the requirements for quality of care do not apply to health authorities and primary care groups as well as to trusts. We want a commission that looks at the quality of care—we have argued for that for years—but it should be truly independent and authoritative and there should be a link between the commission's recommendations and the ability to deliver. It is no good the commission going round the country specifying action that should be taken if the Secretary of State says that the Government do not have the resources to deliver the improvements. The best model would be the prison inspectorate, which is increasingly respected as an independent voice that says what is wrong in the prison service.
  We have argued the case for local and health authority mergers. The Government are still fudging the issue on the control of prices for the drugs industry. They are saying that they like the voluntary system, but if it does not work they will introduce a statutory system. The pharmaceutical industry needs to be encouraged because it is a great British industry, but the NHS has an interest in regulating the way in which it is charged for the services that it has to buy from the industry.
  On the professions, the Secretary of State has clearly learned a lesson from the debates on the Bill in the other place. Initially he sought all the powers for himself, but there have now been many welcome amendments. All the professions should be regulated. It is a long time since some of them first asked for regulation. For example, psychologists want people to know who a proper psychologist is. We need a system that can bring them quickly into the regulated fold, but we should not change from a system of professional self-regulation without primary legislation. The framework must be clear so that each profession knows where it stands.
  A crucial amendment was forced on the Government in the other place to bring the independent health care sector within the remit of the quality control initiatives. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) was wrong to say that it should be under the control of the NHS. It should be under the control of the Government. We firmly believe that the private health care sector should be regulated according to the same standards as apply to the public health care sector. We shall resist any attempt by the Government to reverse that welcome change to the Bill. We shall also support the other two major amendments made against the Government, which were to ensure that a majority of a primary care group voted in favour before it became a trust and to ensure the right to refer out of area, which is another name for the existing practice of extra-contractual referrals.

  71
  There is just one further issue that the Government still resist and I have not heard an explanation from the Secretary of State of why they are being so difficult. There should be clear equal opportunities requirements throughout the NHS, not just on the basis of gender and race, but also on the basis of age. It would be entirely proper to put such a provision in the Bill and we hope that the Government will change their mind.
  The Bill proposes changes to create a better quality and more accountable health service. We welcome that, but the Government could have come up with provisions to answer the big questions and meet the needs of the people. Sadly, this short Bill for England, Wales and Scotland is a Bill of missed opportunities in every case. We do not understand why we are legislating for Scotland in April and May of 1999 when from May the Scottish Parliament, which properly wants to run the health service, will take over those powers. We also do not understand why the Government are seeking to impose a system on Wales when the Welsh Assembly is to be elected next month. It, too, will be given responsibility for the health service. The Government want to give the Secretary of State more responsibility for the health service in England when there are plenty of people at local and regional level who are competent to make decisions to meet local needs. We understand that, but we strongly oppose it.
  The Government could have introduced a more democratic local health service. They could have introduced a strategic democratic tier for the health service. They could have provided incentives for more people to work for the health service. Above all, they could have owned up to the fact that decisions about resources and rationing have to be made.
  We were constructive in seeking to amend the Bill in the Lords, but we remain unhappy because it is weak and timid. We cannot support the Government tonight, but we shall work in Committee to improve the Bill and make it more worthy of the Government's ambitions and objectives and of what the people expect from the health service. By the time it comes back to the House, we hope that the Bill will be bolder and braver than the current very timid measure.
  6.40 pm
  Mr. Paul Truswell: Since the general election, nothing has given me greater pleasure—in the Chamber, at least—than I have now in supporting the Bill. I have been able to view the national health service for some years from a variety of vantage points: as a member of a family health services authority; as a health authority member; as a chair of social services; and as a member of a community health council. In all that time, I never perceived the benefits of the elixir described by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke).
  Primary care groups may have a great deal to learn, but they are infinitely preferable to their GP fundholder predecessors. Unlike GP fundholding, they are inclusive, not exclusive; integrated, not fragmented; co-operative, not competitive. They have the capacity to take communities along with them, on board rather than in tow.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe mentioned various senior clinicians of his acquaintance. I refer to only one such person of my acquaintance,
  72
  Dr. Kingsley Reid, an eminent GP in my constituency and chair of the Leeds local medical committee of GPs. He said that the previous Government made such a mess of the NHS that he doubts the capacity of any Government to repair it.
  Senior GPs have welcomed PCGs as an opportunity to put primary care in the front line and in the NHS driving seat. They do not regard everything to do with PCGs as sweetness and light, and there are still concerns about the work load expected of PCG board members and the speed with which the groups may be forced to develop. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will take those concerns into account.
  There are further concerns relating to learning the lessons of GP fundholding. PCGs should not be allowed to advance to the detriment of their neighbours. Whatever defence the Conservative party may have mounted for fundholding, it is a fact that it was promoted on the basis of fear, bribery and, in some cases, turning a blind eye to issues of probity.
  Many GPs opposed fundholding but still became fundholders, not because they were hypocrites but because they knew that the Conservative party would do everything that it could to make its ideological baby walk. Someone was clearly going to get a bum deal, and GPs did not want them or their patients to be left holding the nappy.
  Those GPs were proved right when the Conservative Government stuffed fundholders' surgeries, if not their mouths, with gold. Allocations of cash to fundholders were based on historic referral and prescribing patterns. It was possible to engage in a frenzy of prescribing and referring in the preparatory year before fundholding, knowing that such activity would form the baseline of the fundholding budget.
  Fundholders also received generous extra funding for staff and computers. It may be said that there was a choice, but there was also a great deal of incentive, which came from a levelling down process. Those who were not fundholders' patients suffered the levelling down produced by the system introduced by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe.
  Fundholders were in a privileged win-win position in respect of surpluses and deficits. They were able to keep their savings and leave to the health authority the task of bailing them out when they overspent. [Interruption.] One would not even run a whist drive in Maidstone, or wherever the right hon. Lady's constituency is, let alone a national health service, in that way. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) has already made a speech. She cannot now make another one.
  Mr. Truswell: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for interrupting our conversation.
  When Leeds health authority was seriously in deficit and some of its contracts for routine procedures were running out, the majority of fundholders were sitting on surpluses, many well into six figures. One such surplus was almost £300,000. By the fourth year of fundholding in Leeds, the total surplus amounted to £2.7 million, which roughly equated to the deficit faced by the

  73
  health authority, which was responsible for purchasing care for those who were not in the privileged position of being patients of fundholders.
  Levelling down also took place among fundholders. Having foisted a great deal of riches on the early tranches of fundholding, the Conservative Government discovered a simple arithmetical truth: one cannot continue to give an increasing proportion of people an unfair share of the cake. The early tranches were reduced as new fundholders came in, but those who were not fundholders were still left in the sink.
  The fact that fundholding quickly passed its sell-by date was illustrated by the way in which so many different systems grew up. There were total purchasing projects, locality commissioning and multi-funds. Those systems were more in keeping with PCGs than with fundholding.
  Another attraction of fundholding was the fact that accountability was relaxed to the point at which it was very flaccid indeed. The definition of what constituted improvements in patient care was stretched to the limit. Several times, our auditors on the FHSA raised serious questions about clinical items such as the purchase of lavish oak furniture and extravagant computer upgrades, especially as the suppliers were linked commercially with the practices concerned. The CHC also raised questions about money being used to resurface car parks. Perhaps, in due course, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence could consider the clinical effectiveness of tarmac, oak and other such items.
  We went off to the Kremlin, which is the affectionate title by which the NHS headquarters in Leeds is known, and were told, "Hands off. Go away. We're not interested. Don't you be doing anything to discourage fundholders, now or in the future." That was the Conservative party's approach.
  The Conservatives display a slavish adherence to GP fundholding, but they should answer a few questions in defence of that wonderful system. Why, if it was so good, did it perversely have to rely on its shortcomings to attract recruits? Why did GPs have to be bribed with cash, staff and computers, at the expense of other patients and non-fundholders? Why was such a blind eye turned to issues of probity? [Interruption.] The answer can be given in the summing up, so please let us not hear it from the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) now.
  The only tiers that should be shed in the context of GP fundholding are the two tiers of NHS care to which it gave rise. I can give no better example than the experience of my constituent Kristie Swift. She was suffering from a common ear complaint that required routine surgery. Her hearing was badly affected and her whole educational development was being undermined.
  Mr. Hammond: Sounds like Jennifer's ear.
  Mr. Truswell: A consultant said that he could not treat Kristie that financial year because her GP was not a fundholder, and her head teacher asked me to look into the case because she was so worried about her lack of development.
  It turned out that Kristie's GP was in fact a fundholder, and she received her operation long before the end of the financial year, so within a matter of a few weeks, she had been on both levels of the two-tier system produced by
  74
  the Conservative party, and for good measure she had been the victim of the convoluted bureaucracy spawned by that dynamic duo of the internal market and GP fundholding.
  I heard some mutterings about Jennifer's ear. To some extent, that may be pertinent, although this case is 100 per cent. true, not a dramatisation based on what we know in any case to have been a reality. The issue of Jennifer's ear in 1992 concerned the difference as regards access between the NHS and the private sector.
  I have described the battle of Kristie's ear. We are not talking today about the division between public and private, but about an NHS that the Conservative party divided against itself. The Bill will help to close that divide and is a welcome stitch in time for our NHS.
  6.50 pm
  Mr. Robert Walter: The NHS is probably the most popular institution in Britain, but judging by the Secretary of State's opening remarks he obviously does not believe that the Bill will be popular. He spent most of his time talking about other health service issues rather than the Bill. Because the NHS is popular, it generates huge concern among those who use it and those who think they would like to use it. It is also one of the few institutions over which the Government have total control.
  Members on both sides of the House are committed to the national health service. Despite what the Labour party says, we are committed to making the NHS efficient and effective—but will the Bill contribute to that aim? It is suggested that the Bill will save money through the abolition of fundholding and that it will release scarce resources to be used for patient care. However, primary care groups will probably cost some £150 million a year to administer. Some estimates have put that figure as high as £300 million a year, excluding start-up costs for the new procedure. Ministers have suggested that that money will be recycled, but that is a nonsense. The administration of fundholding costs only £135 million a year, and that is the figure given by the Minister of State to the Select Committee on Health earlier this year. The Secretary of State said earlier that that £135 million has already been used, or recycled, for cancer screening.
  The Bill will not abolish the so-called internal market, because there will still be a purchaser-provider balance. The relationship remains intact, although I am sure that Ministers will point to clause 23, which deals with co-operation. It is a motherhood and apple pie clause, which suggests that we will all work together in some great co-operative effort to deliver our objectives. Primary care trusts and health authorities will still buy in services from trusts and local authorities. Level 4 primary care trusts will be able to provide some services for themselves and supply services to other bodies.
  The suggestion is that that will abolish the two-tier structure of the NHS. However, the Bill provides for four tiers of primary care, and will allow no choice. At least in the two-tier structure there was some choice. Fundholders and their patients will lose out. If we examine the divisions of care between those in primary care groups at level 1 and those in primary care trusts at level 4, we see a genuine two, three or four-tier effect.
  The Bill will not produce a more efficient or effective NHS. In rural areas such as my constituency, the Bill will bring together GPs' practices spread over many miles,

  75
  which have little in common, other than that when added together they make a unit that suits the civil service maths for a primary care group and, eventually, a primary care trust. Is that an efficient way to run a primary care delivery system? Who will attend the meetings of the board? Will practices send their best GP, the senior partner and the man who is most effective at delivering care on the ground? Or will they send their least effective GP, the man who can be spared from the surgery for half a day to go to a meeting that is possibly some 20 or 30 miles away. When he comes back and tells the practice about the decisions, will the other GPs feel ownership of the decisions, if their least effective man has been sent along as a placeman to sit on the board? It is difficult enough for GPs to work within their own practices, let alone to work with GPs who may be 20 or 30 miles away in other practices. Committee meetings will also be a call on GPs' time, which has not been accounted for in the costs of the Bill.
  Abolishing fundholding is a fundamental mistake. Fundholding has received many plaudits from virtually every source other than the Government. The British Medical Association said a couple of years ago that fundholding is
  "a good model for encouraging consumer accountability into the NHS … GPs are truly willing to share the decision-making process with their patients."
  The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, an external body, stated:
  "Within the range of services that they are permitted to purchase, GPs do seem to have done a better job of purchasing than district Health Authorities. Fund-holders have been more prepared to diversify providers, challenge hospital practices and to demand improvements."
  The Audit Commission, a body that cannot be associated with Ministers from Governments of either party, made the most telling observation in March last year, when it said:
  "Most fund-holders have introduced … improvements, including more services for patients at practice premises, improved communication with hospitals, and more cost-effective drug prescribing."
  It seems that the wider benefits of fundholding are clear to everyone except the Government. Fundholders have been able to secure shorter waiting times for their patients operations. GPs have managed their practice budgets and have been able to develop new specialist services for their patients. Fundholding has encouraged greater communication and provides a way to involve GPs in the wider planning and management of the NHS. Fundholders have been able to manage their premises budgets, to develop and improve their surgeries and waiting rooms for the benefit of patients. The ability to perform minor surgical procedures in GPs' practices has been developed as a result of that greater autonomy. Because the patient is closer to the centre of decision making, fundholding has encouraged greater accountability in the health service and access to the executive process for patients.
  In the time available, I have dealt with the provision for primary care that the Bill contains. It contains other measures, including provision for quality, under NICE and CHIMP. The provisions on drug pricing will be onerous for the supply of drugs to patients, and the Bill also contains provisions on professional regulation.
  76
  However, it will do little to improve health care in Britain. The provision of primary care will take a step backwards as a result of the Bill. It could have been better drafted to provide efficient and effective control of the NHS and, at the end of the day, the Bill will be seen as unnecessary.
  6.59 pm
  Mr. Patrick Hall: I welcome the Bill and the changes taking place in the new national health service. Given the time limit on Back-Bench speeches, I shall comment principally on primary care groups and the context in which they arise. I shall focus on the Bedford primary care group.
  Primary care groups have just begun their work. They are sub-committees of local health authorities and will meet in public and conduct their business openly. That is an important fact. At their meetings, they will, de facto, afford community health councils the observer status sought by those councils. There may be some positive purpose in formally recognising the observer status that has been requested, because community health councils are drawn from local communities, local authorities and the voluntary sector, and I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to consider whether that requirement could be included in regulation and to comment on that when he sums up.
  The Bedford primary care group covers a population of 145,000 people served by 25 GP practices and 75 general practitioners. I have recently spoken to the chairman of the new PCG about his views and those of his colleagues on the board as to the future prospects for the PCG. He is positive about two aspects. First, he saw the opportunities inherent in an approach to the development and delivery of health care commissioned by people who are in daily contact with patients. That is most important. There are seven GPs, a practice nurse and a health visitor on the Bedford PCG. Those people can see at once what is happening on the ground; they can relate the strategies and plans of health authorities and others to the reality of life in the community.
  The second positive aspect is the concept and the practice—as we shall see—of a unified budget. Initially, 40 per cent. of the capitation will be devolved to the area covered by the PCG—£32 million for the Bedford PCG. The official target is that that must rise to 60 per cent. by April next year, but the Bedfordshire health authority and the five PCGs in Luton and Bedfordshire are forming a commissioning consortium, or forum, that has as one of its aims a devolved budget of 100 per cent. by next spring.
  The Bedford primary care group sees the new funding arrangements as providing—in the words of the chairman of the new PCG—"an exciting opportunity" for a more cost-effective and holistic approach to expenditure. For example, the new arrangements offer the opportunity to choose to spend more on certain drugs for patients who are still at home, still in the community and at work. Under previous arrangements, that would have overspent the cash-limited drugs budget and the spending would not have taken place. Now that spending can happen and, as a result, money can be saved at the other end of the process—the hospital emergency treatment end. That could represent an overall saving of resources that could be redeployed or reinvested in developments. There would also be a reduction in stress for patients, which would be good for individuals, their families and society.

  77
  People are enthusiastic about the prospects for the groups—especially the medium and long-term prospects. We realise that when something new starts, there will be short-term problems during the bedding-down process. Fundholders and non-fundholders are now working together on the Bedford PCG board and that is another good feature of the reforms. The former fundholders have some concerns that the new arrangements might make budget decisions more difficult in the short term and that there might be some difficulties in continuing some of the innovations that they introduced in fundholding practices. I acknowledge that—as do the Government. No one is trying to hide that, but the important point is that there is now a greater vision for the greater good, and that is accepted by the Bedford PCG. The benefits should exist for the many, not only for the few—benefits for the whole country, not merely for those patients whose doctors happen to be members of a fundholding practice.
  There is a will to make the new system work. It is accepted that the innovations of fundholding should apply to the whole country. I accept that there were innovations in fundholding that benefited some patients, but they should apply to everyone. It is also accepted by many people—including those to whom I have spoken in Bedford—that fundholding could not be the mechanism to deliver the expansion of improved services to all, because of the inherent contradictions in the system. The system had high transaction costs as part of the bureaucratic internal market; it was based on competition, not co-operation and, by its very nature, made planning and long-term thinking difficult. It was inherently destabilising to the national health service.
  Apart from the important new duty of quality that has been mentioned by other hon. Members, the Bill also introduces a new duty of co-operation and partnership, not only within the NHS, but outside. There will be partnership with the voluntary sector, local authorities, social services departments and employers—for example, in drawing up health improvement programmes. Consistent with that duty is the need to consult the public. On that subject, I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to agree that community health councils should be consulted by primary care trusts—when that evolutionary step takes place—on significant changes in service, and that CHCs should have the right to inspect premises run by primary care trusts. In respect of the proposed changes to the legislative framework for NHS trusts, it would be reasonable for a requirement to be included that NHS trusts consult the public and CHCs on proposed changes to services or plans to dispose of or acquire sites.
  What we are about now, in moving on from fundholding and in the other measures, is levelling upwards, commissioning services that people need. It is about returning to the historic founding principle of the national health service: top-quality medical care, accessible to all, based on need and never based on ability to pay. That historic principle is as important today as it was when it inspired the country 55 years ago. The Bill provides important measures and takes important steps to raise standards, to tackle health inequalities and to take the NHS forward as one of this country's greatest and finest achievements.
  7.8 pm
  Mr. Stephen Dorrell: In the 10 minutes available to me, I want to concentrate my remarks on the effect of the Bill on the primary care world. I want to
  78
  follow up some of the remarks made by my right hon. and hon. Friends about fundholding and to pick up a particular question posed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe): what do the Government envisage as being the long-term role of a primary care trust? That question is unanswered in the Bill and in its supporting notes.
  I begin with a little NHS history. When Enoch Powell was Health Minister in the early 1960s, he made speeches about the importance of making the hospital sector of the health service more accountable to general practice and to people who are in day-to-day contact with patients. That theme was followed up in speeches made by Conservative and Labour Health Ministers through the 1960s, 70s and 80s. If there had been word processors in those days, that text would have been on the word processor. In 1990, those who examined the British national health service started to notice that 30 years of rhetoric about the need to make the hospital service more accountable to general practice was suddenly being converted into action.
  The famous aphorism that Christmas cards flowed from general practitioners to hospital consultants was reversed in 1990 when consultants suddenly found a need to send Christmas cards to GPs. The House must ask itself whether it was just a massive historical coincidence that the extra accountability of the hospital service to GPs happened when my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) introduced GP fundholding and the reforms of 1990. Or was there some cause and effect? I believe that there was: my right hon. and learned Friend's reforms, in which I had the honour to play a minor role, strengthened the effective voice of general practice within the NHS, achieving what 30 years of rhetoric had failed to bring about by making the hospital service more accountable to general practitioners, and through them to patients.
  The Government continue to make the same speeches about the importance of the secondary care sector being responsive to the wishes of the primary care sector. Ministers apparently believe that the change in the centre of influence of the health service that happened in the early 1990s can be sustained by primary care groups. I wish that I agreed, but I do not.
  The key difference between the fundholding regime introduced by my right hon. and learned Friend as an option for all GPs and the primary care groups is that the 1990 regime gave each practice the right to decide where the funds available to support patient care should go. Under the PCG system, groups will be so large that the individual GP will lose the effective right to make those decisions on behalf of patients.
  I do not apologise for the fact that when I was Secretary of State I facilitated the coming together in larger commissioning organisations of GPs who wished to do so. The key difference between the range of options mentioned by the hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell) and the primary care groups is that a fundholding practice that went into a multi-fund or took part in a larger purchasing co-operative participated voluntarily. If the practice was not satisfied with the decisions taken in the larger co-operative, it could go away and do its own thing better. Under the Government's scheme, participation in PCGs is compulsory.
  I have no quarrel with the Government's desire to open the option of purchasing to a wider range of patients. If GPs feel that that is the best way to deliver care to

  79
  patients, I have no problem with it. However, the key failing of the PCG idea is that participation is compulsory. The authority and power that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe gave to individual practices is being taken away and given to a new tier of bureaucracy. If Ministers believe that the Government will go down in history for cutting NHS administrative costs by creating a new tier of bureaucracy in the administration of PCGs, they have a greater faith than I do in the capacity of bureaucrats to cut bureaucratic costs.
  My first point, then, is that the PCG weakens the capacity of individual general practitioners to make the structure of the health service account to the needs and wishes of patients. The Bill should be opposed for that reason.
  My second theme follows the question put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald. What will be the long-term purpose of the primary care trust, and what, in the Government's vision of the world, is the future of general practice delivered by independent contractors?
  The Bill makes it clear that as well as having the authority to regulate the general medical services sector, primary care trusts will have the power to deliver general medical services currently delivered by GPs. Presumably, PCTs are able to deliver those services only by employing GPs. In which circumstances do the Government expect that model to be followed? That is a critical question, and I hope that the Minister will respond to it.
  General medical services are one of the great unchallenged success stories of the NHS since its foundation, and that success lies at the heart of primary care. The health service was established on two key principles. First, a GP is a self-employed professional; secondly, he delivers his service as an independent contractor against a national contract, traditionally known as the red book. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe rewrote many aspects of the red book when he was Secretary of State, but he did not change that basic principle.
  One important change was made to that principle under the previous Government in the National Health Service (Primary Care) Act 1997, for which I was responsible. It introduced for the first time the principle of local contracting, as opposed to the national contract. It also introduced the principle that there could be employed GPs as well as self-employed contractors. Both innovations were made for good reasons, but they were introduced on the basis that participation must be voluntary. Assurances had to be given to the vast majority of GPs that the option of delivering general medical services on the traditional basis would remain open.
  When the Government introduce primary care trusts, giving PCTs the power to employ people to deliver general medical services, they must be crystal clear about when the PCT will have the right to employ a GP and about the circumstances in which a PCT will be empowered to deliver services in competition with independent professionals that the PCTs are obliged to regulate—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  7.18 pm
  Mr. Ivan Lewis: I am delighted to support a Bill that reinforces much work already begun to modernise the national health service. The key themes of quality, partnership and accountability define the principles that should underpin an NHS truly fit for the 21st century. The Government have demonstrated their commitment to the NHS by providing —
  21 billion over the next three years.
  The Bill proves, however, the Government's belief that that commitment is not only about extra resources. In return for our investment, we must make sure that patients in every community up and down the country experience significant improvement in the quality of health care. The Bill also draws a line beneath Tory health policy, which did so much to disfigure the NHS. Competition, inequality of access to services and underfunding combined to undermine public confidence in the NHS, though never public support for it.
  Every opportunity should be taken to give people a history lesson about what the previous Government attempted to do with the NHS and to expose the Conservative party's plans for and philosophical beliefs about the future of the NHS. It is interesting that the health service is one of the few areas in which the Conservative party has begun to articulate an alternative policy agenda.
  In a recent speech to the Social Market Foundation, the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) called for a significant increase in the number of people being encouraged—
  I assume by the state—to take out private health insurance, and suggested that that policy should be supported by the Government through tax relief. Whenever we make that accusation and claim that that is what the Opposition are saying, they shake their head and deny that they believe that one way to improve quality in the health service is to increase the number of patients using the private sector, so 1 shall quote briefly from a speech that the hon. Gentleman made. He said:
  "Each and every one of our competitor countries has a larger personal healthcare sector. What becomes clear from looking at other countries is that we are losing out by not encouraging the expansion of personal healthcare. If we are to catch up with others, and deliver the standard of healthcare this country deserves, we need to build a larger public-personal mix. We need to add a thriving personal sector to the public sector NHS we already have."
  It is perfectly clear from what the hon. Gentleman says that he believes, as a fundamental principle and philosophy, that the way to improve the NHS is to encourage large numbers of people to leave the NHS and use private health care.
  On 28 January, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) told the parliamentary Press Gallery lunch:
  "I think if somebody wants to pay to see their GP, they should be encouraged to do so … The problem with the NHS is that we do not charge for much of what we do."
  However one dresses up or explains those statements, it is clear that the Conservative party is advocating privatisation by stealth. It is advocating what it did when it was in power—it effectively privatised the long-term care of the elderly and community care. The Conservatives were not brave enough to tell the people of

  81
  this country that they wanted to privatise the health service because they understood the political consequences of that. We will take every opportunity—
  Mr. Hammond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Lewis: No, I shall not give way. I have only 10 minutes.
  We will take every opportunity to tell the people of this country what the Conservatives' agenda would be if they were ever to be given control of the health service again.
  Mr. Duncan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Lewis: No, I am sorry.
  The Conservatives spoke about the dispossessed. Whether they did so in the context of health care or in the context of social deprivation, how dare they claim to be the friends of the dispossessed. For 18 years, they created more dispossessed than any Government in the history of this country. They also created a greater gap between rich and the poor than we had ever seen.
  I deal now with some specific provisions in the Bill. Primary care trusts will be the natural evolution of the primary care groups, up and running since 1 April. Collaboration and teamwork will replace divisiveness and inequality of access to treatment. The service will undoubtedly benefit from GPs working more closely with other health and social care professionals. We have heard about the fear that GPs who are not very good will hold back those who are innovative and imaginative and who want to make flexible use of resources, but surely bringing GPs together in PCGs and PCTs will mean that peer group pressure will be applied to those who are not doing the job in the way we want and in a way that will enhance the quality of care available to patients. There was much cynicism and scepticism about PCGs before 1 April, but we can all evidence the commitment and work that health care professionals have put in to making them work.
  There is also a new emphasis on quality, as exemplified by the establishment of the Commission for Health Improvement and the new statutory duty for quality. These measures will ensure that mechanisms are in place to monitor and evaluate quality at a local level, and to allow for speedy intervention when it is clear that things are going wrong. For too long there has been a disparity of quality depending on where one lives, or perhaps because quality was put to the bottom of the agenda by hard-pressed managers who were weighed down by the bureaucracy of the internal market. The Government are committed to ensuring that quality is the central driving force behind the modernisation and development of the NHS. That common sense dictates that the concept of partnership is the key to securing lasting health improvement and the most effective use of finite resources. At last there is an explicit duty of co-operation between NHS bodies, and between NHS and other local agencies.
  When I was first elected to the House, one of the things that horrified me was the fact that health authorities, health trusts and local authorities slated each other in the local media for the difficulties experienced by patients. There was a culture not of collaboration, but of passing the buck and blaming other agencies. There is absolutely
  82
  no doubt that the new approach to partnership and collaboration is making a real difference in the relationship between the agencies.
  We should remember, however, that organisations cannot really have relationships—it is the professionals and other people who work in them who need to develop mutual respect and confidence. The Government are creating a variety of vehicles to enable people from different disciplines to have regular contact and dialogue, and to work collaboratively to ensure that patients get the best possible deal. For example, local health improvement programmes will bring together not only the relevant statutory agencies, but the voluntary sector and carers and users in genuine partnership.
  Under previous partnerships, statutory agencies issued draft proposals, and others were asked to comment on them at a final stage. This is about genuine partnership, whereby from the beginning, people from all sectors, including users and carers, identify local priorities and together set about meeting them.
  We should also welcome the new pooled budget arrangements between health and social services, and the flexibility that will be given to health authorities to transfer money to social services departments where that is deemed appropriate. Some of us would like a much closer organisational integration between health and social care, but if these developments improve the relationship between health and social care and ensure that users get a seamless service, they will be an important step forward.
  In conclusion, the Bill provides further evidence of the Government's commitment to constant improvement of the NHS in response to ever-changing needs and demands. The British people believe in and are proud of their NHS. The Bill will help us to deliver the quality of service that they deserve.
  7.27 pm
  Mr. John Horam: It was remarkable that the Secretary of State spent so little time on the Bill. He capped it all by refusing to accept any interventions in the little time that he spent outlining the virtues of the Bill. What we got instead was the umpteenth edition of the Dobson rant. I rather wished that we were in the Senate in America, so that the relevant bit could have been read into the record. It would then have appeared in Hansard, and we could have got on with discussing the real issues rather than listening to the same thing yet again. What we had today does not contribute to the serious health debate that we ought to be having, and which patients and our constituents would want us to have.
  As has been said, primary care groups are central to the Bill. As has been agreed, about 60 per cent. of GPs had become fundholders by the end of the last Parliament. Clearly, there are different views, and I dare say that a certain subjectivity entered the debate on the pros and cons of the various alternatives. However, let us consider the objective views of those outside the House, such as the Audit Commission, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and most doctors. Also, Professor Brian Abel-Smith, a noted adviser to Labour, told the Government, "Whatever you do, don't destroy fundholding—it has been a success." That is the view of independent people.
  As the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Hall) said, the opportunity was there to accept what was good in fundholding, build on it and deal with the 40 per cent.

  83
  or so of GPs who had not yet got into the fundholding system. But no, in the spirit of levelling down, the Government had to destroy everything, the good as well as the unproven, and possibly even the bad, and bring in the new system of PCGs.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell), the former Secretary of State for Health, said, the crucial difference is that whereas it was possible for decisions to be taken by one doctor, or at most by two or three in a group, and for doctors to own their decisions and be responsible for them, decisions are now being made by perhaps 50 or 100 doctors in one commissioning group.
  I am an economist, and economists are famous for not agreeing, or for finding it very difficult to agree, with each other. I am sure that doctors are much more able, perhaps 100 or 200 per cent. more able, to agree with each other than are economists, but the idea of getting 50 or 100 doctors to agree with each other, with nurses, laymen, administrators, carers and all the others who are rightly in these groups, and with committees and sub-committees of committees is nonsensical. Therefore, although I accept the point made by Labour Members that professional doctors and nurses will try to make the system work—because they want to do so if at all possible and because they have no alternative—no one can get round the fact that it is cumbersome, elaborate and bureaucratic. In addition, it is expensive.
  A further point, which was made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), is that the system is compulsory. It is compulsory not only in the sense that the Secretary of State says, "You, as a GP, have to join the system", but in the sense that GPs must do so on his terms.
  It so happens that my health authority, Bromley, was not particularly strong on fundholding. Quite a small proportion of doctors were members of fundholding practices. As a result, the health authority set up a commissioning system. A small group of GPs and nurses, representing all the GP practices in the health authority area, was formed. The system was developed, and was being put through under the previous Government. Indeed, it was so successful that officials from Whitehall went to study exactly what was happening in Bromley. It was, to some extent, a model of the commissioning proposed for primary care groups.
  In conducting such pioneering work, Bromley was well ahead of other health authorities in dealing with questions concerning GP fundholding and practice groups. However, the Government were not content to accept the model, saying that it did not fit into the Whitehall man's view of things. Bromley was told: "You cannot go ahead with that. One group for an entire health authority is not right; you must have three or four"—no evidence was given of why there should be three or four—"groups, scrap all your work and start again."
  As a result, Bromley is the last in the health authority queue in the country. Indeed, it is so late in its preparation that it is having to postpone the introduction of primary care groups until 1 July, whereas most are being introduced on 1 April. All the work that was done has had to be done all over again because Bromley's version of it—even though it formed a model used by the
  84
  Government—was not satisfactory. That shows the extent to which the Government are prepared to accept only the exact model of what they are looking for. That is dictatorial and profoundly unsatisfactory in encouraging local initiative.
  While on the question of Whitehall man, the Secretary of State claimed in his speech that, as a result of the proposed measures, financial planning would be better accomplished. All I can say is that financial planning has not been well served in Bromley by the methods that he has so far introduced. For example, money for winter pressures was allocated in the middle of December. Despite Ministers being used to flying by Concorde and going scuba diving during debates on the Budget, they must surely have some grasp of reality. Anybody knows that to allocate money for winter pressures in the middle of December is ridiculous.
  As a result, there were huge trolley waits in Bromley hospitals in January. Elderly women—one was more than 80 years old—were on trolleys for many hours as a direct consequence of the trust's inability to plan because the Government failed to take decisions in time and wrapped everything up in red tape.
  The perception of the hospital system among ordinary people has been severely damaged by the Government's lack of action and the expectations that they raised. Not only have there been trolley waits on such a scale as never before in Bromley, but waiting lists have not been reduced as the Government promised. Admittedly, Bromley is a particularly good performer. However, the number of people on the waiting list has fallen by only 320 to 6,430—a reduction of a few per cent. Not only that, the waiting list for the waiting list, which is not counted, has grown longer. Not only that, more operations are being cancelled than ever before. That is not recorded either. The possibility of admission to a bed through accident and emergency is now the worst on record.
  The entire circumstances regarding waiting times—not merely waiting lists—are considerably worse in Bromley than in any previous year of which I know. That is the consequence of the Government's total failure to perceive the real nature of the problem.
  As we are all aware—certainly on the Opposition Benches—it was evident to Conservative Members and to many eminent professionals in the health service that the Labour Opposition had developed no serious strategy for the NHS. The Labour party has demonstrated no serious strategy since it came to power—nothing which can be defined as a serious attempt to deal with the admitted problems of the health service. There is certainly nothing in the Bill to address them on the scale necessary.
  Proposing evolutionary, practical, common-sense measures, which have always served the NHS well, will therefore fall to a future Conservative Government, as it always has. As we know, Conservative Governments have handled, looked after and protected the NHS for two thirds of its time. As a consequence, we have today's excellent health service—even though, admittedly, it cannot solve all its difficulties.
  When my right hon. and hon. Friends resume power, they will come forward with a set of proposals which, distinct from the concept that the man in Whitehall knows best and the Government's centralised, bureaucratic and red tape-riddled proposals, will be based on a decentralised approach, encouraging and helping local

  85
  initiatives, trusting doctors, nurses and local managers and creating an atmosphere of co-operation with the private sector, instead of the hate for it that is so often displayed by Labour Members, and was again today. I hope that, when my right hon. and hon. Friends flesh out that package of measures appropriately, they will say, "Vote Conservative—to save our NHS".
  7.37 pm
  Mr. John Austin: Although I have no pecuniary or registrable interest to declare, I am a member of the Manufacturing, Science and Finance Union, which incorporates community practitioners and the Health Visitors Association, and represents doctors and a wide variety of other professions in the health service.
  I welcome this Bill and its attempts to overcome the obstacles to co-operative working which have been created by the internal market. I do not deny that there were some benefits of past reforms, and it is right that, in their new proposals, the Government have discarded the things that failed and have built on those that worked. In particular, I welcome the Government's commitment to and recognition of the important role of primary care.
  The Bill builds on the themes set out in the White Papers: the need to improve the quality of service in the NHS, the need for the NHS to work together and in partnership with local government and the voluntary sector, and devolution of responsibility to a local level in shaping services that are relevant to local needs, enabling local decision making to get the best out of NHS resources, and giving responsibility locally for the promotion of the health of communities.
  There has been widespread support throughout the NHS for the creation of primary care groups, which will develop the potential of primary care commissioning without the disadvantages of individual fundholding, which we know has been bureaucratic, divisive and costly. I welcome the abolition of the so-called internal market—a pernicious system which, as the Secretary of State said, set hospital against hospital, and doctor and nurse against doctor and nurse, discouraged the sharing of information and created a two-tier system, providing better services for a few patients at the expense of others.
  The market orientation of recent years has done little, if anything, to improve the efficiency of the service or widen the choice available to the majority of patients. The concept of competition has worked against co-operation between different parts of the service. That is why I warmly welcome the Government's approach of replacing competition with co-operation and introducing a new duty of partnership.
  I welcome the introduction of health improvement plans, which will provide the framework for commissioning decisions and enable improvements in health to be achieved. That is a clear shift in focus for the NHS toward outputs rather than inputs. Increasingly, we shall be looking at outcomes and what ought to be achieved. But for those health improvement programmes to work, there needs to be a strong community and voluntary sector and carer involvement in consultation on those plans. I hope that the Minister of State will require those plans to be published and full consultation to take place. I hope that in his summing up, he will say how those consultation mechanisms through health
  86
  improvement boards will work. My concern is that, without that clear guidance from the Department, it may be premature to seek the abolition of the joint consultative committees.
  I warmly welcome the Government's promotion of the public health agenda. Health and health care are vitally influenced by poverty, bad housing, poor diet, low expectations, lack of educational opportunity and social exclusion. The Government are tackling all those issues. Many years ago the Black report and more recently the Acheson report have drawn attention to the health inequities across the country due to environmental and economic factors. That is why it is of the utmost importance that we promote co-operative working between health and local authorities, not just between health authorities and social services departments, but with the whole range of local government services—with housing, education, leisure and recreation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis) said, the Bill provides an opportunity to break down many of the barriers that exist to co-operative working in those spheres.
  I want to mention the introduction of primary care groups and the concept of a primary care-led NHS. I have some questions to ask the Minister of State. I emphasise that, in my view, it should be a primary care-led NHS and not necessarily a GP-led NHS.
  I want to focus on the contribution of nursing to the modern NHS. I believe that the potential that nursing can offer must be maximised. I welcome the introduction by the previous Government, and the expansion by the present Government, of nurse prescribing. Nurse practitioners are already running outreach health clinics, minor injuries services, family planning and sexual health clinics. Nurses are often the prime professionals involved in health education and health promotion programmes such as those dealing with alcohol abuse, with breast care, with osteoporosis and with testicular cancer. Patients with chronic diseases have benefited from the development of nurse-led care, and it is nurses who act as a resource for many non-health professionals in health education and health promotion programmes.
  In my constituency at the Bevan centre, a short-term intermediate care centre providing intensive rehabilitative care and support to patients who would otherwise be blocking far more expensive beds in an acute hospital, nurses, physiotherapists, occupational therapists and other health care workers are providing more relevant quality care and more intensive support than patients could expect to receive in a district general hospital, and at far less cost to the NHS.
  The maximum encouragement must be given to innovative developments in nurse and therapist-led care. In that respect, I find it regrettable that only two primary care groups have a nurse as their chair. The Government's arrangements for primary care groups require each PCG to have one or two nurses on its board. Although I acknowledge that that is recognition of the vital contribution that nurses can make to commissioning local health services and of the specific expertise that nurses can bring, I question the necessity to provide for an in-built majority of GPs on primary care groups—and why was the contribution of nurses limited to two?
  It is envisaged that primary care groups will develop into primary care trusts. I believe that there is much that we should learn from the lessons of the establishment of

  87
  the PCGs. In some parts of the country, there were failings in the consultation process by which the primary care groups were established, in that working community nurses and professions allied to medicine were excluded from the consultation or from significant influence. In many areas, the trade unions and professional organisations at local level were not even nominally involved in the consultation. I hope that that will be remedied as the PCGs move to primary care trust status.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) has said that, in some areas, GPs are reluctant to spend time on PCG boards. I can assure the Minister of State that there is no shortage of nurses who are willing to serve and that members of professions allied to medicine would welcome the opportunity to sit on such boards, but have no direct entitlement to do so.
  In addition to nurses, who I believe are very important, why should we not include community pharmacists, opticians and physiotherapists, along with other professionals who need to be involved in building the best possible primary care? The voluntary sector, service users and carers all also need to be very much involved in the process.
  I understand that the Minister of State, in his letter of 19 February, requires the executive of the level 3 primary care trust boards to have up to seven GPs, two nurses and a professional with public health promotion expertise. I question whether it is right to guarantee a GP majority in that structure—why not have parity between GPs and nurses and other professions allied to medicine?
  I have no objection to a majority of GPs if they are the best and most appropriate persons for the job. My concern is that the decision to enshrine a majority for GPs has been taken without justification, and without consideration of a fair selection process to ensure that the best possible persons get the jobs.
  I also seek Ministers' assurance regarding the composition of the trust executive board at level 4 primary care trust level—an assurance that membership will be chosen on the basis of clear job descriptions, founded on a clearly defined function of the trust, with the best people getting the job, and not with a reserve majority for any profession.
  I also want to mention equity of access. In the debate in another place, reference was made to discrimination on the grounds of age, race or gender. I hope that, in light of the Macpherson report, the Minister will give consideration to putting an equal opportunity commitment on the face of the Bill. I am aware that NICE and the national service framework provide a move forward to equity of access, but I believe that a stress on equality of opportunity is important.
  I also want to refer briefly to consultation on changes in service delivery. There is a responsibility on health authorities to consult with community health councils. There is no such responsibility on NHS trusts, and there is none in the Bill, which refers to a responsibility on the primary care trusts to consult community health councils.
  Often, CHCs are involved in consultation on health authority decisions when the decisions are already cut and dried. I hope that the Minister of State will consider amending the 1996 health council regulations to ensure
  88
  full consultation with community health councils. I recognise the importance of the Commission for Health Improvement, but CHCs are also important, and I wonder whether my hon. Friend might consider giving the same right of access and information to community health councils as is given to the—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  7.47 pm
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate the opportunity to follow the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Mr. Austin). He expressed concerns about equality of access to primary care groups. I suspect that one reason why the doctors seem to have had more access than others is that they have the muscle. The harsh reality is that, although we have been told today that the British Medical Association supports the moves, there are deep concerns among some doctors, expressed by the BMA, on the matter. Those doctors are concerned that, having moved to start up the primary care groups, working hard with the support and encouragement of the BMA, they may be forced to move too quickly into the primary care trusts, which will take away some of the local output that they prize.
  The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) was surprised that the Bill would legislate for Scotland and for Wales although, in a matter of weeks, Scotland and Wales will be responsible for their own health care—and yet Northern Ireland has been excluded, except in a few particulars. I often wonder whether that was because the draftsmen did not have time to adjust the legislation to suit Northern Ireland, where there is a closer intertwining between health and social services. Did they really imagine that the Northern Ireland Assembly would be running ahead of both Scotland and Wales, when full devolution is not scheduled to occur until next year at the earliest? I regret that, at times, we have had to legislate for Northern Ireland by Order in Council without proper debate in the House, and that things have slipped through that have not been in the best interests of good law or the best service of the people.
  Some of the changes are helpful, but I trust that the Government will not follow the procedures that the previous Administration adopted when reforming management. Redundancy payments were made to those who were losing their jobs, who moved into the next district council and obtained similar jobs, having received handouts. About £19 million has already been listed for redundancies but GP fundholders are concerned that there may not be adequate funds for that purpose.
  It has been suggested during the debate that the Bill will lead to a reduction in bureaucracy. When we reduce bureaucracy the millennium will be upon us, and I am not thinking of the year 2000. Following the previous round of changes within the NHS, staff moved into different positions. In Northern Ireland we set up boards which were transformed largely into trusts, and many of those who were involved in the change moved into the trusts. I believe that something similar will happen following the Bill's enactment. When we are crying out for money for front-line services, it is not right that we should be paying those who have already been given redundancy money to work in another area of the health service. We should be more careful about how we transfer people from one post to another.

  89
  I was surprised to hear the Secretary of State proudly saying that the pharmaceutical industry was supportive of the Bill. I am sure that most of us have received the briefing from the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry. It is true that it has welcomed some of the improvements to the Bill that were made in the other place, but it still shows tremendous concern about what might happen to one of the few surviving prosperous British industries. I know that we are living in the age of information technology and that that area of knowledge will create many jobs. However, I hope that the Government will not repeat the follies of previous Administrations who reduced the influence of some vital British industries to the detriment of our nation and the betterment of development elsewhere.
  I share the Secretary of State's concern about those in the pharmaceutical industry who may not be playing fair. On the other hand, we must be careful that we do not destroy one of the most successful industries in the United Kingdom. I hope that the Government will abide by their own regulations. As I understand it from a briefing and from my knowledge of the situation, the Government were obliged by their understanding of the regulations carefully to specify best regulatory practice. They set forth their principles in "The Better Regulation Guide and Regulatory Impact Assessment".
  In his foreword, the Prime Minister wrote that
  "no regulatory proposal which has an impact on businesses, charities and voluntary bodies should be considered by the Government without a thorough assessment of the risks, costs and benefits, a clear analysis of who will be affected and an explanation of why non-regulatory action would be insufficient. This requirement applies whenever Ministers or their officials are seeking to clear a new proposal for primary or secondary legislation or a negotiating line that will result in such legislation."
  The Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry said clearly that such an exercise has not been conducted in regard to the Bill. If the Government are expecting others to abide by the law, they should set the example. If it is true that that has not been done, I trust that matters will be taken forward so that those who examine the Bill in Committee can proceed with greater precision.
  I left the Chamber for a short time but it is my understanding that the matter to which I am about to refer has not yet been taken up, and that is the concern of Mencap and the correct desire of the Government to integrate services so as to bring professionals together in an efficient way. Mencap feels that there has been insufficient concern to ensure that services for people with learning disabilities are fully integrated with other community services rather than being treated separately with mental health provision. I ask the Minister to clarify the Government's proposals. Mencap would call on the Government to prioritise preventive health care for people with learning disabilities and to incorporate funding into health improvement programme budgets to provide for proper consultation.
  We are dealing with the general principles of the Bill, and one of them is co-operation between health professionals. If we are developing care in the community, an important role rests with occupational therapists. For whatever reason, we seem not to have enough of them. If there are waiting lists for hospital appointments as a result of doctors' assessments, occupational therapists must make assessments of what is needed in individual homes and what is needed for
  90
  individuals personally as aids to enable them to remain in the community. At present, a couple of months pass before the occupational therapist comes along. Thereafter, months pass before the requisite body, be it a housing organisation or whatever, gets on with the job of providing what is needed. I trust that those issues will be considered fully in Committee.
  7.57 pm
  Dr. Tony Wright: I have no registerable interest, although I did spend most of this morning in a hospital out-patient department thinking about the Bill. Indeed, I did so yesterday morning as well. Each day brings a new department. As I watched hard-pressed doctors, nurses and administrators, and anxious patients bearing up with quiet fortitude, I asked myself whether the Bill would connect with the situation and experiences that I was observing. Those who are involved would have in their mind, if they were thinking about matters in this way, whether the Bill would make things better. That is all that people want to know. Will their health service become better because of legislation that the House might pass?
  I suggest that in two respects the Bill will make things better while a third area might prove to be more troublesome. I believe that our proposals for primary care groups and primary care trusts will make things better. I listened with interest to the argument between those who are passionate defenders of fundholding and those on the Government Benches who want to see the end of it. I speak as someone who was interested in the innovations that fundholding brought, but wanted to see if we could preserve those innovations while removing the inequities attached to them. I saw patients in my constituency benefiting from the innovations that fundholding brought, including the extra clout that it gave to general practitioners within the health care system. I saw also patients not benefiting from fundholding and, indeed, suffering because other people were benefiting from it.
  The very proper question is, "Can we retain the virtues of fundholding while remedying its defects?" I think that I am the first hon. Member to use the language of the third way tonight: this is a third way Bill which says that we can try to make universal the extra clout that fundholding brought for some by working, not individually and competitively, but collectively in each locality so that all general practitioners are able to work together to empower themselves. They, in turn, will empower their patients.
  The Bill is innovative and does not simply say, "Let's rid ourselves absolutely of all that fundholding involved and revert to a top-down, bureaucratic planning system." It says, "Let's see if we can't devise a more flexible, locally based but collaborative arrangement that would retain the virtues, but remove the iniquities and disadvantages." I think that that is what we are doing.
  I am interested that the Opposition prefer other strategies—on the whole, exit strategies. If the Government are, to use the jargon, introducing a voice strategy, then exit strategies such as fundholding and disconnecting oneself from collective provision or assisted places in education are perfectly legitimate ways of thinking about how to manage problems inside public services. They are not, however, systems to which most people in this country feel attached and they do not

  91
  preserve equity. We want to preserve equity and innovation, which is what the Bill will do and I welcome that without reservation.
  The second issue, about which I feel similarly, is the quality agenda. There is not time to say a great deal—other hon. Members have spoken about it—but the neglect of that agenda inside the health service over 50 long years has been extraordinary and, in many respects, criminal. We have talked only about how much money we put into the service, and how we organise and structure it, not about how effective it is clinically.
  It has taken the appalling Bristol case to make us see the cost of that neglect. People say, "How could that kind of system continue for so long without anyone knowing about it or, if they knew, without doing anything about it?" It happened because we did not put in place the mechanisms of clinical monitoring and clinical accountability to which the health service should have been subject a long time ago. I pay tribute to all the doctors who work inside the service, but there is no question that the lack of audit and performance monitoring, although widespread in the service, has been particularly acute in the primary care sector.
  There has been no clinical monitoring of GPs: the family health services authorities simply paid cheques to doctors and there is huge variation in the clinical performance of GPs. I hope that the primary care groups and primary care trusts will lever up standards and quality right through primary care—not only for those who were able to enjoy the advantages of the fundholding system—and the rest of the system. I would welcome that without reservation, too.
  I hope that the Government will take steps to ensure that the measures that the General Medical Council is taking—after some discussion and, in some quarters, resistance—to make sure that there is effective clinical appraisal and reappraisal of all doctors are implemented.
  In those two big, critical areas, I support what the Government are doing. The third issue is obvious, but indispensable—money. I represent South Staffordshire health authority, which is in financial crisis. This year, it is running a £7.5 million deficit. We shall talk to the Minister about that and we hope that we will receive assistance, but I do not want to press that point now. My point is that people in this country overwhelmingly want the health service to improve, but we are subject to a permanent revenue constraint. The Opposition say that there will always be such a constraint and that we have to resolve the problem by exploring the private sector, but that is not the position of Labour Members. Nor is it the position of the Government.
  Nevertheless, we have a conundrum: most people in this country do not want the health service to stand still financially; they want it to improve and they want more money—a lot more money—to be spent on it year on year in real terms. They know that it is underfunded in relative terms. The time has come to find some kind of dedicated, hypothecated new income stream that can give the NHS a secure funding base so that it does not live from financial statement to financial statement—even from three-yearly financial statement to three-yearly financial statement. That is the real challenge behind the Bill.
  92
  I believe that in May 1997 the NHS came home—in a real sense, not only in a rhetorical sense. It came home to the people who set it up and it has come home to the people who depend upon it and work in it. The Opposition say, "That home will never be adequate. We have to build new little homes in the garden and make people live in them." However, those of us who want the health service to inhabit that home must ensure that it is secure and that it is not only patched up to keep the water out, but improved in real terms year on year.
  8.7 pm
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: It is interesting to speak after the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright), because his concluding comments reflect a state of frank despair in the area that I represent: it has had one of the lowest funding increases in the country, although it has a low mortality rate but quite high morbidity and very high costs of living. People find that the continual rhetoric of the Government—the spin, the message that money is no problem and the endless new packages and new initiatives—makes their lives more and more difficult.
  Before this Second Reading, I decided to revisit my health authority trusts and those taking forward the primary care group. I was struck, with great surprise, by the despair, frustration and, in some cases, fear that they feel. They have been made to feel that it is unacceptable to complain and put their head above the parapet. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) mentioned the hospital in Salisbury, I noticed that officials instantly left the Box. I hope—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Lady should know better. She should not refer anyone outside the Chamber.
  Mrs. Bottomley: I stand corrected, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I hope that the individuals concerned at Salisbury are well. I think that that is an appropriate comment. Southampton was also mentioned, and the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Southampton, lichen (Mr. Denham), has been on the Front Bench for some of the debate.
  The hon. Member for Cannock Chase also talked about the tension between innovation and equity. New Labour is almost Soviet in its use of language; it uses words and phrases as though using them makes them true, but there is real tension between innovation and equity. Can the Minister say what is the scope for primary care groups or primary care trusts to take a different view? It is impossible to prohibit post code prescribing and encourage diversity and innovation. Many believe that a problem of the old NHS was that it was risk averse; that it was innovation averse. Growing numbers of people believe that the Stalinist command and control approach, led by Ministers now, makes trust and health authority chief executives and primary care groups think that they will be dumped on, that they will be named and shamed, if they take any risk or innovate.
  But over the years, breakthroughs in the NHS have nearly always been achieved by an innovator, such as those at Addenbrooke's and the Southampton teaching hospitals. The first hip operations were not available to

  93
  all in the NHS; that depended on whether one lived near a teaching hospital. It was always the case that a GP who knew the system and had the contacts in the hospital could obtain treatment for his patients. I do not argue that that is a virtue, but to imply that there was a romantic past with a perfect system of equality is simply not the case. Innovation was the result of developments being taken forward and others wanting to follow.
  Fundholding is now dead. The Government have brought an end to GP fundholding. But, for the life of me, I cannot understand how, if a scheme is voluntary, with funding on the basis of comparable funding, there is inequity. If Labour Members had criticisms of the mechanism of the funding, changes could easily be made, but they have substituted a desperately frustrating, bureaucratic collective.
  A GP's job is incredibly demanding. I do not blame the hon. Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) for abandoning general practice and coming into the House of Commons. To work for 30 years as a GP is extremely demanding. Fundholding gave people a sense of empowerment; of being able to build the plan. It gave them leverage. The GPs whom I most enjoyed seeing were those who said that they would not be a fundholder but would do better. It gave them that empowerment. The worry about primary care groups is that they are frustrating and bureaucratic and move at the pace of the slowest. Every GP to whom I have spoken has repeated that message, even though many were not of my political persuasion. Therefore, I am extremely worried that innovation will be stultified and smothered. I am deeply worried about whether the experience for GPs will be more and more frustrating.
  What are the financial and performance criteria for the primary care trusts? I would be reluctant to think that primary care trusts were driven through as a macho symbol for Ministers and I hope that Ministers will be able to be more explicit. The development of a primary care-led NHS is part of the evolutionary approach that the Bill represents. There has not been a great revolution. There has been massive rebadging, relabelling, and amnesia about the past. We have learned to be used to that with the new Labour regime. But the primary care-led NHS was cherished by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) and many of the rest of us.
  A possible way of helping those in my constituency through the gloom in which they currently exist because of the constrained funding for health and social services and the impossibility of taking forward decisions that will cause any amount of noise—keep the system quiet is the message that comes from those who work closely with Ministers—relates to the great hope that Farnham will have a community hospital for the 21st century. It has taken a long time to achieve that. But suddenly the accounting rules for surplus land and buildings under the PFI mean that its costings have been set right back. That was a sudden announcement with no warning and I ask the Minister to take it upon himself to assist the Surrey Hampshire Borders NHS trust to overcome that obstacle. It, to its great credit, has recognised that, rather than pursue a hospital with maternity and surgery facilities, and all the glamorous acute services, the community needs on-going day-to-day care for the elderly and the non-acute patients. It has lowered its expectations, but, after reaching agreement with the GPs, managers and local people, it desperately needs approval and endorsement. It will only have that with ministerial support.
  94
  I endorse the quality agenda. To return to the comments of the hon. Member for Cannock Chase, it is largely built on the growing recognition of medical practitioners that they cannot be entirely self-regulating. There are responsibilities of clinical governance. That has been a difficult transition. Audit within hospitals is now widespread and accepted and part of the training of junior doctors. The resistance in the early years was extraordinary. It is essential that the duty of quality is extended to the independent sector as much as to the NHS, not least because many publicly funded patients are cared for within the independent sector.
  Similarly, the Commission for Health Improvement, which, again, is essentially an evolutionary and sensible development, needs further clarification. It is unrealistic to pay for CHIMP by taking the levy from the hospital that it is inspecting. It must be centrally funded. It must be like the Office for Standards in Education; otherwise, a hospital will have to pay the penalty for its problems and for the inspection.
  I would also ask that the health improvement programmes are subject to a duty of consultation in which the voluntary groups must be involved. I speak as a patron of the Carers National Association, but there are many others who wish to see the consultation basis on the same level as that for the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I call Dr. Desmond Turner.
  8.17 pm
  Dr. Desmond Turner: It is nice to follow one of the previous Secretaries of State for Health. It was interesting to listen to them tonight. If one did not know better and simply took what they said at face value, one would wonder why we were having this debate and why there were any problems at all, because we should have a wonderful NHS. But the truth is that we do not. We have a health service which has been labouring under great difficulties—difficulties imposed by limitations of resources and by organisation regimes which have been focused not on patients or medicine but on finance and management. That has not produced the goods.
  The opposition that we have heard today has been a mixture of the dreamy and the curmudgeonly, and a curious opposition from the Liberal Democrats who think that this a rather weak little Bill. They are missing rather a lot.
  I, too, must declare an interest. I am also a member of the Manufacturing Science and Finance Union and a former medical scientist, and I am excited by the Bill. That is not because I am a sycophantic Government supporter. I am obviously a Government supporter, but I am no one's sycophant. I am excited because the Bill, in addition to the measures that have already been taken, puts us in a position to do something about some of the fundamental failures of the NHS to deliver on standards. It is the question of clinical standards that is most exciting in the Bill.
  This country has some of the world's leading scientists in the field of cancer. British scientists have made fundamental contributions to the advance of cancer therapy. We are one of the world's leaders in cancer

  95
  research. Why, then, do the results of treatment in the national health service lag behind America and every other country in Europe, including Estonia? We have the worst cancer survival rates in the civilised world. How do we manage that? We have the talent, yet we get awful results. That tells me that there is something wrong with the way in which the system is operated.
  Dr. Harris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Turner: No, I am sorry, I have only 10 minutes.
  I am not suggesting that those results are the fault of particular individuals, and I do not think that suddenly revising the structure will cure the problem overnight, because it will not—things do not work that way. What the health service has lacked up till now—until the creation of NICE and CHIMP—is a mechanism not only for promulgating best practice, but for ensuring that best practice is acted upon. That is essential.
  There is an awful lot of clinical literature, but whether the benefits of that literature are spread into patient care is a matter of chance. It depends on how much time consultants or general practitioners have to read the literature and how enthusiastic and conscientious they are.
  Dr. Harris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Turner: I am sorry, I have only 10 minutes.
  Some people are excellent, but not everyone achieves the standard of excellence; otherwise we would not have such awful clinical performance. That fact is inescapable. I hope that the Minister is listening, because the way in which I see NICE making its greatest contribution is in evaluating advances in medical research, evaluating new drugs from an independent perspective and circulating advice throughout the system so that we move towards a genuine evidence-based approach to medical practice. Such an approach has been seriously lacking in our system, and that is largely why we do not achieve the results that we should.
  NICE by itself is not the total answer. It cannot be, because there are also questions of clinical freedom and so forth. We need CHIMP to carry out inspections to ensure that research is taken notice of on the ground. If a CHIMP team inspects a hospital and finds that its clinical performance is seriously below par and that consultants are ignoring the guidance of NICE, I would expect an adverse report and something to be done in that hospital to improve clinical outcomes.
  There is nothing revolutionary about this measure: it is perfectly logical. We undertake inspections in just about every other public service. We have inspected schools since for ever, and we inspect police forces and fire services. We inspect everything that moves, but we have never inspected the health service until now. It is long overdue, and it will make a very big difference.
  There has been much discussion about whether vast sums are being added to health service budgets. We think that a lot of money has been provided. The Opposition opposed the increases in the comprehensive spending review, yet they tell us that they would have funded the health service rather better. I cannot square those two assertions.
  96
  Having put money into the health service, it is important that we make it count. That is why we need an organisation such as NICE. It should also examine the cost-effectiveness of clinical organisations and the cost-effectiveness of drugs as well as their immediate clinical input. The most expensive drug may, in the long term, be the cheapest. We can get such information only through a serious, in-depth, independent evaluation. We will not get it from the pharmaceutical companies, because they have an interest.
  The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) was wise to point to the pharmaceutical industry. It is the only industry we have left with a solid research base, and it is inextricably linked with the national health service. It is a multinational industry that can move very quickly. The national health service has a large customer base. That is important, because it gives us the opportunity to negotiate a sharp deal with the drug companies; and it provides much employment for scientists. In return, if we succeed in raising the standards of the health service, we will provide a marvellous shop window for that industry.
  I do not find this an insignificant little Bill. It is potentially an extremely important Bill.
  8.27 pm
  Mr. David Amess: This is a truly socialist Bill, in that it represents a triumph for the Secretary of State. It is a triumph of old Labour over new Labour. The Bill is a disaster, and it is a backward step for the national health service. I am astounded that two Labour Members have told the House that they are excited by the Bill, because when I listened to the Secretary of State's speech he did not seem to be excited by it. Indeed, he could not even be bothered to address the House on the Bill.
  When Lord Howe responded to the introduction of the Bill in the House of Lords, he said that
  "it is a Bill that seeks to undo much of the good resulting from the work of the previous administration…a measure that, far from providing a platform for improvement, will instead be a recipe for inflexibility, inefficiency, lack of choice and, perhaps above all, tight central control of our health service by politicians in Westminster."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 February 1999; Vol. 597, c. 114.]
  My noble Friend was entirely right.
  We all know what the Secretary of State decided to do. He made one little announcement. It was supposed to be a public relations job for the Labour party. He failed to convince me, he failed to convince my constituents in Southend, West, and I think that he failed to convince anyone with a modicum of common sense. The national health service has been worse since we have had a Labour Government.
  I think that someone at Millbank pressed the wrong button on the computer. Labour has had the cheek to mail a number of Conservative party members in Southend, West exhorting them to give money to the party in connection with the issue of the health service. First, the Labour party thanks my Conservative party members for voting for it in the general election; then it tells them how their vote has helped to change Britain for the better. That is a laugh. Then it asks my Conservative party members:
  "Do you want better hospitals with more beds and more nurses to care for the sick?"

  97
  We do, but we certainly will not get them from this rotten Labour Government.
  Someone sent me a copy of GP. Labour was keen to quote from GP when it was in opposition, but now that the Secretary of State has the top job he dismisses it as a public relations job for the Conservative party. I have read the issue from top to bottom, and the headline reads:
  "Chaos reigns on eve of reforms".
  GP had conducted an important survey, which found that 71 per cent. of GPs did not support the reforms, 83 per cent. said that they were "not prepared" for them, 70 per cent. felt that they were not part of a group, 93 per cent. were "worried about GMS funds" and 64 per cent. of fundholders were "suffering financially".
  In an article in the same magazine, a doctor said that the health service reforms could prove an Armageddon for general practitioners; and, in its comment section, the magazine said:
  "Since the much-heralded announcement of the so-called new NHS almost two years ago, in true new Labour fashion there has been more rhetoric than action. Guidance has invariably been late and has been drip-fed to the profession, often missing details on the most vital of ingredients—funding."
  As we all know, any Labour MP who was honest would get to his feet and say that the Labour party has not delivered on the promise that it gave us on 1 May 1997: it is not funding the national health service properly.
  The article continued:
  "Even as the magical hour for lift-off approached this week, and primary care groups went onto health authority payrolls, some had yet to appoint board members"—
  certain of my hon. Friends have mentioned that—
  "and vital decisions were still being delayed by the lack of central guidance.
  Many Gps have put an immense amount of effort into these reforms, often despite opposing them in principle".
  I thought that the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Mr. Austin) talked a lot of sense. I have received a letter; I shall not reveal who it is from, but it refers to undemocratic nurse elections for primary care groups in south Essex. The writer—not a constituent of mine, but someone in Essex—says:
  "The election process was hijacked so that the nurses were not allowed to nominate or vote for their own candidates. Only Authority backed nominees surfaced from a 'Selection Board'. The local doctors, on the other hand, fellow professionals, ran their own elections with no interference from anybody, and their candidates were accepted. Their process was simple and basic: the nurses had theirs manipulated … this process was abused in South Essex, where nurses found themselves railroaded into accepting candidates in the following manner: All community nurses were invited to meetings jointly organised by the Health Authority and Thameside Community Trust. Here nurses were told quite categorically that a caseload would be a qualifying fundamental requirement, and thus avoid management stooges."
  The writer told me that, in the event, management stooges were appointed.
  This is a dreadful Bill. It is all about imposing a command and control system on our health service. It gives unprecedented powers to the Secretary of State to interfere in every aspect of the running of our health service, right down to the drugs that a family doctor is able to prescribe. As we have heard, the Bill will abolish the popular, successful system of voluntary GP fundholding. I think it is disgraceful that no Labour Member has stood up and asked what will happen to the
  98
  patients of GP fundholders. Do they not deserve care as good as the care that they received under the system of GP fundholding? The Bill is not about raising standards; it is about levelling down. It is a socialist measure.
  The establishment of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, PRODIGY and the cash-limited drugs budget will put pressure on family doctors to restrict effective treatment on the ground of cost alone.
  When Labour was in opposition, it was fond of quoting all the lobbyists. I have had umpteen letters from the BMA, the Royal College of Midwives, the NHS Confederation, the Royal College of Nursing, the Society of Chiropodists and Podiatrists and the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, but, conveniently, not one Labour Member has quoted from the letters. We know why. They have nothing good to say about the Bill.
  I did not notice the BMA applauding the Conservative Government, but it says:
  "The Bill heralds yet more structural change for doctors after nearly a decade of major upheavals in the National Health Service. The BMA will work with Government to try to make these changes work but would ask for no more changes for some time after this. We need a period of stability now in which doctors can concentrate on quality of service to patients rather than structural reorganisation."
  However, the BMA gave the game away: it is down to money. It says:
  "It is the responsibility of the Secretary of State to allocate funding for the proposals contained in the legislation, but there will need to be a considerable increase in funding to achieve all the proposals in the Bill, particularly the huge agenda envisaged by CHImp"—
  what a ridiculous title. It goes on:
  "Without a significant increase in overall NHS funding, it is inevitable that other parts of the service will see a drop in funding if all these functions are to be carried out. The implementation of the Health Bill cannot be cost neutral."
  A worried constituent has written to me on behalf of chiropodists. The Royal College of Midwives is anxious that the present system of regulation of midwifery will be
  "wholly replaced through secondary legislation. Whilst the Royal College of Midwives supports the replacement of the United Kingdom Central Committee with a new structure, it is most concerned that the Government have not sufficiently clarified the parameters of the successor professional body."
  The Bill may be a great triumph for socialism, but it is a very sad day for the national health service.
  8.37 pm
  Dr. Howard Stoate: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in what is an important debate.
  As a practising GP who continues with a small number of surgeries, I am now a member of a primary care group, so I register that as an interest. For many years, several changes have been imposed on us by the NHS. We have heard much rhetoric about the pros and cons of various aspects of the Bill, but—
  Mr. Hammond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Stoate: No, I cannot give way. I have only 10 minutes.
  As someone who is a practising GP and who therefore sees those changes day to day, I am in a better position than many to comment on them. Conservative Members

  99
  have waxed lyrical about the benefits and wonderfulness of fundholding, but I tell a different story; it is a personal story, seen at first hand.
  We have learned much from the fundholding experience. I would not wish to leave hon. Members with the impression that fundholding has not done a significant amount of good, because it has. We have to be fair: fundholding has taught us a lot. It showed us a lot about management structures and how GPs and others can develop services in their communities, but it has also created enormous problems. It goes completely against the aims and values that Labour Members share.
  We have heard that 60 per cent. of GPs are fundholders. That is true, but I can speak from personal experience and for the many hundreds of GPs whom I know personally. Many of those 60 per cent. went into it not voluntarily or with evangelical zeal, but because they had to. They were forced to by all sorts of chicanery and underhand methods. They felt that they had no choice—go into fundholding, or forget about the new member of staff, the development of the practice, the new computer system. Computers were frequently tied to fundholding: no fundholding, no new computer. Pressure was put on my colleagues in an unhappy and underhand fashion.
  No Labour Government could accept the two-tier service that was created and the inequalities that were caused by fundholding. It is to the credit to my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of Health that fundholding has now been ended.
  Of course fundholding produced excellence. It was bound to. The cards were loaded so much in its favour that it had to produce excellence, but every time a patient was seen more quickly by a fundholding GP and referred to a consultant, a patient of a non-fundholding GP was pushed down the queue. Every time a patient was seen by a consultant from an outpatient clinic in a surgery, it meant that another patient could not be seen because the consultant was in the doctor's surgery, not in the hospital clinic to see people who would otherwise have been seen from the waiting list.
  Of course, therefore, fundholding produced good things and seemed to be wonderful, but it did so at the expense of so many other people who were not achieving that type of service.
  It is ludicrous to say that we could have made every GP a fundholder. Once there was no longer an inequality and a two-tiered service, there would no longer be a benefit in fundholding, and the whole system would fall down like a pack of cards.
  The new NHS will be fairer, distribute resources more equitably and eliminate two-tierism. It will be needs-led, it will integrate health and social services and reinstate strategic planning, and it will emphasise quality and reduce inequality.
  Earlier in the debate, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) talked about the dispossessed. I listened very carefully to what she had to say and even tried to intervene on her. I ask her, on her proposals for introducing money from the private sector, which insurance company would take on
  100
  someone with multiple sclerosis, chronic diabetes or infertility? We would get nowhere by asking the private sector to take on those people.
  Miss Widdecombe rose—
  Dr. Stoate: I shall give way, as an act of generosity to the right hon. Lady.
  Miss Widdecombe: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way.
  Again, there is the confusion that the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) showed. Trying to get money in from the private sector is not only about people going and insuring themselves, but about setting up partnerships with the private sector, so that we can benefit from private sector technology, expertise and staffing—as in, for example, St. Peter's hospital in Chertsey, where there is a joint unit, which both partners use and for which the private sector has contributed a huge amount of money. It is a matter of getting additional resources into the NHS, not only of getting people to insure themselves in the private sector.
  Dr. Stoate: Unfortunately, the private sector will follow that type of policy only if it can make a profit for itself, which is its fundamental motive. The private sector will provide a service, but only if people pay for it through private insurance, or if the NHS puts public money into the private sector—which gets us no further, as we will be back to exactly where we started.
  In Dartford, the HealthCare Partnership primary care group has piloted primary care groups. It is already one year ahead of many other such groups, as it was a pilot for the National Health Service (Primary Care) Act 1997 and thus has one year's more experience than most. It has already expressed an interest in moving on to primary care trust status. The group has been successful in developing primary care services, cutting bureaucracy and gaining control over how local resources are best used for local patients.
  To scotch the idea that fundholding was somehow a good thing and non-fundholding a bad thing, that group in my constituency of Dartford consisted of fundholders and non-fundholders who voluntary came together to pool their resources and expertise, because they realised that the two-tier service created by fundholding was not in patients' interests. When working together as a primary care group pilot, they were able to demonstrate improvements in bureaucratic costs and in services, and genuinely to make a difference to people in Dartford.
  The experience of people in Dartford, and the improved care being offered to them, will act as a template for primary care groups across the country, as they begin to catch up with my primary care group—which, as I said, is one year ahead.
  One of the Bill's purposes is to allow the formation of primary care trusts, which will be freestanding organisations either commissioning care—at level 3—or commissioning and providing community services at level 4.
  Yesterday, I spoke to Dr. Alasdair Thompson, the chairman of Dartford's primary care group. As I said, the group was started as a pilot under the 1997 Act and is one

  101
  year ahead in the process. The group has been able to find solutions to many of the challenges and has had much more time to consider its future.
  Dr. Thompson gave three main reasons why he believes that it is so important that the Bill's provisions enabling trust status should be passed. The first is that there are limitations in the current process. Although primary care groups have freedom in their budgets, trusts will have much further flexibility in purchasing, in providing community services and in joint working with social services.
  Secondly, primary care trusts will be able to develop strategic plans for delivering community health services, based on an integrated approach that is agreed by their work force and signed off by their board. The emphasis on developing community services that are closer to the patient's own environment will make a big differences to local services. The community infrastructure that will be needed to support the new hospital in Dartford—which is the first being built under the private finance initiative scheme—may be developed and managed by the primary care trust. In turn, that will lead to increased professional motivation and better clinical practice.
  Thirdly, as freestanding bodies, trusts will have far greater freedoms, within their accountability arrangements, in their use of the unified budget—which is likely to include personal medical services schemes, local development contracts and single—handed vacancies—so that there is scope to develop innovative solutions for future work force problems. as described in the primary care investment plan.
  Ultimately, of course, the Secretary of State will approve applications to become primary care trusts. I am looking forward to the day when he will be able to approve the trust application from my own group. It will be up to local health authorities to ensure that the process of application for trust status is wide ranging, and includes as much local opinion as possible. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure GPs that progression to trust status will occur only when a clear majority of local GPs are interested in it.
  My understanding is that the Bill will not affect GPs' independent contractor status; I would welcome reassurance from the Minister that that is the case. The House will be aware that independent contractor status has been a great strength of British general practice over the years, and has delivered exceptional value for money and excellent quality primary care. British general practice still represents excellent value for money, and quality envied throughout the world.
  GPs now form the majority on primary care group boards, but when primary care trusts are set up, with the increased responsibilities and wider range of skills needed, Ministers may think that no longer appropriate. The current proposals are for lay members to form the majority of PCT boards. GPs and nurses, however, can still form the majority on the PCT executives, which will report to the boards.
  Dr. Thompson has asked me to seek reassurance from Ministers that the primary care trust executives, which will largely comprise the doctors and nurses who deliver the services and whose livelihoods will depend on decisions made by the board, will have a clear say in the decisions made by the boards.
  102
  Primary care trusts will have the freedom, within their accountability arrangements, to allocate resources, develop service arrangements, negotiate incentives and generate income.
  The Bill marks the beginning of the process, not the end. It will clear the way for new ways of innovative thinking about how best to deliver top quality primary care for the next century. In my constituency there is already a clear commitment to the process, and I shall finish by quoting from a discussion paper written by my local primary care group as part of its expression of interest in trust status:
  "The Partnership has taken the view that the philosophy underpinning the establishment of PCGs builds on our partnerships approach to developing health care and to community involvement, which started with joint commissioning with West Kent Health Authority, and continued via the Locality Commissioning group pilot. There is now a greater opportunity for the partnership, as a Primary Care Trust, to further develop our partnerships working as both commissioners and providers of community based services."
  That was written not by a group of GPs who are disillusioned and dissatisfied, or sorry about the changes that we are making, but by a group that is ahead of the field and has clearly, and voluntarily, shown its commitment first to primary care groups and now to primary care trusts. Fundholders and non-fundholders are working together for the good of the community, and involving nurses, social services and others.
  What could be a better template for what the Government propose than what is happening in my constituency? The programme is one of success, and the Bill will achieve what we set out to achieve. I commend it to the House.
  8.47 pm
  Dr. Vincent Cable (Twickenham): I want to draw together two strands from the opening speeches. The Secretary of State made passing reference to the fact that the Government were embarking on an NHS-wide standard-setting exercise focused specifically on the needs of the elderly and the treatment of old people within the health service, and the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) spoke on the theme of rationing. The right hon. Lady, as we would expect, made her point in a polemical way, but it would help the debate if we treated the idea of rationing not in a polemical or a pejorative way, but as a simple factual statement of what happens when there is a gap between supply and demand.
  Rationing can be done well or badly, fairly or unfairly, and on the basis either of clinical judgments or of arbitrary bureaucratic judgments. I shall pursue that issue, especially in relation to the treatment of the elderly, and the way in which the Government-inspired exercise that the Secretary of State mentioned might work. Clearly, the question is about more than how rationing works. There is a resource issue, too. The gap between supply and demand will vary depending on the resources available, which is why the Liberal Democrats consistently draw attention to the under-resourcing of the system.
  Some Labour Members seemed wholly blind to that problem. The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner), who has now left the Chamber, presented himself as an expert on cancer treatment. I am sure that he is, but he seemed wholly unaware that British funding of cancer services is seriously deficient in relation to that

  103
  of comparable western countries. That deficiency is reflected in the fact that key chemotherapy drugs are not available to British women in the same way that they are to women overseas.
  There is a resources issue, but there is also a deeper question about how rationing is carried out. I shall focus specifically on how it is applied to older patients in the NHS. In principle, care is allocated on a wholly idealistic basis. The codes of conduct of the professions make it clear that clinicians should not discriminate on the ground of age or on any other basis. However, there is a growing concern among elderly people and the organisations that represent them that age is becoming a basis for rationing, often quite explicitly. To some extent, elderly people are bound to feel the adverse effects of the shortage of resources in the NHS because they use it more frequently than others–40 per cent. of the users of the NHS are retired people. However, there is growing concrete evidence of age being used as a rationing criterion.
  I gave several examples of that when I introduced a ten-minute Bill some months ago, and it is worth repeating some of them because they are highly relevant to the debate. Rehabilitation programmes for people who have had strokes do not involve a great deal of resources, but a lot of research shows that many health districts and trusts use a specific age cut-off to limit the availability of the service.
  Another more understandable example is kidney dialysis. The treatment is very costly and it is widely known that elderly people have great difficulty in getting on to the programmes, although all the medical evidence that I have seen suggests that they are just as likely to benefit as younger patients.
  Cancer screening also arouses strong feelings. Active efforts are made to ensure that younger women are screened, but less effort is made for older women, even though the evidence suggests that they benefit just as much from early detection. That is a specific, and probably rather absent-minded example, of age-based rationing.
  Drug rationing is at the heart of much of the debate. My final example relates to the drugs available for people suffering from senile dementia. There is controversy about the benefits of some of the new drugs becoming available and clinical trials are continuing, but the balance of evidence that I have seen suggests that if the drugs were widely available they would considerably reduce the damage, inconvenience and great humiliation that people suffer as a result of Alzheimer's. The drugs are severely rationed and there are enormous disparities between different areas.
  The process should be more open. I hope that the Government will address the problem. I should like to hear more about what the Secretary of State meant when he said that the Government were embarking on a process of standard setting, experiment and research into the treatment of elderly people in the NHS. Part of the problem is that not enough research has been done.
  Several organisations representing elderly people, as well as professional organisations including physiotherapists, have said that it would be helpful if there were a clause in primary legislation that specifically prohibited discrimination or rationing—if we are to use
  104
  the word—on the ground of age. Decisions should be based purely on professional clinical judgment and the quality of life that could be achieved.
  8.53 pm
  Ms Julia Drown: I welcome the duty of co-operation that will be placed on health authorities and others. The Labour Government are already making a difference in my constituency on that issue. Health trusts and my local social services have made it clear to me that the encouragement that they have been given since the election to get together and work in the interests of local people has made a difference to the services that they provide. I have been pleased to see the good work that is being done locally. I also very much welcome the abolition of fundholding, which not only created a two-tier service, but was incredibly expensive to administer. It is outrageous for the NHS to spend so much money on administering the scheme.
  The Conservatives have claimed that GPs became fundholders by choice. I saw the performance objectives of regional health service managers when GPs were being encouraged to take up fundholding. Those objectives, presumably from the Department of Health, clearly stated that the proportion of fundholders in the area had to be increased.
  That was a funny way of creating a simple, open and rational choice for all GPs. if one really wanted a fair choice for GPs, one would not give preferential grants to one group—GPs were told that if they became fundholders they would get extra money for computers—and one would not tell health authority managers that they must increase the number of fundholders in their area.
  The Labour Government's approach, creating primary care groups instead, strikes me as far more sensible and rational. To reduce the number of commissioning groups from 3,000 to about 500 is obviously a way of reducing bureaucracy, yet ensuring that a much wider group of people in each area can have an influence on the health care that is provided. I congratulate the Government on not limiting the system to GPs. Community nurses and other lay members can have an influence, and that is much better than the narrow focus instituted by the Tories in the fundholding scheme.
  I welcome the Bill's emphasis on quality of care and the introduction of the Commission for Health Improvement, but I seek clarification on several points. Users, carers and patient groups want to be sure that their views will be included in discussions on their local health services in the new NHS. I agree with that aim, but will it be best achieved by creating a legal duty or by providing guidance and spreading best practice?
  Under the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990, there is a legal duty to consult various people, but that has given rise to some bureaucratic exercises in which a glossy 200-page brochure has been sent to every single voluntary organisation in an area, many of which simply do not know what to do with it and certainly do not have the time to examine it in any detail. That is not necessarily the best way of achieving real consultation. We must find out what works and ensure that the views of users, carers and patient groups are properly taken into account.
  I seek clarification about the membership of primary care groups and trusts. The NHS is much more than doctors and nurses, and one of its great strengths is
  vivek

  105
  teamwork, with the input of all the different professions, giving the best patient care to everyone. It is important, if all the needs of all the different areas of the country are to be met, that the membership of the groups and trusts should not be set in stone, but should be able to change and be fluid over time.
  Physiotherapists, pharmacists, health visitors, occupational therapists and midwives all have much to add and can greatly influence and improve primary care services. I am not asking for guaranteed places for members of each of those professions, as what works in one place or time may not work so well in another, but we need fluidity to get the best out of primary care.
  I seek clarification on the duty of trusts to be responsible for the quality of care that they provide. For me, quality of care is not about producing glossy documents to match the glossy annual accounts that many trusts now produce; it is about listening seriously to patients and users views on the services provided by their local trust and about seriously challenging the results of clinical audit in every single trust.
  I hope that the responsibility for providing quality of care will be extended in time to all aspects of the NHS and to the private sector, but I am not convinced that now is the right time to put the details of that implementation into law. It is the right time for the Government to make a commitment to ensure quality of care across the board, whether by the NHS or by the private sector.
  Other hon. Members have said that regulation of quality of care should be applied in the same way to the private sector as the Bill would apply it to the public sector. The Health Committee is considering this issue at the moment and I still have an open mind as to the best way forward. There are attractions in having the same body to regulate both the public and the private sector, and some people have suggested that CHIMP should be the organisation that reviews all health facilities. However, significant difficulties would need to be overcome. First, part of the private sector is already monitored by a separate body, and it is proposed that it will be monitored by regional commissions for care standards. Secondly, the private sector does not work in the same way as the NHS. In the private sector, a lead consultant will book a session in a theatre and does not work in a team with junior doctors. That alone suggests that the arrangements should be separate. Thirdly, many patients go to the private sector because they want something different. We would need to think about those issues carefully before we apply the same rules to both sectors.
  The last point on which I seek clarification concerns the Government's excellent commitment to getting more women on to the boards of trusts and other public bodies. The aim is for women to make up 50 per cent. of trust board members and 40 per cent. of chairs. I would like to see those figures be even higher over time. However, we could start to change some of the language to try to encourage women to join in. The Bill and its schedules mention chairmen, but we should start talking about chairs. That usage is important, as the Department of Health recognises. When it talks about its aims for appointing women, it talks about chairs, but everywhere else it talks about chairmen. I hope that we can amend the Bill to put that point right, because it is important, especially as most of the staff managed by the boards are women.
  106
  With those concerns expressed, I wish to register my support for the Bill. It will start a great shift in the NHS's culture, so that staff can co-operate in the interests of patients, and where the quality of service—which is what is important to patients—is seen as important in itself. It shows that the NHS is not just about placing a duty on trusts to cover their financial responsibilities, but about something much more. It will take time to change the culture, but both staff and patients want that change. They do not want the Tories internal market, which treated the NHS like a game of Monopoly. Patients want an NHS in which teams work together to provide what counts—quality patient care.
  9.3 pm
  Mr. John Randall: The hon. Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) mentioned a problem with the terminology of chairmen and chairs. I have spent most of my adult working life selling chairs, and that is where they should remain.
  The Bill gives effect to the legislative requirements laid out in the Government's three health White Papers. The Government are presenting it as the centrepiece of an ambitious health reform programme. Ministers have heralded it as offering a radical future for the NHS, promising to improve the quality of health care across the country, eradicating unfairness and reducing bureaucracy. Rather than fulfilling the Government's ambitious rhetoric for the NHS, the Bill will make the health service more inflexible and inefficient, reduce choice and, regrettably, centralise decision making.
  I shall concentrate my remarks on the issue of fundholding and the new primary care groups. As we have heard repeatedly this evening, it was the previous Government who introduced GP fundholding. It has been a focus of particular hostility from the Labour party since its introduction in 1990. Fundholding offered doctors greater financial and clinical autonomy, while allowing improvements in patient care. It enabled efficiency savings to be reinvested in the system, resulting in shorter waiting times and the development of new specialist services. Even the Government have come round to acknowledging that. Their White Paper stated that the introduction of fundholding had enabled doctors to
  "sharpen the responsiveness of hospital services and extend the range of services available in their own surgeries".
  As we have heard this evening, fundholding received the support of many groups, including the British Medical Association and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. GP fundholding encompassed 60 per cent. of NHS patients. Sadly, the Government have now killed off fundholding despite acknowledging its success, and in the face of widespread support.
  The Bill proposes instead to create primary care groups and primary care trusts, leading to the biggest change in the family doctor service since the creation of the NHS. That is despite the promise of the Prime Minister before the election that there would be no great upheavals in the service. The Bill will coerce GPs into the new primary groups whether or not they want to join them. There is the question of the costs associated with these new structures. Initial estimates vary from £150 million per year to more than £300 million per year, without accounting for the new structures start-up costs—at a time when the

  107
  Government want to save money on bureaucracy and have budgeted for savings. Under fundholding, any extra administrative costs were more than offset by efficiency savings. The new system will be more costly and less efficient.
  The Office of Health Economics has predicted that the organisational costs of delivering health care are likely to increase. The Institute of Child Health stated that the cost of developing three to five-year health improvement programmes will more than offset even the most generous assessment of savings made by cutting the number of commissioning bodies. With that background, it is difficult to work out how the Government can claim that their reforms will make substantial savings that will be directed to front-line patient care.
  The BMA found that fundholding encouraged accountability and that GPs were truly willing to share the decision-making process. The Audit Commission said that fundholders introduced more services to patients, improved communications with hospitals and were more cost effective in their drug prescribing. The main criticism of fundholding was that it was a two-tier service, but the Government propose to introduce a four-tier service. If two tiers were bad, how can four be good?
  The Government's answer to GP fundholding is to have a compulsory system whereby between 50 and 100 GPs are forced into the same group. Under the old arrangements, patients were usually able to choose the fundholding GP, but under the primary care group system, patients will be assigned to a primary care group on the basis of where they live. That contradicts one of the central points of criticism that the Labour Opposition used to make about the operation of the NHS internal market.
  The primary care groups became active on 1 April this year and replace the voluntary nature of fundholding with a compulsory approach. GPs will remain able to commission services from hospitals for their patients, but will not be able to act individually as in fundholding. The White Paper stated that PCGs should develop around natural communities, but the boundaries have been fixed by the Department of Health and GPs have consequently been coerced into a designated geographical area. A BMA poll published on 4 February showed that 55 per cent. of GPs would not be willing to take an active role in their local primary care group. It bodes ill for the future of primary care group management if GPs prove to be unwilling to sacrifice time to serve on their boards.
  In addition to the lack of enthusiasm for the new PCGs among GPs, the fact that groups, rather than individual fundholders, will make service agreements with trusts means that individual practices will lose the flexibility that previously existed. The Government's hostility to individual practices retaining their autonomy could lead to a loss of the specialist services that many fundholders have developed for their patients.
  Under the new resource allocation formula, there will be little incentive for practices to make savings because the bulk of efficiency gains will be made by the whole PCG, not the individual practice. The inefficient will be carried by the group, with the result that the entire group will suffer financially. The direct incentives, which existed under fundholding, to be as efficient and effective as possible will simply disappear.
  108
  The abolition of GP fundholding will not lead only to financial inefficiencies—according to the BMA, it will lead to substantial regional variations In care depending on where a patient lives. Under fundholding, patients were almost always able to choose a fundholding GP if they believed that they would therefore receive a better service. Under PCGs, that will no longer be possible.
  PCGs and PCTs will reduce the freedom of individual doctors to run their own affairs. They are compulsory bodies, and GPs must join them. They will control contracts, and prescribing budgets for individual GPs will be at the mercy of collective decisions. Flexibility will be reduced, with GPs unable to switch patients from one hospital to another without protracted negotiation. That will add pressure to waiting lists and waiting times. There will no longer be the same drive to improve hospital services.
  The Bill will result in a far less efficient, more centralised system of health care. It will reverse the shift in the balance of power from the health bureaucracy to the GP that fundholding made possible. It is a very bad Bill, and I shall oppose it.
  9.12 pm
  Laura Moffatt: I have waited a long time to stand here tonight, both during the years that I spent in the health service dying to have a Government who really cared about the NHS, and during this evening's interesting debate. I have waited for change not only as a nurse, but as a patient.
  As a nurse, I found it abhorrent to have to tick forms saying that some people had the advantage of being GP fundholder patients for whom there would be extra care and would be able to rise up the waiting list. I deplored that practice deeply, and I did not want to have to do it.
  As a patient, I have the common nurse's complaint of varicose veins, and have waited for two years for treatment. When I rang the hospital to ask what my chances were of being treated soon, I was told that there had been a huge mistake and that, because I came from a GP fundholding practice, I should have been treated a year earlier. When faced with that sort of thing, I realise how important it is to be here today.
  I was interested to hear a former Secretary of State for Health, the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell), say that the only way in which to judge who held the balance of power in the health service was by seeing who sent Christmas cards to whom. The concept that we might hold each other in mutual respect—that we might want to send Christmas cards to each other because we value the contribution that each of our colleagues makes to the health service—is completely alien to the Conservatives. They are unable even to contemplate it, but the Bill does so, valuing equally the contributions of everyone in the health service and ensuring that we can all work together.
  Goodness knows that difficult decisions must be made to balance the needs of the community against the desire to ensure that we have the best service and to ensure the clinical excellence of services provided. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence and the Commission for Health Improvement are our best opportunity to ensure that we work together.
  The duty of co-operation excites me because of my local government background. Was it not local authorities that made sure that we had clean water and that people

  109
  lived in decent housing? Now, after all the wasted years not being consulted by those involved in health services, they are back next door to their colleagues in the health service, making sure that they are able to contribute to the improvement of the health of all our people. That is the flavour of the Bill.
  The Bill is designed to create a new confidence in the NHS, a confidence that we are beginning to build with the staff. We now talk to NHS staff. There was a huge consultation process involving nurses, who were asked what they thought. I have here a fax from just one nurse in my constituency who said, "I want to contribute and write five pages to Frank Dobson about the way that we should move forward." It is crucial that we listen to those people who are committed to the service.

  Staff are the health service's greatest asset. As a former nurse who was pleased about the recognition that nurses have just received—a recognition not only of their contribution to the service but in terms of their pay packets—I cannot forget other members of staff who work in the service. I could not have done my job without the people in the laboratories who helped me to get the results of blood tests as quickly as possible so that we could do our work on the wards. We must think about those people now.
  It was bad enough when I had to collect a particularly disgusting specimen—I am sorry; I am a nurse, and I always get down to this sort of talk—but I would often think of the poor person who had to open and test it the next day. Some of those people could be earning just £8,000 a year, so I hope that some can be included in a pay review, just as nurses have been. Nurses are very pleased with their recognition, but we cannot forget some of the other NHS staff.
  The Bill is about confidence, about how we recognise the value of NHS staff and about how we communicate and work with them. That is why there should be a duty to communicate with the voluntary sector as well as all the other people involved. They understand what is going on, and this is our best opportunity.
  I greatly welcome the new regulatory systems and the new systems of self-regulation of many professions allied to nursing. Some are incredibly invasive—for examplee, chiropody involves many sharp instruments and even anaesthetics. Many are not registered or regulated, and I want them all brought into a regulatory system.
  It is 20 years this month since I joined the Labour party. I joined because I wanted a Labour Government to do what this Labour Government are doing. I am extremely proud that this new Labour Government have the guts to deal with the issues that we think they should, bringing the NHS back to the people and ensuring that the staff work together, instead of fighting among themselves. We want people to be able to say that we have an NHS of which we can be extremely proud.
  9.19 pm
  Mr. Michael Fabricant): I do not share the enthusiasm of the hon. Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) for the Bill one jot, and nor do doctors in my constituency. Instead, I share the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess).
  The Bill exemplifies everything that new Labour stands for. Like others before it, it sounds like a major advance, an improvement and a benefit to our people. It is not. In
  110
  fact—[Interruption.] Gullible Labour Members are actually cheering me. The Bill is rather like the Budget. The Budget sounded great at the time, but a few weeks of analysis has exposed gaping holes both in Labour's arithmetic and in the benefits that it was purported to provide.
  The Secretary of State was full of rhetoric. To the gullible on the Government Benches, may I make one thing very clear? The Bill does nothing to abolish the internal market that the Minister so deprecates. It cannot, because even this Government recognise the improvements in patient care that the market has introduced. Instead, there is tinkering with the system, whichwill reduce, not improve, patient care.
  At a stroke, 60 per cent. of all patients—the patients who were cared for by GP fundholders, which includes all patients in my constituency, I might add—in this nation will see a reduction in standards of care. The remaining 40 per cent. will not see an improvement either. Changes to the way in which GPs will be funded will put paid to that.
  I have news for the Labour Members who have loyally read their party brief. This Bill will go the same way as the Budget: it looks good, but, when one has had a chance to analyse it and see what has not been trumpeted, it is very bad news. It is particularly bad news in Lichfield and Burntwood, where all GPs have been fundholders.
  This is nothing to do with levelling up; it is all about levelling down. This is about the Government not being able to resist poking their collective nose into things about which they know nothing: patient care. Fundholding empowered GPs; this little piece of collectivisation puts power back into the hands of Big Brother who, in this instance, does not know best.
  I shall air six areas which concern me most. I do not expect the Minister to answer here and now the various points that I-shall put to him, but I ask him to make a note of them. I should be grateful if he would write to me on them because they have been raised with me by doctors who know about patient care.
  Although all GPs in Lichfield and Burntwood are fundholders, that is not so nationally. Unlike the proposals before us, GP fundholding was voluntary. Have the Government ever asked themselves why some GPs did not want to become fundholders? It was often because they did not want to become involved in practice management. Not every doctor has the skill required, regardless of whether a practice manager is appointed. Now, as my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) pointed out, all doctors will have to join a primary care group—whether they like it or not, but the financial resources are just not there to provide adequate practice management under the proposed scheme.
  My constituency is typical. Executive support is quoted to be about £3 a patient, which is far too low for the work required. Even worse, such support does not amount to £3 because it is not ring-fenced. Many primary care groups have not received anything like that level of funding.
  The primary care group that covers Lichfield and other towns too has to share a chief officer with another PCG. According to the PCG newsletter published in my area, which was received on 8 April, he is the only permanent member of staff. Furthermore, it is becoming clear that

  111
  Lichfield practices are sharing other posts, including that of deputy chief officer and a PCG accountant. That level of staffing is wholly inadequate.
  Secondly, the situation that I have just described may seriously disadvantage Lichfield and Burntwood, as the other PCG is Tamworth, which has a new hospital, but needs to secure further funding from the PCG. Executive underfunding may lead to Tamworth being favoured by the executive, thus disadvantaging the Lichfield and Burntwood. I do not expect the Minister to answer the following specific constituency question now, but will he assure me that Lichfield Victoria hospital and the Hammerwich hospital will not close as a direct consequence of this Bill and PCGs?
  Thirdly, like so much other legislation before the House, there is not enough detail in the Bill. Too many decisions can be made by the Secretary of State, and there is no real information about funding.
  Fourthly, the majority of GPs are prepared to assist in fair rationalisation of resources; but, if the system is to be fair, all patients and all doctors should start with a level playing field. I am sure that the Minister and the whole House would agree with that. But—and it is a big but—[Interruption.] It is all very well Labour Members laughing because they have read their Labour party brief, but have they spoken to GPs in their constituencies? Have they actually spoken to fundholders? Have they got off their bottoms and gone back to their constituencies and found out what is really happening on the ground? I think not, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  The most important aspect in Lichfield and Burntwood will be the handling of any overspend by the South Staffordshire health authority for the financial year just ended. My near neighbour, the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright), raised that point. If the health authority—any health authority—is overspent as at 31 March this year, will that money be sliced off PCG funding for the year 1999–2000?
  That is very important because it is not just Lichfield and Tamworth and the South Staffordshire health authority that have an overspend. I notice that the House has now gone very quiet, because hon. Members had not thought of that. If the money were sliced off PCG funding, it would unfairly penalise GP practices—[Laughter.] If hon. Members have thought about it and are finding it so funny, what will they tell GPs in their constituencies? Slicing off the money would unfairly penalise GP practices that are spending within their budget under fundholding. Will the Minister please write to me on that point? Would an overspend of the health authority take money away from the PCGs?
  South Staffordshire health authority has ended the year approximately £7 million overspent, as the hon. Member for Cannock Chase said. It is now clear that PCGs will almost certainly not start with a level playing field, as that situation will be carried forward to PCG budgets.
  Fifthly, handling all the changes to date has taken an enormous amount of GP time. Do the Government recognise that? Do they understand that the work has not been recognised by proper funding of locum costs while GPs are away from their practices, milling through the paperwork that the change has generated? How do the Government intend to compensate for that? At the moment, no compensation plan is available.
  112
  Finally, improving the quality of GP services to the community is part of a doctor's philosophy, so many have no problem with the proposals for clinical governance, the Commission for Health Improvement or the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Both are fine in theory.
  Unfortunately, the resources for those initiatives are not forthcoming. It has now been confirmed that South Staffordshire health authority and other health authorities will provide no financial resources for clinical governance, and the only conclusion to be drawn from that is that the aim of most GPs to provide the highest standards of care is not supported by the health authorities—or the Government, who have not funded it properly.
  The recurring theme is that the major changes proposed for the NHS will not be supported by special funding. Reliance on NHS staff dedication to continue giving more than they are paid for must come to an end eventually. So many facets of the latest reforms are not funded, despite headline increases of the NHS budget, and staff will become alienated as, once again, they are expected to provide even more for nothing. If the Government truly support their NHS reforms, why is the funding to allow professionals to deliver their vision not available?
  A Lichfield doctor wrote to me last night by e-mail—and, just to show my dedication, I tell the House that I received it in my office at 12 minutes past 10 last night. He wrote:
  "I am fully prepared to follow NICE advice but for it not to be funded or balanced by telling me which"—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I am afraid we shall never know.
  9.29 pm
  Mr. Philip Hammond: The debate has been distinguished by the participation, from the Opposition Benches, of no fewer than three former Secretaries of State for Health and one former Health Minister. In addition, we have had the benefit of a considered and reasoned debate in the other place, and I hope that the Government will yet take the opportunity to show that they can listen to experience and that they will respond.
  I am grateful in particular to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) for pointing out that the Bill will not abolish the internal market despite the Government's rhetoric; to my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) for introducing me to the "Christmas card flow" method of calculating relative power within the NHS—perhaps he predicts that, next year, the Secretary of State will be overwhelmed with Christmas cards—and to my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) for drawing the House's attention to the fact that the Secretary of State has already succeeded in creating an oppressive climate of fear in the NHS. I am grateful also to my hon. Friends the Members for Orpington (Mr. Horam) and for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) for emphasising, respectively, the importance of the evolutionary, the naturally Conservative, approach to our health service and the meaninglessness and vacuousness of the so-called duty of partnership, which in any event already exists in national health service legislation.

  113
  I am sorry to say that, with one or two minor exceptions, I have heard nothing from Labour Members showing any original thought. I can only voice my concern for the one or two Labour Members who expressed themselves excited by the Bill. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) for asking the Minister whether the Government will now accept the Lords amendment requiring the majority of general practitioners in a primary care group to consent before that group evolves into a primary care trust. I look forward to the Minister's answer.
  Anyone who listened to the Labour party's pre-election rhetoric, anyone who has heard the extravagant language of the Government's health policy announcements and their re-announcements, and anyone who has been taken in by the creative accounting of the comprehensive spending review, will be asking himself why the NHS is delivering a worse standard of service than it was two years ago. Anyone considering the huge challenges facing our health care delivery system must be struck by the complete inadequacy of the Bill—apparently it is the flagship measure of the Government's health agenda—to meet those challenges.
  It is a mean little Bill, driven in equal measure by political spite, the instinctive desire to centralise and the Government's need to put in place by stealth a mechanism to ration NHS care and to shift the responsibility for that rationing away from the Government and on to the shoulders of the medical profession.
  The Bill says nothing about the real challenge facing the NHS, which is that of matching supply with demand in the face of dramatic medical advances and huge demographic changes. It says nothing also about the need to develop a broader resource base for health care provision to bring Britain into line with the levels of spending, the quality of provision and the range of choice that are available to the citizens of its European neighbours. The Bill does not mention the issue of rationing or the mechanisms that will be needed for an on-going, open and transparent determination of the limits of availability within our NHS.
  The Bill does nothing that will address the deteriorating service that is facing patients. Similarly, it will do nothing for the extra 200,000 patients who are waiting to see a consultant, such as Mr. Tony Wiese, whom I met yesterday in his home at Woodbridge, Suffolk. Mr. Wiese cares passionately about the NHS as a relatively young multiple sclerosis sufferer in the secondary progressive stage of the disease.
  Mr. Wiese recently asked his GP to prescribe him a drug that he had been prescribed in 1994 but had abandoned because of side effects. Now that the disease has advanced, quite reasonably Mr. Wiese wants to try it again. His GP told him that he would need an out-patient consultation at his local hospital and she referred him accordingly. On 26 March, Mr. Wiese received the following letter from Ipswich hospital NHS trust:
  "Dear Mr. Wiese, an appointment has been made for you to attend Dr. Wroe's neurology clinic on Monday 25th September 2000 at 2.30 pm."
  Mr. Wiese will have to wait 18 months just to see a consultant to obtain a prescription for a drug that has already been prescribed for him once before. That is an 18-month wait for someone suffering from a progressive degenerative disease. Is that the sort of service that the
  114
  Minister expects to deliver in his modern and dependable new NHS? It is that sort of quality of service issue that the Government should be addressing in this Bill. The Minister might want to think about the specific example that I have quoted as he prepares himself for MS awareness week, next week.
  Do not let me give the impression that the Bill does not have a central coherent theme, because it certainly does. However, it is one that is hidden from view. It is stealthily concealed by language and presentation, like the Chancellor's tax rises. It puts in place the mechanisms of a sophisticated but unacknowledged rationing system. Primary care trusts, with their limited range of referral options and the inclusion of prescribing budgets within the cash-limited envelope, will be in the front line of that rationing mechanism. They will operate within guidance issued by NICE based not only on clinical effectiveness, but on cost-effectiveness of drugs and treatments.
  The chairman of NICE has already made it clear that he may have to recommend that a drug or a treatment be not made available because of resource shortages. CHIMP will be able to intervene, question clinical practice, demand information and challenge doctors' decisions, but it does not end there. The Bill as introduced in the other place gave powers to the Government to control the medical profession in an unprecedented way, so that they could effectively end self-regulation if they chose.
  Thanks only to the vigilance of my noble Friends, that threat has been somewhat diluted, but the loss of choice in referrals, the ominous cloud cast by PCTs over the independent contractor status of GPs and the pincer movement of cash limits on prescribing budgets and NICE guidance enforced by CHIMP will spell the end of the traditional role of the GP as an advocate for his patient. With it will be lost any proxy for the informed consumer in our health care system.
  It goes on. The unprecedented powers that the Government are giving themselves to control prices of pharmaceutical products by law can—and, I predict, will—be used by them to force companies not to make available in the United Kingdom drugs that the Government do not want to be available.
  So, underlying the provisions of the Bill is a plan for the creation of a comprehensive mechanism for controlling demand and limiting supply of NHS health care by limiting the power and freedom of doctors; removing the choice enjoyed not only by patients of fundholders, but by all patients; controlling what drugs are available in the UK market; and increasing the Secretary of State's ability to direct the health service centrally—all that while denying the existence of rationing.
  The Bill does not even begin to address the real and crucial problem of resourcing, which underlies all the other problems faced by the system. So how did the Government get themselves into this corner—centralising in the name of local autonomy, cutting services in the name of levelling up and imposing massive, expensive and unnecessary change on a health service to which, in 1996, the Prime Minister pledged that there would be "no great upheavals" under Labour? They are pinned there by three unwise political commitments, the first of which is the hostile position that they adopted in opposition, on the basis of dogma rather than reason, to the principle of the internal market and, in particular, to GP fundholding.

  115
  The second unwise commitment is the Government's ill-advised pre-election pledge to cut waiting lists by 100,000—regardless of the cost to patient care in the NHS as a whole and regardless of the distortion of clinical priorities that that entailed. The third—which has been raised to the status of a political creed in itself by frequent, if increasingly unconvincing, repetition by Ministers—is the denial that rationing exists in the NHS.
  Thus have the Government inevitably committed themselves to an agenda of centralising control, distorting clinical priorities, reducing choice, creating the mechanisms of organised rationing without ever acknowledging it and dismantling GP fundholding—the foundation on which a truly modern health service could have been built. Indeed, the abolition of GP fundholding—the single most important of the changes proposed in the Bill—ranks with the end of tax relief on private health insurance premiums for the over-60s as an act of pure political spite—an exercise in dogma.
  Fundholding worked. Most GPs recognised that, the Audit Commission and the OECD have said so and even the Labour party's own expert advisers recommended that it should not abolish the fundholding system. Fundholding practices have been effective in securing for their patients improvements in secondary provision and delivery of a wider range of high quality primary health care services. They were responsive to the needs of their patients and they would have been quite capable of delivering the Government's health care agenda. Their abolition is purely politically motivated.
  Dragooning GPs, independent contractors, into enforced co-operatives, where 50 or 100 of them have to work together, is a recipe for disaster. To remove the practice as the basic unit of the system is to go against the grain of human nature. It will reduce doctors' individual freedom to act on behalf of their patients, reduce the range of services that they can offer and reduce their incentives to improve their efficiency and to demand efficiency from the hospitals serving them.
  Of course fundholding was not perfect. The NHS is a large and complex organisation and change takes time to be effective. Fundholding was still in a relatively early stage of its development—Conservative Members would be the first to recognise that—but it offered a basis on which to build. The major objection to it, that it led to inequality between the patients of fundholding and non-fundholding practices, could easily have been addressed by a genuine levelling up—a universalisation of fundholding to ensure that all patients enjoyed those benefits, rather than the levelling down, which is Labour's basic instinct.
  On 18 January, the Secretary of State said:
  "primary care groups provide incentives for all concerned to 'level tip' to the standards of the best." — [Official Report, 18 January 1999; Vol. 323, c. 594.]
  Since then, I and my hon. and noble Friends have sought assurances from the Government that none of the 60 per cent. of patients who had fundholding GPs would lose access to services as a result of the transition from fundholding to PCGs. We have had no answer, and we could not have an answer because those services are already being lost—psychiatric services in Stafford and
  116
  Leicester, physiotherapy in Luton and Hertfordshire, diabetes and asthma clinics in north London and counselling in Bath, to name but a few.
  Therefore, for 60 per cent. of patients, the bottom line is already clear. The Government's reforms have produced an immediate reduction in primary care services. I am still waiting for an explanation of how, even within the apparently elastic confines of new Labourspeak, a reduction in services can be described as levelling up. Instead of seeking to build upon and improve those parts of the primary care system that were demonstrably delivering, and encouraging those that were not to emulate them, the Government chose to sweep them away, replacing them with a structure that looks backwards for its inspiration, not forwards.
  One thing that we can be sure about with the Government is that, the more extravagant the claims, the more flamboyant the language, the further from the claims the reality is likely to be. So it is with the reform of primary health care. We are told that primary care is being modernised, that local accountability is being strengthened, but an old-fashioned centrally directed structure is being reimposed. We are told that it is being done in the interests of equality. If that is so, it is the equality of the Soviet era—a levelling down to equal misery for all. The end result is a commissioning system that is less, not more, responsive to patient needs.
  In the three hours or so since my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) outlined the Opposition's objections to the Bill, we have heard from Labour Members not a rebuttal of those objections, not a reasoned response to her concerns, but a recital of the Labour party's official dogma. I say this to Labour Members: if the NHS is to be a success in its second 50 years, they must resist the temptation to love it to death. We all share the desire for improved health care delivery. Conservative Members do not believe that the Bill remotely begins to address the issues that must be faced if that is to be achieved.
  Of course we object to the way in which the Bill substitutes political control for professional independence, bureaucratic direction for market forces and compulsion for choice, but much more fundamental is the Government's continued refusal to address the resource issue or even to acknowledge that it exists. A Government who genuinely put health at the top of their agenda would be using their flagship health legislation to address that issue, to look forward to the resourcing of our health care system into the 21st century, and, by that test, the Government have failed miserably.
  The Bill attacks GPs' traditional role. It attacks all clinicians' traditional professional freedom. It eliminates choice for patients. The end result, whatever the Government's rhetoric, is a highly prescriptive system reversing the trend under the previous Government of devolving power and reverting to the discredited principle that "Whitehall knows best". Behind the rhetoric, the Bill is a recipe for inflexibility, inefficiency, lack of choice and increased bureaucracy. I urge the House to vote for the amendment and deny the Bill a Second Reading.
  9.45 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham)The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) launched

  117
  a fierce attack in an attempt to divert attention from our success in reducing the numbers on waiting lists. She produced what in some parts of the trade are known as killer facts.
  The Official Report will confirm that she told the House that Southampton general's waiting lists have trebled since the election. I can tell the right hon. Lady that the Southampton University Hospitals NHS trust waiting list is now more than 1,000 below the level of March 1997.
  The right hon. Lady's second killer fact was the accusation that the chief executive of Salisbury health care NHS trust—I have an interest because I live in Southampton and it is just up the road from me—had written a letter to consultants telling them to stop putting patients on the waiting list. The letter gave three options, and the right hon. Lady mentioned two of them. She said that one option was to reduce the numbers on the list. She did not tell us that the chief executive had said that that risked inconveniencing patients and GPs, that it could expose patients to clinical risk and that it would merely pass the problem on to next year. The other option she mentioned was to use the private sector. That happens in some parts of the country if NHS capacity is full. However, she did not mention the third option, which was to increase NHS capacity, and that is what the Salisbury health care NHS trust did. It treated an extra 500 patients during February and March alone.
  The right hon. Lady's speech can be judged on those facts. It was either misleading or just plain wrong. Fortunately, many of the other speeches had considerably greater weight. My hon. Friends the Members for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) and for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) spoke about the importance of the Government's quality agenda. My hon. Friends the Members for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) and for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis), and the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) talked of the importance of close co-operation between the national health service and social services. They will have noted the important partnership proposals for co-operation, which will enable those two bodies to pool resources and powers.lb/>
  My hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) set out clearly the problems of attempting to apply our proposals for raising quality in the national health service to the independent sector as though the two were exactly the same. My hon. Friends the Members for Dartford (Dr. Stoate), for Bedford (Mr. Hall), for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell), for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) and for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) spoke in different ways about the problems that arose from fundholding and the improvements that they envisaged would come from our proposals on primary care. A number of hon. Members spoke of the optimism and achievements of their own primary care groups.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Mr. Austin) talked about the importance of partnership, and I assure him that health improvement programmes will be published with full details of whom and how they have consulted on the drawing up of those proposals.
  The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) raised a number of important points. I can tell him that an interim regulatory impact assessment of our pharmaceutical proposals has been produced and is in the Library. A further stage in that process will take place when an agreement has been reached.
  118
  The right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) raised, among other things, some local PFI issues, and I shall look into those matters for her. The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) spoke of the achievements of his local hospitals in reducing waiting lists, and I acknowledge his contribution to the debate. We also heard from a number of hon. Members, including the hon. Members for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall), for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) and for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), who expressed scepticism about our proposals, although without a great deal of evidence to back up their arguments. I hope to respond to other hon. Members during my speech.
  We must remember that when the Opposition were in government, they fostered division and competition in the health service instead of co-operation and collaboration. They failed to establish a framework to ensure that the NHS delivered consistently high-quality services to patients, wherever they lived. Instead of setting out plans to tackle inequalities in health, they hid the information that revealed that such inequalities existed. It was astonishing to hear talk about the "dispossessed" tonight.
  When we were elected, we set about tackling the problems. The Bill is a vital part of our modernisation programme, although it is only a part. It introduces the legislative changes that are needed to carry through reforms that are already under way. With the support of general practitioners, nurses and other health professionals, we have already established 481 primary care groups, and the largest hospital building programme in the history of the NHS is in progress. We have also invested a further £2 billion in the NHS, which will receive an extra £21 billion announced in the comprehensive spending review, which will flow over the next three years. Under existing legislation, we have established the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. NHS Direct already covers 40 per cent. of the country, and an extra 2,500 nurses are already in training.
  Throughout those changes, we have worked—as we promised we would—with the NHS, with its users, with carers, with professional bodies and with others. They have helped to shape what we have done, and the way in which we have done it. That is why our reforms have been so widely welcomed—why they are seen so clearly as working with the grain of what the NHS, the staff who deliver the service and the public who rely on it want. Their views have shaped the Bill.
  Not everything that we want to do can be done under existing legislation. In key areas—in primary care, in quality, including self-regulation, in partnership, in pharmaceuticals and in the tackling of fraud, the Bill provides a legal framework to complete the modernisation of the NHS on which we have already embarked. That framework will put doctors and nurses in primary care at the heart of the new national health service, with the power and influence to shape and deliver the services that their patients need. It will make possible a new, systematic approach to identify, implement and assure best practice and high clinical standards, and will ensure that each part of the NHS works in partnership with every other part, with local authorities, with voluntary organisations and with local communities to deliver effective services, tackle inequalities in health and improve the health of the public.

  119
  The framework will enable us to tackle fraud in the NHS effectively, saving millions of pounds that can be used to treat patients. It will enable us to secure the best deal for patients, the NHS and the pharmaceutical industry from the billions of pounds that the NHS spends on drugs each year.
  As for primary care, fundholding is coming to an end, and with that will come an end to the bureaucratic, costly system that fragmented the delivery of services—a system that gave advantages to some patients, but only at the expense of others. The Opposition claim that fundholding was popular; but after years of persuasion and years of generous management allowances, only 50 per cent. of family doctors ever signed up, and many of those did so with real reluctance. Today, only 46 fundholding practices out of 3,400 in England have hung on to fundholding, while 481 primary care groups are up and running.
  Primary care groups will bring real benefits to patients. Better services will be available to all people, regardless of who their GPs are or where they happen to live. The transfer of responsibility that we are bringing about is real. I am told that, at the high point, £6 billion of NHS funding had been transferred to the influence of fundholding practices. Already in the current financial year, £11 billion of NHS funding has been transferred to the responsibility of primary care groups, 83 per cent. of which are operating at level two, doing their commissioning directly. That is a real transfer of resources, enabling practitioners in primary care to shape health services in their local areas in the interests of their patients.
  Let me deal with the allegations about bureaucracy. We have heard talk of £150 million. That is the amount that it cost to provide the management of fundholding practices; we are using the same amount to provide primary groups that will cover all practices and all patients, right across the country.
  After we were elected, we looked at the books and saw that the Conservative party had planned to increase spending on the bureaucracy of fundholding by a further £30 million. We stopped that. We spent £20 million on cancer services and £5 million on children's intensive care services. I believe that patients agree that that was a better way in which to spend that money.
  Under our system, doctors will have greater flexibility of referral. There will be an end to the internal market system of extra-contractual referrals, which denied patients and clinicians choice. GPs, nurses and other health professionals will shape health services to the benefit of all patients.
  Throughout the country, as we have urged, primary care groups are protecting services that are delivered cost-effectively at practice level, and levelling them up. Three primary care groups in Calderdale, Kirklees have worked together to develop an out-of-hours service in partnership with NHS Direct. In north Cumbria, extending single practice-based vasectomy and ophthalmology services to other practices—[Interruption.] From a sedentary position, the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) decries those improvements in services. He does it because he has spent all evening claiming that they would not happen, yet, throughout the country, new services are being developed and existing
  120
  services that were previously available only to fundholding patients are being made available to all patients. Of course he will heckle: he does not like the early signs of success that are already developing with our reforms.
  Mr. Duncan: Two weeks.
  Mr. Denham: The hon. Gentleman is right; it is only the first two weeks. There is much more to come.
  Dr. Harris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Denham: No. I have no time.
  Some primary care groups—perhaps, in time, many—will want to use the powers in the Bill to go further: to establish primary care trusts that are responsible for almost all the commissioning of health services and, if the case is right, to deliver some community health services as well. Primary care trusts will enjoy new powers and freedoms: powers to invest in general practice, in premises and in information systems; to devise their own incentive arrangements, so that there are incentives to develop individual practices as well as the work of the trust itself; to employ staff to support practices in delivering health care; to use the flexibility that is offered by the National Health Service (Primary Care) Act 1997; to develop clinical governance; to continue professional development; and, at the highest level, to provide community health services, not just to commission them. Those are just some of the powers that primary care trusts will be able to develop locally—at a pace that helps to meet local needs, after widespread consultation.
  Primary care groups and trusts will help to cut bureaucracy. They will help to ensure that, over the lifetime of the current Parliament, £1 billion that would have been spent on bureaucracy will be spent on patient care, as the number of commissioning bodies is cut from more than 4,000 to fewer than 650 throughout Great Britain.
  The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald raised again the tradition during the whole 50 years of the NHS of saying, "The NHS is finished. It cannot cope." She said that that situation had existed from the beginning of the NHS. That is true: there have always been those who have decried the national health system. Fortunately, they have not been listened to and they will not be listened to today. If they had been listened to, the NHS would have been destroyed.
  Question put, That the amendment be made: —
  The House divided: Ayes 127, Noes 368.

  Division No. 141]

  [9.59 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Amess, David

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Burns, Simon

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Butterfill, John

  Baldry, Tony

  Cash, William

  Bercow, John

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Blunt, Crispin

  (Chipping Barnet)

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Chope, Christopher

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Clappison, James

  Brady, Graham

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

  Brazier, Julian

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  121

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

  McLocughlin, Patrick

  (Rushcliffe)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Maples, John

  Collins, Tim

  Mates, Michael

  Colvin, Michael

  Moss, Malcolm

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Cran, James

  Ottaway, Richard

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Page, Richard

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice

  Paice, James

  & Howden)

  Paterson, Owen

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Pickles, Eric

  Duncan, Alan

  Randall, John

  Duncan Smith, lain

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Evans, Nigel

  Robathan, Andrew

  Faber, David

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Fallon, Michael

  Rowe, Andrew(Feversham)

  Flight, Howard

  Ruffley, David

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Shepherd, Richard

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Garnier, Edward

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Gibb, Nick

  Soames, Nicholas

  Gill, Christopher

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Spring, Richard

  Green, Damian

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Greenway, John

  Steen, Anthonty

  Grieve. Dominic

  Streeter, Gary

  Hammond, Philip

  Sawyne, Desmond

  Hawkins, Nick

  Syms, Robert

  Heald, Oliver

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Horam, John

  Trend, Michael

  Hunter, Andrew

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Viggers, Peter

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Walter, Robert

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Wardle, Charles

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Waterson, Nigel

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Wells, Bowen

  Lansley, Andrew

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Leigh, Edward

  Whittingdale, John

  Letwin, Oliver

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Wilkinson, John

  Lidington, David

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Loughton, Tim

  Yeo, Tim

  Luff, Peter

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Mrs. Eleanor Laing and

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Mr. Stephen Day

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Allan, Richard

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Allen, Graham

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Berry, Roger

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Best, Harold

  Ashton, Joe

  Blackman, Liz

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Blizzard, Bob

  Austin, John

  Borrow, David

  Baker, Norman

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Ballard, Jackie

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Banks, Tony

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Barnes, Harry

  Breed, Colin

  Barron, Kevin

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Bayley, Hugh

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Beard, Nigel

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Buck, Ms Karen

  122

  Burden, Richard

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Burgon, Colin

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Burstow, Paul

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Foulkes, George

  Caborn, Richard

  Fyfe, Maria

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Galloway, George

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Gapes, Mike

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

  Gardiner, Barry

  (NE Fife)

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Gerrard, Neil

  Cann, Jamie

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Caplin, Ivor

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Casale, Roger

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Caton, Martin

  Godsiff, Roger

  Cawsey, Ian

  Goggins, Paul

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Chaytor, David

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Clapham, Michael

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Clark, Dr Lynda

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Grogan, John

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Gunnell, John

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Clelland, David

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Cohen, Harry

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Coleman, lain

  Harvey, Nick

  Colman, Tony

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Connarty, Michael

  Healey, John

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Corbett, Robin

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Cotter, Brian

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Cousins, Jim

  Heppell, John

  Cranston, Ross

  Hesford, Stephen

  Crausby, David

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Hill, Keith

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cummings, John

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Hoey, Kate

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack

  Hood, Jimmy

  (Copeland)

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Hope, Phil

  Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Dafis, Cynog

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Darvill, Keith

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Denham, John

  Hurst, Alan

  Dismore, Andrew

  Hutton, John

  Dobbin, Jim

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Illsley, Eric

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Doran, Frank

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Jamieson, David

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Jenkins, Brian

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie

  Edwards, Huw

  (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Efford, Clive

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Ennis, Jeff

  Jones Ms Jenny

  Etherington, Bill

  (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Flint, Caroline

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Follett, Barbara

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  123

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Pike, Peter L

  Keetch, Paul

  Plaskitt, James

  Kemp, Fraser

  Pollard, Kerry

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

  Pope, Greg

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Pound, Stephen

  Khabra, Piara S

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Kidney, David

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Purchase, Ken

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Laxton, Bob

  Radice, Giles

  Lepper, David

  Rammell, Bill

  Leslie, Christopher

  Raynsford, Nick

  Levitt, Tom

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Rendel, David

  Linton, Martin

  Robertson, Rt Hon George

  Livsey, Richard

  (Hamilton S)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Lock, David

  Rogers, Allan

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Rooker, Jeff

  McCabe, Steve

  Rooney, Terry

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Roy, Frank

  McDonnell, John

  Ruane, Chris

  McIsaac, Shona

  Ruddock, Joan

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  McNamara, Kevin

  Salter, Martin

  McNulty, Tony

  Sanders, Adrian

  MacShane, Denis

  Sawford, Phil

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McWalter, Tony

  Shaw, Jonathan

  McWilliam, John

  Sheerman, Barry

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Mallaber, Judy

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Singh, Marsha

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Skinner, Dennis

  Martlew, Eric

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Maxton, John

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Smith, Miss Geraldine

  Merron, Gillian

  (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Miller, Andrew

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Mitchell, Austin

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Moffatt, Laura

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

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Snape, Peter

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

  Soley, Clive

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Morley, Elliot

  Spellar, John

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Mudie, George

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Mullin, Chris

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Stevenson, George

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Norris, Dan

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Oaten, Mark

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Stott, Roger

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Stringer, Graham

  Olner, Bill

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  O'Neill, Martin

  Stunell, Andrew

  Öpik, Lembit

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  (Dewsbury)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Pearson, Ian

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Pendry, Tom

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Temple—Morris, Peter

  124

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  White, Brian

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Timms, Stephen

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Tipping, Paddy

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Todd, Mark

  (Swansea W)

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Trickett, Jon

  Willis, Phil

  Truswell, Paul

  Wills, Michael

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Winnick, David

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Wise, Audrey

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Wood, Mike

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Worthington, Tony

  Tyler, Paul

  Wray, James

  Vaz, Keith

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Wyatt, Derek

  Wareing, Robert N

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Watts, David

  Mr. Jim Dowd and

  Webb, Steve

  Mr. Clive Betts.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 62 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading):—
  The House divided: Ayes 333, Noes 134.

  Division No. 142]

  [10.15 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Chaytor, David

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Clapham, Michael

  Allen, Graham

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Clark, Dr Lynda

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Austin, John

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Banks, Tony

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Barnes, Harry

  Clelland, David

  Barron, Kevin

  Coaker, Vernon

  Bayley, Hugh

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Beard, Nigel

  Cohen, Harry

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Coleman, Iain

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Colman, Tony

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Connarty, Michael

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Corbett, Robin

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Berry, Roger

  Cousins, Jim

  Best, Harold

  Cranston, Ross

  Blackman, Liz

  Crasusby, David

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Borrow, David

  Cummings, John

  Bradley, Keith(Withington)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  (Copeland)

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Dalyell, Tam

  Burden, Richard

  Darvill, Keith

  Burgon, Colin

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Caborn, Richard

  Dawson, Hilton

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Denham, John

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Dobbin, Jim

  Cann, Jamie

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Caplin Ivor

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Casale, Roger

  Doran, Frank

  Caton, Martin

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Cawsay, Ian

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  125

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Edwards, Huw

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Efford, Clive

  Jowell, RT Hon Ms Tessa

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Ennis, Jeff

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Etherington, Bill

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Kemp, Fraser

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Flint, Caroline

  Khabra, Piara S

  Follett, Barbara

  Kidney, David

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Foulkes, George

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Fyfe, Maria

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Galloway, George

  Laxton, Bob

  Gapes, Mike

  Lepper, David

  Gardiner, Barry

  Leslie, Christopher

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Levitt, Tom

  Gerrard, Neil

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Linton, Martin

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Lloyd, Tony

  (Manchester C)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Goggins, Paul

  Lock, David

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McDonnell, John

  Grocott, Bruce

  Mclsaac, Shona

  Grogan, John

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Gunnell, John

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  McNulty, Tony

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  MacShane, Denis

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  McWalter, Tony

  Healey, John

  McWilliam, John

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Heppell, John

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Marshall—Andrews, Robert

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Martlew, Eric

  Hill, Keith

  Maxton, John

  Hinchliffe, David

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Meale, Alan

  Hoey, Kate

  Merron, Gillian

  Hood, Jimmy

  Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Miller, Andrew

  Hope, Phil

  Mitchell, Austin

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Moffatt, Laura

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Morley, Elliot

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Mudie, George

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Mullin, Chris

  Hurst, Alan

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Hutton, John

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Norris, Dan

  Illsley, Eric

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Jamieson, David

  Olner, Bill

  Jenkins, Brian

  O'Neill, Martin

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Johnson, Miss Melanie

  (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Pearson, Ian

  Jones, Ms Jenny

  Pendry, Tom

  (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Perham, Ms Linda

  126

  Pickthall, Colin

  Spellar, John

  Pike, Peter L

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Plaskitt, James

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Pollard, Kerry

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Pope, Greg

  Stevenson, George

  Pound, Stephen

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Stott, Roger

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Strang, Rt Hon De Gavin

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Stringer, Graham

  Purchase, Ken

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

  Radice, Giles

  (Dewsbury)

  Rammell, Bill

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Temple—Morris, Peter

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Robertson, Rt Hon George

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  (Hamilton S)

  Timms, stephen

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Todd, Mark

  Rooker, Jeff

  Trickett, Jon

  Rooney, Terry

  Truswell, Paul

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Roy, Frank

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Ruane, Chris

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Vaz, Keith

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Salter, Martin

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Sawford, Phil

  Wareing, Robert N

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Watts, David

  Shaw, Jonathan

  White, Brian

  Sheerman, Barry

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  (Swansea W)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Singh, Marsha

  Wills, Michael

  Skinner, Dennis

  Winnick, David

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Wise, Audrey

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Wood, Mike

  Smith, Miss Geraldine

  Worthington, Tony

  (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Wray, James

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Snape, Peter

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Soley, Clive

  Mr. Jim Dowd and

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Mr. Clive Betts.

  NOES

  Ainsworth,Peter (E Surrey)

  Burstow, Paul

  Allan, Richard

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Amess David

  Campbell, RT Hon Menzies

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  (NE Fife)

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Cash, William

  Atkinsone, Peter (Haxham)

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Baker, Norman

  (Chipping Barnet)

  Ballard, Jakie

  Chope, Christopher

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Clappison, James

  Bercow, John

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

  Blunt, Crispin

  Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey

  Bottomley, Peter

  Collins, Tim

  Brady, Graham

  Colvin, Michael

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Cotter, Brian

  Breed, Colin

  Cran, James

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Day, Stephen

  Burns, Simon

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Duncan, Alan

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  127

  Evans, Nigel

  Luff, Peter

  Faber, David

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Fabricant, Michael

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Flight, Howard

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Mates, Michael

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Garnier, Edward

  Oaten, Mark

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Gibb, Nick

  Ottaway, Richard

  Page, Richard

  Gill, Christopher

  Paice, James

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Paterson, Owen

  Green, Damian

  Pickles, Eric

  Greenway, John

  Randall, John

  Hammond, Philip

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Rendel, David

  Harvey, Nick

  Robertson. Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Ruffley, David

  Heald, Oliver

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Shepherd, Richard

  Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

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

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Horarn, John

  Spring, Richard

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hunter, Andrew

  Steen, Anthony

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Swayne, Desmond

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Syms, Robert

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Keetch, Paul

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Tyler, Paul

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Lansley, Andrew

  Viggers, Peter

  Leigh, Edward

  Walter, Robert

  Letwin, Oliver

  Wardle, Charles

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Lidington, David

  Webb, Steve

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Livsey, Richard

  Whittingdale, John

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Loughton, Tim

  128

  Wilkinson, John

  Yeo, Tim

  Willis, Phil

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Mr. Andrew Stunell and

  Woodward, Shaun

  Mr. Adrian Sanders.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).

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

  (i) any expenditure incurred by a Minister of the Crown under the Act,

  (ii) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other enactment,

  (b) the conversion into public dividend capital of any amount outstanding by way of initial loan forming part of an NHS trust's originating capital debt.—[Mr. Hill.]
  Question agreed to.

  HEALTH BILL [LORDS] [WAYS AND MEANS]
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a),
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Health Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the imposition of charges in respect of expenditure incurred by the Commission for Health Improvement.—[Mr. Hill.]
  Question agreed to.

  Prescriptions
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hill.]
  10.26 pm
  Dr. Stephen Ladyman: I do not know whether it is a good or a bad thing that the Adjournment immediately follows the Second Reading of the Health Bill. My hon. Friend the Minister has had to work doubly hard tonight, but at least he has not had to break up two evenings. As I was in Committee this evening, I was unable to listen to the Second Reading; I hope not to cover the same ground but if I do so, I apologise to the House.
  The national health service drugs bill is rising; in my opinion, it is rising inexorably, but, also in my opinion, that is not a bad thing. Drugs can be extremely cost effective. A drug that keeps someone out of hospital can make a saving for the NHS. A medicine that gets someone back to work quickly can have a beneficial effect on the economy. New drugs are becoming more efficient all the time and are starting to deal with conditions that we were previously unable to treat. The pharmaceutical industry is a big contributor to the national economy and is an industry that we should be trying to support. My purpose tonight is try to convince my hon. Friend—if he needed to be convinced—of those matters and to suggest some ways in which we could try to think about meeting the rising drugs bill that we shall face in coming years.
  The Government have already made a huge start: an extra £19 billion will be available for the NHS in the next three years. That money will help to modernise the service. It will make more services available, and some of it will go towards meeting the cost of the rising drugs budget. However, in my view, it will be insufficient.
  In recent weeks we have engaged in debates on this subject; we have increasingly heard the Conservatives start to answer some of the questions that perhaps they did not fully address during their 18 years in government. Unfortunately, the answers that they have given to those questions tend to be right-wing ones that advocate more private practice and more private medicine. I do not believe that those answers are in line with the principles of the NHS. The Liberal Democrats have also acknowledged the rising drugs bill, but yet again they seem to think that their magic penny on income tax will address all the problems.
  I am loth to suggest that what I offer tonight is a third way, because the boss—my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—has already copyrighted that particular phrase. I will, however, offer a basis for debate that is in line with the principles of the NHS and that will help us to address the issues.
  My constituency includes Pfizer, a large and successful pharmaceutical company that employs 3,500 people there. When its current building programme is complete, it will employ 1,000 more. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and I are working hard to encourage the company to make further investments, and we are hopeful that it will do so. However, the company, like other pharmaceutical firms, is beginning to feel underappreciated.
  Some reasons for that have been inherited by the Labour Government, including the limited prescribing list and the problems of parallel importing that still have not
  130
  been fully dealt with. Equally, however, Pfizer feels underappreciated because it is difficult to see effects such as the outcome generated by a medicine taken into consideration when pricing is considered. The company also fears that the National Institute for Clinical Excellence will focus on driving down the drugs bill rather than on outcomes and cost effectiveness.
  The industry is also worried about changes in the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme, although it has been reassured by recent statements that the new agreement would be introduced after full discussion and, as far as possible, on a voluntary basis.
  I reject some of the fears that have been expressed, but I must recognise that those fears exist, and, as a constituency Member, I must reflect them fairly. Of even more concern, however, are the needs of individual constituents such as Mrs. Noreen Heffer of Ramsgate and Ms Lesley Jordan of Sandwich, who have been diagnosed as suffering from multiple sclerosis and who would benefit from beta interferon treatment, which they currently cannot receive.
  The reason for that is complex. As best as I can piece the story together, there was an accord in east Kent on who could appropriately receive the drug and who could not. The accord broke down, and too many people were put on the treatment, for some of whom it was not suitable. Once the health authority recognised that there was a problem, consultants got together to agree new prescribing guidelines and to start to review the cases of people on beta interferon. While the list is being reviewed, and while people for whom the treatment is not appropriate are weaned off it, Mrs. Heffer and Ms Jordan have to wait.
  The health authority has increased its budget to £325,000, which is large for an authority of its size. Although I can give my two constituents a good explanation for what has happened, all they want to hear is that beta interferon is available so that they can begin their treatment. How can we make such treatments available?
  We must remember that if expensive drugs are made available, there will be an impact on drugs budgets.
  Another constituent's wife was diagnosed as suitable for Aricept treatment at a time when it was not available in my constituency. By the time it became available, her condition had deteriorated to the point at which the treatment was no longer appropriate. An opportunity was missed for that patient.
  Many constituents have also come to me because they have erectile dysfunction and wish to receive Viagra. which they cannot receive under current guidelines. They are concerned that they will not receive it either if the preliminary guidelines on which the Government are consulting remain unchanged.
  Dr. Evan Harris: I thank the hon. Gentleman for letting me intervene on his thoughtful and remarkably independent-minded speech. Does he agree that the Government's proposal on Viagra, which has just been out to consultation, is a rather irrational way to go about rationing a drug? The proposal would restrict the drug's prescription on the basis of the causes of dysfunction rather than the likely benefit, meaning that many people, particularly older people, simply will not have access to it because the Government

  131
  are choosing to limit it. It is welcome that the Government are taking responsibility for rationing, but that is an irrational way to do it.
  Dr. Ladyman: I largely agree with the hon. Gentleman; I have concerns about the rationality of the drug's availability being limited by the cause of the underlying condition. But even on that basis the principle behind the guidelines appears to be that erectile dysfunction has an underlying psychological cause, whereas it is now clear that there is usually an organic condition behind it—for example, diabetes, hypertension, post myocardial infarction, arteriosclerosis, stroke, renal disease, multiple sclerosis, spinal cord injury, pelvic injury, prostate resection, radical prostatectomy and pelvic radiotherapy are all major causes of erectile dysfunction.
  Erectile dysfunction is an extremely distressing condition, and I think that men who suffer from it are entitled to have the entirety of their condition treated. If one is treating renal disease, surely one should also treat the conditions that renal disease causes, which might include impotence. The prescribing guidelines should reflect that.
  In fairness, I should state that Viagra is a Pfizer drug, so that is another constituency concern. I should also point out to the Minister that Pfizer has estimated that Viagra would cost only about £50 million if it were freely available on the NHS. That is far less than some of the figures that were put about a year ago when the debate first took off. Viagra is actually quite a cost-effective treatment. It would cost only about £19 a month under the current pricing guidelines, which is far less than the monthly cost of an antacid treatment.
  If the Minister feels that he needs to limit the availability of Viagra in case the bill gets out of control, I suggest that he challenges Pfizer to cap the cost of Viagra at £50 million; if more than £50 million worth is required, he should suggest that Pfizer should provide it for free. I think that Pfizer might enter negotiations on that basis. The Minister might be pleasantly surprised—he should at least have a go. If he does not think that he has the power to do so, today's Second Reading of the Health Bill revealed that clauses 30 and 31 give him the power, even if he does not have it at the moment.
  Finally on behalf of my constituents, I have a further concern that men's health issues are generally downgraded and not given the consideration that they should be. With Lord Jopling, I recently helped to host a meeting in the Houses of Parliament with Senator Bob Dole. I do not share Senator Dole's political philosophy, but he has been campaigning in America for increased prostate cancer treatment and screening. We should be taking up that issue in this country, but I accept that if we did, it would also greatly increase the drugs budget.
  I am asking the Minister for fair treatment for pharmaceutical companies, for novel treatments such as Viagra and Aricept to become freely available, and for expensive drugs like beta interferon to become freely available. All these will increase the pressure on the drugs bill. Although the National Institute for Clinical Excellence is a very good start and will clearly consider cost-effectiveness, it alone will not hold back the flood waters of increased drug prices.
  132
  Therefore the Minister might care to give some thought to my following suggestions. He could switch as many drugs as possible to over-the-counter availability. If he then changed the way in which pharmacists were remunerated to encourage them to have private rooms where they could advise customers on over-the-counter drugs, and if the Government and pharmacists together raised awareness of the benefits of home health care, many of the treatments that currently have to be prescribed by GPs could be sold over the counter. That would also keep people out of GPs' surgeries, thus reducing another burden on the NHS.
  The Minister should change the way in which drugs are priced to reflect outcomes, and do so in such a way that the saving made by a medicine keeping somebody out of a hospital bed is reflected in the drugs budget. The drugs budget can then be allocated the resources needed to exploit to the full the potential of medicines.
  Even those things would not be sufficient for the increase in the drugs bill for which we must gear ourselves up. So, I shall make one further slightly more radical suggestion for the Minister to consider. Currently, the NHS prescription bill—based on an answer that his predecessor, my hon Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), gave me in April last year—is £4.5 billion a year, of which we raise only £300 million through prescription charges. We can either fund the increased drugs budget through the money made available under the comprehensive spending review or in some way increase prescription charges—the money which comes directly from the patients. That is where the Minister should be looking.
  The Government have said in the debate on Viagra that the principle behind the NHS is that it should make freely available treatments for life-threatening, painful or disabling conditions. I agree; drugs for such treatment should be freely available to everybody irrespective of income. But, those represent only half of the current drugs budget. The other half need not necessarily be freely available to everybody. Drugs that deal with trivial conditions and conditions which get better on their own should be charged at the market rate to everybody, also irrespective of income.
  In the middle, there is a group of drugs which deal with serious conditions—I would include Viagra in that category—and should be freely available only to people who are on low incomes. Others should pay for them at the market rate. By doing that, we would create a market in such drugs; competition might force the price down. We would also generate private medical insurance schemes to help people who want to take such an option. Such an approach would be true to the principle of the NHS that life-threatening and disabling illnesses would be freely treated and that pain relief would be freely available to all.
  In case the Minister doubts whether there is room in the budget for such an approach, I shall give him a few examples of drugs in the middle category. Dermatological products cost £246 million, non-serious use of antiulcerants costs £300 million, anti-diarrhoeals cost £67 million, laxatives £71 million, tropical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs £35 million, drugs for hay fever £34 million, contraceptive pills—slightly more controversial in such a category—£58 million, hormone

  133
  replacement therapy £138 million, oral nutrition drugs £85 million, food for special diets £29 million and vitamins £12 million.
  That is a list of £1,075 million-worth of drugs that do not deal with life-threatening, disabling or painful conditions. If the NHS were not paying for just a fraction of, say, non-serious use of anti-ulcerants, my constituents could get their beta interferon and Aricept. Those drugs should be freely available to people who need them.
  Does the Minister agree that the drugs bill will inevitably rise over the next few years? How will he stem or meet that rise? Will he consider my suggestions? When will the Viagra consultation process be reported on? Will he give thought to increasing the availability of drugs over the counter and through home health care measures? If he will give those suggestions some serious consideration, this debate will have been well worth while.
  10.44 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) on his success in securing the debate. I understand the importance of the topic to his constituents, many of whom are employed by Pfizer, which is of course the manufacturer of Viagra, among many other important products. That drug has produced more comment and opinion than perhaps any new drug in living memory. I shall return to it in a moment.
  As a Government, we do fully accept the importance of the United Kingdom pharmaceutical industry to this country. Only last week, at the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry annual dinner, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State described the industry as "quite brilliant". The Government unequivocally support the industry.
  The Department of Health is responsible within Government for policy in relation to NHS purchase and the use of pharmaceuticals, and for policies designed to create the right competitive environment in which the UK pharmaceutical industry can continue to flourish and compete in the global market. Those two aims are not at odds. We recognise that the industry's present success was hard won. In the face of globalisation and increased competition, the industry must be at the forefront of innovation and competitiveness if that success is to be sustained. Nothing that we are doing threatens that success—rather the opposite.
  The principal objective of recent developments, such as the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, is to enable faster and more equitable access to innovation, and to ensure that resources are used cost-effectively. Clinicians encounter more and more new products—the pace of change is quickening. The setting up of NICE recognises the need for machinery to provide authoritative guidance, and the industry has expressed support for the broad objectives of NICE. The Association of British Pharmaceutical Industry and the Association of the British Health Care Industry will be represented on the partners' council, which will oversee NICE' s work programme and ensure fair play in its working methods.
  We have made it clear that if medicines are shown to be more clinically and cost effective than other treatments, that is how the money should be spent. Unified budgets will facilitate that. There is no cap on the drugs budget. The introduction of unified budgets creates a single
  134
  funding stream for three components of expenditure—hospital and community health services, prescribing, and GP practice infrastructure—which were previously managed separately, under differing rules, by different parts of the NHS.
  Mr. Philip Hammond: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Denham: In fairness to my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet, I think I should try to answer as many of his points as possible.
  Those three components have been combined into a single pot at health authority and primary care group level. That level will depend on the clinical priorities that health authorities and primary care groups set themselves. Unified budgets will create a flexible environment, which will help to ensure that patients get the most appropriate treatment for their condition.
  It is not true to say that the Government are unwilling to allow for the full cost of treatment when assessing the price of medicines. Under the NICE appraisal system, companies will be free to submit any relevant data, with the core of NICE' s appraisal focusing on the health benefits achievable from NHS budgets—including hospital beds and staff, not just the cost of drugs.
  We continue to work closely with industry. For example, the industry strategy group, which includes senior industry representatives and Department of Health, Department of Trade and Industry and Treasury officials, meets every quarter to discuss a range of issues. The industry has praised Government for their handling of the debate on the development of the single market in pharmaceuticals during our presidency last year, and subsequently the ISG and other bilateral contacts provide forums for discussion of NHS policies as they affect the pharmaceutical industry and other relevant Government policies. One of these is the parallel import of pharmaceuticals into the UK. Government has an on-going and constructive dialogue with the industry on that issue. Internationally, the ISG is seen as a unique forum for Government-industry debate.
  As a discerning home customer, the Government are determined to secure value for money for the national health service. The clinically and cost effective use of pharmaceuticals helps to stimulate UK industrial competitiveness; it does not undermine it.
  We do want to reach a voluntary agreement on the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme, but the Health Bill will enable us to back it by statute if necessary. Above all, the PPRS—voluntary or backed by statute—has, and will continue to have, the joint aims of fair prices for the NHS which represent good value for money, and fair prices or profits on NHS sales for the industry which represent a reasonable return on the enormous investment that goes into pharmaceutical research and development and of course helps to fund future R and D.
  This remains a very good country in which to invest in pharmaceuticals: it has lower costs, labour flexibility, good industrial relations, a strong science and skills base, a strong cluster of existing industry, low corporation tax, political and social stability and an excellent regulatory regime.
  I said that I would return to the topic of Viagra. Impotence is in itself not life-threatening and does not cause physical pain. It can, in exceptional circumstances,

  135
  cause psychological distress. Until the advent of Viagra, NHS expenditure on this condition has been limited because of the nature of the treatments available. Now that treatment is available in tablet form, the cost of treating impotence could escalate. To limit that impact, we propose controls that reflect the priority given to treatment for impotence and reflect current expenditure on it.
  Briefly, it is proposed that Viagra and other drug treatments for impotence would be available on prescription from GPs for the following groups of men: those who have had radical pelvic surgery or their prostate removed; those suffering from spinal cord injury; diabetics; multiple sclerosis sufferers and those who have single gene neurological disease. Treatment would also be available for other men adjudged by a hospital specialist to be suffering from severe distress. General practitioners would be able to prescribe privately to impotent men not suffering from one of the named conditions.
  The period of consultation ended on 25 March and work is now under way to collate the responses. That is likely to be a considerable task as there are about 850 of them. Even at this initial stage, it is clear that the widest possible range of views has been expressed to us. I should make it clear that no final decisions will be taken until we have had the opportunity to consider the range of responses sent in. We will carefully consider all comments that have been received during the consultation period before reaching a final decision. We shall also keep the issue under review once final policies are in place. We have to find a sensible balance between treating men with a distressing condition and protecting the resources of the NHS to deal with other patients with, for example, cancer, heart disease and mental health problems.
  All health authorities were issued in 1995 with guidance that covered the use of beta interferon for the treatment of multiple sclerosis. It recommended that prescribing should be initiated by hospital specialists where clinically appropriate. The costs of prescribing are expected to be met within health authority allocations, taking account of local priorities.
  However, we should be clear that there are continuing questions about the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of beta interferon, the benefits achieved, which patients will benefit and for how long, and how the benefits compare with those of supporting patients through, for example, specialist nursing care. Health authorities and clinicians rightly take these and other factors into account when they set local priorities.
  We must ensure that clinical and cost-effective treatments are spread through the NHS as quickly as possible, and that is one of the roles of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, which will provide clear and authoritative advice on key treatments and procedures. Subject to the outcome of consultation on the discussion document and appraisal by NICE, we are minded to refer beta interferon to the institute.
  I should like to take the opportunity to address some of the other specific issues and suggestions that have been
  136
  raised and made by my hon. Friend. My hon. Friend suggests that we should switch as many drugs from prescription only to over-the-counter status as can be accommodated safely. The Government encourage wider availability of medicines as soon as there is adequate evidence of safety in use. We have tried and effective mechanisms for processing such switches; indeed, they have formed the model for European-wide switching.
  My hon. Friend suggests that greater emphasis should be given to the benefits of home health care. The Government are already doing a great deal to promote self-care. Most significantly, we have set up NHS Direct, the 24-hour nurse-led helpline, which has been a big success, with the first three pilot projects achieving a 97 per cent. satisfaction rating. NHS Direct is helping patients to make better use of the NHS. Many of the callers change their course of behaviour as a result of their calls.
  Drawing on the experience of NHS Direct, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced today plans for extending its role in a number of new areas of activity. Among these is the development of NHS Direct as a health promotional tool, and NHS Direct nurses in west Yorkshire are planning to phone people to remind them of their hospital appointments.
  We will also be piloting arrangements under which nurses will be able to call older people who come out of hospital to check that they are all right, or work will be done with family health service teams to help to improve the management of chronic diseases such as asthma and diabetes. NHS Direct will go on the internet as NHS Direct On-Line, so that the public can consult an interactive guide covering common minor ailments to help them decide when they can look after themselves and when they need to seek professional advice.
  National health service direct information points may be placed in surgeries, libraries, pharmacies, post offices, supermarkets, accident and emergency departments and healthy living centres. They will be able to provide internet access to NHS Direct On-Line and phone access to a NHS Direct nurse and information on local health services. We shall publish a NHS Direct health guide to help people care for themselves. These are important developments.
  My hon. Friend was right to refer to the role that pharmacists can play in encouraging the effective use of medicines. We are working on a strategy for community pharmacy that will take into account the expertise that pharmacists can bring to the use of medicines.
  My hon. Friend made some radical suggestions about prescription charges, including the proposal that they should bring in about three times as much revenue as they do at present. In opposition, we promised to review prescription charges, and that we have done. The current prescription charge exemption arrangements were examined as part of the comprehensive spending review, which reported last year. We looked at a range of options for this Parliament, but concluded that the present charging arrangements should continue: all current prescription charge exemptions would be protected for the rest of this Parliament and existing patient charges would rise by no more than the rate of inflation over the next three years.

  137
  I am afraid that nothing my hon. Friend has said tonight has persuaded me that that conclusion was wrong.
  There are systems such as my hon. Friend proposes in other parts of Europe. I should say that, where they apply, it is almost always the case that Viagra has been placed not in the intermediate category, as he proposes, but in the category of medicines for which patients have to meet the full cost themselves.
  138
  This has been an interesting debate and I am aware that, in the time available, I have not been able to respond—
  The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at four minutes to Eleven o'clock.

PRIME MINISTER

  Policy Unit (Travel)
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the occasions when his(a) Chief of Staff and (b) Chief Press Secretary formed part of the official party accompanying him on overseas visits, indicating the costs; and if he will update his answer to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) on 8 December 1998, Official Report, column 143, to include the period from the end of October 1998 to the end of February 1999. [76816]

  The Prime Minister
  My Chief Press Secretary has accompanied me on all my overseas visits except three. My Chief of Staff has accompanied me on approximately a third. The costs of all officials, including my Chief Press Secretary and Chief of Staff, who accompany me on overseas visits are accounted for within the total costs of my overseas visits provided in previous answers.

  For the period 1 May 1997 to 3 March 1999, members of the policy unit have travelled overseas on official business on 44 occasions. The average cost of their official travel was approximately £600 per person.

  All visits have been made in accordance with the rules set out in the Ministerial Code.

  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has had with representatives of the United States Government on genetically modified organisms since 31 July 1998; and if he will give the dates of these discussions. [80107]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer 1 gave to him on 3 November 1998,Official Report, columns 471–72.

  Economic and Monetary Union
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister what sorts of unforeseen circumstances were envisaged when adding that caveat to his statement that the United Kingdom will not join the Euro Zone during the present Parliament. [80165]

  The Prime Minister
  In his statement to the House of Commons in October 1997, the Chancellor of the Exchequer set out five economic tests which will have to be met before any decision to join a successful single currency can be taken. Applying the economic tests, the Government believe there is no realistic prospect of the UK economy having demonstrated, before the end of this Parliament, convergence which is sustainable and settled. Barring any fundamental and unforeseen change in economic circumstances, making a decision, during this Parliament, to join is not realistic.
  2
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister which Minister is responsible for advising the Cabinet on whether the five economic tests for the United Kingdom participation in EMU have been met; and what consultation in respect of that advice will be undertaken. [80175]

  The Prime Minister
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has responsibility for United Kingdom policy on European Community monetary and economic issues. The final decision on whether or not the UK should join the single currency is for the British people in a referendum.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister what staff have been tasked to monitor progress in passing the five economic tests for joining the euro. [80147]

  The Prime Minister
  HM Treasury is the department responsible for economic and monetary union issues.

  European Commissioners
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister what regulations or conventions exist to provide for the maintenance of political neutrality by European Commissioners in speeches targeted at a national audience in an area of domestic controversy. [80164]

  The Prime Minister
  Commissioners must act in accordance with the Community Treaties. They are required by Article 157 of the Treaty establishing the European Community to be completely independent in the performance of their duties. As such, they are not allowed to take instructions from any Government or from any other body, and must refrain from any action incompatible with their duties.

  European Movement and Federal Trust
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister when(a) he and (b) representatives from his office, next plan to meet representatives of (i) the European Movement and (ii) the Federal Trust. [80146]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Sir R. Body) on 19 October 1998,Official Report, column 917.

  Mrs. Rosemary Nelson
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations he received from Garvaghy Road Residents Chairman, Mr. Brendan McKenna, on police protection for the solicitor, Mrs. Rosemary Nelson; and what action he took in response. [80233]

  The Prime Minister
  None.

  Single Currency
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 10 March 1999,Official Report, column 228, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer's oral statement of 27 October 1997, Official Report, columns 583–88, if he will set out the constitutional and political implications of the United Kingdom joining the European single currency. [80247]

  The Prime Minister
  As the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his statement to the House of Commons in October 1997, the determining factor underpinning any
  3
  Government decision on membership of the single currency is whether the economic case for the UK joining is clear and unambiguous.

  The October 1997 statement acknowledged that to share a common monetary policy with other states does represent a major pooling of economic sovereignty. It also stated that, if the economic benefits are clear and unambiguous, there is no constitutional bar to British membership of EMU.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Child Abuse
  Ms Moran
  To ask the Attorney-General how many cases of child abuse in respect of children aged(a) zero to four years, (b) four to six years and (c) six to 10 years have been forwarded by police forces to the CPS in the last five years; and of those how many (i) have been dropped by the CPS and (ii) were prosecuted in court. [80088]

  The Attorney-General
  The Crown Prosecution Service holds no central records in respect of specific offences. The information requested could be obtained only by examining each relevant file in every CPS office, at disproportionate cost.

  Racial Incidents
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Attorney-General how many(a) prosecutions and (b) convictions there have been for incidents of incitement to racial hatred which took place in the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham in (i) 1997 and (ii) 1998. [79875]

  The Attorney-General
  There have been no prosecutions or convictions for offences of racial hatred located in the Borough of Hammersmith or Fulham in either 1997 or 1998.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Attorney-General how many(a) black and (b) Asian people work in his private office. [79774]

  The Attorney-General
  Information relating to ethnicity is not usually given where numbers are small enough to enable identification of individuals. However, the staff in my private office have consented to the provision of this information. None of the three members of staff at present in my private office is Black or Asian.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Attorney-General how many(a) women and (b) members of ethnic minorities have been appointed as CPS chief crown prosecutors to date. [79779]

  The Attorney-General
  Of the 42 Chief Crown Prosecutors and 3 Assistant Chief Crown Prosecutors for London whose appointments were recently announced, 8 are women and 1 has self-declared as being from an ethnic minority. 4 of those appointed did not complete the Ethnic Minority Self-Declaration form.

  CPS Papers
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Attorney-General what the procedure is for inquiring into leaks of confidential Crown Prosecution Service papers. [79840]

  The Attorney-General
  Crown Prosecution Service security policy requires that all suspected leaks be reported to the Departmental Security Officer. Suspected leaks are then investigated by the CPS rapidly and thoroughly.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will investigate the leak of the internal Crown Prosecution Service report into the police investigation of electoral malpractice in east and north-east London; and if he will make a statement. [79839]

  The Attorney-General
  The Crown Prosecution Service is currently undertaking an inquiry into an alleged leak.

  Freemasons
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Attorney-General, pursuant to his answer of 22 March 1999,Official Report, column 2, on freemasons, what plans he has to publish the register of lawyers declaring their masonic status; and if he will make a statement. [79810]

  The Attorney-General
  The position remains as stated in my answer of 22 March 1999,Official Report, column 2, that the CPS is considering the format of a register in conjunction with the Departments affected by the Government's policy.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Departmental Staff (Ethnic Origin)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide a breakdown, in numerical and percentage terms, of the ethnic origin, at 1 March, of(a) his Private Office, (b) Government special advisers, (c) his policy unit and (d) staff in total. [78498]

  Mr. Straw
  A voluntary self-classification system is used to record the ethnic origin of staff in the Home Office. For my Private Office1 the breakdown of staff by ethnic origin on 22 March is set out in the table. As the numbers of staff with ethnic minority origins within Private Office are small, only a percentage of staff are shown to protect the privacy of individuals (in accordance with the guidelines set out in the Civil Service Ethnic Monitoring Code of Practice).

  Home Office Private Office staff by ethnic origin1,2

  Ethnic origin

  Percentage in Private Office

  Asian-Bangladeshi

  1.6

  Asian-Chinese

  1.6

  Asian-Indian

  6.6

  Asian-Other

  1.6

  Asian-Pakistani

  3.3

  Black-Caribbean

  5

  All Ethnic Minority Groups

  20

  White

  80

  1Ministerial Secretariat (including the Permanent Secretary's Office)

  2 Of those whose ethnicity is recorded 89.5 per cent. of Private Office staff

  5
  With regard to special advisers, I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone). by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office on 22 February 1999, Official Report, column 39.

  With regard to Home Office staff as a whole, I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to him by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office on 31 March 1999, Official Report, columns 710–11.

  I do not have a policy unit.

  Interpol
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many international warrants for arrest and extradition are held by Interpol for citizens of the United Kingdom. [78794]

  Kate Hoey
  I am advised by the National Criminal Intelligence Service that there are currently in circulation 107 Interpol notices in respect of persons who are United Kingdom citizens by birth. This is a figure for notices issued by Interpol bureaux world-wide, under what is known as the Red Notice procedure. In some countries, not including the United Kingdom, a Red Notice may serve as a provisional warrant of arrest for extradition purposes.

  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the procedures by which(a) Her Majesty's Government and (b) the citizen concerned are notified of international warrants for arrest and extradition held by Interpol in respect of UK citizens. [78791]

  Kate Hoey
  This is an operational matter as between Interpol bureaux world-wide. There is no procedure whereby Her Majesty's Government are notified that a United Kingdom citizen is the subject of an Interpol notice. The person concerned will become aware of the fact if and when he is located and arrested.

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate
  Mr. Matins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many telephone lines exist at the Immigration and Nationality Directorate offices in Croydon. [79303]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Immigration and Nationality Directorate Croydon has 377 telephone lines; these are:265 telephone lines which can take incoming calls
  25 telephone lines reserved for members of the public making general immigration inquiries or inquiries about progress of a particular case
  5 telephone lines for requests for an Application Form
  10 lines for inquiries from employers about Immigration Law
  12 lines giving recorded information about the more common type of inquiry
  60 telephone lines which are reserved for outgoing calls
  5,500 telephone extensions which can be directly dialled from outside.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many telephone operators work at the Immigration and Nationality Directorate offices in Croydon. [79302]
  6
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  There are currently fifty-nine officers dealing with telephone inquiries received in the Integrated Casework Directorate based in Croydon. However, approximately 25 per cent. of an operator's time is spent on written work and therefore away from the telephone. In addition, the Croydon estate has two operators who deal with non casework telephone traffic.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to tackle the backlog of work at Lunar House; and over what period. [80395]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I have set up a task team of senior officials and Siemens Business Services to determine the measures necessary to improve services substantially and to tackle the backlog of cases. Steps already taken include special exercises to target priority cases such as work permit applications, changes in procedures that will result in higher productivity, and increased staffing. Levels of service to the public are gradually being restored and improved.

  Clandestine Entrants
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what representations he has made to(a) United Kingdom, (b) European Union and (c) other international business organisations regarding clandestine entrants seeking to enter the United Kingdom through consignments; [78612]

  (2) what advice he has given to United Kingdom businesses concerned in the consignment of goods to the United Kingdom through European Union ports of embarkation about the prevention of clandestine entrants. [78613]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 29 March 1999]: I have had a number of meetings with representatives of the road haulage industry and officials meet regularly with this group and with representatives of shipping and air transport companies. I understand that the transportation companies in their turn have discussions with their customers. There has been little, if any, direct contact between the Home Office and individual businesses regarding the problems of clandestine entrants; and we have not made any separate representations or issued separate advice to those bodies, beyond the representations and advice given to hauliers and other transportation companies.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the extent to which clandestine entrants change vehicles during ferry crossings. [78614]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 29 March 1999]: Neither the Immigration Service nor the major ferry operator at Dover has presented any evidence that would support the suggestion that clandestine entrants change vehicles during ferry crossings. It would be difficult for would-be clandestine entrants to leave one vehicle and enter another on a well-lit car ferry deck monitored by Closed Circuit Television cameras without being seen, and the individuals concerned would gain no advantage by doing so.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what advice he has given to lorry drivers and the road haulage industry as to(a) how to deal

  7
  with clandestine entrants discovered in vehicles on entry to the United Kingdom and (b) the physical risk to drivers in such circumstances. [78610]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 29 March 1999]: The advice given to date relates to safeguards to prevent would-be illegal entrants from securing entry in the first place. Where a driver discovers people in his vehicle whom he suspects may have entered the country illegally, he should inform the police or the local immigration office.

  I welcome the fact that the Freight Transport Association has issued guidance to its members. The Immigration Service will be working closely with the FTA and the Road Haulage Association to develop the proposed Code of Practice. In doing so, they will draw on the FI'A' s helpful advice.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has made to ferry operators in the last 12 months on improving security to prevent clandestine entrants gaining access to the United Kingdom; and if he will list the measure taken as a result. [78611]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 29 March 1999]: Immigration Service staff are in regular contact with the major ferry operators arriving at Dover. Following discussions about clandestine immigration through Belgian ports, a number of changes have been made to port security procedures at Ostend and Zeebrugge. These include increased police patrols on access roads, night patrols in the port area and systematic loading checks. I understand that ferry operators have also met the Calais Chamber of Commerce to discuss improving security at that port.

  Criminal Records Bureau
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he received from voluntary organisations requesting exemption from charges to finance the Criminal Records Bureau; and if he will make a statement. [79533]

  Mr. Boateng
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker) on 30 March 1999,Official Report, columns 608–09.

  Police Contingency Reserves
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 22 February 1999,Official Report, column 105, if he will list those police forces where contingency reserves are lower than the level recommended by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy; and if he will make a statement. [79425]

  Mr. Boateng
  A list of forces with unallocated reserves or balances below the 2.0 per cent. minimum level recommended by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA) is set out as listed. Published figures on police authority reserves relate to a specific point in time and may not give any indication about future commitments. The list reflects the position as at 31 March 1998. The CIPFA advice to police authorities on reserves and balances was issued in December 1998.
  8
  Police Forces with general balances below 2.0 per cent. of net revenue expenditure at 31 March 1998:

  Avon and Somerset

  City of London

  Cumbria

  Dorset

  Dyfed-Powys

  Essex

  Humberside

  Lincolnshire

  Metropolitan Police

  Northumbria

  West Midlands

  West Yorkshire

  Source:

  CIPFA.

  Child Curfew
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department(a) how many local authorities had applied to introduce a local child curfew and (b) were undertaking local consultation on introducing a local child curfew at the latest date for which the information is available. [79426]

  Mr. Boateng
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply given to the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) on 16 March 1999,Official Report, column 590.

  Medway Secure Training Centre
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) assaults on staff by inmates, including those resulting in staff being referred for medical treatment and those leading to criminal charges, (b) assaults on trainees by other trainees and (c) incidents of concerted indiscipline, there have been by young persons at the Medway Secure Training Centre since his answer of 9 November 1999, Official Report, column 43; and if he will make a statement. [79427]

  Mr. Boateng
  In the period from 9 November to end February, the contractor has recorded a total of 18 assaults on staff by trainees. All staff involved were seen by medical staff as a matter of course. 17 assaults on trainees by other trainees have been recorded. None of the incidents led to criminal charges. Two incidents of concerted indiscipline have been recorded.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many trainees there currently are at the Medway Secure Training Centre. [79377]

  Mr. Boateng
  As of 31 March, there were 30 young people at the Medway Secure Training Centre.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff have resigned or been dismissed from the Medway Secure Training Centre since his answer of 9 November 1998,Official Report, column 43; and if he will make a statement. [79428]

  Mr. Boateng
  There have been 10 resignations since 9 November, two of whom have since successfully applied for reinstatement.
  9
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on progress on implementing at the Medway Secure Training Centre each of the recommendations of the Social Services Inspectorate report. [79376]

  Mr. Boateng
  Progress against the agreed action plan is being monitored closely. Measures have already been taken to address the most urgent problems including the introduction of a new staffing structure to strengthen management of the centre, and to improve operational procedures. A programme of refurbishment work is underway, and new staff have been recruited. The Social Services Inspectorate will undertake a further inspection shortly to evaluate progress against the action plan, and the effectiveness of the action already taken.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the current number of staff at the Medway Secure Training Centre is the full complement. [79429]

  Mr. Boateng
  The current number of staff at Medway is 109.5. The agreed staff complement of 100.5 is subject to further review in the light of the Social Services Inspectorate report.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if further contract payments have been reduced since his answer of 9 November 1998,Official Report, column 43, to reflect performance points accumulated in the recent periods at the Medway Secure Training Centre; and if he will make a statement. [79430]

  Mr. Boateng
  At the end of the second and third quarters, contract payments were reduced by £14,730 and £22,691 respectively, reflecting performance points accumulated by the contractor in those periods.

  Police (Private Companies)
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to transfer to private companies functions currently undertaken by police officers. [79380]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government have no such plans.

  Police (Efficiency)
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action his Department will take if police forces fail to make the target 2 per cent. year on year efficiency gains; and if he will make a statement. [79375]

  Mr. Boateng
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced on 21 July 1998,Official Report, column 915, that the police would receive an extra £ 1.24 billion over the next three years. Part of the additional funding for the second and third years will be dependent on forces achieving the target of 2 per cent. efficiency improvements a year set by the Comprehensive Spending Review. The arrangements we have put in place for the Home Office to monitor and review police efficiency plans jointly with Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and the Audit Commission will give forces every opportunity to demonstrate that they are meeting this target, and that the resources released have been reinvested to improve delivery of frontline national and local policing priorities.

  Crime and Disorder Audit
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the deadline for each local crime and disorder audit to be submitted to his Department; if he will list those authorities which have submitted an audit; how many audits have been referred back to local authorities by his Department for further work; what representations he has received concerning the audits; and if he will make a statement. [79378]

  Mr. Boateng
  There is no provision in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 requiring the local crime and disorder reduction partnerships to submit their audits and strategies to my Department for approval. The Act requires that strategies be formulated by 1 April 1999 and published locally. My Department will continue to work with the Audit Commission, Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and other key partners to support the local partnerships in their work and to monitor their effectiveness. I am impressed by what I have seen of their determination to carry out their tasks in an effective and timely manner, but, if there are indications that particular partnerships are failing to exercise their functions under the Act, the Home Secretary is empowered to ask them for a report on their progress.

  Immigration Staff
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the number of(a) immigration officers and (b) other immigration staff who will be employed in dealing with leave to enter in each of the next five years. [78648]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 29 March 1999]: None. The number of staff likely to be dealing with leave to enter over the next five years will depend upon a variety of factors, such as the extent of any growth in international passenger traffic as well as the impact of the measures set out in the White Paper 'Fairer, Faster And Firmer—A Modern Approach To Immigration And Asylum' designed to improve the operation of the on-entry control.

  Lancet Inquiry
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what charges have been made by the Lancet inquiry against the officer whose name has been sent to him; and if he will make a statement. [79412]

  Mr. Boateng
  I have not been sent any names of officers by the Operation Lancet inquiry. No police officers have been charged with offences as a result of Operation Lancet Inquiry to date, but the inquiry is continuing and I understand that a number of possible criminal and disciplinary matters are still under investigation.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of the serving CID officers in Cleveland Police Force are under investigation in the Lancet inquiry; and if he will make a statement. [79409]

  Mr. Boateng
  31 Cleveland CID Officers are under investigation in Operation Lancet. Of these, 8 are suspended, which equates to 4 per cent. of the Force CID strength. The other 23 CID officers have not been suspended and continue to perform their daily duties. The
  11
  duties of the suspended officers are being undertaken by other officers to ensure that the operational effectiveness of the CID is maintained.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate the number of person hours devoted to date to the Lancet inquiry regarding alleged police corruption in Cleveland; and if he will make a statement. [79410]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information requested on the number of person hours devoted to the Operation Lancet Inquiry is not readily available.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 23 March 1999,Official Report, column 173, on the Lancet inquiry, if he will provide a breakdown of the costs of the inquiry; and if he will make a statement. [79588]

  Mr. Boateng
  The breakdown of costs is as follows:

  £000

  Cost of Cleveland Officers (salaries, etc)

  692

  Cost of Northamptonshire Officers (salaries, accommodation and subsistence)

  426

  Other expenditure (overtime, consumable stores, etc)

  129

  Total

  1,247

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the progress of that part of the Lancet inquiry known as the Redwood inquiry in terms of costs and number of police officers involved; and if he will make a statement. [79590]

  Mr. Boateng
  The "Redwood" inquiry is an on-going investigation and, for operational reasons, it would not be appropriate at this stage to make any further comment.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the special inquiry taking place in the Cleveland police force. [79589]

  Mr. Boateng
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave him on 23 March 1999,Official Report, column 173.

  Motor Projects Research
  Mr. McCabe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of those taking part in the projects described in Motor Projects in England and Wales Research Findings No. 81 were offenders in(a) 1993 and (b) 1999. [79339]

  Mr. Boateng
  Research Findings No. 81, 'Motor Projects in England and Wales', examined two-year reconvictions for offenders sentenced to Probation run Motor Projects between the end of 1989 and 1993. No information is available centrally on what proportions of those were offenders in 1999. Of those in the sample, 433 (40 per cent.) were sentenced in 1993.

  Overall, Research Findings No. 81 showed that nearly 80 per cent. of offenders were reconvicted for an offence within two years.

  Mr. McCabe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which of the projects included in the research base described in Motor Projects in England and Wales Research Findings No. 81 still operate. [79395]
  12
  Mr. Boateng
  Research Findings No. 81, "Motor Projects in England and Wales", examined 42 projects. Current information is available on only 21 of these projects which were jointly managed by probation services in partnership with other bodies. Of these 21, the following are still operating: West Yorkshire: "BUMPY" Project

  West Sussex: "Car Offenders Project" (now "Responsible Drivers")

  Shropshire: "Drive" Project

  Inner London: "Ilderton Motor Project"

  Somerset: "Mendip Motor Project" (now "Somerset Motor Project")

  Greater Manchester: "STOP" Project

  Oxfordshire: "TRAX" Motor Project

  Buckinghamshire: "Wheel-right"

  Nottingham: "Wheelbase".

  We are making inquiries about the other 21 projects and I shall write to my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

  Satellite Network Interception
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the proposed agreement on the remote approach to satellite network interceptions at the EU Justice and Home Affairs Council of 12 March; which country objected; on what grounds; and what is the Government's policy on this issue. [79490]

  Kate Hoey
  The remote access approach would enable member states to maintain an interception capability against serious criminals using satellite telephones on their territory. There would be no need to seek the technical assistance of the member state with the ground station in individual cases.

  Italy, which hosts the first satellite ground station in the European Union, took the view at the Council that the member state with the satellite ground station should be given a guarantee that the intercepting member state would protect its constitutional principles and national security when using the remote access approach.

  The Government share the view of other member states that there is no substantive role for the member state with the ground station in the remote access approach. The Government have explained their position to the European Scrutiny Committees in their Explanatory Memorandum of 3 March 1999 on Council document 6195–99. A copy is in the Library.

  EU Justice and Home Affairs Council
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the contents of the papers he intends to present to the EU Justice and Home Affairs Council on(a) mutual recognition of court decisions and judgments and (b) access to justice in civil matters. [79422]

  Kate Hoey
  The United Kingdom's discussion paper on the mutual recognition of court decisions and judgments in criminal matters was submitted to the Article K4 Committee of the European Union on 29 March. It follows up the initiative of the United Kingdom Presidency at the Cardiff European Council,
  13
  the conclusions of which called on the Council to identify the scope for greater mutual recognition of decisions of each other's courts. The paper and an Explanatory Memorandum were deposited for scrutiny on 31 March and a copy of each has been placed in the Library.

  The aim of the initiative is to develop a regime where each state recognises as valid certain pre and post conviction decisions of another member state's judicial authorities with the minimum of formality. Recognition would be given even though the decision has been taken under different laws and rules. The discussion paper develops this idea by setting out the current obstacles to judicial co-operation, current measures to improve judicial co-operation and suggestions on how mutual recognition could contribute towards the long-term development of judicial co-operation in the European Union.

  Mutual recognition of all court decisions is unlikely to be achievable in the near future, but the paper envisages a work programme that identifies short to medium term objectives as well as long term goals, and the preparatory work needed in order to achieve them. The paper proposes that such a programme should include an examination of the following possible proposals: the enforcement of sanctions following criminal convictions; the possibility of dispensing with formal letters of request and dual criminality requirements for mutual legal assistance; the possible abolition of grounds for refusing extradition such as the political offence exception, dual criminality and restrictions of the extradition of member states' own nationals; the possibility of fast track extradition through mutual recognition of arrest warrants and convictions, or a new "Eurowarrant" system; and the possible mutual recognition of orders or warrants concerning assets or evidence.

  The key underlying concept behind the paper is the principle that member states of the European Union should be able to have full confidence in each other's legal systems. Progress towards mutual recognition may therefore depend on agreeing common minimum standards and safeguards, for example on the treatment of suspects in custody and procedures for ensuring that the standards and safeguards are actually applied.

  The issue of access to justice in civil matters falls within the ministerial responsibility of the Lord Chancellor. The paper is still in preparation, but it is intended that it will invite the member states to consider ways of making it easier for people from one European Union country to bring litigation in another, making use of the other member state's legal system. Notwithstanding the Brussels Convention, the costs of such litigation often make it uneconomic to pursue small and medium sized claims and there is clear evidence that the perceived difficulty in obtaining redress if things go wrong is a major deterrent to buying goods abroad. It is, therefore, a significant obstacle to the proper functioning of the internal market.

  This initiative follows up a conference on resolving small claims across borders, hosted by the Lord Chancellor's Department during the United Kingdom Presidency of the European Union last year, and other initiatives already adopted by the Community including the Action Plan on Consumers' Access to Justice.

  Immigration (Latvian Citizens)
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Latvian citizens entered the UK in each of the last five years; how many were refused entry to the United Kingdom; and if he will list the reasons for refusal. [79688]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Latvians were not separately identified in immigration statistics prior to 1998, when 21,800 passengers were admitted and 340 were refused leave to enter and removed from the United Kingdom. 280 of the latter were not considered to be genuinely seeking entry as visitors, nearly 20 had unsatisfactory arrangements or non-genuine intentions for entry as students and over 40 were refused for various other reasons.

  Lobbyists
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish a list, including names and dates, of all meetings that(a) he, (b) his officials, (c) his advisers and (d) his PPS have held during (i) 1997, (ii) 1998 and (iii) 1999 with people who work for political lobbying firms or for businesses that are members of the Public Relations Consultants Association. [79647]

  Mr. Straw
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) on 9 March 1999,Official Report, column 168. The requirements of the Ministerial Code also apply to Parliamentary Private Secretaries when attending any meetings in an official or semi-official capacity.

  CitizenCard
  Mr. Khabra
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what will be the legal status of the proposed CitizenCard; on what basis the cost of the scheme was agreed; and what plans he has to restrict future increases in the cost of obtaining a CitizenCard; [79636]

  (2) if the police will accept the proposed CitizenCard as a legal document; and what arrangements will be made to enable retailers to check the validity of the document.[79637]

  Mr. George Howarth
  CitizenCard is an industry sponsored proof of age scheme which was launched on 15 February. The Government have welcomed it but its operation is a matter for the promoters.

  Mental Illness
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of basic training for police officers relates to mental illness; and what proportion of that training is about the Mental Health Act 1983. [79673]

  Mr. Boateng
  I understand that probationers in both the Metropolitan Police and other forces in England and Wales receive formal training on mental illness amounting to a total of about half a day during the course of their probationer training. In both cases, this training is supplemented by practical role play exercises which can be used to reinforce learning. In addition, a considerable
  15
  time is devoted to vulnerable witnesses and arrested persons during the course of lessons on the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, Codes of Practice and interviewing.

  It is also open to forces and Metropolitan Police areas to provide additional training on this subject if there is a particular need for it locally.

  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many people from (i) black and (ii) other ethnic minorities were detained by the police under section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983 in 1998; [79676]

  (2) how many people were detained by the police under section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983 in 1998; [79675]

  (3) what change there was in the amount of police time spent dealing with mentally disordered people over the five years from 1993 to 1998; [79686]

  (4) how many injuries occurred to (a) persons being conveyed and (b) the police when police were involved in conveying people to hospital or a place of safety under the Mental Health Act 1983 in 1998; [79687]

  (5) what was the average number of hours per week that police officers were involved in conveying people to hospital or a place of safety under the Mental Health Act 1983 in 1998; [79685]

  (6) if he intends to issue guidance to police regarding the restraint of people known to have a mental illness for the purposes of conveying people to hospital under the Mental Health Act 1983; [79674]

  (7) what the average number of hours per week spent by the police detaining people under section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983 was in 1998; [79677]

  (8) how many offences by the person concerned were recorded following a disposal under section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983 in 1998. [79678]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information requested about police activity in respect of mentally disordered people detained under section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983 is not collected centrally. The Self-Defence and Restraint Committee of the Association of Chief Police Officers is currently revising its manual on "conflict resolution" and it is expected that this will contain guidance regarding the restraint of people known to have mental illness. I have been advised that this will be issued later this year.

  Smoke Alarms
  Dr. Brand
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the(a) desirability and (b) practicality of making the installation of smoke alarms in domestic dwellings mandatory; and what steps he is taking to encourage the installation of smoke alarms in domestic dwellings. [79608]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Smoke alarms make a significant contribution to the protection of life and property from fire and I believe it is desirable for every household to have at least one smoke detector. Promoting the need to have a properly maintained smoke alarm is a centre piece of our new strategy to reduce dwelling fire deaths by 20 per cent. by 2003. The Home Office ran a16
  major campaign with the fire service on this theme at the start of the year. I also announced last December a £14 million investment in a new National Community Fire Safety Centre which is intended to help deliver the reduction in fire deaths in the home.

  Since 1992, Buildings Regulations have required all new dwellings in England and Wales to have a smoke alarm installed. This move, together with our wider publicity and educational efforts, has helped to raise smoke alarm ownership levels in all households to 82 per cent. However, ownership levels are much lower in those households which are actually having most fires and we are focusing on how to get the smoke alarm message to the hard to reach groups.

  The possibility of introducing a mandatory requirement on all households was considered by the Community Fire Safety Task Force whose 1997 report, Safe as Houses, outlined a new strategy on reducing fire deaths. The Government accepted their finding that, although such a proposal does have attractions, the enforcement difficulties and the infringements on personal choice were likely to be excessive. Instead, it advocated a far greater level of publicity and education to build upon the significant improvement on ownership levels which have already been achieved. The investment in the new National Centre is designed to deliver that outcome.

  Immigration and Asylum White Paper
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if officials in his Department prepared an assessment of the responses to the White Paper on immigration and asylum. [79710]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Home Office officials provided advice about the responses to the White Paper for consideration by Ministers.

  Rifle Licences
  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many licences have been granted for rifles since the commencement of the compensation scheme for handguns. [79635]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Firearm Certificate Statistics only differentiate firearm certificates and shotgun certificates. There is no centrally kept record of the type(s) of firearm kept on individual certificates. I can say that in the year ending 31 December 1997 (the latest year for which figures are available) 6,800 new firearm certificates were granted. This compares to an annual average of some 10,860 for the previous five years.

  Firearms Compensation
  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many compensation payments of what average value have been made in respect of handguns to date. [79684]

  Mr. Boateng
  Compensation payments averaging £334.89 have been made in respect of 114,195 guns surrendered under Options A and B of the scheme for large-calibre handguns. Corresponding figures for payments under Option C of the scheme are not yet available.

  Feltham Young Offenders Unit
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average amount of time per week spent in purposeful activity by young offenders, in each unit, at Feltham Young Offenders Unit, in each of the last three years. [80020]

  Mr. George Howarth
  At Feltham, records of purposeful activity are not compiled by individual unit, but the figures can be broken down by sections of the population. For 1996–97 and 1997–98, figures can be provided for remand, convicted, therapeutic and new arrivals. For 1998–99, the categories are convicted, remand-short stay, health care centre and segregation/ Waite (anti-bullying) Unit. Purposeful activity is defined as work (including cleaning), education, physical education and church services. The figures are shown in the table.

  Average hours of purposeful activity: HMY01 Feltham

  Year/Section of population

  Average purposeful activity per inmate per week (hours)

  1996–97

  Convicted

  32.14

  Remand

  17.40

  Therapeutics

  28.01

  Arrivals

  15.12

  1996–97

  Convicted

  26.93

  Remand

  16.45

  Therapeutics

  20.01

  Arrivals

  14.66

  1997–981

  Units B, C, D and E (convicted)

  28.94

  Units F, G, Hon. and J (convicted)

  14.39

  Units K, 0 and S (rem/Short stay)

  16.64

  Units L, M and N (rem/short stay)

  10.36

  Units P, Q and R (rem/short stay)

  23.34

  Health care centre

  7.85

  Segregation/Waite Unit

  6.39

  1Up to and including February 1999

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on conditions at Feltham Young Offenders Unit. [79882]

  Mr. George Howarth
  There has not been a marked decline in conditions at Feltham as suggested in the recent report by the Chief Inspector of Prisons. It is accepted that progress has been slow in improving conditions in some areas, although there have been many improvements since the Chief Inspector's last visit. The general cleanliness of the establishment can and will be improved, but there is a problem in only a minority of areas within the prison. New cleaning schedules and arrangements for inspection have now been introduced to ensure that cleaning takes place.

  The problems experienced at Feltham are due mainly to the population pressures being experienced across the prison estate and the industrial relations climate at Feltham. There have also been difficulties in recruiting staff. Remedial action is being taken in an attempt to
  18
  improve recruitment at Feltham, and hence regime provision. Ten new officers are due to start training in April.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average amount of time per day that young offenders were locked in their cells, in each unit, at Feltham Young Offenders Unit, in each of the last three years. [80019]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Prison Service records time out of cell for purposeful activity (work, education and church services) and association. There is no record of other absences from cells, for example for meals, visits and court appearances.

  At Feltham, records of time out of cell are not compiled by individual unit, but the figures can be broken down by sections of the population. For 1996–97 and 1997–98, figures can be provided for remand, convicted, therapeutic and new arrivals. For 1998–99, the categories are convicted, remand/short stay, health care centre and segregation/Waite (anti-bullying) Unit. The figures are shown in the table.

  Average time out of cell: HMYOL Feltham

  Year

  Section of population

  Average time out of cell per inmate per week (hours)

  1996–97

  Convicted

  52.87

  Remand

  42.76

  Therapeutics

  46.16

  Arrivals

  29.08

  1997–98

  Convicted

  47.06

  Remand

  45.57

  Therapeutics

  38.53

  Arrivals

  29.56

  1998–991

  Units B, C, D. and E. (convicted)

  42.75

  Units F, G, H. and J. (convicted)

  24.51

  Units K, 0. and S. (rem/short stay)

  44.00

  Units L, M. and N. (rem/short stay)

  19.54

  Units P, Q. and R. (rem/short stay)

  30.57

  Health care centre

  9.07

  Segregation/Waite Unit2

  11.55

  1Up to and including February 1999

  2Sample figure for week 49; average figure unavailable

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he intends to take following the publication of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons' report on Feltham Young Offenders Unit; and if he will make a statement. [79881]

  Mr. George Howarth
  On receipt of the Chief Inspector's report, the Director General of the Prison Service established a taskforce to remedy the shortcomings which had been identified. The taskforce, led by a senior governor, has charted a plan for improvement which will be implemented over the next six months.

  Already, additional finance has been allocated for urgent capital spending, and major refurbishment work will start in the next financial year. More immediate improvements to cleaning schedules and mattress and

  19
  blanket provision are already in hand, and additional work and education for approximately 80 prisoners will be brought on stream in the summer.

  Treaty of Amsterdam
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list, by Treaty Article, those elements of the Amsterdam Treaty in which, during the EU's Justice and Home Affairs Council of 12 March, he indicated a willingness to participate. [80150]

  Kate Hoey
  At the Justice and Home Affairs Council on 12 March, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary indicated that the United Kingdom was interested in developing co-operation with European Union partners on asylum and civil judicial co-operation, as well as in immigration policy and co-operation against illegal immigration. Such co-operation would be subject to the conditions laid down in the Protocol on the Position of the United Kingdom and Ireland and would take place only where there was no conflict with the maintenance of our frontier controls. The relevant Articles are Articles 61 to 69 of Title IV of the Treaty establishing the European Community, as amended by the Treaty of Amsterdam.

  My right hon. Friend also indicated the United Kingdom's intention to continue to play a full role in law enforcement and criminal judicial co-operation and, in accordance with the Protocol integrating the Schengen acquis into the framework of the European Union, to seek participation in the Schengen acquis in the areas of police and criminal judicial co-operation, including the Schengen Information System. The legal basis for the Schengen acquis within the European Union Treaties has not yet been decided but the areas of police and criminal judicial co-operation are broadly covered by Articles 29-42 of the Treaty on European Union, as amended by the Treaty of Amsterdam.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the reduction in the number of animals required for procedures, for the last year for which figures are available, as a result of the use of alternatives to animal testing. [80097]

  Mr. George Howarth
  It is not possible to make such an estimate primarily because the use of non-animal tests is not regulated under the terms of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 and we are not, therefore, in a position to collect data on the use of these alternatives.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to ban the LD50 animal test. [80136]

  Mr. George Howarth
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) on 3 December 1998,Official Report, column 110.

  Whilst we await the deletion of the LD50 test from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's guidelines, we will authorise the LD50 test only where the applicant can demonstrate a regulatory requirement to use this test rather than an alternative.
  20
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) on how many occasions have the non-animal alternative skin corrosivity tests been used for the purposes of testing household products since their validation by the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods in 1997; [80133]

  (2) on how many occasions has the non-animal alternative photoirritation test been used for the purposes of testing household products since their validation in 1997. [80134]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The use of non-animal tests is not regulated under the terms of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 and we are not, therefore, in a position to collect data on the use of these alternatives.

  The use of animals in such tests will be allowed only if the applicant can demonstrate a regulatory requirement to use the animal test rather than an alternative.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the definition of household product used by his Department for the purposes of the statistics relating to scientific procedures on living animals. [80135]

  Mr. George Howarth
  There is no definition of household product in United Kingdom law or European Directives. The only formal guidance given to licence holders in collating figures for the annual statistics is that contained in the notes accompanying the annual "Return of procedures by project" form (published as Appendix C to the "Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals", Great Britain, 1997). This instructs licence holders to use a particular code to record procedures carried out for a toxicological or other safety-related purpose (including efficacy, quality control, or other regulatory purpose) for substances "used in the household".

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many of the animal tests to judge the safety of household products, listed in Table 10a of the Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals in Great Britain 1997 were(a) photoirritation tests, (b) skin corrosivity tests, (c) LD50 tests and (d) fixed-dose procedure tests; and on which species of animal these tests were carried out in 1997; [80130]

  (2) on how many occasions in 1997 fixed-dose procedure tests on animals were used as replacements for LD50 tests (a) for household products and (b) otherwise. [80131]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The information collected during the annual statistics collection exercise cannot be broken down in this way. For example: LD50, fixed-dose procedure and other tests can be returned as acute quantitative lethal toxicity tests. Similarly, photoirritation and skin corrosivity tests might be recorded under either tests for skin irritation or tests for skin sensitisation.

  Although the United Kingdom already demands a level of statistical reporting beyond the requirements of the European Directive 86/609 and European Convention ETS 123 (and beyond that required by other member states), the figures for 1999, to be published in 2000, will be further refined to distinguish LD50 tests from other acute quantitative lethal toxicity tests.
  21
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the animal tests for household products were for(a) finished household products and (b) ingredients for household products, in 1997. [80132]

  Mr. George Howarth
  In returning data for the annual statistics on animal use, licensees are not required to distinguish between finished household product testing and the testing of ingredients intended for household products.

  The Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals for 1997 show that 2,026 procedures were carried out for the testing of "substances used in the household" (both ingredients and finished products) for toxicology or other safety/efficacy evaluation.

  Ethnic Minority Police (Hammersmith and Fulham)
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many ethnic minority police officers are currently stationed at(a) Hammersmith and (b) Fulham police stations. [79871]

  Kate Hoey
  The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police tells me that as at 31 March 1999 there were 11 ethnic minority police officers stationed at Hammersmith Police Station and 6 at Fulham Police Station.

  Stop and Search (Hammersmith and Fulham)
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases of stop and search were recorded for(a) 1997 and (b) 1998 by (i) Hammersmith and (ii) Fulham police stations; and how many of these led to arrest for each of the years. [79873]

  Kate Hoey
  The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police has provided the following information:

  1997

  1998

  (i) Hammersmith division

  Stop and searches

  4,332

  5,552

  Arrests resulting

  560

  656

  (ii) Fulham division

  Stop and searches

  3,030

  3,661

  Arrests resulting

  280

  337

  Note:

  Figures are for calendar year

  Racial Crime (Hammersmith and Fulham)
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many racially motivated assaults were recorded for(a) 1997 and (b) 1998 by(i) Hammersmith and (ii) Fulham police stations. [79872]

  Kate Hoey
  The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police tells me that in the calendar year 1997 there were 6 racially motivated assaults recorded in Hammersmith Division and 4 in Fulham Division. In the calendar year 1998, 53 racially motivated assaults were recorded in Hammersmith Division and 22 in Fulham Division.

  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases of incitement to racial hatred were(a) reported, (b) investigated and (c) the subject of arrest in (i) Hammersmith and (ii) Fulham police stations in (1) 1997 and (2) 1998. [79874]
  22
  Kate Hoey
  The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police has provided the following information about cases of incitement to racial hatred:

  Year

  Reported

  Investigated

  Arrested

  (i) Hammersmith Division

  1997

  50

  50

  9

  1998

  159

  159

  52

  (ii) Fulham Division

  1997

  24

  24

  0

  1998

  106

  106

  6

  Note:

  Figures are for calendar year

  Coroners
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many coroners are(a) women, (b) from ethnic minorities, (c) medical practitioners or former medical practitioners, (d) solicitors or former solicitors and (e) barristers or former barristers; how many coroners there are in total; and if he will make a statement. [79802]

  Mr. George Howarth
  According to the latest available information, there are some 137 coroners, of whom seven are women, and 15 are, or have been, medical practitioners. No information is held centrally either on the number of appointments from within the ethnic minority communities or on the number of coroners who are by origin solicitors or barristers.

  Mr. John Kamara
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for how long the Criminal Cases Review Commission has been considering the case of Mr. John Kamara. [80155]

  Kate Hoey
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave her on 22 February 1999,Official Report, column 124.

  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what steps the Criminal Cases Review Commission has taken to make progress on the case of Mr. John Kamara since 22 February; [80154]

  (2) when the Criminal Cases Review Commission expects to make a decision on whether to refer the case of Mr. John Kamara to the Court of Appeal. [80153]

  Kate Hoey
  I understand from the Criminal Cases Review Commission that the consideration of Mr. Kamara's case by a committee of three Commission members, which was due to take place last month, has had to be postponed until later this month for operational reasons. The case committee may decide either whether or not to refer the case to the Court of Appeal or that further investigation is required.

  Rape Crisis Centres
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to provide financial support to(a) rape crisis centres and (b) women's refuges in the UK. [79900]

  Mr. Boateng
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) on 30 March 1999,Official Report, columns 601–02.

  Prisoners (Diseases)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what changes have taken place in the past 10 years in the proportion of prisoners suffering from(a) hepatitis, (b) HIV/AIDS and (c) TB. [80250]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Complete information is not available in the form requested. The information given in the table has been collated from a number of databases held centrally, based on returns from prison establishments. The table shows new cases of hepatitis B and tuberculosis in England and Wales for 1988–89 and 1997–98.

  New cases of hepatitis B and tuberculosis in prisons (England and Wales) 1988–89 and 1997–98

  1998–89

  1997–98

  Hepatitis B (acute/chronic)

  347

  246

  Average daily population of prison

  49,784

  62,584

  Proportion of population

  0.70%

  0.39%

  Tuberculosis

  22

  50

  Average daily population of prison

  49,784

  62,584

  Proportion of population

  0.0442%

  0.0799%

  Note:

  Arrangements for the collection of data on HIV/AIDS varied during the period. No statistics are provided since valid comparisons would be very difficult to make.

  Needle Exchanges (Prisons)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to allow needle exchanges in prison. [80249]

  Mr. George Howarth
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave on 17 December 1998,Official Report, column 728.

  Domestic Violence
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will review homicide law as it relates to victims of domestic violence who kill partners who have abused them. [80183]

  Mr. Boateng
  No. The law on murder can already respond with flexibility to the particular circumstances of domestic violence victims. Self-defence is a complete defence to a charge of murder which if successful, results in the acquittal of the defendant. Provocation is a partial defence to murder, which reduces the offence to manslaughter. The other partial defence to murder, that of diminished responsibility, is also successfully pleaded in some domestic homicide cases. In such cases, the onus is on the prosecution to prove beyond all reasonable doubt the absence of, for example, provocation or self-defence on the part of the defendant.

  Prison Deaths (Notification)
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 22 March 1999,Official Report, column 31, on Prison Deaths (Notification), if the Follow Up To Deaths In Custody document includes (i) guidance on the timescale and (ii) a maximum delay for the notification of relatives following the death of a patient in hospital. [80565]
  24
  Mr. George Howarth
  Next of kin should be notified as soon as possible following a death in prison custody. Because individual circumstances may differ, the Prison Service Order does not set minimum or maximum timescales. The same principles apply if a prisoner dies in an outside hospital.

  British Summer Time
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the advantages and disadvantages of maintaining British Summer Time throughout the year. [79921]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The issues remain very much as set out in the previous Government's 1989 Green Paper "Summer Time—A Consultation Document". The responses revealed marked divergences of opinion. We will continue to listen to all sides of the argument, but have no current plans to publish a fresh analysis or to propose changing the present summer time arrangements.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received regarding the effect on(a) the number of accidents and (b) mortality rates if British Summer Time were to be maintained throughout the year. [79922]

  Mr. George Howarth
  I periodically receive representations from hon. Members, members of the public and interests groups in favour of continuous British summer time or Central European Time. They generally argue that lighter evenings would reduce road deaths and injuries overall.

  Liverpool Nationality Office
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to reply to the letter of 3 February from the hon. Member for Aylesbury concerning his constituents Mr. and Mrs. Sutton and the Liverpool Nationality Office. [79837]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I sent a reply to the hon. Member on 7 April. I regret the delay in responding.

  Schengen Agreement
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the answer of 24 March 1999,Official Report, column 299, if he has requested UK participation in aspects of the Schengen Agreement under Article 4 of the Protocol. [80108]

  Kate Hoey
  A formal application for participation under Article 4 of the Protocol integrating the Schengen acquis into the framework of the European Union can be made only once the Treaty of Amsterdam comes into force.

  Charity Fund-Raising
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what plans he has for tighter regulation of charity fund-raising; and if he will make a statement; [80185]

  (2) what discussions he has had with the Charity Commissioners regarding bogus fund-raisers; and if he will make a statement; [80186]
  25
  (3) if he will seek to provide the police with powers to confiscate takings from bogus charity collectors. [80187]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Home Office works closely with the Charity Commission and all Government Departments on matters relating to the charitable sector.

  The police already have the power to seize anything that is evidence of an offence. The decision on whether such property should be confiscated is a matter for the courts under section 71 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and section 43 of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973.

  Under the Charities Act 1993 the Charity Commission can investigate when it appears that funds raised on charitable trusts may be at risk. The Commission can, and does, freeze bank accounts and appoint new trustees where this is necessary.

  The Commission also works closely with the police and local authorities to ensure, as far as possible, that money donated by members of the public is used for the purposes intended by the donors. It also seeks to raise the public's awareness of the problems posed by bogus fund-raising, and gives advice on how people may donate safely. Prosecutions are a matter for the police and the Crown Prosecution Service.

  Defendants prosecuted at magistrates' courts and convicted1 at all courts for violent offences against children, 1993–97 England and Wales

  Number of persons

  Prosecutions

  Offences

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Indictable Offences

  Violence against the person

  Murder of Infant under 1 year of age

  12

  10

  11

  15

  14

  Infanticide

  2

  1

  1

  1

  —

  Child destruction

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Cruelty to, or neglect of children

  380

  470

  519

  505

  608

  Abandoning children under 2 years

  2

  4

  12

  3

  1

  Child abduction

  69

  82

  98

  89

  77

  Concealment of Birth

  4

  3

  —

  2

  1

  Sexual offences

  Buggery with a boy under the age of 16 or with a woman or an animal

  294

  345

  125

  16

  —

  Attempt to commit buggery with a boy under the age of 16 or with a woman or an animal

  15

  21

  6

  3

  —

  Buggery by a male of a male under 162

  5—

  5—

  48

  66

  107

  Buggery by a male with a female under 162

  5—

  5—

  25

  26

  35

  Indecent assault on male person under 16 years

  432

  449

  400

  325

  373

  Gross indecency by a male aged 21 or over with a male aged under 183

  5—

  5—

  10

  9

  30

  Gross indecency by a male aged 18–20 with a male aged under 183

  5—

  5—

  1

  3

  Rape of a female aged under 164

  5—

  5—

  336

  477

  592

  Rape of a male aged under 162

  5—

  5—

  18

  20

  45

  Attempted rape of a female aged under 164

  5—

  5—

  32

  44

  74

  Attempted rape of a male aged under 164

  5—

  5—

  —

  4

  5

  Indecent assault on a female under 16

  1,896

  2,036

  1,797

  1,604

  1,639

  Unlawful sexual intercourse with girl under

  97

  88

  77

  40

  40

  Incest with a girl under

  52

  41

  22

  26

  14

  Inciting girl under 16 to have incestuous sexual intercourse

  2

  5

  3

  2

  7

  Householder permitting unlawful sexual intercourse with girl under

  8

  —

  4

  4

  3

  Person responsible for girl under 16 causing or encouraging her
  prostitution etc.

  —

  1

  —

  2

  —

  Male aged 21 or over procuring or attempting to procure a male under
  18 of gross indecency with another male3

  5—

  1

  —

  6

  Abduction of unmarried girl under 16

  13

  27

  11

  9

  6

  Gross indecency with boys aged 14 and under

  102

  87

  62

  61

  63

  Gross indecency with girls aged 14 and under

  155

  129

  109

  97

  109

  Summary Offences

  Violent offences

  Cruelty to or neglect of children

  3

  7

  3

  4

  4

  26
  Part II of the Charities Act 1992, which came into effect on 1 March 1995, contains important controls in relation to professional and commercial involvement in charitable fund-raising. Part III of the Act, which has yet to be brought into force, seeks to rationalise the provisions for the licensing of street collections and house to house collections currently contained in the Police, Factories Etc (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1916 and the House to House Collections Act 1939. Consideration is currently being given to the implementation of Part III.

  Child Abuse
  Ms Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many successful prosecutions have been achieved in cases of child abuse in respect of children aged (i) zero to four years, (ii) four to six years and (iii) six to 10 years, in each of the last five years. [80087]

  Mr. Boateng
  Those who abuse children can be charged with a number of offences. However, some of these offences, such as assault causing actual bodily harm and common assault, are mostly used to prosecute those who attack and injure adults and it is not possible to identify child victims from the overall statistics. The table shows the statistics for those offences where it is possible to identify a child victim. No further age breakdown is available centrally.
  27

  England and Wales

  Number of persons

  Convictions1

  Offences

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Indictable Offences

  Violence against the person

  Murder of Infant under 1 year of age

  2

  2

  6

  8

  11

  Infanticide

  5

  3

  2

  4

  3

  Child destruction

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Cruelty to, or neglect of children

  209

  238

  317

  293

  390

  Abandoning children under 2 years

  1

  7

  —

  1

  Child abduction

  32

  36

  66

  52

  40

  Concealment of Birth

  2

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Sexual offences

  Buggery with a boy under the age of 16 or with a woman or an animal

  136

  135

  86

  5

  —

  Attempt to commit buggery with a boy under the age of 16 or with a

  woman or an animal

  20

  16

  14

  2

  —

  Buggery by a male of a male under 162

  5—

  5—

  29

  66

  70

  Buggery by a male with a female under 162

  5—

  5—

  7

  17

  21

  Indecent assault on male person under 16 years

  293

  324

  339

  355

  363

  Gross indecency by a male aged 21 or over with a male aged under 183

  5—

  11

  11

  17

  Gross indecency by a male aged 18–20 with a male aged under 185

  5—

  5—

  —

  —

  2

  Rape of a female aged under 164

  5—

  5—

  113

  210

  198

  Rape of a male aged under 164

  5—

  5—

  2

  13

  24

  Attempted rape of a female aged under 164

  5—

  5—

  21

  35

  52

  Attempted rape of a male aged under 164

  5—

  2

  2

  5

  Indecent assault on a female under 16

  1,205

  1,355

  1,446

  1,597

  1,627

  Unlawful sexual intercourse with girl under 13

  76

  64

  81

  54

  44

  Incest with a girl under 13

  51

  35

  21

  19

  19

  Inciting girl under 16 to have incestuous sexual intercourse

  2

  4

  5

  —

  3

  Householder permitting unlawful sexual intercourse with girl under 16

  6

  2

  3

  —

  1

  Person responsible for girl under 16 causing or encouraging her prostitution etc.

  1

  —

  3

  1

  1

  Male aged 21 or over procuring or attempting to procure a male under

  18 of gross indecency with another male3

  5—

  5—

  2

  3

  6

  Abduction of unmarried girl under 16

  6

  9

  6

  3

  1

  Gross indecency with boys aged 14 and under

  80

  77

  56

  53

  56

  Gross indecency with girls aged 14 and under

  123

  112

  99

  109

  111

  Summary Offences

  Violent offences

  Cruelty to or neglect of children

  2

  2

  3

  3

  1

  1Includes persons proceeded against in earlier years or for other offences.

  2Buggery and attempted buggery offences under the Sexual Offences Act 1956 Section 12 as amended by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, Section 143.

  3Indecency between males offences under the Sexual Offences Act 1956 Section 12 as amended by the Criminal Justice Public Order Act Act 1994, Section 144.

  4Rape and attempted rape offences under the Sexual Offences Act 1956 Section 1 as amended by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, Section 142.

  5Not available.

  Public Gatherings (Parliament Square)
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the procedures governing the granting of permission for public gatherings in Parliament Square. [79167]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 29 March 1999]: I have been asked to reply.

  Responsibility for the subject of this question has been delegated to the Royal Parks Agency under its Chief Executive, David Welch. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Viviane Robertson to Mr. Peter Ainsworth, dated 13 April 1999:
  In the absence of the Chief Executive, Mr. David Welch, I have been asked by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to answer your Parliamentary Question about public gatherings on Parliament Square because this is a subject for which the Royal Parks Agency is responsible.
  28
  We rarely give permission for public gatherings in Parliament Square at any time, and particularly while Parliament is sitting, when Sessional Orders require the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police to keep the roads leading to the House open.
  Although the Agency is responsible for the management of Parliament Square, we are not responsible for the roads that surround it. Consequently, on the rare occasions we do receive such a request, we consult the Parliamentary authorities and the Metropolitan Police before deciding whether to approve the gathering.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee what plans the Committee has for arranging for power to be obtained for the House from renewable energy sources. [80001]
  29
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  Power for the House is purchased in the competitive market on the basis of lowest price and at present we have no plans to change this policy. Energy can be obtained from renewable sources at a premium price, depending on the source.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Death Penalty (Commonwealth Countries)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the President of the Council how many cases are currently under consideration by the Privy Council concerning the possible use of the death penalty in Commonwealth countries. [80025]

  Mrs. Beckett
  Thirteen appeals and a further 15 applications for leave to appeal in capital cases from Commonwealth countries are currently registered with the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Judgment has yet to be given in two capital appeals already heard by the Committee.

  Lobbyists
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the President of the Council if she will publish a list, including names and dates, of all meetings that(a) she, (b) her officials, (c) her advisers and (d) her PPS have held during (i) 1997, (ii) 1998 and (iii) 1999 with people who work for political lobbying firms or for businesses that are members of the Public Relations Consultants Association. [79643]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) on 9 March 1999,Official Report, column 168.

  The requirements of the Ministerial Code also apply to Parliamentary Private Secretaries when attending meetings in an official or semi-official capacity.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Magistrates Courts
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department how many magistrates' courts in England and Wales still in use are over 100 years old; and if he will make a statement. [79697]

  Mr. Hoon
  The magistrates courts of England and Wales are a locally managed service in accordance with the provisions of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997. Buildings, that house magistrates courts are owned or leased by local authorities. The information requested is not collected centrally. It may be provided only at disproportionate cost by contacting each local authority.

  Lobbyists
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will publish a list, including names and dates, of all meetings that(a) he, (b) his officials, (c) his advisers and (d) his PPS have held during (i) 1997, (ii) 1998 and (iii) 1999 with people who work for political lobbying firms or for businesses that are members of the Public Relations Consultants Association. [79645]
  30
  Mr. Hoon
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) on 9 March 1999,Official Report, column 168. The requirements of the Ministerial Code also apply to Parliamentary Private Secretaries when attending meetings in an official or semi-official capacity.

  Environmental Appraisals
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what environmental appraisals of policy his Department has(a) completed, (b) started and (c) planned. [79631]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions "Policy Appraisal and the Environment: Policy Guidance" leaflet has been circulated (in May 1998) to all senior officials with policy responsibilities with an instruction that environmental appraisals are to be carried out on all new policies and programmes likely to have a significant impact on the environment. The policies currently under consideration have no environmental impact.

  Judges
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) how many judges have been subjected to(a) formal and (b) informal sanctions for breaches of the rules restricting commercial and non-commercial activities in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement; [79797]

  (2) what (a) formal and (b) informal sanctions may be applied in the event of a judge breaching the rules or the restrictions relating to commercial and non-commercial activities; and if he will make a statement; [79798]

  (3) what plans he has to review the sanctions available in the case of a judge breaching the rules restricting commercial and non-commercial activities. [79799]

  Mr. Hoon
  If the Lord Chancellor believed that there was legitimate cause for concern about a judge's commercial or non-commercial activities, he would consider on an individual basis what action, if any, he might take. The only statutory sanction applicable to holders of full-time judicial office up to the level of Circuit Judge is removal from office, for misbehaviour serious enough to justify that course of action. If the Lord Chancellor had reason to believe that a judge had participated in activities which might be incompatible with judicial office, he would take account of the judge's comments before considering what further action, if any, was necessary. No holders of judicial office have been removed from office for reasons connected to their commercial or non-commercial activities within the last 3 years. Information is not available on the number of occasions on which informal clarification of the position on commercial or non-commercial activities may have been sought. The Lord Chancellor has no plans to review these arrangements.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what steps are taken on the appointment of(a) full-time and (b) part-time judges to bring to their attention the rules relating to the restrictions on commercial and non-commercial activities; and if he will make a statement. [79793]
  31
  Mr. Hoon
  All full-time judges are provided on appointment with documentation which includes guidance on outside activities and incorporates advice on the rule that no full-time judge should hold a commercial directorship. All holders of judicial office are able to consult either the Lord Chancellor or other senior members of the judiciary if they have any doubts about the application of the guidance in particular circumstances. These provisions do not apply to part-time judges.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to review the restrictions on the commercial and non-commercial activities of judges; and if he will make a statement. [79796]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Lord Chancellor is satisfied in principle with the present provisions relating to activities considered incompatible with judicial office, which are of long standing, but he has decided to review the precise terms of the guidance issued to new appointees on these provisions so as to make sure they are both clear and up-to-date. These provisions are, of course, separate from any question of conflict of interest arising in individual cases, on which all holders of judicial office are expected to comply with the existing case law.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department how many(a) full-time and (b) part-time judges have (i) non-commercial and (ii) commercial company directorships. [79800]

  Mr. Hoon
  This information is not collected. The information may be held in respect of those individual members of the judiciary who have volunteered the information to the Lord Chancellor's Department, but it is not possible to identify all such individuals from the Department's records without incurring disproportionate costs. All full-time judges receive on appointment guidance which advises them that they should not hold commercial directorships.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department in what circumstances a High Court Judge is permitted to conduct personal(a) social and (b) commercial meetings within the Royal Courts of Justice. [79801]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Lord Chancellor expects judges to exercise personal responsibility for the use which is made of their chambers in the Royal Courts of Justice, having regard to the interests of the taxpayer. Chambers are made available to judges as an aid to the performance of their judicial duties, but it would be unobjectionable for them, in their discretion, to make occasional use of them for social or personal purposes not inconsistent with the performance of those duties and having due regard to the interests of the taxpayer.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what restrictions apply to(a) full-time and (b) part-time judges in respect of (i) holding company directorships, (ii) holding shares in private limited companies, (iii) holding shares in public limited companies, (iv) being members of barristers' chambers, (v) being members of solicitors' partnerships, (vi) being members of commercial partnerships and (vii) having other commercial interests; and if he will make a statement. [79804]
  32
  Mr. Hoon
  Holders of full-time judicial office are prohibited, under section 75 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, from practising as banisters or solicitors and from being indirectly concerned in any such practice. They are also advised on appointment that they should discontinue any professional or business links with their former chambers or firm. In addition, full-time judges are advised that they should not hold commercial directorships. There is no objection to judges holding shares in either a private or a public limited company, and there is normally no objection to taking part in the management of a family estate or farming their own land. The extent to which other commercial interests would be subject to the same constraint as applies to commercial directorships would depend on the individual circumstances, but a commercial partnership would normally be treated similarly. These various provisions do not apply to holders of part-time judicial office. However, all holders of judicial office are advised to refrain from participating in any activity which might conflict with judicial office. In addition, all holders of judicial office must have regard to the case law governing conflicts of interest, which will apply in any individual case in which the possibility arises of a conflict between the judge's private interests and those of any person or party involved in the case.

  Social Security Commissioners
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department how many social security commissioners are(a) women, (b) from ethnic minorities, (c) solicitors or former solicitors and (d) banisters or former barristers; what is the total number of commissioners; and if he will make a statement. [79792]

  Mr. Hoon
  There are a total of 46 Social Security Commissioners in post. The breakdown is as follows: 12 are female and 34 are male; 26 are barristers (or former barristers); 16 are solicitors (or former solicitors); and the remaining 4 are neither barristers nor solicitors. So far as an ethnic breakdown is concerned, to enable the Lord Chancellor to monitor the effectiveness of policies designed to attract more members of the ethnic community to apply for judicial appointment, candidates are requested to indicate their ethnic origin on their application. This is a recent introduction to the appointment process and candidates are not compelled to answer. Therefore, from records currently held I cannot provide an ethnic breakdown. I do not propose to make a statement.

  Employment Tribunals (Chairmen)
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department how many(a) full-time and (b) part-time chairmen of employment tribunals are (i) women, (ii) from ethnic minorities, (iii) solicitors or former solicitors and (iv) banisters or former banisters; and what is the total number of (1) full-time and (2) part-time chairmen in post. [79784]

  Mr. Hoon
  There are a total of 84 full-time Chairmen of Employment Tribunals in post. The breakdown is as follows: 71 are male, of which 28 are former banisters and 43 are former solicitors; and 13 are female, of which 6 are former banisters and 7 are former solicitors. There are a total of 204 part-time Chairmen of Employment Tribunals in post. The breakdown is as follows: 170 are male, of which 47 are barristers (or former banisters) and
  33
  123 are solicitors (or former solicitors); and 33 are female, of which 9 are barristers (or former banisters) and 24 are solicitors (or former solicitors).

  So far as an ethnic breakdown is concerned, to enable the Lord Chancellor to monitor the effectiveness of policies designed to attract more members of the ethnic community to apply for judicial appointment, candidates are requested to indicate their ethnic origin on their application. This is a recent introduction to the appointment process and candidates are not compelled to answer. Therefore, full and detailed records are not available. However, from records that are available, I can indicate that, of the 84 full-time Chairmen, one is Asian, 29 are White and three are West Indian. Of the 204 part-time Chairmen, 22 are White and three are West Indian.

  Judicial Appointments
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to extend the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and Race Relations Act 1976 to the appointments procedures for(a) QCs and (b)judges; and if he will make a statement. [79795]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Government are currently considering proposals for changes to the Sex Discrimination and Race Relations legislation, including whether these might have any implications for judicial appointments and appointments as Queen's Counsel.

  Public Record Office Files
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will place copies of the following Public Record Office files in the Library,(a) group LAB, class 10, piece number 2539, (b) group FS, class 24, piece number 19, (c) group FS, class 27, piece number 486, (d) group LAB, class 10, piece number 3106, (e) group LAB, class 10, piece number 3150 and (f) group LAB, class 10, piece number 1715. [80440]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Public Record Office will supply copies of the files to the Library on payment of the copying fees prescribed by The Public Record Office (Fees) Regulations 1999 (SI 1999/691). The files themselves may be consulted free of charge at the Public Record Office.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the parliamentary constituencies which he has visited in an official capacity in the past 12 months. [71334]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  [holding answer 15 February 1999]: I have carried out official engagements as Foreign Secretary at venues in the following constituencies:

  Edinburgh, Central

  Birmingham, Ladywood

  Cardiff, Central

  Cotswold

  Hayes and Harlington

  Grantham and Stamford.

  Departmental Budget
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was his Department's budget in cash terms and at 1998–99 prices for the years(a) 1992–93 to 1998–99 and (b) his estimate for 1999–2000 to 2001–02. [77335]

  Mr. Fatchett
  [holding answer 22 March 1999]: For the years 1993–94 onwards, I refer the hon. Member to the 1999 Foreign and Commonwealth Office Departmental Report, pages 4 and 5. A copy has been placed in the Library of the House. The figures for 1992–93, adjusted according to the same deflators as the figures in the Departmental Report, are:

  Total FOC budget (£m)

  Cash terms

  Real terms (1998–99 prices)

  1992–93

  1,242

  1,441

  GCHQ
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of potential interference to GCHQ transmissions from the development of technology to deliver high-speed internet connections via powerlines; and if he will make a statement. [78869]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  The Radiocommunications Agency has advised that any system providing high-speed internet access through mains electricity wiring has the potential to cause radio frequency interference. This means that any proposed system would need rigorous trials in order to avoid risk to the national user interest.

  Strategic Export Controls (Annual Report)
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to include contributions from the Secretary of State for International Development in future strategic export controls annual reports. [79712]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The Department for International Development will continue to be fully consulted in line with its policy responsibilities on the format and content of future reports on strategic export controls.

  Lobbyists
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish a list, including names and dates, of all meetings that(a) he, (b) his officials, (c) his advisers and (d) his PPS have held during (i) 1997, (ii) 1998 and (iii) 1999 with people who work for political lobbying firms or for businesses that are members of the Public Relations Consultants Association. [79649]

  Mr. Fatchett
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 9 March 1999,Official Report, column 168.

  The requirements of the Ministerial Code also apply to Parliamentary Private Secretaries when attending any meetings in an official or semi-official capacity.
  35

  Greece
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what cultural exchange programmes he is currently planning with the Greek Government; and if he will make a statement. [79696]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The cultural exchange programme agreed with the Greek Government in 1998 provides a framework for the full range of artistic and cultural activity. We enjoy a dynamic bilateral partnership. For example, the next few months will see tours of Greece by British theatre and dance companies, and exhibitions and premieres of visual arts and music by Greek artists in the UK. Many of these events follow on from the "Britain and Greece" Festival in November and December 1998, devised and delivered by the British Council in Greece, and promoted by the British Embassy. The cultural components of this Festival included concerts, theatre, lectures, exhibitions, films and conferences. The Greek Prime Minister and other Government Ministers attended several events. Media coverage was strong, including 216 press articles on individual events and 70 on the general Festival, and 89 TV mentions across 7 channels.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will provide details of the equipment to be provided by the United Kingdom to ECOMOG, as part of the United Kingdom's £10 million package of assistance to Sierra Leone; and what assurances he has received about its use. [80720]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We continue to believe that lasting peace in Sierra Leone cannot be achieved by military means alone. But for a negotiated solution to be achieved, the people and Government of Sierra Leone must be secure.

  On 30 March 1999, Official Report, column 567, I announced that £5 million of the UK's new £10 million package of assistance for Sierra Leone would be made available to provide further equipment for ECOMOG; and that deliveries of equipment would be arriving shortly. This is to support ECOMOG's efforts to protect the people and the democratically elected Government of Sierra Leone. As part of our package of assistance to ECOMOG, we are providing logistic support in the form of vehicles, boots and rations, as well as light weapons and ammunition.

  We have secured assurances from ECOMOG that this equipment will be used only in accordance with internationally acceptable human rights standards and humanitarian law. We have made it clear to ECOMOG that our support is conditional on ECOMOG and the Government of Sierra Leone respecting human rights.

  In accordance with normal practice, we will notify the United Nations Sanctions Committee once we have precise details of the consignments. We have received assurances from ECOMOG and the Government of Sierra Leone that the equipment will remain in Sierra Leone when ECOMOG eventually departs.

  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to publish the Government's response to the Foreign Affairs Committee report on Sierra Leone (HC 116 of Session 1998–99). [80721]
  36
  Mr. Robin Cook
  The Government's response will be published today.

  Human Rights (China)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the position of the Government at the meeting of the UN Commission for Human Rights on 22 March in respect of China. [79663]

  Mr. Fatchett
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) on 24 March 1999,Official Report, column 301.

  Senator Pinochet
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the Head of the Latin America and Caribbean Department plans to reply to the request by the Chilean Ambassador for assistance in obtaining return passage to Chile for Senator Pinochet. [80163]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We are not aware of any such outstanding request.

  Military Intervention
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what criteria are applied by Her Majesty's Government in respect of any decision to intervene militarily in the internal affairs of sovereign states. [80266]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Any decision to use military force will take into account all the circumstances at the time and comply with international law.

  Iraq
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish the Government's written submissions to the three United Nations panels on Iraq. [80514]

  Mr. Fatchett
  HMG were not invited to submit a written paper to the panel considering disarmament issues and did not do so. A UK paper on proposals for improving the humanitarian situation in Iraq was passed to the panel on humanitarian issues and shared with Security Council colleagues. A copy has been placed in the Library. The former UK representative to the Tripartite Commission gave an oral presentation to the panel concerned with the Kuwaiti missing and with property.

  East Timor
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had recently with the Indonesian Government regarding their proposal to grant independence to East Timor. [80112]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We stay in regular touch with the Indonesian Government. This was one of the issues I discussed with Indonesian Foreign Minister Alatas at the ASEM Foreign Ministers meeting in Berlin on 29 March and with President Habibie's foreign affairs adviser who called on me on 30 March.
  37
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Indonesian Government about the activities of(a) the ABRI, (b) the Village Police and (c) the paramilitary militia in East Timor. [80113]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We are very concerned at the deteriorating security situation in East Timor. We have called for restraint on all sides and for the leadership of ABRI to disarm and curb the activities of militias. We have made out position clear to the Indonesian Government.

  Visitors Visas
  Ms Jenny Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many applications for visit visas for people travelling from India were received by the New Dehli Embassy between January and December 1998; and how many were refused. [80058]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The British High Commission in New Delhi received 56,184 applications for visit visas during 1998, of which 7,680 were refused.

  Ms Jenny Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many applications for visit visas for people travelling from(a) Poland, (b) Russia, (c) Ukraine and (d) Latvia have been received by the relevant British embassies between January and December 1998; and how many were refused. [79925]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The statistics requested are as follows:

  Visit visa applications 1998

  Country

  Received

  Refused

  Poland

  881

  105

  Russia

  92,679

  2,772

  Ukraine

  23,366

  2,567

  Latvia

  2,440

  169

  Citizens of Poland and Latvia are not visa nationals and not, therefore, required to apply for entry clearance for visits to the UK.

  French Immigration
  Ms Jenny Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British citizens have been detained for interview by French immigration officials whilst travelling to the United Kingdom between January 1998 and February 1999. [79924]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We are unable to provide figures for the number of British nationals detained for interview by the French immigration police. Under the terms of the 1951 Consular Convention between the United Kingdom and France, the French authorities must inform British Consular services when a British national has been arrested or detained in custody in France. They are not required to inform consulates when British nationals are detained for interview by French immigration police.

  Slovakia
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he 38
  has had with the Government of Slovakia regarding the United Kingdom's recent introduction of visa requirements for Slovak visitors to the UK. [80057]

  Ms Quin
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Cummings) on 15 March 1999,Official Report, column 512. I last discussed this issue when I met the Slovak Foreign Minister on 27 January.

  Private Military Companies
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when revised guidance will be issued to his Department's officials on contacts with private military companies. [80393]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  I am pleased to inform my right hon. Friend that revised guidance, prepared in consultation with other Departments, was issued on 13 April. I have arranged for a copy to be placed in the Library of the House. The Ministry of Defence is issuing parallel guidance.

  Milan Speech
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will deposit in the Library a copy of his speech made at Milan on 2 March. [79938]

  Ms Quin
  The visit to Milan by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was cancelled.

  St. Helena
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if power supplies on St Helena are secure; and if he will make a statement. [80639]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The current electricity generating capacity on St. Helena can cope with existing demand.

  The provision of any further generating capacity that may be needed in the future will be considered as part of the public sector investment programme within the aid framework.

  Treaty of Amsterdam
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list each of his departmental responsibilities arising from the implementation of the Treaty of Amsterdam and the relevant sections of that Treaty and the consolidated treaties of the European Union and European Community. [80405]

  Ms Quin
  We do not expect implementation of the Treaty of Amsterdam to add significantly to this Department's responsibilities.

DEFENCE

  Defence Agencies
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date the(a) Defence Analytical Services Agency, (b) Defence Clothing and Textiles Agency, (c) Defence Intelligence and Security Centre, (d) Army

  39
  Base Storage and Distribution Agency, (e) Defence Vetting Agency and (f) Defence Estate Organisation published their reports for 1997-98; and what was the cost of production of their reports. [72797]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  This is a matter for the Chief Executives of the Agencies concerned. I have asked them to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Paul Altobell to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 13 April 1999:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State, in which you asked on what date the Defence Analytical Services Agency published their report for 1997–98 and at what cost. As Chief Executive of DASA this falls within my area of responsibility.
  We published our Annual Report and Accounts on 29th July 1998 at a cost of £4,552.00.
  I hope this reply is helpful.

  Letter from M. J. Roycroft to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 13 April 1999:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State about the date on which the Defence Clothing and Textiles Agency published its report for 1997–98 and the cost of production of the report, as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Defence Clothing and Textiles Agency.
  The report was published in October at a cost of £10,726.25.

  Letter from C. G. Holtom to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 13 April 1999:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about Agency Reports as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as the Chief Executive of the Defence Intelligence and Security Centre Agency.
  The Defence Intelligence and Security Centre did not publish an Annual Report and Accounts for financial year 1997/98. The Agency is planning to publish its first Annual Report and Accounts later this year.

  Letter from P. D. Foxton to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 13 April 1999:
  I refer to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about what date the Army Base Storage and Distribution Agency (ABSDA) published their reports for 1997-98 and what was the cost of production of their reports. As Chief Executive of ABSDA I am replying as this falls within my area of responsibility.
  It is anticipated the ABSDA Annual Report and Accounts will be published shortly. The cost of production, which includes design and publication, is estimated to be £6,000.

  Letter from Michael Wilson to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 13 April 1999:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the Defence Vetting Agency's Annual Report for 1997/1998, as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  The Defence Vetting Agency's Annual Report for 1997/1998 was published on 17 July 1998. The cost of publication of the report was some £2,600.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Letter from Ian C. F. Andrews to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 13 April 1999:
  I am replying to your question put to the Secretary of State for Defence concerning the date the Defence Estate Organisation published its report for 1997/98, and the cost of production, as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Defence Estate Organisation.
  40
  The Defence Estate Organisation's Annual Report for 1997/98 is to be finalised within the next few weeks and a copy will be placed in the Library of the House of Commons. There are no external costs associated with the production of the report, all the work being carried out in-house.
  You would wish to be aware that on 29 March 1999, the DEO was re-launched as Defence Estates. It remains an Agency of the MOD.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will set targets for the(a) Defence Clothing and Textiles Agency and (b) Defence Codification Agency for 1999–2000. [72825]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 1 March 1999]: I expect to set Key Targets for the Defence Clothing and Textiles Agency by the end of April 1999. The Defence Codification Agency is currently being incorporated into the Logistics Support Services Agency (LSSA). I expect to set targets for the LSSA later this month, and these will include supporting targets for Defence Codification.

  Armed Forces (Criminal Convictions)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of Her Majesty's armed forces have been convicted and sentenced in a criminal court in each of the last 10 years; how many have consequently been dismissed for misconduct; how many have remained in the armed forces under Queen's Regulations provision to take exceptional reasons into account; and if he will list the conviction and length of sentence in each case where exceptional reasons were taken into account and the nature of the exceptional reason cited. [75019]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, information relating to convictions of Service personnel by criminal courts will in future be held centrally.

  Armed Forces (Textiles)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to increase the proportion of United Kingdom manufactured textiles used by the armed forces. [77467]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 18 March 1999]: The Ministry of Defence has a policy of international procurement whenever possible. We are however, concerned to ensure that British defence industry remains healthy and competitive in world markets, and procurement decisions are taken in the light of this. My Department's Defence Clothing and Textiles Agency currently places 76 per cent. by value of contracts for clothing for the Armed Forces with UK companies.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the countries of origin of the fabrics manufactured for the production of garments under his Department's contracts in each of the last five years. [79868]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  My Department does not hold the information requested. The great majority of purchases of textile based products are made-up garments, and my Department does not require contractors to specify the country of origin of the textiles used to make the items. The only contractural stipulation over the
  41
  country of manufacture is that 10 per cent. of garments must be made at the main contractor's accredited facilities.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the restrictions imposed by him on British(a) forces, (b) aircraft and (c) vessels travelling (i) to and (ii) from Gibraltar. [78349]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  My Department imposes no restrictions on the movement of UK personnel or aircraft to and from Gibraltar. The normal UK rules on dress and status apply for Service personnel travelling to, from and within Spain. RAF aircraft and RN vessels are obliged to abide by Spanish restrictions placed on movements of NATO ships and aircraft to and from Gibraltar.

  Female Personnel (Dismissal for Pregnancy)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many women were dismissed from Her Majesty's forces on account of pregnancy in each of the past 10 years. [76956]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The policy of compulsorily discharging women from the Armed Forces on grounds of pregnancy ceased in August 1990. Three hundred and thirty three women were discharged from the Army and the Royal Air Force on grounds of pregnancy in 1990–911 and 433 from the Navy Service, Army and the Royal Air Force during 1989–90.
  1The figures represent compulsory discharges up to 1 August 1990 and voluntary exits thereafter until March 1991. No data are available for the Naval Service for the year 1990–91.

  European Court of Human Rights
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list decisions of the European Court of Human Rights over the past 10 years which relate to the responsibilities of his Department. [76954]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  There have been seven judgments by the European Court of Human Rights during this period that relate to the responsibilities of my Department:

  McCann and others (27 September 1995)

  Findlay (25 February 1997)

  Coyne (23 September 1997)

  Cable and others (18 February 1999)

  Hood (18 February 1999)

  McGinley & Egan (9 June 1998)

  LCB (9 June 1998).

  Belloch Recommendation
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action he has taken on the recommendation for a single MOD Police source document for terms and conditions of service contained in paragraph 5.10 of the 1994 Belloch report into the MOD police. [78809]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Terms and Conditions of Service for the MOD Police are at an advanced stage of preparation. Chapters will be published as soon as consultation with the Defence Police Federation is 42
  completed. In due course, they will form part of the proposed MDP Policy Procedures Manual currently under preparation.

  Nuclear Safety
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what meetings on nuclear safety have been held with local authorities, police forces, the Home Office and fire services over the past two years; and what future meetings are planned. [79513]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 30 March 1999]: In the context of local liaison committees and multi-agency groups maintaining or exercising nuclear accident response plans, meetings broadly encompassing nuclear safety issues are regularly held with representatives of local authorities, police forces and fire services in many parts of the country and with the Home Office. They will continue to be held as required.

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a list of TA units and their establishment of regular permanent staff before the TA reforms in November 1998; and if he will list proposed TA units and their proposed establishment of regular permanent staff. [79702]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  As a result of our reforms of the TA, there has been a slight increase in the ratio of Permanent Staff to TA members across the TA. I have placed a copy of this list in the Library of the House.

  Environmental Appraisals
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what environmental appraisals of policy his Department has(a) completed, (b) started and (c) planned. [79626]

  Mr. Spellar
  I will write to my hon. Friend, and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Falklands (Flights)
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate the reduction in capacity in(a) general freight carriage and (b) carriage of post when Tristar flights to the Falklands are reduced. [79808]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The reduction in the number of RAF Tristar flights to the Falkland Islands from 7 to 6 per lunar month is likely to have some impact on freight capacity, but the precise details have yet to be determined. The greater payload of the improved Tristar aircraft and the take up of spare capacity on other air and sea movements should help offset any reduction in total freight capacity between the UK and Falklands. We do not expect there to be any reduction in capacity to carry mail or other high priority freight.

  Lee Clegg
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will state the total cost to his Department of the defence of Lee Clegg, breaking down the cost under different heads. [78736]
  43
  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 31 March 1999]The payments made by my Department to date for the defence of Lee Clegg total £1,044,401.14. This figure does not include the cost of his first trial in 1993, the costs of which were met by the Northern Ireland Office. Nor does it cover his retrial, which began in November 1998 and lasted until February 1999 for which we have so far received bills for the costs up to the end of January 1999, but these have yet to be approved for payment.

  Depleted Uranium Weapons
  Valerie Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if depleted uranium weapons are being used by NATO in its current operations in Yugoslavia. [79859]

  Mr. George Robertson
  No depleted uranium based ammunition has been used by UK forces during Operation Allied Force. I cannot comment on behalf of other NATO nations.

  Valerie Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what scientific research was commissioned by his Department following the use of depleted uranium weapons in Iraq in 1991 to assess(a) the short and (b) the long-term effects on people and the environment; and to whom the result of the research has been made available. [79858]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The Ministry of Defence has not commissioned any scientific research to investigate the health and environmental effects of using DU-based ammunition during the 1990–91 Gulf conflict. However, the potential hazards of DU are well understood and are well documented in the scientific literature. In 1993, the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency's Radiation Protection Service (then the Defence Radiological Protection Service (DRPS)) published a summary report of its assessment of the potential hazards posed by DU. The report, copies of which have already been placed in the Library of the House, explained that there are two types of hazard posed by the use of DU: a radiation hazard, although DU is a low specific activity material (as defined by the International Atomic Energy Agency); and a chemical toxicity hazard, which is similar to that posed by other heavy metals, such as lead.

  DU-based ammunition is currently fired by the MOD at two ranges in the UK—Kirkcudbright in southern Scotland and Eskmeals in Cumbria—for test and evaluation purposes. In December 1993, the MOD commissioned independent environmental consultants, W. S. Atkins, to conduct a detailed review of the environmental impact of this test-firing. The consultants' resulting report, a copy of which has already been placed in the Library of the House, was published in 1995. It concluded that the radiation doses to members of the public, and the associated risks from exposure to DU released into the environment were extremely low. These conclusions were, and continue to be, substantiated by comprehensive monitoring programmes at both sites.

  The Ministry of Defence is, of course, well aware of suggestions, particularly in the Press, that the use of DU-based ammunition during the Gulf conflict has caused an increase in ill-health, including deformities, cancers and birth defects, in Iraq (particularly around Basra, Az Zubayr and Um Qasr). However, we have not seen any peer-reviewed epidemiological research data which
  44
  support these claims. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the illnesses of the types highlighted in Press articles are uniquely associated with exposure to DU. The Government would, of course, consider carefully any reliable medical or scientific data which may emerge concerning the incidence of ill-health in Iraq.

  The Ministry of Defence is also aware of the suggested link between exposure to DU and the illnesses being experienced by some Gulf veterans. However, this is only one of a number of factors which have been suggested as causes of Gulf veterans' illnesses and, pending further medical and scientific evidence, my Department is keeping an open mind on this issue. On 19 March, I published the detailed paper "Testing for the presence of depleted uranium in UK veterans of the Gulf conflict: The Current Position". The paper, copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House, describes the scenarios in which UK troops may have been exposed to DU in the Gulf and the possible health effects of such exposures.

  Frigates
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what humanitarian roles are being included in the staff target for the future escort planned to replace the Type 23 frigates. [80205]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Staff Target for the Future Surface Combatant, FSC, formerly the Future Escort, is due to be approved in Autumn 1999. It will be derived from the Concept of Operations which is currently being prepared and includes Peace Support and Humanitarian Operations as one of the vessels' Defence Missions.

  Antonov 124–100s (Chartering)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many times the RAF has hired or leased Antonov 124–100s in each of the last 10 years. [80470]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The RAF has chartered an Antonov 124-100 on the following number of occasions.

  1996–14

  1997–10

  1998–16.

  Records are not held for any charter prior to 1996.

  Centre for Defence Medicine
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the members of the Committee which is considering the statement of requirement for a new Centre for Defence Medicine. [80568]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  A project team comprising Service and civilian staff from my Department is responsible for drawing up a Statement of Requirement (SOR) for the Centre for Defence Medicine (CDM). An outline concept for the CDM has been completed and is being used as the basis for obtaining expressions of interest from NHS Hospital Trusts.

  Defence Medical Services
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what attitude surveys have been undertaken amongst
  45
  medical staff in the Defence Medical Services concerning the retention of a tri-service core hospital; and what were the results. [80574]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  A survey of the options for future secondary care provision was carried out in July 1998 among Defence Medical Services (DMS) personnel serving at Defence Secondary Care Agency units in the UK and the DMS Training Centre. The survey was conducted by BMRB International and their findings were published in a report entitled "Views of Military Secondary Care. Report on a survey conducted for the Surgeon General" dated September 1998, copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what initiatives he has taken to recruit and retain staff in the Defence Medical Services; and what have been the results. [80570]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  A tri-Service recruitment campaign for regular nurses, General Medical Practitioners and consultants has been conducted over the last two months. In response, we have received inquiries from nearly 400 people, although it is too early to say how many will ultimately join the Defence Medical Services (DMS). Work is continuing on a range of other measures to improve recruitment and retention, as indicated by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence in his announcement on 14 December 1998,Official Report, columns 328–29, about the new strategy for the DMS. These measures include identifying the causes of overstretch and more effective ways of reducing it, harmonising different terms of service within the DMS and addressing concerns about the need to maintain military standards and ethos among DMS personnel working in MOD Hospital Units in NHS Hospitals.

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the proportion of the arms and military equipment held by Yugoslavia which was acquired from(a) the United Kingdom and (b) other NATO member states. [80241]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The Government are committed to both the EU arms embargo on Croatia and Bosnia and the UN embargo on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. We interpret these embargoes to include any items included on the Military List.

  The Government's Annual Report on Strategic Export Controls, which was published on 25 March 1999, Official Report, columns 343–50, lists by country of destination the numbers of export licences issued in each equipment category and gives details of the military equipment for which licences were granted between 2 May and 31 December 1997. It also sets out the value of defence exports to each country between 1 January and 31 December 1997.

  My Department does not routinely record details of arms transfers by other NATO members.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the origin of the hits received by the Government website section devoted 46
  to Yugoslavia (a) before and (b) since it was translated into Serbo-Croat; and what plans he has to translate it into Albanian. [80239]

  Mr. George Robertson
  We are not able to determine the precise level of usage of specific parts of the Ministry of Defence website, and cannot therefore give access figures for the joint MOD/FCO section on Kosovo. We can, however, identify the origin of accesses to the MOD website as a whole. Information in Serbian was first added to the section on Kosovo on 29 March. The daily figures for accesses, for the days immediately before and after that date, are as follows:

  Date

  Daily accesses

  28 March 1999

  86,523

  30 March 1999

  149,503

  Accesses from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia are currently running at about 1,000 per day, with a total of 17,129 having been recorded between 20 March and 8 April. About 400 accesses per day were recorded prior to the inclusion of Serbian-language information on 29 March, with about 50 per day recorded in the period 1–20 March.

  A total of 1,820,204 accesses were recorded in March 1999, of which the most frequently accessing countries (both before and after the inclusion of Serbian-language information) were: the UK (approx. 24 per cent.); the US (approx. 22 per cent.); Canada (2.5 per cent.); Switzerland (1.8 per cent.); Germany (1.7 per cent.); Australia (1.3 per cent.); France (1 per cent.). These proportions are fairly consistent from month to month, although the exact number of accesses can vary considerably.

  The translated pages are stored on an FCO web server and are measured using a different metric (page impressions rather than hits). They have received 3,300 page impressions in the last seven days. This translates, very approximately, to some 23,000 hits.

  There are no plans at present to translate any pages into Albanian.

  Military District Hospitals
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what capital expenditure was(a) incurred by his Department and (b) undertaken by NHS trusts as a result of contractual arrangements with his Department, in setting up the Department's hospital units. [80619]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), on 9 March 1999,Official Report, column 204.

  Hunt Class Sonar Upgrade
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the expected in-service date for the Hunt Class sonar upgrade; and what changes to the in-service date have taken place since the project's inception. [80204]

  Mr. Spellar
  The in-service date for the Hunt Class Sonar 2193 is now 2003, with a 2 year fitting programme for the whole class. This is the first change to the ISD since the project's inception. The original in-service date was 2001.

  Merlin ASW Helicopter
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many existing Type 22 and Type 23 Frigates will be equipped with the Merlin ASW helicopter. [80206]

  Mr. Spellar
  Type 23 Frigates are all designed to operate with Merlin helicopters. The number of ships which will be equipped with Merlin will, however, depend on the operational deployments of the individual vessels. Type 22 Frigates will not be equipped with Merlin helicopters.

  Larkhill Centre
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the current role and future work of the Surveillance, Target Acquisition, Night Observation and Counter-surveillance Centre at Larkhill. [80017]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The current role of the Army's Surveillance Target Acquisition, Night Observation and Counter-surveillance (STANOC) Centre at Larkhill is to provide a focus for STANOC disciplines and technology, to provide advice on equipment needs and development, on training and on doctrine. The Centre also provides operational support and advice as required, to the Field Army and Other Government Departments.

  The STANOC Centre is currently the subject of a review to determine the most cost-efficient means by which STANOC needs can be delivered in the future. I will write again once the outcome of the review is known.

  Royal Hospital Haslar
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reason the Royal Hospital Haslar was not expanded to the number of beds specified in Defence Cost Study 15. [80569]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The Royal Hospital Haslar was not expanded to the number of beds specified in Defence Cost Study 15 because activity levels in the Hospital have not warranted such an expansion and additional staff have not been available to increase local capacity and therefore throughput. In addition, NHS policy since the mid 1990s has increasingly been to promote large acute hospitals which can contain a critical mass of speciality and sub-speciality activity. The Royal Hospital Haslar falls outside this recommended scale.

  Weapons
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking to seek international agreement to ban weapons of indiscriminate or mass destruction other than anti-personnel mines. [80210]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The Government have a deep commitment to arms control as a vital element in increasing Britain's security through building wider security structures. Out comprehensive approach to the aims of arms control is evident through our commitment to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) and the 1980 UN Weaponry Convention. We are also encouraging 48
  universal adherence to the NPT and urging those states who have yet to do so, to ratify the CTBT, which is a prerequisite for the treaty to enter into force. The United Kingdom is playing a leading role in the negotiations to establish a verification Protocol to the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC) and is working for the re-establishment of an Ad Hoc Committee of the Conference on Disarmament to negotiate a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty (FMCT). We stand ready to play an active role in these negotiations also.

  Meteorological Office
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key targets have been set for the Meteorological Office for 1999–2000. [80383]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Chief Executive of the Meteorological Office is responsible for providing meteorological and related services to a wide range of customers, including the armed forces, government, civil aviation, shipping, emergency services, media, commerce, industry and the public. It also undertakes research related to meteorology and climate. During 1999–2000 the Meteorological Office will be set the following challenging targets:

  Key Target 1:
  To achieve a value for the Global Numerical Weather Prediction (NWP) Index of at least 110.2 index points on 31 March 2000 from a baseline of 100.0 on 31 March 1995;

  Key Target 2:
  To achieve a value for the UK NWP Index of at least 104.0 index points on 31 March 2000 from a baseline of 100.0 on 31 March 1997;

  Key Target 3:
  To achieve a value for the Service Quality Index of at least 105.0 index points on 31 March 2000 from a baseline of 100.0 on 31 March 1997, in line with customer requirements. The index covers representative services and products for defence, civil aviation, public and business customers;

  Key Target 4:
  To achieve a value for the agreed Efficiency Index of at least 112.0 index points on 31 March 2000 from a baseline of 100.0 on 31 March 1997;

  Key Target 5:
  To achieve an overall return on capital employed (ROCE) of at least 2.9 per cent.;

  Key Target 6:
  To achieve a total contribution from commercial activities in 1999–2000 of not less than £2.2 million.

  Building and Property Group
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many contracts his Department currently has with Building and Property Group Ltd.; what services are currently provided to each defence establishment by the Company; and what is the total value of the contracts. [80045]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Building and Property Group Ltd. consist of a number of companies: Building and Property Ltd., Building and Property Defence Ltd. and Unicorn Consultancy Services. There are at present 24 Works Services Management, WSM, contracts, varying in length from three to five years, with Building and Property Defence Ltd. within the UK and 1 WSM contract in the
  49
  Falkland Islands. The total value of each contract comprises a management fee paid to the WSM and the value of repair, maintenance and works expenditure. The total annual value of these contracts is approximately £124 million.

  There are 9 Establishment Works Consultant, EWC, contracts with Unicorn Consultancy Services Ltd. These vary in length from 5 to 7 years. The EWC is responsible for auditing and monitoring works contracts on behalf of the Property Manager. The total annual value of these contracts is £2.3 million.

  There are 3 Project Management, PM, contracts; one is at Winterbourne Gunner, Salisbury, with Building and Property Services Ltd., at a total value of £225k. Another is with Building and Property Group Ltd. at Westmoors, at a total value of £140k. The third PM contract is with Unicorn Consultancy Services at the Defence Test and Evaluation Organisation, Boscombe Down, at a total value of £247k.

  There is one Specialist Term Commission for Electrical Engineering Advisory Services, with Building and Property Ltd., for use throughout MOD. The contract period is for three years at an estimated value of £450k.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Redundant Farm Buildings
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact on the green belt of the granting of planning consents for redundant farm buildings to be used for light industrial purposes. [78833]

  Mr. Caborn
  My Department has undertaken two research studies which, among other matters, have looked at the re-use of redundant farm buildings in the Green Belt and which have informed the drafting of relevant planning policy guidance.

  Freight Costs
  Mr. Rapson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on freight costs in(a) the UK and (b) other EU member states. [78834]

  Dr. Reid
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friends the Members for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr (Mr. Williams) and for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) today,Official Report, column 7.

  Genetically Modified Organisms (Monmouthshire)
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what applications he has received to release genetically modified organisms at sites in Monmouthshire; and what objections he has received to such applications. [78835]

  Mr. Meacher
  We have received two applications to release genetically modified organisms at sites in Monmouthshire. Both applications were in respect of 50
  small research trials of Spring GM oilseed rape and both have been given consent. In one case 8 letters of objection were received relating to the Monmouthshire site.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the level of changes in council taxes in shire areas over the next three years. [78836]

  Ms Armstrong
  Decisions on the level of council tax are a matter for each authority.

  Mr. Woolas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what would be the average council tax for each local authority in England if each authority's net revenue expenditure in 1999–2000 was set at the provisional capping level and, excepting the receipts from each authority's share of NNDR, had to be met entirely from council tax receipts. [80277]

  Ms Armstrong
  We made a Manifesto commitment to abolish crude and universal capping. There were, therefore, no provisional capping levels for 1999–2000.

  Mr. Fitzpatrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he proposes to use his capping powers for 1999–2000; and if he will make a statement. [80718]

  Mr. Prescott
  This year, we fulfilled our Manifesto commitment to abolish crude and universal capping. We did not announce capping limits in advance. For the first time since the introduction of the council tax, authorities were not told what to do by the Government. They were able to make up their own minds on their budgets, taking account of their local circumstances and the views of local people.

  The vast majority of authorities in England have exercised this new discretion sensibly and a range of council tax increases have resulted. Indeed, some authorities have frozen or reduced their council taxes. Others have made large increases, which I trust will not be repeated. As a result, average Band D taxes rose by 6.8 per cent. this year, compared with 8.6 per cent. rises last year. I have therefore decided not to cap any authorities this year.

  Although the general response has been sensible, there are some exceptions. Despite the most generous Local Government Settlement for years, some authorities have made large increases both in their budgets and in council taxes. I have looked particularly closely at authorities with increases in council tax over 9 per cent. I have decided to call in twelve with the largest increases in budget requirement to the Department to discuss why they have made such large increases and put them on warning for next year. I will be telling these authorities that, when I use the new reserve powers to decide if their budgets for 2000–01 are excessive, I will look back at their increases over two years. This is a new power.

  The authorities are Ashfield, Herefordshire, Huntingdonshire, Kingston upon Thames, Milton Keynes, Norfolk, Shropshire, South Cambridgeshire, Tewkesbury, Torbay, Tyne and Wear Fire and Civil Defence Authority and Woking.
  51
  Other authorities have also made large increases in council tax. I will not be calling these authorities in, but any authority which has increased its council tax by more than the average this year will need to be particularly careful when deciding next year's budget. All authorities, including police authorities, should remember that I will be looking at every local authority budget when I decide whether and how to use my new reserve powers next year. As well as looking at the latest increases, I will be able to look back at increases over two years. I will also be able to designate authorities both in year and for the following years. Authorities should be in no doubt that we will act if council taxes rise unacceptably.

  Overall, however, I am pleased that most authorities have behaved responsibly as expected, justifying the trust we placed in them when we did not announce capping limits in advance. As a result of the outcome of the Comprehensive Spending Review, local authorities will have two more years of good increases in grant. I am looking to them to continue to play their part in delivering better services with reasonable council tax increases.

  Buses
  Jacqui Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has for increasing public use of buses. [78837]

  Dr. Reid
  In addition to increasing financial support for buses, we have put forward a package of policy measures aimed at improving bus travel and increasing bus use. They are set out in our policy document published on 23 March, "From Workhorse to Thoroughbred—A Better Role for Bus Travel".

  Road Haulage Industry
  Mr. Plaskitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he last met representatives of the road haulage industry to discuss prospects for the industry; and if he will make a statement. [78837]

  Dr. Reid
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply 1 gave today to my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Mrs. Butler). We had a very constructive first meeting of the Road Haulage Forum on Thursday 8 March.

  Mrs. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he last met representatives of the road haulage industry; and if he will make a statement.[78921]

  Dr. Reid
  I chaired a very constructive, long and in—depth first meeting of the Road Haulage Forum on Thursday 8 April. Together with my noble Friend the Under-Secretary and my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, I met representatives of the Freight Transport association, the Road Haulage Association and the Transport and General Workers Union.

  We are going to jointly examine, in the shortest period of time, the state of the competitiveness of the haulage industry and take external independent views where necessary to inform our discussions. We will take into account the influencing factors, with a view to looking at potential solutions.
  52
  In addition, we will look at a range of other issues, for example, offering special assistance to small haulage businesses.

  I hope that all hauliers will now agree that dialogue, not disruption, is the way forward.

  Public Transport (Access)
  24. Ms Kingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement concerning access for disabled people to public transport. [78839]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government are committed to comprehensive civil rights for disabled people. Accessible public transport, within the framework of our integrated transport policy, is fundamentally important to delivering that commitment.

  We are using powers in Part V of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to make "accessibility regulations" to require new trains, trams, buses, coaches and taxis to be accessible to disabled people, including those who travel in a wheelchair.

  Freight
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to encourage the transfer of freight from road to rail. [78840]

  Mr. Prescott
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Khabra) today,Official Report, column 4.

  A47
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the further studies on improving the A47 east of Norwich will be completed. [78841]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State announced on 23 March 1999, Official Report, House of Lords, columns 150–52, that a study of the A47 between Norwich and Great Yarmouth was programmed to begin in 2000–01. The duration of the study will depend on the complexity of the issues identified, but it is anticipated it will take at least a year to complete.

  The Highways Agency is taking forward a separate, smaller-scale study for a safety scheme on the Blofield to Acle section of the A47. That study is due for completion this year. The Agency plans to implement other minor safety improvements on this section during Autumn 1999.

  Freight Vehicles (Excise Duty)
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the effect of recent changes to excise duty on freight vehicles on pollution emission targets. [78842]

  Dr. Reid
  Vehicle excise duty (VED) for heavy goods vehicles was frozen for all but the new classes of vehicles with 11.5 tonne axle weights. Rates for these classes were set in the Budget with the aim of discouraging their use,
  53
  in view of the significant additional road damage they cause. In the 1998 Budget, the Chancellor announced a general review of VED for goods vehicles, with the intention of ensuring that VED rates more accurately reflect these vehicles' environmental impact; this work is proceeding.

  The 1999 Budget also doubled the maximum VED concession for reduced pollution lorries and buses to £1,000. We expect this to act as a further incentive to operators to adapt their vehicles to meet stringent particulate emission standards.

  Local Government (Ethics)
  Mr. St. Aubyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what measures the Government are taking to raise ethical standards in local government; and if he will make a statement. [78843]

  Ms Armstrong
  On 24 March my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister published a consultation paper, "Local Leadership Local Choice", copies of which were placed in the Vote Office and the House Library. The paper sets out the Government's proposals and draft legislation for new forms of local governance and a new ethical framework for local government.

  Natural Habitats
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to ensure the protection of natural habitats in the implementation of his policy on access to the countryside. [78844]

  Mr. Meacher
  In implementing its plans for a statutory right of access to open countryside, the Government will provide for the countryside agencies and national park authorities to be able to close land or otherwise restrict access to protect the interests of conservation of wildlife.

  North-west Regional Chamber
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the regional Chamber in the north-west will be officially established. [78845]

  Mr. Caborn
  We are currently considering proposals from the North West Regional Assembly for designation as the regional chamber for the North West under the RDA Act 1998, and I hope to make an announcement shortly.

  Road and Rail Network
  Dr. George Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has had with European Commissioners on the future development of the United Kingdom road and rail network within the trans-European network. [78846]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Neither my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport nor I have had any recent discussions with European Commissioners on the future development of the United Kingdom road and rail network within the Trans-European Network (TEN). But 54
  our officials have had discussions with officials of the Commission in the context of the 1999 TEN funding round.

  Home Shopping
  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what appraisal he has made of the environmental consequences of the development of home delivery and home ordering of retail household goods. [78847]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  In our document "Sustainable Distribution: A Strategy", published on 2 March 1999, we stated that we would commission research into the long term implications of home shopping and its variants on our integrated transport policy in general and for planning and transport services in particular. This would cover environmental impacts.

  Assembly (East Midlands)
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent representations he has received requesting a directly elected assembly for the east midlands. [78848]
  Mr. Caborn: We have not received any representations for a directly elected assembly for the East Midlands.

  Train Journeys
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many train journeys were(a) cancelled and (b) seriously delayed in 1998. [78849]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  In 1998 it is estimated that 70,000 train journeys were cancelled and 580,000 were delayed beyond the Charter targets.

  Road Maintenance
  Mr. White
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress is being made on improving road maintenance; and if he will make a statement. [78850]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government have made road maintenance a top priority and we are committed to restore the cuts in local road maintenance funding. New techniques are being introduced to minimise the need for maintenance and reduce the impact of maintenance works on the motorist.

  Lead Products
  Mr. Risley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has made to the European Commission regarding the ban imposed by the Danish Government on the importation, sale and production of lead products. [78851]

  Mr. Meale
  Representations have been made by the Department of Trade and Industry to the European Commission on this issue via the normal procedures. The UK supports reducing exposure to lead. However, we believe that the proposed restriction by Denmark does not meet the requirements of European Union legislation.

  Rural Public Transport
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact of his measures to improve rural public transport. [78852]

  Dr. Reid
  My Department has been conducting an initial survey of the use of the new funding for the support of rural bus services. Replies received so far from 51 local authorities (out of a total of 73 English authorities in receipt of the funding) show there are over 550 new services, with a further 620 improved in frequency or coverage, as a result of the first year of the funding. We will be carrying out shortly a more detailed survey with local authorities to provide a fuller assessment of the impact of this new funding at the end of its first financial year.

  Sustainable Distribution
  38. Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his Department's document, "Sustainable Distribution: A Strategy". [78853]

  Dr. Reid
  Our document, published on 2 March 1999, is the first of its kind. It takes a strategic look at the entire distribution industry of the United Kingdom and considers not only the role it plays today but its potential for the future. We intend to work in partnership with industry to ensure that our entire distribution network provides an efficient and competitive world class service:that it operates in a fair and open market, not only in the UK but abroad;
  that it is fully integrated in our transport and planning policies, both at national and local government levels; with road, rail, air and shipping being used to their best advantages on a system of infrastructure which is itself integrated and;
  that it operates in a manner which meets our environmental and social objectives to minimise pollution, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, to manage development pressures on the landscape, to reduce noise and disturbance and to reduce the number of accidents and injuries.

  Public Transport
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to ensure that good-quality public transport is available as an alternative to motoring. [78827]

  Mr. Prescott
  The Government's integrated transport policy sets out the framework for delivering better public transport and a greater choice in transport for all. We are helping bring this about by investing an extra £1.8 billion in integrated transport over the next three years.

  Royal Society Report (GM Foods)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the report by the Royal Society in September 1998 on genetically modified foods. [73657]

  Mr. Meacher
  The report from the Royal Society contained some useful recommendations including the importance of research, the need to look for alternatives to antibiotic resistance markers, the need to keep consumers informed of developments in biotechnology linked with 56
  increased clarity in labelling and the need to look again at the remit of the advisory committees. The Royal Society has built upon this useful work by submitting a paper in response to the review of the framework for overseeing developments in biotechnology and genetic modification, announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office on 17 December 1998, Official Report, columns 644–45. The Royal Society's views are now being considered as part of that review.

  Genetically Modified Crops
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the dates on which each site where genetically modified trial crops are being grown was(i) first subject to such cultivation and (ii) last inspected by a Health and Safety Executive inspector. [74866]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 5 March 1999]Since 1993 there have been approximately 620 sites where genetically modified crops have been grown for research purposes. In 1999 the figure is expected to be about 95. The locations and further details of these sites are available on the statutory public register. A report on the inspection activities in the past 12 months will be published shortly and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make it his policy that those responsible for the production of genetically modified crops be required to take out adequate insurance to cover the costs of any resulting damage to(a) the environment and (b) other crops. [75109]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 8 March 1999]There is already some protection though Civil law and general product liability. The issue of environmental liability is an important one and the principle that those who damage the environment should pay for remedying the damage caused is one that I would strongly support. The European Commission is currently finalising a White paper on environmental liability and this may offer a way forward. We expect the White paper to include the question of damage by genetically modified organisms but need to study the detail of the Commission's proposals before reaching any conclusions.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the scientific journals his Department has consulted in its investigations into the safety of genetically modified crops. [79267]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 29 March 1999]The specific information requested is not available. Through my Department's library, officials have access to all scientific journals published worldwide.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he intends to publish a comprehensive list of(a) trial sites of genetically modified crops in the United Kingdom in the year 1999–2000 and (b) details of genetically modified crops intended to be grown at these trial sites. [80103]

  Mr. Meacher
  This information is already available on the public register held in DETR and on the DETR website.

  special Advisers
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the total number of occasions when(a) departmental and (b) non-departmental special advisers have travelled abroad in an official capacity since 2 May 1997. [76830]

  Mr. Prescott
  There have been no occasions since 2 May 1997 when Special Advisers in this Department have travelled abroad in an official capacity unaccompanied by Ministers. Costs are accounted for within the total costs for any overseas trips by Ministers.

  Inland Waterway Shipping
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his policy on the applicability of Council Directive 82/714/EEC in technical requirements for inland waterway vessels to controls imposed by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency on inland waterway shipping in the United Kingdom. [78729]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The UK is exempt from Directive 82/714/EEC, as provided for by Article 7 (1) a of the Directive.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what additional conditions the United Kingdom has imposed on navigability licences for inland waterway vessels, in the terms permitted by Article 3(6) of Council Directive 76/135/EEC, dated 20 January 1976; and if he will make a statement. [78731]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  None. The conditions for operating passenger ships of whatever flag on UK waters were amended following the "Marchioness" disaster. These regulations were applied by Statutory Instrument SI 1992 No 2358 which incorporated a phasing-in period which ended on 1 April 1998.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his policy on the applicability of Council Directive 76/135/EEC on reciprocal recognition of navigability licences for inland waterway vessels to controls imposed by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency on inland waterway shipping in the United Kingdom. [78730]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The technical requirements for the operation of passenger ships on UK waters were amended following the "Marchioness" disaster. These regulations were applied by Statutory Instrument SI 1992 No 1216 and incorporated a phasing-in period which ended on 1 April 1998 to allow for alterations to existing vessels.

  It is our policy to ensure that these high standards apply to all passenger ships of whatever flag which operate in UK waters. This accords with the stated aim of Directive 76/135 which is a
  "first step towards improving the safety of inland navigation in the Community".

  Task Forces
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will list all those task forces and policy reviews with external 58
  members established by his Department since May 1997 which have set up (a) sub-groups, (b) working parties and (c) other subsidiary committees; [79253]

  (2) if he will list for all task forces and policy reviews with external members established by his Department since May 1997 (a)their dates of establishment, (b) those which have issued final reports and their dates of publication, (c) those which have been terminated and their dates of termination and (d) for those bodies still in existence, expected reporting and termination dates. [79276]

  Mr. Meale
  I have today placed in the Library of the House a list of the task forces and reviews with external members established by my Department since May 1997, along with the requested information for each such body.

  Bus Employees
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much his Department has spent on legal fees relating to the Bus Employees Superannuation Trust(a) in total and (b) in connection with the High Court hearing, of 1 March.[79539]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The previous Government decided to fund litigation by the National Bus Company pension trustees following a decision by the Pensions Ombudsman. Expenditure to date by my Department on legal and other costs related to all aspects of the litigation concerning the two NBC pension schemes (the Bus Employees Superannuation Trust and the National Bus Pension Fund) has been £980,000. Of this, costs incurred by the trustees amount to £782,000 and the Department's own costs amount to £198,000. £67,000 of the total was incurred by the previous Administration. The total includes costs of £10,000 related to the High Court hearing of 1 March, which concerned the extent to which certain provisions of the Pension Schemes Act 1993 and the Pensions Act 1995 applied to the schemes.

  Countryside Access
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what environmental assessment has been carried out by his Department on the Government's Access to the Countryside proposals. [79597]

  Mr. Meacher
  Independent consultants undertook an assessment of the economic, environmental and social effects of different approaches to achieving greater access to open countryside. Their report has been published by my Department and copies have already been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Water Regulator
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the environmental responsibilities of the water regulator. [79600]

  Mr. Meale
  The Director General has a general duty, under section 3 of the Water Industry Act 1991, to further conservation and enhancement of the natural environment.
  59
  In September 1998, Ministers published "Raising the Quality", giving guidance to the Director General of Water Services on the environmental and water quality objectives to be achieved by the water industry in England and Wales in 2000 to 2005. On 1 March 1999 Ministers announced the detailed programmes of improvements to deliver the objectives.

  Car Parking
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will review car parking provision in planning policy guidance; and if he will make a statement.[79595]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Planning Policy Guidance note 3: Housing, a consultation draft of which was published on 23 March, proposes maximum parking standards for housing development averaging 1.5 to 2 car spaces per dwelling. Planning Policy Guidance note 13:Transport is in the process of being updated.

  Water Customer Councils
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the role of water customer councils and their relationship with Ofwat.[79601]

  Mr. Meale
  Section 29 of the Water Industry Act 1991 places a duty on each customer service committee (CSC) to keep under review, to consult and to make representations to water and sewerage companies allocated to the committee about all matters appearing to the committee to affect the interests of customers or potential customers of those companies; and to investigate any complaint made by a customer or potential customer relating to the carrying out of any of the functions of a water or sewerage undertaker.

  The CSCs are established by, and report to, the Director General of Water Services and advise him on issues which affect customers, to inform his decision making.

  Resulting from our review of utility regulation, the Government propose to establish a new, independent consumer council for the water sector. We propose to give the new council broad functions within the regulatory system. It will act as a public advocate for consumers, and will be expected to provide information and advice on consumer issues to regulators, Government, Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales, the media and others. It will have the specific task of handling consumer complaints about water companies where these have not been resolved by the company concerned. The council and regulator will need to collaborate, and will be placed under a duty to agree and publish a memorandum of understanding governing such matters as the practical arrangements for consultation between them. Similar arrangements will govern the council's relationship with the Drinking Water Inspectorate. We fully recognise the importance of the regional dimension in the provision of water and sewerage services and the structure of the water consumer council will reflect this.

  Bus and Cycle Lanes
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to produce regulations or guidelines relating to coloured markings on bus lanes and cycle lanes. [79634]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  White markings indicating bus and cycle lanes, and yellow markings indicating bus stops and bus stop clearways, are prescribed in the Traffic Signs Regulations 1994. Guidance on their use is given in Chapter 5 of the Traffic Signs Manual and Local Transport Note 1/97 (Keeping Buses Moving). Coloured road surfaces have no meaning in law but may be used to increase the conspicuity of markings and give prominence to a section of the carriageway set aside for a particular purpose. The Highways Agency has included advice on the use of coloured surfaces for cycle lanes in their recently published guidance on Coloured Surfacing in Road Layouts.

  Bus Lanes
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the use of bus lanes by community transport vehicles. [79602]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The allocation of road space is a matter for highway authorities. Guidance on bus lanes and on the classes of other vehicles which authorities might wish to permit to use them was published in Keeping Buses Moving, Local Transport Note 1/97.

  Project Prestige
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the Project Prestige and on its applicability to rail services. [79599]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Under the Prestige contract, the Transys consortium will update and renew ticket issuing and revenue collection systems throughout the London Transport network, leading to the introduction of contactless smartcards from 2002. Preliminary work to install ticket gates throughout the Underground network, new electronic ticket machines on services procured by LT Buses, and electronic point of sale (EpoS) machines in Pass Agents Sales Service (PASS) outlets is underway.

  Since the conception of the Prestige project in 1996, LT has planned for the 12 Train Operating Companies (TOCs) in the former Network SouthEast area to participate in the scheme. Discussions have taken place with the aim of developing technical solutions that would give the TOCs the full benefits of Prestige. At present, LT is committed to the installation of ticket gates at joint London Underground/TOC stations managed by the TOCs and to upgrade these later to accept smartcards, in line with plans for other London Underground stations.

  At present there is no general commitment from the TOCs to adopt Prestige ticket technology, although certain operators have expressed an interest in joint smartcard and equipment trials. In the meantime, LT will continue to ensure that the technology employed under Prestige will extension of smartcard technology to TOC stations.

  Water Planning Policy
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans his Department has to introduce a planning policy guidance note on water. [79596]

  Mr. Raynsford
  None.

  New Building
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will amend the building regulations to reduce the environmental impact of new developments; and if he will make a statement. [79594]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Government are considering such amendments. Last year a comprehensive review was launched to see what contribution the building regulations could make towards achieving our targets for reducing carbon dioxide emissions. The review is progressing well with consultation on some proposed amendments expected later this year.

  Wildlife Bill
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his Department's policy plans for a Wildlife Bill and the timetable for its implementation. [79598]

  Mr. Meacher
  We have consulted on the better protection and management of Sites of Special Scientific Interest, and considered the proposals of the Partnership for Action Against Wildlife Crime to strengthen the enforcement of wildlife law. We are seeking an opportunity to legislate, where necessary, as soon as Parliamentary time allows.

  Smoke Alarms
  Dr. Brand
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will estimate the cost of installing battery-powered smoke alarms in all local authority dwellings in England; [79605]

  (2) if he will estimate the proportion by region of local authority-owned dwellings fitted with smoke alarms; [79607]

  (3) if he will estimate the cost of installing mains-powered smoke alarms in all local authority dwellings in England. [79583]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The proportion of local authority owned dwellings fitted with smoke alarms is as follows. Estimates are taken from the 1996 English House Condition Survey. They relate to occupied local authority dwellings only and are as follows:

  Percentage

  Government Office Region

  Proportion of occupied local authority owned dwellings with a smoke alarm

  North East

  55

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  55

  North West

  65

  East Midlands

  65

  West Midlands

  65

  62

  Percentage

  Government Office Region

  Proportion of occupied local authority owned dwellings with a smoke alarm

  South West

  70

  Eastern

  55

  South East

  80

  London

  40

  England

  60

  In 1996, 40 per cent. of occupied local authority dwellings had no smoke alarm fitted. The estimated cost of installing battery-operated smoke alarms in these dwellings is £40 million. This is based on flats requiring one smoke alarm and houses requiring two.

  In 1996, 60 per cent. of occupied local authority dwellings had a smoke alarm fitted but only 16 per cent. of these were mains powered detectors. The estimated overall cost of installing mains-operated smoke alarms in the 90 per cent. of occupied local authority owned dwellings in which no mains powered smoke alarm is currently present, is £260 million.

  Dr. Brand
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the number of lives that would be saved each year if every local authority dwelling in England was fitted with a smoke alarm. [79606]

  Mr. George Howarth
  I have been asked to reply.

  Although no current estimate along those lines is available, fire statistics show that there were 465 fire deaths in dwellings in England in 1997 and these can be categorised by the presence or otherwise of a smoke alarm.

  Presence and operation of smoke detector

  Fatal casualties

  Present, operated and raised the alarm

  36

  (8%)

  Present, operated but did not raise the alarm

  18

  (4%)

  Present, but did not operate

  57

  (11%)

  Absent

  354

  (77%)

  Total

  465

  Research shows that around 82 per cent. of households in England and Wales now own a smoke alarm. However, the levels of ownership among those households in the United Kingdom having fires is much lower, at only 30 per cent.

  The 1997 fire fatality statistics show the very clear benefits of increasing smoke alarm ownership further as well as the need to make sure that alarms are properly maintained and sited. Such messages are an important part of the Government's new Community Fire Safety strategy which is designed to reduce fire deaths in the home.

  East of England Regional Chamber
  Mr. Cann
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the regional chamber in the Eastern Region will be officially established. [79610]
  63
  Mr. Meale
  There is no formal date set for the official establishment of the East of England Regional Chamber. According to the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998, before a body can become the Regional Chamber for a Regional Development Agency, it needs to be designated as such by the Secretary of State. This designation has not yet occurred in this case.

  However, a draft application and supporting papers were sent to DETR's Regional Policy Unit on 8 March. These papers are currently under consideration within the Department. A formal request for designation will be made by the Chamber in the next couple of weeks, once the minutes from the Chamber's inaugural meeting have been agreed.

  The process of designation is a lengthy one. After an application is received, consultations need to be made within the Department. A submission must then be put

  Red route

  Implementation

  A3

  Most fully operational. Remainder to have red line controls before the end of 1999.

  A24

  All red line controls fully operational. Implementation of remaining measures' to be complete by the end of 1999.

  A205

  All red line controls fully operational. Implementation of remaining measures' to be complete by the end of June 1999.

  A214

  Detailed design to begin shortly.

  A217

  Detailed design underway. Red line controls to be operational by end 1999.

  A306

  Fully operational.

  A3205

  ll red line controls fully operational. Implementation of remaining measures' to be complete by the end of 1999.

  A3220

  Detailed design to begin shortly.

  As well as red line controls, red routes consist of a package of measures, such as bus and cycle lanes, facilities for pedestrians and traffic calming, which will vary depending on local needs. These are aimed at improving the movement of people and goods and providing particular help for buses, cyclists pedestrians and people with disabilities.

  Hedgerows
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to protect hedgerows in the Green Belt; and if he will make a statement.[79773]

  Mr. Meale
  The regime to protect important hedgerows, under the Hedgerows Regulations 1997, is not applied differentially to hedgerows in the green belt. Its requirements apply to all hedgerows which are of 20 metres or more in length or which meet another hedgerow at each end, if they are on, or adjoining, land used for agriculture or forestry, the breeding or keeping of horses, ponies or donkeys, common land, village greens, Sites of Special Scientific Interest or Local Nature Reserves. Garden hedges are excluded.

  Alcohol Consumption (Thames)
  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what penalties and restrictions apply to the use of alcohol by river users on the Thames; and what plans he has to review these arrangements. [79703]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Under existing Port of London Authority byelaws, which regulate operational matters on the River Thames, it is an offence for the master of a vessel to navigate, or be in charge of a vessel when unfit by reason of drink. If a harbourmaster has reasonable cause to suspect that a master's fitness to navigate the vessel is impaired through alcohol, he may direct the vessel to stop or to a designated berth in order to carry out a breath test. The limit is 35 microgrammes of alcohol
  64
  before Ministers and a further consultation will follow. The Regional Development Agency must then be consulted before a final decision is made. Therefore it is not possible to state when the East of England Regional Chamber will be officially established.

  Red Routes (Wandsworth)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what red route schemes are currently planned by his Department concerning the London Borough of Wandsworth. [79700]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The roads in Wandsworth designated as red routes are the A3, A24, A205, A214, A217, A306, A3205 and A3220. The current implementation timetable in Wandsworth is given in the table. The aim is to have the whole of the network operational in 2000.

  in 100 millilitres of breath. A person in breach of these byelaws will be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £1,000 and a daily fine of £100.

  The Government are aware of public concern about the need to regulate alcohol abuse in the maritime industry. We intend to issue a consultation paper in the near future seeking views on whether there should be national legislation to combat alcohol abuse on board ship, and, if so, what form such legislation might take. We intend our proposals to apply to all seafarers, including those who operate leisure craft.

  Rents
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what his policy is on the relationship of council rents to market rents; and if he will make a statement. [79603]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Councils and Registered Social Landlords have provided housing for several decades at below market levels to meet the needs of households who cannot afford the costs of owner occupation or market renting.

  The levels of rent charged by councils have evolved incrementally over many years without any necessary correlation with market levels or with the perceived value of the property.

  The Housing Green Paper to be published later in the year will look at options for strengthening the link between social rents and the size, location and condition of properties.
  65
  The Government will consult extensively on any proposals in the Green Paper. It is important that any reforms help make the housing market and labour market fairer for all concerned.

  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement about rent levels in (i) the private sector, (ii) housing associations and (iii) local councils. [79604]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The mean rent for all types of private sector letting in England in 1997–98, as estimated from the Survey of English Housing, was £79 per week. This excludes water and other charges.

  The mean housing association rent in England at 31 March 1998 is estimated as £ 49.71. This excludes service charges. Housing associations will be expected to limit annual increases in their overall rent and service charges for their stock to no more than RPI + 1%.

  The mean local authority rent in England at April 1998 is estimated as £42.24. The Government's policy is that the average local authority Guideline Rent in England will increase by RPI + 1% in 1999–2000, by RPI + 2% in 2000–01 and by RPI + 2% in 2001–02.

  Local Authority Estate Disposal
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what measures he plans to prevent financial rules on the disposal of land and buildings by local authorities resulting in gazumping. [79699]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Government published for consultation on 7 December 1998 a package of proposals aimed at making the home buying and selling process easier and avoiding problems such as gazumping. We will consider carefully responses to the consultation in reaching conclusions on action required to improve the process in the interests of all responsible sellers and buyers.

  Right to Roam
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to extend the proposed right to roam legislation to cover access to rivers by canoeists. [79693]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government's plans to introduce a statutory right of access to open countryside will extend only to those on foot for the purposes of quiet open-air recreation. Statutory duties of the Environment Agency with respect to water include a duty to promote the use of waters and associated land for recreational purposes. The Agency and the water and sewerage undertakers also have environmental and recreational duties which include a requirement, so far as is reasonably practicable and consistent with other enactments relating to their functions, to ensure that water and associated land to which they have rights is made available for recreational purposes. They must also have regard to the desirability of preserving freedom of access to places of natural beauty. A revised Code of Practice on Conservation, Access and Recreation, which gives guidance on the exercise of these duties, will shortly be issued for consultation.

  Environmental Appraisals
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what environmental appraisals of policy his Department has(a) completed, (b) started and (c) planned. [79615]

  Mr. Meale
  The available information is currently being collected by each Department to meet the Environmental Audit Committee's request for information on environmental appraisals as part of its second inquiry into the Greening Government Initiative.

  Green Belt
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the green belt land in each local authority area. [79841]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Information on the area of green belt land in each local authority is not currently available. Estimates under preparation, based on designated green belt areas shown in adopted and deposited local plans, should be finalised later in the year.

  Ports Policy
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 16 February 1999 to the hon. Member for Hull West and Hessle (Mr. Johnson),Official Report, columns 606–07, how he intends to secure public accountability in respect of the statutory powers and duties of Newhaven Port. [80111]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Answer to which reference is made announced preparation by the Government of a comprehensive ports policy paper, and a consultation paper including an invitation to comment. Details of the measures the Government will take on accountability and other key issues will be in that policy paper which will be issued later this year. These will not be limited to trust ports, although they have special obligations, but will cover company-owned ports such as Newhaven.

  Section 56 Grants
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the applications submitted for section 56 grants since 1 January 1990, indicating in each case which were successful and how much was awarded. [80096]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Schemes accepted for section 56 grants after 1 January 1990 and the grant allocated or paid are as follows:

  £ million

  Ivanhoe Line

  1.4

  Midland Metro

  40.0

  Robin Hood Line

  4.4

  Grant payments for a number of other schemes started before 1 January 1990 and continued after that date.

  During this period, a number of authorities have developed potential section 56 schemes and have discussed these with officials in my Department. We do not keep a centralised record of all such discussions.

  Metropolitan Railway Passenger Services Grant
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions for what reason the Special Grant report (No. 45) (Metropolitan Railway Passenger Services Grant 1999/2000) does not cover a period of three years. [79721]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Special Grant Report (No. 45) was made under section 88B of the Local Government Finance Act 1988, as substituted by paragraph 18 of Schedule 10 to the Local Government Finance Act 1992. The use of that power is an interim measure pending establishment of a permanent power to pay the grant. Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary legislation, the Strategic Rail Authority will have a broad power to make payments, including grants to passenger transport authorities (PTAs).

  British Rail
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what factors underlie the scale of increase in the budget of British Rail in 1999–2000.[79722]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  There are several factors underlying the increase between the estimated outturn of £58 million for British Rail in 1998–99 and the planned expenditure of £93 million for British Rail in 1999£2000. The main factor is an increase in net interest charges. The long-term interest rate which British Rail pays on its debt will remain unchanged, whilst the short-term interest rate which it receives on its cash reserves is expected to fall. The differential between the two rates is therefore expected to widen, increasing net interest charges.

  Strategic Rail Authority
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what (i) guidance and (ii) instruction has been given to Sir Alastair Morton in respect of his role in connection with PTEs in the period prior to the creation of a Strategic Rail Authority.[79723]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  None.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the role the Strategic Rail Authority will have in respect of passenger transport authorities. [79724]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary legislation, the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) will work closely with other key organisations, including Passenger Transport Authorities, to promote rail within our integrated transport policy. Passenger Transport Executives are co-signatories to a number of franchise agreements, which the SRA will inherit.

  Working Time Directive
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his policy towards working time in the road transport sector, with particular reference to the current Commission proposals. [80157]
  68
  Dr. Reid
  The Government have implemented the extant Working Time Directive in the UK and accepts the principle of extending working time legislation to transport generally. However, we believe that any controls should reflect the needs of business and employees and the public and should include sufficient flexibility to take account of their particular operational needs. We have particular concerns about the scope, derogations and night work provisions. We are addressing these issues in the European Union with a view to securing a Directive in the currently excluded sectors which is balanced and sensible.

  Orange Badges
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the estimated total number of disabled orange badges in circulation in each of the last 10 years. [80200]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Details of the estimated total number of Orange Badges on issue in England over the last 10 years are:

  Thousand

  Year

  Total number of Orange Badges on issue in England

  1989

  929

  1990

  979

  1991

  1,102

  1992

  1,187

  1993

  1,275

  1994

  1,336

  1995

  1,463

  1996

  1,517

  1997

  1,636

  1998

  1,717

  The figures for Scotland and Wales are compiled, and held separately, by my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales respectively.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what plans he has to review eligibility criteria for disabled orange badges; [80199]

  (2) -what plans the Government have to review eligibility for disabled orange badges in respect of people who are severely but temporarily disabled through (a) waiting for treatments and (b) prolonged treatment and recovery. [80198]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  There are no plans to change the eligibility criteria for an Orange Badge at this time.

  However, the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee (DPTAC), who are our statutory advisers on the transport needs of disabled people, have submitted a paper to us about the Scheme, which includes such matters as the eligibility criteria and abuse.

  To inform us in our consideration of DPTAC's paper, my officials are exploring with all local authorities in England their procedures for issuing Orange Badges. In the light of information received from local authorities we will want to consider DPTAC's paper very carefully before deciding what, if any, changes to the Scheme might be appropriate.
  69
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which psychiatric disorders have been accepted as valid criteria for the award of disabled orange badges. [80201]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  None. Apart from blind people and people with very severe upper limb disabilities, the key eligibility criterion to qualify for a badge is a permanent and substantial disability which causes either inability to walk or very considerable difficulty in walking. People with "psychiatric disorders" may be eligible for a badge but only if their walking ability is also very seriously affected.

  Terminal 5 Inquiry
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the public sector costs incurred on the Terminal 5 inquiry in respect of(a) attendance by civil servants, (b) the Government's legal costs and (c) tax relief accorded to BAA. [80152]

  Mr. Caborn
  The answers are as follows:

  (a) No estimate of costs has been made;

  (b) Approximately £961,000 excluding agencies;

  (c) Not possible to estimate any effect on taxation of BAA.

  Drivers (Database)
  Mr. Caplin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress has been made towards the operation of a computerised database to hold details of all insured drivers and their vehicles. [80473]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Plans for a motor insurance database have been prepared by the insurance industry with the support of my Department. Work is going ahead to set up the database as soon as possible.

  European Scrutiny Committee
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the Presidency draft of a council directive on the minimum health and safety requirements regarding the response of workers to risks arising from physical agents connected to the Explanatory Memorandum submitted by his Department to the European Scrutiny Committee is subject to the confidentiality of Council proceedings. [80588]

  Mr. Meale
  The Presidency draft text appears to be subject to the confidentiality requirements of the Council Rules of Procedure.

  Since the text is substantially different from that published by the European Commission in 1994, my Department, in line with Cabinet Office guidance, submitted an Explanatory Memorandum on this proposal in order to keep the European Scrutiny Committees informed about progress. The German Presidency has indicated that it wishes to reach common position on a compromise text during its term.

  Concessionary Travel
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has for the introduction of a national concessionary travel scheme for retired and disabled people. [80226]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We have announced our intention to introduce a national standard minimum for concessionary fare schemes for pensioners. It will require each local authority to provide a scheme in their area under which pensioners would be entitled at least to half fares on buses on purchase of a £5 annual bus pass. However, local authorities will remain free to offer more generous schemes if they see fit. Primary legislation will be required for this minimum scheme; it will be introduced as soon as Parliamentary time permits.

  Water Resources
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what policy conclusions he has drawn from his discussions during his recent visit to the Indian Sub-Continent on policies relating to dams on rivers and the allocation of water between countries. [79036]

  Mr. Meale
  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister did not have discussions on these specific subjects. The United Kingdom supports the policies in the 1998 decision of the UN Commission on Sustainable Development on the sustainable management of freshwater. The United Kingdom also supports the 1997 UN Convention on the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses. We also await with interest the report of the international commission under Dr. Kader Asmal, Minister of Water Resources of the Republic of South Africa, on large dams.

  Regional Study
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the terms of reference and areas of study are for the London to South West and South Wales study. [80021]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The London to South West and South Wales study is included in the first tranche of the multi-modal studies programme announced last month. Work on the study will start before the autumn. The Government Office for the South West will set up a steering group to include representatives from the South West Regional Planning Conference and other regional and transport interests, to determine the terms of reference and areas of study.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the(a) highest and (b) lowest council tax at Band D for a council billing area, after transitional relief grant and council tax benefits in (i) Derbyshire, (ii) Lincolnshire (iii) Leicestershire, (iv) South Yorkshire and (v) Norfolk. [80621]
  71
  Ms Armstrong
  The highest and lowest Band D council tax for the shire and metropolitan districts within each of the requested areas in 1999–2000 are shown in the table. No district in these areas is eligible for

  County

  Highest

  £

  Lowest

  £

  Derbyshire

  Bolsover

  905

  Chesterfield

  855

  North East Derbyshire

  905

  South Derbyshire

  855

  Leicestershire

  North West Leicestershire

  828

  Hinckley and Bosworth

  770

  Lincolnshire

  West Lindsey

  806

  South Kesteven

  769

  Norfolk

  Norwich

  818

  Breckland

  750

  South Yorkshire

  Sheffield

  886

  Doncaster

  761

  A505
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will visit Baldock to inspect traffic congestion on the A505 road. [79789]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  My right hon. Friend is aware of the position of the proposed A505 Baldock Bypass. He has no plans at present to visit Baldock, but will bear this invitation in mind if a suitable opportunity arises.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he has travelled on the A505 road between Royston, Baldock and Letchworth in the past 12 months in his official capacity. [79790]

  Mr. Prescott
  I undertake visits to all parts of the country and records of the routes that I take are not retained.

  British Standards
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will list(a) the organisations and people who form the British Standards Technical Sub Committee PTI/2/1, (b) the dates on which the Committee has met to date in 1999 and (c) the planned meeting dates for the remainder of 1999; [80466]

  (2) what active chemical elements are being considered for use with a British Standard for lead replacement; what concentration of these chemical elements were recommended by the British Standards Technical Sub Committee; and what is the ranking of the performance of these elements relative to lead; [80468]

  (3) what analysis has been made of motor vehicle engine wear and tear identified in Sweden since the introduction and use of lead replacement petrol; [80469]

  (4) what has prevented the agreement of a British Standard for lead replacement petrol to date; [80467]

  (5) what progress is being made to agree a British Standard for lead replacement petrol; and if he will make a statement. [80464]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Whilst it is not a prerequisite to the introduction of lead replacement petrol (LRP), a draft British Standard for LRP is being progressed by the British Standards Institution (BSI) Technical Sub-Committee. PTI/2/1. The BSI suspended work on the standard for approximately one year pending a legal action which was resolved towards the end of last year.
  72
  Reorganisation Transitional Relief Grant in 1999–2000 and figures for the amount of Council Tax Benefit that the authorities expect to provide during the year are not yet available.

  PTI/2/1 recommenced their work on 30 November 1998, and has since had three further meetings: on 18 January, 2 March and 7 April 1999. No further meetings have currently been scheduled.

  BSI do not publish the names of individuals attending their committee meetings, who are present to represent the associations to which they are affiliated. On PTI/2/1 these include the Association of UK Oil Independents, Automobile Association, Chemical Industries Association, Freight Transport Association, Institute of Petroleum, Petrol Retailers Association, Royal Automobile Club, Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, UK Petroleum Industry Association, as well as officials from DETR, DTI and MOD.

  In reviewing the comments received following public consultation on the preliminary draft Standard for LRP issued last year, which included consideration of the early problems in Sweden associated with LRP, it was decided that the use of sodium as one of the active chemical elements be dropped from the Standard. The Standard will now include only potassium, phosphorus and, as a result of recent technical data as to its effectiveness as a valve seat lubricant, manganese. The recommended concentrations of each additive is in the process of being finalised, but this work is well advanced and it is anticipated that the standard for LRP will be published shortly.

  All of the additives currently being considered by PTI/2/1 are broadly similar in performance at similar mass concentration levels, although the maximum dosage levels and normal dosage levels will vary in order to avoid side effects on other engine components and take into account experience gained on other markets. While no additive has been shown to provide the same level of engine protection as lead under extreme engine operating conditions, in terms of the effectiveness of LRP, there is ample evidence to demonstrate that it is a satisfactory, and greener, alternative to leaded four-star petrol; and that owners of older cars will be able to switch seamlessly to this fuel for normal everyday motoring.

  Motorway Noise
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 8 February 1999,Official Report, column 8, for what reason he has not published the new criteria on noise reduction and ring-fenced annual budget for the Highways Agency before the start of the financial year 1999–2000; and when he expects to do so. [80519]
  73
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave on 22 March 1999,Official Report, columns 50–51, in which both criteria and the budget for noise mitigation measures were announced.

  Southall to Reading Main Line
  Mr. Khabra
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has held with Railtrack plc on extending electrification of the western main line from Southall to Reading and beyond, with particular reference to a connection for access to the Heathrow main line stations for trains originating from western England and South Wales. [80437]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  None. Railtrack's 1999 Network Management Statement, published on 25 March, sets out on pages 160–165 their investment plans for the Great Western Main Line. It does not contain any proposals for electrification of these stretches of line.

  B5404
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the traffic problems at the Plantation Lane section of the B5404 road at Hopwas; and what traffic calming measures he plans to put in place at this section of the road. [79861]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Highway Authority for the B5404 is Staffordshire County Council and as such it would be for that authority to conduct any assessment of traffic problems or to implement traffic calming measures. The County Council carried out an improvement at the A51/B5404 junction in 1994 but has no plans for any further significant works in the foreseeable future. The County Council has no plans for any traffic calming measures on Plantation Lane.

  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the traffic capacity of the B5404 road from Lichfield to Tamworth; and what is the current traffic flow, including the proportion of heavy goods vehicles. 179860]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Staffordshire County Council, the Highway Authority, has indicated that the B5404 (known as Plantation Lane), as a single carriageway road with a width of just under 7.3 metres, has a capacity of a little less than 13,000 vehicles per 24 hour day.

  The most recent classified count on the route took place in November 1995 and showed a flow of 5,383 vehicles per 12 hour day, equivalent to approximately 6,700 vehicles per 24 hour day. At the time the number of heavy goods vehicles was 324 per 12 hour day.

  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many accidents have been reported on the Plantation Lane section of the B5404 road at Hopwas in each of the last 15 years; and how many fatalities have resulted. [79862]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The following table shows the numbers of personal injury road accidents and fatalities on Plantation Lane in each of the last 15 years.
  74

  Injury road accidents and fatalities on Plantation Lane: 1983–1997

  Year of Accident

  Accidents

  Fatalities

  1983

  4

  0

  1984

  3

  1

  1985

  2

  0

  1986

  0

  0

  1987

  2

  0

  1988

  0

  0

  1989

  1

  0

  1990

  2

  0

  1991

  4

  1

  1992

  1

  0

  1993

  5

  0

  1994

  6

  0

  1995

  7

  1

  1996

  2

  0

  1997

  3

  0

  Plantation Lane
  Before 10/7/95, this was the B5404 between the Ordnance Survey grid references northing 30235 and 30495.
  On 10/7/95. the A5 was rerouted and the B5404 was re-defined. From this date, Plantation Lane was the B5404 between the Ordnance Survey grid references northing 30285 and 30495.

  Aviculture
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 15 February 1999,Official Report, column 436, on aviculture, if he will list the avicultural purposes for which the licences were granted and the specific conditions attached to each. [80055]

  Mr. Meale
  The purpose of aviculture is defined by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 as meaning the breeding and rearing of birds in captivity.

  The conditions as stipulated on the licence to take redwing are as follows:

  (1) that the birds are taken only from the named county or counties; (2) that the birds are taken only for the reason given i. e. for the purpose of aviculture; (3) that the birds are taken only by a person authorised in writing by the licensee; (4) that the birds are taken only by the use of the named device i. e. a "whoosh net", which must be operated only by authorised individuals who are fully trained and competent in the use of such a device; (5) that any bird caught in the "whoosh net" which is of a species other than a redwing-Turdus illiacus must be released immediately; (6) that the land owner's written permission is obtained before entry upon any land; (7) that a report is sent to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions 14 days after the expiry date of the licence.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many birds bred or reared in captivity following the issuing of a licence have subsequently been sold with the approval of his Department in each of the last five years for which information is available; for what use these birds were sold; and what subsequent checks were carried out in respect of their welfare. [79923]

  Mr. Meale
  No requests have been received within the last five years for approval for the sale of any offspring from birds taken under aviculture licences.

  Packaging Waste
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Burgon) of 28 January 1999,Official Report, column 335, on packaging waste, if he will provide details of the consultation process referred to in paragraph (viii); and when it will be concluded. [80384]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Department will shortly be issuing a consultation paper covering the Advisory Committee's proposal to change the present percentage activity obligations. We expect the consultation period to last approximately 6 weeks.

  The consultation will consider the Advisory Committee's recommendation that there should be a 2 per cent. reduction in the convertor activity obligation (from 11 per cent. to 9 per cent.), a 1 per cent. increase each in the packer/filler activity obligation (from 36 per cent. to 37 per cent.) and retailer activity obligation (from 47 per cent. to 48 per cent.).

  West Coast Main Line
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to enforce standards of service on the West Coast Inter City main line; and if he will make a statement. [80276]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Franchise Agreement specifies performance and service quality standards which must be met. The Franchising Director monitors compliance with these standards and has powers to take enforcement action if they are not met.

  Treaty of Amsterdam
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list each of the new responsibilities which he will assume when the signed Treaty of Amsterdam takes effect and for each(a) the likely effect on departmental staffing, (b) the bodies or persons in the European Union principally concerned and (c) the relevant section of that treaty and the consolidated treaties of the European Union and European Community. [80417]

  Mr. Meale
  The Treaty of Amsterdam will have minimal impact on the responsibilities of the Department and its staffing. As far as the EU Institutions are concerned, there will be an increased role for the European Parliament in some of the areas covered by the Department due to the extension by the Treaty of the co-decision procedure to much of the EU legislation in the transport and environmental fields.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what advice he has received from IATA in relation to the impact of the millennium bug on airport and airline safety. [80031]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  My Department has received no specific advice from IATA. The Department proposes to issue guidance on the millennium compliance situation of 76
  foreign aircraft and airports by 1 October, although the timing may be subject to the availability of relevant information. The guidance will be based largely on information received from governmental sources such as the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO)—the major international aviation governmental organisation—and the European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC), supplemented by information from relevant sources such as IATA.

  Road Accidents
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 29 March 1999,Official Report, columns 467–68, on road accidents, if he will break down the number of road deaths in 1997 by borough council areas. [80002]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Information for all borough council areas is not readily available. However fatalities in 1997 by county and unitary authority are shown in Table 46a of "Road Accidents Great Britain 1997: The Casualty Report". A copy of this publication may be found in the House of Commons Library.

  Rail Links
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to carry out a study on the rail link between London and Cheltenham/Gloucester; what discussions he has had with(a) train operators and (b)Railtrack about this line and the services on it; what discussions he has had about providing a dual track from Swindon to Kemble; and if he will make a statement. [80106]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We have no plans to carry out a study on the rail link between London and Cheltenham/Gloucester, and we have had no discussions with the train operators or Railtrack about this line or the services on it, or about providing a dual track from Swindon to Kemble.

  Rural Bus Service Grant
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the level of tender prices for new and additional rural bus services in Bedfordshire funded by the rural bus service grant. [80248]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The award of contracts for subsidised bus services is a matter for the local authority concerned. However, a number of local authorities, of which I know Bedfordshire is one, have reported concerns about recent increases in tender costs. We will be considering this issue as part of our assessment with local authorities of the impact of the rural bus subsidy grant and in monitoring bus industry performance more generally.

  Sellafield
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions whom he has consulted in the course of making his decision over the application by British Nuclear Fuels plc to operate a mixed oxide plutonium fuels plant at Sellafield; what
  77
  matters are currently under consideration in respect of the application; and when he expects to make an announcement on the matter. [80402]

  Mr. Meale
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) on 11 November 1998,Official Report, column 189.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to paragraph 9.51 of his Department's Annual Report 1999, Cm 4204, what international work on the implementation of the convention on the safe management of radioactive waste and spent fuel has been supported by the United Kingdom. [80203]

  Mr. Meale
  The Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management has yet to enter into force. The UK signed the Convention on 29 September 1997, the day it opened for signature. Preparations for UK ratification of the Convention are under way.

  Since the Convention opened for signature, the International Atomic Energy Agency has held two informal meetings to discuss preparations for implementation of the Convention's reporting and peer review requirements. UK experts have taken an active part in these meetings.

  Kingshurst Parish Council
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will order an extraordinary audit of the activities of Kingshurst Parish Council in the Borough of Solihull. [80421]

  Ms Armstrong
  The appointment and conduct of auditors is a matter for the Audit Commission, who may order an extraordinary audit where they consider that a departure from the normal audit cycle is required. My right hon. Friend has no reason to override the role and responsibility of the Audit Commission in the case of Kingshurst Parish Council.

  Rail Freight
  Mr. Ian Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what measures he is introducing to promote the increased transport of freight by rail. [78818]

  Mr. Prescott
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Khabra) today,Official Report, column 4.

  Correspondence
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he intends to reply to the letter of 20 August from the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East about a traffic reduction initiative in Essex. [79783]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  My Department has no record of receiving a letter from the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East on this subject.

  Mobile Homes
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what representations he has received concerning the commission payable by mobile home owners to site owners on completion of the sale of a home; [80099]

  (2) what review he has conducted of the working of the Mobile Homes Act 1983; [80098]

  (3) what steps he plans to take to ensure that mobile home owners have the right to choose the suppliers of public utilities to their homes. [80100]

  Mr. Raynsford
  My Department established the Park Homes Working Party last year to examine the concerns raised by national groups representing mobile home (or park home) owners and the large number of representations we have received from home owners themselves. These cover a wide range of issues including the commission payable when a home is sold on site and issues relating to the supply of utilities to individual homes.

  The Working Party will be considering how to make the most effective use of the existing legislation relating to park homes (including the Mobile Homes Act 1983) and whether there is a case, in the longer term, for changing the legislation. It will make recommendations to Ministers on the way ahead later this year.

  New Housing
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the implications are of his announcement of revised household projection figures on 29 March for the need for new housing developments in(a) Stevenage, (b) Devon, (c) West Sussex, (d) East Sussex, (e) Hertfordshire and (f) West Midlands. [80086]

  Mr. Raynsford
  As the Deputy Prime Minister said in his answer on 29 March 1999,Official Report, column 472, my Department will be writing to regional planning bodies setting out further information which may be relevant in the context of preparing regional planning guidance.

  Fuel Poverty
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will estimate the proportion of pensioners who are, on his Department's definition, living in fuel poverty; and if he will provide separate estimates for pensioners aged(a) 65 to 69, (b) 70 to 79 and (c) 80 years or above. [80095]

  Mr. Meale
  Using data from the 1991 English House Condition Survey (EHCS) we estimate that some 77 per cent. of lone pensioners were in fuel poverty and a further 43 per cent. of older couples (at least one of whom was of pensionable age) were also fuel poor. Data are not readily available on the number of pensioners in larger households in fuel poverty.

  The EHCS relates to households and so detailed information on ages is readily available only for the head of each household. In 1991, of heads of household aged

  79
  (a) 65 to 69, (b) 70 to 79 and (c) 80 years or more, we estimate that some 50 per cent., 58 per cent. and 80 per cent. respectively were fuel poor.

  Provisional data from the 1996 EHCS show a welcome reduction in the number of households in fuel poverty. The data are currently being analysed and will be published in the 1996 EHCS Energy Report later this year.

  This information is based on the standard definition of fuel poor households being those needing to spend more than 10 per cent. of household income to achieve a satisfactory indoor heating regime.

  Sewers
  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what correspondence he has had with Ofwat concerning the non-publication of the condition and grade of critical sewers in(a) Southern Water, (b) North West Water, (c) North Surrey Water, (d) Thames Water, (e) South West Water, (f) South East Water and (g) Mid Southern Water areas following advice to Ofwat by these companies that the information is confidential. 80444]

  Mr. Meale
  None. I have asked the Director General of Water Services to write to my hon. Friend.

  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his Department's definition of a critical sewer. [80443]

  Mr. Meale
  Critical sewers are those which are either costly or difficult to repair, and/or are important to the performance of the network. The definition is given in the sewerage rehabilitation manual (Water Research Council) adopted by the industry in 1983.

  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to give further guidance to Ofwat on developing absolute standards for the sustainability of sewerage networks; and what discussions he has had on this matter with the Director General of Ofwat. [80442]

  Mr. Meale
  We published "Raising the Quality" in September 1998, giving guidance to the Director General of Water Services on the environmental and quality objectives to be achieved by the water industry in England and Wales in 2000 to 2005. Paragraphs 125 to 131 of this document set out the Government's views on the maintenance of water supply and sewerage assets.

  This guidance endorses the approach of the Director General, based on the serviceability of assets to customers and to the environment, as the correct framework for considering the financing of asset maintenance in the current periodic review.

  The guidance also sets out the Government's view that, in the longer term, it would be appropriate for the Director General to develop absolute standards for the serviceability of water distribution and sewerage networks. We shall discuss with Ofwat, the Drinking Water Inspectorate and the Environment Agency the work needed to develop a strategic approach of this sort.

  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the meeting between Water UK and the Local Government 80
  Association on tackling rat infestation of sewerage networks proposed in his Department's response to the Environment Sub-Committee's report on Sewage Treatment and Disposal has taken place; and if he will make a statement. [80445]

  Mr. Meale
  The first meeting was held in March. The next will be in the Summer when information currently being obtained by Water UK and the Local Government Association will be considered.

  Inspection Charges
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will postpone the implementation of the proposed inspection charges under the Town and County Planning (Control of Major Accident Hazards) Regulations pending his comprehensive review of health and safety legislation. [80281]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Deputy Prime Minister announced on 30 March 1999,Official Report, columns 586–87, that he is to take forward a strategic appraisal of health and safety to mark the 25th anniversary of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974. It is not our intention to revisit the basic structures of the Act, or to conduct a comprehensive review of health and safety legislation. The aim is to inject new impetus and relaunch the health and safety agenda. The appraisal has no bearing on the implementation from 1 April of the Control of Major Accidents Hazards Regulations 1999.

  Public Bodies
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list those members of advisory committees to his Department who have declared outside interests with(a) DiaDexus, (b) Cerebrus Ltd., (c) Cerebrus PLC, (d) Stanford University, (e) Human Genome Services Inc., (f) Glaxo Wellcome, (g) the Wellcome Institute, (h) Monsanto, (i) AgrEvo and (j) SmithKline Beecham. [80128]

  Mr. Meale
  The only member of an advisory non departmental public body sponsored by my Department who has declared an interest in one of the organisations listed in the question is:

  Name

  NDPB

  Organisation

  Sir Tom Blundell

  Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution

  SmithKline Beecham

  Energy Conservation
  Mr. Bruce George
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to report to Parliament on activities by energy conservation authorities under the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995; and if he will make a statement. [80719]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have today published a report covering activity in England under the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995 (HECA) as at the end of 1998. Copies of the report have been placed in the Library of the House.
  81
  Local authorities were identified as crucial to the success of the Home Energy Conservation Act. Some authorities have achieved good results—but many need to do much more. Local authorities' reports point to an improvement of some 2% to 2,% in the energy efficiency of residential accommodation over the two years to the end of March 1998. This is a useful initial step, but progress is patchy, with too many areas reporting no improvement at all. Local authorities need to make faster progress towards achieving the potential they have identified.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Museums and Galleries (School Visits)
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) how many(a) primary and (b) secondary school visits from each LEA have taken place to museums and galleries sponsored by his Department in each of the last five years; [76392]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the number of (a) primary and (b) secondary school pupils who have participated in school visits from each LEA to museums and galleries sponsored by his Department in each of the last five years. 76391]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 16 March 1999]The visits over the last five years by school pupils to each of the museums and galleries sponsored by my Department has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Some of the museums and galleries have supplied more detailed information on the origin of the school visitors. I shall write to the hon. Member shortly to forward this information and place a copy of my reply in the Libraries of the House.

  Operational Licences
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list for(a) small and medium enterprises and (b) larger companies (i) all licences and permits issued by his Department and its agencies to companies permitting them to carry out their business, (ii) the cost of each such licence or permit in

  Name

  Nature of business

  New Shakespeare Company

  Regent's Park Open Air Theatre

  The Zoological Society of London

  Regent's Park Zoo

  Kook Fang Won Chinese Restaurant

  Access to floating restaurant, Regent's Park

  British Waterways Board

  Access to Grand Union Canal

  Serpentine Gallery

  Art gallery, Kensington Gardens

  Hampton pool Ltd.

  Swimming Pool, Bushy Park

  Royal Collection Enterprises

  Buckingham Palace Ticket Office

  Mrs. A.M. Collins

  Flower seller, Bushy Park

  Cavan Bakery

  Baker's, Bushy Park

  Hearsum Family Ltd.

  Catering, Penbroke Lodge Richmond Park

  Golf Course Management Ltd.

  Management of Richmond Park Golf Course

  Original Bike Hire

  Bike Hire Richmond Park

  Crown Catering Group

  Hyde Park Deli cafeteria

  Golf Learning Centres

  Regent's Park Golf and Tennis School

  Said Lakhdar

  Kensington Gardens kiosk catering

  Park Café (formerly Kessler's Plc)

  Catering in Greenwich Park, Regent's Park Rose Garden and the Lido Pavilion; managing the Greenwich Park Visitor Centre; managing the Royal Parks' deckchair concession

  Sterling Food Services

  Mobile catering facilities in St. James's Park, Hyde Park and Bushy Park; the sports facilities in Hyde Park

  82
  (A) 1997–98 and (B) 1999–2000 and (iii) the current number of companies which are in receipt of each such licence or permit. [76849]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 16 March 1999]My Department has issued the following licences and permits:

  Seventy-five permits for filming and photo shoots in Trafalgar Square were issued in 1997-98 at a total cost of £ 12,620. The permits are for one-off events for various organisations using Trafalgar Square for a day or part of a day for filming purposes. No permits have yet been issued for 1999–2000.

  Eighty-nine media passes for news broadcasts on Trafalgar Square—these are issued free of charge.

  A pigeon feed licence on Trafalgar Square in 1995 on a three year basis to BPR Investments—the value of which is commercial in confidence. This was renewed in December 1998 for a further six months.

  Licences are also issued to named individuals to carry out activities on designated wreck sites. They are not issued to businesses or companies and are issued free of charge.

  My Department's agency, the Royal Parks Agency, issued 362 still photography permits and 310 film licences in 1997–98 for a total of –128,000. The majority of these licences are issued to small enterprises or to individuals for such things as wedding photographs, fashion and other commercial advertisements. The majority of these licences are issued on an ad hoc basis and no figures are available centrally for 1999–2000. The licence fees are charged by the individual parks and the amount depends on the number of people and vehicles involved in the filming and the time spent in the park.

  The Royal Parks Agency also currently licenses 22 businesses to operate in the Royal Parks. Fees are classified as commercial in confidence and the majority are based on a percentage of the income generated by the business. They are issued following tender auction and are issued to established business on a term basis, usually between 3 and 7 years. The majority were issued before 1997–98 and are scheduled to run beyond 1999–2000.

  The details are as follows:
  83

  Name

  Nature of business

  Miss T. Rumsey

  Bushy Park mobile catering

  EC Soft Ice

  Mobile catering Victoria Tower Gardens

  Any Time Any Place Ltd.

  Catering, Richmond Park

  Bluebird Boats Ltd.

  Boating concession in Hyde park and Greenwith park

  Park Boats Ltd.

  Boating and catering concessions in Regent's Park

  Millennium National Bid Committee
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what guidelines he has issued to the Millennium National Bid Committee relating to the provision of information to applicants whose projects are not supported by the Committee. [62581]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 9 December 1998]The Millennium Festival is an initiative involving eleven of the National Lottery distributing bodies. Decisions on applications for grant under Round 1 (–5,000 and over) were taken individually by each of the participating distributors according to its own criteria, rules and procedures. There is no "Millennium National Bid Committee" with a decision-making function in relation to bids, although the participating distributors do co-ordinate their Festival programmes through joint meetings of a Millennium Festival Committee for each country of the United Kingdom. These committees have an advisory function only, and focus on strategic issues such as co-ordination of procedures and timetables, funding priorities, geographical patterns of distribution and joint publicity and marketing. No Ministerial guidance has been issued to the Committee.

  Millennium Dome (GM Foods)
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) if genetically modified food will be served in the Millennium Dome; [77218]

  (2) if visitors to the Millennium Experience will be informed of the presence of genetically modified food in its catering facilities. [77219]

  Janet Anderson
  The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) aims to offer an exemplary experience for the forecast 12 million visitors to the Millennium Experience at Greenwich, covering all aspects of their visit. This includes the range and quality of, and information about, the food available, including genetically modified food. All caterers who will operate in the Dome will be required to meet the relevant statutory requirements concerning food labelling. In addition, the NMEC will aim to ensure that caterers in the Dome take further steps to

  Date of esablishment

  Final reports and date of issue

  Whether terminated and date of termination

  Expected reporting and termination date for those still in existence

  Reviews

  Reviews of Film policy

  May 1997

  'A Bigger Picture' published March 1998

  Yes, review

  recommendations taken forward by Film Policy Action Committee (see below)

  n/a

  Review of the List of Nationally Important Sporting Events which must be made available on Free-to-Air Terrestrial TV Channels

  12 December 1997

  Reported to Ministers on 20 March 1998 and announced 20 June 1998

  Yes. 20 March 1998

  n/a

  84
  implement any new guidelines which might be issued to the food industry, and to meet the public's concern for comprehensive and clear identification of food ingredients.

  EU Fraud
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what(a) discussions he has had and (b) proposals his Department has put forward at Council of Ministers' meetings in respect of EU fraud; and if he will make a statement. [77782]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 19 March 1999]I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary on 19 March 1999,Official Report, columns 858–59.

  Green Transport Plan
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what involvement fleet managers have had in drawing up his Department's Green Transport Plan. [77965]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 22 March 1999]The Department does not employ a dedicated fleet manager. The core Department leases no vehicles itself, but contracts with the Government Car and Despatch Agency (GCDA) for cars for Ministers and senior officials. The Royal Parks Agency leases its vehicles but manages them through an overall contract manager, who is currently reviewing the contract to include further green transport requirements.

  Task Forces
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list for all task forces and policy reviews with external members established by his Department since May 1997(a) their dates of establishment, (b) those which have issued final reports and their dates of publication, (c) those which have been terminated and their dates of termination and (d) for those bodies still in existence, expected reporting and termination dates. [79270]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The following table gives the information required.
  85

  Date of establishment

  Final reports and date of issue

  Whether terminated and date of termination

  Expected reporting and termination date for those still in existence

  An independent review of the Future of the Royal Opera House and the English National Opera

  November 1997

  Report published on 30 June 1998

  Yes. 30 June 1998

  n/a

  Review of the Future Funding of the BBC

  January 1999

  n/a

  n/a

  Report not due to be published until July 1999

  Review of the efficiency and effectiveness of Government sponsored museums and galleries

  February 1999

  n/a

  n/a

  Report due to Ministers during 1999. Contract with consultants will conclude when report is produced

  Working Group on Legal Deposit

  January 1998

  Report published 17 December 1998

  Yes. July 1998

  n/a

  The Library and Information Commission's public library network implementation Committee

  May 1998

  Report 'Building the New Library Network' published October 1998

  Yes. July 1998

  n/a

  Task Forces

  Creative Industries Task Force: to recommend steps to maximise the economic impact of the UK creative industries at home and abroad

  June 1997

  Mapping Document into the Creative Industries published in November 1998

  n/a

  Ongoing group to advise the Secretary of State

  The Football Taskforce: established to investigate and recommend measures to deal with public concern on a number of issues associated with the game

  30 July 1997

  Eliminating Racism from Football report published 30 March 1998. Improving Facilities for Disabled Supporters report

  n/a

  The Football Taskforce finalreport—on the commercial aspects

  The Film Policy Action Committee:established to take forward the recommendations of the Film Policy Review

  April 1998

  n/a

  n/a

  Due to finish April 1999. No report. The Action Committee is overseeing the implementation of the Film Policy Review

  A group of sponsorship experts will assist sports currently in receipt of tobacco sponsorship to find replacement sponsors by: assessing the needs of each sport; offering advice on best practice in establishing commercial relationships with sponsors; and assist the sports in making links with potential new sponsors

  December 1998

  n/a

  n/a

  The group provides advice direct to the sports affected

  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list all those task forces and policy reviews with external members established by his Department since May 1997 which have set up(a) sub-groups, (b) working parties and (c) other subsidiary committees. [79262]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The information required is as follows:

  Task forces

  (i) Creative Industries Taskforce

  (a) Creative Industries Export Promotion Advisory Group

  (b) None

  (c) None

  (ii) The Football Taskforce

  (a) The Football Taskforce Working Group

  (b) None

  (c) None

  86

  (iii) The Film Policy Action Committee

  (a) (i) Development

  (ii) Distribution

  (iii) Training

  (iv) Marketing

  (b) None

  (c) None

  2. Policy Reviews

  (i) Review of Film Policy

  (a) (i) Film Finance

  (ii) Achieving 20 per cent. Market Share

  (iii) Broadening the Audience

  (iv) Inward Investment

  (v) Export

  (vi) Training and Education

  (b) None

  (c) None

  87

  (ii) Review of the future funding of the BBC

  (a) (i) Future Funding Issues

  (ii) BBC commercial activities and the fair trading commitment

  (iii) Concessionary Licensing

  (b) None

  (c) None.

  Disabled Athletes (Lottery Funding)
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the national centres for disabled athletes which(a) have received Lottery funding and (b) are receiving grant-in-aid. [79434]

  Mr. Banks
  [holding answer 30 March 1999]The English Sports Council are currently considering an application for Lottery funding from the British Wheelchair Sports Foundation to support the redevelopment of facilities at Stoke Mandeville Hospital.

  The five National Sports Centres operated by the English Sports Council at Bisham Abbey, Crystal Palace, Holme Pierrepont, Lilleshall and Plas Y Brenin provide services for people with disabilities, including suitable accommodation. None of the Centres receives Lottery funding at present but they are all in receipt of exchequer grant-in-aid for both revenue running costs and capital maintenance costs.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations, and from whom, he has received calling for Lottery funding for the British Wheelchair Sports Foundation at Stoke Mandeville Hospital. [79435]

  Mr. Banks
  [holding answer 30 March 1999]Ministers in this Department have received no such representations. However, the English Sports Council, distributors in England of the Lottery Sports Fund, have been in discussion with the British Wheelchair Sports Foundation and agreed that an application for Lottery funding should be made.

  The British Wheelchair Sports Foundation have also been invited to take the development of the Stoke Mandeville site forward as part of a Southern Consortium Network site in the English Network of the UK Sports Institute. The Lottery application and UK Sports Institute development are currently being assessed.

  Listed Buildings
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will advise English Heritage that when an application is made for spot listing of a church or other place of religious worship it will suggest to the applicant that an application should first be made for a Building Preservation Notice to enable the owners of the building to enter into dialogue with English Heritage before a final decision is made. [78742]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  [holding answer 31 March 1999]Applications for listing buildings of special architectural or historic interest are made to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who must consult English Heritage before he reaches a decision. A local planning authority may serve a Building Preservation Notice (BPN) where it considers that a building is of special architectural or 88
  historic interest and is under threat of demolition or alteration. When my right hon. Friend decides not to list a building which is the subject of a BPN, the local authority is liable to the payment of compensation for any loss or damage directly attributable to the effect of the notice. Local planning authorities tend therefore to serve BPNs only in exceptional circumstances and I do not believe that an extension of their use in the manner suggested would be appropriate.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list for each of the past 10 years and the current year the number of buildings listed, the spot listings and Building Preservation Notices issued by his Department for buildings for religious worship or former religious worship, indicating how many spot listings became Grade II or starred buildings. [78741]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  [holding answer 31 March 1999]The Department's records do not indicate whether buildings for religious worship which are listed are still in use. Details of listings in respect of such buildings are as follows:

  Year

  Grade II

  Grade II*

  Grade 1

  Total

  1989

  172

  6

  3

  181

  1990

  80

  3

  —

  83

  1991

  65

  3

  —

  68

  1992

  74

  4

  —

  78

  1993

  127

  8

  1

  136

  1994

  159

  4

  —

  163

  1995

  119

  3

  —

  122

  1996

  77

  6

  —

  83

  1997

  59

  1

  —

  60

  1998

  119

  7

  —

  126

  1999 up to

  24 March 1999

  22

  2

  —

  24

  Building Preservation Notices are served by local planning authorities; the Department's records do not indicate which of these received were in respect of buildings for religious worship.

  Lobbyists
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will publish a list, including names and dates, of all meetings that(a) he, (b) his officials, (c) his advisers and (d) his PPS have held during (i) 1997, (ii) 1998 and (iii) 1999 with people who work for political lobbying firms or for businesses that are members of the Public Relations Consultants Association. [79653]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Ministers and civil servants meet many people as part of the process of policy development and analysis. All such contracts are conducted in accordance with the Ministerial Code, the Civil Service Code and Guidance for Civil Servants: Contacts with Lobbyists. Some of these discussions take place on a confidential basis, and in order to preserve confidentiality, it is not the normal practice of Governments to release details of specific meetings with private individuals or companies. The requirements of the Ministerial Code also apply to Parliamentary Private Secretaries when attending any meetings in an official or semi-official capacity.

  Environmental Appraisals
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what environmental appraisals of policy his Department has(a) completed, (b) started and (c) planned. [79633]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The available information is currently being collected by each Department to meet the Environmental Audit Committee's request for information on environmental appraisals as part of its second inquiry into the Greening Government Initiative.

  Television Subtitling
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans his Department has to introduce an independent monitoring process for television subtitling for deaf and hard of hearing people across all forms of television broadcasting, including cable and satellite. [80081]

  Janet Anderson
  None at present. The Independent Television Commission requires all Channel 3 licensees, Channel 4 and Channel 5 to provide information on provision of subtitling for the deaf and hard of hearing to ensure that licence requirements are being met. There is no similar licence requirement on cable and satellite broadcasters. We will be taking into account their proposals to consider further how we might encourage the cable and satellite broadcasters to improve on a voluntary basis the current provision of subtitling on their services and if they can be independently monitored.

  Television Licences
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will estimate the cost of providing half-price television licences for all pensioners over the age of(a) 70, (b) 75 and (c) 80 years. [80269]

  Janet Anderson
  The estimated cost of providing half-price television licences for households where all members have reached the ages indicated would be:

  (a) 70 years —£125 million

  (b) 75 years —£83 million

  (c) 80 years —£43 million.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when the blind person's television licence discount was last uprated; and how its value in real terms has changed since that uprating. [80394]

  Janet Anderson
  The reduction in the television licence fee for blind people dates back to the time of radio licences, when registered blind people were entitled to a free radio licence or an equivalent reduction in the television licence fee. The reduction has remained unchanged at £1.25, the level of the radio licence on its abolition in April 1971. If the reduction had been increased in line with the All Items Retail Prices Index, it would now be £10.17.

  Sports Funding
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what percentage of the money allocated by the National Lottery to Sport England is unspent. [79202]
  90
  Mr. Banks
  As at 28 February 1999, Sport England had received total income from the National Lottery of £1,116 million, of which £484 million (43 per cent.) had been spent. In addition, it had outstanding contractual liabilities of £518 million (which includes £103 million paid to the English National Stadium project during March) and had made further policy commitments totalling £271 million. Its total commitments therefore exceeded its income by £157 million, but because some of these commitments will not become due for some time, it will be able to meet them all.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what amount of interest has been generated from unallocated Lottery money by English Sport. [79201]

  Mr. Banks
  As at 28 February 1999, Sport England's share of interest on the National Lottery Distribution Fund was a total of £106,546,142. It is not possible to identify separately how much of this is attributable to funds which were unallocated at any particular time.

  Football
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what progress he has made with his plans to oversee the development of personal injury insurance schemes by county football associations on a corporate basis. [79909]

  Mr. Banks
  Further to my previous answer on this issue on 17 November 1998,Official Report, columns 450–51, responsibility for personal injury insurance for club members rests with the clubs themselves. The Football Association has established a Constitution Working Group which, among other things, is looking into insurance relating to football. A number of County FAs are already working closely with insurance companies to develop personal injury insurance schemes on a corporate basis for their affiliated clubs, and I understand that two County FAs have put in a statutory personal accident requirement for teams in their leagues. These are welcome developments.

  Radio Licences
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what assessment he had made of the extent of compliance with the provisions of sections(a) 85 and (b) 88 of the Broadcasting Acts of 1990 and 1996 by the Radio Authority in its choice of successful bidders for selected area radio licences in the Solent/Mid-Hampshire area; [79814]

  (2) for what reason he has not yet responded to the letter of 23 January 1999 from four representatives of companies which had competed unsuccessfully for selected area radio licences in the Solent/Mid-Hampshire area. [79815]

  Janet Anderson
  I received a letter dated 25 January from four representatives of companies who applied unsuccessfully for radio licences in the Solent/MidHampshire area. I replied to this letter on 24 February and an additional copy of my reply was sent to each of the four parties on 30 March. My Department has no record of receiving a similar letter dated 2 January.
  91
  The Radio Authority is responsible for licensing and regulating all independent radio services under the terms of the Broadcasting Acts 1990 and 1996 and subject to review the courts. I understand the Radio Authority is content that the licence award to Southampton City Radio meets the terms of the Broadcasting Acts.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Trade Promotion
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the last occasion on which a Government Minister led a trade delegation to(a) India, (b) Indonesia, (c) Israel and (d) Jamaica; and what future trade delegations are planned.[76535]

  Mr. Wilson
  (a) The last occasion on which a Government Minister led a trade delegation to India was 4–12 March 1999, when my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister led a senior business delegation to Delhi and Bombay.

  Future trade missions planned are Energy Industries Council (19–23 April 1999), DTI Environmental Technology (4–8 October 1999), Mid-Yorkshire Chamber of Commerce (1–5 November), Machine Tool Technologies Association (November 1999), Institute of Packaging (6–9 1999), Hull and East Riding Chamber of Commerce (December 1999), Northern Development Company (7–11 February 2000), Association of British Health Care Industries (February 2000), Business Link Sussex (February 2000).

  (b) The last occasion on which a Government Minister led a trade delegation to Indonesia was 18–22 October 1997, for the launch of the Indonesian British Business Council.

  There is one future trade mission planned by the Association of British Offshore Industries (29 November–1 December 1999).

  (c) Lord Clinton-Davis, then Minister for Trade, led a delegation of 10 Export Development Counsellors to Israel During British Week in May 1998.

  Future trade missions planned are Northern Development Company (26–30 April 1999), Sheffield International Trade Centre (9–12 May 1999), Dorset Business Link and South West Region (21–25 June 1999), British Link Kent (5–9 July 1999), Hull and East Riding Chamber of Commerce Industry and Shipping (30 August–3 September 1999), Southern Derbyshire Chamber of Commerce Training and Enterprise (11–15 October 1999), Business Link Herefordshire and Worcestershire (1–5 November 1999), Central and West Lancashire Chamber of Commerce (22–26 November 1999), Business Link Stockport (17–21 January 2000), The Welsh Office (31 January-4 February 2000), Lincolnshire County Council Economic Development Office (27–31 March 2000).

  (d) The last occasion on which a Government Minister led a trade delegation to Jamaica was in June 1995 when the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor) led an unsponsored CARITAG (Caribbean Area Advisory Group) and WIC (West India Committee) mission to Jamaica, St. Lucia and Barbados.
  92
  Future trade missions planned are Hull and East Riding Chamber (Trinidad, Barbados and Jamaica, May 1999), British Consultants Bureau (Trinidad, Barbados and Jamaica, October 1999), Bristol Chamber of Commerce (Trinidad, Barbados and Jamaica, November 1999) and Croydon and South London Chamber (Trinidad, St. Lucia and Jamaica, February 2000).

  Working Time Directive
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many civil servants in his Department have been invited to waive the Working Time Directive requirement to work less than 48 hours a week on 17 consecutive weeks; how many civil servants in his Department have refused to waive the requirement; and what is the total cost of compliance with the Directive. [76799]

  Mr. Byers
  Thirty five staff in the Department have signed an agreement to disapply the 48-hour limit. The standard terms and conditions of service for staff employed by the Department are well within the limits set by the working time regulations. The regulations do not require employers to keep records of the number of workers who choose not to sign an opt-out agreement and no central records are kept by this Department. Compliance costs are not kept centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. This answer covers DTI headquarters and the Insolvency Service Agency, the Radiocommunications Agency, the National Weights and Measures Laboratory, Companies House Agency, Employment Tribunal Service and ACAS.

  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Patent Office to write to the hon. Member direct.

  Letter from J. C. Octon to Mr. Andrew Tyrie, dated 13 April 1999:
  In the absence of the Chief Executive, I am replying on behalf of the Patent Office to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on the Working Time Regulations. Five Patent Office staff have volunteered to waive the regulations' requirement to work no more than 48 hours a week on average over 17 consecutive weeks. No staff have refused. There would be disproportionate cost in calculating the total cost to the Office of compliance with the Working Time Regulations, but we do not believe it to be significant.

  Workplace Surveillance
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received calling for guidelines on the use of surveillance cameras in the workplace; and if he will make a statement. [78492]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  [holding answer 25 March 1999]My Department has received fewer than 7 letters on this subject in the last 2 years.

  Iraq
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what ECGD loans have been made available to British companies operating in Iraq whose investments were financed by the Banco Nationale di Lavoro of Atlanta, Georgia, USA. [78762]
  93
  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 26 March 1999]ECGD has no record of support being given to Banco Nationale di Lavaro of Atlanta, USA in relation to the financing of British companies operating in Iraq.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what Biwater plants in Iraq have been financed by the ECGD. [78761]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 26 March 1999]ECGD support was given to Biwater for 3 water and sewerage treatment plants in Iraq over the period 1982 to 1987 at Al Qaim, Rustumiyah and Mamoudiya.

  Employment Agencies
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if he intends to issue a prohibition order under section 3(a) of the Employment Agencies Act 1973 in connection with the case of baby Caroline Jongers; [79243]

  (2) what steps he intends to take to ensure that parents are informed by employment agencies of the previous employment history of prospective nannies; and if he will make a statement;[79241]

  (3) if he intends to exercise his powers under section 5 of the Employment Agencies Act 1973 to make regulations to secure the proper conduct of employment agencies and to protect the interests of clients of such agencies; and if he will make a statement; [79242]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate has carried out a thorough investigation into the employment agency concerned. I am satisfied that there are no grounds on which I should consider initiating action to prohibit the agency. A draft consultation document proposing measures to update the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Business Regulations 1976 made under Section 5 of the 1973 Act was made available to hon. Members on 23 March, and will be formally published shortly. Included are new proposals to require details about the experience, training, ability and qualifications of those seeking to take up a position involving working with children, together with written references, where these can be obtained, to be communicated to potential employers or hirers.

  US Trade Sanctions
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what (i) representations he has received from and (ii) steps he is taking to support(a) the Scottish cashmere wool industry, (b) the United Kingdom pork industry and (c) United Kingdom candle manufacturing following the imposition of trade sanctions on such products by the Government of the United States of America. [79158]

  Mr. Wilson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I received a number of letters and other representations on behalf of many of the sectors on the provisional US retaliation list, including cashmere knitwear, pork products and candles. We and the European Commission urged the US not to retaliate against industries that are completely unrelated to the issue under dispute. The Government also brought forward a scheme to guarantee the bonds requested 94
  by US Customs in respect of cashmere knitwear, produced both in Scotland and elsewhere in the UK, in view of the highly seasonal nature of that industry.

  These three sectors were all removed from the US retaliation list on 9 April. Whilst the removal of these and other sectors is very welcome, other industries remain targeted. The US is well aware of the harm which has already been caused to sectors on the list. There is now a fresh opportunity for the EU to work with the US and the other interested parties to avoid unnecessary damage to our industries and to our trade relations more generally. The UK Government will urge a swift resolution to this dispute in line with the EU's World Trade Organisation obligations and its responsibilities to African, Caribbean and Pacific suppliers.

  Angola
  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on current ECGD liabilities in respect of exports to Angola. [79502]

  Mr. Wilson
  ECGD's exposure to Angola amounts to £53.5 million. This is entirely in the form of claims paid outstanding for recovery.

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he will take to ensure employees remain aware of the minimum wage after his Department's initial advertising campaign. [79382]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  We are monitoring the effect of our advertising campaign and are confident that this will show that it has achieved high levels of awareness among employees. We are ensuring that copies of the detailed guidance and explanatory leaflets are widely available and the telephone helplines will continue to operate. Any future changes to the minimum wage will also be publicised.

  Dairy Industry
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received on the future of producer co-operatives in the dairy industry; and if he will make a statement. [79827]

  Dr. Howells
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received a number of representations on the MMC's report into the supply of raw milk in Great Britain from hon. Members individually and on behalf of constituents. He has also received representations from interested parties and from members of the public.

  My right hon. Friend will announce what action, if any, he intends to take when he publishes the report.

  Renewable Energy Policy
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) when the Government review of renewable energy will be published; [80267]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the minimum targets for the Government's renewable energy policy. [80268]
  95
  Mr. Battle
  I refer my hon. Friend to my written answer of 30 March 1999,Official Report, columns 577–78, to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) in which I announced the publication paper "New and Renewable Energy—Prospects for the 21 Century", which reports on the outcome of the Government's review of new and renewable energy policy.

  The Renewables Review paper demonstrates that there is considerable potential for renewables to become a fully competitive part of UK energy supply, and to make an important contribution to secure, diverse and sustainable energy supplies in the UK. They are an essential element of a cost-effective climate change programme and will help the Government meet their environmental objectives at the least cost to the customer. Renewables play a vital role in enabling us to meet our environmental targets of reducing greenhouse gases by 12.5 per cent. by 2012, and our goal of reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent. by 2010.

  The document shows that producing 10 per cent. of UK electricity from renewables appears to be feasible. The Government intend working towards a target of renewable energy providing 10 per cent. of UK electricity supplies, cost effectively, as soon as possible. I want to achieve this by 2010. However, this should not be seen as an end in itself, but a step forward on the road to making renewables a strong, world-beating industry. There are already considerable benefits of the renewables industry. The UK industry employs 3,500 people. Through creating an export drive, and by further developing the industry and the UK market, up to 45,000 jobs could be created.

  This report identifies key issues and challenges which the Government and industry would need to pursue. Issues examined in the paper include: planning arrangements; opportunities for developing energy crops; and arrangements to ensure that embedded generators (those directly connected to local distribution systems, often the case with renewables producers) receive a fair price for their electricity. It seeks views on the issues raised to enable the Government to frame its future policy.

  I look forward to receiving those views and plan to make a further announcement about our way forward in due course. The Government are committed to encouraging sustainable development, to ensure a better quality of life for us and our children.

  Milk Market Investigation
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to publish his decision on the MMC report on the market for milk. [80582]

  Dr. Howells
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will publish the MMC's report as soon as is practicable.

  Medicines Control Agency
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment his Department has made of the proposals in Consultation Document MLX249 published by the Medicines Control Agency; if the proposals represent Government policy; and if he will make a statement. [80633]
  96
  Dr. Howells
  My officials have assessed these proposals, taken on board industry's views and made representations, both orally and in writing, to the Medicines Control Agency.

  We also understand that the Medicines Control Agency have consulted widely.

  Presstream Service
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when Royal Mail sought his approval to increase the mailing price of the Presstream service; and what account he took in giving his approval of earlier guarantees from Royal Mail about stability of prices. [80030]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  Changes to postal tariffs are primarily a matter for the Post Office in consultation with the Post Office Users' National Council (POUNC), to whom the Post Office is statutorily required to refer major proposals for comment. The proposals are formally notified to my Department at the same time as they are referred to POUNC. The most recent tariff proposals, including those for the Presstream service, were referred to POUNC on 14 January. In indicating that he was content for the proposed tariff changes to be implemented, my right hon. Friend took account of the representations received about the proposed Presstream tariff increases and the arrangements made by Royal Mail, in response to representations, to mitigate their impact. He also took into account that the increases for this service were the first since September 1993.

  Chrysotile Asbestos Imports
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the tonnage of chrysotile asbestos imported into the United Kingdom in 1998; and if he will list the countries and the quantity involved. [80004]

  Mr. Wilson
  Chrysotile asbestos is not separately identified in the system under which United Kingdom trade is recorded. However, since 1986, trade in all other forms of asbestos has been prohibited. The figures in the following table, therefore, relate to chrysotile asbestos.

  UK imports of asbestos1 1998

  Tonnes

  Canada

  1,361

  South Africa

  268

  Zimbabwe

  193

  Chile

  18

  USA

  1

  World total

  1,841

  1Asbestos is defined as code 278.4 of the Standard International Trade Classification, Revision 3, (SITC Rev 3). This does not include asbestos cement and manufactures containing asbestos.

  Source:

HM Customs and Excise

  Caribbean Banana Growers
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to ensure that the interests of the Caribbean banana growers are recognised in the European Union negotiations on new trading arrangements. [79097]

  Mr. Rooker
  I have been asked to reply.
  97
  The Government will continue to take the interests of Caribbean banana growers fully into account, along with our other international commitments, in any negotiations to change the EU banana regime.

HEALTH

  Pilot Projects
  Yvette Cooper
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the pilot projects instigated by his Department since 1 May 1997, indicating the area in which each pilot took, or is taking, place. [72637]

  Mr. Denham
  Pilot projects instigated by the Department since 1 March 1997 are:

  Personal Medical Services pilots (85):

  Collingham, Nottinghamshire

  Mansfield

  Ransom, Nottinghamshire

  Grimsby

  Sheffield

  Grantham

  Long Eaton

  Doncaster

  Rotherham

  Nottingham

  Southport (x2)

  Warrington (x3)

  Liverpool (x2)

  Kirkby

  Irlam

  Salford

  Wallasey

  Ormskirk

  Manchester

  Cleckheaton

  Huddersfield

  South Shields

  Leeds

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne (x2)

  Maryport

  Ashington

  Morpeth

  Sunderland

  Hartlepool

  Middlesbrough (x2)

  Edgbaston, Birmingham

  Coventry (x2)

  Dudley

  Stoke-on-Trent (x2)

  Smethwick, West Midlands

  Tipton, West Midlands

  Stafford

  Great Barr, Birmingham

  Willenhall, West Midlands

  Wolverhampton

  Croydon

  Abbey Wood, London SE2
  98
  Canterbury

  Worcester Park, Surrey

  Epsom

  Brighton

  Chertsey

  East Grinstead

  Sittingbourne

  Morden, London SW19

  Camberwell, London SE5

  Lewisham, London SE13

  Clapham, London SW9

  Lambeth, London SE1

  Hoxton, London N1

  Tower Hamlets, London E1

  Romford

  Haringey, London N15

  Marylebone, London NW1

  Hounslow

  Waltham Cross

  Welwyn Garden City

  Grays, Essex (x2)

  Ruislip

  St. Albans

  Hemel Hempstead (x2)

  Oxford

  Wendover, Buckinghamshire

  Christchurch, Dorset (x2)

  Bournemouth (x2)

  Shaftesbury

  Poole

  Dorchester

  GP Commissioning Group pilots (39):

  North Cumbria

  Durham & Chester-le-Street

  Langbaurgh Coast

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  North Amber Valley

  North Derbyshire

  North East Lincolnshire

  Nottingham

  Rotherham

  Dunstable & Houghton Regis

  Northampton

  Slough

  Barking & Havering

  Basildon

  Camden & Islington

  Harlow

  Harrow East and Willesden & Harlesden

  Hayes & Harlington

  Fulham

  Redbridge & Waltham Forest

  Battersea

  Croydon

  Dartford, Gravesham & Swanley

  Kennington & Clapham

  Mid Devon

  North West Bristol
  99
  Portsmouth & South East Hampshire

  Southampton

  Halesowen

  Ladywood, Birmingham

  Tipton, West Midlands

  Walsall

  Wolverhampton

  Blackburn & Darwen

  Chorley & South Ribble

  Stockport

  Salford

  West Pennine

  Wirral & Bebington

  NHS Direct pilots (7):

  Preston

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  Milton Keynes

  Dudley

  Chelmsford

  Nottingham

  West London

  Waiting List pilots (43):

  Teesside

  North Tyneside

  West Cumbria

  Sunderland

  Wakefield

  Gateshead & South Tyneside

  Cheviot & Wansbeck

  South Derbyshire

  Sheffield (x2)

  Leicestershire & Lincolnshire

  Leicester

  North Nottinghamshire

  Northamptonshire, Oxfordshire & Bedfordshire

  Northampton

  Ealing, Hammersmith & Hounslow

  Central Middlesex and Northwick Park

  Bexley & Greenwich

  Kingston & Richmond

  East Surrey & Sussex

  East Sussex, Brighton & Hove

  West Surrey

  East Kent

  Gloucestershire

  Somerset

  North & Mid Hampshire

  Wiltshire & Salisbury

  Portsmouth

  Devon

  southampton & South West Hampshire

  Birmingham & Solihull

  Shrewsbury

  Walsall

  Perston

  Manchester

  Salford

  Bury & Rochdale
  100
  Stockport

  Trafford

  North Cheshire

  Wirral

  St.Helens & Knowsley

  Liverpool

  Barrow-in-Furness

  National Booked Admission Pilots(24)

  Durham & Darlington

  Wakefied and Pontefract

  Leicester

  Sheffield

  Rotherham

  Norfolk & suffolk

  Slough

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  West London

  Homerton, City and East London

  Camberley

  Sidcup

  East Kent

  Dorset

  Devon

  Bath

  Birmingham and Solihull

  Birmingham

  Shrewsbury

  Manchester

  Liverpool

  Personal Dental Services Pilots(15)

  Bedfordshire

  Buckinghamshire

  Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly

  Ealing,Hammersmith and Hounslow

  East London and Lewisham

  Liverpool

  North Essex

  Northumberland

  Shropshire

  south Cheshire

  South Derbyshire

  South Lancashire

  Tees

  Warwickshire

  Paediatric Spontaneous Adverce Reaction Reporting Pilot(1)

  Trent NHS Executive Region

  Pilot Chlamydia Screening Programme(2)

  Portsmouth

  Wirral

  Thallium Scans
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the(a) average, (b) maximum and (c) minimum waiting times for thallium scans (1) for each

  101
  year over the last five years at each of the nuclear medicine centres that provide this facility in the United Kingdom; [73476]

  (2) in (i) the United Kingdom and (ii) the Greater London area for those aged (A) 0–25 years, (B) 25–50 years and (C) over 50 years. [73475]

  Mr. Denham
  Information on waiting times for this procedure is not available.

  Myelography
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what warnings are given to patients of the dangers of myelography. [73950]

  Mr. Hutton
  Patients are entitled to receive sufficient information in a way they can understand about the proposed treatments/procedures (which would include myelography), the possible alternatives, and any substantial risks, so that they can make an informed decision. Clinicians should use their skill, knowledge and experience to weigh carefully the likely benefits of any treatment or procedure against the anticipated risk and, following discussion with the patient, to exercise their clinical judgment and expertise accordingly.

  Erectile Dysfunction Disorders
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current unit cost in the NHS of each accepted treatment for erectile dysfunction disorder by(a) prescribable drug and (b) other means. [76133]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is not available in any comparable form.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total cost per adult male of GP-prescribed drug treatments for erectile dysfunction disorders in(a) England, (b) each English region and (c) each English health authority area in the most recent complete year available. [76132]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Net ingredient cost per 1,000 adult males of drugs for erectile dysfunction disorders prescribed by General Practitioners England 1998

  £

  Regional Office/Health Authority

  Net ingredients cost per 1,000 males aged 18 and over

  Northern and Yorkshire

  Bradford

  671

  County Durham

  568

  East Riding

  702

  Gateshead and South Tyneside

  730

  Leeds

  464

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  693

  North Cumbria

  487

  Northumberland

  448

  Sunderland

  495

  Tees

  409

  Wakefield

  367

  North Yorkshire

  522

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  492

  Average for Northern and Yorkshire

  545

  102

  £

  Regional Office/Health Authority

  Net ingredients cost per 1,000 males aged 18 and over

  Trent

  Barnsley

  387

  North Derbyshire

  321

  South Derbyshire

  385

  Doncaster

  881

  Leicestershire

  408

  Lincolnshire

  451

  North Nottinghamshire

  285

  Nottingham

  489

  Rotherham

  510

  Sheffield

  288

  South Humber

  518

  Average for Trent

  429

  Anglia and Oxford

  Bedfordshire

  452

  Berkshire

  460

  Buckinghamshire

  250

  Cambridge and Huntingdon

  396

  East Norfolk

  701

  Northamptonshire

  496

  North West Anglia

  539

  Oxfordshire

  385

  Suffolk

  423

  Average for Anglia and Oxford

  452

  North Thames

  Hillingdon

  573

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  491

  Enfield and Haringey

  470

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  319

  Barking and Havering

  451

  Barnet

  481

  Brent and Harrow

  562

  Camden and Islington

  578

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  619

  East London and The City

  563

  North Essex

  492

  South Essex

  429

  East and North Hertfordshire

  424

  West Hertfordshire

  493

  Average for North Thames

  496

  South Thames

  Bexley and Greenwich

  518

  Bromley

  446

  Croydon

  415

  East Kent

  549

  West Kent

  487

  Kingston and Richmond

  442

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  588

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  532

  East Surrey

  438

  West Surrey

  445

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove

  466

  West Sussex

  544

  Average for South Thames

  499

  South and West

  North and Mid Hampshire

  478

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  443

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  552

  Isle of Wight

  566

  Somerset

  500

  South and West Devon

  583

  Wiltshire

  433

  103

  Net ingredient cost per 1,000 adult males of drugs for erectile dysfunction disorders prescribed by General Practitioners England 1998

  £

  Regional Office/Health Authority

  Net ingredients cost per 1,000 males aged 18 and over

  Avon

  511

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  517

  Dorset

  772

  North and East Devon

  500

  Gloucestershire

  550

  Average for South and West

  536

  West Midlands

  Birmingham

  584

  Coventry

  630

  Dudley

  439

  Herefordshire

  273

  Sandwell

  451

  Shropshire

  541

  Solihull

  602

  North Staffordshire

  531

  South Staffordshire

  577

  Walsall

  388

  Warwickshire

  552

  Wolverhampton

  738

  Worcestershire

  481

  Average for West Midlands

  537

  North West

  South Lancashire

  556

  Liverpool

  588

  Manchester

  769

  Morecambe Bay

  490

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  1,062

  Salford and Trafford

  894

  Sefton

  530

  Stockport

  672

  West Pennine

  623

  Bury and Rochdale

  641

  North Cheshire

  737

  South Cheshire

  755

  East Lancashire

  458

  North West Lancashire

  726

  Wigan and Bolton

  671

  Wirral

  669

  Average for North West

  680

  Average for England

  525

  Notes:

  1. The information is from the Prescribing Analyses and Cost system (PACT) which is based on all prescriptions prescribed by General Practitioners which are dispensed.

  2. The population figures used are based on the Office for National Statistics mid year resident population projections for 1998, 1996 based.

  3. The net ingredient cost is the basic cost of a drug which does not take account of discounts, dispensing costs, fees or prescription charges income.

  4. Drugs used for the treatment of erectile dysfunction are defined as those in the British National Formulary paragraph 7.4.5, "Drugs for impotence".

  Waiting Times
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for each of the last 10 years how many patients have waited(a) less than 12 months, (b) more than 12 months and (c) more than 18 months for treatment in each (i) region in England and (ii) health authority.[74733]
  104
  Mr. Denham
  Copies of available information on the number of patients waiting less than 12 months, 12 to 18 months and more than 18 months for hospital treatment at 31 December each year have been placed in the Library.

  Accident and Emergency Wards
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many accident and emergency (i) admission wards and (ii) admission ward beds announced on 15 March were(a) additional wards and beds and (b) re-designated wards and beds. [77317]

  Mr. Hutton
  Following the announcement on 15 March 1999, regions are preparing detailed plans for the accident and emergency modernisation programme in discussion with National Health Service trusts and health authorities. A list of schemes approved by Ministers will be announced in due course.

  Adoption
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children were taken into long-term public care in each year from 1990 to 1998; and how many adoptions from the care system were effected in each of those years. [78322]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information for the years 1990 to 1998 is given in the table.

  Numbers of children starting to be looked after (most of whom will have returned home during the year in question) and children adopted from care, years ending 31. March 1990 to 19981

  England: Year ending 31 March

  Number of children starting to be looked after

  Number of children looked after and adopted during the year

  19902

  30,100

  2,500

  19912

  29,300

  2,400

  19923

  not available

  not available

  1993

  29.000

  2,500

  1994

  31,100

  2,300

  1995

  32,500

  2,000

  1996

  32,100

  1,900

  1997

  31,400

  1,900

  19984

  31,700

  not available

  1Figures for children looked after in this table exclude agreed series of short term placements but do not otherwise distinguish between children who will remain in care for relatively shorter and longer periods.

  2Data refer to children admitted to care under previous legislation.

  3Figures not available due to the implementation of the Children Act during this year.

  4Figures for number of children adopted during 1997–98 not available.

  Cancer Services (Funding)
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when the New Opportunities funding for cancer services will be allocated: what are the criteria for allocation of money under the New Opportunities Fund for cancer services; and what plans he has to increase the availability of cytotoxic drugs under this programme; [79074]
  105
  (2) what are the criteria for allocation of money under the New Opportunities Fund for cancer services; and what plans he has to increase the availability of cytotoxic drugs under this programme; [79181]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the impact of New Opportunities funding on NHS cancer services; and if he will make a statement. [79083]

  Mr. Hutton
  The New Opportunities Fund for cancer prevention, detection, treatment and care will contribute to the Government's drive to provide high quality cancer services for all and reduce cancer mortality. The New Opportunities Fund money will also help to reduce waiting times for the diagnosis and treatment of cancer by investing in replacement or additional high-tech equipment.

  The Department for Culture, Media and Sport is leading the New Opportunities Fund initiative. £150 million has been allocated for National Health Service cancer services over the next three years. Application guidance will be available in the late Summer and bids will build on local initiatives to promote cancer prevention, improve access to screening and treatment, including the provision of new equipment, and help individuals and families to cope with the impact of cancer on their lives.

  The focus of the initiative in England will be the purchase of equipment, such as breast screening mammography units, scanners and linear accelerators. There are no plans to use New Opportunities Funding for cytotoxic drugs. 80 per cent. of the total allocation in England will be used to purchase equipment. It is anticipated that a large part of the funding will be allocated in the first year. The Directions make it clear that this is a one-off catch-up exercise in order to bring provision to an even standard across the country and that equipment should only be purchased which is in addition to that planned and funded within currently approved budgets.

  Herbal Medicines
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reasons a medicines product licence may be required for a product which is a blend of two ingredients neither of which would require a product licence, if sold separately. [79487]

  Ms Jowell
  A product containing two or more ingredients which, if sold separately, would not come within medicines legislation is not classified by the Medicines Control Agency as a licensable medicinal product unless it is presented for treating or preventing disease or, not being a food or toilet preparation, it may be administered with a view to restoring, correcting or modifying physiological functions in humans. However, where a herbal product—whether or not it includes non-herbal substances—is classified as a medicinal product, it will be subject to medicines legislation. Herbal remedies, accordingly, require a marketing authorisation unless they are exempt from licensing under the terms of Section 12 of the Medicines Act 1968. Section 132 of the Act makes it clear that the exemption for herbal remedies does not extend to products which contain active non-herbal substances.
  106

  Cancer Treatments
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to increase the availability of homoeopathic and herbal medicines for cancer treatments on the NHS. [79499]

  Mr. Hutton
  A Framework for Commissioning Cancer Services (Calman/Hine) reported that one of the general principles that should govern the provision of cancer care is that the development of cancer services should be patient centred and should take account of patients, carers and family views and preferences as well as those of professionals.

  Like other forms of treatment, the availability of homeopathic and herbal medicines on the National Health Service is a matter, firstly for the clinical judgment of the clinician in respect of individual patients and, secondly, upon decisions taken at local level on how resources should best be used to meet the health needs of the local population in the context of local health implementation programmes.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures the Government are undertaking to improve cancer treatment provision in the UK. [79497]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Calman/Hine report published in 1995 set out a framework for improving the organisation and delivery of cancer services in England and Wales. Similar arrangements are in place in Scotland and Northern Ireland. A key element has been the identification of cancer units and centres and local agreements about which cancers should be treated at each individual hospital. Implementation is being supported by the subsequent publication of evidence-based guidance for improving outcomes in breast, colorectal and lung cancer. Guidance on the gynaecological cancers will be published in April 1999 and cancers of the upper gastro-intestinal tract will follow in late autumn. Over the past 18 months, we have invested £30 million in breast and colorectal cancer services to speed access to diagnosis and treatment and improve quality of care. We announced on 5 March 1999 that a further £10 million was being made available to improve lung cancer services. Targeted funding will be used to improve access to lung cancer services, augment specialist teams and improve palliative care services in a similar way to the funding made available for breast cancer services. National Health Service trusts and health authorities will be asked to submit funding proposals and detail the tangible improvements that the funding will achieve.

  Our new White Paper "The new NHS" guarantees that everyone with suspected cancer will be able to see a specialist within two weeks of their general practitioner deciding that they need to be seen urgently and requesting an appointment. These arrangements have been guaranteed for everyone with suspected breast cancer by April 1999 and for all other cases of suspected cancer by 2000. A new monitoring system will be operational from April 1999 for measuring achievement of the breast cancer target. Health Authorities will demonstrate in their health improvement programmes that plans are in place to deliver quality and timely care in accordance with Calman/Hine and the White Paper target.
  107
  Full implementation will take some 10 years and national milestones for the mid implementation period 1999–2002 are currently being worked up. This includes ongoing development of national standards and work being taken forward within primary care.

  CS Spray
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects the review of CS spray research to be concluded; and if it will be made available to hon. Members and to the public. [79683]

  Ms Jowell
  The Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (COT) is continuing its considerations on CS Spray. A statement will be put in the public domain as soon as the Committee has completed its evaluation. Copies will be placed in the Library.

  Mental Illness
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the increase in police time to be spent dealing with mentally disordered people if compulsory treatment outside of hospital is introduced. [79682]

  Mr. Hutton
  It is not possible at present to estimate the implication for the police of introducing powers to treat mentally disordered people in the community. We are awaiting the report of the expert group appointed to consider the changes necessary to mental health legislation which has been asked to consider the issue of community assessment and treatment. There are various models of community treatment orders and their report will need to consider any role the police might have in their operation.

  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people were conveyed to hospital in 1998(a) under a section of the Mental Health Act 1983 and (b) under a supervised discharge order. [79679]

  Mr. Hutton
  24,079 people were conveyed to hospital in 1998 under a section of the Mental Health Act 1983. People conveyed to hospital under a supervised discharge order are admitted under section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983 and are included in this figure.

  Breastfeeding
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each of the last five years the rate of breastfeeding at (i) two weeks and (ii) four months for(a) Scotland, (b) England and Wales, (c) Northern Ireland and (d) each other EU country. [79592]

  Ms Jowell
  Rates of breastfeeding in the United Kingdom are monitored by the Quinquenniel Surveys of Infant Feeding Practice. Data from the most recent in 1995 are given for the countries of the United Kingdom in the table. Other European Union countries do not carry out representative surveys of breastfeeding practice.
  108

  Prevalence of Breastfeeding 1995 (per cent. of mothers)

  Age of infant

  England and Wales

  Scotland

  Northern Ireland

  2 weeks

  54

  44

  52

  4 months

  28

  24

  12

  Source:

  Infant Feeding 1995 London: The Stationery Office, 1997

  Radiography Treatment (Royal Shrewsbury Hospital)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to inform the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital of his decision on the provision of a second linear accelerator for radiography treatment; and if he will make a statement. [79593]

  Mr. Denham
  The National Health Service Executive West Midlands Regional Office is carefully considering a business case and hopes to make a decision as soon as possible. The prime consideration will be establishing a safe and sustainable service. Work currently taking place on developing a national framework for radiotherapy services as well as a regional cancer strategy will inform the decision.

  Hepatitis C
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what further representations he has received on help for patients with hepatitis C since 28 July; and if he will make a statement. [79719]

  Mr. Hutton
  Since 28 July 1998, hon. Members have asked 18 Parliamentary Questions (in addition to this one) and we have received 140 letters about help for people infected with hepatitis C through National Health Service treatment.

  Lobbyists
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish a list, including names and dates, of all meetings that(a) he, (b) his officials, (c) his advisers and (d) his PPS have held during (i) 1997, (ii) 1998 and (iii) 1999 with people who work for political lobbying firms or for businesses that are members of the Public Relations Consultants Association. [79648]

  Ms Jowell
  This information requested is not available in a collated form centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  However, all official meetings are conducted in accordance with the Ministerial Code, the Civil Service Code and Guidance for Civil Servants: Contacts with Lobbyists. In order to preserve confidentiality it is not the normal practice of Government to release details of specific meetings with private individuals or companies. The requirements of the Ministerial Code also apply to Parliamentary Private Secretaries when attending meetings in an official or semi-official capacity.

  Mental Health Institutions (Deaths)
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 22 March 1999,Official Report, column 5, on Mental Health Institutions (Deaths), if the Health Service Guidelines (92)8 issued in January 1992
  109
  include (i) guidance on the timescale and (ii) a maximum delay for the notification of relatives following the death of a patient in hospital. [80560]

  Mr. Hutton
  Health Service Guidance (92)8 states that arrangements for informing relatives following the death of a patient in hospital should be a matter of urgency. Specific procedures are for National Health Service trusts to decide.

  Restraint Techniques
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 11 March 1999,Official Report, column 373, on restraint techniques, if his Department has issued (a) guidelines and (b) advice to mental health units on the use of control and restraint techniques. [80559]

  Mr. Hutton
  No advice or guidance has been issued. However, the Royal College of Nurses Education Institute has recently validated specific programmes and the English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting has also validated an education programme of the management of violence. It is for each National Health Service trust to ensure that its staff are appropriately trained.

  Dietary Supplements
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will announce the outcome of the consultation on MLX249; and if he will make a statement. [79079]

  Ms Jowell
  We are currently considering the responses received to the consultation and will make an announcement in due course.

  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many representations(a) he and (b) the Medicines Control Agency have received in response to the Agency's consultation document MLX249; how many and what percentage of those representations opposed the proposals; and if he will make a statement.[80632]

  Ms Jowell
  Records held do not distinguish between representations received by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Medicines Control Agency. We have received 700 letters from Members of Parliament and 740 representations from other interested bodies and individuals. In addition, a recent campaign encouraging the public to write to my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Health has generated in excess of 2,000 letters. Three representations broadly support the proposals. The remainder are critical of the proposals to some degree.

  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to review medicines licensing legislation to give greater protection to the continued availability of vitamin, mineral and herbal supplements and blends thereof; and what discussions he has had with the European Commission. [80634]

  Ms Jowell
  For the Government's position on regulatory arrangements which apply to herbal medicines I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) on 26 March 1999,Official Report, columns 426–27. We have no additional plans at present to review the application of medicines legislation with respect to the licensing
  110
  of vitamins, mineral and herbal supplements and blends thereof, and we have had no discussions with the European Commission on this issue.

  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if his Department has received a copy of the report commissioned by the European Commission on the market in herbal remedies; what discussions he has had with the European Commission on EU legislation in this area; and if he will make a statement. [80635]

  Ms Jowell
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies I gave to the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) on 26 March 1999,Official Report, columns 426–27. The Medicines Control Agency's discussions to date with the European Commission strengthen our preliminary view that the Commission's recent proposals to amend the Annex to Directive 75/318 European Economic Community would have a relatively limited impact in relation to herbal remedies in the United Kingdom.

  MMR Vaccinations
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for the last five years for which information is available the serious adverse reactions to vaccines containing components against mumps, measles or rubella; if he will list the trial products which have been withdrawn; and if he will make a statement. [80035]

  Ms Jowell
  Drug Analysis Prints, listing all serious suspected reactions reported to the Committee on Safety of Medicines between 1 January 1994 and 31 December 1998 for vaccines containing components against mumps, measles or rubella, have been placed in the Library along with an information sheet to aid interpretation.

  There have been no trial products withdrawn or licences for these vaccines suspended or revoked in the last five years.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list each of the years since 1969 in which vaccinations or revised vaccinations were introduced for mumps, measles and rubella. [80032]

  Ms Jowell
  Measles vaccine for infants was introduced into the United Kingdom immunisation programme in 1968. Rubella immunisation was introduced in 1970 for girls aged 10 to 14 and non-immune women. Single antigen mumps vaccine has never been a part of the United Kingdom's immunisation programme. Measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine for children aged 12 to 15 months was introduced in October 1988; this replaced single antigen measles vaccine. Routine rubella immunisation for girls aged 10 to 14 was discontinued in October 1995. A second dose of MMR vaccine at pre-school entry was introduced in October 1996. In addition, a special, one-off immunisation campaign of children aged 5 to 16 was conducted in November 1994 with measles/rubella vaccine to avert a measles epidemic.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list vaccines licensed since 1 February 1987 for mumps, measles and rubella, or a combination
  111
  of these, indicating for each product (a) the date on which a licence was granted, (b) the conditions for which it was licensed and (c) if the product licence is current. [80036]

  Product Name

  Date of Grant

  Pluserix MMR Vaccine Injection with Diluent1

  17 June 1988

  Rubavax Rubella Live Vaccine1

  18 September 1989

  Measavax Vaccine Injection1

  18 September 1989

  Immravax Measles Mumps Rubella Live Attenuated Vaccine Injection1

  18 September 1989

  Rubilin - Rubella Vaccine Live BP

  28 February 1992

  Immravax/Measles, Mumps and Rubella Vaccine Live BP

  18 October 1993

  Rimevax Measles Vaccine

  25 October 1993

  Mevilin-L Measles Vaccine Live BP

  6 January 1994

  Eolarix Vaccine Injection

  22 July 1994

  Merieux Measles and Rubella Vaccine Injection

  I September 1994

  Measavax Vaccine 1000TC1D50/Dose

  13 October 1994

  Rubavax Injection [At Least] 100TCID50

  14 October 1994

  Almevax Rubella Vaccine 1000TCID50/Dose1

  2 November 1994

  MSD Meruvax II Vaccine1

  2 November 1994

  Mumpsvax Lyophilised Powder for Injection 20000IU1

  2 November 1994

  Ervevax Rubella Vaccine Live EP RA 27/3 Strain 1000TCID50

  2 November 1994

  Pluserix MMR Vaccine Injection1

  9 February 1995

  Pariorix Vaccine1

  20 February 1995

  MSD Attenuvax Vaccine Injection [At least] 1000TCID501

  24 March 1995

  M-M-R II Vaccine Injection1

  24 March 1995

  Meruvax II Vaccine 1000 TCID50

  7 April 1995

  Attenuvax Injection

  7 June 1995

  M-M-R Vaccine Injection

  1 March 1996

  Mumpsvax Vaccine Injection 20000TCID50/Dose

  I March 1996

  Priorix Vaccine Injection

  4 December 1997

  1Indicates that the product licence has been cancelled.

  Information relating to the conditions for which the products were licensed will be placed in the Library shortly.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what announcements have been made by his Department since 2 May 1997 relating to vaccination against mumps, measles and rubella; and on which date each of these announcements was made. [80033]

  Ms Jowell
  Two announcements about measles, mumps, rubella (MMR) vaccine have been issued by the Department in the form of press releases from the then Chief Medical Officer, Sir Kenneth Calman. The first press release was issued on 12 March 1998 and stated that there was no scientific evidence to support giving measles, mumps and rubella vaccines in separate doses. The second was issued on 24 March 1998 and gave the Chief Medical Officer's conclusions following the meeting of an independent expert scientific group convened by the Medical Research Council (MRC). The group looked at the suggested link between measles, measles vaccine or MMR immunisation and either Crohn's disease or autism. Sir Kenneth said in the press release
  "Based on the views of the experts at the MRC meeting, and on previous material that I have studied, I have concluded there is no link between measles, measles vaccine or MMR immunisation and either Crohn's Disease or autism".
  Copies of the press releases are available in the Library.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many suspected adverse reactions to mumps, rubella and measles vaccines there were in the last five years for which figures are available. [80034]
  112
  Ms Jowell
  The available information listing the vaccines licensed since February 1987 and still current is shown in the table.

  Ms Jowell
  Suspected adverse reactions reports to measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine are given in the table:

  Numbers of suspected adverse reactions reported to the Committee on Safety of Medicines from 1 January 1994 to 31 December 1998 for MMR vaccine in the United Kingdom

  Year

  All suspected adverse reactions (serious and non-serious) where MMR vaccine was indicated as a suspect drug

  Number of reports where MMR vaccine was indicated as suspect drug

  1994

  224

  140

  1995

  237

  129

  1996

  242

  141

  1997

  331

  209

  1998

  232

  145

  A report of a suspected adverse drug reaction does not necessarily mean that it was caused by the vaccine. Each report relates to one patient. Patients may have more than one suspected reaction and the number of reactions given exceeds the number of patients affected as seen above. The number of reports is variable due to retrospective reporting.

  Chemotherapy Patients (Wigs)
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans he has to review the conditions attaching to the prescribing of wigs for patients receiving chemotherapy treatment; [79908]

  (2) what conditions his Department attaches to the prescribing of wigs for (a) in-patients and (b) day-care patients receiving chemotherapy treatment. [79907]
  113
  Mr. Hutton
  A wig may be provided as part of National Health Service treatment if it is considered to be clinically necessary. As with the supply of medication, patients will qualify for free wigs if they are hospital in-patients.

  Day patients or out-patients may qualify for full or partial exemption from charges on income grounds. If patients are in receipt of Income Support, Disability Working Allowance, Family Credit or Income-based Jobseeker's Allowance, they will be entitled to wigs free of charge. People who are not automatically exempt from charges may claim help with health costs through the NHS Low Income Scheme. We have no current plans to review these arrangements.

  Patient Examinations
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to remind hospital doctors of the necessity of washing their hands after examining patients. [80047]

  Ms Jowell
  Health Circular 1999/049, which was issued to the National Health Service on 5 March this year, referred to and enclosed a copy of advice on handwashing produced by representatives of the relevant professional bodies. Copies of both the Health Circular and the advice are available in the Library.

  Speech Therapists
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the salaries paid to speech and language therapists in the NHS; who advises him on such salaries; what discussions he had with speech and language therapists before deciding on their pay settlement for 1999–2000; and if he will make a statement. [80049]

  Mr. Denham
  In deciding pay for National Health Service staff, the Government need to take account of fairness, affordability, the prevailing economic climate and recruitment and retention. We have offered a pay increase of 2.8 per cent. to most NHS staff in 1999–2000, plus additional increases for staff groups where there is evidence of recruitment and retention problems. Discussions with the representatives of speech and language therapists as with representatives of other staff groups are continuing.

  Advice from NHS management, including speech and language therapy service managers, is that there are no recruitment and retention problems with speech and language therapy. Their basic pay rates have increased by between 158 per cent. (minimum) and 170 per cent. (maximum) since 1984, more than those for any other NHS professional staff group.

  Negotiations are also in progress to resolve speech and language therapists' outstanding equal pay claims and to align the pay of clinical psychologists, health care pharmacists and speech and language therapists for the future.

  Quality Protects Plans
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the outcome of the evaluation of the Quality 114
  Protects management action plans submitted to his Department by local authorities; and if he will make a statement. [80518]

  Mr. Hutton
  All local authorities submitted their Quality Protects Management Action Plans (MAPs) to the Department by the end of January. The Social Services Inspectorate (SSI) have now completed their evaluation of the MAPs and we have considered their findings. I am pleased to announce that all the MAPs have reached an acceptable standard, and I have written today to local authority chief executives to confirm that they will receive payment of their allocation of the children's special grant for 1999–2000, subject to Parliamentary approval. We shall be publishing a national overview report, summarising the key findings from the evaluation of the MAPs and identifying the development needs which will be addressed over the three years of the Quality Protects programme. The team of Quality Protects Regional Development Workers in partnership with SSI will be assisting local authorities in their work to deliver the high quality children's social services which the Government require.

  Pharmacy Remuneration
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the date of settlement of pharmacy remuneration negotiations for each year since 1994 and in each case the period covered; and when he plans to settle the next remuneration negotiations. [80101]

  Mr. Denham
  Pharmacy remuneration negotiations were settled on the following dates for the following financial years:

  Financial year

  Date

  1994–95

  4 May 1994

  1995–96

  28 June 1995

  1996–97

  21 October 1996

  1997–98

  7 October 1997

  1998–99

  30 November 1998

  We hope to settle this year's remuneration negotiations as soon as possible.

  Military District Hospitals
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the answer of 18 March 1999,Official Report, columns 803–04, which health authorities are to be compensated for the loss of free provision of MOD staff, indicating the amounts involved in each case. [80618]

  Mr. Denham
  The following health authorities are to be compensated for the loss of free provision of MOD staff for 1999/2000:

  £

  Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly

  348,000

  South and West Devon

  1,235,000

  North and Mid Hampshire

  309,000

  West Surrey

  926,000

  North West Anglia

  666,000

TREASURY

  Excise Duty and VAT (Fuel)
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the rates of(a) excise duty and (b) VAT on petroleum in each member state of the European Union, the United States of America and Canada, taking account of the changes in his Budget. [76568]

  Ms Hewitt
  The United Kingdom rates shown are those applying since the Budget on 9 March 1999, published in Customs & Excise Budget Notice 6/99.

  For other European Union member states the figures relate to January 1999, as shown in the Oil Bulletin published by the European Commission. The rates for the United States of America and Canada are for the fourth quarter of 1998 from Prices and Taxes Table 1, published by the International Energy Agency.

  Leaded Petrol

  UnLeaded Petrol

  Excise Duty pence per litre

  VAT per cent.

  Excise Duty pence per litre

  VAT per cent.

  Austria

  NA

  NA

  29.19

  20.0

  Belgium

  39.83

  21.0

  35.73

  21.0

  Denmark

  NA

  NA

  35.68

  25.0

  Finland

  NA

  NA

  39.43

  22.0

  France

  44.85

  20.6

  41.52

  20.6

  Germany

  38.90

  16.0

  35.30

  16.0

  Greece

  25.92

  18.0

  22.44

  18.0

  Ireland

  32.22

  21.0

  26.68

  21.0

  Italy

  40.73

  20.0

  38.16

  20.0

  Luxembourg

  28.13

  15.0

  24.46

  12.0

  Netherlands

  41.31

  17.5

  41.33

  17.5

  Portugal

  37.21

  17.0

  35.12

  17.0

  Spain

  28.51

  16.0

  26.18

  16.0

  Sweden

  NA

  NA

  34.30

  25.0

  United Kingdom

  52.88

  17.5

  47.21

  17.5

  United States of America

  NA

  NA

  6.12

  —

  Canada

  NA

  NA

  10.45

  —

  Notes:

  NA: Leaded petrol is not available

  The United States of America does not have a tax comparable to VAT. The federal excise and provincial sales taxes in Canada vary for each of the ten provinces, therefore the rate of excise tax in the table is an average of all the rates used. The average sales tax in Canada is 1.4 pence per litre.

  The exchange rates used to convert foreign tax rates into sterling for the European Union member states are those published by the European Commission for 11 January 1999. Those for the United States of America and Canada are for January 1999, taken from the Office for National Statistics publication, "Financial Statistics, February 1999 edition", table 7.1A.

  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the rates of(a) excise duty and (b) VAT on (i) diesel and (ii) ultra-low sulphur diesel in each member state of the European Union, the United States of America and Canada, taking account of the changes in his Budget. [76572]

  Ms Hewitt
  The United Kingdom rates shown are those applying since the Budget on 9 March 1999, published in Customs and Excise Budget Notice 6/99.

  For other European Union member states the figures relate to January 1999, as shown in the Oil Bulletin published by the European Commission. The rates for the
  116
  United States of America and Canada are for the fourth quarter of 1998 from Prices and Taxes Table 1, published by the International Energy Agency.

  Excise Duty pence per litre

  Diesel VAT percentage

  Austria

  20.41

  20.0

  Belgium

  20.43

  21.0

  Denmark

  21.67

  25.0

  Finland

  21.46

  22.0

  France

  26.87

  20.6

  Germany

  22.33

  16.0

  Greece

  18.07

  18.0

  Ireland

  23.25

  21.0

  Italy

  28.40

  20.0

  Luxembourg

  17.81

  15.0

  Netherlands

  24.37

  17.5

  Portugal

  20.80

  17.0

  Spain

  19.01

  16.0

  Sweden

  20.51

  25.0

  United Kingdom

  50.21

  17.5

  United States of America

  7.03

  —

  Canada

  7.10

  —

  Notes:

  1. The excise duty rate in the United Kingdom for low sulphur diesel is 47.21 pence per litre and the VAT rate is 17.5%. Rates of excise duty and VAT on low sulphur diesel are not available for the other countries of the European Union, United States of America and Canada.

  2. The United States of America does not have a tax comparable to VAT. The average sales tax in Canada is 1.4 pence per litre.

  3. The exchange rates used to convert foreign tax into sterling for the European Union member states are those published by the European Commission for 11 January 1999. Those for the United States of America and Canada are for January 1999, taken from the Office for National Statistics publication Financial Statistics, February 1999 edition, table 7.1A.

  Civil Servants (Appraisal)
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the appraisal performance markings awarded to civil servants in 1998 for(a) each agency in his Department and (b) the Department broken down by (i) grade, (ii) gender, (iii) ethnicity, (iv) part-time/ full-time working and (v) disability; and for (1) each agency and (2) the Department whether the Cabinet Office's four fifths rule for detecting potential adverse impact was applied to the appraisal markings of civil servants in the 1998 report round. [78143]

  Ms Hewitt
  HM Treasury's appraisal year runs from 1 February to 31 January. The performance markings awarded in 1998 therefore apply to the 1997–98 appraisal year.

  (i) Breakdown by grade

  Below Senior Civil service (SCS)

  Box A

  Box B

  Box C

  Box D

  Box E

  A

  3

  10

  31

  12

  0

  B

  6

  51

  76

  51

  0

  C

  4

  24

  68

  22

  3

  D

  8

  49

  107

  24

  1

  E

  12

  44

  75

  29

  0

  117

  SCS (To preserve anonymity, these markings cannot be provided by grade)

  Box 1

  Box 2+

  Box 2

  Box 3+

  Box 3

  Box 4

  Box 5

  6

  16

  30

  16

  0

  0

  0

  (ii) Gender)

  Below SCS

  Box A

  Box B

  Box C

  Box D

  Box E

  Female

  12

  86

  162

  56

  1

  Male

  21

  92

  195

  82

  3

  SCS

  Box 1

  Box 2+

  Box 2

  Box 3+

  Box 3

  Box 4

  Box 5

  Female

  0

  3

  6

  3

  0

  0

  0

  Male

  6

  13

  24

  13

  0

  0

  0

  (iii) Ethnicity

  Below SCS

  Box A

  Box B

  Box C

  Box D

  Box E

  Ethnic minority

  0

  20

  38

  32

  0

  White

  29

  143

  286

  92

  4

  Unknown

  4

  15

  33

  14

  0

  SCS

  The number of ethnic minority staff in the Senior Civil Service is too small to allow an anonymous breakdown of markings.

  (iv) Part-time/full-time working

  Below SCS

  Box A

  Box B

  Box C

  Box D

  Box E

  Part-time

  1

  6

  19

  8

  0

  Full-time

  32

  172

  338

  130

  4

  SCS

  The number of part-time staff in the Senior Civil Service is too small to allow an anonymous breakdown of markings.

  (v) Disability

  Below SCS

  Box A

  Box B

  Box C

  Box D

  Box E

  Disabled

  1

  4

  13

  4

  0

  Not disabled

  32

  174

  344

  134

  4

  SCS

  The number of disabled staff in the Senior Civil Service is too small to allow an anonymous breakdown of markings.

  The Cabinet Office's four fifths rule was not applied to the 1997–98 appraisal markings. However, the Department's appraisal system will be reviewed in a wider equality audit in the Spring.

  Winter Fuel Payment
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what environmental impact assessment was carried out on the £100 winter payment announced in the Budget. [78887]
  118
  Ms Hewitt
  Table 5.1 of the 1999 Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report and Financial Statement and Budget Report contains an appraisal of those Budget measures which have a significant impact on the environment or whose aim is primarily environmental. The increase in the winter payment was not primarily an environmental measure, nor do we expect it to have a significant impact on the environment.

  Dividend Tax Credits
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the projected revenue implications in 1999–2000 and 2000–01 of the abolition of dividend tax credits of non-taxpaying pensioners(a) on the assumption that savers fully switch into ISAs and (b) on the assumption that there is no switching. [79087]

  Ms Hewitt
  To correct a bias in the tax system against the retention of profits for investment, payable tax credits on dividends paid to individuals have been withdrawn from 5 April 1999. The potential revenue impact of withdrawing payable tax credits from non-taxpaying pensioners after 5 April is about £25 million a year. The effect will, however, be reduced to the extent that investors who switched their investments into PEPs before 5 April this year, or into ISAs after that date, or into interest bearing investments on which non-taxpayers can reclaim tax deducted at source on interest paid. As a result the effect could be very much less than £25 million a year.

  Taxation (Motorists)
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what further plans he has to transfer taxation on motorists from vehicle excise duty to petrol; and if he will make a statement. [78915]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 26 March 1999]: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer's recent Budget statement details current policy on vehicle taxation.

  Euro
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 3 March 1999,Official Report, column 808, if sterling will enter the single currency at (a) a lower level than the present exchange rate, (b) a higher level than the present exchange rate or (c) the present exchange rate; and if the rate will be maintained for two years before entry. [79404]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government's position on the exchange rate of sterling was set out in my previous answers of 3 March 1999,Official Report, column 80.

  Income Tax (Pensioners)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 24 March 1999,Official Report, column 256, concerning the 10 pence tax rate, what factors he took into account when deciding not to extend the 10 pence rate to the savings income of people of pensionable age. [79268]
  119
  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 29 March 1999]: Most savers continue to enjoy the benefit of the lower rate of 20p on their savings which are already treated favourably and the introduction of the individual savings account means that all savers—including pensioners—can invest substantial amounts tax-free. The new Pensioner Bonds announced in the Budget offer pensioners the security of a guaranteed income but with greater flexibility by giving them greater access to their savings and formed part of a wider package for pensioners worth £1 billion.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 24 March 1999,Official Report, column 256, concerning the 10p tax rate, what estimate he has made of the cost of applying the 10p rate to the savings income of people of pensionable age; and how many people would benefit. [79269]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 29 March 1999]: Pensioners benefited from a package worth £1 billion a year in the Budget, including measures like the minimum income guarantee, winter fuel allowance and the minimum tax guarantee. It is estimated that if the 10p rate applied to savings income about 950,000 people of pensionable age would be affected, at a cost of around £55 million.

  Diesel Fuel Duty
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the factors behind his decision to raise diesel fuel duty at a higher rate than petrol duty; and if he will make a statement. [79542]

  Ms Hewitt
  The main factors behind the decision announced in the 1998 Budget to move to a fairer taxation of diesel relative to petrol are the higher energy and carbon contents of diesel, and the adverse affect that the use of diesel has on local air quality, caused by the high levels of particulates and nitrogen oxide emissions from diesel use.

  However, following the 1999 Budget the duty rate on ultra low sulphur diesel is the same as unleaded petrol. Ultra low sulphur diesel is now over 40 per cent. of the diesel market and some industry sources predict that this will rise to 100 per cent. before the end of the year.

  ECOFIN Council
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the agenda for the ECOFIN Council on 16 to 18 April. [79575]

  Ms Hewitt
  The ECOFIN meeting on 16-18 April is an Informal, and therefore has no formal agenda.

  Bus Employees Superannuation Trust
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much his Department has spent on legal fees relating to the Bus Employees Superannuation Trust,(a) in total and (b) in connection with the High Court hearing on 1 March. [79540]

  Mr. Milburn
  The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is responsible for issues in relation to the Bus Employees Superannuation Trust.
  120
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him today, Official Report, column 58, by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson), which provides details of expenditure by that Department.

  Historical Records
  Mr. Alan Campbell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has received the Registrar General's report on options for improving the system of access to historical records; and if he will make a statement on the report. [79718]

  Ms Hewitt
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) on 24 February 1999,Official Report, column 286.

  Lobbyists
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a list, including names and dates, of all meetings that(a) he, (b) his officials, (c) his advisers and (d) his PPS have held during (i) 1997, (ii) 1998 and (iii) 1999 with people who work for political lobbying firms or for businesses that are members of the Public Relations Consultants Association. [79639]

  Ms Hewitt
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer which the Prime Minister gave to the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) on 9 March 1999,Official Report, column 168.

  Credit Unions
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce legislation to raise the maximum permitted deposit with a credit union. [79694]

  Ms Hewitt
  We have no current plans to do so.

  Departmental Investment Strategies
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to publish the Summary of Departmental Investment Strategies in the White Paper, Public Services for the Future: Modernisation, Reform, Accountability, (Cm. 4181). [80717]

  Mr. Milburn
  Departmental Investment Strategies (DISs) set out how the additional resources allocated to finance capital projects in the Comprehensive Spending Review will be managed in order to deliver the Government's objectives. DISs also provide a statement of how Departments make the best use of their existing asset base. Each Department has included a summary of its DIS in its Departmental Report and has made arrangements for the full text of their DIS to be published.

  The Government today published a document entitled "Departmental Investment Strategies: A Summary" which provides an overview of the DISs published by
  Departments. Copies are available in the Vote Office.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the annual cost of extending the application of the 10p tax rate to include income from investment; and if he will make a statement. [77685]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 19 March 1999]: The 10p starting rate has been introduced to improve work incentives and help make work pay. Income from investment is already taxed generously. Most savers will continue to enjoy the benefit of the lower rate at 20p on their savings rather than the basic rate at 23p (22p from April 2000). And our introduction of Individual Savings Accounts in April this year means all savers can investment substantial amounts tax-free each year.

  The cost of extending 10p rate band to include income from investment would be £85 million for 1999–2000.

  Mortgage Interest Tax Relief (Scotland)
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total cost of mortgage tax relief in Scotland in (i) 1996–97 and (ii) 1997–98; and what it is estimated to be for 1998–99. [78214]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The cost of mortgage interest relief in Scotland is estimated to be
  £A3180 million in 1996–97 and £200 million in 1997–98. These estimates are based on the regional distribution of the cost of mortgage interest relief from analysis of the Family Expenditure Surveys up to 1996–97. The estimates for 1997–98 are projections based on applying the same regional distribution as in 1996–97 to the total figure for 1997–98. It is not possible to provide reliable estimates below the United Kingdom level for 1998–99.

  Personal Taxation
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the work carried out by his Department since his answer of 5 May 1998,Official Report, columns 331–34, on taxation, in order to improve the quality of information on the personal tax payments for typical families. [78243]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 23 March 1999]: Estimating the impact of indirect taxes is imprecise as spending patterns vary widely between households with the same composition and income, with the consumption of the majority of goods and services far from universal. For example, only around one third of adults are smokers, just over half the adult population are in households paying vehicle excise duty and around 10 per cent. of households pay air passenger duty. This can be contrasted with direct taxes and benefits where at specified earnings and for particular household types there is a known benefit entitlement or tax liability. Treasury will keep under review what meaningful information on the indirect tax burden can be produced.

  Additional Person's Allowance
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of eligible single-parent households claimed the additional person's allowance in each of the last five years. [79041]
  122
  Dawn Primarolo
  I regret that the information requested is not available.

  Corporation Tax
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of numbers of the companies which will pay corporation tax at(a) 10 per cent. and (b) a marginal rate of 22.5 per cent. [79080]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Around 270,000 small and growing companies will pay less tax on profits as a result of the Chancellor's proposal to introduce a new 10 per cent. rate of corporation tax from 1 April 2000. Around 150,000 companies will pay corporation tax at 10 per cent. on profits of up to £10,000. Around 120,000 companies with profits between £10,000 and £50,000 will pay tax at an average rate of between 10 per cent. and the small companies' rate (20 per cent. from 1 April 1999) and have a lower tax bill as a result. This represents tax at 10 per cent. on the first £10,000 of profit and tax at 22.5 per cent. on the amount by which profits exceed £10,000 (with a 20 per cent. small companies' rate of corporation tax).

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what accounting convention underlies the treatment of working families' tax credit as a tax reduction; and when the Government adopted that convention. [79088]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Working Families Tax Credit will be part of the income tax system. It will be administered by Inland Revenue as a credit of income tax. And it will be perceived by recipients, who will receive a higher post-tax pay packet as a result, as a credit of income tax. Accordingly, in the presentation of Government receipts in the Financial Statement and Budget Report and elsewhere, the Working Families Tax Credit is treated as an income tax credit, and netted off from gross income tax receipts in the calculation of aggregate net taxes and social security contributions. This treatment of the Working Families Tax Credit was adopted in the March 1998 Financial Statement and Budget Report, and was explained in paragraph B59.

  714 Certificates
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the average annual total tax liability of holders of 714 certificates for each of the last three years. [79720]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The average annual liability to income tax, of individual 714-holding subcontractors in the year 1995–96, was £1,800. Figures for later years are not yet available.

  Select Committee Reports
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 30 March 1999,Official Report, column 667, on the Social Security Committee on which public interest grounds under paragraph (1) section (IV) of the Ministerial Code he declined to give the information requested by the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green in the question answered on 19 March 1999, Official Report, column 857. [80145]
  123
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  As I explained in my answer of 30 March, I gave the hon. Member a detailed account of the position in my answer of 16 March.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Strategic Export Controls
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when she(a) was first consulted about and (b) received the completed strategic export controls annual report. [79714]

  Clare Short
  My Department was involved from an early stage in discussion on the format and content of the Annual Report. I was informed about the proposed report in June 1998 and saw the completed report on publication.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what levels of aid her Department has given to those countries listed in the Strategic Export Controls Annual Report. [79711]

  Clare Short
  The latest figures can be found in Table 7 of Statistics on International Development, a copy of which is held in the Library of the House. No country breakdown is available for Pacific countries as bilateral assistance to the Pacific is provided under a single regional programme. Assistance to Ascension Island is included in St. Helena and Dependencies. All other countries listed in the Strategic Export Controls Annual Report, but not in Statistics on International Development, do not receive development assistance from my Department.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what contribution her Department made to the strategic export controls annual report. [79713]

  Clare Short
  My Department was consulted during the drafting stages and contributed on areas of specific interest in line with its policy responsibilities.

  Non-governmental Organisations
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will state the value and percentages of her Department's 1996–97 total expenditure which were dispersed to(a) northern non-Governmental organisations, (b) southern non-Governmental organisations and (c) other civil society organisations taking into account all forms of aid her Department employs. [79715]

  Clare Short
  In 1996–97 the Department for International Development (DFID) expenditure through UK NGOs was £167 million which represented 15 per cent. of the bilateral programme and 8 per cent. of total expenditure. Information on spending through overseas NGOs and other civil society organisations is not held separately but is included in DFID' s bilateral country programme expenditure.

  Lobbyists
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will publish a list, including names and dates, of all meetings that(a) she, (b) her officials, (c) her advisers and (d) her PPS have
  124
  held during (i) 1997, (ii) 1998 and (iii) 1999 with people who work for political lobbying firms or for businesses that are members of the Public Relations Consultants Association. [79646]

  Clare Short
  I refer to an answer given by the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) on 9 March 1999,Official Report, column 168. The Ministerial Code also applies to Parliamentary Private secretaries when attending any meetings in an official or semi-official capacity.

  Environmental Appraisals
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what environmental appraisals of policy her Department has(a) completed, (b) started and (c) planned. [79620]

  Clare Short
  The Department for International Development (DFID) policies for assistance to developing countries are set out in a number of public policy documents. These include: Country Strategy Papers (CSP's), which set out how DFID intends to achieve UK development objectives in the country concerned; Institutional Strategy Papers (ISPs), which detail how DFID will work with institutions such as the EU and UN, and sectoral strategy papers, including the DFID Policy Statement on the Environment, which was published in December 1998.

  These policy documents are not subject to discrete environmental appraisals. They are developed by multidisciplinary teams, including environment advisers, and take account of the positive and negative environmental impacts of the policies concerned, making use of a range of technical assessments of environmental conditions in developing countries. Eighteen CSPs and four ISPs were produced in 1998–99.

  Montserrat
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what advice she is currently giving to citizens of Montserrat contemplating returning to the island. [80385]

  Mr. Foulkes
  An information note has been prepared by the Government of Montserrat, describing the conditions currently existing on the island. In the UK, this will be available from the Montserrat Government UK Office, the Montserrat Community Support Trust and other Montserratian community groups. It will also be included with the application forms for people wishing to apply for assistance under the Evacuee Return Air Fare Scheme.

  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many citizens of Montserrat have returned to the island from(a) the United Kingdom and (b) elsewhere in the last 12 months. [80386]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The Government of Montserrat estimate that the population has increased by approximately 1,300 in the last 12 months. This figure includes a significant number of regional migrant workers. The Government of Montserrat do not collect data on the origin of returning citizens. Information on citizens returning from the UK is not held by the UK Government.

  Macpherson Inquiry
  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the implications for her Department of the Macpherson inquiry recommendations; and if she will make a statement. [80539]

  Mr. Foulkes
  None of the 70 recommendations contained in Chapter 47 of the Macpherson report falls directly within our Department's remit. However, the report has been examined to assess whether there are any indirect implications.

  We are fully committed to delivering the values set in its equal opportunities policy. It has accepted the Commission for Racial Equality's Leadership Challenge and the Charter for Action on Improving the Representation of Ethnic Minorities in the Senior Civil Service, and additional staff resources have recently been allocated to the Unit responsible for these matters.

  The Department maintains strict policies aimed at avoiding all forms of discrimination and a recent audit of recruitment systems carried out for the Civil Service Commissioners described these as commendable. DFID has participated in public events aimed at promoting the Civil Service as a career for members of the ethnic minorities. We also promote our equal opportunities policy through training, and other forms of positive action are to be developed with this aim. Through the publication of ethnic monitoring data we seek to account publicly for our performance in the field of employment.

  More widely, over the last two years, the Department has made important changes aimed at integrating the staff it engages overseas closely into its structures and management processes and affording them access to employment protection procedures by administrative action.

  Our White Paper, "Eliminating World Poverty" underlined the importance the Government attach to increasing development awareness in the UK. Ethnic minorities are represented on the Development Awareness Working group, whose terms of reference explicitly require the Group to advise on how ethnic and religious groups can be properly covered.

  We established a Development Policy Forum last year to enable individuals and representatives of groups from all parts of society, including ethnic minorities, to share

  Date

  Title

  1997

  July

  Resolution of the Council on Coherence

  December

  Resolution—Microfinancing

  1998

  May

  Conclusions—Follow up to the December 1995 resolution on Gender

  May

  Conclusions—Follow up to the 1993 resolution on the tight against Poverty

  July

  Human Rights regulation based on article 235

  July

  Human Rights regulation based on article 130

  October

  Draft guidelines for strengthening operational co-ordination between the Community and member states in the field of development co-operation

  November

  Presidency proposal for the resolution on indigenous peoples within the framework of the development co-operation of the Community and member states

  Conclusions of the Council and of the representatives of members states on the role of development co-operation in strengthening peace building, conflict prevention and resolution

  126
  thinking and ideas for development and draw on their wealth of knowledge and experience. We had a very useful consultation with the Commission for Racial Equality on suitable representatives for the Forum's Steering Committee and instructed the ten organising committees in the home counties and the English regions to ensure that ethnic minorities were properly represented. We will be continuing with this initiative in future years and will be looking for continuing active participation from ethnic minority representatives.

  Sri Lanka (NGOs)
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the withdrawal from Sri Lanka during the past three years of non-governmental organisations engaged in humanitarian work. [80438]

  Clare Short
  We support several non-governmental organisations which provide relief and rehabilitation to those affected by the conflict in Sri Lanka. These include Oxfam, Save the Children Fund and the International Committee of the Red Cross.

  I am aware of only one organisation having withdrawn from Sri Lanka in recent years. Peace Brigades International, a human rights organisation helping non violent activists, withdrew in April 1998 because it felt unable to carry out its mandate effectively.

  European Scrutiny Committee
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the occasions since 1 May 1997 when her Department has made available to the European Scrutiny Committee unofficial texts of draft European legislation. [80551]

  Clare Short
  No unofficial texts have been made available by my Department to the European Scrutiny Committee.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development on how many occasions since 1 May 1997 her Department has made available to the European Scrutiny Committee council working documents. [80544]

  Clare Short
  Since May 1997 my Department has made available the following Council working documents:

  Swaziland
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) of 23 April 1998,Official Report, column 680, on Swaziland, what efforts are being made by her Department to further participation by women in political institutions in Swaziland. [79940]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The Department for International Development financed gender awareness training for members of Swaziland's parliament two years ago. We have not been asked specifically to help increase participation by women in Swazi political institutions but our future partnership with Swaziland, currently under discussion with Swazi partners, will aim to help women's groups advance women's legal and property rights.

  MED Programmes
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the Court of Auditors reports into the MED programmes of the European Union; and if she will make a statement. [80003]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The only Court of Auditors report into the MEDA programmes during this Government was Special Report No. 1/98 in respect of bilateral financial and technical co-operation with non-member Mediterranean countries. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State submitted and explanatory memorandum on this report to Parliament's European scrutiny committees on 23 April 1998.

  The Government share criticisms of the MED programme made in this report, and in previous Court of Auditors reports into the MED programmes' structural adjustment support measures (1995) and decentralised co-operation (1996), and in the report by the Committee of Independent Experts published in March this year.

  The MED regulation expires at the end of 1999. In negotiations on its successor, the Government are seeking to improve the poverty focus and quality of management of the programmes. These reports have informed our approach.

  Treaty of Amsterdam
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list each of the new responsibilities which she will assume when the signed

  £000

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  NHS Trusts

  Bridgend and District

  0

  4

  105

  8

  Cardiff Community

  —

  49

  99

  2

  Carmarthen and District

  0

  0

  24

  28

  Ceredigion and Mid Wales

  4

  2

  6

  12

  Clwydian Community Care

  0

  0

  0

  7

  Derwen

  0

  0

  1

  —

  East Glamorgan

  0

  1

  0

  110

  Glan Clwyd

  0

  24

  5

  387

  Glan Hafren

  5

  108

  3

  225

  Glan Y Mor

  —

  —

  437

  0

  Gwent Community

  0

  0

  0

  9

  128
  Treaty of Amsterdam takes effect and for each (a) the likely effect on departmental staffing, (b) the bodies or persons in the European Union principally concerned and (c) the relevant section of that treaty and the consolidated treaties of the European Union and European Community. [80413]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The Treaty of Amsterdam will have minimal impact on the responsibilities of the Department and its staffing. As far as EU bodies are concerned, there will be an increased role for the European Parliament, following the amendment to Article 130u-y of the Treaty to extend the co-decision procedure to cover regulations agreed under these articles. This will include those for humanitarian aid, food aid, assistance to NGOs and environmental projects. The strengthening of the Common Foreign and Security Policy will also have some implications for DFID, for example in so far as it relates to assistance to third countries.

  Refugees (Kosovo)
  Mr. Rapson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance she plans to give to help(a) refugees from Kosovo and (b) the receiving nations. [79612]

  Clare Short
  Since 29 March we have committed £20 million to aid Kosovo Albanian refugees. Of this sum £6.4 million has already been allocated to priority needs, 24 per cent. specifically for activities in Albania, 22 per cent. for Macedonia and 54 per cent. for the region as a whole. Our share of EC contributions so far is an additional £2.9 million.

  We will continue to commit our resources to achieve the most effective possible results. Our decisions will be informed by our recent missions to the regions.

WALES

  Clinical Negligence Claims
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the cost of clinical negligence claims against the NHS in each region in Wales in each year since 1994–95. [76909]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  [holding answer 15 March 1999]: The information is not centrally available in the format requested. However, the cost of cases which include clinical negligence claims is in the following table.
  129

  £000

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Gwynedd Community

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Gwynedd Hospitals

  0

  20

  12

  1

  Llandough Hospital

  3

  0

  58

  35

  Llanelli Dinefwr

  0

  40

  0

  14

  Mid Glamorgan Ambulance

  0

  0

  0

  13

  Morriston Hospital

  0

  5

  21

  28

  Nevin Hall

  0

  0

  5

  37

  North Glamorgan

  —

  —

  0

  71

  North Wales Ambulance

  0

  0

  24

  0

  Pembrokeshire

  11

  12

  50

  —

  Pembrokeshire and Derwen1

  —

  —

  —

  131

  Powys Healthcare

  0

  0

  84

  0

  Rhondda Healthcare

  0

  0

  100

  47

  South East Wales Ambulance

  5

  121

  23

  48

  Swansea

  58

  0

  33

  837

  University Dental Hospital of Wales

  —

  2

  0

  2

  University Hospital of Wales

  —

  0

  51

  38

  Velindre Hospital

  0

  26

  0

  0

  West Wales Ambulance

  0

  0

  0

  16

  Wrexham Maelor

  0

  0

  38

  132

  Sub-total

  86

  414

  1,179

  2,238

  Health Authorities

  Bro Taf

  —

  —

  4,952

  3,861

  Dyfed Powys

  —

  —

  979

  758

  Gwent

  —

  —

  31

  506

  Morgannwg

  —

  —

  408

  147

  North Wales

  —

  —

  1,268

  279

  HPAW

  —

  —

  0

  0

  WHCSA

  —

  —

  0

  0

  Sub-total

  —

  —

  7,638

  5,551

  District Health Authorities

  Clwyd

  513

  624

  —

  —

  Dyfed

  250

  561

  —

  —

  Gwent

  394

  196

  —

  —

  Gwynedd

  85

  454

  —

  —

  Mid Glamorgan

  1,497

  1,498

  —

  —

  Pembroke

  48

  —

  —

  —

  Powys

  67

  27

  —

  —

  South Glamorgan

  724

  503

  —

  —

  West Glamorgan

  1,752

  955

  —

  —

  HPAW

  48

  0

  —

  —

  WHCSA

  0

  0

  —

  —

  Sub-total

  5,378

  4,818

  Total

  5,464

  5,232

  8,817

  7,789

  1Pembrokeshire and Derwen HNS trusts merged on 1 April 1997.

  Notes:

  1. Costs listed include: special payments—compensation under legal obligation; ex-gratia payments—clinical negligence with advice and other clinical negligence and personal injury. The first and third categories may contain cases other than clinical negligence.

  2. Figures from health authorities are taken from financial returns and receipts and payments returns.

  3. Figures from NHS trusts are taken from financial returns for 1995–96 to 1997–98: figures for 1994–95 are taken from the annual accounts and relate to clinical negligence costs written off in the year.

  Source:

  Audited annual accounts of NHS trusts, health and district health authorities from 1994–95 to 1997–98

  Following the transfer of functions, this issue will be a matter for the National Assembly.

  Health Authorities (Debts)
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the amount of(a) bad debts and (b) claims
  130]
  abandoned in Wales for each health authority in each region for the last five years. [76925]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  [holding answer 15 March 1999]: The information is not centrally available in the format requested. However, the combined costs of bad debts and claims abandoned are shown in the following table.
  131

  Total amount of bad debts and claims abandoned

  £000

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  NHS Trusts

  Bridgend & District

  5

  45

  22

  5

  9

  Cardiff Community

  —

  —

  0

  10

  2

  Carmarthen & District

  10

  0

  3

  0

  2

  Ceredigion & Mid Wales

  1

  2

  0

  0

  2

  Clwydian Community Care

  39

  37

  3

  13

  4

  Derwen

  —

  6

  0

  1

  —

  East Glamorgan

  —

  15

  10

  24

  21

  Glan Clwyd

  30

  79

  21

  3

  6

  Glan Hafren

  54

  41

  44

  0

  0

  Glan Y Mor

  —

  —

  —

  2

  0

  Gwent Community

  50

  37

  4

  0

  1

  Gwynedd Community

  —

  0

  3

  20

  1

  Gwynedd Hospitals

  —

  5

  5

  10

  6

  Llandough Hospital

  50

  11

  3

  3

  11

  Llanelli Dinefwr

  8

  3

  4

  0

  5

  Mid Glamorgan Ambulance

  —

  52

  5

  0

  0

  Morriston Hospital

  —

  23

  5

  10

  21

  Nevill Hall

  —

  1

  8

  3

  2

  North Glamorgan

  —

  —

  —

  6

  7

  North Wales Ambulance

  —

  2

  0

  0

  1

  Pembrokeshire

  3

  0

  4

  2

  —

  Pembrokeshire & Derwen1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,237

  Powys Healthcare

  0

  0

  2

  3

  0

  Rhondda Healthcare

  —

  4

  1

  1

  0

  South East Wales Ambulance

  0

  61

  0

  0

  1

  Swansea

  0

  0

  6

  10

  9

  University Dental Hospital of Wales

  —

  —

  0

  0

  4

  University Hospital of Wales

  —

  —

  0

  173

  126

  Velindre Hospital

  —

  5

  8

  0

  4

  West Wales Ambulance

  —

  —

  0

  22

  1

  Wrexham Maelor

  23

  38

  0

  0

  33

  Total

  273

  467

  161

  321

  1,516

  Health Authorities

  Bro Taf

  —

  —

  —

  0

  0

  Dyfed Powys

  —

  —

  —

  10

  3

  Gwent

  —

  —

  —

  13

  0

  Morgannwg

  —

  —

  —

  45

  2

  North Wales

  —

  —

  —

  0

  70

  HPAW

  —

  —

  —

  0

  0

  WHCSA

  —

  —

  —

  5,087

  32

  Total

  —

  —

  —

  5,155

  107

  District Health Authorities

  Clwyd

  33

  2

  0

  —

  —

  Dyfed

  8

  5

  8

  —

  —

  Gwent

  15

  6

  117

  —

  —

  Gwynedd

  12

  55

  31

  —

  —

  Mid Glamorgan

  463

  12

  27

  —

  —

  Pembroke

  0

  0

  —

  —

  —

  Powys

  0

  0

  2

  —

  —

  South Glamorgan

  76

  154

  0

  —

  —

  West Glamorgan

  16

  2

  79

  —

  —

  HPAW

  0

  0

  452

  —

  —

  WHCSA

  0

  22

  0

  —

  —

  Total

  623

  258

  716

  —

  —

  Notes:

  1. Pembrokeshire and Derwen NHS trusts merged on 1 April 1997.

  2. The loss of £1.235 million relates to repairs to the roof of Withybush hospital shown in the 1997–98 accounts.

  3. The loss of £5.087 million relates to remedial works at University Hospital of Wales shown in the 1996–97 accounts.

  4. Bad debts and claims abandoned information is collected under one heading in the annual accounts: the figures include claims against private patients, private non-resident patients, overseas visitors, Road Traffic Act claims and other claims.

  5. Figures from health authorities are taken from financial returns and receipts and payments returns.

  6. Figures from NHS trusts are taken from financial returns for 1994–95 to 1997–98: figures for 1993–94 are taken from the annual accounts and relate to bad debts only.

  Source:

  Audited Annual Accounts of NHS Trust, health and district health authorities from 1993–94 to 1997–98
  132 133
  Following the transfer of functions, this issue will be a matter for the National Assembly.

  Civil Servants (Appraisal)
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what were the appraisal performance markings awarded to civil servants in 1998 for(a) each agency in his Department and (b) the Department broken down by (i) grade, (ii) gender, (iii) ethnicity, (iv) part-time/ full-time working and (v) disability; and for (1) each agency and (2) the Department whether the Cabinet Office's four-fifths rule for detecting potential adverse impact was applied to the appraisal markings of civil servants in the 1998 report round. [78145]

  Welsh Office

  Grade bands

  A

  B

  C

  D

  E

  F

  Number of staff

  Disability

  Part time

  Full time

  Bands F and G (G7 and 6)

  Female

  6

  23

  15

  1

  0

  0

  54

  1

  13

  41

  Male

  22

  74

  26

  4

  0

  0

  134

  1

  4

  130

  Total

  28

  97

  41

  5

  0

  0

  188

  2

  17

  171

  Band E (SEO)

  Female

  9

  12

  5

  1

  0

  0

  28

  1

  4

  27

  Male

  6

  58

  34

  1

  0

  0

  107

  1

  0

  107

  Total

  15

  70

  39

  2

  0

  0

  135

  2

  4

  131

  Band D (HEO and HEO(D))

  Female

  15

  70

  31

  5

  0

  0

  130

  6

  26

  104

  Male

  14

  85

  47

  12

  0

  0

  168

  2

  1

  167

  Total

  29

  155

  78

  17

  0

  0

  298

  8

  27

  271

  Band C (EO)

  Female

  34

  117

  74

  33

  0

  0

  281

  3

  63

  218

  Male

  20

  90

  65

  36

  1

  0

  220

  3

  1

  219

  Total

  54

  207

  139

  69

  1

  0

  501

  6

  64

  437

  Band B (AO)

  Female

  31

  149

  78

  28

  0

  0

  332

  2

  76

  256

  Male

  7

  51

  48

  22

  1

  0

  134

  4

  3

  131

  Total

  38

  200

  126

  50

  1

  0

  466

  6

  79

  387

  Band A (AA)

  Female

  40

  67

  56

  21

  0

  0

  258

  3

  44

  214

  Male

  22

  59

  36

  17

  0

  0

  204

  2

  0

  204

  Total

  62

  126

  92

  38

  0

  0

  478

  5

  44

  434

  CADW

  Grade bands

  A

  B

  C

  D

  E

  F

  Number of staff

  Disability

  Part time

  Full time

  Bands G, F and E (G6 & 7 & SEO)

  Female

  0

  2

  2

  0

  0

  0

  4

  0

  0

  4

  Male

  1

  13

  2

  0

  0

  0

  16

  0

  0

  16

  Total

  1

  15

  4

  0

  0

  0

  20

  0

  0

  20

  Band D (HEO)

  Female

  0

  3

  1

  1

  0

  0

  5

  0

  1

  4

  Male

  1

  10

  2

  0

  0

  0

  13

  0

  0

  13

  Total

  1

  13

  3

  1

  0

  0

  18

  0

  1

  17

  Band C (EO)

  Female

  0

  7

  3

  1

  0

  0

  11

  1

  9

  2

  Male

  1

  7

  2

  1

  0

  0

  11

  0

  1

  10

  Total

  1

  14

  5

  2

  0

  0

  22

  1

  10

  12

  134
  Mr. Michael
  The information requested is set out in the following tables. Comprehensive information is set out for performance markings by gender but it is not possible to provide the same detail for disability or part-time/full-time because of the small numbers of staff involved. No data on ethnicity can be provided as such data could breach confidentiality as the information would allow the identification of individuals. The top two bands in the Welsh Office and top three in CADW Agency, have been merged because of the small number of officials involved so as to allow for anonymity. We have not applied the Cabinet Office's four-fifths rule in either the Department or the agency because the figures for gender suggest that there is no adverse impact and the numbers involved in the other categories are too small to allow a meaningful assessment.
  135

  CADW

  Grade bands

  A

  B

  C

  D

  E

  F

  Number of staff

  Disability

  Part time

  Full time

  Band A and B (AA and AO)

  Female

  1

  9

  3

  1

  0

  0

  14

  0

  6

  8

  Male

  4

  5

  1

  2

  0

  0

  13

  0

  0

  13

  Total

  5

  12

  4

  3

  0

  0

  27

  0

  6

  2

  Industrials and Museum

  Female

  1

  10

  5

  2

  0

  0

  18

  0

  5

  13

  Male

  0

  2

  2

  3

  0

  0

  7

  1

  3

  4

  Total

  1

  12

  7

  5

  0

  0

  25

  1

  8

  17

  Notes:

  The tables exclude casual staff

  Investment (Poland)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the cost to public funds of organising the event on investment in Poland on 10 March in Cardiff. [70061]

  Mr. Michael
  The main purpose of this event was to raise awareness of export opportunities and the practicalities of doing business in Poland. Direct costs (ie excluding staff costs) amounted to £1,982 and were met by the Department of Trade and Industry.

  In future the responsibility of organising events such as this will pass to the National Assembly for Wales.

  Expenditure
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the relationship between the increase of £80 million in expenditure in Wales announced in the Budget and the £852 million indicated as the figure for Wales for the year 1999–2000 in the Treasury's Comprehensive Spending Review on 14 July 1998; and if the £80 million is additional to the latter figure. [79040]

  Mr. Michael
  In the Comprehensive Spending Review published on 14 July 1998, the following spending plans were announced for the Welsh Office's Departmental Expenditure Limit:

  £ million

  1998–99

  6,675

  1999–2000

  7,036

  2000–01

  7,406

  2001–02

  7,781

  This represented a total cumulative increase of £2.2 billion from the 1998–99 provision. (The figure of £852 million quoted in the question related to the Welsh Office's planned capital expenditure for 1998–99). The £80 million announced in the March Budget is Wales's share of the Capital Modernisation Fund. These resources are additional to the provision set out above.

  Environmental Appraisals
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what environmental appraisals of policy his Department has(a) completed, (b) started and (c) planned. [79616]
  136
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The available information is being collected to meet the Environmental Audit Committee's request for information on environmental appraisal as part of its second inquiry into the "Greening Government Initiative".

  Green Belt Land
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the green belt land in each local authority area. [79849]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  There are no Green Belts in Wales.

  Mental Health Services
  Ms Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what total NHS expenditure on mental health services in Wales was by health authority in the last year for which figures are available. [80192]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The information is not centrally available in the format requested. However, the total expenditure on healthcare provision, both acute and community services, for patients with mental illness is shown in the following table.

  £000

  Bro Taf

  53,012

  Dyfed Powys

  31,879

  Gwent

  28,278

  Morgannwg

  35,095

  North Wales

  36,398

  Total

  184,662

  Source:

  Annual accounts of health authorities 1997–98

  Following the transfer of functions, this issue will be a matter for the National Assembly.

  Ms Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met representatives of the (i) black and (ii) other ethnic minority communities to discuss mental health treatment. [80195]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  There have been no requests from black or ethnic minority groups for meetings with Ministers to discuss mental health.

  I am setting up a Steering Group to establish for the first time, an All Wales Strategy for child and adolescent mental health services and I am considering at present

  137
  how best to update our Strategy for adult mental health services. The needs of ethnic minority patients will be addressed in both exercises.

  Following the transfer of functions, this issue will be a matter for the National Assembly.

  Ms Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the major advances in treatment which have been implemented in mental health since 1995. [80188]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  It is difficult to define the term "major" in this context. There have been advances in drug treatment and in approaches to treatment since 1995. We work closely with Department of Health, the NHS and other interested parties to ensure that all developments are evaluated and, where appropriate, publicised.

  The next major development in disseminating best modern practice will come with the development of the National Service Framework for mental health services, whose standards we expect to introduce in Wales.

  Following the transfer of functions, this issue will be a matter for the National Assembly.

  Dental Services
  Ms Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will estimate the percentage of dentistry in Wales which is carried out on the NHS. [80193]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  In Wales at the end of September 1998, 60 per cent. of children and 46 per cent. of adults were registered with NHS dentists, having visited them at least once during the preceding 15 months.

  NHS net spending on general dental services in Wales in 1997–98 rose to £56.2 million, a 6 per cent. increase over the previous year.

  Over the same period, the number of courses of NHS treatment, for adults in Wales, rose by nearly 7 per cent. to 1.446 million.

  The number of dentists treating patients under NHS arrangements in Wales reached an all-time high of 960 by the end of 1998.

  Data on private dental treatment are not collected by the Welsh Office.

  Following the transfer of functions, this issue will be a matter for the National Assembly.

  Local Health Groups
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what process of consultation was used in the appointment of people to local health groups in Wales. [79885]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The preliminary guidance on establishing Local Health Groups, issued for consultation in June 1998, elicited over 140 responses. The respondents are listed at Annex B to the final guidance, "Establishing Local Health Groups", which issued in October 1998. In addition, there was wide ranging discussion with stakeholders. The final guidance also sets out the processes to be employed when appointing members to Local Health Groups.
  138
  Following the transfer of functions, this issue will be a matter for the National Assembly.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the appointees to the local health groups in Wales. [79886]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  Local Health Groups are sub committees of health authorities which have been responsible for their establishment in accordance with Welsh Office guidance "Establishing Local Health Groups" issued in October 1998. Details of membership are held by the individual authority.

  Following the transfer of functions, this issue will be a matter for the National Assembly.

  Uniform Business Rate
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has undertaken concerning the level of the uniform business rate charged on Wales in respect of its impact on small shops in town centres; and if he will make a statement. [80213]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The White Paper "Local Voices, Modernising Local Government in Wales" (Cm 4028) said that when the Government introduce local rates they will consider introducing measures to reduce the rating burden on small businesses. Discussions on implementing these proposals are already underway with a range of business representatives, including the Federation of Small Businesses Wales.

  Following the transfer of functions this will be a matter for the National Assembly.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Public Relations
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much was spent on(a) publicity, (b) advertising and (c) press relations in each month of 1998, broken down by department. [73892]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Information Services spend on publicity and advertising for 1998 was as follows:

  £

  January-March

  nil

  April

  132.89

  May

  30,037.15

  June

  5,566.41

  July

  34,936.90

  August

  12,441.87

  September

  57,405.47

  October

  25,997.31

  November

  109,706.90

  December

  15,238.78

  Total

  291,463.78

  Departmental Staff (Ethnic Origin)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will provide a breakdown, in numerical and
  139
  percentage terms, of the ethnic origin, at 1 March, of (a) her private office, (b) Government special advisers, (c) her Policy Unit and (d) staff in total. [78503]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  The information requested is as follows:

  (a) Under the terms of the Civil Service Ethnic Monitoring Code of Practice it would be inappropriate to provide the information in the form requested because of the very small numbers involved.

  (b) I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 22 February 1999, Official Report, column 39.

  (c) I do not have a policy unit.

  (d) My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office will provide this information centrally.

  Proscribed Organisations
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people have been arrested for membership of proscribed organisations since the signing of the Good Friday Agreement; how many were arrested for this offence in each year since 1969; and if she will make a statement. [78912]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 26 March 1999]: We do not have figures on arrests. We do, however, have figures for the number charged with membership of a proscribed organisation as a primary offence. These figures do not

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  Task force/Policy reveiew

  sub-groups

  working parties

  Other subsidiary committees

  Task forces

  Working Group to plan for a single NI Equality Commission

  Yes

  —

  —

  New Deal In NI Task Force

  Yes

  —

  —

  Policy review groups

  Economic Development Strategy Review

  —

  Yes

  Yes

  Youth Service Policy Review Group

  —

  Yes

  —

  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list for all task forces and policy reviews with external members established by her Department since May 1997(a) their dates of establishment, (b) those which have issued final reports and their dates of publication, (c) those which have been

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  (d)

  For those still in existence

  Task forces/Policy review

  Date of establishment

  Date of publication of final report

  Date of termination

  Expected date of final report

  Expected termination date

  Task forces

  Working Group to plan for a single NI Equality Commission

  November 1998

  Anticipated mid-April 1999

  Final meeting 26 March 1999

  —

  —

  New Deal in NI Task Force

  September 1997

  —

  —

  Not known

  Not known

  NI Skills Task Force

  February 1999

  —

  —

  Not known

  Not known

  Policy review groups

  Northern Ireland Drugs Strategy Review

  27 May 1997

  —

  —

  Spring/Summer 1999

  Spring/Summer 1999

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Review

  30 September 1998

  —

  —

  June 1999

  June 1999

  140
  include cases of people charged with membership alongside more serious offences. The figures go back only to 1990.

  Year

  Total number of persons charged with membership of a proscribed organisation as a primary offence

  1990

  7

  1991

  6

  1992

  6

  1993

  14

  1994

  12

  1995

  5

  1996

  10

  1997

  1

  1998

  6

  10 April 1998-23 March 1999

  4

  Task Forces
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list all those task forces and policy reviews with external members established by her Department since May 1997 which have set up(a) sub-groups, (b) working parties and (c) other subsidiary committees. [79254]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The information for the Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland Departments is as follows:

  terminated and their dates of termination and (d) for those bodies still in existence, expected reporting and termination dates. [79277]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The information for the Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland Department is as follows;
  141

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  (d)

  For those still in existence

  Task force/Policy review

  Date of establishment

  Date of publication of final report

  Date of termination

  Expected date of final report

  Expected termination date

  Review of Criminal Justice

  27 June 1998

  —

  —

  Autumn 1999

  Autumn 1999

  System in Northern Ireland

  Independent Commission on Policing

  3 June 1998

  —

  —

  Summer 1999

  Summer 1999

  Fundamental Review of the Economic Development Strategy in NI

  January 1998

  22 March 1999

  —

  End-April 1999

  Youth Service Policy Review Group

  June 1997

  —

  —

  April 1999

  April 1999

  Winter Mortality Rates
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many deaths where hypothermia was mentioned on the death certificate as the main or contributory cause of death took place in Northern Ireland in(a) 1997, (b) 1992, (c) 1987, (d) 1982 and (e) 1977 amongst those (i) of all ages, (ii) aged 60 to 74, (iii) aged 74 to 84 and (iv) aged over 85 years; what were -the winter mortality rates for (1) the population as a whole, (2) people aged 60 to 74, (3) people aged 75 to 84 and (4) people aged 85 years and over; and what the percentage increase was in each group compared to non-winter deaths in (A) 1997–98, (B) 1992–93, (C) 1987–88, (D) 1982–83 and (E) 1977–78.[79420]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Statistics and Research Agency under its Chief Executive, Mr. Edgar Jardine. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Table 1: Death due to the effects of reduced temperature by ICD code

  Deaths due to the effects of reduced temperature

  1977

  1982

  1987

  1992

  1997

  ICD code 991.6—hypothermia

  0

  17

  15

  14

  22

  ICD code 991.9—unspecified

  0

  0

  4

  0

  0

  ICD code 991—sub-code not specified (excluding 991.6 and 991.9)

  14

  0

  0

  0

  2

  ICD code 991—all deaths due to the effects of reduced temperature

  14

  17

  19

  14

  24

  In response to part (2) of your question Table 3 shows the winter and non-winter mortality rates as requested and the percentage increase from non-winter to winter mortality rates in each of the categories.

  I trust this information is sufficient, however if I can be of further assistance please do not hesitate to contact me.

  Table 2: Deaths due to the effects of reduced temperature1

  Number of deaths

  Deaths by age

  1977

  1982

  1987

  1992

  1997

  Main cause

  0 to 59 years

  13

  2

  1

  3

  4

  60 to 74 years

  l

  6

  1

  1

  3

  75 to 84 years

  0

  5

  1

  3

  3

  85 or more years

  0

  4

  0

  1

  1

  All ages

  14

  17

  3

  8

  11

  142
  Letter from E. F. Jardine to Mr. Roy Beggs, dated 2 April 1999:

  You tabled a parliamentary question asking the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—

  (1) how many deaths where hypothermia was mentioned on the death certificate as the main or contributory cause of death took place in Northern Ireland in (a) 1997, (b) 1992, (c) 1987, (d) 1982 and (e) 1977 amongst those (i) of all ages, (ii) aged 60 to 74, (iii) aged 74 to 84 and (iv) aged over 85 years; and

  (2) what were the winter mortality rates for (a) the population as a whole, (b) people aged 60 to 74, (c) people aged 75 to 84 and (d) people aged over 85 years; and what the percentage increase was in each age group compared to non-winter deaths in (i) 1997/98, (ii) 1992/93, (iii) 1987/88, (iv) 1982/83 and (v) 1977/78, respectively.

  Deaths are classified by the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes.

  In answer to part (1) of your question Table I shows the number of deaths occurring in Northern Ireland, in each of the years specified, where hypothermia (ICD code 991.6) was either the main cause or a contributory cause of death. In 1977, there were no deaths attributed to hypothermia, but as the table shows, 14 deaths were attributed to ICD code 991 which covers all deaths due to the effects of reduced temperature. Consequently the detailed information requested on hypothermia has been produced for deaths due to the effects of reduced temperature, as shown in Table 2.

  Table 2: Deaths due to the effects of reduced temperature1

  Number of deaths

  Deaths by age

  1977

  1982

  1987

  1992

  1997

  Contributory cause

  0 to 59 years

  0

  0

  6

  0

  8

  60 to 74 years

  0

  0

  3

  2

  2

  75 to 84 years

  0

  0

  4

  4

  2

  85 or more years

  0

  0

  3

  0

  1

  All ages

  0

  0

  16

  6

  13

  All causes

  0 to 59 years

  13

  2

  7

  3

  12

  60 to 74 years

  1

  6

  4

  3

  5

  75 to 84 years

  0

  5

  5

  7

  5

  85 or more years

  0

  4

  3

  1

  2

  All ages

  14

  17

  19

  14

  24

  1Deaths shown have been coded as ICD code 991—Deaths due to effects of reduced temperature

  143

  Table 3: A comparison of winter and non-winter mortality rates (all causes)

  Rates per 1,000 population

  Year1,2

  Mortality rates

  1977–78

  1982–83

  1987–88

  1992–93

  1997–983.4

  Winter mortality

  0 to 59 years

  2.9

  2.4

  2.0

  1.6

  1.5

  60 to 74 years

  36.2

  34.4

  31.6

  25.9

  22.8

  75 to 84 years

  104.8

  102.0

  91.1

  77.6

  74.9

  85 or more years

  252.5

  246.8

  233.9

  189.0

  208.4

  All ages

  12.2

  12.0

  11.2

  9.7

  9.7

  Non winter mortality

  0 to 59 years

  2.6

  2.1

  2.0

  1.6

  1.5

  60 to 74 years

  29.3

  29.0

  26.6

  25.1

  20.7

  75 to 84 years

  85.8

  80.8

  74.6

  73.2

  65.3

  85 or more years

  195.5

  172.9

  192.6

  182.2

  178.3

  All ages

  10.1

  9.7

  9.6

  9.4

  8.7

  Percentage increase from non winter to winter rates5

  0 to 59 years

  11

  14

  2

  —0

  —1

  60 to 74 years

  24

  19

  19

  3

  10

  75 to 84 years

  22

  26

  22

  6

  15

  85 or more years

  29

  43

  21

  4

  17

  All ages

  21

  24

  17

  4

  12

  1Year incorporates December of year 1 and January to November of year 2. For example, 1997–98 incorporates December of 1997 and January to November of 1998.

  2 Winter months assumed to be December—March.

  31998 deaths figures are provisional.

  41998 population projection used as denominator for rate calculation as 1998 mid-year population estimate will not be available until June of 1999.

  5 The rounded percentages shown have been calculated using unrounded rates.

  Eurozone
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment she has made of the impact of the eurozone on inward investment to Northern Ireland. [79400]

  Mr. Ingram
  The lead-time associated with securing inward investment is usually quite lengthy; therefore, it is too early to assess the impact that the introduction of the euro has had on investment.

  The Industrial Development Board for Northern Ireland will continue to monitor the flows of inward investment to try to assess the impact, if any, of the introduction of the euro.

  Peace Process
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment she has made of the role of community groups in facilitating the peace process. [79399]

  Mr. McFall
  The Good Friday Agreement recognises and values the work done by voluntary organisations to develop reconciliation and mutual understanding between and within communities. This work has a vital role in consolidating peace and political agreement. Furthermore, the District Partnerships, established with significant community sector participation as a delivery mechanism for the European Union Special Support Programme for 144
  Peace and Reconciliation, have harnessed the talents and energies of local people to achieve common goals. This has helped to underpin the peace process at local level.

  Paramilitary Violence
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) if she will list for the week ended 27 March the number of (1) punishment beatings and (2) punishment shootings which took place in Northern Ireland indicating how many in each category were committed by(a) Loyalist and (b) Republican groups; [79709]

  (2) if she will list for the week ended 27 March the number of violent incidents involving paramilitary groups which took place in Northern Ireland, indicating how many involved (i) Loyalist and (ii) Republican groups. [79708]

  Mr. Ingram
  The numbers of security incidents during the period 21 March-27 March 1999 are as shown:

  Shooting incidents: 3

  Bombing incidents: 3.

  The numbers of casualties as a result of paramilitary-style attacks during the period are as follows:

  Loyalist

  Republican

  Assaults

  6

  nil

  Shootings

  nil

  1

  Total

  6

  1

  Notes:

  1. Figures may be subject to minor amendment.

  2. The shooting and bombing incidents cannot as yet be firmly attributed to a grouping.

  Green Belts
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list the green belt land in each local authority area. [79842]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Planning Service under its chief executive, Mr. T. W. Stewart. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from T. W. Stewart to Mr. Keith Vaz, dated 13 April 1999:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Question about a list of green belt land in Northern Ireland.
  The Planning Service, an Agency within the Department of the Environment, is the sole planning authority in Northern Ireland. The Department's policy on green belts is set out in Policy GB/CPA 1 of the publication entitled "A Planning Strategy for Rural Northern Ireland", a copy of which is available in the Library. There is no separate list of green belt land in Northern Ireland, as green belts around cities, towns and villages are designated by reference to the maps that accompany the Department's Development Plans covering district council areas.
  If, however, the Hon Member would find it helpful, further details can be provided on green belt land at specific locations.

  Lobbyists
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will publish a list, including names and dates, of all meetings that(a) she, (b) her officials, (c) her advisers and (d) her PPS have held during (i) 1997, (ii) 1998 and (iii) 1999 with people who work for political lobbying firms or for businesses that are members of the Public Relations Consultants Association. [79644]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) on 9 March 1999,Official Report, column 168. The requirements of the Ministerial Code also apply to Parliamentary Private Secretaries when attending any meetings in an official or semi-official capacity.

CABINET OFFICE

  Environmental Appraisals
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what environmental appraisals of policy his Department has(a) completed, (b) started and (c) planned. [79628]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to him by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) today,Official Report, column 66.

  Modernising Government
  Sir George Young
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office which of the public services to which he referred in his oral statement on 30 March 1999,Official Report, columns 859–61, it is planned to have delivered 24 hours a day, and seven days a week, where there is a demand. [80079]
  146
  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  The Modernising Government White Paper. launched on 30 March, includes a commitment to ensure that public services are available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, where there is demand. This will be achieved mainly through the use of information technology and call centres. To help bring about this fundamental change in delivering government services, we have proposed that 100% of basic dealings with government should be capable of being carried out electronically by the year 2008.

  Some specific targets relating to 24 hours a day, seven days a week services mentioned in the White Paper are:

  By the end of 2000 everyone will be able to phone NHS Direct at any time for healthcare advice;

  By 2001, job-seekers should be able to look and apply for jobs through the Employment Service using the internet;

  By 2002 it will be possible for the public electronically to book driving tests; file tax returns; get information about benefits; get on-line health information and advice; use the National Grid for Learning; apply for training loans and student support.

  In addition, by 2002 businesses will be able electronically to complete VAT registration and make VAT returns; file returns at Companies House; apply for regional support grants; and receive payments from government for the supply of goods and services.

  Melissa Virus
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many Government departments have been infected by the Melissa virus; and if he will make a statement. [80225]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  Each Government department is responsible for its own security, but departments are encouraged to report all IT security incidents, including virus infections, to the Unified Incident Reporting and Alert Scheme (UNIRAS), co-ordinated by the Security Service. UNIRAS issued a warning to Government departments about the Melissa virus on 29 March, giving advice on appropriate countermeasures. No department has so far reported any infection by Melissa, but the UNIRAS team anticipate that there might be a number of incidents, about which they would expect to receive routine reports in due course.

  KPMG
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what has been the total cost of services supplied to the Government by KPMG since 1 May 1997. [80399]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  This information for the cost of services supplied by KPMG to the whole Government is not held centrally.

  For information relating to the cost of services provided by KPMG to the Cabinet Office, its Agencies and NDPBs, I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 24 February 1999, Official Report, columns 336–37, to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmonds (Mr. Ruffley). Since then, there has been further expenditure of £31,999.95 (inc. VAT).

  Treaty of Amsterdam
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will list each of the new responsibilities which he will
  147
  assume when the signed Treaty of Amsterdam takes effect and for each (a) the likely effect on departmental staffing, (b) the bodies or persons in the European Union principally concerned and (c) the relevant section of that treaty and the consolidated treaties of the European Union and European Community. [80419]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The Treaty of Amsterdam is not expected to have an impact on Cabinet Office staffing. The EU Institutions have to take account of the requirements of the "Protocol on Subsidiarity and Proportionality" and the "Declaration on the Quality of Drafting of Community Legislation", which fall under the responsibilities of the Cabinet Office.

  It was agreed at the Vienna European Council in December 1998 that the Protocol would come into force immediately, without waiting for the ratification of the Treaty. An Inter-Institutional Agreement putting the Declaration into effect was finalised in December 1998.

  One-stop Shops
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what steps he is taking to co-locate local and central Government services in one-stop shops; and if he will list the places where this has been done successfully in the north-west. [80223]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  A key aim of the Modernising Government White Paper, launched on 30 March, is to deliver public services that meet the needs of citizens. The White Paper contained a number of initiatives to encourage joint working between central and local government, including through one-stop shops, for example: a big push on eliminating obstacles to joined-up working; a more co-ordinated approach to property management; 'learning labs' to encourage new ways of front-line working by suspending rules that stifle innovation; and changing our approach to, and guidance on, reviewing agencies and NDPBs to include a focus on the scope for improving services through collaboration. A second round of the Invest to Save Budget will fund new projects that involve partnership working. One of the projects receiving funds from the first round is a pilot project called INFOSHOP involving the Cabinet Office working with 16 local authorities, including the Metropolitan Borough of Knowsley. This is developing a computer information system that local authority staff can use to answer complex customer queries.

  There are numerous examples of good practice from one-stop shops across the country, many of which are led by local government. The Government do not keep a central record of one-stop shops, so it is not possible to list those that operate in the north-west.

  Centre for Management and Policy Studies
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office when the Government first indicated its intention to set up the Centre for Management and Policy Studies. [80228]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The Government first indicated their intention to set up the Centre for Management and Policy Studies on 28 July 1998,Official Report, columns 132–34. The announcement was made by the Prime Minister, in a written answer to a question on the future of the Cabinet Office, following the review of the Cabinet Office by Sir Richard Wilson.

  European Scrutiny Committee
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office (1) if he will list the occasions since 1 May 1997 when his Department has made available to the European Scrutiny Committee unofficial texts of draft European legislation; [80541]

  (2) on how many occasions since 1 May 1997 his Department has made available to the European Scrutiny Committee council working documents. [80548]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  My Department receives a large volume of both official and unofficial/working texts during the course of European Union negotiations on EU legislation and other matters. In order to facilitate the work of the European Scrutiny Committee and to keep it informed of the progress of negotiations, my Department submits Explanatory Memoranda (EMs) to the Committee. Since 1 May 1997, my Department has submitted 9 EMs to the European Scrutiny Committee. On one occasion, a Council working document covering draft joint guidelines on the quality of the drafting of Community legislation was attached to an EM submitted on 10 July 1998.

  European Legislation
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will place in the Library a copy of the rules which provide that working documents of the European Union in relation to draft legislation are the subject of confidentiality and cannot be disclosed for parliamentary scrutiny in member states. [80500]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The Council works on the basis of proposals for legislation adopted by the Commission and published in the Official Journal of the European Communities. Article 5 of Council Decision 93/662/EC of 6 December 1993 setting out the Rules of Procedure of the Council notes that

  "deliberations of the Council shall be covered by the obligation of professional secrecy".

  This rule is held to apply not only to meetings of the Council itself, but also to preparatory meetings, eg COREPER, and Working Groups. The rules on public access to Council documents are set out in Council Decision 93/731/EC of 20 December 1993 and the Council's Code of Conduct on Public Access (93/730/EC). I have today placed copies of these documents in the Library of the House. The Government are committed to the principle of effective parliamentary scrutiny of European legislation, but decisions on the disclosure of particular documents to facilitate this process are for the individual Departments concerned.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Appeal Committee Chairmen
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many appeal committee chairmen are(a) women, (b) from ethnic minorities, (c) solicitors or former solicitors and (d) barristers or former barristers; what is the total number of chairmen; and if he will make a statement. [79803]
  149
  Angela Eagle
  There are currently 686 full and part-time chairmen of tribunals working for the Independent Tribunal Service; 209 are women.

  The Independent Tribunal Service monitors ethnicity on a regular basis. Chairmen are not compelled to provide information on their ethnic origins and, therefore, full and detailed records are not available. However, available records show that 28 chairmen are from ethnic minorities.

  All chairmen are required to hold legal qualifications. Information is not available to indicate the split between solicitors and banisters (and advocates in Scotland). This information can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
  All chairmen are appointed by my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor in consultation with the Lord Advocate. Appointments are made on merit in accordance with the Lord Chancellor's Department's equal opportunities policies.

  Fraud
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many individuals in the Fraud Strategy Directorate had less than(a) one, (b) two, (c) five and (d) 10 years' direct experience of counter-fraud work before their appointment to the Directorate. [80390]

  Mr. Timms
  To develop, implement, audit and evaluate the Government's anti-fraud strategy, the Fraud Strategy Directorate requires people with a variety of skills and experience including knowledge of policy development, Social Security administration, legislation and programme and budget management. Most staff in the Directorate have previously had at least several years experience working in the administration of Social Security and dealing with customers, where countering fraud is the concern of all staff.

  Thirteen of the 48 staff in the Directorate have had prior experience of working in the field specifically on counter fraud work and their years of experience of this are as follows:

  Up to 1 year: 1 person

  1 to 5 years: 2 people

  2 to 5 years: 6 people

  5 to 10 years: 3 people

  More than 10 years: 1 person.

  SERPS
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will review the changes brought about by the Social Security Act 1986 to the state earnings-related pension scheme which will take effect on 6 April 2000; [79899]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the advice given by his Department on the legislative changes brought about by the Social Security Act 1986 to the state earnings-related pension scheme. [79943]

  Mr. Timms
  The Social Security Act 1986 modified SERPS for those reaching pension age from 6 April 1999 and 6 April 2000 onwards in several key areas. Most of these changes were incorporated into subsequent amendments to the leaflets NP46, "A guide to Retirement Pensions", and NP45, "A guide to Widow's Benefit".
  150
  However, the change affecting the rate of SERPS which can be inherited by a surviving spouse was not included until 1996.

  We are aware of cases where information has been given in response to inquiries by members of the public that did not reflect the change to inherited SERPS. The Benefits Agency has recently issued instructions to all staff to ensure that this does not recur.

  We hope to resolve the matter as soon as we can.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 26 March 1999,Official Report, column 440, on SERPS, for how long records of inquiries about SERPS entitlement are retained before destruction. [79658]

  Mr. Timms
  It is a requirement that written inquiries to the Benefits Agency (BA) Retirement Pension Forecast Advice Unit are retained for a minimum of 20 weeks. Approximately 2 years ago, the Unit began to retain a record of the inquiry and the answer given on computer for 18 months.

  Written inquiries to BA Local Offices are retained for a minimum of 20 weeks.

  Telephone inquiries of a general nature are not recorded. Normally, if specific information is given in a telephone call that affects a benefit claim then this is recorded. It is retained for the same period as written inquiries.

  Housing and Council Tax Benefits
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to set up pilot projects in respect of the administration of Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit; and if he will make a statement. [80660]

  Mr. Timms
  As part of the Government's programme of work to modernise the administration of Social Security and to help reduce fraud and error, there are a number of pilots in progress. New ones are likely to be developed in the future. Pilots that have recently been established or are due to start soon include those outlined.

  From 12 April 1999 in 7 local authorities, we are testing the requirement of Housing Benefit/Council Tax Benefit (HB/CTB) claimants to provide sufficient information for a National Insurance number to be traced and confirmed, or be allocated. Testing will continue until the requirement is extended to all authorities from September 1999.

  Between July 1999 and September 1999, the Benefits Agency and local authorities will be piloting the incorporation of HB paid to claimants who are in receipt of Income Support and Jobseeker's Allowance (Income Based) into the Benefits Agency's Area Benefit Review programme which measures the level of fraud and error.

  Since 23 November 1998, the Department has been running a prosecution pilot, where selected local authorities can use Departmental solicitors free of charge to prosecute their cases of benefit fraud. The pilot is scheduled to run for a period of one year.
  151

  Pensions
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the pension savings which will be needed to purchase an annuity equivalent to the difference between the value of the minimum income guarantee and passported benefits, and the value of the basic pension, in 15 years' time, assuming that the basic pension is raised in line with prices, the minimum income guarantee is raised in line with earnings, and that yields on Government bonds remain the same as at present. [79785]

  Mr. Timms
  The information is not available in the form requested. Such information as is available is as follows:

  Projections of the levels of council tax, local authority and private sector rents in 15 years' time are not available. It is therefore not possible to estimate likely values of Council Tax Benefit and Housing Benefit so far into the future. However, these benefits are still available (at the differing rates) to people above the Minimum Income Guarantee. Free prescriptions are available to all pensioners, not just to those on Income Support.

  In 15 years' time, in order to purchase an annuity to provide an income equivalent to the difference between the basic State pension and the Minimum Income Guarantee would require a lump sum of approximately £15,000 in 1999 earnings terms, or £19,000 in 1999 prices.

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest £1,000.

  2. Earnings grow 1.5 per cent. faster than prices.

  3. Annuity rates remain at the March 1999 level and are for a single man aged 65.

  4. Basic State pension rises in line with prices.

  5. Minimum Income Guarantee rises in line with earnings.

  Widows
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will make an announcement concerning compensation for widows who were misadvised by his Department on the halving of entitlement to their husband's additional pension after 5 April 2000. [80659]

  Mr. Timms
  We are making further inquiries and will make an announcement in due course.

  Lone Parents
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 2 March 1999,Official Report, column 706, on lone parents, how many lone parents receive income support (a) broken down by local authority area and (b) broken down by constituency. [79813]

  Angela Eagle
  The information has been placed in the library.

  Widowed Parents Allowance
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many(a) widowers and (b) widows he expects to be entitled to both widowed parents allowance and income support in (i) the first full year of implementation and (ii) 2020. [80654]
  152
  Angela Eagle
  There are estimated to be around 5,000 widows and 5,000 widowers expected to be entitled to both Widowed Parent's Allowance and Income Support in (i) the first full year of implementation and in (ii) 2020.

  Notes:

  1. The estimates presented above are broad orders of magnitude. They are rounded to the nearest 5,000 and are subject to a wide range of uncertainty.

  2. Estimates assume a constant proportion of cases are entitled to Widowed Parent's Allowance and Income Support.

  3. Estimates use information from the 1995–6 Family Resources Survey, the Income Support Quarterly Statistical Inquiry and forecasts from the Government Actuary's Department concerning the number of men and women affected by the proposed changes.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the estimated cost of(a) the proposed £10 disregard of widowed parents allowance in calculating entitlement to income related benefits and (b) the proposed premium for widows and widowers aged over 55 years in income related benefits in the first full year of implementation. [80657]

  Angela Eagle
  The estimated cost of introducing the proposed £10 disregard of widowed parents allowance in calculating entitlement to income related benefits is £10 million in the first full year of implementation.

  The estimated cost of introducing the proposed premium for widows and widowers aged over 55 years in income related benefits is £10 million in the first full year of implementation.

  Notes:

  1. The estimates presented above are broad orders of magnitude. They are rounded to the nearest £10 million and are subject to a wide range of uncertainty.

  2. Means-tested benefit offsets were estimated using the 1995–6 Family Resources survey and the Income Support Quarterly Statistical Inquiries.

  3. Estimates are based on forecasts from the Government Actuary's Department concerning the number of men and women affected by the proposed changes.

  Treaty of Amsterdam
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list each of the new responsibilities which he will assume when the signed Treaty of Amsterdam takes effect and for each(a) the likely effect on departmental staffing, (b) the bodies or persons in the European Union principally concerned and (c) the relevant section of that treaty and the consolidated treaties of the European Union and European Community. [80409]

  Angela Eagle
  The Treaty of Amsterdam will have minimal impact on the responsibilities of the Department and no additional staff are planned. Although Article 137 of the consolidated Treaty introduces an additional Community power to legislate in Social Security, we already have extensive experience of Community Social Security legislation under Article 42. The latter legislation will, in future, be subject to co-decision with the European Parliament.

  Benefit Fraud Inspectorate
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list each of the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate inspections which have been initiated since

  Details of BFI inspections of local authorities and agencies

  Local authority

  Date inspection announced

  Date inspection started (questionnaire issued)

  Date on-site visit completed

  Date Secretary of State received report

  Blackpool

  17 September 1997

  6 October 1997

  5 December 1997

  1 April 1998

  Teesdale

  12 December 1997

  9 January 1998

  17 April 1998

  6 August 1998

  Ipswich

  12 December 1997

  30 January 1998

  8 May 1998

  16 December 1998

  Leicester

  12 December 1997

  6 March 1998

  5 June 1998

  16 December 1998

  Eastbourne

  12 December 1997

  13 March 1998

  12 June 1998

  12 February 1999

  Inverclyde

  12 December 1997

  29 May 1998

  28 August 1998

  12 February 1999

  Broxbourne

  12 December 1997

  9 January 1998

  17 April 1998

  5 March 1999

  East Dumbartonshire

  12 December 1997

  13 February 1998

  15 May 1998

  18 March 1999

  Croydon

  12 December 1997

  20 March 1998

  19 June 1998

  30 March 1999

  East Lothian

  12 December 1997

  12 June 1998

  11 September 1998

  18 March 1999

  South Ayrshire

  29 May 1998

  31 July 1998

  30 October 1998

  18 March 1999

  Elmbridge

  29 May 1998

  3 July 1998

  2 October 1998

  25 March 1999

  Oldham

  29 May 1998

  10 July 1998

  9 October 1998

  25 March 1999

  Thanet

  29 May 1998

  10 July 1998

  9 October 1998

  25 March 1999

  Tower Hamlets

  29 May 1998

  17 July 1998

  16 October 1998

  —

  The Wrekin

  29 May 1998

  14 August 1998

  13 November 1998

  —

  Trafford

  29 May 1998

  14 August 1998

  13 November 1998

  —

  Gateshead

  29 May 1998

  18 September 1998

  18 December 1998

  —

  East Devon

  29 May 1998

  25 September 1998

  8 January 1999

  —

  Stoke on Trent

  29 May 1998

  25 September 1998

  8 January 1999

  —

  Kirklees

  29 May 1998

  25 September 1998

  8 January 1999

  —

  City of Dundee

  11 November 1998

  27 November 1998

  26 February 1999

  —

  Richmond upon Thames

  11 November 1998

  4 December 1998

  5 March 1999

  —

  Swansea

  11 November 1998

  11 December 1998

  12 March 1999

  —

  Oxford

  11 November 1998

  18 December 1998

  19 March 1999

  —

  Bournemouth

  11 November 1998

  25 December 1998

  26 March 1999

  —

  Lichfield

  11 November 1998

  8 January 1999

  9 April 1999

  —

  Sandwell

  11 November 1998

  8 January 1999

  9 April 1999

  —

  West Wiltshire

  11 November 1998

  15 January 1999

  —

  —

  Powys

  11 November 1998

  22 January 1999

  —

  —

  Wigan

  11 November 1998

  5 February 1999

  —

  —

  Shrewsbury and Atcham

  11 November 1998

  5 February 1999

  —

  —

  Norwich

  11 November 1998

  19 February 1999

  —

  —

  City of York

  11 November 1998

  26 February 1999

  —

  —

  Carlisle

  11 November 1998

  26 February 1999

  —

  —

  Rotherham

  11 November 1998

  12 May 1999

  —

  —

  Ellesmere Port

  11 November 1998

  26 March 1999

  —

  —

  St. Helens

  11 November 1998

  2 April 1999

  —

  —

  South Lakeland

  11 November 1998

  2 April 1999

  —

  —

  Babergh

  11 November 1998

  9 April 1999

  —

  —

  Agency

  Date announced

  Date inspection started

  Date on-site visit completed

  Date Secretary of State Received Report

  BA

  April 98

  April 1998

  August 1998

  March 1999

  CSA

  November 1998

  October 1998

  October 1998

  —

  CA

  November 1998

  October 1998

  February 1999

  —

  Benefit Payments (Post Offices)
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answers of 25 February 1999,Official Report, columns 434–35, and 25 March 1999, Official Report, column 388, on the payment card trial, what factors underlie the discrepancy between the figure of £17 million for estimated total savings and the figure of £68,000 for savings already received. [79657]

  Angela Eagle
  The figure of £68,000 given in my Written Answer on 25 February represented fraud savings attributable to the Payment Card up to December 1998.
  154
  the establishment of the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate, giving the dates (a) that they were commissioned, (b) the inspections started, (c) they were completed and (d) he received the completed reports. [80389]

  Mr. Timms
  The information is in the table.

  The figure of £17 million given on 25 March is an estimate, based on the latest agreed plans, of total fraud savings from the Payment Card during the pilot period, including savings from the trial of multiple benefit card payment.

  Bereavement Premium
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants he expects to be entitled to the premium in income-related benefits for widowed people over the age of 55 years in (i) the first full year of implementation and (ii) 2020. [80653]
  155
  Angela Eagle
  It is estimated that around 5,000 widowed people will be entitled to the Bereavement Premium in Income Support in the first full year of implementation.

  The Bereavement Premium will be available only to those men and women aged 55 or over at the start of the proposed new scheme of bereavement benefits who are widowed during the subsequent five years. It will not be available in 2020.

  Notes:

  1. The estimates presented above are broad orders of magnitude. They are rounded to the nearest 5,000 and are subject to a wide range of uncertainty.

  2. Estimates use information from the 1995/96 Family Resources Survey, the Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry and forecasts from the Government Actuary's Department concerning the number of men and women affected by the proposed changes.

  Pensioner Incomes
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will provide data on the earnings levels of(a) all pensioners, (b) newly retired pensioners and (c) pensioners aged 75 years or over, in a format consistent with Tables VI and VII of the Pensioner Incomes Series, based on the 1995–96 Family Resources Survey. [80424]

  Mr. Timms
  The information is in the table.

  Proportion of pensioners with earnings and the average amount of earnings

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Proportion with income from earnings (percentage)

  All pensioner units

  8

  8

  8

  Newly retired pensioner units

  20

  20

  20

  Pensioner units aged 75 years or over

  2

  2

  2

  Average earnings (£ per week) of those in receipt Mean amounts

  All pensioner units

  190

  177

  198

  Newly retired pensioner units

  206

  188

  209

  Pensioner units aged 75 years or over

  178

  150

  156

  Median amounts

  All pensioner units

  113

  100

  112

  Newly retired pensioner units

  140

  117

  139

  Pensioner units aged 75 years or over

  99

  76

  58

  Notes:

  1. All money amounts are given in £ per week at July 1996 prices.

  2. Earnings are defined as earned income from either employment or self employment.

  3. "Pensioner units" are defined as single people over state pension age (60 and over for women, 65 and over for men) and couples (married or cohabiting) where the man is aged over State pension age.

  4. 'Newly retired pensioner units' are defined as those less than five years older than State pension age; ie single women aged 60–64, single men aged 65–69, and couples in which the man is aged 65–69.

  5. 'Pensioner units aged 75 years or over' are defined as single people aged 75 or over, and couples in which the man is aged 75 or over.

  6. All figures, and particularly those for pensioner units aged 75 or over, should be treated with caution since they are based on small sample sizes.

  Source:

  Family Resources Survey
  156
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the income sources which his Department has included in the category of investment income for the purpose of the Pensioner Incomes Series; and if he will provide a breakdown of the contribution of each to total investment income of(a) newly retired pensioners, (b) all pensioners aged under 75 years, including newly retired pensioners and (c) all pensioners aged 75 years or above. [80423]

  Mr. Timms
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is as follows.

  The Pensioners' Incomes Series 1996–97 is based mainly on data from the Family Expenditure Survey (FES). The following sources of income collected in the FES are included in the investment income category:

  Interest on money held in accounts:

  Bank accounts

  Building Society accounts

  National Savings Bank ordinary accounts

  National Savings Bank investment accounts

  Tax Exempt Special Savings Accounts

  Other savings or deposit accounts

  Income from stocks and shares, unit trusts, gilts, Personal Equity Plans.

  British savings bonds interest.

  Income from annuities, trusts covenants personal pensions.

  Property income.

  Other unearned income from royalties, sleeping partnerships, overseas pensions.

  The Pensioners' Incomes Series also includes tables based on the Family Resources Survey (FRS), which uses slightly different questions. Therefore, while the total investment income category is comparable between the two surveys, the individual sources listed may be grouped in different ways.

  It is not possible to estimate the contribution of each individual source to the total investment income estimates provided in The Pensioners' Incomes Series. This is because estimates relating to those pensioners with very high incomes are based on data from the Survey of Personal Incomes of the Board of the Inland Revenue. This survey does not provide a detailed breakdown of individual sources of investment income.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of the pensioner incomes coming from the state in 2050, as predicted in the Green Paper, Partnership in Pensions, will be delivered via means-tested benefits. [80391]

  Mr. Timms
  The information requested is not available.

  Projections forward to the year 2050 are subject to a high degree of uncertainty given the number of assumptions that need to be made in making these estimates. Some of those who will be pensioners in 2050 have yet to begin work, and most are today in their 20s and 30s.

  Estimates of the numbers of pensioners receiving the Minimum Income Guarantee have been made by extrapolating estimates from the PENSIM model, but these can give only a broad indication of the likely order of magnitude of figures so far into the future. The
  157
  PENSIM projections can be applied only to estimates of the proportion of pensioners on the Minimum Income Guarantee. Breakdowns of individual pensioner incomes into components including State pension payments and other income related benefits (such as Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit) are not available as these projections would require many more assumptions to be made and would be surrounded by an unacceptable level of uncertainty.

  Pension Reform
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the feasibility of a faster implementation of his proposals for pension reform. [79865]

  Mr. Timms
  The Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill provides a framework for stakeholder pension schemes which should enable people to join the new schemes from April 2001. The Government propose to introduce the new State Second Pension from April 2002.

  We do not consider it practicable to implement our proposals any more quickly, given the extensive changes to operational systems that will be required following passage of the necessary legislation. These impact not only on Government but also on employers and the pensions industry.

  Select Committee Reports
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 30 March 1999,Official Report, column 623, on social security committee reports, for what reason he is unable to indicate on what occasions Ministers have discussed with hon. Members the contents of (a) draft reports, (b) reports prior to their issue and (c) embargoed copies of reports. [80092]

  Mr. Darling
  It would neither be practical nor serve any useful purpose to record every conversation between Ministers and hon. Members which might or might not touch on matters covered by subsequent Select Committee reports.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many people in Eltham have had a change in their Disability Living Allowance entitlement in the last year; how many have resulted in(a) a reduction, (b) withdrawal and (c) no change; and how many have gone to appeal; [80497]

  (2) what is the average cost of an appeal against changes in Disability Living Allowance entitlement for 1998–99; and if he will make a statement; [80496]

  (3) how many people in Eltham have completed an appeal against an alteration in their Disability Living Allowance in 1998–99; and how many have resulted in (a) reinstatement, (b) complete withdrawal, (c) an increase, (d) no change and (e) a reduction in each component. [80498]

  Mr. Bayley
  The information on Disability Living Allowance claims and appeals is not available in the form requested. Such information as is available is as follows.
  158
  2,640 people were receiving Disability Living Allowance in the Eltham Constituency on 30 November 1998.

  For the 12 months ending 30 November 1998, 80 people in the Eltham Constituency had their award of Disability Living Allowance increased, 80 people had their entitlement decreased and 180 people had their award terminated.

  The average cost of a Disability Living Allowance appeal for 1998–99 is not currently available, but is estimated to be £300 per appeal.

  There are no data for the number of applicants in the Eltham Constituency who have had a change in entitlement during 1998 and who have then asked for a review or submitted an appeal.

  Note:

  The reason an award is terminated is not available. An award can be terminated because of death; residence or presence conditions no longer satisfied; relinquishment of benefit by claimant; or withdrawal of benefit by the Department.

  Source:

  Analytical Services Division: As the figures are below 500 the numbers are too small to be statistically reliable.

  Disability Benefits
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many disabled people up to the age of 21 years are currently receiving state benefits due to their disability. [80027]

  Mr. Bayley
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table.

  Number of recipients under 21 years of age for each of the relevant benefits

  Type of benefit

  Recipients under the age of 21

  Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit1

  762

  War Disablement Pension2

  *80

  Disability Living Allowance3

  255,600

  Incapacity Benefit4

  *300

  Severe Disablement Allowance4

  26,780

  Income Support Disability Premiums5

  Severe Disability Premium (Higher rate)

  Negligible

  Severe Disability Premium (Lower rate)

  1,000

  Disability Premium

  45,000

  Disabled Child Premium

  34,000

  Disability Working Allowance6

  958

  1Number of pensions in payment. Claimants may be in receipt of more than one pension. Based on 10 per cent. sample at 5 April 1997, and include an allowance for late returns.

  2Based on a 5 per cent. sample at 31 August 1998.

  3Based on 5 per cent. data at 30 November 1998.

  4 Taken from a 5 per cent. sample at 30 November 1998 of the benefit computer system, excluding a small number of cases held clerically.

  5 Based on a 5 per cent. sample from the Income Support Statistics Quarterly Enquiry. November 1998, and rounded to the nearest thousand. Claimants may receive more than one type of disability premium and may therefore be counted in more than one total.

  6Based on 100 per cent. count of Disability Working Allowance claims at October 1998.

  Notes:

  1. Many people will be receiving more than one benefit.

  2. "*" Number is too small to be statistically reliable.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the total number of occasions when(a) departmental and (b) non-departmental special advisers have travelled abroad in an official capacity since 2 May 1997. [76831]

  Mr. Blunkett
  There have been no occasions since 2 May 1997 when special advisers in this department have travelled abroad in an official capacity unaccompanied by Ministers. Costs are counted within the total of any overseas trips by Ministers.

  New Deal Helplines
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what has been the cost of running helplines for the New Deal; how many staff have been employed in manning the helplines; and how many calls have been received since their inception. [77808]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 19 March 1999]: The total cost of providing the New Deal Information Line up to the end of February 1999 is £609,297.31. This has included significant numbers of calls for detailed and extensive information which result in long and complex calls.

  It has recorded 42,133 responses since it opened in October 1997. Seventy six per cent. of these responses have been from organisations requesting information or wanting to be involved in New Deal. The latter are diverted to the appropriate Employment Service regional office.

  The management and provision of the line is handled by a specialist outside company. The number of staff employed by them and dedicated to answering New Deal calls is currently four, but there is also a pool of 50 to 60 operators trained to take New Deal calls during peak periods.

  New Deal (Gateway)
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the range of bids accepted by his Department to deliver the Gateway and each of the four strands of the New Deal. [77684]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 19 March 1999]: Responsibility for the subject of these questions has been delegated to the Employment Service Agency under its Chief Executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Leigh Lewis to Mr. Phil Willis, dated 13 April 1999:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has asked me to reply to your question about the range of bids accepted to deliver the Gateway and four options of the New Deal for 18–24 year olds. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.160 The New Deal is delivered in 143 areas, each with a local partnership whose method of delivery reflects local circumstances. Each partnership tendered and negotiated for its provision with different patterns of main and sub-contracts. Whilst I am unable, for reasons of commercial confidentiality, to provide details of individual contract prices, most should not vary greatly from the benchmark unit prices for each New Deal element set out in annex 1.It is important to note that the actual unit price depends not just on the prices which are agreed for these elements but, for example, on how long people stay and their success in terms of achieving outputs which attract a payment.The Employment Service will be reporting later this year on the overall financial performance of all Units of Delivery as part of our continuous improvement agenda.I hope this is helpful.

  Annex 1: New Deal for 18–24 year olds 1998–99

  Function

  Unit cost per entrant (£)

  Gateway

  228.26

  Employment option

  2,070

  Full-time education and training option

  2,300

  Voluntary sector/environment task force options

  2,750

  Notes:

  1. The figures represent GB-wide indicative planning assumptions and average unit prices.

  2. The unit cost for Gateway is available for each Gateway entrant.

  3. The total resource available will be dependent on the throughput of clients; these will differ between units of delivery.

  Child Care Clubs
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the extra cost to public funds to register clubs for children aged up to 14 years and up to 16 years in the case of disabled children. [78282]

  Ms Hodge
  It is proposed that out of school clubs should seek approval from quality assurance organisations which have been accredited by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I do not anticipate any extra costs to public funds to arise from the approval process. There will be a small cost to public funds arising from the administration of the accreditation process. Quality assurance organisations are expected to charge childcare providers to cover the cost of administering their approval schemes.

  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to the oral statement by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on 17 March 1999,Official Report, columns 1143–44, under which Education Act clubs making provision for eight to 14 year olds, and eight to 16 year olds in the case of disabled children, will be registered. [78283]

  Ms Hodge
  There will be no requirement for clubs making provision for children aged eight and over to be registered. The amendment to the Tax Credits Bill tabled on 17 March gives my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State the necessary power to set up a two tier approval scheme. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will accredit appropriate organisations to administer an approval system for childcare providers. Childcare providers will be able to seek approval from accredited
  161
  quality assurance organisations. The details of the scheme will be set out in regulations made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Organisations which wish to become accredited will need to demonstrate that their approval schemes set standards in the following areas: the health and safety and welfare of children, including the employment of suitable staff; the quality of the activities offered to children; and equal opportunities.

  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the number of quality threshold assessors available to assess child care clubs for children aged up to 14 years and up to 16 years in the case of disabled children. [78290]

  Ms Hodge
  In deciding whether quality assurance organisations should be accredited to approve child care providers for the purposes of the child care tax credit, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment will want to satisfy himself that the organisation has adequate arrangements to ensure sufficient trained quality assurance assessors are available.

  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what estimate he has made of(a) the demand for child care clubs for children aged up to 14 years and up to 16 years in the case of disabled children and (b) the adequacy of current provision;
  [78291]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the current geographical spread of child care clubs for children aged up to 14 years and up to 16 years in the case of disabled children in relation to projected demand. [78292]

  Ms Hodge
  Early Years Development and Childcare Partnerships have been asked to produce local childcare audits. These audits represent the first ever comprehensive attempt to find out what forms of childcare are currently being used and the level of unmet demand in England.

  The audits, which have been used to inform Early Years Development and Childcare Plans for 1999–2000, show that there is currently an unmet demand in many areas. £170 million from the New Opportunities Fund is being made available between 1999–2003 to create new out of school childcare places in England. Early Years Development and Childcare Partnerships will provide advice on the extent to which bids for NOF funding are consistent with priorities identified in their Plan. The extra help with childcare costs through the childcare tax credit element of the Working Families Tax Credit will help schemes, particularly in disadvantaged areas, to maintain their viability.

  Teachers' Salaries
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the total cost of salaries of teachers in England and Wales in state schools in the last year for which figures are available. [78812]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The total cost of salaries of teachers in England and Wales in state schools at March 1997 is estimated at £9.9 billion.
  162
  This is based on salaries for all teachers employed in the maintained nursery, primary, secondary and special sector including pupil referral units. It excludes employer national insurance and pension contributions.

  Education Expenditure
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the proportion of gross domestic product spent on compulsory age state education in each of the years 1995–96 to 1999–2000. [78707]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 25 March 1999]: The following table sets out figures for 1995–96 to 1997–98, the latest year for which outturn information is available. The figures represent recurrent spending on state schools across the UK expressed as a proportion of GDP. The resources announced in the Comprehensive Spending Review provide for the proportion of GDP devoted to education to rise over the Parliament, in fulfilment of the Government's manifesto commitment.

  Percentage

  Year

  Recurrent spending on state schools as a proportion of GDP1

  1995–96

  2.9

  1996–97

  2.8

  1997–98

  2.8

  1Includes spending on school sixth forms within secondary schools and nursery education within primary schools. Does not include capital expenditure.

  Teaching Staff and Students (Ethnic Origin)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will provide a breakdown by ethnic origin and grade of(a) teaching staff at (i) primary, (ii) secondary and (iii) tertiary level and (b) students at university level. [79052]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The answers are as follows.

  (a) (i and ii) The ethnic origin of teaching staff at primary and secondary level is not available.

  (a) (iii) The grade of teaching staff at tertiary level is not available. Table 1 gives teaching staff in Further Education colleges in England by ethnicity.

  Table 1: Teaching staff in further education colleges, by ethnicity (headcount) England 1996–97

  Ethnic origin

  Number of staff1

  White

  91,400

  Black Caribbean

  1,000

  Black African

  500

  Black Other

  300

  Indian

  1,000

  Pakistani

  500

  Bangladeshi

  200

  Chinese

  200

  Other Asian

  700

  Other

  2,100

  Not known

  32,900

  Total

  130,700

  1Staff numbers are given to the nearest hundred.

  163
  (b) Table 2 gives Higher Education enrolments in English Higher Education institutions by ethnic group.

  Table 2: HE enrolments in English higher education institutions, by ethnic group (headcount) 1997–98

  Ethnic group

  Number of students1

  White

  1,037,300

  Black Caribbean

  18,000

  Black African

  27,800

  Black Other

  7,900

  Indian

  42,100

  Pakistani

  19,700

  Bangladeshi

  5,400

  Chinese

  22,100

  Asian Other

  25,600

  Other

  25,200

  Not known (UCAS code)

  7,500

  Unknown

  12,100

  Information refused

  120,100

  Information not yet sought

  104,600

  Missing

  21,500

  Total

  1,496,900

  1 Student numbers are given to the nearest hundred.

  Task Forces
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) if he will list all those task forces and policy reviews with external members established by his Department since May 1997 which have set up(a) sub-groups, (b) working parties and (c) other subsidiary committees; [79263]

  (2) if he will list for all task forces and policy reviews with external members established by his Department since May 1997 (a) their dates of establishment, (b) those which have issued final reports and their dates of publication, (c) those which have been terminated and their dates of termination and (d) for those bodies still in existence, expected reporting and termination dates. [79287]

  Mr. Mudie
  The information requested is available only at disproportionate cost.

  School Sports Grounds
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what advice his Department issues to schools which have their own sports grounds on the use of those grounds by the local community; and if he will make a statement. [79058]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Individual school governing bodies control the use of their premises but, in doing so out of school hours, the law requires them to have regard to the desirability of making their premises available to the wider community. We value community use and want to see schools developing their community role. We are revising "Our School—Your School", which offers guidance on this matter, as part of a drive to promote community use.

  New Deal (Greater London)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the progress of the New Deal in the Greater London area. [79076]
  164
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Responsibility for the subject of these questions has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its Chief Executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Leigh Lewis to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 13 April 1999:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has asked me to reply to your question about the progress of the New Deal in the Greater London area. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.The New Deal has made an encouraging state in London. Government Statistical Service figures to the end of January 1999 show that in Greater London over 36,000 young people have joined the New Deal. Of these, nearly 6,000 have found unsubsidised jobs. Nearly, 7,000 have joined one of the four New Deal Options with 1,188 joining subsidised employment, 4,081 joining Full Time Education and Training and 1,726 joining the Voluntary Sector and Environment Task Force Options. The majority of remaining entrants are on the Gateway phase of the programme. In the older age group, over 20,000 people have joined the New Deal for long term unemployed people aged 25 or over, of whom over 1,300 have already found jobs and almost 1,000 have already taken up training or education opportunities. Of the remainder the great majority are, as we would expect at this stage, on the advisory phase of the programme.Our aim is to build on this progress through our programme of continuous improvement, working with the New Deal partnerships in each of our Units of Delivery. This work is being supported by the London Employers Coalition which is focusing on continuous improvement and on increasing business participation in New Deal in London.I hope this is helpful.

  Sure Start
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when Derbyshire County Council will be able to bid for Sure Start funding. [79077]

  Ms Jowell
  On 19 January, I invited the first applications for Sure Start funding from 60 areas of England. I plan to issue further guidance on the next round later in the year.

  Education (Middlesbrough)
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what discussions he has held with Middlesbrough Borough Council regarding improvements in education results; and if he will make a statement. [79411]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Within the past twelve months, the Standards and Effectiveness Unit's advisers for Middlesbrough have had five meetings with the local education authority in relation to the authority's Education Development Plan (EDP) and a number of meetings to discuss Middlesbrough's Education Action Zone (EAZ), its literacy and numeracy targets, and other standards issues.

  Middlesbrough has now established a rigorous process to support statutory target setting in order to make improvements on its results, and last week Middlesbrough's EDP was given approval for the full three years. I also understand that the work on the EAZ is progressing well.
  165

  Teachers Green Paper
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations he has received concerning the length of time available for responses to the Green Paper on teachers. [79554]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Very little comment has been made about the four months available for responding to the Green Paper, Teachers: Meeting the Challenge of Change.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to whom(a) the Green Paper on teaching and (b) the associated technical paper were distributed. [80093]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Copies of the Green Paper,Teachers: meeting the challenge of change, and the Technical consultation paper on pay and performance were distributed to all schools in England (both headteachers and chairs of governing bodies), local education authorities in England, the main teacher unions and, in addition, to several hundred bodies with an interest education. In addition, approximately 880,000 copies of the Green Paper summary have been distributed.

  Teachers' Pay Technical Paper
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment which schools have been selected for consultation on the technical paper on teachers' pay; and on what basis were they chosen. [79381]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The schools selected as the sample group for consultation on the Technical Consultation Document on Pay and Performance Management have been given the opportunity to request that their responses remain confidential. We therefore do not wish to pre-empt this by announcing the participating schools.

  The sample was selected systematically from each of six school types: nursery (150 schools selected), primary (275), secondary (300), special (150), PRUs (150), and hospital schools (all). It covered a regionally representative range of LEAs, and avoided schools which had been selected to form the sample in other recent consultation exercises.

  School Science
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make it his policy to collect information on expenditure by local education authorities on school science. [79538]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Government have no plan to introduce such a policy. It is not practicable to isolate expenditure by local education authorities on specific areas of the curriculum. Decisions on the allocation of resources between curriculum areas are a matter for individual schools.

  Departmental Staff (Birth Certificates)
  Sir Robert Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment for what purposes his Department and its executive agencies require a birth certificate to be furnished by (i) employees, (ii) contractors, (iii) those applying for employment or contracts and (iv) other persons. [79556]
  166
  Mr. Mudie
  Before making any appointment, the Department must verify identity, age and nationality. Candidates have the option to produce a birth certificate to fulfil this requirement. It is not Departmental policy to ask contractors to produce Birth Certificates. A number of my Department's programmes have age eligibility criteria where again one of the applicants' options is to produce a Birth Certificate.

  People's Panel
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the research commissioned from the People's Panel by his Department; and in each case what was the purpose of the research and what was its cost. [79555]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The People's Panel has been set up to consult the public about how public services are delivered, and to use their ideas to help improve them. The Department has commissioned 2 pieces of research to help us do that:
  on the sources of help and advice on careers to young people at school. We wanted to know which were the most important to people, and what they thought could be done to improve the help and advice young people are given about their future careers. This was part of the first survey and was funded by the Cabinet Office who are responsible for setting up the People's Panel;6 focus groups were set up to investigate parent's attitudes towards including value added information in school performance tables, and the format in which they should be provided. The cost of the work was £13,000. It will help us develop measures that are useful to parents.

  School Funding
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he is taking to ensure that the extra money allocated by his Department for each of the schools in the boroughs of(a) Middlesbrough, (b) Stockton, (c) Redcar and Cleveland and (d) Hartlepool is passed on by the local education authority to each of the schools. [79659]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  My right hon. Friend has written to all English Local Education Authorities to urge them to ensure that the additional provision which we have made available is actually spent on education and, in particular, is used to support schools so that the resources can be spent directly on raising standards. We will be monitoring the financial returns of all authorities to see whether the cash increase in the education SSA has been used to support education, and how much has been passed through to schools.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will estimate the additional money to be allocated to each school in the boroughs of(a) Middlesbrough, (b) Stockton, (c) Redcar and Cleveland and (d) Hartlepool from 1 April 1999 relative to that allocated in 1998–99. [79660]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Local education authorities are currently in the process of submitting details of their budget proposals for the financial year 1999–2000 to the Department. I will write to the hon. Member when the figures he requests are available, and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library.
  167

  Teachers' Pensions
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment who are the members of the teachers' pension scheme long-term examination working group; when it last met; when it is due to meet next; and when its final report is due to be submitted to ministers. [79823]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Working Group is made up of representatives of:

  Department for Education and Employment

  Government Actuary's Department

  Chairman and Secretary of the Teachers' Panel of the Teachers' Superannuation Working Party

  National Union of Teachers

  Association of Teachers and Lecturers

  National Association of Head Teachers

  Secondary Heads Association

  National Association of Schoolmasters and Union of Women Teachers

  National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education

  Secretary of the Employers' Panel of the Teachers' Superannuation Working Party

  National Employers' Organisation for School Teachers

  Sixth Form Colleges' Employers' Forum

  Association of Colleges

  Universities and Colleges Employers Association

  Grant-maintained Schools Advisory Committee

  Independent Schools Council.

  The Working Group last met on 10 December 1998. I have received the Working Group's report and am currently considering its conclusions and recommendations. No dates have been set for further meetings of the Working Group.

  School Meals
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much was spent by Derbyshire county council local education authority on subsidising school meals in each of the last 10 years. [79618]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The following table shows the difference between expenditure and income for all school catering services from 1990–91 to 1997–98. Comparable figures are not available before that date. From the financial year 1997–98, Derbyshire was reorganised into two local authorities, Derby and Derbyshire: figures for both are shown. Expenditure on, and income from, the school meal service will vary from year to year according to—among other factors—the proportion of children taking up an entitlement to free school meals.

  £000

  Expenditure

  Income

  Difference

  1990–91

  22,688

  7,560

  15,128

  1991–92

  26,921

  8,226

  18,695

  1992–93

  28,192

  9,873

  18,319

  1993–94

  22,959

  9,917

  13,042

  1994–95

  22,906

  9,700

  13,206

  1995–96

  21,803

  9,384

  12,419

  1996–97

  21,306

  9,199

  12,107

  168

  £000

  Expenditure

  Income

  Difference

  Derbyshire

  1997–98

  16,729

  8,191

  8,538

  Derby

  1998–99

  4,544

  1,997

  2,547

  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will publish the(a) total expenditure on, and (b) income from the local education authorities' school catering services in (i) Derbyshire, (ii) Nottinghamshire, (iii) Staffordshire, (iv) Surrey and (v) Hertfordshire in (1) 1994–95, (2) 1995–96, (3) 1996–97 and (4) 1997–98. [79619]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The following table shows total gross expenditure and total income for school catering from 1994–95 to 1997–98. Expenditure and income for the school meal service will vary according to the proportion of children entitled to free school meals.

  £000

  Expenditure

  Income

  1994–95

  Derbyshire

  22,906

  9,700

  Derby

  Staffordshire

  17,318

  9,784

  Stoke-on-Trent

  Surrey

  11,891

  8,950

  Hertfordshire

  14,833

  9,749

  Nottinghamshire

  19,892

  8,346

  1995–96

  Derbyshire

  21,803

  9,384

  Derby

  Staffordshire

  17,532

  11,559

  Stoke-on-Trent

  Surrey

  11,259

  8,985

  Hertfordshire

  14,430

  10,138

  Nottinghamshire

  17,316

  8,113

  1996–97

  Derbyshire

  21,306

  9,199

  Derby

  Staffordshire

  17,846

  10,910

  Stoke-on-Trent

  Surrey

  11,640

  9,867

  Hertfordshire

  13,265

  10,747

  Nottinghamshire

  17,399

  8,159

  1997–98

  Derbyshire

  16,729

  8,191

  Derby

  4,544

  1,997

  Staffordshire

  13,728

  9,011

  Stoke-on-Trent

  5,027

  2,668

  Surrey

  12,301

  10,315

  Hertfordshire

  14,313

  14,526

  Nottinghamshire

  18,765

  9,177

  Environmentally Friendly Industries
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment in what ways the University for Industry will be used to encourage the growth of new
  169
  environmentally friendly industries through the provision of training programmes which relate to environmental services and waste management. [79891]

  Mr. Mudie
  Environmental technology and services form one of four key sectors identified as initial priorities for Ufl Ltd's early activity. The growth rate in this sector is strong and there is considerable potential to create jobs, win exports and protect the environment. Ufl development work will target the 5,000 or so companies in these markets, many of which are small and recently established. They are likely to need high quality learning materials in a range of areas including general business and organisation capabilities, and technical, management, finance and export skills.

  Monetary Policy Committee
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment on what occasions he has met members of the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee; and what was discussed at each meeting. [79707]

  Mr. Mudie
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met the Governor of the Bank of England and other members of the Monetary Policy Committee in December 1997. They discussed a range of issues relating to employment and education.

  New Deal (Unsubsidised Employment)
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proportion of those individuals currently participating in each New Deal option other than subsidised employment he estimates will move on to unsubsidised employment. [79822]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I expect a significant proportion of young people on New Deal to move into unsubsidised employment from the Full Time Education and Training (FTET), Voluntary Sector (VS) and Environmental Task Force (ETF) options. Thus far, relatively few young people have completed this part of the New Deal process as participants can spend up to a year on FTET and six months on VS and ETF.

  National Minimum Wage (Job Advertisements)
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what instructions he has issued to job centres to withdraw notices of vacancies advertised at less than the national minimum wage. [79698]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Responsibility for the subject of these questions has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its Chief Executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Leigh Lewis to Mr. Tim Boswell, dated 13 April 1999:

  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has asked me to reply direct to your question regarding the instructions that have been issued to Jobcentres to withdraw notices of vacancies advertised at less than the national minimum wage. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.

  Guidance has been issued to Jobcentres and other relevant parts of the Employment Service explaining that, from 1 April, they must only process and display vacancies which comply with the requirements of the National Minimum Wage Act and its associated
  170
  regulations. All Jobcentre Managers have been instructed to check that this guidance is being followed. Vacancy takes in Jobcentres will explain the requirements of the legislation to any employers who may seek to offer rates below the National Minimum Wage.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Lobbyists
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will publish a list, including names and dates, of all meetings that(a) he, (b) his officials, (c) his advisers and (d) his PPS have held during (i) 1997, (ii) 1998 and (iii) 1999 with people who work for political lobbying firms or for businesses that are members of the Public Relations Consultants Association. [79651]

  Mr. Mudie
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 9 March 1999,Official Report, column 168. The requirements of the Ministerial Code also apply to Parliamentary Private Secretaries when attending any meetings in an official or semi-official capacity.

  New Deal (Young People)
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if people joining the New Deal for 18 to 25 year olds are compelled to state their educational qualifications. [80561]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Young people joining the New Deal are not compelled to provide information about their educational qualifications. However, this is routinely raised as a standard part of initial personal adviser interviews and there are few instances of the information not being supplied.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will publish statistics on the(a) employment and (b) benefit position of those who have completed a six month New Deal for 18 to 25-year-old option. [80562]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  We publish statistics on various aspects of New Deal performance on a monthly basis. The destination of those who leave an Option is contained in table 11 of the New Deal Statistical First Release, which is held in the Library.

  Youth Service
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he plans to issue his consultation paper on the future of the Youth Service; and if he will make a statement. [80264]

  Mr. Mudie
  We are currently reconsidering the nature and timing of our planned consultation on the future of the youth service in the light of our developing policies on support services for young people more generally. An announcement will be made in due course.

  Learning Standards Fund
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will set out the criteria used to determine allocation to local education authorities from the National Grid for Learning Standards Fund. [80387]
  171
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Allocations from the National Grid for Learning Standards Fund have been made with reference to the criteria set out in Department for Education and Employment Circular 13/98—The Standards Fund 1999–2000, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Modern Apprenticeships
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the reason for the fall in modern apprenticeship starts over the calendar year 1998; and if he will make a statement. [79916]

  Mr. Mudie
  Information from Training and Enterprise Councils about Government-supported training in 1998 is not yet final. I expect the June revision of these figures to bring them closer to the total for 1997 and that the number of MA starts in the 1998–99 operational year will match that in 1997–98.

  Students (Herefordshire)
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many students from Herefordshire are in receipt of grants for(a) full-time higher or further education and (b) part-time higher or further education; and if he will make a statement. [80262]

  Mr. Mudie
  The numbers of higher and further education awards in payment by Herefordshire Local Education Authority during the academic year 1997–98, the latest year for which figures are available, are shown in the table:

  Number of higher education 1 and further education2 awards made by Herefordshire3 academic year 1997–984

  Number

  Full-time Higher Education awards

  2,541

  Part-time Higher Education awards

  98

  Further Education awards5

  687

  1 Includes mandatory awards to personally eligible students attending full-time or sandwich courses leading to a first degree or comparable qualification, DipHE or HND courses and courses of initial teacher training; discretionary awards to students on courses eligible for mandatory awards but who do not fulfil the criteria for personal eligibility made under Section 1(6) of the Education Act 1962; and discretionary awards made under Section 2 of the Education Act 1962. Apart from certain courses of initial teacher training, only courses of full-time study are eligible for mandatory awards.

  2Discretionary awards made under Section 2 of the Education Act 1962.

  3Awards made to students normally domiciled in Herefordshire.

  4Data for 1997–98 are provisional.

  5Data are not collected separately for full-time and part-time awards.

  Examination Papers
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the performance of Edexcel in handling examination papers; and if he will make a statement. [79920]

  Mr. Mudie
  Edexcel is a commercial organisation, independent of Government, and responsible for its own procedures for handling examination papers. However, the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) has 172
  responsibility for ensuring that qualifications will be accredited only if they meet stringent criteria, and for subsequently monitoring the activities of the awarding bodies.

  The new accreditation criteria, which are being introduced this year, set out the necessary standards in the processes and procedures leading to awards and for ensuring high quality, consistency and rigorous standards in assessment and awarding.

  At the Government's request, QCA is also implementing a package of reforms to enhance the transparency, independence, speed and accountability of the inquiries on results and appeals system covering GCSE, A level and GNVQ.

  The new arrangements will be introduced in time to deal with cases arising from this summer's examinations.

  Schools (Spending)
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what spending his Department plans to allocate for(a) increased access to information and communication technology in schools, (b) more teaching assistants and (c) more office staff in the next four years. [79906]

  Mr. Mudie
  Public expenditure plans have not yet been set beyond 2001–02. Over the next three years, we plan to allocate £555m to local education authorities in England to continue the process of equipping and networking schools to the National Grid for Learning. In addition, schools and their teachers and pupils will benefit from the £400m announced in the Budget as part of the Government's national IT strategy. The £400m will help widen access to ICT by establishing a network of learning centres; introducing a pilot project to supply recycled computers to homes, with families on low incomes having to pay only a very small charge; and providing subsidised loans to teachers for purchasing computers.

  We plan to allocate £350m over the next three years to provide an additional 20,000 teaching assistants in schools. We do not have plans for specific allocations for more office staff.

  Wirral Metropolitan College
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he expects to receive the report of the most recent Further Education Funding Council inspection of Wirral Metropolitan College. [80516]

  Mr. Mudie
  We expect to receive the Further Education Funding Council's Inspection report on Wirral Metropolitan College later this month.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations he has received about the retirement package for the retiring principal of Wirral Metropolitan College. [80214]

  Mr. Mudie
  We have not received any representations about the retirement package for the former principal of Wirral Metropolitan College.
  173

  Tertiary Colleges (Retiring Principals)
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what guidelines his Department issues concerning retirement financial arrangements for principals of tertiary colleges. [80215]

  Mr. Mudie
  The Further Education Funding Council has provided guidance concerning such arrangements in its financial memorandum with colleges. This emphasises, among other things, affordability and the need to secure value for money.

  Village Schools
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the criteria for determining applications for change in status for small rural village schools. [79876]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Criteria for determining applications for significant changes in the character of a school will differ according to the nature of the change. Factors taken into account when deciding whether or not to approve proposals for the closure of rural schools will include the accessibility of alternative schools; the standard of the school that is proposed for closure and the standards of any alternative schools; the overall supply of school places in the area and the likely future demand for places; the overall effect of the closure on the local community; the cost implications of the possible options; any points made by the Local Education Authority or by the school proposed for closure; and the views of parents and other interested parties.

SCOTLAND

  Economic Diversification (Rural Areas)
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much public money has been spent in each of the last five years, in real terms, on(a) economic diversification in rural areas, (b) agricultural support indicating what percentage was from EU funds and
  (c) rural housing; what assessment he has made of the advantages of providing low-interest Government loans to encourage economic diversification in rural Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [68004]

  Mr. Macdonald
  [holding answer 1 February 1999]: Information on Central Government funds spent in each of the last five financial years is as follows:

  (a) Spending related to Economic Diversification in Rural Areas

  £million

  Objective 1 and Objective 5b Programmes1

  Programme Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands expenditure2

  Total

  1993–94

  4.0

  79.3

  83.3

  1994–95

  4.0

  80.3

  84.3

  1995–96

  3.6

  79.1

  82.7

  1996–97

  2.5

  74.0

  76.5

  1997–98

  3.6

  77.0

  80.6

  1Total expenditure under the Rural Enterprise Programme, Highlands and Islands Agricultural Programme (excluding Crofting Township Development Scheme) and the Rural Diversification Programme.

  174

  2 The enterprise agencies, Highlands and Islands Enterprise (HIE) and Scottish Enterprise (SE), do not attribute expenditure specifically to economic diversification. The HIE component of the aggregate figures above is based on actual spending under HIE's Growing Businesses programme which has as its objective an increase in the number, scale and competitiveness of businesses in the HIE area. All programme activities contribute to economic diversification. SE estimates that 16 per cent. of its project expenditure is spent in rural areas. The figures include an element of spend which is indicative of the level of support SE gives to businesses in rural localities within its area of operations.

  Note:

  Figures are at constant 1997–98 prices.

  (b) Agricultural Support

  Government spending on agricultural grants and subsidies is set out in the publication "Scottish Agriculture Output, Input and Income Statistics", copies of which are in the Library of the House. All of this expenditure is counted as UK public expenditure. In any year, the European Union's financial contribution to this spending is in the range of approximately 80–90 per cent.

  In addition to this support, the Government made available an additional £46 million in December 1997 and £35 million in November 1998.

  (c) Central Government expenditure on Rural Housing

  £million

  Housing1

  1993–94

  131

  1994–95

  132

  1995–96

  136

  1996–97

  111

  1997–98

  95

  1 These figures include Housing Support Grant, capital allocations made through the Housing Revenue Account (excluding receipts), Scottish Homes investment programme and the Capital Receipts Initiative (1997–98 only). They exclude personal subsidies such as Housing Benefit, Income Support for Mortgage Interest and Mortgage Interest Tax Relief. Figures are at constant 1997–98 prices.

  (d) Low Interest Loans
  Low interest loans are only one of a package of measures (including grants and equity investment) which the enterprise networks can use to provide financial support for enterprise and business development. The package of assistance designed for each case reflects the needs and opportunities of the individual applicant. The networks do not provide financial support where loan finance could otherwise be secured from the private sector.

  From 1 July 1999, economic diversification, agriculture and housing will be matters for the Scottish Parliament: relations with the EU will continue to be reserved to Westminster.

  Opinion Polls and Focus Groups
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the expenditure of his Department, its agencies and public bodies on opinion polling and focus groups for(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98, (c) 1998–99 and (d) 1999–2000; and if he will list the work carried out or planned for each year. [69267]
  175
  Mr. McLeish
  [holding answer 8 February 1999]: Neither my Department nor its agencies have undertaken any Public Opinion Polls in the period concerned. Departments have used Focus Groups to elicit the public's views as part of the following research studies:

  E1D

  Views of Parents on information required from schools and education authorities.

  D of H

  Acute Services Review.

  DD

  Public knowledge and perceptions of local government (for the Commission on Local Government and the Scottish Parliament).

  Development of Government Public Information Campaign relating to elections to the Scottish parliament.

  Public views on the operation of the Scottish Parliament.

  Review of Practice in Housing Management.

  Survey of Travellers Views.

  Evaluation of Rough Sleepers Initiative.

  The Young Teenager and Road Safety.

  AEFD

  Car dependency in Rural Scotland.

  Crime in Rural Scotland.

  Migration in Rural Scotland.

  Rural Water Review (Private supplies).

  HD

  Evaluation of the Jurors Leaflet.

  Teenwise Alcohol Projects.

  Hamilton Child Safety Initiative.

  Violence and Harassment of Gay Men.

  Joint Statement on Crown Witnesses.

  Impact and effectiveness of Reporter decision making.

  Evaluation of the Keep Warm This Winter Campaign.

  Victims reactions to Victim Information Leaflets.

  Evaluation of Dundee Family Project.

  Views from people with learning disabilities and their carers about service.

  Quality of care and quality of life for people in residential homes.

  The estimated cost of the focus groups is as follows:

  Year

  £000

  1996–97

  25

  1997–98

  50

  1998–99

  95

  1999–2000

  135

  1 Planned to date

  Detailed information for non-departmental bodies sponsored by The Scottish Office is not held centrally.

  Local Authorities (Public Relations)
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what amount was spent on public relations and hospitality in each local authority in Scotland in the last year for which figures are available. [74983]
  176
  Mr. McLeish
  [holding answer 11 March 1999]: This information is not held centrally.

  From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  City of Glasgow Council
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list, indicating in each case the source, the amounts of public money spent in the City of Glasgow Council area in each year since the new city council came into being and the estimated amounts for 1998–99 and 1999–2000. [75711]

  Mr. Macdonald
  [holding answer 15 March 19991]: I shall write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter and annexes in the House of Commons Library.

  Exports and Imports
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each of the last 10 years in real terms(a) the value of exports from Scotland to and (b) the value of imports to Scotland from (i) other United Kingdom countries, (ii) the European Union, (iii) the United States of America and (iv) the rest of the world. [76081]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 11 March 1999]: The Government do not maintain separate export or import figures for Scotland, as it is an integral part of the United Kingdom and we do not consider business between any part of the UK to be exports or imports. The following Scottish manufactured export figures are based on data, funded by Scottish Trade International and maintained by the Scottish Council Development and Industry.

  Scottish manufactured exports

  £ million

  Year

  European Union

  USA

  Rest of world

  Total

  1997

  11,670

  2,091

  5,497

  19,258

  1996

  10,756

  2,224

  5,435

  18,415

  1995

  10,454

  1,608

  5,254

  17,316

  1994

  7,843

  1,430

  4,991

  14,264

  1993

  6,101

  1,430

  4,009

  11,540

  1992

  5,687

  1,174

  2,821

  9,682

  1991

  5,379

  1,003

  2,451

  8,833

  1990

  4,967

  940

  2,667

  8,574

  1989

  4,215

  925

  2,524

  7,664

  1988

  4,156

  827

  2,183

  7,166

  For the last two years, with encouragement and support from Scottish Trade International, SCDI has produced export figures for the service sector and for the Primary sector. These figures are also derived from survey work but do not include the same level of detail as is provided for manufactured exports. The total figures are as follows:

  Service sector (including tourism)

  Year

  £ million

  1997

  2,070

  1996

  1,955

  In 1997, some 41 per cent. of service sector exports went to the EU with 25 per cent. to the USA.
  177

  Primary sector (including oil and gas)

  Year

  £million

  1997

  4,789

  1996

  6,090

  A destination breakdown is not available.

  Schools (Expenditure)
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the average expenditure in Scottish(a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools (1) in total and (2) in each council area on (i) books, (ii) educational equipment and materials and (iii) other equipment (x) in each council area in 1997–98 and 1998–99 and (y) in total in (A) 1983–84, (B) 1988–89 and (C) each year since 1993–94 at 1998–99 prices. [76623]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 19 March 1999]: The information requested up to the year 1996–97 is given in the table, which has been compiled from local authority financial returns. There can be variations in the recording of expenditure under the two headings of books and expenditure. It is, therefore, possible that some expenditure on books may be included under expenditure on equipment or vice versa. Expenditure on other equipment is not identified separately in local authority returns to The Scottish Office. Information on actual expenditure by education authorities in Scotland in financial years 1997–98 and 1998–99 is not yet available.

  Ministers have announced since February that additional resources for books, totalling £7.8 million, are being made available in 1998–99 on top of local authority existing provision.

  Expenditure per pupil on text and library books and on educational tools, equipment and materials adjusted to 1998–99 prices using the GDP deflator

  £

  Primary

  Secondary

  Year

  Books

  Equipment

  Books

  Equipment

  1983–84

  17.04

  13.80

  25.30

  48.07

  1988–89

  16.57

  19.53

  27.37

  74.01

  1993–94

  10.98

  38.25

  16.06

  90.36

  1994–95

  9.56

  42.99

  12.95

  93.34

  1995–96

  9.09

  47.64

  13.72

  95.70

  1996–97

  6.47

  42.81

  9.09

  84.46

  From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Mortgage Repossession Orders
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many mortgage repossession orders there were in each court district in each of the months of(a) January, February and March 1997, (b) January, February and March 1998, (c) May, June, July, August, September, October, November and December 1998 and (d) January 1999. [76118]

  Mr. McLeish
  [holding answer 15 March 1999]: Figures in relation to repossession of property by mortgage lenders have been collected by the courts since a revised system of collecting Civil Judicial Statistics was instituted on 1 January 1994. The figures for the number
  178
  of mortgage repossession orders in each Court District in each of the months of (a) January, February and March 1997, (b) January, February and March 1998, (c) May, June, July, August, September, October, November and December 1998 and (d) January 1999 are shown in the tables.

  Court

  1 January 1997

  1 February 1997

  1 March 1997

  Aberdeen

  29

  13

  20

  Airdrie

  17

  18

  14

  Alloa

  3

  2

  1

  Arbroath

  8

  3

  5

  Ayr

  9

  12

  15

  Banff

  3

  1

  1

  Campbeltown

  0

  1

  0

  Cupar

  5

  2

  3

  Ding wall

  2

  1

  2

  Dornoch

  0

  0

  0

  Dumbarton

  13

  6

  13

  Dumfries

  1

  4

  5

  Dundee

  16

  9

  13

  Dunfermline

  21

  18

  12

  Dunoon

  0

  2

  0

  Duns

  0

  1

  2

  Edinburgh

  29

  41

  42

  Elgin

  3

  3

  6

  Falkirk

  4

  7

  3

  Forfar

  3

  1

  1

  Fort William

  0

  0

  0

  Glasgow

  56

  70

  58

  Greenock

  3

  3

  3

  Haddington

  9

  2

  9

  Hamilton

  25

  24

  23

  Inverness

  0

  6

  4

  Jedburgh

  4

  2

  2

  Kilmarnock

  17

  21

  17

  Kirkcaldy

  15

  22

  10

  Kirkcudbright

  3

  1

  2

  Kirkwall

  0

  1

  1

  Lanark

  6

  9

  0

  Lerwick

  0

  0

  0

  Linlithgow

  15

  17

  0

  Lochmaddy

  0

  1

  0

  Oban

  1

  0

  4

  Paisley

  1

  0

  2

  Peebles

  0

  0

  2

  Perth

  11

  6

  6

  Peterhead

  7

  2

  4

  Portree

  0

  0

  0

  Rothesay

  1

  0

  1

  Selkirk

  0

  3

  2

  Stirling

  5

  8

  0

  Stonehaven

  0

  3

  7

  Stornoway

  0

  0

  0

  Stranraer

  3

  2

  1

  Tain

  0

  0

  0

  Wick

  0

  0

  0

  Grand Total

  348

  348

  316

  Court

  1 January 1998

  1 February 1998

  1 March 1998

  Aberdeen

  16

  19

  21

  Airdrie

  22

  11

  17

  Alloa

  2

  5

  4

  Arbroath

  0

  11

  3

  Ayr

  9

  7

  15

  Banff

  0

  0

  2

  Campbeltown

  1

  1

  2

  Cupar

  2

  1

  5

  Dingwall

  1

  1

  2

  Dornoch

  1

  0

  0

  Dumbarton

  17

  21

  15

  Dumfries

  7

  1

  2

  Dundee

  5

  17

  10

  179

  Court

  1 January 1998

  1 February 1998

  1 March 1998

  Dunfermline

  19

  14

  12

  Dunoon

  1

  2

  5

  Duns

  1

  2

  1

  Edinburgh

  34

  55

  53

  Elgin

  5

  2

  2

  Falkirk

  11

  9

  6

  Forfar

  1

  4

  2

  Fort William

  0

  1

  0

  Glasgow

  52

  86

  70

  Greenock

  7

  8

  2

  Haddington

  10

  3

  4

  Hamilton

  1

  3

  6

  Inverness

  5

  10

  12

  Jedburgh

  1

  2

  1

  Kilmarnock

  24

  14

  28

  Kirkcaldy

  7

  22

  12

  Kirkcudbright

  0

  0

  0

  Kirkwall

  0

  0

  1

  Lanark

  3

  6

  3

  Court

  1 May 1998

  1 June 1998

  1 July 1998

  1 August 1998

  1 September 1998

  1 October 1998

  1 November 1998

  1 December 1998

  Aberdeen

  8

  6

  18

  15

  9

  14

  23

  14

  Airdrie

  18

  16

  42

  18

  29

  19

  27

  22

  Alloa

  4

  2

  4

  11

  10

  8

  9

  6

  Arbroath

  5

  2

  5

  3

  5

  6

  4

  6

  Ayr

  12

  12

  18

  13

  16

  7

  10

  12

  Banff

  4

  2

  1

  3

  2

  4

  1

  2

  Campbeltown

  0

  0

  2

  2

  1

  1

  0

  1

  Cupar

  1

  6

  5

  0

  4

  2

  2

  6

  Dingwall

  3

  0

  0

  2

  5

  3

  1

  2

  Dornoch

  1

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Dumbarton

  22

  12

  15

  15

  10

  18

  16

  17

  Dumfries

  3

  9

  7

  4

  6

  2

  0

  5

  Dundee

  19

  18

  17

  19

  11

  16

  19

  5

  Dunfermline

  14

  17

  24

  12

  22

  7

  17

  16

  Dunoon

  2

  0

  2

  3

  2

  8

  3

  0

  Duns

  1

  0

  3

  1

  2

  1

  0

  3

  Edinburgh

  64

  56

  54

  61

  54

  41

  25

  35

  Elgin

  9

  3

  0

  0

  1

  4

  2

  5

  Falkirk

  13

  6

  9

  18

  23

  13

  18

  7

  Forfar

  2

  3

  4

  2

  4

  1

  2

  2

  Fort William

  0

  2

  1

  1

  1

  1

  3

  0

  Glasgow

  77

  94

  109

  92

  98

  86

  89

  135

  Greenock

  0

  9

  12

  7

  9

  5

  8

  8

  Haddington

  8

  4

  11

  5

  4

  10

  5

  4

  Hamilton

  3

  3

  2

  16

  4

  0

  27

  10

  Inverness

  5

  5

  12

  7

  13

  9

  10

  12

  Jedburgh

  1

  5

  3

  2

  2

  3

  5

  5

  Kilmarnock

  20

  21

  28

  19

  22

  31

  30

  21

  Kirkcaldy

  15

  23

  26

  22

  18

  22

  21

  13

  Kirkcudbright

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  2

  Kirkwall

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Lanark

  2

  4

  4

  1

  13

  5

  12

  7

  Lerwick

  1

  0

  0

  1

  1

  3

  0

  2

  Linlithgow

  13

  25

  18

  30

  31

  15

  29

  16

  Lochmaddy

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Oban

  2

  2

  2

  2

  0

  4

  1

  0

  Paisley

  48

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Peebles

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Perth

  3

  9

  17

  5

  9

  7

  13

  6

  Peterhead

  1

  8

  8

  5

  5

  3

  3

  3

  Portree

  3

  0

  0

  0

  2

  1

  0

  1

  Rothesay

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  Selkirk

  0

  2

  3

  5

  4

  3

  7

  0

  Stirling

  8

  5

  8

  1

  12

  3

  6

  4

  Stonehaven

  1

  1

  0

  3

  0

  1

  4

  1

  Stornoway

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  Stranraer

  5

  2

  2

  3

  2

  4

  0

  1

  Tain

  2

  2

  1

  2

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Wick

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Grand Total

  423

  399

  499

  437

  468

  393

  454

  419

  180

  Court

  1 January 1998

  1 February 1998

  1 March 1998

  Lerwick

  0

  4

  0

  Linlithgow

  15

  23

  11

  Lochmaddy

  0

  1

  1

  Oban

  0

  2

  0

  Paisley

  29

  41

  31

  Peebles

  0

  1

  1

  Perth

  9

  9

  11

  Peterhead

  6

  11

  5

  Portree

  0

  0

  1

  Rothesay

  0

  1

  2

  Selkirk

  3

  3

  5

  Stirling

  6

  2

  5

  Stonehaven

  3

  2

  1

  Stornoway

  1

  2

  1

  Stranraer

  1

  1

  2

  Tain

  2

  0

  1

  Wick

  0

  0

  0

  Grand Total

  340

  441

  396

  181

  Court

  1 January 1999

  Aberdeen

  13

  Airdrie

  26

  Alloa

  6

  Arbroath

  7

  Ayr

  3

  Banff

  2

  Campbeltown

  2

  Cupar

  3

  Dingwall

  6

  Dornoch

  1

  Dumbarton

  15

  Dumfries

  3

  Dundee

  13

  Dunfermline

  15

  Dunoon

  4

  Duns

  0

  Edinburgh

  41

  Elgin

  4

  Falkirk

  6

  Forfar

  2

  Fort William

  1

  Glasgow

  80

  Greenock

  3

  Haddington

  2

  Hamilton

  6

  Jedburgh

  1

  Kilmarnock

  30

  Kirkcaldy

  12

  Kirkcudbright

  1

  Kirkwall

  0

  Lanark

  5

  Lerwick

  1

  Linlithgow

  11

  Lochmaddy

  1

  September 1997

  September 1998

  P1

  P2

  P3

  P1

  P2

  P3

  No.

  %

  No.

  %

  No.

  %

  No.

  %

  No.

  %

  No.

  %

  Aberdeen City

  227

  10.5

  446

  21.4

  570

  29.2

  225

  10.9

  287

  14.3

  163

  8

  Aberdeenshire

  126

  5.6

  160

  9

  315

  16.2

  191

  9

  410

  22.6

  349

  18.6

  Angus

  124

  11.7

  193

  19.8

  31

  3.1

  158

  15.5

  254

  26

  220

  21.8

  Argyll and Bute

  62

  8.8

  127

  22.2

  255

  45.9

  31

  4.7

  131

  24.5

  160

  23

  Clackmannanshire

  33

  4.9

  64

  11.3

  64

  13.1

  65

  11.6

  94

  15.1

  64

  11.3

  Dumfries and Galloway

  322

  29.8

  227

  25.6

  420

  38.9

  95

  8.8

  223

  23.6

  160

  16.4

  Dundee City

  568

  33.8

  561

  34.6

  580

  38.3

  351

  24.2

  369

  24.9

  362

  22.8

  East Ayrshire

  162

  11.4

  189

  13.9

  349

  26

  221

  16.3

  189

  14.7

  126

  9.2

  East Dunbartonshire

  288

  20.5

  478

  35.9

  452

  33.5

  318

  23.4

  285

  22.3

  671

  51.1

  East Lothian

  127

  12.4

  192

  18.5

  192

  20.3

  159

  16

  256

  29

  191

  19.1

  East Renfrewshire

  361

  30.3

  655

  57.4

  446

  41.9

  432

  35.9

  553

  50.4

  483

  40.2

  Edinburgh, City of

  1,195

  27.9

  1,694

  40.9

  1,681

  42.1

  1,166

  28.3

  1,246

  31.6

  1,536

  38.4

  Eilean Siar

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Falkirk

  450

  28.1

  673

  45.3

  646

  42.6

  293

  19.5

  415

  29.7

  611

  41.3

  Fife

  155

  4.3

  318

  10.4

  758

  23

  94

  2.7

  124

  4

  345

  10.5

  Glasgow City

  1,327

  20.4

  1,217

  20.4

  1,484

  26.3

  1,486

  24.9

  1,315

  24

  1,284

  22.4

  Highland

  201

  12.1

  190

  12.3

  284

  18.5

  95

  5.8

  96

  7

  96

  6.4

  Inverclyde

  159

  15.2

  193

  19

  258

  25.1

  129

  13.4

  128

  12.8

  190

  20.1

  Midlothian

  160

  16.7

  98

  11.1

  351

  37.6

  —

  —

  126

  15.1

  126

  14

  Moray

  94

  9.4

  161

  18.1

  285

  37

  —

  —

  62

  6.8

  124

  13.6

  North Ayrshire

  258

  16.2

  345

  21.8

  383

  24.7

  163

  10.6

  320

  22.1

  348

  22.7

  North Lanarkshire

  589

  16.1

  706

  21.1

  1,035

  32.2

  424

  11.6

  419

  13.2

  750

  22.7

  Orkney Islands

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Perth and Kinross

  378

  32

  196

  18.7

  348

  29.8

  226

  18.3

  318

  27

  382

  31.9

  Renfrewshire

  878

  40.7

  461

  24.8

  685

  32.5

  549

  27.2

  682

  34.1

  653

  34.2

  Scottish Borders

  158

  18.2

  129

  15.6

  157

  19.4

  71

  8.4

  32

  4.2

  191

  24.1

  Shetland Islands

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South Ayrshire

  255

  22.1

  260

  22.8

  516

  48.4

  478

  39.6

  286

  26.3

  287

  25.8

  South Lanarkshire

  352

  10.5

  414

  14

  799

  27.6

  418

  12.1

  318

  11

  602

  21

  Stirling

  63

  7.6

  125

  17

  189

  25.9

  96

  13.5

  155

  20.6

  254

  30.6

  West Dunbartonshire

  187

  16.8

  320

  31.4

  159

  17

  96

  9

  158

  16.5

  384

  38.1

  West Lothian

  516

  26.5

  709

  38.2

  773

  43.8

  777

  41.6

  613

  34.5

  613

  34.3

  182

  court

  1 January 1999

  Oban

  1

  Paisley

  0

  Peebles

  0

  Perth

  6

  Peterhead

  4

  Portree

  1

  Rothesay

  1

  Selkirk

  4

  Stonehaven

  1

  Stornoway

  2

  Stranraer

  3

  Tain

  0

  Wick

  0

  Grand Total

  356

  From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Pupils
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary for Scotland what is his estimate of (i) the number and (ii) the percentage of children in primaries(a) one, (b) two and (c) three in each local authority taught in classes of more than 31 pupils in (1) 1997–98, (2) 1998–99, (3) 1999–2000, (4) 2000–01 and (5)2001–02. [76153]

  Mrs. Liddell:
  [holding answer 15 March 1999]: The information requested is set out in the table. It is not possible to provide estimates for 1999–2000, 2000–01 or 2001–02. The figures for 1998 are provisional.
  183
  From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the secretary of State for scotland what is his estimate of(a) the number and (b) the percentage of children in each local authority taught in classes of 31 or more pupils in (i) 1997–98, (ii) 1998–99, (iii) 1999–2000, (iv) 2000–01 and (v) 2001–02. [76143]

  Mrs. Liddell:
  [holding answer 15 March 1999]: The information requested is set out in the table. It is not possible to provide estimates for 1999–2000, 2000–01 or 2001–02. The figures for 1998 are provisional.

  September 1997

  September 1998

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Aberdeen City

  3,767

  23.8

  2,983

  19.1

  Aberdeenshire

  2,222

  10.4

  2,506

  11.7

  Angus

  1,429

  15.3

  1,431

  15.4

  Argyll and Bute

  1,215

  15.6

  1,058

  13.6

  Clackmannanshire

  780

  17.2

  993

  22

  Dumfries and Galloway

  2,381

  18.5

  1,509

  11.8

  Dundee City

  3,583

  29.2

  3,111

  25.9

  East Ayrshire

  1,926

  16.9

  1,780

  15.9

  East Dunbartonshire

  2,873

  27

  2,656

  25

  East Lothian

  1,026

  12.9

  1,212

  15.1

  East Renfrewshire

  3,444

  40.1

  3,407

  39.1

  Edinburgh, City of

  8,713

  28.5

  8,513

  28.1

  Eilean Siar

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Falkirk

  3,432

  27.9

  3,415

  27.6

  Fife

  4,050

  13.2

  3,230

  10.6

  Glasgow City

  9,551

  19.5

  9,172

  19.3

  Highland

  1,818

  9.5

  1,400

  7.4

  Inverclyde

  1,331

  17

  1,389

  18.2

  Midlothian

  1,462

  19.7

  1,052

  14

  Moray

  1,363

  16.9

  815

  10.2

  North Ayrshire

  2,563

  20.3

  2,690

  21.4

  North Lanarkshire

  5,330

  17.9

  5,154

  17.5

  Orkney Islands

  32

  1.7

  31

  1.7

  Perth and Kinross

  1,856

  17.2

  2,177

  20

  Renfrewshire

  4,786

  30.3

  4,719

  30.4

  Scottish Borders

  889

  10

  937

  10.5

  Shetland Islands

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South Ayrshire

  2,771

  29.2

  2,666

  28.4

  South Lanarkshire

  4,329

  16.1

  3,796

  14.1

  Stirling

  630

  9.2

  890

  13

  West Dunbartonshire

  1,589

  17.9

  1,501

  17

  West Lothian

  4,652

  31.4

  4,387

  29.6

  From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Company Licences
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for(a) small and medium enterprises and (b) larger companies (i) all licences and permits issued by his Department and its agencies to companies permitting them to carry out their business, (ii) the cost of each such licence or permit in (A) 1997–98 and (B) 1999–2000 and (iii) the current number of companies which are in receipt of each such licence or permit [76854]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 16 March 1999]: The information requested is rather lengthy; therefore, I am placing copies in the Library of the House.

  Timber Industry
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what measures his Department has taken to assist the export of softwoods by the UK softwood industry; and if he will make a statement. [77203]
  184
  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 23 March 1999]: My Department has had no requests for export assistance from the softwood industry. The Scottish softwood industry would, of course, be eligible for the range of export assistance available from Scottish Trade International, the Government's export agency in Scotland.

  Scottish processors are the most important market for Scottish softwoods, buying almost 80 per cent. of the harvest. The remaining 20 per cent. goes to processors in other parts of the UK. There have been no sales of Scottish softwoods (or hardwoods) outside the UK for some years.

  Scottish Parliament Building
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the estimated cost of the furnishings and fittings of the new Scottish Parliament buildings, indicating separately the cost of information technology and television facilities; and which of these are included in the £50 million cost referred to his answer to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) of 28 January 1999,Official Report, column 385. [77798]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 25 March 1999]: An initial estimate of £3½ million was made in March 1998 for budgetary purposes to cover the cost of purchasing furniture and fittings for the new Scottish Parliament building. The actual cost of the furniture cannot be calculated until the building designs are finalised, and will depend on the state of the market at the time of purchase and the extent to which we can re-use furniture from the interim accommodation.

  An initial estimate of £4 million was made in March 1998 for budgetary purposes to cover the purchase of Information and Communication Technology equipment, including televisual production equipment. The actual cost of the ICT equipment will depend on operational experience of the systems being used in the interim accommodation, on the decisions made by the Parliament itself in the light of that experience, and the state of the ICT market at the time of purchase. It is likely that a substantial portion of the hardware and software installed at the interim accommodation will be re-used at Holyrood, and this will also have a bearing on the final costs.

  Neither of these estimates is included in the estimated construction cost budget of £50 million excluding VAT and fees referred to in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on 28 January.

  Home Repossessions
  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many home repossessions there were in Scotland in each year since 1992. [77765]

  Mr. McLeish
  [holding answer 25 March 1999]: Figures in relation to repossession of property by mortgage lenders have only been collected by the courts since a revised system of collecting Civil Judicial Statistics was instituted on 1 January 1994. Figures are not available prior to this time.

  Figures for the number of home repossession orders granted in Scotland for each year since 1994 are shown in the table. Not all lenders who are granted decrees actually enforce them.
  185

  Court

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  Aberdeen

  15

  90

  202

  186

  178

  Airdrie

  107

  106

  138

  200

  244

  Alloa

  12

  37

  31

  36

  70

  Arbroath

  20

  7

  14

  37

  60

  Ayr

  39

  106

  98

  142

  149

  Banff

  0

  17

  16

  15

  23

  Campbeltown

  7

  12

  7

  13

  Cupar

  33

  32

  52

  44

  37

  Dingwall

  16

  26

  14

  17

  22

  Dornoch

  3

  4

  1

  1

  4

  Dumbarton

  47

  125

  105

  106

  197

  Dumfries

  28

  58

  54

  42

  50

  Dundee

  69

  94

  165

  149

  168

  Dunfermline

  96

  124

  132

  157

  185

  Dunoon

  15

  14

  13

  18

  29

  Duns

  8

  10

  16

  11

  15

  Edinburgh

  245

  419

  501

  536

  574

  Elgin

  28

  30

  58

  35

  37

  Falkirk

  68

  112

  142

  118

  142

  Forfar

  9

  8

  29

  19

  31

  Fort William

  0

  4

  6

  4

  11

  Glasgow

  479

  689

  872

  869

  1,051

  Greenock

  3

  8

  50

  46

  80

  Haddington

  60

  64

  82

  88

  74

  Hamilton

  109

  236

  253

  171

  75

  Inverness

  23

  62

  64

  80

  110

  Jedburgh

  11

  21

  21

  22

  36

  Kilmarnock

  88

  194

  216

  221

  268

  Kirkcaldy

  53

  132

  155

  176

  224

  Kirkcudbright

  11

  11

  19

  16

  5

  Kirkwall

  5

  4

  13

  4

  2

  Lanark

  0

  49

  58

  52

  66

  Lerwick

  2

  4

  3

  2

  12

  Linlithgow

  91

  180

  209

  160

  251

  Lochmaddy

  2

  2

  7

  1

  3

  Oban

  8

  8

  12

  12

  18

  Paisley

  36

  203

  176

  198

  149

  Peebles

  10

  9

  10

  7

  6

  Perth

  44

  76

  109

  84

  108

  Peterhead

  48

  35

  65

  53

  62

  Portree

  4

  2

  8

  4

  8

  Rothesay

  5

  5

  2

  7

  10

  Selkirk

  18

  16

  17

  24

  38

  Stirling

  37

  39

  34

  47

  66

  Stonehaven

  21

  32

  42

  40

  22

  Stornoway

  0

  1

  13

  5

  9

  Stranraer

  18

  20

  20

  21

  26

  Tain

  5

  7

  13

  15

  11

  Wick

  2

  10

  2

  0

  1

  Grand Total

  2,058

  3,554

  4,339

  4,305

  5,030

  From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Civil Servants (Appraisal)
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the appraisal performance markings awarded to civil servants in 1998 for(a) each agency in his Department and (b) the Department broken down by (i) grade, (ii) gender, (iii) ethnicity, (iv) part-time/ full-time working and (v) disability; and for (1) each agency and (2) the Department whether the Cabinet Office's four fifths rule for detecting potential adverse impact was applied to the appraisal markings of civil servants in the 1998 report round. [78144]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 26 March 1999]: Information for the 1998 appraisal round is shown in the tables.
  186
  Departments and Agencies have authority to determine their own performance review arrangements for their staff outside the Senior Civil Service, subject to certain conditions. Within The Scottish Office, the Scottish Prison Service and Historic Scotland Executive Agencies have adopted different review arrangements from the remainder of the department.

  In order to protect individual anonymity, it has been necessary to combine the results for the agencies other than Scottish Prison Service and Historic Scotland.

  The four-fifths rule is not an absolute measure, but may be an indicator that further analysis is required. It is not the approach currently used within The Scottish Office. Instead, annual statistical analyses of all appraisal markings are routinely carried out, and the results reported to top management. This includes analysis by gender and grade. Detailed analysis for the 1998 round is not yet complete.

  From 1 July 1999, responsibility for the Civil Service is a reserved matter, but staff appraisal will be a delegated matter.

  Scottish Office Core

  Percentage gaining performance mark

  Box 1

  Box 2

  Box 3

  Box 4/5

  Grade

  Band A

  6.8

  58.4

  34.1

  0.6

  Band B

  5.5

  64.5

  1—

  1—

  Band C

  13.1

  67.3

  1—

  1—

  Gender

  Female

  8.8

  63.2

  1—

  1—

  Male

  5.6

  61.4

  32.6

  0.5

  Ethnicity

  Ethnic

  0.0

  50.0

  1—

  1—

  Other

  7.2

  62.3

  30.2

  0.3

  Full time/Part time

  Full Time

  7.0

  62.1

  30.5

  0.4

  Part Time

  8.7

  64.4

  26.9

  0.0

  Disability

  Not Disabled/Not Known

  7.2

  62.4

  30.1

  0.3

  Self-Declared Disabled

  1—

  57.8

  1—

  1—

  Total

  7.1

  62.3

  30.2

  0.4

  1Figures withheld to avoid disclosure

  Scottish Office Core and Agencies (excluding HS and SPS)

  Percentage gaining performance mark

  Box 1

  Box 2

  Box 3

  Box 4/5

  Grade

  Band A

  6.4

  58.9

  34.0

  0.7

  Band B

  5.4

  63.4

  1—

  1—

  Band C

  12.5

  67.6

  1—

  1—

  Gender

  Female

  8.4

  63.6

  27.8

  0.3

  Male

  5.3

  60.6

  33.5

  0.5

  Ethnicity

  Ethnic

  0.0

  52.9

  1—

  1—

  Other

  6.8

  62.0

  30.8

  0.4

  Full time/Part time

  Full Time

  6.7

  61.8

  31.1

  0.4

  Part Time

  7.5

  64.7

  27.8

  0.0

  187

  Scottish Office Core and Agencies (excluding HS and SPS)

  Percentage gaining performance mark

  Box 1

  Box 2

  Box 3

  Box 4/5

  Disability

  Not Disabled/Not Known

  6.8

  62.1

  30.7

  0.4

  Self-Declared Disabled

  1—

  58.5

  1—

  1—

  Total

  6.7

  62.0

  30.9

  0.4

  1Figures withheld to avoid disclosure

  Scottish Prison Service

  Percentage gaining performance mark

  A rating

  B rating

  C/D rating

  Grade

  Band A

  10.1

  77.5

  12.4

  Band B

  7.3

  71.5

  21.2

  Band C

  5.6

  68.3

  26.1

  Band D

  14.7

  80.7

  4.6

  Band E

  21.2

  74.9

  4.0

  Band F/G

  17.2

  73.5

  9.3

  Band H/I

  40.0

  60.0

  0.0

  Gender

  Female

  15.2

  68.5

  16.3

  Male

  12.7

  77.3

  10.0

  Ethnicity

  Ethnic

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Other

  13.1

  76.0

  10.9

  Full Time/Part Time

  Full Time

  13.2

  75.9

  11.0

  Part Time

  0.0

  1—

  1—

  Disability

  Not Disabled/Not Known

  13.4

  75.4

  11.2

  Self-Declared Disabled

  6.8

  86.9

  6.3

  Total

  13.1

  75.9

  11.0

  1Figures withheld to avoid disclosure

  Historic Scotland

  Percentage gaining Performance mark

  Box 1

  Box2

  Box3/4

  Grade

  Band A

  11.3

  1—

  1—

  Band B

  20.4

  79.6

  0.0

  Band C

  19.1

  1—

  1—

  Band D

  43.9

  1—

  1—

  Band E

  41.7

  58.3

  0.0

  Band F/G

  27.8

  72.2

  0.0

  Band H/I

  1—

  1—

  0.0

  Gender

  Female

  31.2

  68.8

  0.0

  Male

  17.6

  80.6

  1.8

  Ethnicity

  Ethnic

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Other

  21.1

  77.6

  1.3

  Full Time/Part Time

  Full Time

  21.1

  77.6

  1.3

  Part Time

  1—

  1—

  00.0

  Disability

  Not Disabled/Not Known

  21.2

  77.5

  1.3

  Self-Declared Disabled

  1—

  1—

  0.0

  Total

  21.1

  77.6

  1.3

  1Figures withheld to avoid disclosure

  188

  Senior Civil Service

  Percentage gaining performance mark

  Box 1

  Box 2+/2

  Box 3+/3

  Box 4/5

  Grade

  Senior Civil Service

  13.3

  58.2

  28.5

  0.0

  Gender

  Female

  19.0

  47.6

  33.3

  0.0

  Male

  12.4

  59.9

  27.7

  0.0

  Ethnicity

  Ethnic

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Other

  13.0

  58.2

  28.5

  0.0

  Full-Time/Part-Time

  Full Time

  12.0

  54.4

  26.6

  0.0

  Part Time

  1—

  54.5

  1—

  0.0

  Disability

  Not Disabled/Not Known

  13.3

  58.2

  28.5

  0.0

  Self-Declared Disabled

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Total

  13.3

  58.2

  28.5

  0.0

  1Figures withheld to avoid disclosure

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultations will be undertaken by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency in respect of the proposed incineration of Ministry of Defence radioactive waste at Grundons, Colnbrook. [78999]

  Mr. Macdonald
  In addition to consulting my right hon. Friend, and the Health and Safety Executive, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) also consulted the bodies shown in the list.

  In addition, SEPA placed notices in the Helensburgh Advertiser and the Edinburgh Gazette.

  Bodies consulted

  Argyll and Bute Council

  Copeland Borough Council

  Cumbria County Council

  Slough Borough Council

  Argyll and Clyde Health Board

  Ayrshire and Arran Health Board

  West of Scotland Water Authority

  Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee

  The National Radiological Protection Board

  Committee on the Medical Aspects of Radiation

  The Environment Agency.

  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what research he has commissioned on the health effects of the incineration of Ministry of Defence radioactive waste on people living in the vicinity. [79001]

  Mr. Macdonald
  My right hon. Friend has commissioned no specific research. However, when authorising the Colnbrook facility to receive radioactive waste, the Environment Agency sought and received assurance from the site operator that the radiological implications were satisfactory.
  189
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultation will be undertaken with local authorities through whose areas Ministry of Defence radioactive waste is to be transported for eventual incineration at Grundons, Colnbrook. [79004]

  Mr. Macdonald
  Current regulations on the transport of radioactive material in Great Britain place no requirement on either the consignor or the transporter to consult with local authorities through whose area a shipment is taking place.

  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations have been received by(a) him and (b) the Scottish Environment Protection Agency on the proposal to incinerate Ministry of Defence radioactive waste at Grundons, Colnbrook. [79002]

  Mr. Macdonald
  My right hon. Friend received two sets of representations and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency received seven sets from consultees and others.

  The representations covered the health hazards of disposal, lack of consultation, suitability of material for incineration, proximity of incinerator to other premises, transport issues, nature of the decision-making procedures, availability of incineration facilities in Scotland, the position post-devolution, and the link between radioactive waste and the nuclear weapons programme.

  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what research he has commissioned into the health effects on the population of those areas through which Ministry of Defence radioactive waste is to be transported for eventual incineration at Grundons, Colnbrook. [79005]

  Mr. Macdonald
  My right hon. Friend has commissioned no specific research into this area. A report by the National Radiological Protection Board, entitled "The Radiation Exposure from the Normal Transport of Radioactive Materials within the United Kingdom" (NRPB-R255), covered road and rail shipments in general. It found the radiological exposure arising from transport to be very slight in comparison with that from natural background radiation. A copy of that report is in the House Library.

  Court Proceedings
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what estimate he has made for each area of the average time between receipt of police reports at the office of the Procurator Fiscal and the commencement of proceedings, in each of the last five years; [78803]

  (2) in each of the last five years, for those police reports made to procurators fiscal for which there were proceedings, what was the average time, area by area, between receipt of the report and commencement of proceedings for (a) district court summary cases,
  (b) sheriff court summary cases, (c) solemn cases at sheriff court and (d) High Court cases. [78805]
  190
  Mr. McLeish
  [holding answer 29 March 1999]: A single average for all cases is not readily available. Nor are we able to provide without disproportionate cost an average time for solemn cases.

  I have prepared tables containing average time between receipt of reports of crime and service of complaints in relation to summary cases in Sheriff and District Courts by Procurators Fiscal in each of the last 5 years (up to February 1999). As the information is rather lengthy, I am placing copies in the House Library.

  From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total number of police reports made to procurators fiscal in each year since 1994; and how many of those were marked "no proceedings". [78804]

  Mr. McLeish
  [holding answer 29 March 1999]: I have prepared tables containing the total number of reports of crime made to Procurators Fiscal in each year since 1994 (to February 1999), and those marked "no proceedings". As the information is rather lengthy, I am placing copies in the House Library.

  From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Birth Certificates
  Sir Robert Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland for what purposes his Department and its executive agencies require a birth certificate to be furnished by (i) employees, (ii) contractors, (iii) those applying for employment or contracts and (iv) other persons. [79557]

  Mr. Dewar
  My Department and its agencies require to see birth certificates of prospective employees only, to ensure that they meet the Nationality requirements for appointment to the Home Civil Service and for salary and pension purposes. There are no requirements to see birth certificates for contractors.

  For other persons, my Department does not require to see birth certificates. However, certain agencies require a birth certificate where the functions for which they are responsible make that necessary. The Scottish Office Pensions Agency requires to see birth certificates of members of the pension schemes it operates. The Student Awards Agency for Scotland needs sight of birth certificates for students who claim dependants allowances.

  Health Board Expenditure
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a detailed breakdown of expenditure by each health board in Scotland for the year until 31 July 1998. [79357]

  Mr. Galbraith
  [holding answer 30 March 1999]: The table gives details of the health boards expenditure for the latest financial year available which is 1997–98.
  191

  £000

  Health Boards

  HCH expenditure

  FHS expenditure

  Other expenditure

  Total

  Argyll & Clyde

  253,260

  105,086

  10,100

  368,446

  Ayrshire & Arran

  211,948

  87,871

  11,411

  311,230

  Borders

  70,257

  23,481

  1,856

  95,594

  Dumfries & Galloway

  94,466

  36,312

  3,109

  133,887

  Fife

  188,589

  79,608

  9,299

  277,496

  Forth Valley

  148,262

  64,628

  7,203

  220,093

  Grampian

  293,394

  108,888

  17,414

  419,696

  Greater Glasgow

  585,186

  223,675

  40,262

  849,123

  Highland

  128,335

  50,512

  9,775

  188,622

  Lanarkshire

  298,646

  125,364

  11,308

  435,318

  Lothian

  454,032

  165,260

  22,205

  641,497

  Orkney

  13,601

  4,878

  2,122

  20,601

  Shetland

  15,840

  5,234

  1,586

  22,660

  Tayside

  268,582

  94,486

  7,224

  370,292

  Western Isles

  25,880

  7,841

  1,776

  35,497

  Scottish Totals

  3,050,278

  1,183,124

  156,650

  4,390,052

  Note:

  HCH—Hospital & Community Health

  FSH—Family Health Services

  From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Outpatient Appointments
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total number of people awaiting an outpatient appointment at each Scottish hospital on (i) 31 January 1997, (ii) 31 January 1998 and (iii) 31 January 1999; and in each case, how many outpatients had been waiting for(a) three to six months and (b) more than six months. [78734]

  NHS in Scotland: Waiting times for first outpatient appointment from general medical practitioner (GMP)/general dental practitioner(GDP) referral

  Quarter ending 31 December 1996

  Quarter ending 31 December 1997

  Quarter ending 31 December 19981

  NHS Trust/directly managed unit

  Number of patients who waited 3–6 months

  Number of patients who waited over 6 months

  Number of patients who waited 3–6 months

  Number of patients who waited over 6 months

  Number of patients who waited 3–6 months

  Number of patients who waited over 6 months

  South Ayrshire Hospital

  147

  21

  757

  96

  811

  54

  North Ayrshire and Arran Hospital

  121

  9

  816

  54

  250

  13

  Ayrshire and Arran Community Health Care

  21

  3

  16

  2

  2

  1

  Borders General Hospital

  450

  88

  363

  208

  340

  33

  Borders Community Health Services

  0

  0

  7

  0

  17

  9

  Royal Alexandra Hospital

  1,944

  550

  1,138

  1,236

  977

  223

  Inverclyde Royal

  140

  8

  528

  193

  662

  47

  Renfrewshire Healthcare

  13

  23

  52

  13

  23

  15

  Lomond Healthcare

  200

  8

  247

  21

  676

  27

  Argyll and Bute

  205

  118

  355

  92

  392

  83

  Queen Margaret Hospital

  985

  74

  1,244

  159

  1,415

  309

  Fife Healthcare

  313

  35

  58

  4

  16

  1

  Kirkcaldy Acute Hospitals

  889

  64

  2,242

  220

  1,779

  409

  Southern General Hospitals

  1,519

  532

  2,302

  647

  1,999

  986

  Yorkhill

  764

  65

  1,793

  399

  130

  55

  Victoria Infirmary

  2,186

  262

  2,092

  146

  2,316

  234

  West Glasgow Hospitals University

  2,429

  324

  2,526

  462

  3,349

  958

  Glasgow Royal Infirmary University

  1,893

  553

  2,894

  632

  3,799

  974

  Stobhill

  532

  33

  906

  63

  849

  36

  Greater Glasgow Community and Mental Health Service

  66

  17

  76

  7

  113

  10

  Glasgow Dental Hospital and School

  842

  220

  1,306

  226

  1,581

  333

  Raigmore Hospital

  914

  338

  1,231

  429

  781

  574

  Caithness and Sutherland

  150

  64

  220

  20

  176

  66

  Highland Communities

  12

  6

  12

  2

  17

  5

  Monklands and Bellshill Hospitals

  850

  105

  1,526

  468

  1,473

  564

  Law Hospitals

  1,081

  330

  1,849

  472

  1,540

  192

  Hairmyres and Stonehouse Hospitals

  867

  190

  1,143

  225

  1,463

  358

  192
  Mr. Galbraith
  [holding answer 30 March 1999]: Information on waiting lists is collected only for hospital inpatients and day cases. Data are available quarterly on first outpatient referrals and the length of time that patients waited for their first outpatient appointment. The number of patients who received a first outpatient appointment within three to six months, and more than six months following a General Medical Practitioner/General Dental Practitioner referral, by NHS Trust, for the quarters ending 31 December 1996, 1997 and 1998, is provided in the table.
  193

  NHS in Scotland: Waiting times for first outpatient appointment from general medical practitioner (GMP)/general dental practitioner (GDP) referral

  Quarter ending 31 December 1996

  Quarter ending 31 December 1997

  Quarter ending 31 December 19981

  NHS Trust/directly managed unit

  Number of patients who waited 3–6 months

  Number of patients who waited over 6 months

  Number of patients who waited 3–6 months

  Number of patients who waited over 6 months

  Number of patients who waited 3–6 months

  Number of patients who waited over 6 months

  Lanarkshire Healthcare

  31

  15

  50

  9

  73

  23

  Aberdeen Royal Hospitals

  2,393

  1,011

  2,257

  537

  2,692

  553

  Grampian Healthcare

  395

  51

  646

  41

  520

  69

  Moray Health Services

  127

  28

  350

  24

  454

  25

  Orkney Health Board Unit

  2

  1

  10

  2

  19

  0

  West Lothian

  1,067

  223

  1,187

  377

  1,635

  410

  Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh

  2,537

  615

  2,767

  835

  3,879

  1,717

  Edinburgh Sick Children's

  3

  2

  22

  0

  117

  1

  Western General Hospitals

  398

  162

  826

  249

  615

  398

  East and Midlothian

  154

  26

  266

  72

  230

  45

  Edinburgh Healthcare

  50

  34

  121

  17

  18

  1

  Dundee Teaching Hospitals

  2,271

  232

  1,683

  140

  2,574

  439

  Perth and Kinross Healthcare

  458

  102

  995

  183

  1,305

  159

  Dundee Healthcare

  70

  49

  88

  51

  90

  23

  Angus

  351

  25

  388

  56

  367

  126

  Stirling Royal Infirmary

  110

  9

  844

  42

  771

  189

  Falkirk and District Royal Infirmary

  772

  301

  888

  178

  273

  187

  Central Scotland Healthcare

  2

  1

  1

  2

  14

  22

  Western Isles Health Unit

  80

  1

  133

  33

  5

  1

  Dumfries and Galloway Acute and Maternity Hospitals

  191

  191

  419

  91

  200

  67

  Dumfries and Galloway Community Health

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  Shetland Hospitals and Community Services Unit

  27

  0

  22

  1

  15

  2

  1Provisional

  Source:

  ISD, Scotland

  From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Maternity Services
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the cost of providing NHS maternity services in Scotland for each of the last five years. [79584]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The information requested is as follows:

  £ million

  1994–95

  168.6

  1995–96

  173.0

  1996–97

  177.5

  1997–98

  181.9

  1998–99

  Not yet available

  From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Caesarean Sections
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what is the cost to the NHS of a Caesarean section in Scotland; [79585]

  (2) what is the cost to the Scottish NHS of a 1 per cent. increase in the annual rate of Caesarean sections. [79586]

  Mr. Galbraith
  This information is not collected centrally.

  From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.
  194

  Breast Feeding
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what financial provision has been made for the promotion of breast feeding in each of the last three years in Scotland. [79587]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The figures in the table show the financial provision directly related to the promotion of breastfeeding in the last three years. They include expenditure in relation to the National Breastfeeding Adviser in Scotland, who provides training, advice and support to NHS personnel and lay workers and acts as a facilitator to local breastfeeding initiatives.

  These figures represent only a small part of our investment to promote breastfeeding, which is increasingly being integrated with mainstream health education campaigns. For example, a major publication on pregnancy and early childrearing 'Ready, Steady, Baby' produced and widely distributed by the Health Education Board for Scotland in 1998–99 included a section on breastfeeding; and a recent edition of 02 Magazine—which is sent to all S1 and S2 school pupils—featured breastfeeding in relation environmental, social and health issues. Breastfeeding is also linked with the criteria for eating establishments to achieve a 'Healthy Choices Award' and is identified as a workplace issue, with employers encouraged to provide appropriate facilities within 'Scotland' s Health At Work' award scheme. A dedicated website on breastfeeding to provide information for both public and professional use has also been set up.

  The Government are fully committed to the promotion of breastfeeding, which is universally accepted as the best form of nutrition for infants. Our recent White Paper "Towards a Healthier Scotland" identified the health of

  195
  children as a key area for action. It recognised that breastfeeding and good care in early life can significantly improve a child's chances in life; and it set out proposals for a health demonstration project to focus on the promotion of health from birth and throughout the first 5 years of childhood. One of the potential aims of this project will be to encourage good nutrition through breastfeeding.

  £

  1996–97

  75,000

  1997–98

  76,000

  1998–99

  60,000

  From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Environmental Appraisals
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what environmental appraisals of policy his Department has(a) completed, (b) started and (c) planned. [79625]

  Mr. Macdonald
  The available information is currently being collected by Departments in response to the Environmental Audit Committee's request for information on environmental appraisals as part of its second inquiry into the Greening Government Initiative.

  From 1 July 1999 this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Green Belt Land
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the green belt land in each local authority area. [79850]

  Mr. Macdonald
  1. There are currently 6 areas in Scotland designated as greenbelt land. These are shown in table 1.

  Table 1

  Greenbelt

  Area (to nearest ha)

  Edinburgh

  15,869

  Glasgow

  109,917

  Falkirk and Grangemouth

  3,803

  Ayr, Prestwick and Troon

  3,024

  Aberdeen

  23,039

  Clackmannan

  981

  Total

  156,633

  2. Greenbelt areas broken down by local authority are contained in table 2.

  Table 2

  Local authority

  Area of green belt (to nearest ha)

  Aberdeenshire

  13,283

  Aberdeen City

  9,756

  Clackmannanshire

  981

  Stirling

  1,544

  Argyll and Bute

  2,787

  Falkirk

  3,786

  West Dunbartonshire

  2,617

  North Lanarkshire

  22,187

  East Dunbartonshire

  10,365

  196

  Table 2

  Local authority

  Area of green belt (to nearest ha)

  City of Edinburgh

  9,995

  West Lothian

  31

  Inverclyde

  13,721

  East Lothian

  1,777

  Renfrewshire

  19,661

  Glasgow City

  3,510

  Midlothian

  4,094

  North Ayrshire

  94

  South Lanarkshire

  22,837

  East Renfrewshire

  10,478

  East Ayrshire

  21

  South Ayrshire

  3,024

  Coastal Sliver

  84

  Total

  156,633

  Note:

  As at March 1999—The Scottish Office Geographic Information Service

  The boundaries of individual greenbelts are defined in the relevant local authorities' local plans which can be viewed at the offices of the authority concerned.

  The figures given are based on the geographical overlay of two datasets from different sources held by the Scottish Office Geographical Information Service (SOGIS). The different scales of these two datasets cause very small differences in the figures for greenbelt areas, known as "slivers". Coastal slivers are areas where the greenbelt data crosses the coastline.

  As from 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Child Minding
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each local authority area, the number of pre-school child minding places available and express the figure as a percentage of the total number of pre-school children in the area. [80218]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The table gives the available information. Some authorities have yet to submit their returns.

  Registered child minding places for children under 5, as at 30 November 1997

  Local authority

  Number of registered places

  Number of registered places as a percentage of under 5 population %

  Aberdeen City

  735

  6

  Aberdeenshire

  1,266

  9

  Angus

  854

  13

  Argyll and Bute

  459

  9

  Clackmannanshire

  181

  6

  Dumfries and Galloway

  295

  3

  Dundee City

  n/a

  n/a

  East Ayrshire

  433

  6

  East Dunbartonshire

  698

  11

  East Lothian

  n/a

  n/a

  East Renfrewshire

  n/a

  n/a

  Edinburgh, City of

  n/a

  n/a

  Eilean Siar

  66

  4

  Falkirk

  721

  8

  Fife

  1,964

  10

  Glasgow City

  n/a

  n/a

  Highland

  n/a

  n/a

  197

  Registered child minding places for children under 5, as at 30 November 1997

  Local authority

  Number of registered places

  Number of registered places as a percentage of under 5 population %

  Inverclyde

  171

  3

  Midlothian

  n/a

  n/a

  Moray

  539

  10

  North Ayrshire

  346

  4

  North Lanarkshire

  655

  3

  Orkney Islands

  66

  6

  Perthshire and Kinross

  966

  13

  Renfrewshire

  438

  4

  Scottish Borders

  n/a

  n/a

  Shetland Islands

  128

  8

  South Ayrshire

  462

  8

  South Lanarkshire

  979

  5

  Stirling

  509

  11

  West Dunbartonshire

  235

  4

  West Lothian

  n/a

  n/a

  From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what regulations or guidelines he has issued regarding child minders and premises for child minding, with particular reference to the number of children and the number of child minders who can be accommodated on any premises. [80219]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The Scottish Office issued guidance to local authorities on the regulation of services for children under the Children Act 1989 in June 1991. That guidance recommends adult: child ratios for child minding and other forms of day care for children under the age of 8. Advice on the number of child minders who may be accommodated on any particular premises is not, however, provided in the guidance.

  We issued a consultation paper on the regulatory arrangements for early education and child care in March this year. Follow up action could include revised guidance.

  From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  EU Grants
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many staff in his Department are involved in processing the payment of(a) European Regional Development Fund grants and (b) Social Fund grants. [79934]

  inspector

  Sergeant

  Constable

  Total

  Ethnic officers as percentage of total strength

  Central

  —

  —

  2

  2

  0.28

  Dumfries and Galloway

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Fife

  —

  —

  2

  2

  0.24

  Grampian

  1

  —

  1

  2

  0.16

  Lothian and Borders

  —

  1

  5

  6

  0.23

  Northern

  —

  —

  1

  1

  0.15

  Strathclyde

  —

  1

  34

  35

  0.49

  Tayside

  —

  —

  3

  3

  0.26

  Total

  1

  2

  48

  51

  0.34

  198
  Mr. Macdonald
  Five and one half full time equivalent members of staff process the final payment of European Development Fund grants and 2 full time members of staff European Social Fund grants. In addition, 3 members of staff provide management and support services to the final payments process.

  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if his Department pays out grants under EU funds before receiving the money from the EU. [79935]

  Mr. Macdonald
  Yes. Since February 1999, it has been Fund and European Regional Development Fund grants Government policy to make payment of European Social on receipt of valid claims from project sponsors. It is expected that this will lead to improvements in the overall payments process, with grant funds being paid earlier to project sponsors.

  From 1 July 1999 the administration of European Structural Funds will be the responsibility of the Scottish Administration.

  Traffic Projections
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what national guidelines are available to local authorities to help them to calculate the probable volume of traffic from a proposed development. [79918]

  Mr. Macdonald
  Guidelines are published by the Institution of Highways and Transportation on the preparation of Transport Impact Assessment (TIA) Reports. These are widely accepted as the national standards. A local authority consortia also maintain and update continuously a UK National Database of trips generated by different types of development. These data are used in the preparation of a TIA.

  A TIA report would normally be requested by the local authority from a developer in support of a planning application. The impact, if any, on trunk roads would be included within such reports.

  From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Police Officers (Ethnic Origin)
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide a breakdown of the ethnic origin of police officers in each rank in each force in Scotland. [80650]

  Mr. McLeish
  The available information, which relates to officers from the ethnic minority communities and is for 31 March 1998, is shown in the table.
  199
  No one from the ethnic minority communities has been identified as holding rank above that of Inspector.

  From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Sir Robert Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the ethnic breakdown is of police officers in each force in Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [79932]

  Mr. McLeish
  The numbers and proportion of ethnic minority officers are shown in the table.

  31 March 1998

  Percentage ethnic officers of total police strength

  Central

  2

  0.01

  Dumfries and Galloway

  0

  0

  Fife

  2

  0.01

  Grampian

  2

  0.01

  Lothian and Borders

  6

  0.04

  Northern

  1

  0.01

  Strathclyde

  35

  0.23

  Tayside

  3

  0.02

  Total

  51

  0.34

  The recruitment and retention of ethnic officers in Scotland will be addressed in responding to the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry Report.

  From 1 July 1999, this will be matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the overseas companies by sector which located business in Glasgow in(a) 1997 and (b) 1998 and the total number of jobs created in each category as a result. [80007]

  Mr. Dewar
  All our dealings with inward investors are undertaken on a commercially confidential basis and it would not therefore be appropriate to publish details of individual projects except in cases where details of the project have been announced by the company itself.

  The following table contains details of the inward investment projects attracted to Glasgow in 1997 and 1998 where the company in question is overseas-owned and where the project has been the subject of a public announcement.

  Company

  Jobs announced

  Sector

  1997

  Clintrials Research Ltd. (USA)

  240

  Healthcare

  Eaton Ltd. (USA)

  100

  Services

  1998

  TeleTech Europe Ltd. (USA)

  500

  Services

  Cable and Wireless Communications (USA)

  400

  Services

  Yoshitomi Pharmaceutical Ind. (Japan)

  12

  Healthcare

  Tasco Europe Ltd. (Netherlands)

  400

  Services

  FirstTel Systems Corporation (USA)

  50

  Software

  Note:

  The job figures are based on information provided by the companies concerned at the time of the investment decision and take no account of subsequent developments
  200
  In addition, there were a further 3 projects by overseas-owned companies which were not publicly announced. These projects involved the planned creation of over 20 new jobs and the safeguarding of over 500 existing jobs.

  There has also been a significant level of inward investment in Glasgow by companies based in other parts of the UK.

  The figures for total inward investment in Glasgow—both by overseas-owned and UK-owned companies—show that, in 1997 and 1998, the city has attracted 22 projects involving the planned creation or safeguarding of nearly 4,000 jobs.

  As from 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Multiple Sclerosis
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the number of patients with multiple sclerosis in each health board area who would benefit from the provision of beta-interferon in Scotland. [80010]

  Mr. Galbraith
  It is not possible to estimate the number of patients with multiple sclerosis in each Health Board who would benefit from the provision of Beta-Interferon.

  By no means all patients with the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis benefit from the use of this drug and decisions as to individual patients' eligibility for this treatment depend on the clinical judgment of the medical practitioners concerned.

  From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what discussions he has had with health boards regarding the prescription of beta-interferon; what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the effectiveness of beta-interferon in the treatment of patients with multiple sclerosis in Scotland; and if he will increase the resources available to health boards to fund the provision of beta-interferon to patients with multiple sclerosis; [80009]

  (2) how much funding has been allocated to support research into the causes and treatment of multiple sclerosis in each of the last three years. [80011]

  Mr. Galbraith
  In 1995, The Scottish Office Department of Health (SODoH) issued guidance to health boards covering the use of beta-interferon for the treatment of multiple sclerosis. The guidance states that the costs of prescribing beta-interferon for suitable patients are expected to be met from within health board allocations, taking account of local priorities.

  We have not funded research into the causes or treatment of multiple sclerosis in the past 3 years, and we have never funded research on the effectiveness of beta-interferon as a treatment. This is because no quality proposals on these subjects have been received. The Chief Scientist Office (CSO) within the SODoH is responsible for encouraging and supporting research aimed at improving the health of the people of Scotland and the services provided by the NHS in Scotland. CSO would be

  201
  happy to receive innovative, quality proposals on these subjects, which would be assessed in the usual way by an external, independent, peer review body.

  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many patients suffering from multiple sclerosis were prescribed beta-interferon by each health board in(a) 1995, (b) 1996, (c) 1997 and (d) 1998. [80008]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The information for Scotland for the years 1995, 1996, 1997 and 1998 is shown in the table.

  In order not to disclose information that may relate to an individual patient the data are presented on a national basis and covers 14 of the 15 Health Boards. One Health Board was unable to provide the information in the desired format.

  Year

  Number of patients

  1995

  1

  1996

  4

  1997

  15

  1998

  97

  From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish parliament.

  Coronary Heart Disease
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what measures he is taking to reduce the incidence of coronary heart disease in Scotland. [80006]

  Mr. Galbraith
  Coronary Heart Disease (CHD) continues to be one of the clinical priorities of the NHS in Scotland, as is show by the establishment last autumn of the CHD Task Force, which is looking into all aspects of the disease. I announced on 5 February a £7m CHD initiative to tackle all aspects of the disease, from primary prevention to cardiac rehabilitation.

  The White Paper 'Towards a Healthier Scotland', published on 17 February, focused on a number of major health topics, including CHD, and announced our new target of reducing the age standardised mortality rate from the disease in people under 75 by 50 per cent. between 1995 and 2010, from 143 to 72 deaths per 100,000 population.

  One of the main vehicles for achieving this target is the demonstration project "The Heart of Scotland", outlined in the White Paper. The project will concentrate on primary prevention, and seek to disseminate best practice throughout Scotland, with the objective of driving down the rate of CHD.

  Other important White Paper initiatives, relevant to reducing the incidence of CHD, include action to implement the measures in the White Paper 'Tobacco Kills'; accelerate the ongoing work to improve diet; reduce alcohol misuse; and encourage greater physical activity.

  In addition, the Health Education Board for Scotland will step up its national media campaign which addresses the lifestyle factors which contribute to coronary heart disease.

  From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish parliament.
  202

  Police Training
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what research has been(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated by the Scottish Office in respect of racial and cultural awareness training for police officers since May 1997. [80649]

  Mr. McLeish
  There has been no such research commissioned but the present arrangements for training police officers in Scotland in racial awareness and cultural diversity will be addressed in responding to the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry Report.

  From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Specialist Breast Cancer Unit
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the specialist breast cancer units in Scotland. [80005]

  Mr. Galbraith
  Detailed information is not held centrally. The information available suggests that breast clinics are held in most of the main teaching hospitals in Glasgow, Edinburgh, Dundee, Aberdeen and Inverness as well as in the majority of district general hospitals throughout Scotland.
  From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Drug Treatment and Testing Orders
  Sir Robert Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many offenders have been given drug treatment and testing orders in each month since implementation of the orders; how many drug treatment centres are available in each local authority area; and if he will make a statement. [79870]

  Mr. McLeish
  The implementation of a 2-year pilot scheme in Glasgow for the introduction of Drug Treatment and Testing Orders is due to commence within 3 months. No orders have been made to date. The question of the most suitable arrangements for treatment provision is one of the issues currently being addressed by the implementation team. Options under consideration range from a centralised approach to one involving a group of agencies with relevant expertise in this field.

  From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Sir Robert Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the estimated cost is of a drug treatment and testing order per offender; what the average cost is of a custodial sentence in such cases; and if he will make a statement. [79933]

  Mr. McLeish
  The estimated cost of a drug treatment and testing order is anticipated to be approximately £6,000 per offender. The annual cost of retaining a prisoner in custody during 1997–98 was £26,170.

  From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.
  203

  Police Officers
  Sir Robert Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many police officers there were(a) in each force and (b) in total on the last date for which figures are available. [80105]

  Mr. McLeish
  The information is shown in the table.

  31 December 1998

  Central

  719

  Dumfries and Gallowal

  446

  Fife

  841

  Grampian

  1,226

  Lothian and Borders

  2,621

  Northern

  667

  Strathclyde

  7,186

  Tayside

  1,148

  Total

  14,854

  From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Prisons (Drug-free Units)
  Sir Robert Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list those Prison Service establishments which have drug-free wings or units; and if he will make a statement.[80110]

  Mr. McLeish
  All Scottish Prison Service sites have drug-free areas, including the newly opened privately run prison, HMP Kilmarnock. At Shotts, the main establishment has both drug-free living accommodation and enhanced drug-free workplaces. The subsidiary establishments, HM Unit Shotts and the National Induction Centre, do not have drug-free accommodation because of the nature of these establishments and their particular regimes. Both offer prisoners facilities and support to become drug-free.

  After 1 July, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Police Duties (Private Companies)
  Sir Robert Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to allow private companies to undertake functions currently undertaken by police officers. [80042]

  Mr. McLeish
  We currently have no such plans but the Government have a commitment to reduce any unnecessary burdens on the police and we would be happy to consider any initiatives put to us by Chief Constables.
  From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  CCTV Projects
  Sir Robert Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much public money was spent on CCTV projects in each of the last three years; what is the expected expenditure on CCTV projects over the next two years; and if he will make a statement. [80039]
  204
  Mr. McLeish
  The following expenditure has been incurred by The Scottish Office in respect of CCTV projects in Scotland under the CCTV Challenge Competition in each of the last three years.

  Year

  Amount £000

  1996–97

  1,829

  1997–98

  1,920

  1998–99

  1,496

  A further £1.5 million has been awarded to CCTV projects for 1999–2000. Funding of £1.5 million will also be available for 2000–01 but the Competition will be expanded to include projects other than CCTV which aim to tackle wider issues of community safety.

  From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Hamilton Child Safety Initiative
  Sir Robert Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his Department's research into the Hamilton Child Safety Initiative. [79931]

  Mr. McLeish
  In October 1997, Strathclyde Police, in partnership with South Lanarkshire Council, set up the Hamilton Child Safety Initiative (HCSI) within 3 peripheral housing estates in the town of Hamilton. The HCSI was a response to community concerns about the safety of young children, especially those under 12, out alone on the streets after dark. Secondary aims of the Initiative were to reduce opportunities for juvenile crime and disorder and to reduce the fear of crime in the communities concerned.

  Research was commissioned by Strathclyde Police and The Scottish Office to evaluate the impact of the HCSI. A Researching Findings paper was published on 15 October 1998 followed by the full research report on 11 February 1999. Both publications have been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Fine Defaulters
  Sir Robert Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) men and (b) women received prison sentences for fine default in each of the last five years; what was the average length of sentence; what was the average amount of fine which was outstanding; what was the average cost of imprisonment and other cost to the public; and if he will make a statement. [79930]

  Mr. McLeish
  The information which is available on the number of(a) men and (b) women receiving prison sentences for fine default by length of sentence and amount of fine outstanding is provided in the tables. (Data are not meanwhile available for 1998).
  205

  Fine default receptions to penal establishments by sex and length of sentence, 1993–97

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Length of sentence

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Total

  8,878

  738

  8,174

  701

  6,808

  701

  8,332

  667

  9,983

  737

  Less than 7 days

  1,151

  102

  1,400

  152

  1,003

  150

  1,113

  83

  1,197

  88

  7 days

  3,515

  353

  3,466

  368

  2,805

  341

  3,638

  348

  4,511

  383

  8–13 days

  797

  48

  864

  47

  807

  61

  976

  67

  1,197

  58

  14 days

  1,516

  126

  1,567

  98

  1,481

  115

  1,872

  131

  2,238

  161

  15–29 days

  995

  45

  593

  26

  550

  25

  596

  32

  676

  38

  30 days/1 month

  592

  54

  90

  2

  25

  2

  12

  —

  14

  2

  31–59 days

  198

  6

  150

  5

  106

  5

  97

  6

  125

  7

  60 days/2 months

  64

  4

  11

  1

  2

  —

  6

  —

  4

  —

  Over 60 days

  50

  —

  33

  2

  29

  2

  22

  —

  21

  —

  Fine default receptions to penal establishments by sex and fine outstanding, 1993–97

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Fine outstanding

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Total

  8,878

  738

  8,174

  701

  6,808

  701

  8,332

  667

  9,983

  737

  Less than £50

  633

  63

  476

  70

  366

  43

  391

  22

  383

  35

  £50-less than £100

  1,835

  171

  1,627

  190

  1,209

  193

  1,336

  129

  1,636

  118

  £100-less than £200

  3,017

  292

  2,682

  249

  2,057

  253

  2,564

  268

  3,145

  286

  £200-less than £500

  2,778

  201

  2,748

  182

  2,546

  196

  3,267

  216

  3,919

  260

  £500-less than £1,000

  512

  10

  519

  6

  535

  12

  643

  30

  772

  36

  £31,000-less than £2,500

  94

  1

  102

  3

  81

  4

  107

  2

  116

  2

  £2,500-less than £5,000

  6

  —

  15

  1

  12

  —

  10

  —

  9

  —

  £5,000 or more

  3

  —

  5

  —

  2

  —

  14

  —

  3

  —

  Average cost per prisoner place1

  £

  1993–94

  26,006

  1994–95

  26,479

  1995–96

  25,786

  1996–97

  26,744

  1997–98

  26,170

  1Calculated on a financial year (to end March) basis.

  Police Funding
  Sir Robert Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the real terms change in funding for the police, excluding expenditure on police pensions, in each of the last three years; and what is the expected real terms change in spending over the years of the comprehensive spending review(a) excluding pensions and (b) in total. [80040]

  Mr. McLeish
  The Secretary of State pays police specific grant at 51 per cent. of net eligible expenditure by police authorities. Overall expenditure is determined by the level of Grant Aided Expenditure set by the Secretary of State and subsequently by the budgets set by police authorities.
  The figures for police grant are shown in the following table. The figure for 1997–98 includes £3.5 million for policing the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting.

  Year

  Cash £000

  Year-on-year percentage change

  Real terms £000

  Year-on-year percentage change

  1996–97

  1259,165

  —

  280,049

  —

  1997–98

  1287,633

  10.98

  302,932

  8.17

  1998–99

  2337,500

  —

  345,938

  —

  206

  Year

  Cash £000

  Year-on-year percentage change

  Real terms£000

  Year-on-year percentage change

  1999–2000

  2351,900

  4.27

  351,900

  1.72

  2000–01

  2365,600

  3.89

  356,683

  1.36

  2001–02

  2376,700

  3.04

  358,548

  0.52

  1Excludes expenditure on police pensions.

  2Includes pensions expenditure which cannot be identified separately at this time.

  Note:

  The cash figures have been recalculated to show equivalent real term figures at 1999–2000 prices.

  From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Prison Population
  Sir Robert Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the prison population was(a) in each Prison Service establishment and (b) in total on the last date for which figures are available; and if he will list those establishments which were officially overcrowded. [79864]

  Mr. McLeish
  The information is correct as at Friday 2 April which is the last time statistics were formally gathered.

  Population

  Percentage of design capacity

  Barlinnie

  1,233

  130.75

  Comton Vale

  215

  99.08

  Dumfries

  119

  79.33

  Dungavel

  92

  68.15

  Greenock

  254

  109.01

  Kilmarnock

  69

  13.80

  Longriggend

  172

  97.73

  207

  Population

  Percentage of design capacity

  Low Moss

  363

  91.67

  NIC

  52

  96.30

  Penninghame

  90

  91.84

  Shotts

  452

  97.84

  Shotts Units

  9

  75.00

  Aberdeen

  181

  111.04

  Castle Huntly

  121

  80.67

  Edinburgh

  748

  117.43

  Friaron

  68

  75.56

  Glenochhi

  l421

  84.88

  Glenochil YOI

  154

  88.51

  Inverness

  115

  107.48

  Noranside

  93

  68.89

  Perth4

  68

  107.34

  Peterhead

  297

  100.68

  peterhead Unit

  7

  70.00

  Polmont

  471

  111.61

  All Scotland Total

  6,264

  Police (Efficiency Targets)
  Sir Robert Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action his Department will take if police forces do not achieve targets for efficiency gains; and if he will make a statement. [80043]

  Mr. McLeish
  Efficiency savings will be monitored by HM Inspectorate of Constabulary as part of their statutory inspection of each police force. Chief constables will be expected to respond in their annual reports to any comments or recommendations about efficiency savings made by HM Inspectorate in their reports to the Secretary of State on force inspections.

  From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Prisoners
  Sir Robert Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the average number of hours per day that prisoners were locked in their cells in each of the last three years(a) per prison establishment, and (b) in the Prison Service as a whole; and if he will make a statement. [80038]

  Mr. McLeish
  Figures covering the information required are not routinely collated or held. It is, however, the Government's policy to maximise the opportunities for prisoners to engage in purposeful activities, including work, outside their cells, and, to that end, they have in recent years set the Scottish Prison Service targets for prisoner programme participation.

  After 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Crime (Zero Tolerance)
  Sir Robert Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the policy of zero tolerance for particular crimes; what proposals he intends to implement which are based on zero tolerance approaches; and if he will make a statement. [79869]
  208
  Mr. McLeish
  No assessment has been made by The Scottish Office of the policy of zero tolerance in relation to certain crimes. However, the Government are satisfied that the strong measures they have introduced on handguns, sex offenders, racial harassment and anti-social behaviour will be successful. The Government's paramount concern is public safety and the way in which crime in Scotland is being tackled is set out in "A Safer Scotland: Tackling Crime and its Causes" which was published on 9 February. Copies of the publication were placed in the House of Commons Library.

  From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Highlands and Islands Transitional Funding
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if the allocation of cover for the recently announced transitional funding for the Highlands and Islands will be made through the Scottish Block. [80091]

  Mr. Macdonald
  As happens at present for the existing programmes, the allocation of public expenditure cover for the special European Structural funds programme for the Highlands and Islands will be one of the elements of the former Scottish Block which will make up the Assigned Budget of the Scottish Administration.

  From 1 July 1999, the administration of European Structural Funds will be the responsibility of the Scottish Administration.

  EU Structural Funds
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of the structural funds in each year since 1974 were(a) allocated for cover to the Scottish Office DEL and its previous equivalents through the Scottish Block arrangement; and (b) applied using specially negotiated agreements; and for those years where specially negotiated agreements were reached if he will list (i) that amount allocated for cover to the DEL and its previous equivalents under these agreements and (ii) the proportion this represented of the total structural fund cover. [80090]

  Mr. Macdonald
  Public expenditure provision for all European Regional Development Fund or Social Fund expenditure for which the Scottish Office was responsible in the period since 1974 has been within the Scottish Office DEL and its previous equivalents. There have been no "specially negotiated agreements" covering the application for European Regional Development Fund or European Social Fund receipts.

  From 1 July 1999, the administration of European Structural Funds will be the responsibility of the Scottish Administration.

  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list (i) the total European structural fund allocation to Scotland in each year since 1974 in cash and real terms and (ii) the share of the overall UK structural fund allocation that this amount represented in each year. [80089]

  Mr. Macdonald
  The information is set out in the table.
  209
  For the period 1975 to 1988, the European Commission approved individual European Regional Development Fund projects and it is the value of the award of these projects which is recorded. The figures for the years 1989 to 1999 reflect the programme allocation from the Commission.

  Million euro

  European structural funds allocation to Scotland

  Share of UK structural funds allocation

  Year

  Cash

  Real terms

  Percentage

  1975

  17.900

  82.321

  28

  1976

  24.150

  97.716

  25.4

  1977

  22.950

  81.740

  25

  1978

  37.750

  121.039

  24.8

  1979

  58.900

  161.714

  22.5

  1980

  46.760

  108.571

  16.9

  1981

  127,400

  270.144

  36.6

  1982

  129.600

  257.004

  28

  1983

  143.640

  272.231

  31.2

  1984

  174.070

  313.427

  27

  1985

  117.300

  200.625

  19.2

  1986

  126.000

  208.993

  22.5

  1987

  131.130

  206.492

  20.6

  1988

  143.450

  211.558

  24

  1989

  101.320

  139.446

  23.7

  1990

  130.945

  167.128

  12.3

  1991

  207.038

  248.230

  14.5

  1992

  141.505

  164.547

  8.2

  1993

  156.337

  177.196

  9.9

  1994

  140.023

  156.148

  7.2

  1995

  223.566

  241.333

  10.4

  1996

  256.897

  269.352

  11.2

  1997

  315.269

  333.872

  13.4

  1998

  575.323

  583.221

  23.3

  1999

  402.907

  408.713

  15.2

  Notes:

  1. For the period 1975 to 1989, the figures are exclusively ERDF.

  2. The years 1990 to 1999 include ERDF and ESF, as well as EAGGF and FIFG which are in the Objective 1 and 5b Programmes.

  3. From 1990 to 1993, ESF was the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (formerly the Secretary of State for Employment). Before 1990, ESF was administered by the European Commission and Scottish figures are not available.

  4. The figures have been converted to current prices using HM Treasury deflator tables dated 22 December 1998.

  Table 1: Current expenditure by education authorities on school books and equipment

  £000 at outturn prices

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Region

  Books and equipment

  (of which books)

  Books and equipment

  (of which books)

  Books and equipment

  (of which books)

  Books and equipment

  (of which books)

  Borders

  1,351

  216

  1,373

  213

  1,582

  0

  1,470

  0

  Central

  2,931

  100

  2,897

  125

  2,793

  60

  2,733

  62

  Dumfries and Galloway

  2,198

  260

  2,577

  295

  2,533

  317

  2,284

  261

  Fife

  2,739

  540

  2,795

  2,136

  2,730

  2,094

  3,294

  2,412

  Grampian

  6,458

  0

  6,972

  0

  7,158

  0

  7,630

  0

  Highland

  3,141

  3,141

  2,786

  2,786

  2,885

  1,491

  2,633

  1,481

  Lothian

  5,371

  1,350

  5,671

  1,352

  6,676

  1,585

  7,594

  1,691

  Strathclyde

  21,449

  5,548

  20,059

  1,118

  21,932

  1,191

  26,133

  1,117

  Tayside

  3,581

  608

  4,545

  670

  4,026

  676

  3,569

  656

  Orkney

  166

  50

  152

  0

  284

  0

  290

  0

  Shetland

  471

  135

  678

  119

  534

  0

  511

  0

  Western Isles

  549

  91

  525

  99

  633

  242

  595

  192

  Scotland

  50,405

  12,039

  51,030

  8,913

  53,766

  7,656

  58,736

  7,872

  Notes:

  1. The books and equipment figures include expenditure on text and library books and educational tools equipment and materials in local authority nursery, primary, secondary and special schools.

  2. Where expenditure on books is shown as £0 it should be assumed that the expenditure is included as equipment.

  210
  From 1 July 1999, the administration of European Structural Funds will be the responsibility of the Scottish Administration.

  Schools (Books)
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what is the total estimated capital expenditure on school textbooks in Scotland in each of the next three years; and if he will list the amount estimated to be spent by each Scottish local authority for each year;[79816]

  (2) if he will list the total capital expenditure on the school library book stock in Scotland for each year since 1992; and if he will list the amount spent in each local authority area for each year; [79817]

  (3) if he will list the total estimated capital expenditure on school library book stock in Scotland in each of the next three years; and if he will list the amount estimated to be spent by each Scottish local authority for each year; [79818]

  (4) if he will list the total capital expenditure on school textbooks in Scotland for each year since 1992; and if he will list the amount spent in each Scottish local authority area for each year. [79832]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Purchases of school text and library books would normally be made by local authorities from current expenditure resources. The available information on current expenditure by local authorities on school text and library books is given in tables 1 and 2, which are derived from local authority financial returns. The returns do not distinguish between expenditure on text books and on library books. The table also shows a combined figure for books and equipment because not all authorities' returns identify separately spending on books and it is possible that some expenditure on books may be included under equipment or vice versa. 1996–97 is the latest year for which information is currently available.

  The Government have made available to education authorities during the financial year 1998–99 additional resources of £7.8m for schools to purchase books and other written material for school libraries as shown in table 3.
  211

  Table 2: Current expenditure by education authorities on school books and equipment 1996–97

  £000 at outturn prices

  Councils

  Books and equipment

  (of which books)

  Aberdeen, City

  1,675

  0

  Aberdeenshire

  2,924

  0

  Angus

  1,134

  0

  Argyll and Bute

  1,481

  121

  Clackmannanshire

  453

  0

  Dumfries and Galloway

  2,112

  290

  Dundee

  1,199

  115

  East Ayrshire

  1,398

  0

  East Dunbartonshire

  1,348

  165

  East Lothian

  884

  0

  East Renfrewshire

  1,338

  1,338

  Edinburgh, City

  4,665

  858

  Eilean Siar

  604

  155

  Falkirk

  1,362

  49

  Fife

  3,199

  535

  Glasgow City

  4,501

  203

  Highland

  2,908

  16

  Inverclyde

  871

  114

  Midlothian

  570

  191

  Moray

  159

  14

  North Ayrshire

  1,311

  140

  North Lanarkshire

  4,033

  0

  Orkney

  241

  0

  Perth and Kinross

  849

  220

  Renfrewshire

  2,213

  278

  Scottish Borders

  945

  0

  Shetland

  471

  0

  South Ayrshire

  1,140

  89

  South Lanarkshire

  2,805

  305

  Stirling

  1,084

  25

  West Dunbartonshire

  901

  0

  West Lothian

  1,390

  437

  Scotland

  52,168

  5,658

  Notes:

  1. The books and equipment figures include expenditure on text and library books and educational tools equipment and materials in local authority nursery, primary, secondary and special schools.

  2. Where expenditure on books is shown as £0 it should be assumed that the expenditure is included as equipment.

  Table 3: Resources allocated centrally during 1998–99 for school library books

  Councils

  £ at outturn prices

  Aberdeen, City

  272,697

  Aberdeenshire

  405,151

  Angus

  177,643

  Argyll and Bute

  169,282

  Clackmannanshire

  75,465

  Dumfries and Galloway

  257,648

  Dundee

  205,505

  East Ayrshire

  191,932

  East Dunbartonshire

  191,696

  £000

  EID

  Views of Parents on information required from schools and education authorities

  9

  D of H

  Acute Services Review

  15

  DD

  Public knowledge and perceptions of local government (for the Commission on Local Government and the Scottish Parliament)

  5

  Development of Government Public Information Campaign relating to elections to the Scottish Parliament

  14

  Public views on the operation of the Scottish Parliament

  11

  Review of Practice in Housing Management

  5

  Survey of Travellers Views

  9

  Evaluation of Rough Sleepers Initiative

  6

  The Young Teenager and Road Safety

  9

  212

  Table 3: Resources allocated centrally during 1998–99 for school library books

  Councils

  £ at outturn prices

  East Lothian

  130,879

  East Renfrewshire

  152,457

  Edinburgh, City

  499,605

  Eilean Siar

  67,934

  Falkirk

  214,678

  Fife

  548,241

  Glasgow City

  791,418

  Highland

  401,837

  Inverclyde

  132,050

  Midlothian

  132,330

  Moray

  144,451

  North Ayrshire

  216,597

  North Lanarkshire

  523,962

  Orkney

  44,467

  Perth and Kinross

  201,053

  Renfrewshire

  268,523

  Scottish Borders

  169,846

  Shetland

  55,622

  South Ayrshire

  175,848

  South Lanarkshire

  476,873

  Stirling

  135,812

  West Dunbartonshire

  156,098

  West Lothian

  252,597

  Scotland

  7,840,197

  From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Opinion Polls
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the issues on which the Government have hired opinion poll organisations to test Scottish public opinion since they came into office; and how much they have spent testing public opinion on each issue. [80052]

  Mr. McLeish
  The Scottish Office has not undertaken any opinion polls in the period concerned. Information for other government departments and bodies in Scotland could be collected only at disproportionate cost.

  Focus Groups
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the issues on which the Government have consulted Focus Groups in Scotland since they came into office; and how much they have spent consulting on each issue. [80053]

  Mr. McLeish
  The Scottish Office has undertaken Focus Groups in the following research studies. The estimated cost of the Focus Groups is given in the table. Information for other government departments and bodies in Scotland could be collected only at disproportionate cost.
  213

  £000

  AEFD

  Migration in Rural Scotland

  3

  Rural Water Review (Private supplies)

  5

  HD

  Teenwise Alcohol Projects

  4

  Hamilton Child Safety Initiative

  5

  Violence and Harassment of Gay Men

  2

  Joint Statement on Crown Witnesses

  11

  Impact and effectiveness of Reporter decision making

  39

  Evaluation of the Keep Warm This Winter Campaign

  7

  Victims reactions to Victim Information Leaflets

  4

  Evaluation of Dundee Family Project

  5

  Views from people with learning disabilities and their carers about services

  10

  Quality of care and quality of life for people in residential homes

  5

  New School Building Projects
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will list the new(a) primary and (b) secondary schools completed in Scotland since 1 May 1997, indicating the cost of each individual school; [79833]

  (2) if he will list the new (a) primary and (b) secondary schools in Scotland on which construction has started since 1 May 1997, indicating the expected cost of each school;[79834]

  (3) if he will list the new (a) primary and (b) secondary schools in Scotland on which the Government expect construction to start during the next three years, indicating their expected starting dates and the expected cost of each school. [79835]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Detailed information about progress and costs of new school building projects is not held centrally.

  From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Schools (Capital Expenditure)
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will list capital expenditure in(a) cash terms and (b) real terms on building new (i) primary and (ii) secondary schools in Scotland for each year since 1992; [79828]

  (2) if he will list in (a) cash terms and (b) real terms the total capital expenditure on school building maintenance in Scotland for each financial year since 1992; and if he will list the amount spent in each Scottish local authority area in each year. [79830]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The available information is given in the following tables which have been derived from annual returns made by local authorities. Expenditure on capital maintenance and on new buildings is not recorded separately.

  Capital expenditure on nursery, primary and secondary schools

  £000 at outturn prices

  Regional/Islands Councils

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Borders

  2,718

  1,738

  3,051

  1,716

  Central

  5,877

  5,714

  7,034

  11,917

  Dumfries and Galloway

  3,787

  5,066

  6,756

  4,743

  Fife

  5,104

  7,752

  5,862

  8,411

  Grampian

  6,736

  9,581

  10,855

  19,875

  Highland

  5,119

  4,487

  3,825

  3,761

  Lothian

  18,011

  18,950

  18,310`

  14,849

  Strathclyde

  29,226

  34,435

  49,956

  44,473

  Tayside

  5,458

  5,775

  6,185

  6,523

  214

  Capital expenditure on nursery, primary and secondary schools

  £000 at outturn prices

  Regional/Islands Councils

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Orkney

  1,154

  2,092

  2,110

  1,919

  Shetland

  4,001

  3,657

  2,611

  1,740

  Western Isles

  2,499

  1,846

  1,363

  1,627

  Scotland

  89,690

  101,093

  117,918

  121,554

  Capital expenditure on nursery, primary and secondary schools

  £000 at 1997–98 prices

  Regional/Islands Councils

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Borders

  3,077

  1,917

  3,318

  1,813

  Central

  6,654

  6,302

  7,648

  12,591

  Dumfries and Galloway

  4,288

  5,587

  7,346

  5,011

  Fife

  5,779

  8,550

  6,374

  8,887

  Grampian

  7,626

  10,567

  11,803

  21,000

  Highland

  5,796

  4,949

  4,159

  3,974

  Lothian

  20,392

  20,900

  19,910

  15,689

  Strathclyde

  33,089

  37,978

  54,320

  46,989

  Tayside

  6,179

  6,369

  6,725

  6,892

  Orkney

  1,307

  2,307

  2,294

  2,028

  Shetland

  4,530

  4,033

  2,839

  1,838

  Western Isles

  2,829

  2,036

  1,482

  1,719

  Scotland

  101,544

  111,494

  128,219

  128,432

  Notes:

  1. The figures have been compiled from Capital Payments Returns (CPR5) submitted by local authorities and include gross capital payments both funded and not funded from revenue

  2. In addition to expenditure on work on buildings, the figures include expenditure on items such as the acquisition of land, vehicles and plant
  From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  School Building Maintenance
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will estimate the total amount it would cost in current cash terms, of effecting all school building maintenance outstanding on 1 May 1997 in Scotland, indicating the amount for each Scottish local authority area; [79829]

  (2) if he will list the total estimated expenditure on school building maintenance in Scotland in each of the next three years, indicating the amount estimated to be spent by each Scottish local authority in each year. [79831]
  215
  Mrs. Liddell
  The overall management of their school building stock is a matter for individual authorities. Detailed information of the kind requested is not held centrally.

  Capital expenditure on nursery, primary and secondary schools

  Councils

  1996–97 (at outturn prices)

  1996–97 (at 1996–97 prices)

  1997–98 (at outturn prices)

  Aberdeen, City

  4,385

  4,495

  4,375

  Aberdeenshire

  5,778

  5,922

  3,721

  Angus

  426

  437

  2,067

  Argyll and Bute

  2,190

  2,245

  3,138

  Clackmannanshire

  252

  258

  1,119

  Dumfries and Galloway

  5,990

  6,140

  6,459

  Dundee

  3,111

  3,189

  2,382

  East Ayrshire

  2,595

  2,660

  2,654

  East Dunbartonshire

  2,459

  2,520

  2,632

  East Lothian

  6,488

  6,650

  6,013

  East Renfrewshire

  677

  694

  2,737

  Edinburgh, City

  13,718

  14,061

  14,444

  Eilean Siar

  1,905

  1,953

  1,355

  Falkirk

  3,725

  3,818

  2,172

  Fife

  7,007

  7,182

  6,199

  Glasgow City

  12,045

  12,346

  8,576

  Highland

  5,159

  5,288

  6,085

  Inverclyde

  1,787

  1,832

  1,994

  Midlothian

  581

  596

  516

  Moray

  2,734

  2,802

  1,470

  North Ayrshire

  5,217

  5,347

  4,424

  North Lanarkshire

  3,313

  3,396

  5,314

  Orkney

  1,502

  1,540

  1,712

  Perth and Kinross

  493

  505

  1,444

  Renfrewshire

  1,912

  1,960

  2,396

  Scottish Borders

  1,007

  1,032

  1,137

  Shetland

  1,773

  1,817

  2,644

  South Ayrshire

  3,483

  3,570

  2,861

  South Lanarkshire

  7,610

  7,800

  5,847

  Stirling

  2,136

  2,189

  1,812

  West Dunbartonshire

  1,537

  1,575

  2,522

  West Lothian

  6,851

  7,022

  8,578

  Scotland

  119,846

  122,841

  120,799

  Notes:

  1. The figures have been compiled from Capital Payment Returns (CPR 5) submitted by local authorities and include gross capital payments both funded and not funded from revenue.

  2. In addition to expenditure on work on buildings, the figures include expenditure on items such as the acquisition of land, vehicles and plant.

  From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Quarantine
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 10 March 1999,Official Report, columns 302–03, to the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer), when he expects to make an announcement on reform of the quarantine laws. [79374]

  Mr. Rooker
  My right hon. Friend (the Minister) made such an announcement, in the House, on 26 March 1999,Official Report, columns 649-50.

  "Dead Fish Patrol"
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he authorised the appearance of 216
  officials on the BBC2 programme "Dead Fish Patrol" on 22 March; and if the views expressed reflect Government policy. [79308]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 29 March 1999]: We receive many requests from the media to observe and film the activities relating to fisheries enforcement. In the interests of openness, we agree to these requests where we can and did so in this case. The programme was a "fly-on-the-wall" documentary and showed fishermen and enforcement officers going about their business and speaking frankly. Government policy is to enforce the fisheries management rules effectively. This is in the interests of those fishermen who obey the rules. It helps to protect the value of the investment which all fishermen have in the industry and in securing the longer term sustainability of the industry. The remarks by fisheries inspectors recorded in the film demonstrated a high level of commitment to implementing the management rules which is a difficult task, often undertaken in demanding circumstances. Regrettably, the film also showed evidence of how necessary the task is. Fisheries Inspectors do an important job, vital to the running of the fishing industry, and deserve our full support.

  Vitamins and Minerals Advisory Group
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will post on his Department's web site the background and other papers which are considered by the ad hoc expert advisory group on vitamins and minerals. [79485]

  Mr. Rooker
  A web site is currently being developed for the Expert Group on Vitamins and Minerals. In the meantime, copies of papers released by the Group are available on demand subject, where appropriate, to a small charge to cover the cost of copying and postage.

  Genetically Modified Crops
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the National Pollen Research Unit's advice on the minimum advisable separation distance between genetically engineered maize crops and conventional crops. [79500]

  Mr. Rooker
  The National Pollen Research Unit's recent report provided a review of information regarding the dispersal of pollen and the distance it could travel. The Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE) have been asked to consider this report and, when available, their advice will be published and placed in the Libraries of the House.

  The risk of cross-pollination, which can be affected by other factors such as pollen viability as well as separation distance, is considered by ACRE when examining each application for release of genetically modified (GM) crops. Appropriate conditions (e.g. separation distances) may be included in a consent, but a consent would not be granted if ACRE considered the risks associated with cross-pollination to be unacceptable. In addition, Government are funding research on the dispersal and viability of pollen of different crop species.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the (1) sites in the United Kingdom where genetically modified crops have been grown in breach of the licence conditions and (2) name
  217
  of (a) the promoter and (b) owner of the (i) trial and (ii) materials in the trial and (c) any other (A) body and (B) person responsible for conducting such trials. [72553]

  Mr. Rooker
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment on 29 March 1999,Official Report, column 457.

  Pig Meat Imports
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what legal advice he has received on whether it would be possible to prevent the importation and sale of pig meat produced in ways that do not conform to United Kingdom animal welfare standards. [78933]

  Mr. Morley
  My legal advice is quite clear. Neither the Treaty of Rome nor the rules of the World Trade Organisation allow the UK to ban the import or sale of pigmeat that has not been produced to our own welfare standards.

  CAP Reform
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate the impact of recent CAP reform proposals on farming in Staffordshire. [78340]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 24 March 1999]: The package of measures provisionally agreed in Brussels recently represents a good deal for farmers across the UK.
  Mr. Keetch: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the impact of the recent CAP reform proposals on (a) farming in Herefordshire and (b) potato cultivation. [78496]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 26 March 1999]: The package of measures agreed at the European Council on 24–25 March represent real reform to the Common Agricultural Policy which UK farmers will benefit from.

  There is currently no CAP regime for potato production and the agreement therefore has no direct implications for potato cultivation.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for what reasons reform of the sugar and the sheepmeat regimes was not included by the Council or the Commission in the latest CAP reform package. [79778]

  Mr. Rooker
  It is regrettable that the Commission did not include proposals for reform of the sugar and sheepmeat regimes within the CAP reform package. The Commission put forward proposals for the main commodities in structural surplus on the EU market, i.e. cereals, beef and dairy, which it considered were most under threat from market developments; namely enlargement and the present and likely future commitments to the WTO.

  During the negotiations the UK pressed for the sugar and sheepmeat regimes to be included in the package, and it continues to press for early reform. In the case of sugar the Commission are required to present proposals before the end of 2000. We believe that the case for early reform of the sheepmeat regime will be strengthened as a result of budgetary pressures arising from the knock-on effects of reforms agreed for the arable and beef sectors.
  218

  Food Standards Agency
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the annual cost to individual businesses of the proposed Food Standards Agency, indicating the level at which the levy will be set. [79244]

  Mr. Rooker
  We have recently consulted on proposals for a levy of £90 per year on food retail and catering premises that are required to register with the local authority under the Food Premises (Registration) Regulations 1991. The money raised would fund the new costs of setting up and operating the Agency. The Agency's other costs will be met from existing food safety and standards budgets and related cost recovery schemes.
  Public consultation on the levy proposals ended on 24 March, and we are now considering carefully the responses we received.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the possible liability of Women's Institute markets for the levy included in his proposals for the Food Standards Agency; and if he will make a statement. [79613]

  Mr. Rooker
  Under the proposals, published for public consultation on 27 January, the levy in connection with the Food Standards Agency would apply to food retail and catering premises registered under the Food Premises (Registration) Regulations 1991. Women's Institute markets, like other retail outlets, are required to register if held on five or more days in any five week period. Individual producers preparing food for sale from stalls run by WI Country Markets Ltd. are not themselves required to register, and are therefore outside the scope of the levy proposals.

  Consultation on the levy proposals closed on 24 March. We are considering the comments we received before deciding how to proceed.

  Slaughterhouses
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many slaughterhouses and cutting plants were operating in the United Kingdom in the categories(a) full throughput red slaughterhouses, (b) low throughput red slaughterhouses, (c) full throughput white slaughterhouses, (d) low throughput white slaughterhouses, (e) full throughput cutting plants and (f) low throughput cutting plants in (i) December 1995, (ii) December 1996, (iii) December 1997 and (iv) December 1998; and what was the average throughput for each category in each year. [79081]

  Mr. Rooker
  The tables give the figures of licensed EC approved and low throughput slaughterhouses and cutting premises (red meat and poultry meat) operating in the United Kingdom as at 31 December 1995, 1996, 1997 and 1998, respectively. Details of licensed UK meat premises are published in the Meat Hygiene Enforcement Report, which is placed in the Library of the House each month. We are seeking to provide average throughput figures for each category and I hope to place them in the Library of the House immediately after Easter.
  219

  EC approved

  Low throughput

  Slaughterhouses—fresh meat

  1995

  295

  208

  1996

  272

  212

  1997

  267

  200

  1998

  263

  189

  Slaughterhouses—poultrymeat, fanned game bird meat and rabbit meat

  1995

  112

  67

  1996

  113

  71

  1997

  105

  65

  1998

  104

  67

  Cutting premises—fresh meat

  1995

  328

  146

  1996

  308

  150

  1997

  293

  145

  1998

  283

  146

  Cutting premises—poultry meat, farmed game bird meat and rabbit meat

  1995

  54

  24

  1996

  58

  30

  1997

  64

  35

  1998

  73

  46

  Guide Dogs (Quarantine)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress he has made in enabling blind ex-servicemen to be accompanied on visits to France by their guide dogs without those dogs having to be held in quarantine on their return to the UK. [79042]

  Mr. Rooker
  Guide dogs, like all domestic dogs are currently subject to six months quarantine. On 26 March 1999,Official Report, columns 649–50, my right hon. Friend the Minister announced to the House that, in the light of the Kennedy Group's analysis, it is desirable to move as quickly as possible to a system under which dogs and cats coming from European Union and certain other European countries and rabies-free islands could enter the UK without quarantine. Our objective is to bring the new arrangements into operation throughout the United Kingdom by April 2001. We also plan to launch a pilot scheme—or pilot schemes—within the next twelve months. As soon as the specific arrangements for these schemes have been established, these will be reported to the House.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make an immediate derogation from the quarantine regulations to enable Mr. T. J. Ireland, Ty Croes, Garwdol Benmaen, Gwynedd to attend the commemoration of the Normandy Landings with his guide dog, without the dog having to be held in quarantine on his return. [79043]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  I have a great deal of sympathy for Mr. Ireland. If his dog met the requirements of the new arrangements I announced on 26 March, it could be exempted from quarantine when those new arrangements are in effect. However, I cannot agree to an exemption now for the reasons set out in my letter to the right hon. Member of 1 April.
  220

  Dairy Industry
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many meetings he has had in the last three months with(a) the President of the Dairy Industry Federation and (b) the Chairman of Milk Marque; and what plans he has to meet further with either. [79161]

  Mr. Rooker
  None.

  Bovine Somatotropin
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what controls exist in respect of the sale of dairy products of US origin where bovine somatotropin may have been used in their production. [78983]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 30 March 1999]: All cows' milk contains small quantities of naturally occurring bovine somatotropin (BST). the manufactured form of BST (rBST) is not permitted for use in the EU. rBST is almost indistinguishable from naturally occurring BST and it is not practicable to establish through testing whether BST is present because of administration of rBST to the animal. Although rBST is permitted in the USA, the country of origin is normally given on most food labels or a manufacturer's address is given.

  Ragwort
  Mr. Cunliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he proposes to take to encourage local authorities to combat the ragwort weed. [78814]

  Mr. Morley
  Ragwort is an injurious weed under the provisions of the Weeds Act 1959. That Act permits the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, rather than local authorities, to serve notice on any occupier of land to control injurious weeds from spreading. Where resources permit, local authorities can themselves play a positive part in eradication, for example, by active weed control alongside rural roads and on any other land which they own.

  Beam Trawlers
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to announce the next decommissioning scheme for beam trawlers; and by how many boats he intends to reduce the fleet. [80431]

  Mr. Morley
  I have no plans to introduce a decommissioning scheme for beam trawlers. UK targets for this fleet segment under the EU' s Multi-Annual Guidance Programme (MAGP IV) are currently being addressed by the arrangements for managing fishing effort which I announced on 24 February 1998,Official Report, columns 187–88.

  Food Advisory Committee
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the declared outside interests of the members of the Food Advisory Committee. [80630]

  Mr. Rooker
  The declared interests of the members of the Food Advisory Committee are published in the Committee's Annual Report, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.
  221
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list those members or advisers to the Food Advisory Committee who are involved currently with the European Commission Scientific Committee on foods in its work with vitamin and mineral supplement.[80221]

  Mr. Rooker
  None of the members of the Food Advisory Committee is involved with this work.

  Genetically Modified Food Substances
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 29 March 1999,Official Report, column 507, on genetically modified food substances, what steps are being recommended by his Department to establishments selling prepared food, who are required to disclose items containing genetically modified ingredients. [80050]

  Mr. Rooker
  Those establishments selling prepared foods will need to ask their suppliers about which of the ingredients they are using contain genetically modified material.

  Fisheries Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the Fisheries Council held in Brussels on 30 March; and if he will make a statement. [79883]

  Mr. Morley
  I, together with my noble Friend Lord Sewel, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, represented the UK. The Council adopted the Autonomous Tariff Quotas covering imports at reduced tariffs of fisheries products required by the processing industry in 1999. Ireland and Italy voted against. It had a first debate on Commission proposals implementing in the fisheries sector the reform of the EU structural funds. This revealed a wide range of views. The Commission presented its proposals on reform of the marketing regime and on the listing of serious infringements. The Presidency is aiming to reach agreement on these three regulations at the Fisheries Council on 10 June.

  I raised the need for the Commission to make early progress, taking account of forthcoming scientific advice, on measures to conserve sandeel stocks for seabirds which are dependent on them, particularly during the breeding season. I also pressed the Commission to bring forward its promised proposals on the allocation of the new Total Allowable Catches for spurdog and for Northern Shrimp and the existing Total Allowable Catch for blue whiting.

  Fishing Vessels
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the cost to each fisherman of installing satellite surveillance equipment on over 24 metre vessels; and what plans he has to provide grants towards their costs. [80432]

  Mr. Morley
  The cost of installing new satellite monitoring equipment is likely to range from £3,000 to £8,000 depending on functionality and compliance with Global Maritime Distress and Safety System (GMDSS) requirements. Some vessels may already carry equipment that can be adapted at a lower cost. Following the outcome of the Comprehensive Spending Review,222
  the Government announced on 3 August last year that vessels subject to satellite monitoring would not receive Government assistance for their equipment.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the costs to(a) his Department of inspecting and (b) fishermen of filling in a logsheet and landing declaration. [80430]

  Mr. Morley
  Information on the costs of inspecting logsheets is not readily available since such inspections form part of the wider enforcement duties undertaken by the Ministry's Sea Fisheries Inspectorate and the Royal Navy's Fishery Protection Squadron.

  EU logsheets on fishing activity have to be brought up to date at least once every 24 hours and this should not entail any additional cost whilst the vessel is at sea. The average cost of submitting a logsheet at the end of a fishing trip is estimated at £2.80 and that for completing and submitting a landing declaration at £4.20 per trip.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the cost of an inspection by his Department of a fishing vessel(a) in port and (b) at sea.[80429]

  Mr. Morley
  The Ministry's Sea Fisheries Inspectorate undertake a wide range of enforcement and other duties, including inspections of fishing vessels in port. In 1998, the direct cost of running the SFI was some £3 million and in that period it undertook some 4,271 inspections of fishing vessels in port.

  Inspections at sea are undertaken by the Royal Navy's Fishery Protection Squadron on behalf of the Ministry. In 1998, the Squadron provided 1,081 patrol days at a cost of some £6 million and during that period undertook 1,828 inspections.

  Lobbyists
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish a list, including names and dates, of all meetings that(a) he, (b) his officials, (c) his advisers and (d) his PPS have held during (i) 1997, (ii) 1998 and (iii) 1999 with people who work for political lobbying firms or for businesses that are members of the Public Relations Consultants Association. [79656]

  Mr. Morley
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) on 9 March 1999,Official Report, column 168. The requirements of the Ministerial Code also apply to Parliamentary Private Secretaries when attending meetings in an official or semi-official capacity.

  Environmental Appraisals
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what environmental appraisals of policy his Department has(a) completed, (b) started and (c) planned. [79622]

  Mr. Morley
  Environmental appraisals are not usually carried out in isolation from the general process of reviewing policies. The Ministry seeks to take into account all important factors, including environmental ones, in the formulation of policy and its implementation. Thus, there is a considerable input into monitoring the environmental
  223
  impacts of policies, particularly where policy objectives are environmental in nature. As part of its regular policy review process, the Ministry carries out a rolling programme of economic policy evaluations. A number of these evaluations have been of agri-environment schemes or other policies with a significant environmental dimension. The evaluation programme is published on the MAFF website (http://www.maff.gov.uk/r&dieconomic.htm), with details of previous research and of policies which are due to be evaluated in the coming
  year. A copy has also been placed in the library of the House.

  Meat Hygiene Service
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will list the organisations and companies which have made representations about the Meat Hygiene Service's charging regime due to be introduced on 1 April 1999; [79439]

  (2) what further consultations are taking place on the Meat Hygiene Services charging regime, due to be introduced on 1 April 1999, with special reference to low throughput abattoirs; and if he will make a statement. [79440]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 31 March 1999]: The level of Meat Hygiene Service (MHS) charges to apply in 1999–2000 for hygiene/welfare inspection and for the

  Date

  Purpose of visit

  Hotel

  15–16 July 1997

  Appearance before the European Parliament's Temporary Committee of Inquiry on BSE

  Strasbourg Hilton. Cost—£115.70

  15–16 June 1998

  Appearance before the European Parliament's Committee on Agriculture as President in Office of the Council and bilateral with Commissioner Fischler

  Strasbourg Hilton. Cost—£106

  20–22 October 1998

  Minister's visit to the European Parliament and meetings with MEPs

  Strasbourg Hilton. Cost—£248

  Civil Servants (Appraisal)
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what were the appraisal performance markings awarded to civil servants in 1998 for(a) each agency in his Department and (b) the Department broken down by (i) grade, (ii) gender, (iii) ethnicity, (iv) parttime/full-time working and (v) disability; and for (1) each agency and (2) the Department whether the Cabinet Office's four fifths rule for detecting potential adverse impact was applied to the appraisal markings of civil servants in the 1998 report round.[78142]

  Mr. Morley
  The breakdown of 1998 overall performance markings for staff in MAFF including those agencies that use the core-Department's Human Resource computer system is as set out.

  My officials are considering current data, along with historic data, for any indications of possible adverse impact.

  I have asked the Chief Executives of those agencies who have their own HR computer systems to write to my hon. Friend separately.

  Breakdown of 1998 overall performance markings

  Box 1

  Box 2

  Box 3A

  Box 3B

  Box 4

  Box 5

  MAFF

  Grade

  AA

  24

  395

  315

  101

  0

  0

  AO

  42

  777

  615

  158

  9

  0

  EO

  28

  616

  421

  69

  4

  0

  224
  enforcement of Specified Risk Material controls has yet to be decided. Ministers are still carefully considering proposals made by the MHS to ensure they are fully cost justified. They will then be subject to full consultation with all plant operators. The results of that consultation will be reported back to Ministers who will then take final decisions on the level of rates to apply and their operative date.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) where his predecessor, as minister, stayed on his visit to Strasbourg in July 1997; what was the cost of that accommodation; and what expenses he incurred during that visit; [75864]

  (2) if he will list where ministers in his Department have stayed on their visits to Strasbourg and the costs of each of those stays since 1 May 1997. [75865]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 10 March 1999]: Ministers in this Department have made 3 overnight visits to Strasbourg since 1 May 1997, two by my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) and once by me in October 1998. The details are as set out in the table. All travel was judged to comply with the requirements of the Ministerial Code and the Civil Service Management Code.

  Breakdown of 1998 overall performance markings

  Box 1

  Box 2

  Box 3A

  Box 3B

  Box 4

  Box 5

  HEO

  38

  463

  213

  33

  1

  0

  SEO

  23

  296

  150

  12

  3

  0

  Grade 7

  21

  159

  56

  7

  0

  0

  Grade 6

  7

  47

  24

  1

  0

  0

  SCS

  5

  35

  15

  0

  0

  0

  Sex

  Female

  100

  1,400

  880

  155

  5

  0

  Male

  88

  1,388

  929

  226

  12

  0

  Ethnic Group

  Minority

  5

  130

  117

  39

  1

  0

  Unknown

  8

  94

  52

  15

  1

  0

  White

  175

  2,564

  1,640

  327

  15

  0

  Part-time

  Full time

  164

  2,506

  1,603

  354

  17

  0

  Part time

  24

  282

  206

  27

  0

  0

  Disability

  No disability

  181

  2,596

  1,674

  331

  14

  0

  Disability

  7

  192

  135

  50

  3

  0

  Pesticides Safety Directorate

  Grade

  AA

  0

  3

  6

  0

  0

  0

  AO

  2

  15

  1

  3

  0

  0

  EO

  3

  13

  12

  2

  0

  0

  HEO

  9

  34

  11

  1

  0

  0

  SEO

  3

  21

  4

  0

  1

  0

  Grade 7

  2

  10

  2

  0

  0

  0

  Grade 6

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  SCS

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  225

  Breakdown of 1998 overall performance markings

  Box 1

  Box 2

  Box 3A

  Box 3B

  Box 4

  Box 5

  Sex

  Female

  10

  43

  16

  1

  1

  0

  Male

  9

  55

  20

  5

  0

  0

  Ethnic Group

  Minority

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  Unknown

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  White

  19

  94

  36

  5

  1

  0

  Part time

  Full time

  16

  88

  33

  6

  1

  0

  Part time

  3

  10

  3

  0

  0

  0

  Disability

  No disability

  17

  85

  30

  5

  0

  0

  Disability

  2

  13

  6

  1

  1

  0

  Veterinary Laboratories Agency

  Grade

  AA

  16

  110

  81

  17

  1

  0

  AO

  19

  168

  111

  26

  5

  0

  EO

  6

  80

  51

  13

  1

  0

  HEO

  1

  48

  23

  3

  2

  0

  SEO

  6

  32

  11

  1

  0

  0

  Grade 7

  7

  60

  30

  6

  0

  0

  Grade 6

  0

  6

  4

  1

  0

  0

  SCS

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  Sex

  Female

  28

  277

  164

  36

  2

  0

  Male

  27

  228

  147

  31

  7

  0

  Ethnic Group

  Minority

  0

  9

  5

  4

  2

  0

  Unknown

  1

  16

  6

  3

  0

  0

  White

  54

  480

  300

  60

  7

  0

  Part Time

  Full time

  51

  445

  280

  58

  9

  0

  Part time

  4

  60

  31

  9

  0

  0

  Disability

  No Disability

  52

  477

  289

  62

  8

  0

  Disability

  3

  28

  22

  5

  1

  0

  Veterinary Medicines Directorate

  Grade

  AA

  0

  7

  3

  2

  0

  0

  AO

  2

  14

  5

  1

  0

  0

  EO

  1

  8

  3

  0

  0

  0

  HEO

  1

  3

  2

  2

  0

  0

  SEO

  1

  7

  1

  1

  0

  0

  Grade 7

  0

  14

  7

  1

  0

  0

  Grade 6

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  SCS

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  Sex

  Female

  4

  35

  11

  4

  0

  0

  Male

  1

  21

  13

  3

  0

  0

  Ethnic Group

  Minority

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  Unknown

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  White

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  Part Time

  Full time

  5

  51

  21

  6

  0

  0

  Part time

  0

  5

  3

  1

  0

  0

  Disability

  No Disability

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  Disability

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  Notes

  1. Data have not been provided in any group where there are less than 5 reports in total or where totals of less than 5 could be ascertained to ensure that individual anonymity is protected. Such entries have been marked with an asterisk.
  226
  2. Data in the 'disability' group comprise staff who have declared a disability. Those in the 'no disability' group comprise all others.

  3. The definitions of the overall box markings for staff in grades AA-Grade 6 are as follows:

  Box 1 Outstanding

  Box 2 Performance significantly above requirements

  Box 3a Performance fully effective in all respects

  Box 3b Performance sufficient for the needs of the job

  Box 4 Improvements to performance required in some respects

  Box 5 Unsatisfactory

  4. Staff in the Senior Civil Service also have 2+ and 3+ but no 3b markings. The 2+ data have been included with the Box 2 data and the 3+ data with the Box 3a data.

  5. Data cover all reports with a 1998 report date and entered onto the computer system by 19 March 1999. Some of the 1998 reports will not yet be on the system and as such the data will be incomplete.

  6. Data include leavers.

  Letter from Johnston McNeill to Mr. John McDonnell, dated March 1999 As Chief Executive of the Meat Hygiene Service (MHS) your question to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food requesting information on the appraisal performance markings awarded to civil servants in 1998 broken by down (i) grade, (ii) gender, (iii) ethnicity, (iv) part-time/full-time working and (v) disability and whether the Cabinet Office's four fifths rule for detecting potential adverse impact was applied to the appraisal markings of civil servants in the 1998 report round, has been passed to me to reply as regards this Executive Agency.
  The breakdown of the 1998 overall performance markings for staff in the MHS is attached. The MHS is considering the data for any indications of possible adverse impact.

  Breakdown of MHS performance markings

  Box 1

  Box 2

  Box 3

  Box 4

  Box 5

  MHS

  Grade

  TMHI

  1

  21

  14

  4

  0

  MTEC

  4

  72

  92

  11

  3

  PMI

  2

  60

  24

  2

  1

  MHI

  16

  363

  302

  27

  3

  SPMI

  1

  18

  2

  0

  0

  SMHI

  6

  87

  40

  2

  0

  OVS

  0

  6

  7

  0

  0

  Sex

  Female

  2

  36

  28

  1

  0

  Male

  28

  591

  453

  45

  7

  Ethnic Group

  Minority

  0

  2

  11

  2

  0

  Unknown

  0

  4

  1

  2

  0

  White

  30

  621

  469

  42

  7

  Commitment

  Full time

  30

  608

  462

  46

  7

  Part time

  0

  19

  19

  0

  0

  Disability

  No Disability

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Disability

  0

  1

  2

  0

  0

  Note

  Figures measured over 1,191 employees.

  Abbreviations

  TMHI Trainee Meat Hygiene Inspector

  MTEC Meat Technician

  PMI Poultry Meat Inspector

  MHI Meat Hygiene Inspector

  SPMI Senior Poultry Meat Inspector

  SMHI Senior Meat Hygiene Inspector

  OVS Official Veterinary Surgeon
  227
  Letter from P. I. Stanley to Mr. John McDonnell, dated March 1999 The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has asked me to reply, in respect of the Central Science Laboratory (CSL), to your question concerning appraisal performance markings awarded to staff in 1998.
  The breakdown of 1998 overall performance markings for staff in CSL is set out on the attached sheet.
  My staff are considering current data, along with historic data, for any indications of possible adverse impact.

  Breakdown of 1998 performance markings

  Box 1

  Box 2

  Box 3a

  Box 3b

  Box 4

  Box 5

  Central Science Laboratory

  Grade

  Level 1

  5

  64

  52

  9

  0

  0

  Level 2

  8

  123

  107

  19

  3

  0

  Level 3

  2

  38

  17

  4

  0

  0

  Level 4

  3

  16

  10

  2

  1

  0

  Level 5

  2

  12

  2

  1

  0

  0

  Gender

  Male

  11

  137

  112

  23

  3

  0

  Female

  9

  116

  76

  12

  1

  0

  Ethnicity

  Minorities

  Information not available

  Unknown

  Part/Full-time

  Part-time

  1

  15

  II

  3

  0

  0

  Full-time

  19

  238

  177

  32

  4

  0

  Disability

  Disability

  0

  2

  2

  0

  1

  0

  No Disability

  20

  251

  186

  35

  3

  0

  Notes

  1. A breakdown by box markings is not presently available in terms of ethnicity.

  2. The definitions of the overall box markings are as follows:

  Box 1 Outstanding

  Box 2 Performance significantly above requirements

  Box 3a Performance fully effective in all respects

  Box 3b Performance sufficient for the needs of the job

  Box 4 Improvements to performance required in some respects Box 5 Unsatisfactory

  3. Data covers all reports with a 1998 report date.

  4. Data includes leavers.

  5. Staff in the Senior Civil Service are included in the MAFF breakdown of 1998 overall performance markings.

  Letter from Sarah Nason to Mr. John McDonnell, dated 23 March 1999 The Minister has asked me to respond, in respect of the Farming and Rural Conservation Agency (FRCA), to your question about performance appraisal markings awarded to civil servants in 1998 for his Department and each agency in his Department, broken down by grade; gender; ethnicity; part-time/full-time working and disability; and whether the Cabinet Office's four-fifths rule for detecting potential adverse impact was applied to the appraisal markings of civil servants in the 1998 report round.
  I enclose a breakdown as requested of performance markings from the 1997–98 reporting year for staff in FRCA. FRCA staff are in different grades to those in the core department, but for your ease of reference we have converted the grade data to the nearest MAFF equivalents.
  Work is in hand to analyse this data for any indications of possible adverse impact.
  228

  Breakdown of overall performance markings in FRCA:1997–98 reporting year

  1

  2

  3

  4

  5

  Ethnicity

  White Origin

  21

  198

  112

  1

  0

  Ethnic minority origin

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  Unknown

  10

  73

  65

  1

  0

  Disability

  None or none known

  31

  271

  176

  2

  0

  Disability known

  0

  2

  1

  0

  0

  Full or part time

  Full time

  29

  247

  152

  2

  0

  Part time

  2

  26

  25

  0

  0

  Gender

  Male

  16

  177

  100

  2

  0

  Female

  15

  96

  77

  0

  0

  Grade and equivalents

  AA

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  AO

  7

  55

  37

  0

  0

  EO

  10

  27

  9

  0

  0

  HEO

  4

  77

  90

  2

  0

  SEC,

  8

  76

  31

  0

  0

  G7

  2

  30

  10

  0

  0

  G6

  0

  7

  0

  0

  0

  Senior Civil Service

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  Notes

  *Data not provided as this would enable individuals' report markings to be ascertained.

  Definitions of overall performance markings are as follows:

  Box 1—Outstanding

  Box 2—Very Good

  Box 3—Satisfactory

  Box 4—Improvement Necessary

  Box 5—Unsatisfactory

  Data covering 1997–98 reports input onto the Agency's computerised Human Resources System by 15 March 1999. Data do not include leavers.

  Letter from P. W. Greig-Smith to Mr. John McDonnell, dated March 1999 The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and food has asked me to reply to your question on appraisal performance markings in 1998.
  I am replying on behalf of the Centre for Environment, Fisheries & Aquaculture Science (CEFAS).
  The breakdown of overall performance markings for staff in CEFAS is set out overleaf.

  1

  2

  3A

  3B

  Total

  Current grade/overall assessment

  6

  1

  8

  6

  0

  15

  7

  1

  20

  7

  0

  28

  AA

  4

  3

  3

  3

  13

  AO

  11

  41

  8

  2

  62

  EO

  13

  47

  17

  4

  81

  HEO

  9

  31

  18

  0

  58

  Industrial

  8

  18

  6

  0

  32

  SCS

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  SEO

  2

  28

  8

  0

  38

  Total

  47

  168

  66

  9

  328

  sex/oversll assessment

  F

  18

  72

  19

  5

  114

  M

  31

  124

  55

  4

  214

  Total

  49

  196

  74

  9

  328

  229

  1

  2

  3A

  3B

  Total

  Full/part time/overall assessment

  Full

  46

  172

  70

  7

  295

  Part

  3

  24

  4

  2

  33

  Total

  49

  196

  74

  9

  328

  Ethnic origin/overall assessment

  White

  47

  188

  69

  9

  313

  Ethnic

  Minority

  —

  3

  —

  —

  3

  Unknown

  2

  5

  5

  0

  12

  Able bodies/overall assessment

  Disabled

  2

  13

  6

  —

  21

  Able Bodies

  47

  183

  68

  9

  307

  Total

  49

  196

  74

  9

  328

  AgrEvo
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if the company AgrEvo has a marketing consent to grow genetically modified crops in the UK. [79501]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have been asked to reply.

  AgrEvo (France) has one such consent under Council Directive 90/220/EEC on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms. This consent is for a maize modified for tolerance to glufosinate ammonium herbicide. The consent is for agricultural use leading to animal and human consumption and was issued by the French authorities on 3 August 1998.

  Illegal Fishing
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many skippers of fishing vessels have been convicted in the sheriff courts for offences relating to illegal fishing activities in each of the past three years; what was the average financial penalty imposed; if 230
  he will list the nationality of the (i) skippers and (ii) vessels; if the gear and catch were confiscated in all cases; and if he will make a statement. [78403]

  Mr. Macdonald
  [holding answer 29 March 1999]: I have been asked to reply.

  Substantial resources are devoted to fisheries enforcement and appropriate action is taken where infringements are detected. Information about fisheries prosecutions which have been dealt with in sheriff courts in the past 3 years is set out in the table.

  Number of skippers successfully prosecuted for one or more infringements1

  Average financial penalty imposed2 (£)

  1996

  62

  4,013

  1997

  87

  4,355

  1998

  73

  2,600

  1Includes skippers who are also owners

  2Calculated as the total value of penalties imposed (fines and any financial penalties to the value of the catch and/or gear (as appropriate)) divided by the number of skippers prosecuted

  1996

  1997

  1998

  Skipper

  Vessel

  Skipper

  Vessel

  Skipper

  Vessel

  Nationality of skippers and vessels

  UK

  55

  57

  82

  83

  71

  69

  Danish

  2

  2

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Spanish

  2

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Faeroese

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dutch

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Irish

  1

  1

  —

  —

  1

  1

  German

  —

  —

  2

  2

  —

  —

  Belgian

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Number of cases where gear and/or catch were confiscated

  Gear

  4

  2

  1

  Catch

  3

  2

  1

  From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

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

Bereavement Allowance
Lord Rix Lord Rix asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether halving the widow's and widower's inheritance of SERPS from 6th April 2000 and withdrawing the widow's bereavement allowance on the same date, instead of extending it to widowers, is consistent with the Government's general policy towards widows and widowers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, our policy is to treat widows and widowers alike by concentrating help for them when they most need it; that is, at the time of bereavement itself and when they have dependent children to support. Similarly, widowers will also for the first time have equal access to SERPS. Existing widows will, of course, retain their current benefits.
Lord Rix: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. but she did not mention that the ombudsman will be investigating complaints about SERPS. The notice appeared on 29th March, earlier this year. Will she confirm that a day later the Minister of State in another place stated,
"We are taking steps to deal with the situation that we inherited and to ensure that no one suffers as a result of inadequate information"?
Does that mean that, whatever the ombudsman's findings, compensation will be paid to those who had no idea that SERPS had been changed since 1986; those, like me, who had been given incorrect information by 'phone; and those who had been given incorrect information by letter up to 12th January this year? Would the Minister also like to comment on this year's Budget assurance that widows would be "more than compensated" for the loss of the widow's bereavement allowance, when in fact widows over 60 will receive no compensation at all?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, on the final point, the noble Lord is entirely correct. There was a mistake made in the press release and the Inland Revenue has subsequently apologised for it. Let me be frank with the House; a mistake was made which has been corrected by the Inland Revenue and it has apologised for it. There is a time gap, of course, of 12 months before some of the new procedures may be put in place. However, the substance of the noble Lord's Question concerns SERPS. I hope that I may have the
616
indulgence of the House to give a slightly longer Answer than normal because it is a rather elaborate Question. It is an extraordinary situation.
Back in 1986 the then government chose to bring the 100 per cent. right of a widow to inherit a pension down to 50 per cent.; in other words, they sought to align it with occupational pensions. That happened 14 years ago. The Secretary of State at the time, the noble Lord. Lord Newton, gave a commitment that there would be full publicity. For reasons none of us understands nothing happened and for a further decade the old leaflets were reprinted.
The story gets worse. In 1994 when some of your Lordships, including the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, myself and other colleagues were debating the Pensions Bill, my noble friend Lady Gould proposed an amendment on behalf of Age Concern addressing this self-same issue. That set the alarm bells ringing in the Box; the officials noted it, but again nothing was done. The situation again failed to filter down to local offices for reasons that we do not understand. Finally. Age Concern picked up the issue this October and we are now seeking to address it. The noble Lord, Lord Rix, is correct; the ombudsman has four cases. The advantage that the ombudsman has over the present Administration is that he can examine previous policy papers which are" of course, closed to us. He may be able to dig out information that we cannot. As I say, we cannot understand why this has happened. Obviously we are taking legal advice on the issue of compensation because the sums involved and the numbers of people involved could be large indeed. If one compensated fully, one could be talking about £5.5 billion by 2010.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, as regards the mistake in the Budget, who was responsible and what action has been taken as a result? As regards the compensation proposals, are we to understand that the Government intend to compensate people who suffered loss as a result of being misinformed by the department both in writing and on the telephone? If that is the case, can we have an assurance that it will be included in the welfare and pensions Bill to enable us to look at what precisely the Government propose to do about this?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I have already answered the first point made by the noble Lord and I do not think I need to return to it. As regards his second point—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, HM Treasury made a mistake for which it has apologised. I have apologised again. If noble Lords wish me to apologise a third, fourth and a fifth time, I guess that I can. However, your Lordships might just think that was unnecessary. However, going to the substance of the Question, as I said, we are currently taking legal advice on issues including compensation. As that is currently being discussed with legal advisers your Lordships will understand that I cannot go into the

617
details of it. However, obviously the issue must be sorted out by April of next year when the changes are due to take effect.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the proposed discontinuation of the widow's benefits and the withdrawal of entitlement to SERPS are bound to cause immense resentment because both are contributory benefits? Is she further aware that the resentment is being expressed through a number of organisations concerned with widows? I state my interest as a trustee of the Widows' Advisory Trust.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, it is certainly true that the widow's benefit has been a contributory benefit. It was devised in Beveridge's time, when most married women did not work and most men did not have access to occupational pensions. It is now the case that almost half of all widows have access to an occupational pension and almost three-quarters of all married women work and therefore have an income of their own. The purpose of that contributory benefit was to help the needs of those who would have no income, but that is now met in other ways. We are therefore seeking to refocus the widow's benefit—and to extend it to widowers—at the point of greatest need; the point of immediate bereavement and, secondly, to those with dependent children. I am sure that had the existing demographic situation been in place back in the 1940s, the policies that we are now proposing would have been devised.
Earl Russell: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the giving out of mistaken information goes even later than the case of January quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Rix? My honourable friend, Mr. Rendel, has a case as recently as 3rd March of this year. Does the Minister agree that any claim for compensation must rest not only on actions taken as a result of misleading information, but on inaction as a result of misleading information?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am not in a position to agree with that statement. That is precisely one of the issues upon which we are seeking legal advice. Certainly I deplore the fact—as I am sure does every Member of the House—that since 1986 no action was taken at local office level to give people the appropriate information to which they were entitled. This is not a story of the past 18 months, but a story of the past 12 to 14 years. We should all accept responsibility for that.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: I agree with the Minister that the main responsibility lies with the previous administration for halving not only the widow's entitlement but also the value of SERPS—but it is not surprising that they tried to keep it all dark—is it not a fact that the Government have accepted and taken up the policy that they inherited and have kept dark about it too? Is the Minister aware that many of us receive letters from
618
those who are affected saying that they have had no notification from the Benefits Agency that the Government were not prepared to restore the situation to that which applied before the Thatcherites ruined it?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am not sure that the Labour Government ever expected to reverse the situation back to pre-1986. But I certainly accept that this Government must take some responsibility for failing to pick up earlier the fact that the information going out was misleading. We do not know why and we do not yet know, until we have had full legal advice, what the legal and therefore financial implications may be for all of us.

Child Protection, Asia: UK Assistance
2.45 p.m.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree Baroness Knight of Collingtree asked Her Majesty's Government:
What assistance they are able to offer to the child protection initiatives currently being undertaken in Asia, particularly those in Nepal and Thailand.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the Government are working with a range of partners in Asia to support several strategic child protection initiatives. in particular in Nepal and Thailand but which will benefit children in countries throughout south and south-east Asia.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her interesting reply. Is she aware of the extent to which our embassies, particularly in Bangkok and Kathmandu. have, quite voluntarily, given enormous help to victims? Is she aware, as I have recently seen at first hand, that some of these tragic teenagers have been, as it were, rescued and given sanctuary and small jobs in the embassies, even though they suffer from AIDS and other health problems? Will she take the opportunity to commend the work being done along those lines in our embassies?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I am very pleased to endorse the support that the noble Baroness gives to the work of our embassies in Bangkok and Kathmandu. I wish to add my thanks in terms of the support that DfID staff in Bangkok have given in relation to these issues. The noble Baroness may be interested to know that we are supporting a regional child rights' strategy to counter the movement of children and young people across borders in the greater Mekong sub-region. We are also supporting the promotion of similar co-operation between south Asian countries.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether DfID has any special works or projects to try to protect girls from being forced into the commercial sex industry?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, DfID supports a Save the Children Fund research project on Thailand's borders which is designed to ensure that the experiences

619
and priorities of vulnerable children and young people are reflected in the policies which affect them. British police officers have completed a second round of child protection courses for the Royal Thai Police and child welfare professionals, supported by the FCO. We have also helped the Nepal police to establish pilot women and children units to improve the reporting and investigating of crimes against women and children.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say whether there have been prosecutions in our courts of British residents travelling abroad in order to abuse children overseas? Can she confirm that British travel agents and airlines have been co-operating in restraining that kind of deplorable travel?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, there have been no prosecutions under the Sex Offenders Act 1997. It was always expected that the Act would be used only as a last resort where a country will not prosecute or where the UK itself cannot extradite. The problems we have had in terms of obtaining evidence from abroad will always make prosecutions difficult, but we have a total commitment to dealing with the concerns outlined by the noble Lord.
The noble Lord asks about British travel agents and airlines. I do not have the detail to enable me to answer that question but I am sure that, where possible, airlines and travel agents have been co-operative. If I can add to that, I shall write to the noble Lord.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of PLAN International (UK), an NGO. Is the Minister aware that we are working in various countries in south-east Asia and are supported by DfID? We do a good deal of work, which I have seen myself, in Thailand. We feel that our best contribution is being able to support children and families in developing an economic base so as to enable these young people to live in their own communities instead of being forced into prostitution at an early age.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I agree entirely with the noble Baroness. In the projects which we have been developing in Nepal, Thailand and other parts of south-east Asia we have worked hard to ensure that when children are removed from these difficult circumstances we try to deal with the wider issues such as poverty which underline what is going on. The support of children and families in relation to that is extremely important.
Lord McNally: My Lords, what liaison is there with the Home Office to prevent abuse via the internet in such cases?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, there has been considerable liaison with the Home Office on a range of matters. In fact, my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn visited Thailand only last month. The noble
620
Lord asks specifically about the internet. I do not have details of liaison on that aspect but, again, if I can add anything to my answer, I shall write to the noble Lord.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, following the question of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, will the Minister inform the House what discussions she has had with her Home Office colleagues about strengthening the Sex Offenders Act 1997 so as to oblige offenders to register their addresses when they travel abroad?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, there is total commitment to dealing with these issues. There has been considerable liaison between the Home Office and DfID and work continues in terms of our participation in international action arid the sharing of intelligence, expertise and the training skills of our police with other governments. We shall continue to work closely with the Home Office. We have had no specific discussion on the strengthening of the legislation.

Disability Discrimination Act: Exemptions
2.53 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many firms are exempt from the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and what proportion they are of the total number of firms in the United Kingdom.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, we estimate that 1.1 million employers in the UK, or 89 per cent. of the total, are exempt from the employment provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. As most employees are actually employed by larger organisations, this means that over 75 percent. of disabled employees are protected by the Act. This follows the Government's decision to lower the exemption threshold! from 20 to 15 employees, bringing more employers into coverage.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I am grateful for that reply, but can my noble friend tell us whether any disasters have occurred or any unreasonable burdens have been imposed on those small employers which the Government recently brought within the scope of the Act? If not, can she tell the House what credence she attaches to the claims of those small firms which are outside the scope of the Act at present that they should be excluded from the Act because they fear that unreasonable burdens will be imposed on them? Is that not nonsense when the Act specifically says that only reasonable provision shall be made? All the Act says is, "Don't discriminate against disabled people". Why are these employers excluded?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, it is a little early to know what the impact of lowering the threshold has been on small employers. However, we are monitoring

621
it and a major research project is examining the matter. I would not want to claim that any disasters have taken place but I think it is a little soon to be absolutely certain of its impact. It is right, as my noble friend said, that employers have to do only reasonable things under the legislation, but small firms need to know what that means in practice in particular instances. Otherwise they might try to avoid performing their duties under the Act. They need information, advice and assurance. It is important that before we lower the threshold further we have confidence that they and others believe that this can be done without too much difficulty.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, as the first review—a mandatory review—of Section 7 of the Act, the section dealing with small firms, has presumably taken place leading to the reduction from 20 employees to 15, what plans are there for future reviews and their timing?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the Government have made a commitment to consult the disability rights commission, when it has been established, on this matter. We hope it will be set up by April 2000. Once it is established we will ask it to consider the possibility of a further threshold reduction and take its advice.
Lord Addington: My Lords, is the Minister aware of an RNID survey which shows that with the lowering of the threshold marginal costs fall with it? Should not the Government confirm these findings? If there is a much lower cost, surely there are no grounds for denying certain people the protection of the law in this area of discrimination.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, there is nothing in what I said earlier which suggests that the Government's wish to stage this further protection has anything to do with cost. I hope that answers the noble Lord's question.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House how many companies have 14 or fewer workers, how many single self-employed workers are registered as companies, and how many companies have 10 or fewer workers, so that we can have some idea of what percentage will be taken in each phase?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I cannot give all those statistics but I would be very happy to write to the noble Baroness. What I can say is that 45,000 extra employers are now covered by the new provisions lowering the threshold from 20 to 15. More than 75 per cent. of all disabled employees are now covered. I do not think it would be reasonable to ask me to give all those statistics while there is no commitment by the Government to lower the threshold to any particular number of employees. When the Government have made such a commitment, of course I should have those figures at my fingertips. But I will write to the noble Baroness.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I am puzzled. If no special preparations were made before the Government
622
reduced the number from 20 employees to 15, what is to prevent the Government from going ahead now with the remaining 25 per cent. without all this preparation and information, advice and guidance? They did not give that to the other firms. Why now?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the Government believe it right to move towards a lower threshold on a gradual basis. We want to take employers with us rather than leaving them worried and concerned about these kinds of changes. I wish to try to convince my noble friend that that is the right approach. The Government accept that it is important to try to bring more disabled employees within the protection of the Act. However, the right way to do that is in stages.

United Nations: Funding
3 p.m.
Lord Judd Lord Judd asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their latest estimate of the total shortfall in contributions to the United Nations by its member states; which member states are now most in arrears, and by how much; and what are the implications for those states in terms of the rules of procedure of the United Nations.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, at the end of 1998, the United Nations was owed over 2 billion dollars by member states. The United States was responsible for over 60 per cent. of that total. Under Article 19 of the United Nations Charter, member states with arrears greater than the total of their previous two years' dues may lose their vote in the General Assembly.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. However, at a time when it is becoming clear that, were the United Nations not to exist it would be necessary to invent something precious like it, does my noble friend agree that it is sad that the United States, as a permanent member of the Security Council, is not demonstrating its full commitment to the United Nations system? Can she assure the House that there is no danger that the failure to pay reflects a hidden policy within the United States; namely, to take attention away from the UN and to put it increasingly in the hands of NATO?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that it is lamentable that the United States has fallen so far into arrears, and in particular on the peacekeeping element of its budget. At the end of last year, the United States was some 976 million dollars in arrears on that aspect of the budget. It is worth pointing out that the United States administration's intention to address these problems was recently re-stated by President Clinton in his State of the Union address on 19th January. President Clinton has now presented his 2000 Budget for the fiscal year

623
starting 1st October 1999. It includes a request for the repayment particularly of the 966 million dollars of UN arrears without conditions.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, does the Minister recall that in the gracious Speech the Government promised to give high priority to improving the finances of the United Nations? What specifically did they have in mind when they made that statement? Was it just pie in the sky, or are they actually achieving anything?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Yes, my Lords, I believe we are achieving on a number of issues. The European Union tabled a number of reform proposals before the election, in January 1996. Those have been vigorously pursued by Her Majesty's Government. We have seen the appointment of Miss Louise Frechette as Deputy Secretary-General in the United Nations. She has particular responsibility for examining these matters.
It is extremely important that we all attempt to raise these issues at whatever point we can with the United States—certainly with the administration, but also at the level of Congress Members. I recently raised it with the United States Speaker, Mr. Hastert, on 1st April this year. He was leading a cadre of Congressmen to this country. The Foreign Secretary has also raised the issue with Mrs. Albright. It is important that wherever we can, and that includes Members of this House, we make the point forcefully to our friends in the United States that they must pay their arrears.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, if the review is multi-faceted, what are the stumbling blocks to decision-making as regards the senior management group's review of reform?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, there has been some progress as regards reform. It is important that we do not paint an entirely black picture on the reform front in the United Nations. I mentioned Miss Frechette: and there have been improvements where the Secretary-General has had the ability to force those improvements through, notably greater co-ordination between different parts of the system in the United Nations and an improved top level management structure. Problems arise where there is a need for intergovernmental agreement as to how to move forward, and where some countries may perceive that their national interest is being compromised. It is in those areas that we find the major stumbling blocks.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, is it not correct that the trouble probably lies in Congress rather than in the United States administration? With that in mind, and the realisation that there is a strong body of opinion in the United States that NATO is an effective body and the United Nations is not—whether or not that opinion is correct is another matter—this is a difficult matter to overcome. If it is not overcome, it suggests that the future of the United Nations might be in jeopardy.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we must recognise that there are a number of different. elements at work in the United States Congress. I have no doubt that the noble Lord is right and that some in Congress are indeed doubtful about the importance of the United Nations in terms of the United States' national interest. However, there are others who give priority to the abortion issue, which we must not lose sight of when considering the difficulties of the United States in paying the arrears. Those two points have come together in the United States Congress. The key problem is that those two groups, having united, have also presented conditions to the United States administration which the administration found impossible to see through in last year's budget. It is important that we recognise where the problems really lie and that we all take the opportunity to talk to Congressmen as well as to the United States administration and the Government about the position in which they are putting themselves, as well as the United States and the United Nations, in not paying their arrears.

Business
3.7 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, after the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, on the Second Reading of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill, my noble friend the Leader of the House will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on Kosovo.

Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty Bill [H.L.]
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to make new provision in relation to areas of outstanding natural beauty. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time. —(Lord Renton of Mount Harry.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Time Zones and Summer Time (Devolution) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to devolve to the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales power to set time zones and Summer Time in Scotland and Wales respectively. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Employment Relations Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Business of the House: Debate, 15th April
3.9 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House I beg to move the Motion standing in her name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 38 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with on Thursday next to allow the Motion standing in the name of the Lord Williams of Mostyn to be taken first after the Chairman of Committees' business.—(Lord Carter.)
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I wonder whether the Chief Whip, as always, is trying to be helpful. The Motion that we are asked to approve asks that the Motion standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn be taken first after the Chairman of Committees' business next Thursday. Yet, when I look at the business for next Thursday, that is exactly what it is: the Motion in the name of my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn immediately follows the Motion of the Chairman of Committees. I wonder whether the Chief Whip can help us.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend. The purpose of the Motion is to arrange the order of business for Thursday to reflect the agreement of the usual channels that the Motion in the name of my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn should be taken before any affirmative instruments tabled for that day. Without this business Motion, the effect of standing orders of the House would be that the debate to be introduced by my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn would come on later in the day. That is not what is wanted.
Your Lordships will recall that Standing Order 38(4) provides that:
"On all sitting days except Wednesdays, notices and orders relating to Public Bills, Measures, Affirmative Instruments and reports from Select Committees of the House shall have precedence over other notices and orders save the foregoing".
The effect of that provision is that on Thursday of this week the important Motion standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn, the Deputy Leader of the House, does not have precedence over affirmative orders. The Motion in the name of my noble friend is to take note of the report of the Stephen Lawrence inquiry, a subject which was debated in another place before the Easter Recess. It has been agreed through the usual channels that it would be appropriate for this Motion to be the principal item of business on Thursday, in spite of the provisions of the standing order and the normal practice of the House. This arrangement has been agreed and is reflected in the text of the Order Paper for Thursday.
626
There are three affirmative orders on the Order Paper for Thursday, on traffic areas in Wales and on the Carriage by Air Acts. They will be moved by my noble friend Lady Farrington of Ribbleton. It has again been agreed through the usual channels that it would be appropriate for those three items of business to be taken after the debate on the Stephen Lawrence inquiry. All those expecting to take part in the debate are aware of this arrangement, which has the full support of the usual channels.
Your Lordships will also recall that Thursday's Order Paper contains an Unstarred Question in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. This appears, in the normal way, as the last item of business on the day. Standing Order 38(8) provides that Unstarred Questions shall be taken last.
The purpose of today's business Motion, which I am moving on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, who is preparing for the important Statement on Kosovo this afternoon, is to allow the Motion in the name of my noble friend the Deputy Leader of the House, Lord Williams of Mostyn, to be taken as the principal business on Thursday. Although the Order Paper has already been printed in the order in which it is anticipated that the business will be taken if today's business Motion is agreed to, that Order Paper is, as always, provisional. Should your Lordships, uncharacteristically, object to today's Motion, the order of business for Thursday will be altered.
The Motion which I am moving on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House specifically provides for the business of the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees to be taken first on Thursday. This is important. The Motion which the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees intends to move on Thursday is to appoint my noble friend Lord Morris of Castle Morris as a member of the House of Lords' Offices Committee in place of Lord Dean of Beswick, who, sadly, died before the Easter Recess.
It is, as your Lordships will recall, a custom of the House that business in the name of the Chairman of Committees comes first, and it is particularly important that that custom is observed on this occasion. The business Motion which I move today therefore incorporates a specific exclusion to allow the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees to move his Motion on Thursday before we start the main business. I am sure that the whole House will miss the contributions made by Lord Dean of Beswick to the work of the Offices Committee. I am also sure that the House will benefit greatly from the wisdom and experience which my noble friend Lord Morris of Castle Morris will bring to the committee.
I hope that this explanation makes clear to noble Lords, and to my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton in particular—I am surprised that, as a former Chief Whip, he even asked the question—why this

627
business Motion is being moved today. I hope that the House will be able to agree to the Motion without further debate.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am grateful for the explanation given by the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip. I understand that the Government have a more significant problem, which is one of the reasons why the noble Lord led us through the explanation in response to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton; namely, that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, who has been the subject of this small debate, has been delayed and is therefore unable to start the Second Reading of the Bill on which he is due to speak in a few minutes' time.
A Statement is due to be taken after the speech of my noble friend Lady Young. If the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, is likely to be delayed much longer, is there any possibility of taking the Statement earlier rather than later? That would allow the noble Lord, Lord Williams, to return from his luncheon engagement in a sedate fashion and would also allow us to get on to the important issue of Kosovo. We suggest, in a spirit of helpfulness and co-operation, that we should take that course rather than continue with this slight charade.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am amazed that the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition describes this as a charade. I thought that the whole House was absolutely fascinated by my explanation. I think that it could be known as the "M.4 explanation". My noble friend Lord Williams is delayed in a hold-up on the M.4. We have some other business to deal with. While that is being taken, I will see whether the Leader of the House can come to the Chamber so that we can perhaps move to the Statement earlier than intended.
Lord Richard: My Lords, before we move on to other business, I listened, as I always do, with very close attention to what my noble friend the Chief Whip had to say on this Motion. I did not regard it as a charade, and I did my best to understand it, but I found it somewhat incomprehensible. I wonder whether, in all the circumstances, he would care to repeat it.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I thought that my noble friend was going to say, "More, more". I do not know any more.
Earl Russell: My Lords, in the circumstances, would it be either in order or welcome for me to follow the example of Winnie the Pooh and wish the noble Lord a very happy Thursday?
Lord Carter: My Lords, there have been occasions over the years when I have listened with great interest to the noble Earl's questions; we all benefit from sitting at his feet. When he asks that kind of question, I am always reminded of the Danish proverb which says that you have
628
to walk behind an ostrich for a very long time before you pick up the feather of a wild duck. I am told that it sounds much better in the original Danish.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I understand that it is not just lunch which has delayed my noble friend. I wonder whether the Chief Whip could advise the House of the reason for the delay.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am afraid that there has been a serious hold-up on the M.4. My noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn is returning from Windsor Castle and has been held up in that traffic jam. I suggest that we move on with the interim business before the Second Reading.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Scottish Enterprise Bill
3.18 p.m.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I am afraid that my contribution will not be as fascinating as the previous ones. I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Macdonald of Tradeston, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Scottish Parliamentary Constituencies Bill [H.L.]
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Criminal Cases Review (Insanity) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Ackner.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Births and Deaths (Registration) Bill [H.L.]
3.21 p.m.
Bill read a third time; an amendment (privilege) made.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, I beg to move, That the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Elis-Thomas.)
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, for bringing forward this Bill and for the very clear way in which he introduced it at Second Reading. The noble Lord's keen interest in the provisions of the Bill was reflected in the speech he made at Second Reading, and we are most grateful to him. I also take this opportunity to thank your Lordships, in particular those noble Lords who took part in the debate at Second Reading, for their interest in the provisions of the Bill as evidenced by that debate.
As the noble Lord explained when he introduced the Bill, this measure will extend the important principles of equality and choice in the use of the Welsh language and in the range of birth or death certificates which will become available. Without in any way seeking to delay the House by going over the provisions, in summary the Bill makes it possible for births or deaths that take place in England to be registered also in the Welsh language with the co-operation of a registration officer from Wales. It does not apply to marriages. Marriages can take place at the location chosen by the participants, whereas that is not true for births and deaths. For citizens who choose to take advantage of its provisions, the Bill will provide welcome enhancement of a public service.
As I told the House at Second Reading, the Government warmly support the Bill. I understand from the tone of the debate that took place at Second Reading that the Bill also has cross-party support. We therefore wish to see the Bill passed by the House and given a speedy passage in the other place. It would be helpful if the noble Lord could assure us that he has made suitable arrangements for it to proceed in another place.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord. I had not intended to make a major speech because clearly it might contravene the provisions of the Representation of the People Act. As noble Lords will be aware, currently I am standing in another election and I do not want to take advantage of the platform that has been offered to me for whatever reason. However, I thank the Government, the Treasury and in particular the Office for National Statistics for their careful co-operation in the drafting of the Bill. I also thank my former colleagues on the Welsh Language Board, from which I have now happily retired, for their activities in assisting in the preparation of the Bill and in the implementation of the principle of
630
equality and in particular the opportunity, which I did not stress at Second Reading and so I mention it today, of having the short form of death certificate. I believe that that will be warmly welcomed by many families who suffer undue pressure at the time of bereavement and later when they are reminded of it because of the form of death certificate.
As the noble Lord said, this Bill had all-party support and that was something I warmly welcomed initially. I am grateful to Members who have seen the very speedy passage of this Bill through your Lordships' House. I earnestly hope and pray, and any other verbs that I can think of, that the Bill will have an equally rapid passage through another place. I have obtained the potential support of an experienced lawyer. I refer to the Labour Member of Parliament for Clwyd West, Mr. Gareth Thomas, who I understand is prepared to introduce the Bill in another place. I hope that it will have all-party support and that some of the acrimony that we have seen recently in public debates in Wales about bilingualism will not be repeated when the Bill goes to the Commons. I shall not enter into details.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, does he not think it is appropriate to repeat his speech in Welsh?
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, if I were to do so I would be out of order, whereas if I did it in the National Assembly in Cardiff there would be no repetition because it would be instantly translated.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I believe that my noble friend Lord Hooson, who extended the welcome of these Benches to the Bill when it was last before the House, is no longer in the Chamber. Perhaps the House will allow me to repeat on behalf of these Benches our welcome for the Bill. The right to keep one's records and to have one's families' births, marriages and deaths recorded in one's native language is a fundamental one. I believe that the Bill has the confidence not only of all parties but, I understand, of those concerned professionally in the vital work of preserving archives. We have been practically reminded in the past few weeks of how vital to a nation's identity are its collective memory and records. Anything which contributes to keeping them in a form where they may be consulted for serious research or other purposes and which helps to preserve the collective memory of a nation is to be welcomed. We congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, on the work he has done in steering the Bill through the House.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, at earlier stages it fell to me on behalf of the Opposition to welcome the Bill and support it, which I did. I am grateful for the unexpected opportunity to repeat that support now, particularly as a debate is taking place on the Motion that the Bill do now pass. I understand that it is unusual for such Motions to be debated, and at some stage this may prove to be a useful precedent. For that reason we are

631
grateful to the noble Lord, the Captain of the Yeomen of the Guard, for speaking to the Motion, particularly as he did so at such length and with such charm.
Lord Elton: My Lords, it may be that in the next couple of minutes the Government Front Bench can tell the House whether in the interests of parity there are to be similar provisions for Gaelic in Scotland and Erse or Gaelic in Northern Ireland as part of their devolution plans. I believe that that would fill a useful gap.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, with the leave of the House we have considered the possibility of further minority languages being treated in the same way. The noble Lord might have wished to add the Cornish language, although at the moment I am unaware of any provision whereby registration officers in the county of Cornwall have power to record births and deaths in that county in the Cornish language. I believe that this is a question of supply and demand. There may be a demand from those people in Scotland who speak what I call the Gaelic language. The noble Lord appears to believe that he has pronounced "Gaelic" correctly, but that is his privilege as a full-blooded Englishman, whereas I am only half-English.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am half Norwegian.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that does not help the noble Lord's pronunciation problem, particularly if he seeks to adopt the tonal variation which I understand is such a distinguished and beautiful feature of the Norwegian language. I congratulate him. Did the noble Lord say that he spoke Norwegian?
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, may the House take it that similar facilities will not be given to Eurospeak?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I had not finished answering the previous question. If my noble friend will have a little patience, I shall move on to that point. Certainly the Gaelic and Erse languages could be considered for similar legislation if there were to be sufficient demand. We should need to have a seminar in Eurospeak conducted by my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington—he is the classic interpreter of Eurospeak—before being able to make a sensible judgement as to whether his suggestion is appropriate.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord the Captain of the Yeomen of the Guard whether the appearance of the noble Baroness the Leader of the House presages the appearance of the Queen of Sheba in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not think that I, of all people, should become involved in biblical allusions of that kind. We are always pleased to see my noble friend the Leader of the House and to have her with us at this time.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

European Parliamentary Elections (Gibraltar) Bill [H.L.]
3.31 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Bethel] I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Baroness Hooper.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Pollution Prevention and Control Bill [H.L.]
Lord Carter: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Whitty, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Bill be re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House.—(Lord Carter.)
Lord Renton: My Lords, when this Bill was before your Lordships in February, it was strongly criticised in all parts of the House, and rightly so. It is basically unconstitutional in that it repeals the whole of Part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which consists of 28 sections, and purports to replace it by statutory instruments. Those would not be drafted by parliamentary counsel but by officials in the department. The instruments would come before your Lordships without noble Lords having any chance to amend them. Noble Lords would be able only to vote for or against them.
We are grateful to the Government for acknowledging the request made in Committee that the Bill be re-committed. Some amendments have now been tabled by the Government and others, including myself, which we hope may improve the Bill. I shall be tabling this week further amendments of a more fundamental kind. I hope that the Government will give adequate advance notice of the re-committal. It is of vital importance that as many of your Lordships as possible should attend and take an interest in the constitutional implications, and protest against them.
Lord Carter: My Lords, 1 believe that the date of the re-commitment has been noted in future business for about a fortnight. I am aware of the point the noble Lord makes. The Government have taken note of the comments of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. That is why we have re-committed the Bill.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Kosovo
3.34 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, with the permission of the House, I should like to repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:
"Madam Speaker, I would like, with your permission, to bring the House fully up to date with events in Kosovo.
"NATO's action continues. Our targets include the Serbian air defence system, the command and control centres of the Yugoslav Army and special police forces, the lines of communication which Milosevic uses to resupply his forces in Kosovo, his fuel supplies and, increasingly, the Serb forces on the ground engaged in ethnic cleansing. The armed forces of 13 allies are taking a direct part in the NATO action. I am proud of the full role being played by the men and women of the British Armed Forces. They have the thanks of the whole House.
"Our aims are clear. They were set out again at the meeting yesterday of NATO Foreign Ministers: a verifiable end to all Serb military action and the immediate ending of violence and repression; the withdrawal from Kosovo of Milosevic's military, police and paramilitary forces; agreement to the stationing in Kosovo of an international military force; the unconditional and safe return of all refugees and displaced persons and unhindered access to them by humanitarian aid organisations; credible assurance of willingness to work on the basis of the Rambouillet accords in the establishment of a political framework agreement for Kosovo in conformity with international law and the Charter of the United Nations.
"Once we have succeeded militarily we need to negotiate a political settlement based on the Rambouillet agreement. It must be a settlement that brings lasting peace to the entire region.
"Our action will continue until these aims are met.
"There is no longer any serious doubt that the warnings we gave about Milosevic and his intentions were fully justified. Half a million Kosovar Albanians have fled or been driven out of Kosovo into the neighbouring territories of Albania, Macedonia and Montenegro. In no small measure due to British efforts, those who sought refuge in neighbouring countries are now being looked after and have at least found shelter, food and safety.
"I would like to pay tribute to the British troops in Macedonia who built a camp for some 30,000 people inside 48 hours; to the sterling work of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development in persuading the Macedonian Government fully to open the border; to British NGOs for their rapid response in getting relief through to these refugees; and to the tremendous generosity of the British people who have already given some £10 million to the Kosovo Appeal and
634
added substantially to the £23 million committed so far by the Government. I should like also to commend the Albanian Government which have been unstinting in providing a welcome to those fleeing from Kosovo.
"Our concern is now for those still inside Kosovo. Milosevic's forces continue their ethnic cleansing, but at a reduced level. As a result of NATO action to date, the pace has significantly diminished. His tanks have to conceal themselves from NATO aircraft. His fuel supplies are running low. Some estimate that taking into account all those displaced over several months half a million or so Kosovar Albanians have been driven from their homes but remain within the province. Many have sought refuge in the hills and forests of Kosovo. We are looking urgently at all the options to assist them. Let me say this clearly: Milosevic is responsible for the welfare of those people. When we go into Kosovo finally, he will be held responsible for what we find.
"Let me deal with some of the wider strategic issues. Some say NATO should never have acted at all. Some say too soon. Some say not enough. However inconsistent these points they all deserve answering.
"Milosevic's action in Kosovo—the murder, rape and terror he has visited on innocents—is ample justification for military action.
"To those who wanted more negotiation, I say: we struggled for a year to find a solution for Kosovo by peaceful means, despite Milosevic's brutality on the ground. We intervened when the diplomatic avenue was exhausted, and when the hideous policy of ethnic cleansing was under way. For make no mistake: this brutality was planned well in advance.
"Even as the Rambouillet talks were continuing, Serb troops were massing in Kosovo and a new offensive was getting under way—40,000 troops and 300 tanks assembled. We now know that Belgrade was making detailed plans for ethnic cleansing as early as February.
"Five days before NATO, dropped a single bomb, Serb forces began a massive new offensive aimed at clearing Kosovo of its ethnic Albanian majority, wiping out their political class and even destroying evidence that Albanians had ever lived there.
"To those who say put in ground forces now, as part of a land force invasion of Kosovo, I repeat that the difficulties of such an undertaking, in the face of organised Serb resistance, are formidable. In the present circumstances, the potential loss of life among our service men and women, to say nothing of civilians, would be considerable. In any event, assembling such a force would take many weeks.
"Every day, by air power, we are causing further damage to Milosevic's military machine. His air defence system is seriously degraded. Half his frontline air force is now unusable. The roads and railways supplying his forces in Kosovo are largely cut. Fuel is now in short supply, hampering the movements of his tanks and trucks. Artillery and troops on the ground are now being hit.

635
"We make every effort to avoid civilian casualties, though some casualties will be inevitable in such action, and our attitude stands in sharp contrast to the utter lack of scruple of Milosevic towards the civilian population in Kosovo.
"Britain and our forces can be proud of the role we have played—both in the military campaign, and in the humanitarian effort too. Day and night, our pilots are risking their lives to inflict defeat on Milosevic.
"Day and night, our forces are working to help alleviate the misery of the refugees driven from their homes and their homeland by Milosevic's hideous policy of ethnic cleansing. And day and night, we are too preparing for the job we have to do when our military objectives are met.
"Today, I can announce that we are sending substantial reinforcements for this purpose, with a second armoured battle group. At the moment, the British Army contingent in Greece and Macedonia consists of just over 4,500 military personnel. Today's announcement will see the remainder of HQ 4 Armoured Brigade and supporting elements sent to the region. All are currently based at their home locations in the UK and Germany.
"This will take the total number of UK military personnel in Greece and Macedonia to over 6,300. Let me make clear, for the avoidance of doubt, they are being sent so that the UK can be in a position to play our proper role in the international effort to ensure the refugees are able to return to Kosovo in safety.
"As I said in my first Statement to the House of Commons, this action will take time. Dictators like Milosevic do not bow down at the first setback to their plans. But as the weather improves, his forces will have fewer hiding places. When new weapons systems are available such as the attack helicopters, no Serb unit in Kosovo will be able to destroy a village with confidence that they will not be challenged by more powerful forces.
"We continue with diplomacy to back up our military action. Tomorrow in Brussels, I shall be meeting with my colleagues on the European Council and this meeting is being brought forward to include a session with the Secretary-General of the United Nations. The NATO Alliance has a long-planned summit meeting in Washington at the end of next week. I and my colleagues will remain in close touch with our Russian counterparts who will have an important role to play when Milosevic is brought to meet NATO's requirements.
"NATO must remain united and resolute. There can be no compromise on the terms we have set out. They must be met in full. We shall continue until they are. Ethnic cleansing must be defeated, and seen to be defeated. Milosevic's policies in Kosovo must be defeated, and seen to be defeated. I believe we have a clear and strategic interest in peace in the Balkans. But this is now military action for a moral purpose as much as a strategic interest. This barbarity perpetrated against innocent civilians in Kosovo, simply on the grounds of their ethnic identity, cannot be allowed.
636
"The conflict we now face in Kosovo is a test of our commitment and our resolve to ensure that the 21st century does not begin with a continuing reminder in Europe of the worst aspects of the century now drawing to a close. I urge the House to continue to give its unfailing support to the men and women of our Armed Forces and to the values they are striving to uphold on behalf of us all."
My Lords, the concludes the Statement.
3.44 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement today. Perhaps I may express my concern that, according to press reports this morning, yesterday, while this House was sitting and a Statement could have been made to Parliament, the Prime Minister's official spokesman gave a briefing to the media about what would be in today's Statement. Will the noble Baroness accept that there is deep distaste throughout this House that Parliament is denied information which Mr. Campbell is authorised to give to the media? Therefore, will she on behalf of the House, as its Leader, take a message to the Prime Minister's Office that we are reaching the limits of tolerance with such contempt for Parliament? I feel it particularly strongly because yesterday I put down a Private Notice Question for a Statement to be made to this House, but the request was turned down by the noble Baroness.
I turn to the Statement. We should never forget that in order to achieve peace and security in Kosovo British service men and women are putting their lives on the line on a daily basis. I join the noble Baroness in saying that the whole House owes them a huge debt.
There have now been three weeks of air strikes. Does the noble Baroness agree that it is appropriate to consider the assurances given by the Government about the military situation and to consider what can now be achieved? We continue to offer support to the Government on the basis that for the campaign to be successful the strategy must be clear and consistent. Will she therefore assure the House of three things? First, do the objectives of the campaign remain those which were set out at the start? In particular, while the Statement makes clear that the Rambouillet accords are still regarded as the basis of a political settlement, the aims announced today go far further. Does the noble Baroness now believe that the Kosovar Albanians will require something more than that degree of autonomy if they are to return to their homes?
The noble Baroness will recall that one of the main reasons for the collapse of the Rambouillet talks was that President Milosevic refused to accept a NATO-led peacekeeping force? It is clear today that consideration is now being given to the deployment of an international force. Could she confirm that such an international force rather than a NATO-led peacekeeping force would be acceptable to the Government? Could she also state in more detail what role the Government envisage the Russian Government playing in a settlement?
The Prime Minister has rightly spoken of the need for war crimes investigations. In the light of the events of the past few weeks, how do the Government view the

637
prospect of negotiating or sustaining a settlement with Mr. Milosevic in place as President of Yugoslavia? Will the Government support negotiations directly with President Milosevic?
I turn to the second aspect of the Statement. Can the noble Baroness comment on the reported delays in channelling humanitarian aid to the region? Is she now satisfied that everything possible is being done to co-ordinate such aid as effectively as possible? Can the Leader of the House confirm that it is government policy to support refugees wherever possible in the region itself? Does she believe that any more could have been done to support Macedonia in particular, bearing in mind the large number of refugees remaining there and the serious implications this may have for that country's stability?
Thirdly, as regards ground troops, the Prime Minister has repeatedly stressed the immense difficulties involved in committing troops to an invasion of Kosovo in advance of a political settlement. I believe that he is right to do so. Yet on separate occasions the Prime Minister has said both that there is no question of using troops in such a way and that,
"we keep all our options under review at all times".
Can the noble Baroness the Leader of the House tell us whether the use of ground troops prior to a political settlement is out of the question or is now under review?
Finally, will the Leader of the House accept that clarity of objectives is of paramount importance in ensuring the success and the perceived success of NATO's military action? In short, at the end of the day people need to know when we have won and what we have won. As the Prime Minister said, having now begun this action it is vital that it is successful. It is vital for the people of Kosovo; and it is vital to ensure that the future stability of this region, but also of the international community as a whole, is maintained.
3.49 p.m.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, from these Benches I join in thanking the noble Baroness for repeating here the Statement by the Prime Minister in another place. It is essentially a holding Statement; there is nothing very new in it, but it is welcome nevertheless. I also join, as all of us no doubt do, in the tribute to the men and women of the Armed Forces, whether they are in action or helping in humanitarian roles in Macedonia and elsewhere. They certainly have our unfailing support.
The Prime Minister said in his initial Statement,
"this action will take time".
But it must be said and recognized—and this is a matter to be assessed later in the day—that when the decision was made to intervene militarily through airstrikes a number of things were clearly not anticipated. I refer not only, or mainly, to Her Majesty's Government, but to NATO as a whole. I do not believe, whatever may be said, that it was anticipated that bombing would have to continue for so long and without decisive results. It is
638
an interesting reflection on this that there is a reference in the Statement to attack helicopters becoming available for the first time.
It was not expected—and it should have been—that there would be an acceleration of ethnic cleansing. I do not attribute that in any way to the bombing; as the noble Baroness said in repeating the Statement, it was under way. But it could have been anticipated, and arrangements could have been prepared for what has since happened.
Then again—and this was not referred to in the Statement; I do not complain about that—it was not sufficiently seen that the bombing would certainly unite most Serbian dissidents with their government. Too little was done to consider the problem of hearts and minds and an appropriate campaign in a situation of this kind.
Finally—and these points need to be made—the abdication of the possible use of ground forces diminished the threat that NATO constituted in the eyes of President Milosevic. Having said that there was too little planning, too little forethought, I think that Washington was mainly to blame, but the European members of NATO also have their responsibilities. That does not mean that the initial decision was wrong. On the contrary, we would all be very deeply ashamed had there been no intervention and had NATO continued to equivocate. If the intervention was ill prepared and at the beginning half-hearted, that does not alter the awfulness of what President Milosevic has done and in no way diminishes the support that the Government and NATO must have in catching up with any previous failures there may have been.
There are only two more points I would like to make. First, I am glad that we are now preparing—for clearly this is what is happening—for the use of ground troops, if necessary, in a fighting role. The noble Baroness shakes her head, and she will have to deny it, but I hope that it is true. If it is not true, there is a failure of responsibility on the part of the Government and NATO. But, secondly, and this is not as contrary as it may seem, I hope that NATO is also thinking of what I would call a Marshall Plan for the reconstruction of Yugoslavia when NATO's objectives have been achieved. I say that because all those of us who support what is being done, and who nevertheless have been distressed by the inevitable and widespread damage, want to do all we can afterwards to help restore the country for all those who live in it and who we hope will take a different view in the years ahead.
I hope that such a Marshall Plan, if I may call it that, will be part of a longer-term policy towards the Balkans. Do we really want them to look more to the East than to the West? That is the first decision. That decision having been made, a number of important considerations follow from it. I do not believe there has been a collective view in NATO hitherto on that.
I ask the noble Baroness one question which bears on the objectives. I take it that there is no possibility—I think this was hinted at by the United States Secretary of State in error—that we would agree to the partition

639
of Kosovo either within the federation or half in and half out. Perhaps the noble Baroness will confirm that that is the case.
Are we still committed to an unpartitioned Kosovo within the federation or are we now prepared to consider, as indeed we should, the possibility of an independent Kosovo outside the federation, if that is the only way? Are we prepared to see NATO offering what is in effect a protectorate for an indefinite period to ensure that the objective, once achieved, is fulfilled?
Finally, will the noble Baroness say a word about the view of our NATO partners? I am not suggesting that there was a division of opinion yesterday; that would neither be my wish nor, certainly, my intention. But France and Germany have had thoughts of their own about where the future lies. Have they put forward any alternative proposals, and are any such proposals being considered by Her Majesty's Government and NATO as a whole?
3.55 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their response to the Statement. I am sure the whole House will once again join me in thanking them for their support and expressions of total commitment to the activities of our troops who are involved, together with the NATO allies.
Both noble Lords asked me questions about the objectives of this exercise and of the views of the United States and NATO on those objectives.
It might be useful to the House if I simply repeated the points made at the outcome of the very successful meeting yesterday of the NATO Foreign Ministers at the North Atlantic Council. The following points were agreed as joint intentions and joint positions, and were intended as the basis for any further negotiations with President Milosevic.
They are: first, to ensure a verifiable stop to all military action and, in his case, the immediate ending of violence and repression; secondly, to ensure that he does withdraw all his troops from Kosovo, including the police and paramilitary forces as well as the army; and, thirdly, to ensure that he agrees to the stationing in Kosovo of an international military presence. I would underline again to both noble Lords that of course there may well be British and NATO ground troops involved, but that would be a peacekeeping force rather than a force intent on fighting its way into a difficult situation, which, as the Statement says, against Serbian refusal to accept any intervention on a legal basis would be very difficult.
The fourth point was the unconditional safe return of all refugees and displaced persons and, as I said in the Statement, access to them by humanitarian aid organisations. Fifthly, and perhaps most important, because both noble Lords referred to the political future, there is the question of willingness to work on the basis of the Rambouillet accords and the establishment of the political framework. The Rambouillet accords must remain our touchstone for further discussion about the future of Kosovo. As both noble Lords will be aware, there was discussion at the time when the Kosovo
640
Albanians signed the Rambouillet accords about the extent to which the autonomy that they agreed to under those accords was legitimate and how far it was possible to maintain a position in which autonomy was agreed without a search for immediate independence. I am sure the whole House will remember that it was agreed that that position of extended autonomy would be reconsidered after a period of three years. That remains the position of the Government and the NATO allies. The idea of any further developments, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, suggested, may have been inadvertently referred to by the United States spokesman, is not being considered at the moment.
Both noble Lords referred to the position of the Russians, which has of course been giving considerable concern. I am sure the House will be aware that Secretary Albright and the Foreign Minister of Russia, Mr. Ivanov, have been meeting today. The latest reports from that meeting are that some progress has been made on finding a settlement, and Mrs. Albright has said in a statement that they have reached agreement on many of the basic principles for an end to the crisis in Kosovo. We can all take some comfort from the progress of that discussion.
Both noble Lords referred to the question of aid and whether it was now in a satisfactory state. Given the scale of the humanitarian catastrophe in the region, it would be complacent to say that anybody's life there is satisfactory. But there has certainly been an improvement on the ground. Again, I draw attention to the extraordinary work carried out by some of our troops in diverting their resources to building tented camps and so on and providing food for refugees.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, asked whether this could be a prelude to some wider rebuilding of the region on an economic basis—something equivalent to the Marshall Plan. I am sure that the whole of the western alliance and others will need to consider that in a peaceful situation. In my view, and I think in the Government's view, it would probably be more appropriate to consider that in the context of developing the region as a whole rather than simply looking at the situation in Kosovo, although there will clearly be art enormous call for very rapid rebuilding and economic support for that region.
The whole issue about whether or not there was sufficient preparation is complicated. Some intelligence reports indicated that there were troop movements in Kosovo and that ethnic cleansing was already beginning as early as February, as the Statement said. At that stage, if we had encouraged international NGOs or others, for example, to build tented camps across the border, that would have been almost conniving at the idea that there was likely to be ethnic cleansing. As noble Lords will be only too aware, there is always a major difficulty in relation to judging a response. No one really could have, foreseen the extreme position which the Milosevic forces, the paramilitaries and the police took in driving literally three-quarters of a million people across the borders. It would have been extremely difficult to plan for that in any sensible way although we can say now that, within very limited objectives, the situation has been brought under control.

641
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, expressed the matter well when he said that we should all have been deeply ashamed had we not done anything to confront the military situation with which we were faced and had we failed to deal with the exceptional circumstances of humanitarian catastrophe which is the United Nations position on taking such military action.
I conclude by repeating that we must support everything that our troops are doing both in terms of the military objectives which are clear from that joint NATO statement which I read out, but also in terms of the extraordinary work which is being done to deal with some of the more terrible aspects of the humanitarian crisis.
4.2 p.m.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, when the noble Baroness replies, will she address the question of the press being informed before Parliament about the content of today's Statement, as raised by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde? Also, will the noble Baroness accept that now that we have got ourselves into this mess, it is absolutely essential that NATO should not be seen to fail and that therefore all resources should be devoted to succeeding in achieving our objectives? As my noble friend Lord Strathclyde mentioned, it would be helpful to know with greater clarity precisely what are those objectives.
I wonder, too, whether the noble Baroness will tell the House why the Government felt that it would be better to do nothing to anticipate the reception of refugees and therefore to accept that for a number of days at least, they would be in a very poor way and in great need. I found it difficult to follow the noble Baroness's logic in relation to that.
The noble Baroness referred also to the discussions between Secretary Albright and Mr. Ivanov. Is any thought being addressed to the potential effect of the events in the Balkans on future elections in Russia and to whether anything can be done to make sure that at least some of the more lunatic fringe of Russian parties will not gain advantage from that?
Finally, will the noble Baroness comment on the effect on the tour intervals between duties of British troops as a result of the additional commitments being made? We know that there is substantial overstretch at the moment. Can she give some sort of estimate, perhaps after consultation with the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, about the average tour interval which is now expected as a result of the additional commitment and whether, as a result of that extra strain, it would not be better to reverse the proposals for the decimation of the infantry of the Territorial Army which was announced earlier this year?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the noble Viscount has asked several questions to which I shall try to respond as briefly as I can, being aware of the time limits on this part of the debate.
As to the press situation, I am sure that the noble Viscount will be aware—as I repeated in the Statement—that there were several items of news which
642
were included in the Statement, particularly in relation to the deployment of additional British troops, which were certainly not available to anybody to report at an earlier stage. I am surprised that the noble Viscount thinks that he derived any of the basic factual information which I gave in the Statement from any background briefing which had been given at, for example, any of the Ministry of Defence briefings which occur on a daily basis. The Statement was very clear in its outline and in the items of news, if one can express the matter in that way, that it delivered.
On the question of the relationship with the Russians, in referring to the Statement which Secretary Albright issued in the last couple of hours, I said that I thought that there was a clear picture that at least some progress had been made and that at least talks are continuing. As to the impact on the internal position of the Russian elections, that will probably be more dependent on the somewhat catastrophic economic situation within Russia rather than on external relations with NATO. However, we should be aware that anything which increases the instability of the domestic situation there would not be helpful to any international objective.
I am sorry if I was not sufficiently clear to the noble Viscount about the objectives of the campaign. If he will forgive me, I shall not repeat those objectives which I read out in some detail because I am aware that I have now taken several of the allotted minutes, but if he would like me to, I shall repeat them in writing to him.
The noble Viscount mentioned the Territorial Army and the overstretch of the British Army. My noble friend Lord Gilbert has not conveyed any particular information to me on that point. However, I reiterate a fact which I mentioned to the House when we last discussed Kosovo. Since the defence review took place last year, Army recruitment has increased by a large percentage—about 16 per cent. That must reduce the overstretch, which is something of which the military planners will be aware in making their dispositions.
Lord Grenfell: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Leader of the House for her informative Statement. In the event that Milosevic agrees to a ceasefire, are Her Majesty's Government taking into account that if that is some way into the distant future, he may not be in a position to deliver that ceasefire given the fact that the paramilitaries and some of his own forces in Kosovo will not necessarily respond, having now got up a head of steam there? If that happens, is it envisaged by the Government that it may be necessary for NATO forces to go in to make sure that the ceasefire does in fact take place?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for making that important political point. As was said by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, reports coming out, at least through the media—although they are censored—from Yugoslavia is that Mr. Milosevic's political power is not being restrained. But my noble friend makes a legitimate point about the length of time that this campaign may take and its possible impact on the political stability within the Yugoslav area. In a sense, that underlines the importance of being in a position to have an international military presence there to ensure that a ceasefire is maintained and that it is

643
maintained on the terms which I discussed when I repeated the objectives for a ceasefire that came yesterday from the Foreign Ministers of NATO.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, first, is it not the case that most of the Kosovars who have not yet been ethnically cleansed have remained immune from Serbian attacks because they live in mountainous or inaccessible regions which are not easy to get at by road? If that is so, will the noble Baroness suggest to colleagues in NATO that we should air-drop humanitarian supplies to those regions and that at the same time we should air-drop to the KLA, who are guarding them, shoulder-launched anti-tank missiles so that at least they can protect themselves if the Serbs do go in to try to ethnically cleanse the remainder of the territory?
Secondly, what is being done to counteract the propaganda shown nightly on Belgrade television and repeated from Pale? Are we not going to make some effort to see that the Serbs understand what is being done in their name; that is, the horrific crimes being committed by their armed forces? In connection with such crimes, will the Minister ensure that where evidence is available from the refugees and migrants it is taken down in a form which may subsequently be used in prosecutions before the ICTY; in other words, that it conforms with the rules of evidence laid down by that tribunal?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for raising those important points. He is correct in saying that the number of internal refugees, displaced persons internally, now fleeing from the Serbian forces are mainly in the mountain regions which are extremely inaccessible. Whether they are residents of those regions or whether they have gone there simply to hide from potential reprisals or the kind of eviction that their other, less fortunate neighbours have seen, is not entirely clear. There is a considerable lack of clarity concerning the numbers involved, but I think that no one disagrees that they are substantial.
As regards humanitarian aid for those people, the question of air drops is a complicated one. It would include low flying in mountainous regions with, no doubt, a great deal of Serbian response. It is difficult to imagine how that could be done and whether it could be done in a valuable way, given the substantial amount of aid which would have to be conveyed to make a real impact rather than simply being a gesture. However, such matters are under consideration.
As regards dropping arms to the KLA, I am sure that the noble Lord is aware that there is a UN resolution which would preclude that. It would obviously be difficult for NATO to undertake such action.
As regards counter-propaganda, I am sure the noble Lord will be aware that some of our websites on the Internet are receiving large numbers of visits from people within the Yugoslav Republic, who are, in a sense, picking up information of a different kind. There have been leaflet drops by the Americans but, as was stated yesterday by the BBC, this is a propaganda war
644
in a situation of censorship and it is almost as difficult to get into the system in that way as it is to get into the military system in a more conventional way.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, I should like to ask the Minister two questions. First, what is the legal basis in international law for our invasion of a sovereign country, no matter what our morals may be or what morality may be intended? Secondly, can the Minister say whether NATO's moral indignation is confined to Europe or should we not have extended it to West Africa where Hutus and Tutsis have been murdering each other? Finally, is it not the case that the net result has been to rally the Serbs right behind Milosevic, which is the last thing NATO wanted to bring about?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I believe that the point regarding the legal basis for our action has been made clear in this House on several occasions. My noble friend Lady Symons has repeated it in Written Answers and at Question Time and I have repeated it in several Statements. I refer to the United Nations resolution which allows that in exceptional circumstances military force can be used to deal with humanitarian catastrophe. I am sure that the noble Earl would not disagree that there is definitely a humanitarian catastrophe in Kosovo. That is the legal basis upon which we are undertaking this military action.
The noble Earl raises a sensible point about the disparity, as he sees it, between the different aims of our attention to humanitarian catastrophe in one part of the world and another. I simply repeat the words of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, with which I entirely agree, that had we not taken action on this particular occasion, we would have felt deeply ashamed.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords—
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Cross-Bench!
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I was about to ask whether your Lordships would permit me to ask two brief questions from a position which is more exalted than that from which I am entitled to speak because the Bench I was told to occupy was already occupied.
My two questions are as follows, and I speak on behalf of those, from all sides of the House, who think that this bloody war should never have been started. First, will the Government pursue with the utmost energy the discussions which I understand are taking place and which have the view in mind, which I believe all of us share, that this business should be brought to an end as soon as possible?
Secondly, will my noble friend recognize—I hope that she will forgive me for using the word "friend": I do so because I feel it to be proper—and will the Government recognise that this type of operation is known intrinsically to be much harsher on the attacked than the attacker? One of the consequences of that is that women and children are almost invariably killed in

645
this type of operation. Having regard to that and recognising that our forces are doing their best in that respect, they are not succeeding very well. Will they take what extra care is possible at this stage to ensure that non-combatants do not suffer to the degree that they are at present?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend that it is those who are not directly involved in conflict who are very often affected. I respectfully draw his attention to the enormous suffering caused to those driven from their homes by President Milosevic and to the fact that responsibility for the refugee crisis can be laid entirely at his door. It is there that we see the women and children suffering, separated from their menfolk, many of whom may have disappeared in the most alarming circumstances. The responsibility for that is entirely clear.
As regards bringing the military action to a close, the Government are working as hard as they can. I repeated in the Statement the diplomatic efforts that are taking place. I refer to the bilateral meeting today between the Americans and the Russians and a meeting of the European Council tomorrow involving my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. We seek to open every possible avenue to achieve such ends, but we intend to achieve the objectives I repeated in the Statement. The responsibility for coming to the table to discuss those matters is that of President Milosevic.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, can the Minister explain why it appears that NATO is very reluctant to detach Montenegro from Serbia given that its president in very recent days has distanced himself from Belgrade?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, as the noble Lord points out, the position with Montenegro is a delicate, diplomatic one. In agreement with our NATO allies, we are hoping to support the present situation. It is difficult to know precisely what was said—and on what authority—about the potential neutrality of Montenegro. However, we are supporting Montenegro in practical terms. In terms of the humanitarian crisis, we are adding to Montenegro's ability and resources to deal with the thousands of people who have crossed the borders into that country.
Baroness Ludford: My Lords, may I ask the Minister about the practical arrangements for refugees? We all know that many families have been split up because of the appalling actions of the Serb forces. Press reports suggest that such families have no access to telephones to try to trace lost children, for example. Press reports also state that aid workers and troops are passing around their own mobile phones for use. Is there a practical prospect of getting telephonic equipment to refugees so that they may contact their relatives? Will the Minister ask her noble friend whether the Ministry of Defence will consider paying the private mobile
646
phone bills of our troops whom we all say we support strongly and who will have horrendous bills to pay when they arrive home?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the noble Baroness makes some sensible and practical points. I agree that one of the saddest things that has happened is the disintegration of family units, particularly children being left entirely on their own. I am sure that the international development community and the international development department here see it as an important priority. However, at the moment there are even more important basic priorities such as providing the refugees with food, water and shelter.
I am sure that the noble Baroness will have seen, as I have, the basic communications networks which have been set up. They seem to be producing some results; for instance, the posting around of notices makes it possible for families to maintain contact. I understand the point that the noble Baroness makes. It is one that I shall address to DfID in the first instance. It may be that the NGOs are more suited to set up such networks. I know that DfID has already funded one specific NGO to try to bring families together. I am not clear about the details of the methods it is using, but it is a sensible suggestion.
As to the MoD refunding the Army for its mobile phone bills, that is a new problem for the defence department but I am sure that my noble friend Lord Gilbert heard the suggestion. I thought the noble Baroness might have mentioned the point raised in some newspaper reports regarding American soldiers being given tax breaks. That has not yet been suggested here.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, I applaud the clarity with which my noble friend the Leader of the House explained the role of British troops in Kosovo and Yugoslavia in general. However, will she remind those commentators who talk glibly about armed intervention in Yugoslavia of what happened between 1942 and 1945—it will be known to many in your Lordships' House—when Tito's partisans held down 13 German divisions? A partisan war is not a normal war. To walk into one would be a grave mistake, as the Americans learnt in Vietnam.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for bringing that extremely important historical perspective to the situation as it exists at the moment. I would just marginally correct him; I am sure he did not mean this. There are no troops in Kosovo at the moment, as he will be aware. It is the situation that the British Army has been involved on several historical occasions when we have been engaged with very determined, extreme, well-organised but small numbers of people virulently determined to further their own aims.
As my noble friend will recall, in my right honourable friend the Prime Minister's original Statement he said that it was calculated that approximately 100,000 troops would be needed to make any impact on the ground in Kosovo. That is certainly not something which would

647
ever be undertaken lightly or for the purposes of invasion or fighting our way in. As he rightly suggests, that would be an extraordinarily difficult enterprise.

Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill
4.22 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I apologise if I disrupted the business of the House. It was an engagement to which I was committed—not a personal one—and I am sorry if business was put out of order. I hope your Lordships will accept that apology.
Turning to the Bill, my belief is that we should, as a matter of duty, ensure equality before the criminal law for young homosexuals and heterosexuals. This concerns a fundamental principle of equality. The Bill would bring that about; that is why I support it.
As your Lordships know from previous discussions, this is a matter of a free vote. Should any noble Lord wish to understand my position, I repeat it. It is a matter of principle and we ought to support that principle in this Bill. I know perfectly well from discussions in your Lordships' House—and helpful discussions outside—that others do not take that view, and I respect that. We had a lengthy discussion when we looked at similar proposals in the Crime and Disorder Bill. I hope that if your Lordships do not agree entirely with what we have done, the fact will at ]east be recognised that we paid careful attention to the matters raised on all sides of this House regarding the protection of young people from those in a position of trust in relation to them. We have done good work in introducing a protection for children who might be in relationships of trust from an abuse of that trust. I ask your Lordships to think carefully about voting down, at this stage or indeed any stage, a Bill giving protection which, l repeat, does not exist in our law for those who are vulnerable and need it.
Perhaps it is as well to distinguish what we propose in the Bill from what many of us would prefer to have if the world were ideal. During my tenancy of this lifetime I have not found the world to be ideal. It may be that some of your Lordships have a different experience. We need to distinguish between what we believe to be desirable by way of conduct and what the criminal law ought to be. It is a clear distinction which needs to be drawn.
We are not advocating sexual promiscuity. We are not opening the floodgates of social change for further reductions in the age of consent. I remind your Lordships that the age of consent in a country which is historically socially conservative and where the power of religion still remains significant—namely, Spain—is 12. I would never vote for such a reduction.
The age of 16 is about right. The proposal here, if one approaches it in the dual way I commend, is simply to bear in mind that the age of consent for heterosexual relationships is set at 16. That may be too young for many people as a matter of desirability or of consequence. We know the undesirable consequences—
648
unwanted pregnancy and all that flows from it which may blight two young lives. There is the risk of sexually transmitted disease. It is important that all young people should have good access to medical advice. But the law acknowledges, and has done so for many years past in our country. like it or not as we may, that young people will have such relationships whatever we try to stipulate by law.
The age of 16 for heterosexual sexual activity in terms of consent, I repeat, has been with us for a long time. If the propositions I put out in a moment or two are true for young heterosexuals, then they are true also for young homosexuals.
Noble Lords: No!
Noble Lords: Yes!
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, two views were there expressed: one was no and the other yes. At the end of the day, as happened in the debate we had last time, that is what it comes to. I am not sure whether the power of rational arguments, whether for or against my proposals, will have an ultimately determinative effect—I put that as tactfully as I may.
Perhaps it is as well to bear in mind in support of my proposition earlier that this is not an attempt to deal irresponsibly with young children. Let us be plain about it. All of us who have or have had young adolescent children, virtually without exception, would prefer it if, at the age of 16 and one day, our daughters were not in sexual partnerships; and we would prefer it similarly if our sons at 16 and one day were not. But our preference and our shuddering at the thought of the dangers that exist and the wrong choices that they may make—as we all may have made at one period or another at various times in our lives—is no basis for the criminal law.
It is in the hope of providing a little background and not in any sense designed to be tendentious when I say that the organisations which support the equalisation of the age of consent are not revolutionists; they are not subversives of moral order. What commends them perhaps is that they deal with these problems on a daily basis. I take a few of them. The NSPCC—I declare again my interest for I was until the election a trustee—Barnardos, the National Children's Home, Action for Children, the National Children's Bureau, Save the Children, the Family Welfare Association, the Health Education Authority, the British Medical Association, the Family Planning Association and the National Association of Probation Officers all have a certain knowledge of these problems on a daily basis. I would add the British Association of Social Workers, the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the Royal College of Nursing.
The fact that they support this proposition will not determine the outcome but I think I can fairly, reasonably and legitimately say that these people have pondered the questions in depth and at length. They would not have come to a conclusion lightly or frivolously. Therefore I believe that we should approach the matter, if we can, on the basis of fairness and not on

649
what our particular approval or disapproval may be. We should not be side-tracked on to other issues, a danger which was apparent at the time of our last discussion.
There are predatory older people who want to use (therefore misuse) young children of the age of 16 plus. There are predatory older men who do exactly the same with girls of 16 plus, as the experiences which your Lordships were fearful of describing on the last occasion show. I do not myself see any moral distinction between a man of 47 or 57 having sexual intercourse with a girl of 16 plus and a man of that same age having sexual relationships with a boy of 16 plus. I do not see myself—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do not see myself—and I listened to every speech and I have re-read them with care—the moral distinction. That may be my deficiency but I think I am entitled to put that forward as the basis on which I approach matters. We do need to protect those who are in a particular relationship, which is what we generally describe as a relationship of trust. I said, as firmly as I might, on the last occasion that I believe it to be a standing reproach to us in this country that we have not had legal sanctions—that is, the sanctions of the criminal law—to protect young people in those breach-of-trust relationships.
That is what the Bill does. Again I respectfully suggest that before throwing it out, if that is what your Lordships are determined to do, we should pause for a moment or two to see whether our duty is going to be discharged properly towards those people who may be abused by someone in a position of trust. I fully recognise the very real concerns that were expressed. I repeat, I expressed them myself. We set up a group to examine the situation. Its report on abuses of trust was placed in the Library on 25th November. That forms the basis of the proposals before the House.
The abuse of trust proposals govern both heterosexual and homosexual relationships, as they should, and they are part of a wider programme for protecting children and the vulnerable. I should also like to say as regards the proposed new offence that it is necessary to be careful and look closely at what we draw into the criminal law as abuse of trust. It is a "shorthand" which has value but also deficiencies. All of us in every relationship we have are in one way or another in a relationship of trust. There is no other way to conduct a civil society. However, I believe we have rightly concentrated our focus for the purposes of this legislation on the abusive relationships which may occur in the circumstances of the Bill.
Many who responded were against the creation of a new criminal offence and thought that we should proceed through codes of conduct. We did not come to that conclusion. We tried to focus as carefully as we could and took the view that if an offence is wanted we have a duty to introduce it. There should be four bases. The first is that it should protect those who are particularly vulnerable in the circumstances in which they find themselves and, in particular, the location.
650
Secondly, it should protect those who are particularly vulnerable for personal reasons. Thirdly, it should apply where the influence of the adult in the relationship of trust is particularly strong or in loco parentis. Underlying all those, it should protect those who may have limited access to other adults and lack of countervailing influences.
So mainly in the Bill one finds residential settings, whether social services, foster care, detention or hospital. Anyone who has had anything to do with children in these circumstances will know how very isolated they are. A new report compiled under the chairmanship of Sir Ronald Waterhouse is to appear later this year. Anyone familiar with that sort of problem knows that in many residential institutions, whatever they are, children go into a "gulag", and no one wants to know the extent of the archipelago. It is unimaginably lonely and isolating to have no protection in those circumstances. Even if a child can leave, where is he or she to go?
The other important category is education where the relationship of trust, as I think we all know, is particularly strong. The teacher is in a position of extraordinary—perhaps unique—influence over the student. Those who take advantage of such a position I believe are wrong, and those who are taken advantage of are entitled—I put it as high as that—to the protection of the criminal law.
Of course, non-consensual sexual activity is already criminal, and the purpose here is to give primary protection to those 16 and 17 year-old boys and girls who are over the age of consent, though there is of course no lower age limit. It is intended, and I think it is bound to be, directed at the abuse of trust. It was difficult to get the drafting right. If your Lordships have any observations to make or amendments to bring forward to improve the drafting I stress that I will approach them with an open mind. I think I can say that we have already done so: I do not think I am trespassing on confidences. A number of your Lordships thought that the proposed original penalty was too low. We thought about it and realised there might be virtue in that approach, and therefore increased the penalty.
The further issue is the decriminalisation of the younger partner in buggery and homosexual offences. We have used the Bill to take the opportunity to bring that about. A 14 or 15 year-old boy may be frightened to complain about predatory behaviour. He may be blackmailed by the older man, and therefore we have put in a further protection, which again I believe to be right, by way of decriminalising the younger of the two: that is the one under the age.
I do not believe that this Bill is a vehicle for wider reform at this stage. Your Lordships know that we have a review of sexual offences generally, because by and large they are a disparate collection of offences—perhaps historical accretions in many ways—and certainly with a range of penalties that it is difficult to describe as coherent.
There is the constitutional matter, which I touch on briefly. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, raised, I think, two objections, if I have them correctly—I hope

651
I do not misrepresent her—the first of which was that the proposals on the last occasion were rushed and did not give proper time for consideration. Secondly, she thought that the Government should introduce their own Bill to deal with the age of consent. Dealing with those matters the noble Baroness further made the point that we had the constitutional right to ask the other place to think again. We have done so and it is a commonplace that the House of Commons has discussed the matter at some length and overwhelming majorities have been achieved on every occasion.
I make this further point not in any partisan way. I simply record it as a matter of recent history. All the party leaders in the House of Commons—I pay full credit to Mr Hague in that he is included—have supported this proposal. I recognise that in his circumstances that is an act of political and moral courage. I know there will be arguments about what public opinion is, or may not be. I am not sure what precise basis there is for determining that. But even if public opinion is found to be against us, that does not absolve us from our responsibilities. Even if public opinion were against me—as it may be against me on capital punishment where I have made it perfectly plain that I would never support its retention or use—I would not support the continuation of what I believe to be unfairness in this context.
I believe that the issue comes down to equality. I do not think anyone could have observed in our lengthy debates on previous occasions that anyone was guided by a malevolent motive. I suggested—I think rightly—that one needs to bear in mind that the experience and principles we draw on, and perhaps even the prejudices we feed on, were, in the overwhelming majority of cases of your Lordships, including mine, formed and crystallised quite a long time ago. Things are not as they were when we were young.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
4.41 p.m.
Baroness Youngrose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the Bill be now read a second time, to leave out ("now") and at end insert ("this day six months").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I wish to start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for introducing this Bill this afternoon. I also take the opportunity to thank him publicly for the useful meeting that we had earlier this year in his office when we discussed some of the issues in the Bill. He has not misrepresented in any way the points that I made about the constitution. But, of course, for all of us time has moved on and this is a different situation.
I shall explain why I am taking this unusual course of action. This is art unusual Bill. It was not part of the Labour Party's election manifesto in 1997 and therefore is not subject to the Salisbury/Addison Convention. The House is constitutionally entitled, if it so wishes, to vote against the Bill's Second Reading. I understand that since 1966, 12 government Bills, and 86 non-government Bills, have been opposed at Second
652
Reading in your Lordships' House. Of those, 15 Bills concerned issues of social policy such as the B ill before us today. But this Bill is also unusual in being a government measure but subject to a free vote in both Houses of Parliament. It is not therefore a party political matter. Indeed, I was grateful for the support I received from all sides of the House when this issue of lowering the age for homosexual consent was debated last July. I was also particularly grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester and to the noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits, for their support. I was pleased to see the letter in today's Times from the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster.
Since last July the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, who is a Moslem, but who did not take part in the debate last July and unfortunately cannot be here today, has told me on more than one occasion that he supports my view. I have received representations on several occasions from the Moslem community in Great Britain asking me to stand firm. I make these points to show that this is an issue which crosses both party and religious lines.
I now turn to the detail to say why I hope that the House will vote against this Bill later today. If you consider, as I do, that it is wrong to lower the age for homosexual consent from 18 to 16, in effect this Bill is unamendable. As regards boys, Clauses 3 and 4 on abuse of trust are not necessary unless the age of consent is lowered to 16 in Clause 1. I have been advised that an amendment either to leave out Clause 1 or not to accept it would be regarded as a wrecking amendment.
As regards girls, Clause 1 allows for the first time anal intercourse on 16 year-old girls. I can only suppose that this is regarded as another equal opportunity, but of a rather curious character! It is true that the subsequent clauses would provide some safeguards, but they are strictly limited.
During the passage of the Bill in another place Members of Parliament made repeated attempts to strengthen the clauses on abuse of trust. Amendments were tabled to cover, in addition to the provisions in Clauses 3 and 4, existing relationships, part-time pupils in schools, step-families, religious organisations, youth workers and temporary teachers and carers. Individuals in all these groups of people are in positions of trust at some time or another, yet none of those amendments was acceptable to the Government.
Indeed, the defence in Clause 3(3) means that if a sexual relationship existed between an adult and a young person before the new offence of abuse of trust comes into force, that sexual relationship is afterwards exempt. This opens up a large loophole in the abuse of trust clauses which can be used for some time to come.
I now turn to the issue of principle. My overwhelming concern last July and today is the protection of young people. Sixteen year-olds are children in law. This Bill makes legal for the first time buggery for both boys and girls. Both boys and girls can be, and often are, vulnerable and lonely at that age. They are children one day and adults the next. They are frequently uncertain about themselves. Boys in particular are often less mature than girls at 16, and not infrequently ambivalent about their sexuality. Good parents do not want their

653
sons to be encouraged to take up homosexual relationships at such an early age. In my view, it is the job of responsible adults in public life to support responsible parents. It is very difficult to bring up children in today's world. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that the world today is very different from the one in which I grew up. There are temptations all around, particularly for teenagers. As I say, parents do not want their sons locked into a homosexual relationship when they are only 16 years-old.
Further, lowering the age of consent will send out the wrong signal to young people. The fact is that all law influences behaviour. We would not pass laws if we did not think they would influence behaviour. This measure will be a signal that sex at 16 is all right for either girls or boys, whether in a heterosexual or homosexual relationship. I am sorry to say that I do not share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that there is a moral equivalence as between those two kinds of relationship. I do not believe that any responsible parent would want his or her daughter to marry at 16, and certainly not to have an involved affair with a much older man. But in particular parents do not want older men to form relationships with their 16 year-old sons. Of the hundreds of letters that I have received the overwhelming majority come from parents who make this point every single time.
Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. Perhaps she would reflect for a second on the law in Scotland, where a 16 year-old boy can have not only a sexual relationship but can then turn to a lifelong contract of marriage without parental consent. However, if that same 16 year-old man goes to bed with a person of the same sex, he is branded as a criminal. How then does the law equal justice, or morality, or even common sense?
Baroness Young: My Lords, as a mere Englishwoman, I never like to comment on the situation in Scotland, with which—I shall be perfectly honest—I am not familiar. But I advise the noble Lord, Lord Steel, that Scotland will have plenty of opportunities with its new Parliament to settle what it wants to do on this issue.
To continue, a lowering of the age of consent will lead to the demand to lower it still further. In 1994 we debated, and Parliament agreed, the lowering of the age from 21 to 18. Five years later the demand is to lower the age to 16. This is the thin end of the wedge. If one looks at the programme that Stonewall has set out, it seeks the repeal of Clause 28, gay "marriage" and the right for gay and lesbian couples to foster and adopt children.
Let me turn to the evidence of opinion polls. They show, quite consistently, that the public do not want the age lowered. A Gallup poll, taken after the vote in your Lordships' House last July, found that 59 per cent. believed that the House of Lords was right to overturn the Commons' decision. The same poll found that 65 per cent. of the population thought
654
that the age should remain at 18. In this way, the House of Lords has reflected public opinion much more accurately than the House of Commons.
Let me now comment on the poll which appears in The Times today. Perhaps at this point I should say that I have seldom been more flattered in my entire political life than I have been by the advertisement in The Times so helpfully put out by Stonewall. I had no idea that I enjoyed such an elevated position. It will be read with astonishment by my family. I shall certainly have the advertisement framed and hung on my wall, to be shown with great pride to every single one of my visitors.
However, let me return to the points that Stonewall makes about the poll, which I believe to be completely inaccurate. The poll was taken by NOP, and I have taken the opportunity to read its findings precisely. The first question asked was, "Do you believe in equality in the age of consent?" Sixty-six per cent. said that they wanted an equal age of consent. It was then claimed that 66 per cent. of people want equality at 16. But that claim is not true. Question two—asked only of the 66 per cent. who answered question one—revealed that only 37 per cent. of the total population want the age of consent at 16 or lower. That simply confirms what the other public opinion polls have been saying. It is quite wrong to put out this grossly misleading information.
Earl Russell: My Lords, as the noble Baroness has introduced the poll, will she also quote the findings of question three?
Baroness Young: Yes, my Lords. As to the findings on question three, respondents were asked to say whether they accepted the new proposals with the package on abuse of trust. But, of course, the question did not set out what the package contains nor did it explain—as I shall later make clear—that the abuse of trust clauses are very weak indeed.
There are also very great health risks. Many can speak with greater authority than I on this but, like most of your Lordships, I view the matter very seriously indeed. Both teenage boys and girls will now be exposed to all the risks of anal intercourse; they will be far more likely to run the risk of AIDS. It is very interesting that, so seriously is this matter regarded, that any man who has ever engaged in homosexual activity is barred permanently from giving blood by the National Health Service.
I could continue on the issue of principle but, before concluding, I wish to comment on three major issues. The first was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Williams. As I am only too well aware, all the major children's charities—the NSPCC, Save the Children, Barnados, and Childline—as well as the BMA are in favour of lowering the age of consent. I find it extraordinary that, with the notable exception of the BMA, which sent me a brief, none of these charities has been in touch with me at all. They have neither sent a brief nor have they asked to see me to

655
discuss any of these matters in private. But perhaps I may answer some the points which have been raised in the briefings that I have seen.
First, in practice, young people under the age of 16 can go to the doctor and receive confidential advice, and are already doing so. In fact, government research has shown that lack of advice is not an issue in this. Secondly, education about HIV is compulsory in all schools, although parents have the right to withdraw their children from such classes if they so wish. Thirdly, bullying, for whatever cause, is always wrong and is something with which good schools should deal. Fourthly, the BMA should know that when the age of consent was lowered from 21 to 18, HIV infections acquired through sex between men rose by 11 per cent. from 1995 to 1996. I cannot think why it is therefore advocating lowering the age still further.
Let me return to the children's charities. Like many of your Lordships, I have been deeply distressed and concerned that they should support the cause of lowering the age. I do not intend to give a kind of autobiographical sketch of what I have done to help most of these charities at some stage of my life. I find it quite extraordinary that they should take this view. It may, however, come as a complete surprise to your Lordships—as, indeed, it did to me—to know that two children's charities, Barnados and NCH, have a long-standing policy of allowing a homosexual or a lesbian to adopt children. The NSPCC does not take part in adoptions—it does not care for children in that way—but it is quite prepared to give legal advice and help on this matter.
Baroness Thornton: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. I have a long-standing association with NCH Action for Children. Did the noble Baroness make any attempt to speak to the charities she has mentioned in relation to the issues about which she expresses such concern?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I have made it perfectly clear that the charities have not been in touch with me. I have a letter, which I am prepared to show later to the noble Baroness, in which they set out their position in writing.
When one sees in the advertisement that they support equality, one should make it quite clear that all these organisations are supporting the Stonewall programme which, as I have already indicated, it has set out and intends to carry out.
When the noble Lord, Lord Williams, comes to wind up at the end of the debate, I should like him to tell me the view of the Government on this matter. Let me refer to what Mr. Stuart Bell asked the Home Secretary on 25th January 1999 during the Second Reading of the Bill in another place. Mr. Bell said:
"Does he recall"—
that is, the Home Secretary—
"the letter that he wrote to me over the summer in which he gave a firm and clear statement of Government policy—that there would be no reduction in the age of consent to 14 for homosexual
656
acts in our country, that no legalisation of homosexual marriages would be proposed by the Government, and that there would be no legal adoption of children by homosexual couples?".
The Home Secretary replied:
"I can give my hon. Friend the undertakings that he seeks in respect of each of those propositions. We have no plans whatever to introduce legislation in respect of any of them".—[Official Report, Commons, 25/1/99; col. 22.]
That seems to me to indicate that whatever the Government may say about equality, they do not believe in equality in all matters in this case, only with regard to the age of consent. The Government should make this clear when they use equality as the central plank of the argument.
That brings me directly to the issue of equality and in particular to the position in the European Union. We have heard it said a great deal that we shall be out of step with other countries. However, the age of consent will not even be equal throughout the United Kingdom, as it will be 17 in Ireland. Within the EU, the age of homosexual consent ranges from 12 in Spain to 18 in Austria, Luxembourg, Portugal as well as in the UK. In Luxembourg, the heterosexual age of consent is. 16 and the homosexual age is 18; in Austria, the heterosexual age is 14 and the homosexual age is 18. So there is a great deal of variation within the European Union.
The third point with which I wish to deal briefly is the question of the European Court. We are constantly told that we must lower the age of consent because the European Court has issued a judgment to that effect. In fact the case on which that statement is based, Sutherland v. United Kingdom, has not been heard by the European Court. The filtering body, the European Commission on Human Rights, issued an advisory opinion, but that opinion is not binding on the court. So in fact that argument is not relevant to the issue.
I have thought hard and long over this matter and I have listened to a great deal of advice. I have met representatives of Stonewall, mothers of gay sons and representatives of young gays and lesbians, and I have listened carefully to their views. But at the end of the day I believe that in public life one must stand up for those things which one believes to be right and believes to be true and I would be failing in my duty if I did not do so. I believe that in voting against the Second Reading of this Bill we shall be supporting and helping young people; we shall be supporting and helping good and responsible parents; we shall be supporting the institution of marriage, which is under threat and is causing a great deal of the breakdown of society as we see it today; and, above all, we shall be reflecting what the public want.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the Bill be now read a second time, to leave out ("now") and at end insert ("this day six months").—[Baroness Young.]
5.2 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, before I turn to the amendment, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, on his elevation to the Privy Council. I only wish that all the delays in our proceedings resulted from so pleasurable, so just and so honourable a cause to this House. I should like also to

657
congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Young, on the integrity, determination and persistence with which she stands up for what she believes in. She knows that I intend to do the same, and though what we believe is not the same we share a common respect for that determination in each other. Nothing I intend to say will in any way be intended to contradict that.
This Bill is for us a free vote Bill, so in saying I support the Bill any arguments I put forward will derive any such force as they may have entirely from their persuasive power and not from any authority derived from my party.
I support the principle of an equal age of consent. I am glad that Clause 2 is in the Bill. I was more than a little amazed to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Young, say that there would be no point in having Clause 2 in the Bill if there were not to be an equal age of consent. I am not as indifferent to the protection of young girls as that point made her sound—young girls become pregnant; homosexuals do not. I must confess that I found that a rather disturbing remark. But I do not intend to dwell on Clause 2. That is a Committee point. I am glad that the clause is in the Bill. I am not certain that it is absolutely in a correct form. If we reach Committee, I hope that the Minister will be prepared to discuss it in his office with interested parties. If we do not reach Committee, I hope that the Minister may continue to review it in the course of the review of sexual offences.
This Bill will become law. The only question is whether it becomes law this year or next year; not sometime or never, but only this year or next year. The amendment put down by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, would drive the Government to the use of the Parliament Acts only for the sixth time since 1911. I was interested to see the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal affirm in this morning's newspaper that that is the Government's intention. I entirely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that she has every right to do what she has done, but not everything that one has a right to do is something it is expedient that one should do. So I want to ask her this question. What useful purpose will it serve should she press the amendment to a Division and should she prove to be victorious?
It is a little unusual to have the Parliament Acts invoked against a measure which enjoyed a majority in another place larger than that enjoyed by the Government. It is a little unusual to have the Parliament Acts invoked to push through a measure supported by all three of our party leaders. That does not necessarily make what she is doing wrong, but it means that she needs to have a really good argument to justify the expediency of what she is doing. So I ask her this question: what good will it do?
At present, under the law which this Bill would change, prosecutions every year are only in single figures. I do not believe that the noble Baroness wishes to change that. I do not believe that she wishes to see large numbers of male homosexual teenagers sent to prison. It is not in fact a very useful thing to do. Sending
658
male homosexuals to prison has been described as being like sending an alcoholic to work in a brewery. The deterrent effect is not entirely obvious.
The noble Baroness says that her purpose is to send a signal. But what will the effects of that signal actually be? In discussing what I believe will be the effects of her signal, I am not for one moment suggesting that the noble Baroness wishes or intends those effects. I am suggesting that those are actually what the effects of her actions would be should she persist and should she be successful.
First, it would impose secrecy on all teenage homosexuals for the remaining period of seven months or so before the Bill becomes law. It is extremely difficult to live a responsible and careful sex life if one has to do it strictly in private and surreptitiously. Responsible behaviour is behaviour for which one may answer in public. Perhaps I may give an illustration from a quite different context. When the University of Oxford passed a measure allowing Fellows to marry, the next morning on Oxford station platform, waiting for the train to come in from London, large numbers of Dons looked at the people next to them and said, "What, you too?" It would have been much easier for those people to live good and responsible loving lives had they been able to do so openly.
If we want to think about the effect that the amendment may have on homosexuals, we need only consider one of the literary classics of the 20th century, Matthew Parris's Clapham Common column. Driving people to that sort of surreptitious behaviour is not useful.
I do not believe that if the noble Baroness is successful there will be one fewer homosexual in the whole country. It is quite a long time since I was 16, but I can still remember it. If by any chance the law had been the other way round and had prohibited heterosexual and allowed homosexual behaviour, I do not believe that by any effort of imagination I could have changed my orientation. Those homosexual friends whom I know well enough to know the answer tell me that it is exactly the same for them. The evidence of the BMA encourages me to believe that they are not alone in that.
We must all admit that there are, of course, a number of people who, at the age of 16, are not certain of their orientation. But the question remains: are those people waiting to choose their orientation, or waiting like people who are not sure whether they are right- or left-handed to discover their orientation? We should be unwise to be dogmatic on either side of that question. If people are in real doubt about their sexual orientation, if we push them into one orientation for the sake of conformity and they get married, is that fair either to them or to the women whom they marry? I believe I am right in saying that Mrs. Tom Driberg believed right up to her wedding day that she was undertaking a normal marriage. That is an unfair burden to inflict on anyone. So I ask the noble Baroness to think very carefully indeed about the effects of what she is doing. I do not believe that there will be any fewer homosexual acts if she is successful.

659
The noble Baroness talks about danger. But, in times past, childbirth for women used to be just about as dangerous as battle for men. If danger were to deter sexual activity, I do not believe that many of us would be here now. So that argument will not carry very great weight. What it will achieve, if the noble Baroness is successful, is that for another seven months teenage homosexuals will have to live in fear.
I know from a great deal of work on 16 and 17 year-olds. on which I have addressed this House many times, that one of the commonest reasons for children of 16 and 17 being evicted by their parents is their confession to being homosexual. One of the reasons frequently given by parents for doing that is that it is against the law.
When those young people are thrown out, they do not have an automatic right to income support. They have to prove estrangement from their parents. The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, one of the bodies that the Minister did not have time to include in his list of organisations supporting the Bill, points out that those young people very often cannot prove the estrangement and therefore achieve entitlement to income support because, in order to do so, they would have to confess to criminal activity and they are not sure what the consequence of doing that would be. So that drives them, literally and metaphorically, under ground. I cannot believe that that is a good thing.
Sadly, it is also the case that large numbers of homosexuals are on the receiving end of homophobic violence. It happened to one of my own pupils. He was set upon one night in Manchester, kicked all round his head, and was left with a fractured cheekbone. It could very easily have been another Lawrence case. But, mercifully, the only long-term result was that it cured him of short sight. Poetic justice does not often arrive as literally as that.
But what is the effect of giving this signal of inequality? I quote a letter from Mr. Chris Morris, who is one of the parties to the European Court of Human Rights case on which my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill intends to speak later. He says:
"At school, someone once told me that the unequal law proved that being gay was wrong: that I was wrong and I deserved to be beaten up".
I do not for one moment suggest that the noble Baroness intends anything like that. But if we send the signal that she wants to send, I believe that that will be one of the results. I do not blame the noble Baroness, because I know that she does not believe it; but I do, and I am not going to change my mind. That would be extremely unfortunate. You do not receive the equal protection of the law unless you can be signalled by the law to be equal.
The noble Baroness had a great deal to say about public opinion. I have in front of me the results of the NOP poll to which she referred. She was not satisfied with the third question. With the leave of the House I should like to read it. It is:
"Do you agree or disagree with the government's package of measures which would mean that:

(a) The age of sexual consent will be 16 for everyone.

(b) It will he an offence for anyone in a position of trust or authority who is looking after a young person to have any kind of sexual activity with that young man or young woman".

660
I believe that that is a fair summary of the proposals in the Bill. On that basis, that poll indicated 60 per cent. in favour and 40 per cent. against.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for giving way. The point about that question is that it is inaccurate. It does not set out what the provisions of abuse of trust really are, so that those answering the question cannot possibly understand what the original question was. It does not cover all individuals in positions of trust, as I made clear in my remarks.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I heard those remarks, but if those are the noble Baroness's concerns they can all be addressed by amendments in Committee. The Minister has indicated that he is willing to listen to such amendments. It is not a basis for throwing the Bill out at Second Reading.
In any case, I do not believe that public opinion is the ultimate arbiter in this case. Noble Lords will be familiar with Burke's view that the Member of another place is a representative and not a delegate. Here, we are not even representatives. Our purpose is to try to take decisions in the public interest as we conceive it. That has always been our purpose. That is what I am trying to do.
It is also relevant that the opinion poll evidence indicates that it is the age group that the noble Baroness most determinedly wishes to protect which most determinedly rejects that protection. It is a common enough situation. It has been the cross of parents since Adam and Eve gave birth to Cain. We have to live With that.
Also, I do not believe that public opinion is the answer to a human rights issue. Human rights are not to be taken away simply because the majority does not want them. In fact, it is where the majority does not want human rights that they are most needed. When the statue of Oscar Wilde was unveiled last winter there was a cartoon, I believe in The Spectator, which showed two 10 year-old boys looking at him with intense disapproval and saying, "They say he was a smoker". I believe that 16 and 17 year-old homosexuals have quite as much right to love each other in the privacy of their own rooms as I have to smoke in the privacy of my own room.
We cannot divide human rights; they are for all of us. It is those whose behaviour we dislike most whose human rights we must champion most strongly. That is where it really matters. When it comes to human rights, we all live in glasshouses, and I think we had better put the stones away.
Finally, I care deeply about the reputation of this House. I have loved this House as at present constituted, with all its magnificent illogicality. But we are a rather random collection of power. Where we are to justify ourselves at the bar of public opinion, we need to satisfy at least one, and preferably two, tests. First, we need to prove that we speak for expert opinion and that some of us deserve attention simply because of who we are. I think of the contributions of the late Lady Faithfull to many social security debates in the past. We do not have that expert opinion behind the amendment.

661
Secondly, we need to be speaking on behalf of the underdog, to be using privilege to defend the under-privileged. I know that the noble Baroness believes that she is doing that, and I respect that. But they have indicated very plainly that they do not want it. In the eyes of this House, I think that that should be final.
5.21 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells: My Lords, I feel very humbled by the distinguished previous speakers in the debate. However, like the noble Baroness, I believe in the importance of standing up for what is right, however uncomfortable it might be. I do not want to repeat the speech that I made last July. Since that time, like many of your Lordships, I have received substantial correspondence and taken part in several debates outside this House, including the Lambeth Conference, when we learned how difficult it was to have a world-wide view on something so dominated by culture. As the House will hear from these Benches later in the debate, we are not all of the same opinion as to how to respond to the Bill, but I am clear, and I believe that I have to express my view.
I have read the debate in another place. There were, if I may say so, several outstanding speeches from people closely in touch with those for whom we are most concerned. I especially commend the speech of the honourable Member for Witney.
One of the interesting aspects of all the communication since our last debate has been the witness not only of the organisations mentioned by the Minister but that of many who are particularly concerned for, and who work with, young gay people as doctors, social workers, priests, teachers, counsellors and, professionally, many people involved in children's organisations. They speak from direct experience of the issues involved. I believe that they need to be heard and to be given some authority in this situation.
What I have found most moving is hearing from the parents of gay children. In my diocese, at the end of a talk or discussion on these issues, when most of the people have gone home, there are nearly always two elderly couples standing at the back of the room who come to me and say, "Why has no one ever said this to us? Our son (or our daughter) is gay but was never able to tell us until recently and it was too late." There is a very tragic dishonesty at the heart of family life which I believe comes from the attitude that people take towards gay people.
So much of the debate seems to be concerned for young people who in the end are probably not gay, often for fear that they may be made gay by post-adolescent experiences of a predatory nature. Of course, children need protection against abuse; but we have to face some facts about abuse. Thirty six per cent. of child abuse is committed against under 10 year-olds as opposed to 2 per cent. against 16 and 17 year-olds. About a third of all sexual abuse of children is thought to be carried out by adolescents themselves. Approximately 44 per cent. of abuse is carried out by the father, the step-father, the
662
boyfriend of the mother, or the grandfather, which at least indicates that they are or have been heterosexual. The abuse must continue to be tackled both by law and by prevention.
It is my belief that this legislation is not the place to deal with these matters. The Bill inevitably concerns the age at which a person can legally give his consent; it is the age of consent that we are discussing. The Bill therefore refers especially to their capacity to decide and identify their own sexual identity.
Our prime concern should be for those who identify themselves as gay. I believe that they have received inadequate attention in these debates. Perhaps some people believe that they are such a small number as not to warrant justice. But, as the noble Earl suggested, perhaps the smaller the number, the more the need for justice, especially when they feel themselves against the majority view.
Perhaps others see this as an opportunity to restate the moral case against homosexuality itself. I want to speak for the young men and boys who are destined to live a gay life and make their lives as fulfilling, loving and accepting of their own identity as they can. We need to break away from the exaggerated stereotypes frequently presented of homosexual people. Most of them are still struggling with prejudice, ignorance and fear and many remain secret and unable to share it with their nearest and dearest. There is also the fear of mental and physical aggression. The noble Earl mentioned such a case, of which there are many.
Many young gay people turn towards the ghettoised behaviour that is the result of social and psychological exclusion because they do not believe that their own familiar setting will cope with their reality. That is the common, ongoing experience of many young gay people. If young gay people feel that they cannot talk to their parents, however loving those parents are, and that they cannot talk to their teacher or to any adult who will help them through what can be a real identity crisis, it does not seem at all surprising to me that they will seek out the company of those who accept their sexuality.
As I said last July, until there is proper recognition of gay people in our society, until there is a recognisable ethic of personal relationships for the gay person to aspire to, it is likely that there will be continued pressure towards a secret, dangerous underworld. I believe that the gay and lesbian organisations could do much more towards the creation and recognition of this ethic, and it is important that we all share in the thinking about it.
If what is offered to young gay men is promiscuous, narrowly physical relationships or membership of an overt community defined by gayness, it will be all the more difficult for them to live faithful, broader-based lives, to their full humanity. My hope is that young gay people will have the chance to talk about their sexual identity without fear or judgment and certainly without the risk of the law. The brutish taboos have remained a frightening reality for many such young people. It is no surprise that there is such a high incidence of young male suicides related precisely to these issues.

663
This Bill is in essence concerned with the legal right to give consent. The public attitude, revealed by the polls, as we have heard discussed, has moved towards greater acceptance of gay people. If the resistance remains strong, as it does in places, I believe that the way forward is for the facts to be shared and for attempts to be made, as we are trying to do in our churches, to discuss the issue in an open and fair way so that people can come to a conclusion based on their knowledge and not their fears and sometimes their ignorance.
The law at the moment endorses the marginalising of and judgmental attitudes to gay people. The noble Baroness said that all law influenced behaviour. That can work the other way. If one makes something criminal, undoubtedly it will influence behaviour. Further. it will undoubtedly influence the behaviour of those who treat such people in a way that is completely unacceptable to us. As the law stands now it endorses this judgmental and sometimes violent attitude and makes these people less safe. I believe that it exposes them to greater health risks. They have nowhere to go to find out how they can sort out their lives and are pushed into ghettoised communities where the health risks may be greater. It certainly creates an atmosphere in which either they are encouraged to rebel, which sometimes happens, to the detriment of their health—because that is what they must do—or (more often I believe) their fears are turned into self-despising. To live a self-despising life is just about the most destructive thing a human being can do, and we encourage it.
I remain opposed to anal intercourse on both moral and health grounds for heterosexual as well as homosexual people, but I follow in the public view—certainly, the view of most of those concerned—that that is not what this Bill is about. The central question is when gay young men can decide to consent. I have heard no reason why there should be sexual discrimination over age in this way. Both girls and boys are subject to predatory behaviour. In another place it was said repeatedly that the message sent out by this Bill was that homosexuality and heterosexuality were in some way equal. They cannot be equal because they are different. To live a heterosexual life is not equal because it is not open to a homosexual person.
I come to my final point. I hesitate to say—but I believe that I must—that much is made by many Christians of the teaching of the Bible on homosexuality. I believe that we in the Church will eventually have to accept some responsibility in our generation, knowing what we now know—I am in the minority of Bishops who believe that but I have to say it nonetheless—because we have not always recognised the identity issues involved in this debate. We are not here to support heterosexual people perverting their nature in certain situations because they enjoy cruelty, or want to dominate another male or use another male as a substitute for a woman, which the Book of Leviticus and St. Paul rightly abhor. Here we are talking about people who either by nature or nurture have developed as homosexual boys and men. What they most need from society is to be treated with respect and
664
to be recognised as citizens. It is also the teaching of the Bible that they should be protected from prejudice and ignorance and encouraged to find the best way towards self-accepting maturity and faithful relationships which the present situation does not encourage them to observe. I believe that this is part of the Gospel that is offered to us by which I have to stand.
5.34 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, from this Dispatch Box I welcome the noble Lord the Minister to the Privy Council. I have always thought it a connoisseur's honour, but it is an historic one and well deserved.
Turning to the Bill, this is to be a free vote. Neither my noble friend the Chief Whip nor I makes any request to colleagues about how they should vote on this measure. I am glad that the Minister said the same. Like him, I shall give my views as concisely as I can. Five years ago when the age was first lowered to 18 I was a Member of another place and voted for that age. We were then offered both 21 and 16 as alternatives. Incidentally, like today it was a free vote, although at that time I was a Minister. I voted again to retain 18 in your Lordships' House about a year ago, and I shall do so again this evening by supporting the amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Young whose tenacity and courage in pursuing this matter I commend.
Whatever the result of today's vote and this Bill, either now or in a few months' time, in law there will not be a single age of maturity, and that is quite right. It reflects real life, for young people mature gradually at different speeds and in respects which vary between individuals. Like my noble friend Lady Young, I believe that young men need protection—and not only from those in authority over them.
The Minister's argument for the Bill was based upon a particular view of equality. I do not accept that acts of anal intercourse or gross indecency of a homosexual kind are as natural as normal heterosexual relations. Certainly, they are not as healthy, as is indicated by the rules of the Blood Transfusion Service, which were read out earlier by my noble friend. That represents a clear difference of view between myself and others and between the Minister and others, including the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I accept that others take that different view sincerely, and I entirely respect their right and duty to do so. However, I do not believe that the logic of the "equality" argument is in any case satisfied by this Bill. The logic of that argument would demand the right to homosexual marriage which would involve a great number of moral and practical problems. But in any case the Home Secretary specifically ruled that out in the debate in another place a few days ago; in other words, he accepted that there are limitations on equality between homosexual and heterosexual behaviour.
It becomes, therefore, a question of degree—of where one draws the line rather than whether there should be a line drawn at all. We all know that, whatever the Home Secretary may say, demands for a further change in the law would follow the passage of this Bill. In practical terms, the proposals in the Bill are probably not as

665
significant as some of the other proposed steps towards equality that will be put forward following this Bill. But the Bill is the fundamental step on which the others depend. Whether or not we like it, the law sends a signal of society's acceptance or otherwise of particular activities.
Of course, that does not stop those activities. Murder continues despite the law against it, as does abuse of children in a far younger age category, as the right reverend Prelate said. Nor does it mean that every case comes to court. Prosecuting authorities rightly use their discretion. But if Parliament, including this House, accepts that this behaviour by 16 year-olds is not to be criticised, it signals a change; and it is not a change which I wish to see; nor do I believe that it is one the British people wish to see.
I, too, have looked at the polls and I believe that my noble friend Lady Young is right to claim their support. But I also agree with the Minister and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that whatever the truth of public opinion, it is not binding upon us, in particular in this House, but it may and should be influential.
I turn to more detailed points. Clause 2 was inserted during the passage of the Bill in the Commons. If the Bill comes to Committee, the clause will therefore need particularly careful scrutiny. So, too, will Clause 3(3), the let-out clause for existing relationships.
There is a rather curious position as regards Scottish devolution. There is also the question of the Secretary of State's powers to extend the coverage of Clauses 3 to 5, the protection clauses. Those clauses seek to protect young people from those in authority over them but are quite narrowly defined, as my noble friend said. The Minister described them as focused. It is another way of saying the same thing, I suppose. Those clauses will need to be considered carefully, in particular as regards the position of voluntary youth organisations which are not covered at present.
I am of course in favour of protecting young people from those in authority over them. But with regard to homosexual acts, this new protection is required only if the existing protection is removed by the early clauses in the Bill. However, suggestions have also been made that the Bill has become necessary because of cases in the European Court of Human Rights, in particular the case of Sutherland. We know that the court has not yet decided the case although the Commission has expressed its view. However, many of us have received an expert legal opinion by Mr. Paul Diamond which makes clear that the court by no means always follows the Commission's advice. Judging by precedent, it may well not do so in this case.
I wish to mention one last consideration. Some noble Lords may be wondering how voting on the Bill might be viewed by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in the light of his threats before Easter over the House of Lords Bill. If your Lordships support the amendment of my noble friend, no further time will be taken by this Bill. Presumably, therefore, the noble Lord the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms, in his capacity as our business manager, would prefer the Bill to fall.
666
That may save three or four days of business, or perhaps more. So if the Bill is stopped by the passage of the amendment, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor should credit your Lordships not with obstruction but with saving the time of the House. When the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor reckons whether his threat can be used to resist the Weatherill amendment, this Bill would show on the credit side—that is, plus three or four days, or whatever it turns out to be. Clearly such considerations will not be the main considerations for your Lordships in deciding how to vote today—they certainly should not be—but the noble and learned Lord's threat covered all our business and it is right to take him seriously.
For the reasons that I have given, I stick to my previous view. I shall vote for the amendment. But it is a free vote, for each of your Lordships to decide.
5.54 p.m.
Lord Annan: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, had a great triumph last Session. I fear that she will have another triumph this evening but perhaps not quite such a great triumph, for two reasons. First, in the present Bill the Government have introduced safeguards to penalise those in a position of trust or power over boys if they seduce them. I know that a number of Cross-Bench Peers were unwilling in the last Session to support the Government until guarantees on that point were in the Bill. They are now in the Bill. It may be that they are not sufficiently stringent, but in that case do not vote for the amendment today because that prevents any change in the clause which deals with that point.
The second reason is that on this occasion the House of Commons has debated the matter thoroughly. On a free vote it passed the Bill to us with an unequivocal majority of 155 on Second Reading. There is no elected dictatorship there. It was a free vote and all those who voted for the Bill have an electorate to face. They have to face the electorate who may well disapprove of their views. No one is up for election here. That is why I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Young, why she is so determined to insult the electorate, and those in another place whom they elected, by killing the Bill.
This time I hope that we shall have no red herrings dragged before us, such as the argument that to pass this Bill will encourage still further young men to become rent boys. Rent boys, like prostitutes, have always existed and no legislation one way or another is likely to alter that. If I followed the argument of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, keeping the position as it is now will positively add to the number of rent boys.
In the last Session, the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, and the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, gave reasons for supporting the Bill. Again today we have had reasoned speeches. The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, emphasised that it is quite impossible to control consensual acts in private. Does the noble Baroness, Lady Young, suggest that the police should be employed to enter premises to see whether homosexual acts are being performed, to reward informers, or to act as agents provocateurs which they often did in the past?

667
People say that this involves a health hazard. All sexual activities present a health hazard. I shall not weary the House with a list of diseases which occur in heterosexual intercourse. Homosexuality does not cause HIV and AIDS. The HIV virus causes AIDS. What causes AIDS is unprotected sex for both men and women; and the BMA Council maintains that the present law inhibits efforts to safeguard the health of young men. Why is it that the important bodies connected with the young—they have been listed already today—are so adamantly in favour of the Bill? The noble Baroness said that she was surprised and pained by that. But she never went to see those bodies. She expected them to come to her.
Then there is the example of Europe. As the reasons of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, failed to convince the noble Baroness, Lady Young, let me try not reason but ridicule. Why is every country in the European Union, except Luxembourg and Austria, out of step with Great Britain? Of course, you would expect hot-blooded lascivious countries such as Italy and Spain to be different, wouldn't you? What about France? Well, we all know what Noel Coward said; "There's always something fishy about the French". Then there is Germany. What can you expect from the country which produced eminent sexologists such as Hirschfeld and Kraft-Ebbing at the turn of the century? Is it any wonder that in Austria the age is 18 when that fearful fellow, Freud, came from that country? Did he not tell us that excessive mother-love for a son might well turn him into a homosexual? We cannot pay attention to that kind of stuff, can we? Holland is notoriously permissive. Perhaps that is why it has a crime rate well below ours. Then there is Denmark. Denmark is far too tolerant of pornography. It was of course so tolerant that during the war it was the only country which spirited the Jews away and protected them from the Nazis.
They are all out of step except our Johnny Bull, Archie Austria and little Lionel Luxembourg. It really is extraordinary, is it not? If the noble Baroness, Lady Young, wins her amendment, this House will be the laughing stock of Europe as it was in the days when the police burnt D. H. Lawrence's paintings, when Ulysses was banned and when the Lord Chamberlain's Office censored plays. It is clear—is it not?—that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, is not the least disturbed by the humiliation of seeing this country dragged through the courts of Europe. Because we will be; we are in contravention of Articles 8 and 16 of the European Court's Convention on Human Rights.
I now turn to the noble Earl, Lord Longford. I am sorry that he is no longer in his place. Last Session, he made a remarkable speech. It was characteristic because he began with his usual compassion for homosexuals, which he voiced in an entirely sincere way. However, he said something which was rather extraordinary. He told us that if a girl was seduced and had a baby, it would not be fatal. She would recover, marry and have lots of children. But if a boy was seduced by a man he was lost; ruined for life. I wonder whether the noble Earl has followed the careers of certain of his school fellows at Eton who left school rather earlier than usual.
668
A considerable number of public schoolboys in days gone by were sacked for being in bed with another boy. Well, most of them got married. In the absence of girls, highly sexed boys got release with other boys and as soon as they left their single-sex boarding schools they learnt to get on—and indeed to get off—with girls!
However, let me present the noble Earl with a hostage to fortune. I think it is true that if a young man is introduced to homosexual society, he may well be convinced that this should be his life. Homosexual society used to be amusing, witty, full of in-jokes and allusions. It gave a delicious sense of belonging to an in-group which scandalised the world at large and particularly one's parents. I take the noble Earl's point that when a young man joins this world what may have begun as an experiment becomes a way of life.
It may be that today times have changed and that homosexual culture now fires adherents with the politics of protest rather than seduces them by wit. But whatever the type of attraction, should we not remember that other in-groups attract the young? I have to say to the noble Earl that religious sects are one example. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, is too young to remember what the noble Earl and I recollect only too well. We remember before the war the activities of Dr. Buchman and the group he led at Oxford. If you were trapped in that sect you certainly were lost—lost, at any rate, to the life of the mind—and that is the case with other "born again" sects; or sects which follow gurus from the East. Consider the dangers of Scientology.
At the beginning of the century, the lure of the turf—betting on horses—ruined scores of young men. They read the "Pink'un" and argued whether Bayleaf could afford to give 7lbs to The Rake or whether it was true that Steve Donughue was to ride Humorist in the Derby. Today, it is the drug culture, but there will always be sects and groups which seduce young men.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, did well to remind us that we can become over-protective. He is a smoker and said that it was far worse to encourage smoking among the young than it was to encourage sex. There will always be some young people, some young men, who will go to what Dickens' Mr. Mantalini called the "demnition bow-wows". We cannot stop them by legislation.
I recognise that there is another argument against equalising the age of consent. It is that girls of 16 are more mature than boys of 16. I am not at all sure that the girls I see "clubbing" on television, probably with Ecstasy in their pockets, are more mature than the boys on the pop scene. But, still, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that girls are more mature at 16. They are less keen to start a sexual relationship at that age; or if they are, they may well prefer an older man because they find boys of their own age, 16, too laddish., too boring and too obsessed with football.
However, among those boys there are plenty who want sexual release. Sixteen is an age when the sex drive is almost at its height. Boys may not he as mature as girls, but they are mature enough to tell an older man who propositions them that they do not want to have

669
sex with him. Boys, however, often experiment among themselves and I am afraid that the opponents of this Bill want to criminalise such experiments.
What is worse, they want to criminalise those boys who at school are often considered wimps. Homosexuality is not, as the noble Earl, Lord Longford, declared a "disease". No doctor today regards it as a disease. But some are biologically homosexual and no amount of bullying will turn them into heterosexuals. All this is something that their own generation accepts. Of course, it is not accepted by the bullies and the lager louts like that nasty thug, the Liverpool striker, Robert Fowler, who on the football field taunted an opponent, a married man with children, for being homosexual simply because he did not share the footballers' culture of snooker and the pub. But ask the majority of the young: to them, sexuality is not an issue. I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, who said that they regard it as one might regard someone who is left-handed rather than right-handed.
May I therefore make a final plea for tolerance on this issue? I remember the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, saying that he hoped that nobody would accuse him of being a homophobe if he voted against the Bill as it was then. Of course, I entirely accept that; no one would dream of calling him that. But I ask him whether he considers English boys so weak-willed, such wimps, such sissies compared with European boys that they cannot say "no" if they are propositioned. Why are British boys supposed to be so much inferior to those in Europe? Of course, they are not, and they do not need special protection.
I shall not go into the business of public opinion. We have had talk about polls. I accept what has been said on both sides. But the noble Earl, Lord Russell, was right to say that we should not be guided by public opinion. If we were guided by public opinion in that way, we should have hanging, and probably boys hanged at 16.
May I say without giving offence that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, sometimes speaks, as in the case of holding important debates in Holy Week, as if she embodied the morality of Britain? I do not think she does. Last time she gave the impression that the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, was acting like the able barrister that she is, an advocate paid to put up the best case that she could in a dirty cause or, which of course I do not believe for one moment, that she thought that the noble Baroness was morally corrupt.
I have explained to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, why I may not be able to be here at the end of the debate—
Baroness Young: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Annan, will withdraw his remarks about what he has alleged that I thought about the speech made previously by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu.
670
I am a great admirer of her abilities and I would not impugn in any way either her integrity or her views in this matter.
Lord Annan: My Lords, I think the noble Baroness misunderstood what I said. I said that when she referred to the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, in the previous Session, of course she praised her ability as a barrister, but she gave the impression, to me at any rate, that she thought her argument was the kind that a barrister puts forward in a very poor case. I said a moment ago that I do not believe for one moment that she thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, was morally corrupt, but—
Lord Elton: My Lords, as the noble Lord has spoken for 17 minutes and has now told us that he may not be here at the end of the debate, I feel he should have mercy on the rest of us who will be here then.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Annan: My Lords, I take the noble Lord's point. I was just about to say that I was right at the end of my speech, and I was imploring the House not to be insular, not to ignore our role in Europe, and not to have a fit of the sulks just because life has changed in the past 40 years. We are not living at the beginning of the 20th century; we are living at the very end of it.
6.5 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am not sure where that speech leaves us, but we are always fascinated to hear the intellectual speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Annan. His feet seldom touch the ground, and those of us who do not have his intellectual gravitas and try to catch up with him are rather thankful that we do not have the intellectual gravitas of the noble Lord.
The subject matter of this Bill has been debated on a number of occasions over the past few years, and I do not find that my views have changed on the matter—not, I like to think, because I am obdurate, but because of reason. These matters are always acutely sensitive, and I hope that one can equally put one's views at least sensitively.
I tried hard to agree with just one thing that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, but despite my best endeavours and the fact that he has already vanished—I do not blame him for that—I could not agree with one of them.
Then the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bath and Wells made a speech at which I confess amazement and astonishment. He seemed to address most of his remarks to the fact that we should recognise gay people, not to the lowering of the age of homosexual consent, which is what the Bill is about. When he made his speech—he will forgive me for saying this—I shuddered for the Church of England. The only encouragement he gave me was the fact that he said that his brother prelates did not agree with him. I thought "Hooray for that, so we're saved at last."
I am opposed to the lowering of the age of homosexual consent to 16, for what I consider to be one simple reason. Of course, one always does consider

671
one's reasons to be simple. My simple reason is that men arid women are made differently, for obvious and basic reasons: fundamentally, for the procreation and continuation of the species. Heterosexuality must therefore be the norm. Homosexuality, whatever its cause, must therefore be an aberration from the norm.
It may well be that some people are born a certain way, and that some of their genes may be placed in a different pattern to others', or however one likes to put it, and that that predetermines the way they are.
There is no doubt, though, that people also can be drawn into homosexuality by the conditions in which they find themselves, by the people whom they meet or by circumstances or events which take them down certain unexpected avenues. Civilisation is, after all, a very thin veneer. It lies on the surface of raw humanity and can easily be stripped away. The purpose of going to school, the purpose of a proper upbringing, the purpose of being given good books with which to edify the mind, is all part of the effort to put a veneer of civilisation over basic humanity.
I have no doubt whatever that the most unsuspecting and most upright of people can be drawn from the path of rectitude and into stealing, or thuggery, or rape, or murder. or even cannibalism, by the circumstances in which they may happen to find themselves. The same applies to homosexuality. People do not have to be born that way to be homosexuals; they can be drawn into it.
It must surely be the aspiration of the majority of parents that their children shall be born and brought up as heterosexual individuals, which will eventually, with luck, result in the furtherance of the family. That is the natural way of life. That is how society and life continue.
Of course, things do not always turn out in the way people either want or expect. The law must make allowances for that, and it does. So should individuals; and they do sometimes, but not always. But to argue that the law of homosexual consent should be brought into line with that of heterosexual consent because it is not fair that the two should be different, or that there is somehow a basic inequality which ought to be rectified, is, I venture to suggest, wholly fallacious.
Homosexuality and heterosexuality are not equal choices to be picked up or discarded at will like the purchase of a commodity of one's choice. One is the norm; the other, for all its different reasons, is an aberration from the norm.
Do we really want our young children of 16 to be given the legal right to indulge in homosexual activity with other young people—or older people, provided that they are riot in a position of trust? One can just imagine the argument that will go on about that. Do we really want young men, or even older men, now to have the legal right, if I may so put it without undue inelegance, to bugger a young girl of 16 provided that the girl does not mind? I look with incredulity at what the Government are doing. We all know of rape cases where the man says "She consented to what we did", and the girl says. "I was raped". Do we want those young girls
672
of 16 to be subjected to that far more traumatic ordeal; to be put through that far worse legal, personal and frantic psychological miasma?
Sixteen is an extremely formative age. Believe it or not, I find that 69 is still a formative age, too. But., at 16, young people are still very vulnerable. They are unsure about themselves, although, of course, they will never admit it. They are unsure about life and their relationships. Their bodies are changing, and so are those of their friends. What is right and wrong? How do they tell the difference between the two? Those are the swirling waters of conflict by which they are surrounded. At that age, life is full of uncertainty, but it is full of interest. It is full of change, but it is full of questing. It is an unstable period in a young person's life. That is the time at which people need support and not more uncertainty.
If there are people who are so deeply homosexually inclined, then they have to wait only two years to have all the freedom of the law under which they can live the lifestyle which they consider appropriate to them. I suggest to your Lordships that that is a small price to pay for the protection of the majority of young people.
I find what the Government are asking your Lordships to approve almost unbelievable. I presume that they are doing so on the basis that it is good for young people. There cannot be any other basis for doing it. They cannot be doing it on the basis that it is bad for young people. But in fact it is because of the successful pressure from self-interested pressure groups. One merely has to look at the advertisement in The Times today to realise how important and how expensively financed are those pressure groups.
In my view, it is quite wrong for the Government to introduce this Bill. They have not a whisper of a mandate for it. It was not in their election manifesto. People do not want it. Parents do not want it. The right honourable gentleman the Prime Minister tells us that this Government are a government who wish to protect family values. I applaud that. I believe that the right honourable gentleman is an honourable man. But this Bill runs counter to that. It is another example of the Government giving way to political lobbying and pressure groups.
I agree with my noble friend Lady Young when she referred to the European Commission of Human Rights. It has been argued that the Bill is necessary because of the commission's decision. That is not so. The European court has not yet given its judgment in the Sutherland case. The European commission has given a purely provisional, advisory opinion and its opinions are frequently overturned by the European court. Therefore, I hope that we shall reject the European commission argument as being a factor in favour of the Bill.
Perhaps I may tell your Lordships that I once had the privilege of being an ornament in the Home Office. I endeavoured to fulfil, but totally inadequately, the responsibilities which the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, now fulfils with such ability, intellect and courtesy. When I had to give the Government's view in a debate about the lowering of the age of homosexual consent on 20th June 1994 on the Criminal Justice and

673
Public Order Bill, my officials were kind enough, as they always were, to give me their courteous advice and to offer me a speech which they suggested that I might care to deliver. It was an "on the one hand this and on the one hand that" kind of speech. I said that I should like to say more clearly what I thought. The advice which I was given, and which I greatly respected, was that on that subject, and as a government Minister, I should be even-handed; that that was a deeply personal matter which had always been a matter for Parliament.
However, we agreed that I should not be offside if I were to say in my speech which way I was going to vote. Perhaps I may quote what I said. It is deeply pompous for anyone to quote their own speeches, but as nobody else bothers to quote mine I hope that I may be allowed to do so. Standing from the Dispatch Box where the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, stood some time earlier, I said then:
"This is an issue of conscience, which the Government consider falls properly to be decided by a free vote".—[Official Report, 20/6/94; col. 43].
That was a government Minister speaking and not Ferrers.
The point which I wish to make about that is that I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, was given the same advice today. He shakes his head. It may be that the officials have changed or it may be that, because he is a robust kind of fellow, he decided to reject it. He and the Government of which he is a distinguished member have decided, not for the first time, to propel through their views on a very sensitive matter, and with all the panoply and authority of government, by bringing them forward in a government Bill.
Why do the Government do that? I know why, or at least I believe I do. There was an amendment to the Crime and Disorder Bill which was tabled by a Back-Bencher. The Government did not want it to go through as part of that Bill because they thought that it would capsize the Bill and that it would run into trouble. Therefore, they told the Back-Benchers to take away the Bill and that they would ensure that another Bill would be introduced later through which those views could be put forward. That is fine. There was a similar problem with the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill. But why did the Government not demand that the Back-Benchers put the matter through as a separate Bill? The Government did not do that. They decided to pick up that thorny issue, run with it and tell the people of this country, "We, the Government, think it is right that the age of homosexual consent should be lowered to 16". I believe that that is wrong. A Guardian/ICA poll showed that 69 per cent. of the people in this country want that age to remain at 18.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, has made today, as he always does, a very plausible and engaging case for the Bill. But the noble Lord is a professional advocate who can put a case, whether good or bad, in the most persuasive and convincing manner possible. As we know, the noble Lord is very good at that. That is why he rose to the position in his profession that he
674
did. I admire that and I covet it. The problem is that unless one keeps one's wits in a state of perpetual overdrive, it is not clear whether the case which the noble Lord puts is good or bad. I believe that the case which the noble Lord espoused today, however eloquently presented, is bad. It is bad for the family, for young people and for the moral and physical health of the country. The Government have no mandate for it at all. I hope that your Lordships will join my noble friend Lady Young in rejecting the Bill.
6.17 p.m.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, I must start my comments by expressing my fundamental disagreement with the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, on many counts on which I hope I shall be able to elaborate in the course of my comments. I speak not for the Government but as a Back-Bencher and as an individual with a free vote.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, referred to the many letters which she received opposing the Bill. We have all received letters—and we have received letters from parents who are in despair, concerned that their sons are not only seen as different but are also criminals in the eyes of the law.
I wish to read an extract from one of the many letters that I have received, from a mother in Lancashire who wrote:
"My son is gay and I am writing to ask you to vote in favour of an equal Age of Consent. The issue is one of social justice and equality. My son suffers discrimination because of his sexuality. To the shame of this country he is considered to be unworthy of equality before the law of the land".
I am sure those are the comments of a very responsible parent.
That is what this debate is about. It is about the fundamental principles inherent in that mother's words. It is about human rights, equal rights and citizenship, respect for each other, tolerance, equality, compassion and understanding. We cannot legislate to change human behaviour but what we can do, and what this Bill does, is to legislate to provide protection to young people from sexual predators and to provide a framework under the law to eliminate the prejudice, bigotry and injustice which has pervaded our society for far too long.
Surely it is fundamental in any democracy that the rights and responsibilities of all citizens are protected equally under the law—not over-protected, but protected equally. The law should be clear, certain and enforceable. Like the noble Earl, Lord Russell, I too cannot believe that there is anyone in your Lordships' House, irrespective of their views on this issue, who does not accept that it has to be cruel and unjust to punish one group of young people because of their sexuality; nor can it be morally or legally right for young men between the ages of 16 and 17 to be arrested, prosecuted and possibly subject to two years' imprisonment if they have a gay relationship.
I could more easily understand the arguments for not lowering the age of consent and for retaining the law as it stands if the law provided protection for those young

675
people, but the reverse is the case. The current law does not protect the vulnerable; nor does it adequately punish those who exploit them. It protects the abuser, not the abused; it allows prejudice to protect abuse rather than prevent it; and it creates fear and secrecy rather than openness and support.
The law is recognised as unworkable. It is a hindrance rather than a help to the police in their efforts to combat homophobic violence. That will continue for as long as the law continues to criminalise both parties in a homosexual act. Such abuse goes unreported and unpunished. Because of the law, there are young men who are terrified of revealing their developing sexuality, who face abuse and bullying and who all too easily become the prey of the bullies and bigots.
There is no justification for allowing such a situation to continue. That is a position recognised by the majority of childcare organisations, as was identified by the Minister in his opening remarks. The view on equalisation expressed by Save the Children which, I believe, speaks for all the organisations is that,
"the protection of young people is best maintained by the consistent and fair application of the law rather than legislation which is both hard to justify and damaging in application".
Of crucial importance also is the support for the Bill by medical and nursing opinion, including the BMA and the RCN. They are clear that the law has to change, aware as they are that, fearful of being branded criminals, many gay young men are unable to seek health advice and sex education. All young people, heterosexual and homosexual, should have equal access to education and information on sexual health from responsible adults and organisations.
The Health Education Authority has expressed its concern that the current legislation works against promoting healthcare and restricts the giving of advice about sexual diseases and the prevention of HIV infection among homosexual men. In support, the BMA states:
"of prime concern to the medical profession as a whole are the concerns that the present law may inhibit efforts to improve the sexual health of young homosexual men".
As the right reverend Prelate said, as responsible parliamentarians we cannot dismiss lightly such expert opinion. We have a responsibility to take seriously the views of those organisations which work on a day-to-clay basis with vulnerable young people.
I wish to refer to one or two other issues raised during our previous debate and again today. First, I refer to the question of public opinion. It has again been maintained that the public are unequivocally opposed to an equal age of consent. However, whether one likes it or not, the NOP poll referred to showed that 60 per cent. of the public are in favour of the Bill, and in disagreement with the noble Baroness, Lady Young. The question was set out in detail, as the noble Earl identified for us. The polling also showed that 66 per cent. of people are in favour of an equalisation of the age of consent, 54 per cent. of whom believe that that age should be 16 years. Of course, we should not fully accept public opinion, but, at the same time, we have to take note of it; it is important.
676
Those figures show that when the principles of equality are balanced with principles of protection, there is majority public support. Such support arises from the Government's action in consulting widely with children's organisations and others—
Baroness Young: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. I am sorry to interrupt, but I really must correct the point about the poll. It is not true that it showed that 66 per cent. of people supported an age of consent of 16. It showed only that 54 per cent. of 66 per cent. did so. That is quite a different proposition. An untruth does not become true by constant repetition, and I think it should stop.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, I believe that perhaps the noble Baroness was not listening. What I actually said was that 54 per cent. of the 66 per cent. believed that the age should be 16 years. I did not say what she suggested.
Perhaps I may return to the question of the Government's action in consulting widely with children's organisations and others to find the most appropriate way of responding to the many justified concerns about the abuse of trust and the need to safeguard vulnerable young people.
The new offence on abuse of positions of trust, which has been incorporated into the Bill, is a major and important step, particularly for those children being looked after away from home who lack immediate adult support from their families. Crucially, this Bill, for the first time, provides equal protection for young men and young women against adults who may use their position of authority to gain sexual advantage. I noted the comments of my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn on this new offence. However, I should welcome assurances from him that there will be means to extend this protection to other areas of care if it is felt to be too restrictive.
On those grounds, I believe that to vote against the Bill tonight will destroy any form of protection for any vulnerable young children. I, for one, cannot do that. I want to stand up for what I believe is right; that is, protecting all young children as much as we can.
The Home Office report, Sex offending against children, concludes that 60 to 70 per cent. of child molesters target only girls. However, irrespective of the fact that the majority of child abuse is committed by heterosexual men against girls, there are still some noble Lords who have argued today, as during the previous debate, that young men require greater protection from unwanted sexual advances than young women; that, somehow or other, young women are less affected by sexual abuse. That is a ridiculous double standard and one in which I am not alone in finding a little offensive.
The sexual abuse or rape of a young girl—I have to say to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, that sometimes rape does include buggery—is likely to have a traumatic effect on her for the rest of her life. She is faced with the possibility of becoming pregnant, of experiencing parental displeasure, possible forced marriage, perhaps an abortion or the misery of early separation through

677
adoption. These were all consequences identified by the Royal College of Psychiatrists as far back as 1976 in their evidence to the Criminal Law Review.
The law has to recognise, as it will when the Bill is passed, that unwarranted sexual attentions are unacceptable whether the victim is male or female, gay or not. The Bill gives us the opportunity to provide protection against abuse for all vulnerable young people and, at the same time, to remove the intolerance and prejudice which can seriously affect their lives.
In conclusion, perhaps I may return to the letter from which I quoted earlier. It concludes:
"Please vote for equal justice for my gay son and for all gay people. We are not asking for special privileges, only equal justice—surely that is what everyone has the right to expect".
6.30 p.m.
Lord Quinton: My Lords, in rising to support the Bill, I suspect that I am likely to find myself in a minority in this part of your Lordships' House. The foundation of this position is quite simple. I accept the Wolfenden principle that homosexuality is not a crime; in fact I do not regard it as a sin. It is an abnormality, but a statistical abnormality like left-handedness, red hair or a taste for Pernod. In particular, it is not something that is chosen.
Why I particularly welcome the Bill is for the protection it intends to afford young people against older sexual predators, for which there has been no protection in the past. What is more, it offers that protection equally to young men and young women. I have noticed a tendency among some previous speakers to look at this subject entirely from the point of view of the male homosexual. Admittedly, one of the more argued elements of the Bill is the reduction of the male age of consent to 16, but the emphasis has all been on the male homosexual. As well as the Wolfenden principle I accept in this connection some sort of principle of equality. All principles of equality can be pushed to absurdity but, on the whole, where there is no strong reason to depart from equality, one might as well adopt it.
I was moved for a moment by the statement of my noble friend Lord Cope when he said that if we are in favour of equality for the two orientations, then homosexual marriages ought to be endorsed as well as heterosexual ones. I have to say that I was moved by that argument principally due to a sense of the ridiculous—the throwing of confetti, the orange blossom and so forth. But behind that lies a serious argument. The entering into a contract between a male and female who set up a loving relationship of some sort is done with the likelihood of producing children for whom they are going to be responsible. A homosexual couple—two males or two females—will not do that, unless we move off into the subject which I do not propose to enter into of adoption of children by homosexual couples. So there is a perfectly good reason for not having such marriages; that is, there is no particular need to contractually tie the two partners together in the interests of innocent third parties who come into existence as a result of their relationship.
678
I said that my main reason for being in favour of the Bill is the protection element it contains. I also like the feature that the protection is accorded equally to both young men and young women. It might be felt that protection is not quite as necessary as it used to be. Most of us are pretty elderly and when thinking about young men and women we probably imagine them as we were. There is no question but that we were much more innocent and ignorant in sexual matters than they are today, for a very good reason. Great tides of erotic muck are poured over young people every day by television companies, including, alas, the BBC, in the detestable ratings battle polluting the culture. So it is not surprising that they know a great deal. No doubt Martin Clunes, in "Men Behaving Badly", offers himself as a role model for a lot of silly young people and it is a pity that that sort of thing appears. But it is a fact of life. Young people are informed. They are not innocent, but clearly sophisticated.
The other point I want to emphasise bears against an argument of my noble friend Lady Young and on the other side by the noble Earl, Lord Longford, the last time these matters were discussed; that is, the argument, broadly speaking, that homosexuality is contagious. I know of no evidence for that whatever. Admittedly, there is a good deal of dispute about the causal origins of homosexuality. Some hold it to be congenital. Others, despite the mockery of the noble Lord, Lord Annan, of poor Freud, repose a little confidence in the theory that deeply emotional and over-possessive mothers combined with remote and hard-natured fathers create an emotional structure in the family which nourishes homosexuality; the growing child is turned into a kind of female and is on the mother's side against the harsh man. That theory has a certain literary attraction. But it is perfectly plain that homosexuality is not contagious. No doubt some people have been glamorised by one means or another into homosexual practice by observing the fashionable circles of Noel Coward, Jean Cocteau or whoever it might be. But in most people it is a feature of their basic constitution which they cannot get rid of—some wish they could because of the social opprobrium it brings down on them.
Those are reasons for thinking that protection may not be all that crucial. Nevertheless, sexual predation is evil. It is cruel; it is exploitative; and I therefore favour all those aspects of the Bill concerned with taking steps to bring it under some form of legal control. Indeed, if anything I would not mind if those steps moved a little further. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, suggested that some amendments may be introduced later. One area which occurs to me particularly is the area of employment. Young people may be employed with dominant older persons around them and they are pretty vulnerable. They are not as vulnerable as someone in a closed institution like a children's home where the doors are locked at night and the predators stalk the corridors. Nevertheless, it is a long working day and when people drift away at night, then the predator can get to work. It is not like purely casual contacts in a queue at the checkout at a supermarket or a cinema, which are

679
momentary. At work the predator returns. I should like some sort of extension of the Bill to cover predation at work as well as in the more closed institutions.
Another type of predation seems to me deserving of consideration; that is, predation in relation to the appalling things that happen to young men in prison. It is not from warders—we have no reason to suppose that warders get up to it—but from their fellow prisoners. One of the worst features of imprisonment for many people is the sexual predation to which they are subject at the hands of their fellow prisoners. I believe that to be true for both male and female homosexuals.
It would be a good idea to introduce into a Bill of this kind a clause which says that no one over 25 may have sexual intercourse with anyone under 20. But that would fall foul of the arrangement of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, because it might interfere with our presence here since most of us had mothers or grandmothers who were married at 16 and who moved rapidly into the production of annual children. I realise that is altogether too sweeping, but while applauding the measures for the protection of the young embodied in the Bill, I applaud also and am hopeful about the statements of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, to the effect that even further provision of a protective kind might be envisaged in the further development of the Bill.
I have not said a great deal about the age of consent. My principle is as I stated. I am waiting for a satisfactory argument to the effect that there is some serious reason for departing from equality as between males and females in this respect. I cannot see that there is. There is an anecdotal, folk wisdom idea that males are less mature than females. Perhaps they are. That may be biological because the female is much more at risk. I was suggesting a moment ago that males are not much at risk from sexual predation other than a horrible, degrading, disgusting experience—that is, sex at the hands of a much older person with whom they would not choose to have sex, whether homosexual or heterosexual. The main argument, it seems to me, is that given a degree of less maturity on the part of males, they will then be exposed to what in my view is the totally mythical danger of contagion. As I said, it does not seem to me that homosexuality is a disease. Since I do not think it is a disease, it is not an infectious condition.
6.40 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am the 10th speaker and, having heard nine speeches on the merits of the Bill, I am afraid that there is little I can add, except to say that I entirely agree with everything that was said by my noble friend Lord Russell, by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bath and Wells and by the noble Lord, Lord. Williams of Mostyn, as to the overwhelming reasons in favour of giving this Bill a Second Reading and enacting it as quickly as possible.
The only useful thing I can do, which is different from anything that has been said so far, is to explain why in my considered opinion—and that is all it is, although based on 30 years of arguing cases before the
680
European Commission and the European Court of Human Rights—the noble Lord the Minister was right when he wrote on the face of the Bill, in accordance with Section 19 of the Human Rights Act 1998, that in his opinion this Bill is compatible with the convention rights.
I would add that not only is it compatible with the convention rights, but it is required by the convention rights. One of the disadvantages of our procedures is that we do not get the Minister's reasons for his statement of compatibility until the end of the debate—unless he decides to give them in his opening speech. It seems to me that we need to understand why the European Convention on Human Rights is really important in this debate because the courts presume that both Houses of Parliament use their legislative powers in accordance with our international treaty obligations and with no intention deliberately to flout them.
So, with your Lordships' leave, I should like to spend a few minutes explaining why the decision given by the European Commission of Human Rights on 1st July 1997 in Euan Sutherland's case is virtually certain to be followed by the European Court of Human Rights if we are daft enough to throw out this Bill and put the Government into a position where they will face condemnation once more in Strasbourg by an overwhelming majority of the European Court of Human Rights.
In Mr. Sutherland's case what happened was that he complained about the very kind of discrimination which this Bill is designed to tackle: the inequality caused by the difference in the age of consent between male homosexuals and everybody else. The commission that decided the case included not merely a very large number of distinguished jurists from the rest of Europe, but also Judge Sir Nicholas Bratza, as he now is, the British judge and vice-president of the European Court of Human Rights. By a great majority, the commission, having read all the debates in the Commons and the Lords, all the evidence from the British Medical Association and a variety of other bodies, decided that there was a clear breach of the right to respect for private life guaranteed by Article 8 of the convention. read with Article 14.
I will come back to its reasons in a moment or two, but, as I understand it—the noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong—what then happened was that our Government—originally, of course, a Conservative government—had changed. The Government, having changed, asked the European Court of Human Rights whether it would adjourn the proceedings so as to enable the Government to introduce this Bill and have it duly enacted. If your Lordships use your awesome powers as the unrepresentative Chamber, to throw out this Bill, I stake my entire professional reputation on the certainty that the European Court of Human Rights will find a breach of the convention. We will then be compelled by international law to introduce a Bill and to enact it, or face further condemnation at Strasbourg.
I say that not because the court invariably follows the commission. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, is perfectly right in saying that quite often the court does

681
not follow the commission. In order to decide whether it is likely to follow the commission, you have to look at the quality of the commission's reasoning and whether it had regard to all the relevant factors. That is what lawyers do when they predict whether an appellate court is likely to be coming down in favour of one side or the other.
To make a long opinion short, may I simply say this about the commission's opinions? It looked at the two principal arguments deployed on behalf of the previous government in favour of maintaining the status quo. Both arguments have been deployed this evening very powerfully and very eloquently by the noble Baroness and her supporters of the amendment.
The first argument was that certain young men between the ages of 16 and 18 do not have a settled sexual orientation and that the aim of the law is to protect such vulnerable young men from activities which will result in considerable social pressures and isolation, of which their lack of maturity might cause them later to repent. The commission observed:
"it is claimed that the possibility of criminal sanctions against persons aged 16 or 17 is likely to have a deterrent effect and give the individual time to make up his mind".
As I understood it, that was a plank in the case for the amendment.
The second argument considered was that society is entitled to indicate its disapproval of homosexual conduct and its preference that children follow a heterosexual way of life. This is what the commission said in two paragraphs:
"The Commission does not consider that either argument offers a reasonable and objective justification for maintaining a different age of consent for homosexual and heterosexual acts or that maintaining such a differential age is proportionate to any legitimate aim served thereby. As to the former argument, as was conceded in the Parliamentary debates, current medical opinion is to the effect that sexual orientation is fixed in both sexes by the age of 16 and that men aged 16–21 are not in need of special protection because of the risk of their being 'recruited' into homosexuality".
The commission further observed:
"Moreover, as noted by the BMA, the risk posed by predatory older men would appear to be as serious whether the victim is a man or woman and does not justify a differential age of consent. Even if, as claimed in the Parliamentary debate, there may be certain young men for whom homosexual experience after the age of 16 will have influential and potentially disturbing effects and who may require protection, the Commission is unable to accept that it is a proportionate response to the need for protection to expose to criminal sanctions not only the older man who engages in homosexual acts with a person under the age of 18 but the young man himself who is claimed to be in need of such protection.
"As to the second ground relied on—society's claimed entitlement to indicate disapproval of homosexual conduct and its preference for a heterosexual lifestyle"—
again, an argument relied on this afternoon—
"the Commission cannot accept that this could in any event constitute an objective or reasonable justification for inequality of treatment under the criminal law".
The commission then quoted the European Court of Human Rights in the Dudgeon case—one of the previous defeats for the United Kingdom Government
682
when we penalised homosexual acts for adult males in private. The Court had stated:
"Decriminalisation' does not imply approval, and a fear that some sectors of the population might draw misguided conclusions in this respect from reform of the legislation does not afford a good ground for maintaining it in force with all its unjustifiable features". I can find no flaw in that reasoning.
I am confident that this Bill would be entirely proportionate in protecting the right to personal privacy without discrimination because the Government have heeded the plea of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, on the previous occasion to introduce special safeguards against abuse. Undaunted, the noble Baroness feels that even with those safeguards as a matter of principle the Bill must be opposed.
I can only say—I stake my professional reputation on this; something that advocates do not like doing—that if we were to reject this Bill and the Parliament Act were not invoked and the case went back before the European Court of Human Rights, it is as certain as anything I can imagine that the court would reach the same conclusion as the commission and we would be back here once more.
For good measure, is it really sensible for the unelected upper House to use the power it still has in its unreformed state to act in this way, showing that it really is not interested in ensuring full compliance with international human rights law? If that is the position that we are going to take, heaven help us when the Human Rights Act is in force and remedial action is needed, as a result of a declaration by our courts of incompatibility, when a government seek to introduce legislation and it is blocked by the unreformed House. That argument convinces me, if it were needed, that the sooner we can reform the House, the better.
Lord Monson: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, does he agree that if the commission's argument which he has just read out to us is taken to its logical conclusion, before very long there will have to be a common, standardised age of consent right across Europe?
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I do not think that is right. There must be no discrimination within each of the 40 states that belong to the Council of Europe system and are bound by the convention; in other words, what is required is not a harmonised age across Europe, but that within each society. whatever the age that is chosen for consent, it should be the same age for both sexes and for people of either sexual orientation.
6.52 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, this matter before us is both complex and sensitive. Like other noble Lords, I have received many letters and briefings sent from people and organisations, some wanting to retain the age of consent at 18 and others wanting it reduced to 16.
For some time I have been very concerned at the rise in sexually transmitted diseases. HIV/AIDS seems to be increasing fastest in young men, but other conditions

683
such as warts, anal and cervical cancer, Hepatitis B and C and gonorrhoea are also increasing in both young men and young women. Teenage pregnancies and abortions seem to be the highest in Europe. Something is very wrong. Something needs to he done to rectify this situation, or at least to try to lessen this unacceptable situation.
The Government have agreed to equalise the age of consent which seems to be more acceptable to many people. The European Court of Human Rights considers 17 to be the dividing line between children and adults. I now wish to suggest to the Minister and to your Lordships, why not put the age of consent for girls up to 17, which would send a strong message of concern about the problem of unwanted pregnancies, and bring that for young men down to 17, which would equalise the age of consent? That would be a compromise. I have discussed it with several people who have thought it to be a more acceptable position. Young people can get a driving licence at 17. They are more mature than at 16, which for boys can be a most difficult and wobbly age.
Whatever happens, I hope that the Government will ensure that all children receive personal, social and health education. Sensitive boys who do not know which way they are going often need in puberty to be able to discuss sensitive issues with someone they can trust. In the past many teachers who might have been the people able to help were not able to do so because the legislation was too rigid. I feel there should be enough flexibility to enable counselling to be given to those young people who desire and need it.
It is the act of buggery which worries so many people, and the danger of gullible young people being taken advantage of. The lining of the bowel is delicate. It can be easily damaged and then is open to infections. I should like to ask the Minister for help in fully understanding Clause 4. I am pleased that the provisions on "position of trust" have now been put into the Bill. This shows the good sense of your Lordships' House in throwing out the matter relating to this in the Criminal Justice Bill which contained no safeguards whatsoever. But does this Bill have enough? Does the Bill include youth leaders taking young people away camping? Not long ago I attended a meeting of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Children. We were told, for example, that paedophiles were commonly found to have infiltrated organisations such as the boy scouts. Are resident, part-time training courses covered in the Bill? As a past county president of the Red Cross I was personally involved in an investigation of a director who had been involved in late-night sessions with cadets.
We should have safeguards in all these matters. I hope that the Bill, if passed, will be improved and strengthened, and that the age of consent can be put at 17 for both sexes. This would unite the UK, as the Bill provides for an age of consent of 17 in Northern Ireland. It would send a message to girls that they have not acted in a responsible way and are looked at by the rest of Europe as setting a bad example. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say.
6.57 p.m.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, I am not generally in favour of anecdotal evidence when making speeches in this House. However, on this occasion I believe that my practical experience of 34 years in the police service and my academic qualifications of degrees in psychology are relevant.
Forty years ago I started my practical life as a police officer on the streets in the east end of London. This was a time before the street offences Act when there were prostitutes on every street corner of the Commercial Road. Women police in those days were specialists, particularly with regard to families, children and sexual offences. I have taken statements in relation to alleged sexual offences of rape, paedophilia, indecent assault, indecent exposure and unlawful sexual intercourse. Clearly in relation to this debate it is unlawful sexual intercourse which has particular relevance; that is, intercourse with girls under 16.
Stepney in those days was a magnet for young girls. Those who saw themselves as smart went to the West End. Those perhaps who had less self-confidence used to end up in Stepney, usually in the cafés run by Maltese.
My next point is of particular relevance to today's debate. We also interviewed those young girls—many of whom had run away from home to take up a life of prostitution—who were under 16 and who had had sexual relationships often with boyfriends but also often with young men in the Stepney area. Some of the girls were only 13 or 14. So this is not a new phenomenon. In the majority of cases they were 15 year-olds who had often had sex with a regular boyfriend of about their own age. The point I wish particularly to make is that I do not remember a single prosecution of a girl of 15 years of age. That is relevant to the current state of the law in relation to male homosexuals. There are very few prosecutions in relation to boys of 16 and 17. It is clear to me that there is very little point in having a law which is never implemented and which just makes it harder for homosexual youths to seek advice and guidance. Criminal laws which lead to no prosecutions necessarily fall into disrepute.
My second posting was to Kings Cross, another area much frequented by prostitutes and young runaways. Part of my duties there was to sit in the matrimonial court each week and listen to the accounts of husbands and wives as they described their marriages and their sexual relationships. In the previous debate on this topic, some noble Lords expressed revulsion at some of the physical aspects of homosexuality, especially buggery. That is not, of course, a feature of all homosexual relationships. If some noble Lords had had my experience of two-years' worth of matrimonial hearings and the accounts of strange and various sexual practices of husbands and wives, including buggery, they might be more tolerant of all aspects of human sexual relationships.
Another issue in the previous debate and, I suspect, in today's debate, is that there is some confusion between paedophilia and homosexuality. As a commander in the Metropolitan Police I was responsible for three years for

685
the Obscene Publications Squad at New Scotland Yard. Subsequently, in north-west London, I followed closely the investigation of a large paedophile ring. Paedophiles are not interested in spotty, clumsy, adolescent youths. Their interests lie in pre-pubescent children, both boys and girls, as young as six or seven; not the 16 or 17 year-olds we are discussing today.
Of course we must protect children with every weapon that society has, including the criminal law. It is also vital that adults in a position of trust should be aware of their responsibilities for those in their care, girls as well as boys. In my view—it is also, I believe, the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Young—a main function of the criminal law is that it has to act as a symbol, a sign of the framework of human behaviour that is set by a society. This is an important, demonstrative role for the whole apparatus of the criminal justice system. However, to be an effective, controlling or inhibiting framework, the criminal law has to be seen as fair and equitable in its application to all sectors of society—black and white, male and female, heterosexual and homosexual. It cannot and should not discriminate.
The transition from adolescence to maturity is difficult for all human beings—few of us, indeed, could claim to be wholly mature—and all the evidence is that the sexual orientation of homosexual boys is apparent to them much earlier than 16 or 17. To add to their difficulties of being homosexual in a heterosexual world by making them subject to the criminal law can only exacerbate their confusion, depression, potential for bullying, and sometimes even suicide. As my noble friend the Minister said, we could all wish that we lived in an ideal world in which human beings lived happily together in conventional and permanent relationships. But that is the stuff of fairy stories. In real life, human relationships of all kinds are difficult and confusing. They are not assisted by being exposed to the crude machinery of the criminal law. I hope that on this occasion we will be able to support the measures in the Bill.
7.3 p.m.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, when we last debated this issue in your Lordships' House, I was one of only five or six on these Benches who voted against the amendment then proposed by my noble friend Lady Young and voted for a reduction in the age of consent. None spoke from these Benches in favour of that reduction. I felt embarrassed then at the circumstance and, on reflection, I think that it is indeed appropriate to speak today—as has my noble friend Lord Quinton—in favour of the Bill and against the amendment of my noble friend Lady Young. After all, it was carried then by a very large majority in the Commons, and it has been carried again by a very large majority in the Commons.
However, there is one very significant difference. It arises from a valid constitutional point raised last time by my noble friend Lady Young. The amendment in question had been introduced simply as an amendment in the other place to a Bill originating here. It was
686
introduced there at Third Reading, and came to us without consideration in either House at Second Reading, in Committee or on Report, but simply in the brief consideration of Commons amendments. My noble friend made much also of the amendment proposed then by Mr. Ashton, which had not at that stage been incorporated in the Bill. It is now, in a modified form. I hope that my noble friend will not mind if I quote her words; I trust that I shall do so accurately. She said then:
"I would be failing in my duty if I did not say…that lowering the age of consent in these circumstances without proper parliamentary scrutiny would be quite wrong—wrong constitutionally and wrong in principle.".—[Official Report, 22/7/98; col. 97.]
It is worth emphasising the point that that constitutional obstacle certainly does not apply today. Indeed, it is somewhat the converse. If an amendment were to be carried this evening it would clearly preclude detailed discussion of the Bill at the Committee and Report stages. My noble friend has made the logic of her case clear; if she intends that this House should defeat the Bill, this may be the appropriate moment to put her amendment to the vote.
I have great admiration for my noble friend and I very much admired her speech in various respects this evening. I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Ferrers is not in his seat. I have great affection for my noble friend Lord Ferrers—perhaps I should not say that in this context—who always speaks with great trenchancy on these matters. Although he does not always win my head, I am often carried by the charm and effectiveness of his discourse. Although he quoted some rather less than trenchant observations that he had made on a previous occasion, I think there was one occasion—I am sorry that he is not here to correct me—when he made his point with great effectiveness, although perhaps with a degree of exaggeration. I am referring to my noble friend Lord Ferrers and quoting from one of his speeches, which I hope will give him satisfaction—although I am not certain I am quoting accurately—when he walks in. He said that, as far as he was concerned, an appropriate age for homosexual consent would be 86. I thought that a trenchant remark and, in the context, an effective and amusing one. If I am not mistaken, he did not intend us to take it entirely seriously.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I apologise for having missed the first part of my noble friend's remarks. He is quite right. I think I did once make an observation of that nature—but not when I was on the Government Front Bench.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, I would never accuse my noble friend of inconsistency. I am sure that he has probably thought it on many occasions. But my underlying point is a serious one. He spoke with great effectiveness. He made remarks which, I think, spring from an antipathy which many people feel towards homosexual acts. We must accept that that is a widely held view on all sides of your Lordships' House. But it is worth asking whether it is an argument. That was the point made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bath and Wells in his speech today, which, if, I may say so, I found very effective. It was a point

687
that he made with equal effectiveness when he spoke on the previous occasion about the matter. One has to think about the position of these vulnerable young people who, under the present law, we are criminalising. There is a matter of principle here. There is the principle of equality before the law—about which the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, spoke eloquently today and previously, and about which the Prime Minister has spoken— a principle that has been supported in the Lobbies by the leader of the Conservative Party and the leader of the Liberal Democrats.
I should like to quote briefly from a letter written to The Times a week or so ago by a number of religious leaders, led by the Chair of Christians for Human Rights. There were two bishops among the signatories and, if I am not mistaken, a rabbi. The letter stated:
"The proposed legislation is not concerned with legalising or promoting particular forms of sexual behaviour but with equalisation under the law and the appropriate protection of those vulnerable to abuse".
In a way, that point is the nub of the debate today: how are we protecting these young people? All noble Lords would agree that we should be protecting young people, but how can we do so most effectively? That is an important point to which I shall return briefly in a moment.
I respect very much the emphasis which my noble friend Lady Young places on family values, as she has done in a number of debates in your Lordships' House. But what kind of family is it that criminalises young men or is willing to see young men between the ages of 16 and 18 criminalised who may have had sexual relations together? They need support. They may benefit from guidance; they certainly would benefit from understanding. But that is, I think, a very Old Testament view, if I may be so bold as to say so when Bishops are to speak later who will correct me if I am wrong.
I recall again the thoughtful words we heard on the matter from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bath and Wells. I should like to quote again from the letter:
"The experience of many parents' support organisations in this field confirms that removal of current inequalities and consequent stress, far from undermining family structures, will actually strengthen them".
That may be true. I remind those in the House who set high store by family values that in this country we have one of the highest birth rates for teenage mothers in the western world, many of them younger than 16. Surely, if we are talking of family values, this is where one should be directing attention. I think your Lordships will concede that this is not a matter for which young homosexual men can be blamed.
Those who support the amendment before us sometimes claim to be representing the wishes of the electorate. We have heard that said in previous speeches, although the point has been made that the other House may be in a better position to express the wishes of the electorate through the Lobbies than ourselves. Even if that were the case, as the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, argued last July, it is the role of Parliament to lead on clear ethical matters, riot simply to follow.
688
Is it so that the electorate takes such a view? I do not want to get into disputation about opinion polls but I understand that the poll quoted today was taken among young adults. So it does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the electorate as a whole. However, at the same time, we should be taking seriously—perhaps more seriously than we sometimes do—the views of young adults in this matter. The point has been made that the average age in your Lordships' House does not automatically put us in contact with young adults, though we have heard from various organisations which may represent them.
It was the British Medical Association, in its 1994 report, which said:
"Unwelcome sexual attentions of a seriousness warranting criminal prosecution are equally offensive whether the victim is a man or a woman: the same should therefore apply to all".
The point has been made about the medical risks of sexual contact between homosexuals aged between 16 and 18. However, my noble friend Lady Young was puzzled that many of the charities working with people in this age range feel that the Bill should be passed arid the amendment should be defeated. The reason for that is that there is some consensus that the problems of the stigmatisation involved with the criminalisation of these young people means that they do not find themselves open to the necessary advice and medical support. That is a crucial point. If the stigma of criminalisation were removed I think we would find that those charities would be able to do their work more effectively. That is what they are telling us.
There are many logical arguments in favour of the Bill and against the amendment, although I am sure there are valid arguments also in favour of the amendment. However, I felt it was my duty today to be one of those speaking from this side of the House in favour of what I consider to be equality but, more particularly, to follow again the theme developed by the right reverend Prelate and to look with sympathy on a minority which, it is not far from the truth to say at the moment, is a persecuted minority.
7.15 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I always listen with respect to the noble Lord but I rather wished that he had been with me when I recently took part in a debate at Cambridge University. The motion was, "This House would like the age of consent for men and women, boys and girls, lowered to 14". That motion was heavily defeated. I do not know whether the noble Lord would have been one of the few who backed the reduction to 14. Once you get into this question it is difficult to know where people will stop. At any rate, that is what happened at Cambridge.
I rise once again to express strong support for the noble Baroness, Lady Young. I do so as a committed Christian but I am aware that there are good Christians who disagree with me. Not long ago, on Good Friday, I attended the 3 o'clock mass in Westminster Cathedral. The place was packed and I was in the back row. When it came to communion the crowd surged forward towards the altar and it seemed to me that it would be a long, long time before I received communion. However,

689
a kindly gentleman, a stranger, came up to me to sympathise with my plight. He said, "This is, I am afraid, a case of Cardinal oratory"—worship of the Cardinal—"and they all must have communion from the Cardinal". So that was why I would not be receiving communion, at least for a long time. "However", he said, "there is a lady here, a qualified minister, who can give you communion. I have had it from her". So I received communion from her. When we were on the way out he explained to me that he had been a priest but he had recently given up the priesthood because of the attitude of the Catholic Church to homosexuality. Yet he remained a practising Catholic. So there are people who disagree with me and with the Catholic Church and other churches who do not favour the Bill.
I speak as a Christian who sees the moral starting point as plain as the day. In the Christian view, sex outside marriage, whether heterosexual or homosexual, is sinful. Therefore, prima facie, the state should not set out to encourage action of that kind. That is the starting point. On the other hand, let us consider adultery, which is mentioned in the Ten Commandments and in some versions of the New Testament—Luke and Mark—as the first of the sins. Adultery is a very serious sin in Christian eyes, but no one is suggesting that it should be made a criminal offence.
So the problem arises: where do we draw the line? Why must a line be drawn? What is the real issue? The issue is that morality depends on freedom of moral choice. There is a limit to what the state can do in inducing people to be moral. That is the problem. I did not ask the gentleman I mentioned about his own tendencies, but he was certainly not a practising homosexual. He had just received communion.
Practising homosexuals are in sin. Nevertheless, Saint Augustine has told us that we must hate the sin and love the sinner; so we must try to love them. If any of my eight children or 26 grandchildren had been homosexual, no doubt my wife and I would have loved them. However, I cannot believe that there are many parents who prefer their son to be homosexual rather than inclined to favour women. It is contrary to the male nature. Women do not mind so much. A lot of women like homosexuals; they say they are not frightened of them. (I do not know whether they are frightened of elderly gentlemen either—I do not think they are.) They find homosexuals rather harmless, almost pathetic people and seem to like them. So the best speeches in these debates in favour of the homosexual side seem to be made by women for the reason I have given.
I do not know how many Members of the House have met rent boys. I met one who could not speak a word of English. He had just been imported to this country. If we are to think of young rent boys being seduced by middle-aged gentlemen, are we going to protect them, or are we not? Of course I have seen people recover from homosexualism. A boy at Eton assaulted my elder brother in the bath there and was later expelled for repeating the offence on another boy. Later he became a pillar of county society and captained the county cricket team. So one can undoubtedly recover from homosexualism. But if I were the parent of a boy who
690
had been seduced by some middle-aged gentleman, I should feel that his life had been taken a long way towards ultimate ruin. It would not be quite certain, but the chances are that if he was installed in life as a homosexual, he would never marry. He would probably in the end become promiscuous. A lonely old homosexual is one of the most pathetic sights that I know. In my humble way I will do anything in my power to protest against anything that threatens the young adolescent boys of our time.
7.22 p.m.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, previous speakers in this House have observed what an invidious task it is to speak after the noble Earl, Lord Longford. However much one disagrees with the substance of his remarks, one cannot fail to be impressed and to admire the charm and sincerity with which he makes them. It therefore makes it very difficult to refute or deal with the points he makes. I do not seek to challenge anything the noble Earl has said about the moral teaching of the Christian, or Catholic, faith. However, I venture to suggest that it does not have very much to do with the question of what the provisions of the criminal law shall be.
Perhaps I may venture one other observation on the noble Earl's speech. He seemed to postulate the rather remarkable suggestion that a heterosexual youth has only to encounter a homosexual on one occasion and have casual sex with that man to be converted for life to homosexuality. The noble Earl may by now have forgotten what happened during his school days at Eton, but I suggest that there would be rather fewer Members of this House who were old Etonians or who had heirs if the one occasional homosexual encounter prevented one ever conducting a heterosexual life thereafter.
My principal argument for supporting the Bill should appeal above all to those of your Lordships who favour fox hunting or who vigorously oppose any attempt to ban fox hunting. I recognise that, with the noted and admirable exception of the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, those who hunt foxes are not traditionally noted for their sympathy in regard to homosexuality, yet I hope that they will for a short while listen to me and perhaps be persuaded by the argument.
The most cogent argument I have ever heard against any ban on fox hunting was advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn when he said:
"If one has a society which claims to be civil and civilised, one has to have regard—a proper regard—to the fact, and honour the fact, that other people may have different views about how they wish to live their lives … we must not be prescriptive about things beyond the decent limits".—[Official Report, 22/7/98; col. 970.]
It is technically true that the noble Lord said that in the context of debate on the age of homosexual consent and not in the context of fox hunting. But his words are true and are of general application. As he rightly indicated, it is not the function of the criminal law to impose on any minority the moral judgments of the majority. The function of the criminal law is to criminalise only such conduct as is regarded as wrong by the whole of the right-minded community, and as sufficiently seriously wrong that it should attract criminal sanctions.

691
Those who wish to rely upon the principle in one context as, for example, to oppose a ban on fox hunting or any other legislative interference with the way in which we should conduct our own lives, must be prepared to honour that principle in other contexts such as this Bill which they may personally find less attractive.
We are concerned in this debate with a very important general principle; namely, where should the criminal law go and where should it stop? Therefore, I urge any noble Lords who might be tempted to vote against the Bill to consider that, by so doing, they will be encouraging the state to interfere with matters that ought to be left to moral persuasion and individual choice.
It is vitally important for us all to remember that we are considering what is and what should and should not be designated as a criminal offence—indeed, a very serious criminal offence—and how far the criminal law ought to interfere in an individual's private life.
The question before your Lordships is not what is socially desirable or morally right, as one might have thought when one listened to the speeches in support of the amendment by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and other noble Lords. With respect. the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, was way off the issue when he discussed whether homosexual pairs should have equal rights to state monetary benefits. Of course the state can decide how to use its funds to give positive encouragement to ways of life that it considers positively desirable, but that has nothing to do with whether the state should impose penalties on other forms of conduct of which it is less approving.
The reasons for seeking to ensure that the law does not criminalise conduct which a considerable minority does not regard as wrong are not purely matters of theoretical principle. There are few things worse for the rule of law than to have on the statute book a criminal offence which is disregarded by a considerable number of our citizens because they regard it as unjust and misconceived. Once people start picking and choosing between various provisions of the criminal law, the status of the whole criminal law as a minimum code of behaviour is seriously weakened.
I suggest to your Lordships that the present law on the homosexual age of consent fails that test completely. It does not work. No one has suggested that it is successful in stopping 16 and 17 year-olds having homosexual relationships. It is not obeyed and those who disregard it do not feel that they are doing what is morally wrong, merely that they are at risk of punishment because of a moral code imposed upon them by an uncomprehending and alien world.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, and her followers are fully entitled to urge upon individuals, as the noble Earl, Lord Longford, has done, all the moral, theological, medical and social arguments which they can find to persuade those individuals that they should refrain from homosexual activity. What they are not entitled to do, if they fail in their persuasion, is to use the mechanism of the state to impose their personal convictions upon people who have not been convinced by their arguments.
692
There are lots of things which are morally and theologically accepted as wrong but which are not criminal. The noble Earl mentioned the obvious one, adultery, which is far more roundly and clearly condemned in the Bible, as I understand it, than is homosexuality. But I see no rush, even from the noble Earl, to introduce 14-year sentences of imprisonment for adultery. Having said that, it worries me that that might appeal to the Government as an alternative way of reducing the number of hereditary Peers in your Lordships' House!
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, is the noble Viscount prepared to have a legal limit at all—of 16, 14 or whatever—or is he saying that people can do what they like?
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, of course. I accept that children—and the age is arbitrary—have to be protected when they cannot make up their minds. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, I see no absolute argument for the age of 16. It is 15 in some countries and 14 or 17 in others. What is wrong, surely, is to discriminate with regard to the age of consent and to have different ages. Surely we accept that those aged 16, who are, as the noble Lord, Lord Steel, has pointed out previously, old enough not only to have heterosexual relationships but also to get married, are old enough to know, as they do, that they are willing to consent to homosexual relations.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, again invoked that wonderful ogre, the villainous older man in his role as a seducer of the innocent young. That is a useful bogeyman; albeit that one does not know how frequent or real it is. If that is the noble Baroness's worry, surely that can he no justification for throwing out the Bill completely and perpetuating a situation in which every 19 year-old who has homosexual relations with a 17 year-old is a criminal. If the noble Baroness wishes to specify an age—say, 40 or 45—at which a much older person must not have sex with a much younger person, let her do it by amendment. It is no argument for throwing out the Bill. I hope that your Lordships will vote for the Bill and against the amendment.
7.34 p.m.
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, I have to admit that, but for the encouragement of my noble friend Lady Young, whom I admire greatly for her commitment to this cause, I should not have dared to speak today. Because I believe in free votes in this House, I promised myself that I would listen to the debate and then decide how I should vote. At this stage I am confused. To me it was a fairly simple issue between good, clean, healthy sex and bad, unclean sex. To me, good, clean, healthy sex between a man and his wife is the ultimate expression of love and affection. The other form of sex could, I suppose, be called carnalis copula contra naturam. It is against nature; it is unnatural. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, said that these two things are effectively one and the same. I have to differ with him.
I am not used to using words that cause offence. I think back to changes of legislation and the criminal offence of blasphemy—"Thou shalt not take the name

693
of the Lord thy God in vain"—and how blasphemous words using God's name were then mixed with names and words that I feel difficulty and hesitancy about repeating. I wonder whether those old Acts are perhaps out of time. I wonder, too, whether we ourselves are perhaps out of time and out of touch with reality. A hundred years ago people did not live to our age. Today the average lifespan is quite long. But the average age of the population of this country is 38. I was told an old saying by my grandfather: "You may only tell your father what to do when you are more than half his age and you should listen to your grandchildren when they are more than a third of your age". In this case we should be listening not to ourselves but to the 20 and 30 year-olds and perhaps to others.
We have to ask whether history has moved on. Are we ourselves so out of date that we are not in touch with the modern image and attitude? I was brought up on a farm at the end of the war, with conscientious objectors, Jewish refugees, prisoners of war, Americans and others. The conscientious objectors ran the farm. I had the doubtful privilege of learning about life in the raw, all the activities of the animals, and that two bulls might try to do something to each other. On a shelf in the library one of the books was called The Police Constable's Guide to his Daily Work. One looked at that to work out whether or not one was going to break the law. It said what a police constable should do when he passed incidents on his bike or on foot. The first item was "The abominable crime of buggery". I did not know what buggery was. I consulted the farmworkers and they explained to me that this was an unnatural act, either between two men or between a man and an animal. It was effectively bestial. In some parts of Australia it is called something else.
I remember, too, just before Arnhem, being told that we had to keep the sheep out of the fields, for some strange reason that I never fully understood. I could not believe that a man or a woman could conduct an act of this kind against an animal, animals being slightly more primitive.
The abominable act of buggery goes back a long time. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, mentioned Matthew Parris. I believe that Matthew Paris—no relation to the present Matthew Parris—first defined buggery in the year 1340. But the "syn" of buggery—I do not know the difference between "sin" and "syn"—was introduced to this country by the Lombards, believe it or not. Lombard Street was the natural intercourse between trade and finance. In history we find that this is not a new activity. In general, it is brought about by lust, not by love. I therefore feel that it is wrong to promote or encourage it. There is no doubt that it is an unnatural act. Most people are, in general, natural. While we should help and protect the minority in every way we can, we should recognise the general requirements of the majority.
I worry greatly about some of the impacts that the Bill will have. I wish to speak from an international point of view. My only qualification for doing so is that I have worked in many of the countries of Africa and the Middle East and other countries. I am not an expert on
694
such things as female circumcision, but I have seen it. I do not like what man and woman, in their inhumanity, may do to each other.
The age of consent in Spain, Italy, Turkey, Portugal or North Africa is irrelevant. We are all aware that in many parts of the world young boys are sold into slavery for sodomy and young girls for prostitution. This is against our natural instincts. Perhaps we have to move with the times but I am not sure that legislation is correct. I am not sure that we know enough about this matter. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Williams, can give us a few facts about the present situation. I believe that at the present time there are some 741,000 males between the ages of 16 and 18. That is not a particularly large number. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said in a speech, or in reply to a Question, in about 1997 that 92 per cent. of men in the study said that they had had sex only with a woman, that 6 per cent. had had no sex and only 1 per cent. had had sex with a man. How many practising homosexuals are there in this country? I should like to have some idea of the figure.
I now move to my real worry. When I talk about unclean and unhealthy sex I refer to sexually transmitted diseases, not syphilis or gonorrhoea for which those of us in the services had regular inspections, or necessarily AIDS. But AIDS is itself a worrying matter. I have spent time in parts of Africa and seen the decimation that it has caused. There are transsexuals, hermaphrodites or however one describes them, who do not necessarily differentiate where primitive instincts are still present.
But in this country my knowledge gained from people who work in these areas—I have been to AIDS hospices and other places—reveals that more often than not these diseases begin with an act between an elderly or middle-aged man and a younger man or boy, whether it be in North Africa, Cyprus, Ibiza, the Canaries, San Francisco or elsewhere in the world. It starts with an unnatural act which causes concern.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bath and Wells referred to his support for the gay community. I have never liked the use of the word "gay" in this context. It is an old English girl's name. I do not mind "homosexual". I fully understand that some people are born different or behave differently. I object to people who claim to know what happens with people of that particular age when the average age here for hereditary Peers—the age is slightly younger than for life Peers—is such that we may be out of touch. Therefore, some time before this debate I took a poll—I was going to say a straw poll—of individuals in different groups. I used to do research work.
It is wrong to say that the nation opposes these changes. The argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, that there should be a similarity in terms of age of consent is probably correct. However, it is not the age of consent that causes concern but the act that follows it: the act of anal intercourse, buggery or whatever one calls it. With it go the pressure groups who are in a minority. If 92 per cent. of all the men in this country have had sex only with women, 6 per cent. have had no sex at all and 1 per cent. have had sex with other men, we are talking here about a very

695
small minority whom we have a duty to protect, not necessarily to chastise. We also have a duty to protect others.
I say no more. This is an emotional and sensitive subject. Your Lordships will treat it well. I do not know at this stage whether I shall join my noble friend in the Lobby this evening.
7.43 p.m.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, there is no gentle way to put this. This is an elderly House. Those in their 20s, 30s or even 40s are as mere children in this place. Even in our 50s we are still regarded as ingénues and only after 80 do we begin to be regarded in your Lordships' House as old—and sometimes not even then.
When this House last debated this issue on 22nd July I had the honour to act as a Teller. What was striking then was that with a relatively small number of exceptions, the younger Members of your Lordships' House (by which I mean those under 60) found it difficult to support the noble Baroness, Lady Young. The world outside this House and attitudes to sexuality have, I suspect, changed a great deal since most of us were teenagers.
From being objects of disgust and contempt to creatures of fun and ridicule, those who are homosexual are, I hope and believe, generally, although still far from universally, regarded as different but entitled to equality before the law. A new younger generation recognises that we do not choose our sexuality any more than we can choose the colour of our eyes. Cold showers, a spell of hard labour in Reading Gaol or a spot of queer-bashing will no more change someone's sexual orientation than a scrubbing brush will change the colour of a man's skin.
My own teenage children are incredulous that this debate is taking place tonight at all. For them and their generation, it is a self-evident truth that the criminal law should apply equally to men and boys as it does to women and girls and to homosexual 16 year-olds as it does to 16 year-old heterosexuals. To discriminate in the law on the basis of sexuality seems as wrong as to discriminate on the basis of race or religion. Homosexuals are and will remain a minority. Tolerance of minorities, as the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, reminded us, is meaningless if we apply it only to the things of which we approve.
I readily accept that the main motive of many of those who oppose this Bill is a desire to protect primarily teenage boys from predatory older men. That is a very laudable and well-meaning objective which I suspect we all share. However, I cannot but ask myself what protection the present law has afforded to the countless boys in our children's homes over the years who have been abused by those into whose care we entrusted them. What protection have the young prostitutes on the "meat racks" of all our major cities derived from the present law? What protection is it to those young people who have been victims of such predatory older people and then been afraid to seek advice or help or to complain out of fear that they have committed criminal offences which may then become known to their
696
families and possibly the police? All it has done is to lay them open to blackmail. All the present law does today is protect the abusers by forcing into secrecy those most in need of confidential help. It forces those who may be uncertain of their sexuality, as many young people are, into dependence on influences which may be both undesirable and self-interested, pushing young people, as the right reverend Prelate put it, into the "gay ghetto".
When the major organisations whose job it is to deal with the very people the noble Baroness seeks to help by her opposition to reform are crying out for this change so that they may do their job better, I venture to suggest that the argument that protection is afforded by the present law is a naïve illusion. Ironically, by her opposition to the whole Bill through her amendment the noble Baroness seeks to prevent legislation which, as she herself accepts, provides a measure of protection to those abused by people in a position of trust over them. I find all that very odd.
We have been told again tonight that teenage boys need greater protection than teenage girls because they mature less quickly. It was not so very long ago that we were told that women could not have the vote because they were incapable of rational judgment. When the vote was granted, it was said that women should receive it at a later age than men because they would not mature early enough to exercise the vote properly. I suspect that in a very short time after the passage of this legislation, which will undoubtedly follow—I hope within the next couple of years at the very least—we shall find those arguments treated with the same derision as is now applied to the earlier versions.
The noble Baroness said that support for the Bill would send out signals of support for homosexual acts to young people. But I do not believe that 16 and 17 year-olds are tuned in to the wavelengths on which she is broadcasting these signals. Teenagers are not waiting to hear the result of tonight's vote before deciding whether to embark on a sexual relationship; nor are predatory older men waiting for the green light from your Lordships before pouncing on 16 year-old boys.
The reality is that hormones speak a great deal louder than words, and far louder than votes in this House. En reality—and let us face it—the underlying objections to this long-overdue reform are, I suggest, the attitudes of a different generation brought up in a different way which retains a deep abhorrence—it has been apparent tonight in some of your Lordships' speeches—for the practices of homosexuality. It is perhaps understandable that when so many of us were brought up with, and had instilled into us, a different approach to these matters, there is a reluctance to appear to be voting in a way which could be taken as some form of approval for conduct which we personally may find repugnant or unnatural.
I suspect that few, if any, of us would choose for our teenage children or grandchildren to become involved in a homosexual relationship. For all the changes in attitudes which have occurred and are still occurring, there is still so often an element of shame,

697
discrimination, physical danger—some have already referred to it—disapproval and, above all, unhappiness in far greater measure to be overcome for homosexuals than for those associated with a heterosexual relationship.
However, surely what those of us who have children and grandchildren want for them is that if they are or may be homosexual they should be able to seek advice and help. If they cannot come to us, which we hope they will, at least they may feel able to go to those who can give them good advice and guidance. The one thing we do not want is for the next generation to be forced to endure a secret shame which must have destroyed so many lives in the past. This is a Bill whose time has come; and some of us would say it is long, long overdue.
7.52 p.m.
Lord Plant of Highfield: My Lords, observant Members of your Lordships' House will realise that I am not the noble Baroness, Lady Brigstocke. I support the Bill. In doing so, I speak as someone who regards himself as a loyal member of the Church of England and as the father of three grown up and heterosexual sons. I support the Bill because I see the issue in terms of equality, fairness, justice and human rights. But I realise and respect the fact that many people in the House, including the noble Baroness, Lady Young, reject that as being an inappropriate moral context in which to see the issue of the homosexual age of consent. Equality and fairness mean treating like cases in like manner whereas, from the critic's perspective, it is precisely because the homosexual and the heterosexual are different in relevant ways that they should not be treated in the same way. Hence, there is the case for departing from equality of treatment because of the claimed difference between the two kinds of sexuality.
If we are to go down the path of treating one group of members of society in a different way from another, it has to be based upon grounds and criteria which should be capable of public justification. This would seem to me in the present context to imply that such discrimination could be justified for three main reasons, if those reasons were valid—which I do not believe they are. The first is that homosexuality is morally wrong and therefore should not yield the same rights as heterosexual relations. The second is that such relations can or may cause harm to the individual who seeks to exercise the rights which the Bill would confer. The third is that extending those rights would cause harm to others. I do not believe that any of those claims can be sustained.
Let me take, first, the issue of immorality as a basis for differential treatment. The argument from immorality is often couched in terms of the claim—the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, made it—that homosexuality is unnatural and therefore wrong. The moral argument cannot be as simple as that. Even if we regarded it as uncontroversially true that homosexual behaviour is unnatural, that fact alone would not entail that it is morally wrong. In general what is natural is not always right and good and what is unnatural wrong or evil. For example, our instincts are, I suppose, in some sense
698
natural. But if we merely followed our natural instincts, then, as Hobbes famously said in The Leviathan, the life of man would be,
"solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short".
Most of human civilisation is achieved by artifice, by struggling against the natural, not by equating the natural with the morally good.
Similarly what is unnatural is not to be equated with wrong or evil. Indeed, many of the greatest human achievements from drug therapies and aeroplane travel to grand opera are to the highest degree unnatural. My point is that we cannot in our society appeal to some shared idea of the natural and the unnatural to support some obvious moral perspective as a basis for discrimination against what might be perceived to be unnatural. What is natural or unnatural has to be set into an additional moral perspective. These terms do not come along with their own moral evaluations built into them. Those moral perspectives are themselves very controversial and are matters of dispute within society. So even if we could all agree that homosexual acts are unnatural, this does not of itself justify a discriminatory response in terms of the morality of public policy.
It is worth making a further point in the context of the natural and unnatural nature of homosexual acts. The first is that if it turned out to be the case that a homosexual orientation had a genetic or some other kind of physical cause, then such an orientation would be entirely natural and that fact would fatally undermine the argument of those who wish to use the equation of "natural" with "good", and "unnatural" with "had", as a basis for discrimination.
Secondly, it has been argued both in debates in this House and in another place that the arrangement of the sexual organs of men and women somehow entail in strictly anatomical terms that human sexual love and relationships have to be defined properly only in heterosexual terms. I do not think that this argument is definitive of the alleged unnaturalness of homosexual acts. First, to reduce human love and human relations to one kind of wholly genital exchange seems to me a reductionist and impoverished view of such relationships. Once we escape from that view, there are many aspects of human physical relationships which, as films, novels, opinion polls, magazine surveys, TV dramas and so on show, are now shared widely across the homosexual and heterosexual divide. The range of human expression of physical love is extremely wide.
Hence it appears that the claim that homosexuals should be treated differently from heterosexuals on the ground of the alleged unnaturalness of their practices is very dubious. There might, however, be stronger arguments about self-harm and harm to others, but I doubt it. I do not wish to deny that self-harm and harm to others can constitute strong arguments for treating one group differently from another. What I am saying is that I do not think the empirical case in relation to such harm has been made.
Let us take the case of self-harm. There are three claims here. The first is that the later maturity of young men might mean that premature homosexual

699
relationships would damage their sexuality. Other noble Lords have discussed that; I need say no more about it. I believe that it is undemonstrated that that is the case.
The second argument about self-harm is that young men face greater risk from HIV infection. That is capable of being turned on its head. If young, active homosexual men are involved in relationships currently at the age of 16, the fact that their behaviour is currently criminal is the strongest possible inhibition on such people seeking appropriate medical advice and counselling about safe sexual practices—and, indeed, about the forms of responsibility which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bath and Wells rightly emphasises.
Finally, in terms of self harm, I have to say that I do not find the argument about predatory men at all compelling. Each week the papers are littered with stories about predatory heterosexual men, many of whose crimes are horrendous. We also have the heterosexual sex industry, ranging from pornography to pictures in tabloid newspapers of young women exposing their bodies for the gratification of millions of men. Are we so confident about the naturalness of this, the non-exploitative nature of this, and the fact that young women engaged in these things have such a fixed sense of their identity and worth, that we can tolerate all of this in law while seeking to discriminate against homosexual young men on the grounds of exploitation by older men? If claimed exploitation is the argument upon which discrimination were to turn, then we would be in a deeply hypocritical position.
Finally, there is harm to others; the classical liberal basis on which discrimination may be fairly allowed. First, let me make the philosophical point that harm has to be what it says—harm—not offended sensibility. The fact that we do not much like what someone else is doing is not a ground for preventing him or her from doing it in a free society unless it harms others. Liking and disliking has nothing to do with it.
So what kind of harm to others might be done by decriminalising these acts? Well, I can think of only two possible candidates. One is harm to parents. I fully recognise that parents might not like the fact that their 16 to 18 year-old has a homosexual relationship. But this is more like offended sensibility, it seems to me, rather than harm. I have certainly had letters from supportive parents who have had to face this fact about their offspring's sexuality. Would they prefer to face the fact of their son's or (laughter's sexuality against the background in which that sexuality was able to have a free and legal expression, or would they prefer to see their sons and daughters criminalised? If we persist with this criminalisation, there is a strong chance that children will resort to subterfuge to keep their sexuality secret from their parents. In this context, it seems to me that less harm would he done to the relationship between parent and child if the relationship could be seen as an open and legal one. It could then be discussed and advice given, including advice about responsibilities that relationships bring.
The second possibility of harm would be that identified by the late Lord Devlin; the moral harm to society. But here I think the evidence is dubious. I will
700
not enter the debate about the opinion polls, but I side with the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Gould. Nevertheless, Lord Devlin's point has some validity. I agree with him that society needs a social morality to survive and I want to conclude by saying something about how we ought to see social morality.
Of course, I accept that many Christians—and I am Christian—regard homosexual relationships as sinful, but there is a world of difference between regarding something as a sin and in a free society legislating against it. I tried to argue that if we continue to discriminate in the way that the law currently does, this has to be rooted in some kind of shared moral belief which transcends the moral doctrines of a particular Church or group of people. That was my reason for dwelling upon the allegedly unnatural character of homosexuality. If this fails, discrimination has to be based upon self-harm or harm to others and neither of these cases is made, in my view.
Of course, those who accept the moral authority of the Church will seek to live in their private lives according to such values and according to its discipline, but there is a big difference in terms of whether we believe that the moral authority of the Church—even assuming that it had one view, which it does not—and its concept of sin should be a foundation for social policy. I do not believe that it should in a society with many faiths and none.
Perhaps I may conclude by making an appeal to fellow Christians in the House not to reject the Bill. In the words of Karl Barth, one of the greatest theologians of the century, in his great essay, The Civil Community and the Christian Community, speaking about civil society as a fragile arena for human purposes and human fulfilment:
"When we compare the Christian community with the civil community the first difference that strikes us is that in the civil community Christians are no longer gathered together as such, but are associated with non Christians … The civil community embraces everyone living it its area. Its members share no common awareness of their relationship to God, and such an awareness cannot be an element in the legal system established by a civil community. No appeal to the word of God can be made in the running of its affairs. The civil community as such is spiritually blind and ignorant … It has no creed and no gospel. Tolerance is its ultimate wisdom".
In a pluralist society—and I recognise that many noble Lords wish that it were not so—we would have to find our social morality in terms of goods like freedom, fairness, justice, citizenship and equality. These will bind a diverse society together in a way that seeking to criminalise what many may regard as a sin will not.
8.5 p.m.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Plant, ended his very interesting speech with the word "equality", which has in fact been a leitmotif throughout the debate. And not only in this debate. In the one-page advertisement taken out by Stonewall in The Times today, the word was used 11 times. The question posed in its poll was:
"Do you believe that the age of consent should be equal for everyone?".

701
Who need be surprised by the large number of "yes" votes? Who is against equality? Who would wish to claim to be in any doubt about equality?
So let me begin by reiterating the widely-felt dismay at the extent to which the purpose of this Bill is misrepresented as bringing equality between males and females into the issue of consensual sex activity. It does no such thing. As the Explanatory Notes clearly acknowledge, the Bill,
"reduces the minimum age at which a person may lawfully consent to buggery".
That minimum age is at present 18 for persons of either sex; in other words, equality already exists; it is merely extended two years down the scale in the proposed Bill.
So although discussion of the Bill constantly refers to lowering the age for males (where there appears to be widespread pressure), the Bill applies also to the other half of the population, the girls of 16 and 17. I am not aware of any pressure from women's groups for such a drastic change, and I would ask the Government whether there has been consultation with women's groups to establish their opinion, or whether schoolgirls are to be granted this very dubious freedom as an unsolicited gift.
My concern is the protection of the vulnerable young of both sexes. In July last year, I called upon the departments responsible for education and health to ensure that the appalling risks from anal intercourse be well publicised. That appears in Hansard, col. 942. I have not heard of any such action. In December, I pointed out the glaring deficiencies of the many colourful and attractively produced brochures of the Health Education Authority; such as the repeated equation of anal and vaginal intercourse for heterosexuals, together with fairly detailed instructions on how homosexuals might practise "fisting", with some guidance, in this case, on how to make it marginally less injurious to the receptive partner. That appears in Hansard, col. 570. Again, I have not heard of any revision to the texts or to the policies informing them, and in the meantime we have perhaps had some measure of the Health Education Authority's efficacy from the report that graced the front page of the Times Educational Supplement of 12th March this year, revealing that more than a quarter of school children believe that girls are protected from sexually transmitted diseases merely by taking the contraceptive pill.
Is it not irresponsible to proceed with a Bill like the present one without taking effective informational measures? I am not happy to see schoolgirls smoking cigarettes, but at least I can persuade myself that they are making an informed choice in the face of well-publicised warnings of the tobacco health risk. Similarly, the dangers of drinking alcohol, of swallowing ecstasy tablets, of puffing cannabis: all these things are very prominently publicised. And in the case of beef on the bone there is actual legislation to protect us from a risk that is said to be one in a million. Why, then, the silence on the risks presented by anal sex, which Professor Gordon Stewart in 1994 estimated as being several thousand times greater than vaginal sex for teenagers.
702
What these risks actually are seems in fact to be not all that widely known, but they should certainly be known to our legislators. I wonder if those who devised the Bill before us have acquainted themselves with the quite voluminous and sobering publications on the subject, not only by the authorities I cited on an earlier occasion, in July, and not only by Professor Stewart, whom I have just cited, but other British experts such as the distinguished gynaecologist Elizabeth Duncan or experienced clinicians such as Joy Holloway and Linda Stalley. Nor need one have recourse to the medical and scientific journals in which such experts report their findings. There are far more publicly accessible materials, such as the 600-page book grimly entitled And the Band Played On by the gravely concerned and profoundly sympathetic Randy Shilts, written a dozen years ago.
I understand the reluctance of many in public life who will not speak out, desperately anxious to avoid—at almost any cost—being thought homophobic, and perhaps intimidated into what they perceive as political correctness by strident lobbies which represent any opposition to this Bill as illiberal prejudice. In my own case, I can utterly repudiate any such accusation. Homophobia to me is not just crass bigotry at its graceless worst: it is ignorant blindness to the manifest enrichment of our lives by homosexuals down the centuries. No, I am concerned only to ensure that girls and boys alike are properly informed of the dangers of anal sex so that they can make informed choices as they can in relation, for example, to tobacco. It is in any case quite spurious to identify anal sex with homosexuality. Indeed, during the Commons Second Reading debate on 25th January, one of the Bill's supporters, Ms Hazel Blears, cited research which showed
"that only a minority of gay men engage"
in anal intercourse. And of course the Bill is quite specific in its aim of addressing not homosexuality but buggery.
So those who argue that retaining the present age of consent for buggery grossly disadvantages the homosexual community are as mistaken as those who argue that it discriminates between males and females on an unequal basis. The consent age of 18, I repeat, applies at present to buggery of males and females alike, married and single alike, just as lowering the age to 16 would apply equally to both sexes. I say nothing of the "slippery slope" argument or about the calls already heard with increasing stridency to lower the age still further to 14; nor will I dwell on the still more sinister aim of some to confer respectability on the idea of "inter-generational sex"—or what the rest of us less euphemistically call child abuse.
I conclude with a brief word about the provisions in the Bill aimed at protecting the vulnerable from abuse from those in authority over them. I welcome the thinking behind these safeguards since they recognise—in line with UK law (the Children Act of 1989) and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child—the age of 18 as the watershed between childhood and maturity. And since of course throughout life, as adults too, as several noble Lords have pointed out this afternoon, we are all liable to undue pressure and influence from those

703
in a position of greater authority, these provisions of the Bill do in fact recognise that youngsters under 18 show their immaturity arid vulnerability by needing such special protection of a kind not deemed necessary for those over 18. But have the implications of this acknowledged vulnerability of the under-18s been thought through? Have indeed the implications of the special protection provisions themselves been thought through? The National Association of Head Teachers is among the respected bodies which thinks they have not. And, with or without the special protection provisions, if the Bill's promoters consider that the age of consent to buggery should be reduced only to 17 in Northern Ireland, on what grounds do they consider that girls and boys in the rest of the UK can undertake such responsibility a year earlier?
In short, a lot more serious thinking and planning, together with determined action on the health and education fronts, needs in my view to be done before a measure like the present Bill can properly be considered.
8.18 p.m.
Lord Tope: My Lords, much of the debate tonight has inevitably been taken up with matters of principle, matters of opinion, discussion of legal niceties, even of medical intricacies. My noble friend, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, said that it was difficult for someone speaking 10th to say anything new. It is even more difficult for someone speaking 20th.
By way of contrast I want to devote almost all of my time to dealing with the practical effects of our legislation on the teenagers of today and to relate some of the real life experiences of some of those teenagers.
Those of your Lordships who were kind enough to attend the debate I introduced on 6th October last year will recall that I presented a range of first-hand evidence I had received from young people who were routinely harassed and bullied at school, and outside it, because they were perceived by others to be gay or lesbian. I shall once again be calling on some of those direct testimonies to fear and misery. Since then a good deal more evidence has come to hand. More people have written to me, and either I or my advisers have been able to discuss problems face to face with the young people and in some cases with their parents too. I stress that because those who oppose lowering the age of consent like to argue that their opponents are in some way naive or have been got at by gay activists.
The people for whom I wish to speak this evening are ordinary people trapped in an extraordinary situation which, to a large extent, is the product of Church and state. Your Lordships need to consider the predicament of a young boy entering his teens and beginning to realise that he is attracted to people of the same sex. Many of them described to me feelings of shame, bewilderment and even panic as that realisation began to dawn. Others have closed their mind to any such feelings, only to be rudely awakened by the taunts and humiliations received from classmates who seem to have a sixth sense in detecting a "difference". Just because you do not recognise that you are gay does not mean that others will not.
704
Let the young people speak for themselves. I want to quote now from a letter I received from a homeless 18 year-old who wrote to me care of the Albert Kennedy Trust. He said:
"I have been sexually abused, bullied, beaten up just because I was different, because I was a `poof, pervert, homo, queer, faggot' and many other horrible names. I have had my head stuck down the toilet because I was 'abnormal' and 'different'. Why? I believe it is because of the way in which we young gay people are treated in school, in society and in law-making decisions".
That young man speaks of the way people like him are treated at school. Sadly, we have had numbers of examples of homophobic teachers—some of them, I am sorry to say, in senior positions—publicly humiliating and isolating pupils thought to be gay.
A deputy head, in a crowded school entrance hall, who noticed a sixth-form boy standing near the school's Christmas tree, called out:
"Adam, shouldn't you be on top of the tree?".
An RE teacher in Scotland isolated and humiliated! a pupil who told me:
"At school my RE teacher took us through all the religions, but when it came to homosexuality, he told the whole class, 'I'm sure nobody wants to know about the poofs apart from Ben'—and told me I'd have to read it on my own".
As another year-11 pupil from Nottingham expressed the matter:
"I have had to put up with a lot from the pupils at that school because they don't understand how I feel. The teachers did next to nothing to help. Some education would help people to accept me for what I am, but I've been told that the teachers are not allowed to teach about homosexuality because of Section 28. I contemplated suicide on several occasions when t became very depressed".
Suicide is a recurrent theme among many of those who have written to me or talked to us. So too is self-hatred and low self-esteem. Another teenager from the Midlands wrote:
"One time I wrote all over my bedroom walls that I hated everyone and myself. I even tried to take an overdose of pills four times and tried to slit my wrists one time".
It is important to bear in mind that some of these teenagers have yet to have sex with anyone at all. But that does not stop them being picked on, insulted and humiliated.
It has been commonplace in several of the debates on the age of consent, both here and in another place, to speak of those young teenagers as though they have a free choice; as though choosing homosexuality were a perverse and eccentric decision, like joining the Communist Party. It is as though they could give up their sexuality just to please their parents and get married and live happily ever after. For a few who find it possible to be attracted to people of either sex, there may be a choice; lucky them. But for most who have contacted me, they can no more change their sexuality than others can stop being left-handed or can change the colour of their skin.
I ask your Lordships to reflect very seriously on that. If you were to face daily humiliation and even physical attack, your clothes damaged and your schoolwork defaced because you were perceived to he gay, would you not change if you could?

705
Some of your Lordships may recall the inquest last November on the 15 year-old Burton schoolboy, Darren Steele, who hanged himself in his bedroom. I quote from the Independent newspaper:
"One 16-year old friend said that a week before his death Darren had told her that he could stand the point of his bullying no longer. She said he was frequently called a 'gayboy' and 'poof' because he enjoyed cookery and drama lessons. Darren Steele was burnt with cigarettes, battered with school textbooks and branded a homosexual during five years of abuse. His headteacher said: 'The real tragedy is that Darren's parents, the school and his grandparents were not aware of his suffering'".
Perhaps most terrible of all is that boys in that situation very often cannot go home and pour out their hearts to their parents. In the words of a very telling joke—or perhaps it is not a joke, "Why is it easier to be black than gay?" The answer is: "You do not have to tell your mum you're black". I invite noble Lords to think hard about that. It is a story told to me by another of my correspondents.
We have had several accounts of parents finding out unexpectedly about their son's homosexuality. Boys who have grown up in happy, comfortable homes, entirely confident that their parents loved them find themselves suddenly denounced as unnatural and unacceptable, with the words, "No son of mine". They are considered to be such an abomination that mothers can no longer bring themselves to touch their sons. What a tribute to family values those situations are; what a tribute to all those liberal leaders of opinion who use the access they have to newspapers and television to denounce those young people as unnatural and their loving relationships as second rate.
There are those who say that keeping 18 as the age of consent somehow defends family values. It cannot be said too often that people who are gay have mums and dads, sisters, brothers and grandparents. This is an issue for families too. Any parents can find themselves with a gay son or a lesbian daughter. They can face the fear that their otherwise perfectly law-abiding teenage son is in danger of a prison sentence. That is a family matter. Parents need a good deal more information on how to deal with that than they are receiving today from either the state or, usually, the Church. Here, I pay tribute to the excellent speech from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bath and Wells, but sadly he said that he believed himself still to be in a minority among his fellow Bishops. Therefore, I must include the Church in that.
Now, against that real-life background, let us think how the present age of consent legislation affects the daily lives of the often isolated and anguished young people whom I have described. The age of consent law as it stands sends out what many this evening have described—and the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury has previously described—as a "signal". That signal is that in the eyes of so-called "respectable opinion", sex between two boys at the age of 16 is unacceptable whereas marriage and even parenthood at 16 is acceptable.
What signal does Parliament and, indeed, the Church of England, excluding the right reverend Prelate to whom I previously referred, send by refusing to equalise
706
the age of consent? What signal do they send to homophobic bullies and tormentors? Are they not encouraged to feel that they have all decent people behind them? What signals do we send to the young men, the sixth-form boys who know themselves to be gay; that they cannot risk on embarking on a loving relationship or even a slight intimacy without the fear of being reported to the police? If they feel the need to take that risk and obtain advice on safe sex to protect their own lives, they doubt whether confidentiality can be preserved.
A sixth-former from north London wrote to me last July explaining how the age of consent laws made him so fearful that he could not even have resort to the police when he was raped. I quote a real life experience. In his own words, he said:
"During this period I was raped by a man. Because I was under the age of consent, at the age of sixteen, I thought that if I told anyone, I would be arrested and put into prison. And so I did nothing. I was discouraged from reporting this incident to the law as a direct result of its inequality".
I raise that particular matter because so many noble Lords seem to believe that, in some way, they are protecting 16 and 17 year-old boys. As I have just demonstrated, the exact reverse is all too often the case.
I took a recent opportunity to ask a Parliamentary Question to establish what would be the effect of sentencing a sixth-form boy to prison for consenting to a homosexual act. I am, after all, an education spokesman. What would such a boy's educational opportunities be during his detention? I was told that there was provision to overcome difficulties with literacy and numeracy. I am pleased about that, but it will not assist a sixth-form boy in applying for university entrance. Perhaps we should reflect on what in real life is likely to happen in a prison cell at night to such a middle-class sixth-form boy with no previous criminal record.
Some of your Lordships will point to the fact that, in practice, very few boys under the age of 18 are imprisoned for such offences. I merely remark that the Home Secretary assured the press that there was no question of his asking the police not to enforce the law as it stood. The law remains and, even more importantly, the fear remains. It is real and it hangs over the lives of young men who would otherwise be respectable and law-abiding citizens with promising futures ahead of them.
It will be said—indeed, it has been said endlessly—that the age of consent laws are there to control the activities of older men "preying on" young lads who do not know their own minds. Other speakers have dealt with that point very well. Most of us who are parents of teenagers are used to hearing almost anyone over the age of 25 written off as a "crumbly" or a "wrinkly". It would be very odd indeed for a teenager, whether straight or gay, to find an older man sexually attractive.
However, let us suppose that that did happen and that the teenager, to use that crucial word, "consented". Let us also suppose that the affair is exposed and the older man is prosecuted. What sort of experience is that for the teenager, to have someone he perhaps quite likes or is even fond of, dragged into court and sent to prison for an activity to which the teenager willingly consented; to

707
have to give evidence about intimate behaviour in a public court at the age of 16? Do noble Lords really think that that is a life-enhancing experience for a boy of that age? It is a very different matter for a victim who rightly demands justice. For a consenting partner, it is to be forced into the role of coward and betrayer.
I am very much struck by the difference in reaction on this matter of law between your Lordships' House and those in another place. It is paradoxical because in the other place Members have to seek re-election and we do not, at least not yet. As others have commented, it seems to me to be a generational difference of opinion that is reflected in the difference between our two Houses.
Thirty years ago and more, many of us were educated in single-sex schools. A good many of us were in boarding schools and girls were a species to which many had little or no access. The sex drive of teenage years drove some to—shall we say? —make their own fun. They were not gay, although intense friendships may have made them wonder. When they were liberated into the real world, of course they fell in love with girls and got married and had children of their own. Looking back now, they think of homosexuality as "just a phase which people grow out of". I am sure many people really believe that.
I hope that I have said enough tonight to make such people see that this view simply does not relate to the lives of boys and young men who really are gay in the world of today. Those boys grow up surrounded by girls from playschool through primary school to their comprehensive. Some of them tell me they began to realise they were in some way different by the age of seven or eight. Some of them wish very much that they were able to change. Some teenagers, crying themselves to sleep tonight because of the vile day they have had, would he very glad if it were a phase, but it is not and I have to say that it is cruel, however unintentionally, to keep saying that it is a phase.
Last year was the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. By coincidence, as I was preparing for my debate on homophobic bullying last October, the United Nations Association sent me a summarised version of the declaration. I should like to quote some of the articles from that summary and to invite your Lordships to consider them in the context of the young people we are discussing tonight. Article 1 states:
"All human beings are born free and with the same rights".
Article 2 states:
"These rights apply to everyone whatever their race, gender, religion or any other factor which might make them different from other people".
Article 3 states:
"Everyone has the right to life, and to live in freedom and safe from harm".
Article 5 states:
"No one shall be tortured or punished cruelly or treated in a degrading way".
Article 6 states:
"Everyone counts as a full human person before the law"
708
Most importantly of all, Article 7 states:
"The law must be the same for everyone".
As we enter upon the new millennium, I find it simply appalling that a whole group of young people in Britain find it impossible to secure their basic human rights as drawn up over 50 years ago.
I conclude with the words of someone just a little older, a young man in his 20s, who has triumphed over bullying and harassment to emerge into a successful career after graduating from university. He said:
"The media thinks that gay people are just born at the age of 25 and sadly it isn't true. They're kids and they're growing up in every school, in every playground, in front of every TV and homophobic tabloid newspaper in the country, and they're being hurt very seriously.
Teachers need to be able to say 'It's OK if you're gay. It's no big deal. It doesn't matter and you're just as worthy as anyone else. We're here if you need to talk'. It's not about encouraging people to be gay, dishing out condoms to kids or making straight people turn gay—that's impossible. It's just about letting people breathe and have a life and facing up to the fact"—
Lord Carter: My Lords, perhaps I may remind the noble Lord that the Companion states that in debates which are not time-limited, speakers are expected to keep to within 15 minutes. There are 30 speakers left. At 10 minutes each speaker, that is another five hours.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I apologise to the House. I was on my last sentence. Perhaps I may just conclude quoting from the letter, which goes on to state:
"It's just about letting people breathe and have a life and facing up to the fact that gay kids have a harder time growing up and that everyone in society should be valued".
That is why we should give the Bill its Second Reading tonight.
8.37 p.m.
Lord Warner: My Lords, I rise to strongly support the Bill and I shall be brief. Despite some of the speeches made tonight, the Bill is not about family policy, sexually transmitted diseases, health education or homosexuality and whether we approve of such practices. It is a Bill about human rights and equality under the law. It is about a government's ability to honour its international obligations. As the noble Lord, Lord Tope, indicated, it is also about stopping a minority—homosexuals—continuing to be oppressed by a majority of heterosexuals, of which I acknowledge I am a member.
I add, for the reassurance of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that I did not feel any ambivalence about my sexuality as a teenager so I speak from a different perspective. In this context I want to emphasise some of the points about the human rights arguments that have been strongly put by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and to try to demonstrate that, frankly, most of the arguments put forward by the noble Baroness. Lady Young, and her supporters are irrelevant to the character of the Bill.
As long ago as 1994 the European Commission of Human Rights ruled admissible a complaint by three men that the UK was in breach of Articles 8 and 14 of

709
the European Convention on Human Rights because of the different ages of consent for homosexuals and heterosexuals. However, because all three of those men were over 18 and the age of consent for homosexuals was reduced by Parliament to 18 the case was not referred to the European Court. Thus, the previous government responded to a commission view in exactly the same way as this Government are doing today, and to be quibbling about whether the Government should be acting in advance of the court ruling seems to me an act of hypocrisy.
The commission then ruled that the UK had a case to answer in respect of Euan Sutherland who was 16 at the time and who argued that the reduction in the age of consent to 18 was still discriminatory. When the case was considered by Ministers in this Government after the 1997 election, the Government and the complainant agreed to apply to the court for the case to be deferred pending a vote in Parliament at the earliest opportunity and that the parallel case of Christopher Morris was to be dealt with in the same way.
In practice it is pretty clear that the UK has been in breach of the ECHR under both Articles 8 and 14 for some time and both those articles, together, grant homosexuals the same respect for family and private life and the same rights of freedom secured without discrimination on any grounds as apply to everybody else. In my view the Government are acting wisely in trying to put beyond doubt the outcome of this issue before the United Kingdom is exposed to the ridicule of a court decision requiring it to comply with the European Convention on Human Rights.
All that has been taking place while this Parliament passed the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into the Human Rights Act. If we do not pass this legislation, when the Human Rights Act is brought into operation we will be required by British courts in all probability to comply with the legislation.
The Government have done their best to secure that compliance. In 1998 the House of Commons voted on a free vote by 333 to 129 to support lowering the age of homosexual consent to 16. It was thwarted, in my view, last July by the unreasonable and totally irrational behaviour of 290 Members of this House, 188 of whom were Conservatives and 150 of whom were hereditaries. Reading some of the contributions in that debate, one is struck by the way that some who spoke with great authority on sex and its consequences did so against the background that the likelihood of any recent experience seemed quite remote.
Thus, we had an unelected second Chamber thwarting the elected government of the day in discharging their obligation to bring our domestic law into conformity with an international convention into which we freely entered. That is the nub of this Bill and that is what we will be preventing the Government from doing if the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness is passed.
I want briefly to mention three other issues which seem to me strongly to suggest that this House should show a little more maturity than it showed last July. First, the United Kingdom is completely out of step with
710
the rest of Europe in its age of homosexual consent, as was made clear by many other speakers. In Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Portugal and Denmark, the age of homosexual consent is 16. France, Italy, Spain and Sweden have a lower age of homosexual consent. In the United Kingdom the private acts of gay young men are quite unnecessarily criminalised compared with their European counterparts. In this country 16 year-olds can go on holiday in most European countries and engage in homosexual acts without fear of prosecution, but not in their own country. That is a totally absurd situation into which we have got ourselves.
Secondly, and perhaps more significantly, last July this House demonstrated how totally out of touch it was with younger public opinion in this country. We have already discussed the NOP poll and I will not go into the details of that. But perhaps most significantly, the only age group with a clear majority in favour of retaining the consensual age of 18 was the over-55s. My noble friend Lady Mallalieu has already drawn attention to the fact that there are not many under-55s in this House. But what we have by comparison in that poll is the overwhelming majority of 15 to 24 year-olds favouring the lowering of the age for homosexual consent.
There is a world outside this place where the majority of people favour lowering the age of consent subject to the safeguards on people in positions of trust that the Government introduced in the Bill. In the same NOP poll, 60 per cent. of people made it clear that they agreed with the Government's package in this Bill. Another vote by this House like that of last July will simply demonstrate to the outside world how out of touch many Members of this House are and how desperately it needs to be reformed.
Thirdly, the Government responded—in my view handsomely—to the parliamentary concerns expressed last time about the risk of potential abuse of trust for children, for example, in residential care. The excuses for not lowering the homosexual age of consent to 16 have been for the most part removed by the clauses in the Bill on abuse of positions of trust. As a former director of social services, I welcome the changes that the Government have introduced. Moreover, they have been welcomed by virtually all children and health interest groups who now want to see this legislation passed speedily so that 16 and 17 year-old young men are not necessarily criminalised.
The arguments about inadequate safeguards are spurious. I draw attention to the fact that in displaying her dismissive attitude of the views of many of the children's services, the noble Baroness was being arrogant. We must bear in mind that we have the overwhelming balance of expert opinion arrayed strongly against the arguments put forward by the noble Baroness and her supporters.
Finally, I should like to mention that in this country many young men, well under 18, are engaged in homosexual acts consensually and privately. We are criminalising them unnecessarily for acts that would not be illegal in virtually the whole of the rest of Europe. We are condemning them to live in fear for a longer

711
period than necessary. The UK would be found in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights by discriminating unfairly against them and the Government are rightly trying to honour their obligations under the convention.
It is noteworthy that there is an issue here about different attitudes of different political parties to living within the convention. It is worth bearing in mind that there seem to be party differences over respect for the convention. I observe that around 75 per cent. of the breaches found against the United Kingdom since we signed the convention in 1951 took place between 1979 and 1997, with a rapid increase at the end of that period.
The Government have provided adequate safeguards in this Bill and, rightly in my view, are speedily trying to ensure that we do not have the United Kingdom again in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. I hope that, on reflection, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, will not pursue her misguided amendment this evening.
8.47 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I hope that this Bill will receive the support of this House and that the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, will be rejected. The noble Baroness is opposed to the Bill. That is her right, but I believe she is mistaken. I hope the House will not feel disposed to reject what has received the overwhelming support of the other place.
The main area of controversy is the age of consent, and Clause 1 provides for an equal age of consent for heterosexual, lesbian and gay sexual activity. I emphasise the word "consent". Consent is important because this is about consensual sexual activity, not non-consensual sex.
I find it difficult to understand why this proposition should arouse such hostility, as it obviously does and it did last time round. There is perhaps a generational problem here—a point already made by a number of other noble Lords this evening. In this House we tend to be older than our colleagues in the other place. Sometimes that can be an advantage and I do not wish to decry in any way the wisdom that many noble Lords can bring to the debates we have in this House. But it is not always an advantage, and we have to understand that time moves on and attitudes change.
The Bill provides equal protection and equal treatment for all young people. Surely that is to be welcomed, as is the provision in relation to persons in positions of trust, so ably explained by the Minister this evening. I could never understand the argument advanced by some people, and again this evening, that young women of 16 do not need protection from predatory heterosexual men, but young men up to the age of 18 apparently do need protection from homosexual men. This appears to spring from the notion which we have again heard this evening, that it is more damaging for a young man to have a homosexual relationship than it is for a young girl to have a heterosexual relationship, even though she may become pregnant with an unwanted child as a result. That does not make any sense to me.
712
However, it does now appear that public opinion has moved on. There has been some discussion tonight about the 66 per cent. poll. I do not want to go into the details of that, but clearly there has been some movement in public opinion, although I agree with those noble Lords who have said that if a Bill is right it should be supported irrespective of what public opinion will say. Many reputable organisations concerned with the protection of children now give their support to the provisions of the Bill. The organisation of which I was a council member until recently, Save the Children, has for many years been outspoken in support of equalisation.
The problem under the present law is that it criminalises young men at an age when they should be receiving support. There is much evidence to show that young people are conscious of their sexuality at an early age: certainly by the age of 16. I suspect that was always so and, as far as my generation was concerned, we tended to keep quiet about it. Certainly I was well aware when I was younger than 16 that I was probably going to like men for the rest of my life, and this sexual orientation led me in the direction of a happy marriage which lasted for some 40 years.
Unfortunately, many gay and lesbian youngsters are not so lucky in their lives. If young men are made to feel criminal about their sexuality, that severely hinders their development. Many organisations professionally concerned with young people attest that this is so and, as many noble Lords have said, the European experience would also appear to indicate that the United Kingdom is out of step. In most countries, heterosexuals and homosexuals are treated equally when it comes to the age of consent, and it is about time that we changed our law so that we reflect changes in thinking.
The strongest objections would appear to come from those who profess strong moral or religious views. Of course such views should be respected, although it should be pointed out that not everyone with strong religious views believes that homosexuality should be subject to this kind of discrimination. I recall that some time ago I was successful in this House in getting support for a Private Member's Bill to protect lesbians and homosexuals against discrimination in employment. I was able to produce a fair amount of evidence to indicate that discrimination at work does take place, and unfortunately our laws do not yet prohibit that. Although the Bill was passed by your Lordships, it did not for various reasons secure support in the other place. Nevertheless, there was quite a lot of support for it in principle and it is something to which we must return.
The fact that there is still such discrimination indicates that there is still a lot of prejudice—and that is a further reason for ensuring that we begin to tackle this at its root—and young men are made to feel that they are somehow different and inferior. That is what happens with our present law, and that surely has to end. To those with religious objections I say that while I respect their views—and I really do—this is not a matter for law. It is essentially a private matter. People with religious and/or moral objections do not have the right, in my opinion, to impose their views on others,

713
and there are now many who do not share those views. I hope the House will support the Bill and reject the amendment.
8.53 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Winchester: My Lords, it is perhaps appropriate that I should find myself following the last speaker in view of what she said. I shall comment on those remarks in a moment but I want first to apologise and to express regret that I missed the first three speeches of this debate. I had a prior appointment, as Protector of a religious community, to receive the profession in life vows of a sister, and to do so in the diocese of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bath and Wells, from whose convictions, as those who were here last July will know and as will become clear from what I have to say, I differ on a number of points. However, I was here in time to listen to his contribution today and it seemed to me that he made a distinguished and brave speech. I much regret that that other distinguished and brave speaker, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, whom I have been privileged to get to know in other circumstances as well as in this House and whom I respect, let himself, it seemed to me, be led astray into a really rather unfortunate attack on the Bishop of Bath and Wells. It is important to say that the Church of England would be poorer and less effective if he were not in his present post.
I want to speak briefly to Clauses 3 and 4 and to Clause 2. Amid all the things that have been said about the Christian faith and the Churches it is important to take up what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Plant, and the noble Baroness, Lady Turner. I should then like to approach the central issue contained in Clause 1.
Abuse of trust is a matter that justifies serious law making, but I do not find that what we have now in this Bill can be reasonably described, as the noble Lord, Lord Warner, just described it, as a handsome response by the Government. It seems to me feeble in the extreme, as shown by the extent to which substantial attempts were made to expand its provisions in the other place, both in Committee and on Report. It seems to me right to say that there is no reference to Church organisations. That is an obvious weakness. A range of voluntary organisations are also devoid of any reference. I cannot see that anybody who is not already minded to support Clause 1 could be encouraged to do so by the presence in the Bill of Clauses 3 and 4.
What is more, as others will have noticed—because I am sure that I am not the only one who reads this material—in Research Paper 994, page 29, Mr. Boateng was reported—not in another place but in some other context—as promising that he would make absolutely certain that the two issues of age and abuse of trust were treated as entirely separate. I am unclear really why Clauses 3 and 4 have a place in the Bill at all.
Clause 2 I find, as I am sure others do, superficially attractive. Here we are clearly talking about children although, as I understand it, the Children Act speaks about children up to the age of 18. Here we are clearly speaking about children and it is clearly attractive that
714
they should be entirely removed from the scope of the criminal law. I hope that the clause will be carefully explored. It seems to me to run a grave risk of legitimising, even encouraging, homosexual activity between those under 16 and those just over and just under or between those under and much older. I appreciated what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, about the declaratory and demonstrative roles of law. I am therefore very concerned about Clause 2. It seems to me there are ample grounds for arguing for its deletion in Committee and for saying that for that age group too prosecution should be a discretionary matter, as I think in practice, if not in the letter of the law, it is already at an older age.
It seemed to me that the admirable reference by the noble Lord, Lord Plant, to the great man Karl Barth was very apt. It is right that he should be referred to in this House. All the same, he has lost his particular position and has sought to import it into what is a very different tradition. I believe that the English tradition of government, both ecclesiastical and political, is symbolised by the presentation to a monarch of a Bible at the monarch's coronation. The clear implication is that it is the responsibility—certainly it has been for hundreds of years when the Churches have, rightly, not had the same kind of powers that they had many centuries ago—both of Christian and of people of other faiths and traditions very specifically to argue for particular positions in public life and public legislation out of a conviction common not only to Christianity but to other major faiths in different ways, although, speaking as a Christian, there are claims of God upon the character and nature of human society which ought to be expressed within and through the law-making process. Those are not to be imposed—the word used by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner—but the points need making. Therefore it seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Plant, was inaccurate in alluding to Karl Barth in that way and drawing on that as an authority.
Clearly Clause 1 is the heart of the Bill. I find myself in the end no more disposed to agree with it and support it than I was last July. However, I still find myself strongly moved by the arguments in favour of change which I have heard again today as weighing heavily with many Members of your Lordships' House, including the Bishop of Bath and Wells, the noble Lord, Lord Tope, the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, and many others. I think of the argument in particular which note that young gay people and children and young people who worry whether they may be gay can be greatly distressed, ill used, driven to despair and even to suicide by the ways in which they or others understand these provisions. They may be stopped from seeking medical help. All those arguments, experiences and true description weigh heavily with me too. They are powerful arguments.
Then there is the other range of powerful arguments for equality and against discrimination. I take the latter first. For me it simply does not follow from a belief that all human beings are equal—ultimately because they are made by God in His image, loved by Him and destined by Him for a place in His eternal purposes—that everything human beings do with or to each other is

715
equally valuable and desirable and should be equally and indiscriminately permitted as being actions that have equal rights. I hold—as it seems to me do the vast majority of adherents both of the Christian and of the other major faiths—that some forms of sexual fulfilment are intrinsically better and more in accord with God's will, let alone safer, than others. If I and others hold that view, it seems to us entirely legitimate that the law should continue to permit certain sexual behaviour only to those of whatever age it deems mature. I take this to be a proper, defensible and legitimate discrimination. I place those words together advisedly. It seems to me that we really have to be careful that words that are currently partial should not simply frighten us out of thinking responsibly.
I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for his extreme clarity in speaking as he did about the commission of human rights. However, I was not convinced by either of the arguments of the commission as he reported them, and by the second still less than the first. Both seem to me heavily ideologically weighted, precisely what the noble Lord, Lord Quirk, warned us against—to be accepted with the breakfast cereal, as it were, as if it were the most normal thing in the world and could not be questioned.
As I said, I take seriously the evidence that some children and young people are being hurt, isolated and driven to despair and even suicide by the signs and messages that arise for them and for those around them from the difference in the age of consent. I noted, too, the point, made, I believe, by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, that there is something of an uncomprehending and alien world as regards those of us who speak as I am speaking. I need to take that seriously too.
But it needs to be said that these questions of a proper concern 14 younger people's welfare and the questions of equality and discrimination, though proper issues for us to think about—in terms of people's welfare, it is absolutely right that they should be (if I can put it this way) almost the sole matter of attention for statutory and voluntary organisations engaged in the care of young and gay people—are not the only issues that we have to consider as law makers, let alone as Bishops. I take the view that these same young people are potentially being hurt just as much—and many others. both younger and older, are being no less seriously damaged—by the remorseless sexualising of society, for which we all have to share some responsibility. That is a culture that is especially hard on young people and probably especially hard on young gay people in its pressing upon us all to act as if every kind of sexual activity is as good or wholesome as any other if it is what one wants at the time or if one can persuade oneself that it harms no one else.
I continue to judge that we shall do still more harm to more young people and to many older people of whatever sexual orientation or preference by colluding with this culture and further legitimising it, as I believe Clause 1 of the Bill does, than we shall do by holding to the present position, notwithstanding the difficulties to which I recognise it contributes for a number of younger people in particular. I am clear therefore that
716
I cannot vote for the Second Reading; I am still weighing the question of whether it is wise, including from a constitutional point of view, to vote for the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Young.
9.6 p.m.
Lord Harmsworth: My Lords, it is a pity that this subject is capable of sometimes emotional consideration. From the point of view of a parent, the problems are much more likely to be practical.
I, too, begin from the standpoint that a heterosexual relationship—if that is the way the genetic die have been cast—must surely be not only the norm, but the most fulfilling and beautiful state—certainly no "well of loneliness". Other than in extreme chromosomal situations, I do not believe for one minute that sexuality is, as has been stated by some, determined irrevocably at an age before 16. I think the good Lord was far more subtle when he shuffled the genetic pack. Not only do sexual orientations change during a lifetime, but the swings may be quite strong and quite marked when a child is in his teens and later.
From a parent's point of view, the ability to influence the position must not be removed for as long as it is of value to hold on to it. Lowering the age of consent by two years could make a very crucial and possibly irredeemable difference. Once that crucial experience has been had, made much more easy by legitimisation, the chances of parental help in accelerating a likely swing later the other way may be lost for ever. I would not wish to make it more difficult for the parent to take advantage of that chance.
I remember that in my late school days and early university days the conventional wisdom was that no student of constitutional history—or any other subject for that matter—would fail to flirt with communism before seeing the light. Likewise with a child's body over that period; it is going through much turmoil and evolution. As I have said, I would have trouble believing any physician who might try to persuade me that sexuality was fixed and stable before the age of 16. Indeed, one hears of extreme and wretched cases of perfectly normal heterosexual marriages which break up much later owing to one party deciding that he or she is homosexual.
The Minister pointed to a formidable array of institutional supporters for the lowering of the age of homosexual consent. These included the British Medical Association, the National Association of Probation Officers, Barnados, NSPCC, the Terrence Higgins Trust and the UK Health for All Network. I wonder whether those institutions are in a rather Mandy Rice-Davies type position: "They would say that". They are in the position of dealing with the inevitable problems that result from blunt law applied to subtle chemistry. Parents are in a different position. They—all of them—are trying to prevent a trend which results later in the discomfiture of those institutions.
Finally, when the Minister winds up, will he help us on the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, who laid his professional reputation on the line? He said, effectively, that he would bet his bottom

717
dollar that the European Commission of Human Rights would be followed by a similar judgment by the European court in the Sutherland case. I believe that many of your Lordships have been sent an opinion by a barrister, who draws our attention to what is known as the "margin of appreciation", which allows legislative aberrations in certain national socio-ethical areas. Will the Minister be kind enough to advise the House how he sees that playing a part in any judgment by the court?
I would not wish to seal the fate of an extra number of unfortunate children for the sake of legislative neatness.
9.11 p.m.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, I must immediately confess that it is with some trepidation that I rise to my feet to speak in this debate, trepidation prompted by what seems to be perceived as the politically correct stance to take, particularly among Labour parliamentarians. However, my much deeper feelings on this issue far outweigh any feeling of trepidation I experience. In my view, it is the way we feel and the emotions by which we are driven which are of considerable importance. They cannot be simply disregarded and wholly discounted by way of logical argument or intellectual concepts. I propose to expand on this a little later.
Noble Lords may recall that when this question was debated in this House in July last year, I intervened when my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn was winding up the debate. I intervened on that occasion because I was moved by the way my noble friend was very strongly using the arguments of inequality and discrimination, suggesting—to me at least—that those of us who opposed the reduction in the age of consent were in fact supporting inequality and discrimination. Indeed, the Home Secretary employed much the same arguments in the other place when moving the Bill in January of this year. However, my intervention in the debate was to ask my noble friend the Minister whether he thought it valid to use these terms when comparing one relationship which is generally considered natural with another which is generally considered unnatural. Although the answer "yes" was brief and to the point, I did feel it was less than satisfactory.
However, in the following week a noble friend of mine, writing in a national newspaper, referred to my intervention, without naming me, I might add, and challenged the description of "natural" and "unnatural", conceding that the two relationships were different but arguing, it seemed to me, that the correct term for the different relationships were "usual" and "unusual".
Before I continue on this point, I wish to pause for a moment to emphasise that this issue is not about homosexuality versus heterosexuality but is clearly and unequivocally about protecting young males from abuse by adults, a protection the Government recognise is necessary for all youngsters which is reflected in the Bill, and to which I shall refer later.
Returning now to the article to which I referred and the differing views of the two relationships, I must confess that the view expressed, which was contrary to
718
my own, has some merit and indeed I found the argument quite thought-provoking. That led me to re-examine my approach to the issue. I was driven to re-examine my logical approach to the issue and I was persuaded to re-examine my intellectual approach to the situation. I was also forced to re-examine my emotional feelings towards all the circumstances.
This is where I found the solution to my dilemma. I now return to what I mentioned at the outset of my remarks—feelings, the emotions which influence our thinking about heterosexual relationships and the emotions which influence our thinking about homosexual activity; but, most importantly, the way these feelings impact upon our view of inequality and discrimination.
The views expressed on this issue by homosexuals are not, I suggest, wholly motivated by logical and intellectual arguments but to some extent by the way they feel and by the direction in which their emotions take them. When this issue was debated in the other place in January an honourable Member on the Labour Back Benches confessed his heterosexuality, saying that sex dominated about 1 or 2 per cent. of his thinking whereas it seemed to him that sex dominated the thinking of homosexuals 100 per cent.
I doubt very much whether those figures are correct. But that is not the point. In my view, the point is that, whatever the thinking, it stems at least in part from emotional feelings. That is not something I object to. It is just a demonstration that the approach taken by homosexuals is to some extent motivated by their emotional feelings. Therefore, there must be no complaint about those of us who are heterosexual also being driven by our emotional feelings. It is indeed unjust for us to be criticised and charged with being guilty of discrimination and inequality simply because we do not believe that it is in the best interests of young men to expose them to greater risk by lowering the age of consent to 16 years.
I turn specifically to the terms of the Bill before us. The Bill proposes two legislative changes, as clearly described in the Explanatory Notes accompanying the Bill. The first proposed change is to reduce the age of consent for homosexual activity from 18 years of age to 16 years of age and the second is to introduce particular protection for all youngsters, male and female, under 18 years of age. I have no difficulty whatever in supporting the second proposed change, which makes it a criminal offence for an adult to have sexual intercourse or engage in any other sexual activity with a person under 18 years of age if the adult is in a position of trust in respect of the person under 18 years of age.
My problem arises, as already indicated, in respect of the first change proposed in the Bill—to reduce the age of consent generally from 18 to 16 years in respect of homosexual activity. My concern—I emphasise it again—is that young males will not be at greater risk from abuse than they are at present by anything that we might do. Indeed, I feel that my concern has been reinforced by the Government because of the second proposed change in the Bill. Their proposed protective

719
measure clearly recognises the threat of abuse to which young people are often exposed from some of those in positions of trust. Indeed, I share the Government's concern. That is why I wholly support that part of the Bill.
At this point perhaps I may digress just a little. I believe that my digression is germane to the essence of this debate. Noble Lords will recall that only recently Chris Woodhead, the Chief Inspector of Schools, was reported as saying that sex between a teacher and a pupil can be educative", and that a teacher involved should not automatically be drummed out of the profession—and that comes at a time when the Government are introducing legislation to stamp out that kind of relationship. I appreciate that Mr. Woodhead has apologised for his remarks and that the Secretary of State did not sack him, although it was reported at the time that he was seething over the remarks.
The reason I bring this matter to the attention of the House is that if those remarks reflect the thinking of someone as important as the Chief Inspector of Schools, how wide is such thinking among many of those in positions of trust? Should we not be very careful indeed of taking any steps whatsoever that are likely to increase the risk to any young person?
That is where I part company with the Government. Whereas they may well believe that they have done enough in the Bill to reduce the degree of abuse and remove the level of risk, I do not. I also recognise and appreciate that, in framing this Bill in the way that they have, the Government are trying to straddle two horses at the same time with the two proposed changes to the law: first, to increase the protection of all young people under the age of 18, whom they undoubtedly see as being at risk and in danger of being abused by some of those who are in positions of trust; and, secondly, to meet what they believe will be the requirements of the decision of the European Court of Human Rights.
As I have already said, I have no difficulty whatsoever in supporting, as a stand-alone provision, the protection of all those under 18 years of age from the risk of abuse by adults in positions of trust. But it does not follow that equalising the age of consent for both heterosexual and homosexual relationships is a necessary and justifiable course of action.
I have advanced my view that emotions play a considerable part in forming our opinions on all sides of the argument. But I appreciate that logic must also play a part. I know that there will be many heterosexuals as well as homosexuals who take the view, which they see as logical, that both relationships are equal and therefore should be treated as equal under the law. I understand that anyone taking that view will logically move on to conclude that, if the ages of consent remain different, inequality and discrimination will persist.
However, if your Lordships reach the conclusion, as I do, that the two relationships are not compatible comparisons, and hence the different relationships are not to be seen as equal and that to compare them is like comparing apples to pears, we shall not see our stance as one of supporting inequality and discrimination and therefore any charges of that kind are unfair and unjust.
720
Therefore, because I do not see the two relationships as being the same, I do not accept the reasoning for treating them equally under the law. I shall therefore oppose the reduction in the age of consent from 18 to 16 years of age for homosexual relationships.
In conclusion, I wish to make two short points. The first is by way of a caution. 'When legislation was first introduced, the age of consent for homosexual relationships was 21. It was then reduced to 18. It is now proposed to reduce the age to 16. Therefore, I think we can be forgiven for wondering what will come next if we do not make a stand now. Secondly, the Government have given a free vote on this issue Therefore, if this House opposes the Bill, I certainly hope that the Government will not use the Parliament Act. I know that there is precedent for doing so. but I shall be extremely disappointed if a Labour Government resort to that procedural action.
9.24 p.m.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow that brave speech from the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Coity. We have listened to a number of interesting speeches during the debate, some from experts and some from noble Lords who were closely associated with the earlier Bill last year. I cannot claim to belong to either category, but I suggest that some of my comments might find favour with marry outside this House and certainly reflect the discussions which I have had with friends and acquaintances over the past few months.
First, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, on his Privy Counsellorship, which I think we all agree is richly deserved. When he opened the debate he suggested that minds might already be made up, and I wholly agree. For that reason, and because so much of what I had intended to say has already been said at least once, I shall be brief so that we can proceed more quickly towards the vote and a little respite.
I shall support my friend Lady Young, who spoke with such conviction and whose arguments against the Bill I found compelling. I have always regarded homosexuality with the detachment of a heterosexual male. None the less I fully accept that in a free society everyone has the right to follow the lifestyle of their choice and in doing so to be free from discrimination.
I draw a dividing line between, on the one hand, two adult males who, after consideration, decide to live together and whose homosexuality remains private, known probably to only a handful of close friends, and, on the other hand, the male prostitute or even enthusiastic amateur to be found in gay clubs or even less desirable surroundings. Sadly, it is the latter rather than the former whom the young teenager is likely to encounter and from whom he needs protection.
Of course, the teenage youth may also meet homosexuality with older men in perfectly respectable surroundings, as a result, for example, of hero worship. Sportsmen, actors and musicians are three categories, but anyone whose talents he greatly admires and who happens to have a yearning for young men may prey on his affections.

721
I need go no further than Clause 1 to find the stumbling block to my giving the Bill my support. The heading of that clause is:
"Reduction in age at which certain sexual acts are lawful."
That age is to be reduced from 18 to 16. My contention is that, as legislators, we must take account of the fact that maturity at 16 is by no means automatic. Although some 16 year-olds are physically mature, they may well not be either mentally or emotionally mature; nor does maturity affect all in the same way at the same time. Although the difference between 16 and 18 is but two years, they are two vital years. They are highly impressionable years when young people can easily be influenced.
Several speakers have stressed the desirability of uniformity in the age of consent, instancing heterosexual sex and homosexual sex. Surely at 16 the young male cannot be certain that he is homosexual and that it is homosexual sex which he really desires. Those extra two years may well save him from becoming involved in a homosexual relationship which he might bitterly regret later in life.
If the Bill is lost tonight and the Government are forced to use the Parliament Act, one consequence will result; namely, present 16 year-olds will probably have at least 18 months before a new Bill could be enacted. That is, in my view, a great advantage for them. It might also give the Government time to think again about Clause 1. I wish my noble friend's amendment every success.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, protecting people from themselves has, throughout history, been an excuse for promoting prejudice and denying individuals the right to choice. We have seen societies in which black and white people have been denied the right to a relationship and in which people from one class were not supposed to have relationships with people from another. But in such societies people have still had relationships that have fallen outside those particular laws. They have still fallen in love and sometimes have paid a high price for it. I do not believe that we in Britain today want a section of our society to pay a high price for falling in love with someone.
The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, was absolutely right when she said that the world outside your Lordships' House would scarcely understand the debate tonight; and certainly those under the age of 25 have a totally different concept of the kinds of issues that we are debating. I believe that they would be slightly shocked at our concentration on aspects of sexual behaviour with so little mention of love, concern and relationships. I do not believe that they see sex as separate from care or love, as some speakers have implied.
It is no coincidence that the age group that least supports this Bill is the 55-plus age group. Passion and romance in this world belong mostly to the young. As we move further and further from the experience of
722
being in love, if we are not careful we can become cynical and look only for the worst of motives among the young whom we no longer understand.
Being a teenager is difficult. Falling in and out of love, unrequited love and the power of sex that dominates thought are a difficult bunch of issues to tackle at the same time as taking exams, applying to enter university, applying for a job and leaving home. No one between the ages of 16 and 18 should be left to deal with life-changing issues without help and advice.
I know to my cost as a parent that a huge amount of time is spent on the telephone by the 16 to 18 age group seeking advice on relationships, usually from friends. But parents need to know that their child can approach the family doctor on health issues and the youth counsellor on emotional problems. If one is a gay young man barred from receiving advice, how is one to make considered and informed choices? It is very hard to make those choices by oneself. If one is regarded as a criminal, one's self-esteem will suffer enormous harm and one's prospects in every area will be affected.
Several times this evening we have heard listed the organisations which support this Bill. I shall not repeat them. All of those organisations support this measure because they are very much aware that to deny help to a group of young people at the most vulnerable moment of their lives is extremely dangerous. If the aim is to protect this group, your Lordships must heed the advice of all those groups which work with young people. The best way to help young people to resolve the difficult issues of sexuality, relationships, love, health, rejection and acceptance is to allow them to be as open as possible about their feelings and their situation. If a relationship criminalises an individual, how can he turn to anyone for advice?
I am quite aware that a number of noble Lords may wish that homosexuality did not exist; and some noble Lords may even wish that young people did not have sexual relationships at 16, 17 or even 18. But I do not believe that we are here to reinforce our subjective views, especially when dealing with matters of sexuality where most individuals would find a full and frank discussion of their own feelings difficult and probably impossible.
This evening we should be part of the process of constructing a society that is open and fair. This Bill helps us towards that goal. I welcome the protection that this Bill offers to all young people. It has always seemed extraordinary to me that anyone can claim that a young girl's life cannot be ruined by a relationship with an older man. Few can deny that such abuses of trust have led to as much misery and problems as those between older men and boys. The Bill enables all those young people to have an equal chance to make the best of their sexual and emotional lives. I want the best chance for all the next generation; and I support the Bill wholeheartedly.
9.34 p.m.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, the night is late, so I shall be brief. My purpose in speaking today is to give a personal view as a mother and grandmother and as a

723
close observer of the development of young people as they go through the turbulent years of puberty. I should like also to place on record that I have no problems with people who as adults choose a homosexual way of life. That is their prerogative and should be accepted. However, I believe that a heterosexual lifestyle is natural while a homosexual is not.
But the Bill for me sends out an astonishing message to young people. The Government's case seems to stem from political correctness and a doctrine that reducing the age of consent is an issue of equality and justice. Much is made of the fact that the European Court of Human Rights may rule that the law must be amended. But I understand that there is a strong body of opinion which believes that the court may take the view that on such sensitive issues national governments should make the final decision. We should therefore not be fettered, but come to our own conclusions without reference to what a court may or may not state some time in the future.
There is no doubt that girls mature much earlier than boys. Boys very often are only just coming to terms with their sexuality at 16. Consequently, I accept that there is more of a case for the age of consent for girls to be lower than for boys. Personally, I feel that 18 would be more appropriate for girls too, and would probably cause less anguish. However, that is not possible; nor is it part of the Bill.
In my submission, it would be a dereliction of duty if we allowed this legislation to reach the statute book. Governments have always been concerned with the protection of children and young people. So it seems distinctly odd that the Bill should be before us at a time when there are so many initiatives to stop abuse of the young. I am convinced that to allow the age of consent to be lowered to 16 could be seen as a form of cruelty as legally it could expose vulnerable adolescent boys to predatory older or indeed younger men. I understand that the Bill tries to cope with that difficult situation. But the Government's case is undermined as the major part of the Bill leads everyone to believe that that way of life is normal and therefore not a change of any magnitude. I cannot agree with that opinion.
On a previous occasion I referred to a list of activities in which one cannot indulge until reaching the age of 18, including, for example, serving on a jury, voting in any election, buying a house or flat, opening a bank account without a parent's signature, or even buying alcohol. It therefore strikes me as very strange that this highly important proposed change seems to be just accepted and indeed proposed by the Government. After all, a decision taken by an immature young man might lead him into a life that he would not have contemplated given another two years of development.
I am also deeply concerned about young people who have not had the advantage of a stable family background. I feel that it is up to your Lordships to ensure that their interests come before any fashionable correctness. I could never bring myself to vote for the age to be lowered to 16, and I urge noble Lords to support my noble friend Lady Young who outlined her case with such clarity and conviction.
724
On the "Today" programme this morning, we heard that the opponents of the Bill were mainly over 60 and out of touch. Why, I wonder, should a speaker who is 51 know better? I think that the age of Members of your Lordships' House is immaterial and that all views should be respected. Perhaps if age is so important I can conclude by saying that my 14, soon to be 15, year-old granddaughter agrees with me wholeheartedly. She said, "You won't let them do it, will you, Granny?"
9.40 p.m.
Lord Freyberg: My Lords, last time this subject was debated in the House I listened carefully to the arguments put by both sides. Sexuality and the age of consent are emotional topics and I was aware that the tolerance and acceptance of homosexuality common among my generation is a recent phenomenon. One cannot, however, expect people who are brought up to consider it a terrible thing—morally unacceptable, corrupting, shameful, something to be kept hidden and illegal to boot—to shed these bad associations even though attitudes to homosexuality have undergone a sea change in the past few decades. I therefore expected that some older Members would find it difficult to reason dispassionately. None the less, I was distressed by the prejudiced tone of the discussion and by the illogical and plainly ridiculous arguments expressed by people I respect from all sides of the House—some of which I have heard repeated tonight.
It is my belief that the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill is a timely piece of legislation which corrects an unfair anomaly in the law for a maligned and vulnerable group of people. Not only are young homosexuals condemned by the widespread prejudice of their seniors, they are deprived of legal parities with their own age group. In particular, homosexual men between the ages of 16 and 18 are turned into criminals if they have a sex life, while heterosexual men and women are not.
It is cruel to punish one group of young people because of their sexuality. The message thus given is that homosexuality is somehow wrong, something to be afraid of, and that the needs of gay men matter less. I do not believe that the law necessarily stops young gay men pursuing a sex life, but it undoubtedly sends them a negative message.
One of the worries often cited against lowering the age of consent for homosexuals is that it will encourage homosexuality, because boys mature later than girls. Medical evidence suggests otherwise. The view of the British Medical Association is that,
"adult sexual orientation is usually established before the age of puberty in both boys and girls".
Developmental arguments for an unequal age of consent are also rejected by the Royal College of Psychiatrists. You cannot change sexual orientation simply by making it harder for people to embrace one kind of sexuality than another. That is already the case, and, indeed, it is common for young men to delay accepting their homosexuality, such is the pressure to conform to society's "norms".
Homosexual men and women will continue to exist in the future as they have in the past. Sexuality refuses to be confined by rules and regulations. There are,

725
inevitably, no figures to show how often the law of banning homosexual sex below the age of 18 is flouted at present. That thousands of heterosexual couples under the age of consent engage in sexual activity is evidenced by the depressingly large number of girls under 16 who become pregnant. The figure for conceptions to girls aged between 13 and 15 in England and Wales in 1996 was 8,800. The number who actually had sex is inevitably far greater.
The BMA maintains that, from a medical point of view, the purpose of age of consent legislation is,
"to protect vulnerable young people from sexual exploitation and abuse".
It states further that,
"there is no clear justification for a differential age for homosexual male activity and other sexual activity. Unwelcome sexual attentions of a seriousness warranting criminal prosecution are equally offensive whether the victim is a man or a woman: the same law should therefore apply to all".
The large number of bodies which work with young people—we have heard many mentioned tonight—also agree that the age should be reduced. Such expert opinions should not be lightly dismissed.
If protecting the young is our aim, we should consider the difficulties faced by young homosexual boys between the ages of 16 and 18 if they want to consult a doctor on sexual matters. Because gay sex is illegal at this age, doctors, teachers and youth workers are all banned from giving practical advice on health and the prevention of HIV infection. Barnardos states that:
"We find ourselves in the ludicrous situation of handing out condoms to girls who are 16 and to heterosexual boys who are 16 but not to gay 16 year-olds".
One of the many misconceptions of homosexuality quoted in this House this evening is that it is unnatural. This is blatantly untrue. As the distinguished scientific committee organised by Dr. Miriam Rothschild pointed out to the Wolfenden Committee in the 1950s, nature is full of examples of homosexual acts, in creatures as diverse as fleas, ducks and apes. In this genetic aspect we are no different from the rest of the animal kingdom. And while in all cases homosexuality is a minority pursuit, it is humans alone who have stigmatised it. To speak more locally, Britain and Luxembourg are the only countries in the EU with an age of consent that still discriminates between heterosexuals and homosexuals. Our laws exist in this unequal way because of prejudices against homosexuality. That is what is unnatural.
In the last few months many polls have canvassed people for their views on the age of consent. While some statistics indicate opposition to lowering it, an equal number support the idea that the age of consent should be the same for heterosexuals and homosexuals. Many of those against lowering the gay age of consent were also in favour of raising the age of consent for all, heterosexuals included. While most people find it difficult to make moral judgments about sexuality, a majority do seem to believe that all young people deserve to be treated equally by the law. As there is no move for the general age of consent to be raised to 18, maintaining a higher age of consent for homosexuals simply discriminates against young gay men.
726
They are an already much put-upon group. As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, recounted this evening homophobic bullying and abuse are common. The children's charity Save the Children believes that the discriminatory age of consent contributes to intolerance and prejudice, and refers to the body of evidence linking it to the high levels of attempted suicide, family rejection and intimidation of young homosexuals. I am sure that this is very far from what those who oppose this Bill want, but they have not come up with any solutions, let alone positive role models, to affirm the worth of young gay men.
As far as the law is concerned, the Bill is largely academic. There is little public benefit or police interest in spying on acts of consensual sex. As Mike Bennett, chairman of the Metropolitan Police branch of the Police Federation, said to a newspaper last year,
"It's common knowledge that we don't actually prosecute 16 to 18 year-olds."
At present only a handful of cautions or prosecutions against 16 or 17 year-old males for buggery and gross indecency are made each year. Consensual sex is not a crime. Do we really want a law that stigmatises a whole group of young people for which only a very few will be prosecuted and even fewer convicted each year? As the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, said so forcefully, what is the point in a law there is no will to enforce?
Therefore, while I have no desire to encourage sex at a young age, I also have no desire to promote one form of sex over another either. While I would never suggest that those who engage in any kind of sexual activity can escape emotional, psychological or even physical damage I am certain that each of us should be equal before the law. I therefore oppose the amendment to this Bill, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Young.
9.48 p.m.
Lord Ashbourne: My Lords, it is getting late, and I shall try not to detain your Lordships too long.
This Bill would reduce from 18 to 16 the age at which men can legally commit acts of gross indecency with boys and acts of buggery, an unnatural, unsanitary and dangerous act, on both boys and girls. The Government's manifesto commitment was to allow a free vote in Parliament on this issue. Last summer, Parliament was given that opportunity. Another place voted for a reduction in that age, and this House voted by an equally substantial majority against it. In allowing those votes, the Government fulfilled their manifesto commitment. They have no mandate to go any further. I intend to support the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Young, and I hope to find the amendment carried.
We must be clear that ordinary people are very much against this Bill. Opinions polls always show support for vague concepts of equality, but when it is spelt out that this means giving homosexual men legal access to schoolboys, opinion is solidly against. It is ironic that your Lordships' House will be acting more democratically in rejecting this Bill than the elected Chamber.

727
We must lay to rest some of the myths carefully engendered by the Bill's proponents. Especially important is to nail the "born that way" myth. If men are born homosexual, we should be unkind to deny them homosexual equality. If, on the other hand, the origins of homosexuality are more complex, we may be right to see homosexual activity and acts of buggery as pathological. I have been impressed by a briefing from the American National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, sent to me by Christian Voice. It demonstrates that, in the view of a majority of respected scientists, homosexuality is the result of a combination of social, psychological and biological factors. It is still regarded by conservative psychiatric professionals as pathological, and it can be successfully treated.
The law of Almighty God which Her Majesty solemnly promised, in her coronation oath, to maintain, views homosexual activity a crime at any age. The adolescent age range is one in which homosexuals are particularly interested, hence the importance of not lowering the age of consent to 16.
I have an interest to declare in that I am chairman of the Lords and Commons Family and Child Protection Group, an all-party group made up of Back-Bench Members of both Houses of Parliament, formed some years ago by parliamentarians who were particularly disturbed at the incessant and repeated attacks on the traditional family. The Family and Child Protection Group does not favour sexual relations outside marriage. As for homosexuality, it is unnatural; it is a perversion; and it is repeatedly and firmly condemned in holy scripture.
This is an unrighteous Bill, and I trust and pray that Almighty God will give this House the courage to stand up to the Government when, as in today's Bill, they are wrong. That is our constitutional duty before God, the Monarch and the people of this United Kingdom. It is a duty from which we must not shrink.
9.52 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I shall keep my remarks brief because I very much agree with the contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg. I start from the same premise which he so clearly identified; namely, that homosexuality, of course, is a minority condition but it is a basic natural condition found in all societies, in all humankind and wider than humankind.
But children need protection from those who may take advantage of them. That is why it is unlawful to have heterosexual intercourse with anyone under the age of 16. It has not been established in this debate why homosexuals, boys or girls, need greater protection than heterosexuals.
Should the law follow opinion polls? That seems to represent much of the case presented for supporting the amendment. I think not. Democracy requires representation, not opinion polls. Of course majorities can oppress. We are not talking just about totalitarian states; for example, when the Nazis discriminated against the Jews or the Serbs against the Albanian Kosovars at present. Democracies may be guilty of
728
oppression against minorities: for example, the Americans against their native Indians, the Australians against the Aborigines. There have been many other cases in which distinct minorities have had to look to democracy to protect their rights, not through opinion polls which are the state expression of majority prejudice, but through the proper responsibility of a democracy to care for the rights of minorities. That is an absolutely essential principle of the way in which democracy should work.
So democracy must be protective of minorities. That is why, in this particular case. the issue of whether the legislation was foreshadowed in the manifesto is not appropriate. This is a conscience issue. We know it is not party politics for a party to campaign in a general election and say there are no matters of conscience for its Members when elected to the House which should be presented in the manifesto. Of course there are not, but these issues should be debated and decided by Members of Parliament elected to do their job representing their constituents.
The lower House has spoken not once with regard to this Bill but twice. After all we had before us the presentation of this issue the previous year. I recognise that under the strict terms of the Parliament Act this is not the same Bill. However, the idea that the case can be made that there has been insufficient consideration of this important issue by the lower House does not stand up. What is more, it seems to me that the lower House has so much greater legitimacy on this issue than we have here. I take the obvious points about personal characteristics. This is a matter which affects a particular generation. We are talking about 16 to 18 year-olds. Who are closer to them as legislators? In the lower House many Members are fathers and mothers of such children whereas we on the whole are a House consisting, by and large, of Members who are two generations away from the issue with which we are concerned.
Society has changed significantly over the period of time under consideration. That is why in my view, in terms of its representation, the lower House has greater legitimacy. I take this obvious point: of course, it is easy for those backing this amendment to quote opinion poll positions. We all know, however, that this is one of the issues in which a majority of citizens who, tolerant though they may be, on the whole display elements of prejudice against a minority group. However, the issue is surely that this is not a question of opinion polls translated into action but a question of judgment of representatives of the people elected by them. After all, the lower House has Members who must go back to their communities, be answerable to the people they represent and answer the questions and challenges presented to them by the local press. We, on the whole, are expressing predominantly private opinions, admittedly in a highly public place in the upper House of the legislature, but, nevertheless, opinions for which we cannot be held directly responsible. On those grounds, therefore, I do not believe that the case has been made out for this House to reject the absolutely significant majority, 183, at Second Reading of the Bill in the lower House. It seems to me that we would be ill-advised to support the amendment.
9.57 p.m.
Lord Annaly: My Lords, I have three young children—two daughters aged 9 and 11 years, and an 8 year-old son. I therefore declare an interest as a parent. I am sure that I am no different from the majority of parents in this country in wanting to safeguard my children during their formative years until they reach adulthood.
Although supporting the principle of the Bill's provisions on abuse of positions of trust, I strongly believe that lowering the homosexual age of consent is not in the long-term interests of young people. Generally speaking, young men mature physically and emotionally rather later than girls. I believe that by keeping the homosexual age of consent at 18, time is allowed for adolescent boys to mature and to be in a better position to decide their sexuality. After all, the age when young people are allowed to vote is 18, as is the age when a young man can fight for his country. That all seems quite consistent.
I believe that there is a danger for adolescent boys (who are going through a phase when they are unsure of their sexuality) of being befriended and abused by older, homosexual men. That could then lead to infection of sexually transmitted disease and could then draw them into a homosexual lifestyle. Thus, what may have been a passing phase in that young person's growing up could easily become permanent because the homosexual subculture is not one from which it would be easy for young people to extricate themselves.
Why then are we considering the Government's proposals to reduce the age of homosexual consent? This Bill, if passed, will give the wrong signals to young people by indicating that society approves of homosexual sex at a younger age. That is surely not how we should best be protecting our children, who in law are all people under the age of 18. This Bill legalises buggery and gross indecency with children, both boys and girls, for the first time.
There has been much made in this debate about equality between the sexes and the need to make the age of consent the same for boys as for girls, namely, at 16 years. This is misleading in the extreme. The law at the moment allows a girl of 16 to consent to heterosexual sex, but anal intercourse with that same 16 year-old girl is illegal. This Bill is proposing to make anal intercourse legal for both sexes at 16. This is against a background where we know that anal intercourse is deemed to be very dangerous from the medical viewpoint. As well as causing physical damage—that was well highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Quirk—and giving rise to a number of other infections, 72 per cent. of all male HIV infections in the UK arise through homosexual intercourse. When the age of consent was last lowered in 1994, the incidence of HIV infections acquired from sex between men increased, despite considerable health promotion about so-called "safer sex". Proof of the danger is evident in that any man who has ever had homosexual sex is banned for life from giving blood, as we have already heard.
Young people—be they boys or girls—who are not sure of their sexuality should be able to seek advice—this is important—and feel able to do so in confidence. The
730
law currently requires that secondary schools provide HIV and sex education. There are also a number of advice agencies, drop-in centres, telephone helplines, leaflets and booklets especially for homosexuals that do not have any lower age limit. In addition to those sources of advice, there is the family doctor from whom contraceptive advice and contraceptives are available for girls and boys under 16 who are below the heterosexual age of consent. I do not therefore agree with the argument that by keeping the homosexual age of consent at 18 years, homosexual boys aged 16 and 17 will be denied access to advice and help. It is just not true.
Finally, there is a wide variance both within and outside Europe on the homosexual and heterosexual ages of consent. The homosexual age of consent varies within Europe from an effective age of 12 in Spain through to 18 in Austria, as we have already heard. The age of 18 also applies in Luxembourg, Portugal and this country. In Luxembourg, the heterosexual age is 16 and the homosexual age is 18. In Austria, the heterosexual age is 14 and the homosexual age is 18. The relevant age is not the same in those various different countries.
I conclude simply by saying that I shall support my noble friend Lady Young in her amendment because I do not believe in my heart of hearts that this Bill is in the best interests of young people.
10.2 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Birmingham: My Lords, the majority of my episcopal brethren believe that this Bill is mistaken. I disagree with them. I tried to persuade them that this is a fight in which they ought not to engage, but without success. I intend to support the Bill, though I have a question to which I shall return later.
Deeply important issues are at stake, notably the recurrent question of the relationship between morality and law. There is no doubt to my mind that the sanctions of the law have a place in giving social support to moral norms; no doubt that the state of the law not only reflects but also has an effect on what people in general believe to be acceptable behaviour. But we cannot draw a tight line of correspondence between a morally wrong and a legally impermissible. Adultery is an obvious example. Adultery is certainly wrong and its effects are seldom limited to the man and woman in question. In other words, it is not a simply private act. It affects other people; it has social consequences.
Nevertheless, unless we want to go back to Calvin's Geneva, there are few of us who would think it prudent or right to make adultery subject to the sanctions of the criminal law. Similarly, and a little closer to the matter in hand, few of us can think that casual sex between male and female teenagers—or, come to that, between men and women of any age—is a matter of social indifference. Its widespread acceptance has harmful social effects, but few of us suppose that this is an area where the criminal law will do any good. Just imagine an Act against fornication!
That being so, I can see no good case for the continued crimninalisation of criminal activity involving young men of 16 or 17. What good does it do? It is true that the Church's traditional inherited teaching is clear.

731
The proper and normal place for sexual relations for anyone is within marriage, but that is not an argument for making other kinds of sexual activity illegal, except in one important case. That is, in circumstances where the weak are vulnerable to exploitation by the strong and, in particular, by persons who are in a position of trust or responsibility over the young.
For this reason I should have had great difficulty in voting for the proposals which your Lordships' House rejected last summer. This time I am ready to support the Government's proposals, and for two particular reasons. First, as we have heard, this Bill removes the stigma of criminality from young men who are involved in homosexual behaviour. Some of them certainly need help, but they are less likely to be able to find it if they know that their behaviour is labelled as criminal.
Secondly, I welcome the Bill because of the protection it gives to young women as well as to young men. I do have one question which has already arisen in one form or another—a question to which I hope the Minister will be able to address himself in due course. I refer to Clause 4 which sets out the conditions for establishing whether or not A is to be seen as occupying a position of relevant trust in relation to B.
I note of course the provision for extending the number of conditions by statutory instrument. Nevertheless, as the Bill stands, I suggest that the conditions are too narrowly drawn in two respects. First, why is the fourth condition limited to full-time education? Surely, young people in part-time education ought to receive the same protection. And what about other situations such as the teaching of music to individuals? And what about youth workers?
Finally, what about the wide field of part-time voluntary activities which involve positions of trust? This has been raised before. I speak of choirs, youth clubs, youth camps, Army and Sea Cadets, and so on. Surely the abuse of trust is just as possible, just as harmful and just as reprehensible here as in any full-time educational establishment.
10.8 p.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I intend to make a brief contribution. The last time we debated this issue was on 22nd July last year. When the noble Baroness, Lady Young, made her contribution she divided it into two halves. She talked about the procedure of dealing with the amendment, as it was at that stage, and she also spoke about the substance of the issue. I intend to divide my contribution along similar lines.
On 22nd July the noble Baroness made much of the rather peremptory way in which the other place had treated the amendment. She complained that it had been rather "slipped through" on a night when England were playing Argentina at football, with very unfortunate results. She said:
"What is undoubtedly true is that the amendment was never considered either in Committee or on Report in either House of Parliament. So there has been no opportunity at all for detailed consideration of this change in the law and of the issues involved".—[official Report, 22/7/98; col. 937]
732
It is therefore a bit rich that the noble Baroness's amendment tonight will deny precisely those opportunities to this House at later stages of this Bill.
I simply do not understand why the noble Baroness could not remove the Clause I stand part provision. I do not understand why she could not amend the abuse of trust provisions which she said she thought were important but were flawed in some way. I do not understand why she does not want to decriminalise children under 16 who engage in sexual activity. The noble Baroness prefers to have a Pyrrhic victory. She knows that by winning her amendment tonight she will only postpone a measure which the Government are rightly determined to bring back at a later stage. I believe that casts a shadow over the workings of this House because this House is at its best when it is using its expertise to consider detailed amendments and to amend legislation. What will be gained by this procedure? The noble Earl, Lord Russell, spoke about the integrity, determination and courage of the noble Baroness, Lady Young. I recognise those qualities, but I ask why is this procedure being adopted? What will be gained?
I turn to the issue of substance. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, also said in her introductory remarks that parents do not want their sons encouraged into homosexuality. I agree with that. She also said that a change in the law will send a signal. I agree with that too. But there is nothing inconsistent with parents preferring a particular lifestyle for their children and at the same time not wanting their children's choices to bring them into a criminal lifestyle. Over the past few weeks I have received a number of letters from parents of young gay men who make this very point; namely, that they do not love their sons any less because of their sons' chosen lifestyle. They believe passionately that the criminal law should not value their sons any less either. The noble Baroness said that a change in the law will send a signal. It will send a signal to the parents of young gay men, and to the young gay men themselves, that the law protects them and values them equally with other young people of that age. It will remove a legal stigma, although heaven knows many far more brutal stigmas and taboos will remain.
The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, made much of the age of Members of this House in her speech. I think I am right in saying that the only noble Lord in his twenties who has contributed to the debate tonight is the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg. I think that is a reflection of the make-up of this House. The national opinion poll, to which a number of Peers have referred, graphically illustrates that point. It is undoubtedly true that older people are less inclined to support an equal age of consent. I think it is also true that young people do not want the protection which this House may seek to give them.
I argue that humility is required here. The House of Commons has voted twice for this measure with massive majorities. Younger people have far more tolerant views than was the case even when I was of the age when this was an issue. That has been well borne out by recent polls. Humility is a virtue. We are talking to one another in this House. Out there, the world has moved on, and

733
so will the law, if not this year then next year. We claim to have equality before the law, but we do not. This Bill merely brings it a small step closer.
10.13 p.m.
The Earl of Clancarty: My Lords, the vast majority of young people would certainly support this Bill. Indeed, if young people under 25, for example, whether gay or heterosexual, were here in this Chamber to debate this issue—as perhaps they should be—we would have a very different and, I believe, more realistic debate. Young people find the current law both intolerable and undignified. They find it undignified because 16 to 18 year-olds today are not as young and naive as many older people imagine them to be, or perhaps as they would like to keep them. They find the current law intolerable because inequality under the law is, effectively, a system of apartheid, with one rule for young women under 18, and another for young men.
It is interesting how the current law exemplifies how closely inequality impacts on education, including access to information. The law as it stands helps to create a two-headed monster in this respect. When young men wish to seek advice and guidance they are fearful of doing so, and worse fears are created. The second head of the monster is that the current law makes it difficult for many organisations, such as Save the Children, to do their job because they would be seen to be condoning illegal behaviour. This, of course, includes the passing on of information about HIV infection and other aspects of health. Indeed, there should be far more such education and counselling in general than there is presently in the United Kingdom, right through the childhood years. In this context, young gay men are currently in a particularly disadvantaged position.
On both sides of the debate people are arguing from the best of intentions, including those whose professed primary concern is the wish to protect young people. But protect them from what? From the things that young people themselves wish to do? The reservations of many noble Lords last July about the problems of abuse of trust cannot now be maintained. To put it bluntly, it seems to me that only prejudice against gays and bisexuals and/or homosexual activity, which, despite protestations to the contrary, does in effect amount to the same thing, can now support opposition to the Bill.
Young people have rights of equality and self-expression, and it is time that they were acknowledged. I fully support the Bill and shall vote against the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Young.
10.16 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the House will be glad to know that I am not going to make the speech that I wrote this morning. However, there are one or two things that I would like to say.
I do not know how the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, knows that most 25 year-olds would be in favour of the Bill. They have not been writing to me in great numbers,
734
and those who have written to me are against the Bill. I do not know how he can assert so confidently that 25 year-olds are for the Bill.
However, I have been interested in one or two points which have been raised. A number of noble Lords have said that we are the laughing stock of Europe because we are keeping the age of homosexual consent at 18. There are good and consistent reasons why we are doing so. In the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Bill we are legislating to safeguard young children up to the age of 18 from exploitation by the press. If we legislate to protect young people from exploitation by the press, is it so wrong to want to protect them from sexual exploitation? The United Nations believes that, in particular, young people between the ages of 16 and 18 need special protection from sexual exploitation. So there are very good reasons why we should not be held in contempt in Europe for keeping the age of consent—certainly for the present—at 18.
There are various ages of consent in Europe. In one country it is 14 years of age and in Spain it is as low as 12. How far along that road do the people who support the Bill want to go? What is the next milestone after 16? Is it 14? And then should we be the same as Spain and make the age of consent 12? We need an answer to that. When people make such glib remarks about Britain being held in contempt by other European countries, they should think it through and think what the end game may well be.
I wish to make another point. The Government obviously believe that it is safe to bring forward the Bill and that no adverse consequences will flow from reducing the age of homosexual consent to 16 and equalising the age at which both sexes can be legally involved in buggery. But they have introduced safeguards. If no adverse consequences will flow from the Bill, why do they need safeguards? They need safeguards because there is an element of doubt; and they know there is an element of doubt. That is why they have put the safeguards in.
I know that I shall be labelled as a bigot and reactionary.
Noble Lords: Yes!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I invited that, I know, and I received the reaction that I wanted. But if it is bigoted and reactionary to want to protect children between the ages of 16 and 18 from sexual exploitation, then I believe that I am in good company up and down the country, especially among parents. Therefore, I shall support the noble Baroness, Lady Young, in the Lobbies tonight to defeat the Bill.
10.21 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is a delight to follow the courageous speech of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. I wish to start by paying a fulsome tribute to my noble friend Lady Young. She has been extraordinarily courageous and steadfast in her concern for the well-being of young people and I fervently hope that her

735
resolution will be rewarded again this evening by a strong vote to reject the Bill. My noble friend can certainly count on my vote.
Reducing the age of consent to allow 16 year-olds to engage in homosexual activity, with all the risks that that entails, is irresponsible. Those risks have been referred to by many speakers today. Particularly worrying to me is the risk of developing AIDS, the effects of the gay subculture, the level of promiscuity among homosexuals and the high proportion of homosexual men who are reported as having been raped or coerced into sexual activity. What can be the justification for extending those risks knowingly to even younger people?
Some of us are also disturbed that the right to engage in buggery should be extended not only to boys but also to girls of only 16 years of age. The new Clause 2, which was introduced to decriminalise homosexual activity for the younger party where one party is under 16 and the other is over 16, also gives serious cause for concern. A serious side effect of Clause 2 is the opportunity it presents to any young person with malicious intent to get the better of, say, a teacher or social worker, a situation not unknown, by engaging in a sexual act in the knowledge that he would be immune from prosecution and then reporting the incident to the police a form of black mail on the teacher or person in authority. That point was well made by Dr. Evan Harris, a Liberal Democrat in another place. Where in the Bill is protection for the older person in that situation?
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, slightly chided those opponents of the Bill who see the issue as a moral and/or spiritual one that they should not impose such views on others. I plead guilty to believing that it is a moral and a spiritual issue. But I also believe—this is the point that I want to emphasise—that it is above all a child protection issue and therefore should concern us all.
I found it particularly distressing today to read the advertisement in The Times. I telephoned the NSPCC. A senior policy director told me that the organisation gave no permission for its name to be used; it was not approached and therefore its name was used without its consent. I have not phoned all the other organisations. A point that I put to the policy director was: how many of the people who contribute money to the NSPCC did the organisation sound out before making a policy statement? I was told that none had been supportive. My family has supported the NSPCC over many years. We have now withdrawn our support on the grounds that if it is in the child protection business it should be on our side in this debate in opposing the lowering of the age of consent. Only senior management and the trustees made that decision on behalf of millions of people in this country who have in great number supported my noble friend Lady Young in her stand against the Bill.
The noble Lords, Lord Davies of Coity and Lord Stoddart, both made powerful points about the irony of the Bill, in that it extends to young people the right to engage in homosexual activity and then has to include clauses to protect them from that very activity.
736
The Government accept that. So why have they had to include protection clauses at all? The medical profession, which again supports the Bill, accepts the vulnerability of young people. So why does the medical profession deny the right of people who are homosexual to give blood?
Abuse of trust has been referred to many times. The Government pray that in aid of the strength of the Bill. But there are many loopholes in this part of the Bill. As has been said, part-time pupils studying for, let us say, four days out of five are not protected. That is illogical. If a teacher is capable of abusing the trust of a full-time pupil, he is also capable of abusing the trust of a part-time pupil. Many categories of potential abusers are not covered, including step-parents, youth workers and religious leaders.
The absurd pre-existing relationship defence in Clause 3(3) means that if a sexual relationship existed between the adult and young person before the new offence came into force, any sexual activity that takes place after the offence comes into force is exempt. That defence, which is easy to raise and very difficult to refute, will be routinely used in the first few years of the operation of this legislation. The requirement that only those who regularly care for young people can be convicted will create another line of defence—an ad hoc carers' defence.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, hinted that the Bill could be strengthened. But let us look at the record of the Government in another place. During the Committee and Report stages of the Bill, unsuccessful attempts were made to extend the abuse of trust provisions to cover existing relationships, part-time pupils, step-families, religious organisations, youth workers and temporary teachers and carers. What chance is there of making any changes here? There is also the absurdity of the situation whereby a schoolteacher having a sexual relationship with a 16 year-old will be caught by the Bill, but the brother or friend of that schoolteacher having a sexual relationship with the same pupil will not be caught by the Bill. How absurd!
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, set out the reasoning of the commission in the Sutherland case to second-guess the attitude and conclusion of the court judges who will eventually hear the case. There is something almost pompous about deploying such a personal judgment as a substitute for what must be a matter for independent judges when they come to consider the case before them and, we hope, honour the margin of appreciation which is accepted for individual countries.
There is great intimidation from many who fight for gay rights. A number of us, on leaving this place at the end of the previous debate on this subject, witnessed that at first hand.
This is the time to stand fast, to support the protection of young people, to support the overwhelming view of people in the country, to support parents and to support the institution of marriage as the cornerstone of the community. Anyone who really has the well-being of young people at heart will have no truck with this Bill and will support my noble friend Lady Young.
10.29 p.m.
Lord Alli: My Lords, many of your Lordships will know that I am openly gay. I am 34. I was gay when I was 24, when I was 21, when I was 20, when I was 19, when I was 18, when I was 17 and even when I was 16. I have never been confused about my sexuality. I have been confused about the way I am treated as a result of it. The only confusion lies in the prejudice shown, some of it tonight, and much of it enshrined in the law.
Many noble Lords probably cannot understand what it is like to be gay and young. It means that one can be called anything: "sick"; "abnormal"; "unnatural"; "ruined". Those words were used by colleagues tonight. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, and the noble Lords, Lord Selsdon and Lord Davies of Coity, used them all, and that is supposed to be acceptable.
I do not understand why I should be treated differently before the law. Last year I wanted to speak in the debate on the equalisation of the age of consent but I had only just joined your Lordships' House and my noble friend the Government Chief Whip advised me that a maiden speech on such a controversial topic would not go down well. I am glad I took his advice. Like so many of his judgments, it was sound and his guidance was right.
Over the past year I have learned a lot about your Lordships' House. Most importantly, and above all, this House believes that all people deserve fair and equal treatment. I have seen noble Lords on both sides of the House work night after night going through legislation line by line to ensure that that legislation is fair for all. But equality before the law is a high and exacting standard. It means that we have to support things that we do not personally believe in; it means that we have to let people do things that we would not do ourselves; and it means that we have to allow people to say things that we personally do not agree with. It is impossible to be almost equal before the law. Equality is an absolute. It is indivisible and it must be applicable to all.
Last year I sat through the Third Reading debate. It was my first day here. I listened to the speeches of many noble Lords. Some were unpleasant and prejudiced; others were just ill-informed and ignorant; many were supportive. What was clear then, as now, is that there is an overwhelming case for change. The case has been made time and time again tonight. The medical case has been made by the BMA, the RCN and the Royal College of Physicians. The social case for change has been made by Barnardo's, the National Children's Bureau, the NSPCC and Save the Children. What do we have opposing us? Anecdotal evidence. Those bodies have all made clear that there is no medical or psychological reason to continue to discriminate against young people. The intellectual and moral argument has, in my view, been won. For the second time, legislation on this matter has come back to this House when Members of another place have passed it with an overwhelming majority, and I suppose that in the end—to use a phrase I have heard here time and time again—they will get their way.
I turn now to the noble Baroness's amendment. Last year the noble Baroness invited us to ask the Government to think again. She said that lowering the
738
age of consent without proper parliamentary scrutiny would be quite wrong constitutionally. In particular, she expressed her concerns about the abuse of trust, which many of us share. We sent the legislation back and asked the Government to think again. They thought again and my right honourable friend the Home Secretary incorporated safeguards into the Bill. Now the noble Baroness says that she wants a further delay. This amendment is not a mere technicality. It seeks to divert legitimate discussion away from the main arguments because all the points raised in the previous debate have been answered. That cannot be disputed. This is an unseemly device which I hope the House will see through. Let us have a vote on the substance of the Bill and not be diverted by the amendment.
The question is not whether one view of morality is right and another is wrong but whether the law can tell me who I am and prevent me from being who I am and whether it is right to criminalise me for who I am. For me this debate tonight is not an academic, intellectual or even theological one. Between the ages of 16 to 21 I suffered under this law. I was made to keep my relationships secret from my employers, friends and even my family. To create that level of fear in anyone so young is unforgivable and I do not believe that we should put any more young people through it.
I know that this is a difficult issue for some noble Lords, but respect for others and their right to equal treatment must be the overriding consideration tonight. Some noble colleagues have said that their religious and moral considerations do not allow them to vote for the Bill but that the arguments for equality are so strong that they will not vote against it either, and for that I am very grateful.
In the debate last year I was particularly struck by the position adopted by the noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits, for he above all should understand persecution and ethnic, social and religious cleansing. None of these should be tolerated and this House should make no further concessions however small. When he spoke I was reminded of a poem that I looked up this morning. I am sure that many noble Lords are familiar with it but I quote it nonetheless:
"First they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists, and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak out for me".
In tonight's vote I should like your Lordships to speak out for me and millions like me, not because you agree or disagree or because you approve or disapprove, but because if you do not protect me in this House you protect no one.
10.37 p.m.
Lord Rowallan: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Alli, because he speaks from the heart and knows his subject. He is extremely brave to have said what he said in your Lordships' House, and I congratulate him on having done so.

739
As far as I am concerned sex is a private issue. It is a sad day that we are debating this matter at all. The issue that we are debating is equality, not homosexuality. Whether the age of consent should be 16, or 17 as in Ireland, does not really matter but it should be equal for both males and females. Many of us in this House and outside it find the whole subject of homosexuality unpleasant. I admit that as a happily married man I find it difficult to appreciate, but I do not care what people do in their private lives. That is up to them. I do not want to know an individual's religion or sexuality. People are made differently, both mentally and physically. As long as what they do is consensual let them get on with it provided they do not upset anyone else while they do it.
The youth of today will experiment. Everyone experiments at some stage in their lives. When we were young we played doctors and nurses. Many played different versions of it. Some played vicars and tarts and cross-dressing regularly took place.
Some cannot handle the opposite sex's different problems and find the same sex easier to cope with. Who am I to say that they should not do so? Who are we in this House to say that they should not do so? I do not like the open, camping, overt sexuality of Peter Tatchell and his ilk. I do not approve of men or women kissing in public another person of the same sex. Nor do I like to see heterosexual sex in public places. But it happens everywhere. I am not a prude. I was a hippy in the 1960s in San Francisco in Haight Ashbury. At that stage I had rather longer hair and had some interesting times. But everything that I did there was private—or private among the group present. The European Court of Human Rights has said that our laws go against human rights. We must take that into account. It cannot be right to differentiate between boys and girls. To differentiate causes problems; and it causes many problems for young men who have been thrown out of their home. They go to the citizens advice bureau for help. They have to admit that they have broken the law. If they want a home to live in because their parents no longer want them at home, they have to admit that they have committed a crime in order to gain that home.
The fact is that 22 well-known charities all dealing with young people on a daily basis—which is more than can be said for the majority of noble Lords in this House—support the Bill. Are they all wrong? Is my noble friend Lady Young correct? I do not think so. And I do not think so for the following reasons. First, the opinion polls tell us that 60 per cent. of the population want the change. I do not believe in opinion polls, but that is a fact. Secondly, rape and crisis groups support the Bill, going so far as to point out that the vast majority of cases against boys and girls are committed by heterosexual men regardless of whether the victim was male or female. That puts to bed the argument about the paedophile being a male homosexual. Thirdly, the Stephen Lawrence inquiry surely highlighted that we should not be criminalising any one group of people, whether or not gay. Fourthly, any psychiatrist will tell you that children brought up in a homosexual household are no more likely to be homosexual than if they were
740
brought up in a heterosexual home. Fifthly, the Bill will protect the vulnerable youth from the predatory older male. Sixthly, many suicides are caused as a direct result of mental stress in committing a crime and being potentially branded a criminal, not only to the world at large but to families.
Seventhly, and I think the most important reason, this issue will not go away. Young people will continue to have sex. It is actually quite enjoyable! The law will not change their desire to experiment or their preferences for it. If a 17 year-old youth has sex with a 16 year-old girl he is an adult acting perfectly legally. If he has sex with an 18 year-old man, he is an abused youth and therefore gets protected. But if he has sex with a 17 year-old man they are both criminals. It is madness. It is complete insanity. It is nonsense. It makes a complete farce of everything that is sensible in law.
The law must be equal to everyone and it must be seen to be fair; and so often the law is an ass. We all know that. We must make efforts to ensure that that does not occur. The Bill provides for the safety of male youths from the attentions of predatory males in positions of trust and authority. It must be allowed to continue its way through Parliament. It is supported by all the leaders of all the political parties. It has been supported by a large majority of the elected House, so who are we to stop it? If noble Lords disapprove of the Bill, and I know many of my noble friends do, then change it in Committee and at Report. But do not vote against it tonight. That would be counterproductive and would make more problems for the very people my noble friend thinks she is trying to help. I urge your Lordships not to vote tonight if you support her views. If, like me, you feel the issue needs to be discussed further, support the Second Reading tonight.
We in this House have a duty to scrutinise legislation brought forward by any Government. In a different Bill going through this House at this very minute, that is an argument I have heard time and again. We must allow this Bill its Second Reading so that we can carry out that duty. Please support this Bill tonight, and if any of your Lordships disapprove of it, do not vote with the noble Baroness, Lady Young; sit on your hands.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, it is worth standing back a little from this evening's fray to recognise that over the past few decades your Lordships' House seems to have struck just the right balance where legislation on homosexual activity is concerned. Back in the spring and early summer of 1966., when the House of Commons was too petrified to contemplate such a move for fear of an electoral backlash, this House voted by 70 votes to 29—we were fewer in number in those days—in favour of the Second Reading and by 83 votes to 39 in favour of the Third Reading of the late Lord Arran's Bill to decriminalise private male homosexual activity between consenting adults—with the accent heavily on the word "adults". The noble Lord, Lord Annan, if he is still here, will remember that as both he and I were one of the radical majority—radical by the standards of the day—whose votes gave the other place the courage to follow suit a year or so later.

741
It may be pertinent to mention at this stage that Henry Labouchere, the bête noire of the homosexual lobby by virtue of his indirect role in the conviction and imprisonment of Oscar Wilde, happened to be a passionate 19th century enthusiast for abolishing the hereditary House of Lords.
I spoke at the outset of achieving the right balance. Just as 33 years ago we voted against excessive repression in this sphere, more recently we have become alarmed at the pendulum swinging too far the other way in favour of excessive licence. Partly for that reason, but above all because this House has always been concerned with the protection of vulnerable young people, nine months ago we voted against a measure similar to that proposed today.
To those who are tempted to cry "double standards"—and I suspect that my noble friend Lord Bledisloe may be among their number—I submit that there is no incompatibility at all between, on the one hand, permitting adults to behave in a way that is often degrading and usually dangerous, should that be their unhappy choice, and, on the other hand, doing everything possible to dissuade confused adolescents—those below the age of adulthood—from following suit. That point was made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester, if I interpreted him correctly.
After all, in 1989 the United Nations decreed that children must be protected from sexual exploitation or abuse and that for that purpose anyone under the age of 18 is deemed to be a child. To his great credit, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, has not dissented from that.
Propagandists often claim that homosexuals are born and not made. Some of them obviously are, as we heard in a most moving speech from the noble Lord, Lord Alli, but others most definitely are not. A few months ago, Channel 4—surprise, surprise—showed a film on the alleged martyrdom of a group it termed "The Bolton Seven". They were seven men who had been prosecuted for indulging in a homosexual orgy which, somewhat illogically, still happens to be illegal. Significantly, it transpired that although the two older men involved were indeed out-and-out homosexuals, most of the five teenagers involved had subsequently settled into heterosexual relationships with their girlfriends, with whom they had produced children, and some of them had married. Therefore, the message conveyed by the film was not what Channel 4 intended, although I am not sure whether it recognised that.
The confusion and uncertainty felt by so many teenagers about their sexual inclinations is the reason responsible adult homosexuals such as Dan Farson, the well-known author and commentator, is totally opposed to measures such as this. A retired assistant divisional director of Barnardo's who opposes the Bill points out that deprived children are particularly vulnerable to exploitation. So it is not true that all professionals are united in favour of the Bill. That is simply not so.
As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, points out, it is not a question of throwing hundreds or even dozens of teenagers into prison. Contrary to what has sometimes
742
been implied, in the past 11 years not a single 16 year-old has received a custodial sentence for homosexual behaviour which would be legal for an older man, and only seven 17 year-olds have received such sentences.
Penalties are generally light, as they should be; the law is basically there as a marker. I am afraid that I must respectfully disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton. There is often something to be said for the law simply setting standards, even if prosecutions are not vigorously pursued, or even not pursued at all.
Furthermore, it is worth noting that there are many precedents for outlawing certain behaviour purely on grounds of age. It is illegal for a 16 year-old to drive a car on the public highway, however impressive his motoring skills, or for him to buy and consume a bottle of vodka, however well he can hold his drink.
It has been argued that many, possibly most, young people are contemptuous of the present law and flout it as a matter of course. They may indeed. But the same could be said with even greater force about smoking cannabis, which happens to be a lot less dangerous than anal intercourse. So do most supporters of this Bill support decriminalising cannabis? I suspect not, although logically they ought to.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, that the fact that the electorate as a whole oppose the Bill is not an adequate reason for rejecting it. But what is a valid reason is that the overwhelming majority of parents, and—dare one say it?—grandparents, oppose the Bill, because they have an entirely legitimate interest.
It would be terrible if parents discovered that their daughter had become a prostitute, but how much more terrible would it be if they found that their son had become a rent boy, with a much shorter life expectancy than their daughter in consequence, apart from other considerations?
With the aforesaid danger of reduced life expectancy in mind, if we make no other improvements to the Bill, let us at the very least adopt the excellent suggestion made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon in the Parliamentary Monitor of November 1998, and continue to make anal sex illegal for the under-18s, even if other genital activity is reluctantly to be permitted. I refer to the under-18s of both sexes, of course, because, as numerous noble Lords have pointed out, under the Bill as it stands not only boys but also girls are at risk from this practice should they fall under the sway of unscrupulous and persuasive older men.
If the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, could indicate that the Government might give serious consideration to accepting, even if reluctantly, a compromise amendment based broadly on the right reverend Prelate's suggestion, it might be better to give the Bill a Second Reading to allow such an amendment to be inserted, rather than to reject the Bill now only to have it pass into law in under 12 months' time under the Parliament Act, totally unamended.
If the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, cannot do this, and if the Opposition Front Bench cannot promise to support an amendment along these lines,

743
I shall certainly vote for the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, because even if it only postpones the evil day, such a postponement is better than nothing.
10.53 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, after so long and distinguished a debate, you may wonder if there is anything left to say. But one thing I must do, and that is to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Alli, on a memorable speech.
Notwithstanding that, I must confess to having some reservations about the Bill. One of the most striking aspects of the debate today, and indeed of the subject as a whole, is the lack of agreement as to the key facts affecting the issue covered by the debate. At what age is the sexual orientation of a young man more or less fixed? What is the relevant strength of influence on ultimate sexual orientation as between genetic and experiential factors? What proportion of young adolescent men, therefore, can be influenced by older homosexuals in terms of their ultimate orientation? Perhaps most difficult, is it possible to warrant, individually and societally, actively seeking to maximise heterosexual as against homosexual potential involving, as that does, general judgments about such contested, painful and inconclusive issues as sexual and emotional normality, maturity, stability and functionality?
Although on those vexed issues I incline to a cautious view, nevertheless, I come down firmly on the side of equalising the age of consent for heterosexuals and homosexuals. Even the Christianity which has most shaped our culture and mores no longer, rightly I believe, presents a monolithic view of what is right and wrong in that context. I found it particularly moving to hear what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bath and Wells exemplified.
It is clear to me that such an acute difference in legal treatment between men of different sexual orientation can be justified only by fundamental reasons backed by clear evidence. As this debate has made manifest. neither the reasons nor the evidence are sufficient. I believe that the onus in those matters rests firmly on those who would oppose the Bill.
There are no doubt some areas in which the present law does its protective work. But by and large, the proposed reform will do more good and avert more suffering, especially with the "position of trust" amendment now in the Bill.
Above all, this Bill will remove a legal stigma of the most insidious and damaging kind of which many noble Lords have given evidence. That stigma underpins much continuing prejudice on the one hand and resentment, fear and isolation on the other. For those brief reasons, I shall vote with some enthusiasm for this measure this evening.
10.57 p.m.
The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, I too was moved by the arguments put forward by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bath and Wells and raised also by the noble
744
Baroness, Lady Mallalieu. Those are arguments which wish not to criminalise the young and which hope to keep open the channels of communication.
I am a father of three children in their 20s and I have a certain amount of familiarity with the attitudes of the younger generation. In my various commercial interests, I am in touch with a large cross-section of our local population in Scotland and those to whom I have spoken in the area seem to have a great fear and concern about the measure we are considering.
I have also received a large number of letters, as have so many other noble Lords, but mainly from across Scotland, asking that I should vote to resist the Bill. Many of those are from people involved with the care of young adults. I suppose that it is arguable that in central Scotland at the moment we are rather sensitive on that subject because of an issue which the Bill attempts to address. It is to do with something which is illegal. It is the situation which has evolved around Thomas Hamilton and Dunblane.
The five letters which I received asking me to support the Bill all quote the same list of official or semi-official bodies, some of which have been mentioned in the debate this evening. At the head of the list I received was the British Medical Association. I asked the BMA for details and received its parliamentary brief on the subject, which I was interested to read. Its first concern seemed to be that health professionals may be reluctant to deal with under-age homosexuals. As an ordinary citizen, that seems strange to me when, as professionals, they are bound to confidentiality and are expected to deal with the health of individuals in whatever state they find them. Presumably, as pointed out by my noble friend Lord Annaly, young homosexuals, like under-age girls, can understand that and get the advice and treatment they might need.
I have come across some statistics but, like the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, I should like more verified facts on which to rely. One set I came across were from the British Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles Survey carried out by Wettings in 1994. I am sure that if the Minister has more up-to-date figures, noble Lords would like to know them. That survey stated that at some point in their lives, 3.5 per cent. of men have had a same sex partner, but that 50 per cent. of these have never repeated the experience, and that only 0.3 per cent. of men are exclusively homosexual. To turn that round and look at it the other way, I would like to ask: who can say, at the formative age of 16, how many men are exclusively heterosexual? That is a point raised by a number of noble Lords. This is a group who are developing their sexual inclinations. They do not do so in a vacuum but they are the focus of fascination for a sizeable number of older homosexuals.
Coming from Scotland, I have made inquiries into the approach taken by the Church of Scotland. This is, of course, our other established Church. In particular, I asked the members of the Committee on Social Responsibility and I received one clear impression; that is, that they are against homophobia in all its forms but they do not favour the practice of

745
homosexuality. Their policy is to provide advice and care through support groups for any who feel the need of support.
As your Lordships are probably aware, Edinburgh is known for having more than its fair share of modern lifestyles and social problems. There, the Church of Scotland runs Simpson House as a place offering help and counsel to any who wish it. They find that they are in touch with 95 per cent. of those confirmed with HIV/AIDS. Among those must be a proportion of the homosexual community. I would argue that that shows that given the right attitudes in society towards the many urges in the human condition, homosexuals are as likely as anyone to take advantage of any help they require and they will not be deprived of counselling or medical help if they do so.
We can all see, by looking around us, how changing law does not, of itself, get rid of discrimination. I would submit that this proposed change to the Bill will not be to the ultimate advantage of those it is intended to help. The subject is one in which I feel sure the forthcoming Parliament of Scotland will take a great interest. However, the fact that under Clause 7(2) this is to be what is termed a "pre-commencement enactment" under the Scotland Act 1998 is another reason why I believe that the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness that this should be reconsidered in six months' time is even more one which we should support.
11.3 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich: My Lords, I shall not repeat the arguments already put forward. I simply want to say a brief word about the contributions from these Benches. We have heard three very different contributions to the debate from these Benches. We shall, without doubt, vote in different ways on the amendment. Had the entire Bench of Bishops been able to attend and vote this evening, there is little doubt that we should have divided in the same proportions as we did in July last year, that is two to one in favour of the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Young.
Having said that, your Lordships should also know that this does not reflect a deep division among us. The House of Bishops, through its statement, Issues in Human Sexuality, made clear that the teaching of the Church, based on the teaching of Jesus in the Gospels, is that the norm for human sexual relationships is that they should take place within the context of lifelong monogamous marriage. That is the moral principle upon which we stand firm.
However, to stand firm on such a moral principle does not imply homophobia; nor does it imply the exclusion of those whose lifestyle does not conform to those moral principles. There are moral principles and there is pastoral compassion. Moral principles are clear, particular and simple. Pastoral compassion is indiscriminate and entirely non-judgmental in its scope. There is a muddle when the two become confused or opposed to each other; for example, when those who hold strong moral principles are said to lack compassion or when compassion for all is elevated to a moral principle.
746
On these Benches we share moral principles and pastoral compassion. But those principles and that compassion can lead us to different conclusions about what is expedient or timely as is the case tonight. I said I would not repeat the arguments put forward, and I shall not. I identify myself with the comments of my right reverend brother the Bishop of Winchester. I knew the bishop when he was a schoolboy and he used to call me "Sir". Now that he has become my intellectual and ecclesiastical superior, I never cease to remind him of that fact. I shall gladly follow his lead.
11.6 p.m.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, at this time of night, and following this extremely educative and interesting debate, I have already scrapped three or four speeches and am only left with the bare bones of what I might have said had I been given more time. Incidentally, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Alli on his brave and courageous speech. I am sure that he enlightened many of us about the real world in which he lives, but sadly not the real world in which I live.
My main point tonight concerns the safeguarding of the wellbeing and health of all young people; preventing them from being further exposed to the evils that we read about, see on television and hear on the radio. Explicit sex scenes are shown in more places than we could ever have dreamt possible. I could never have dreamt this would be. I am a practising Christian. Christians are not homophobic—along with most genuine religions—but we are against homosexual practices. That is our genuine belief.
I am much concerned about the stories of children being sexually abused, even murdered, and teenage pregnancies. As I said, almost every programme contains explicit scenes of sex. Children in care have been mentioned. Provision for their protection is contained in the Bill and we are delighted about that. But we did not need a Bill of this size covering all these other aspects to take care of that. Surely we could have dealt with the abuse of children in care who need protection without the rest of the Bill. There would be no problem in supporting such a Bill.
It is intended to reduce to 16 the age of consensual homosexual sex for boys. Many of us have been in this argument since the age of consent was 21. After the operation of the penumbrae effect, as it is called, the effective age is 14, because there will be no prosecutions of people aged 16 or 14 for any kind of sexual act. This effect was elicited a long time ago by a number of people who argued the point, and they are quite right. There will be fewer prosecutions of those under the age limit in the Bill. It is like the speed limit. If it is 40 miles an hour we are not prosecuted for doing 45. If we change the law to 45 miles an hour, people will drive at 50. So the penumbrae effect means that there will be no prosecutions of 14 year-old children.
Much of the debate centred around equality. But there is no such thing as equality. There is ample medical evidence of the increased risks attached to anal intercourse. It carries much more danger to health than

747
does vaginal intercourse. The evidence is there from all medical experts throughout the country—throughout the world, in fact.
We are also informed, or maybe threatened, that this Bill is the beginning of a longer agenda of demands. We have heard that there are to be demands for the lowering of consent to 14, for the right to homosexual marriage, for the right to adopt and foster children, for the repeal of Section 28 of the Local Government Act and for an end to the storage of police information and data on paedophiles. That is a fairly hefty agenda and if this is at the beginning of it I hope that we do not have to go through the whole lot.
I should like to have gone on to say a great deal more about all these issues. I agreed with a great deal of what the noble Lords, Lord Quirk and Lord Davies of Coity, said on various points. It made great sense to me. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked: what happens after the Government invokes the Parliament Act? That is a very interesting question. There is a public poll of 73 per cent. against this Bill and against all the practices that are outlined in it, so maybe there will be a demand for a referendum or even an election, given the hostile press and the number of people who are genuinely opposed to this kind of treatment. It is an interesting question, and I should like to see the end of it.
Like most of your Lordships, I have had scores of letters putting both sides of the argument. This morning I saw a copy of a report in the Daily Mail that will upset a lot of people. It is promoting tourist bosses who are launching a campaign to attract gays and lesbians to Britain arid cash in on "pink pound" travel. It advertises London as the gay capital of Europe and picks out 11 other British towns and cities as being "thriving gay scenes". It concentrates on all the gay facilities, pubs and clubs and God knows what that are available if people come to our wonderful country, which is free of any restrictions whatever. This is being promoted by the Government and I am absolutely amazed. It says that Britain is a tolerant nation. Well, of course we are: we are sensible as well. It goes on to say that we are tolerant of race, religion, dress codes and types of sexual persuasion. It says, "So come along and spend your money in Britain where all these things are free!" You can go on as long as you like.
I have also received mail from medical people who say that homosexuality need not be a permanent situation and that there can be treatment for people who really want to come out of homosexuality. Those who do not want to come out of course will stay in, but certainly I gather that treatments are available which can help. I say that, given all the facts and including all the things I have not been able to go into, I am supporting the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Young.
11.13 p.m.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, from the speakers' list it will be seen that the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, is due to speak now but he has kindly passed me a note to say that he will not be speaking and that he hopes the House will recognise his sacrifice!
748
I rise to speak against the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, because, when all is said and done, when this Bill is pared back it is about two things: equality and justice. If that were only my view it would be deeply uninteresting and extremely unimportant. However, it is not only my view; nor only the collective view of all the other noble Lords who have already given eloquent advocacy in favour of the Bill. None was more eloquent than my noble friend Lord Alli in his extremely moving personal testament. Indeed, it is the firm belief of a chorus of agencies and organisations ranging from the British Medical Association and Barnardo's to the NSPCC arid Save the Children, as we were enthusiastically reminded by the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, of "San Francisco".
At the core of the work of those organisations is the protection, the health and the safety of young people; exactly the issues that the opponents of this Bill raise in support of their objections. Why are those organisations, whose mission statement is the care of young people, backing the Bill? They are doing so because then-experience and their expertise, built up over decades in some cases, tells them that the Bill is necessary and delay can no longer be contemplated. It is necessary because the status quo prevents teachers and youth workers imparting information to young gay men on health promotion and the prevention of HIV infection.
As a spokesperson from Barnardo's graphically put it:
"The present law prevents us from giving practical support and information. We find ourselves in the ludicrous situation of handing out condoms to girls who are 16 and to heterosexual boys who are 16 but not to gay 16 year-olds".
The Bill is necessary because we know that the lives of young gay people can be blighted—as the noble Lord, Lord Alli, graphically put it—by the bigotry and intolerance that the present discrimination in the law encourages. We are told by Save the Children of high levels of attempted suicide, family rejection and bullying with regard to this group of young people.
If we take this debate out of its national context for a moment and remember that many young people will increasingly in the next century spend at least part of their educational, working and personal lives in other European countries, we see that the majority of European Union countries have a common age of consent. Contrary to the doom mongers, it has not spelt the end of European civilisation as we know it! In fact, the state of young people's sexual health in its broadest sense in many European Union countries is something this country would do well to emulate. Noble Lords will remember a recent Question Time in this Chamber when we learnt that teenage pregnancies in Britain were six times higher than in the Netherlands. We do not have all the right answers in this country in this minefield of young people's sexual health.
The new offence of abuse of trust that is now in the Bill is proof of the Government's willingness to listen and respond to reasoned criticism. It is extremely disappointing to say the least that some noble Lords opposite, while having called for such amendments, now seem unwilling to work with the grain of those amendments in the interests of young people.

749
Finally, it would not harm any of us to remember that this generation of 16 year-olds has to live in the shadow called AIDS that did not fall across our teenage years. I think it is incumbent on all of us to do what we can to assist young people as they navigate the difficult route to adulthood. Supporting this Bill is a small part of doing all that we can. Supporting this Bill would mean that this House reflects the values of the 21st rather than the 19th century.
11.18 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, to come immediately to the last part of my speech, we have an alternative before us: vote Young or vote Williams. If we vote Young, we kill the Bill now; we save ourselves a great deal of time and effort; we make a clear statement of principle, but what then? The "what then" is that the Government will use the Parliament Act; we will get back this Bill exactly as it is now and we will have achieved nothing.
The alternative is to let this Bill go forward into Committee. We still have a perfect right to kill it at Third Reading if we do not like it then, or we can play endless ping-pong with the Commons to negotiate the best possible deal on the amendments we want. There are a number of ways in which this Bill needs to be improved. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, mentioned one; namely, Clause 1. That can easily be amended to make it clear that what is permitted at 18 is anal intercourse, and that other forms of homosexual activity are permitted at 16. That would seem to me to be totally undiscrimintory and a very useful way in which we might seek to amend the Bill to meet some of the concerns which have been expressed, particularly by my noble friends.
As my noble friend on the Front Bench said, Clause 2 needs looking at, but it is the part of the Bill for which I have the greatest support. It is ridiculous to criminalise young people of 16 and 17 for engaging in homosexual activities among themselves. If that law had been in force when I was at school, Eton would have been decimated.
As to the other parts of the Bill, many noble Lords have suggested ways in which clauses might be improved. I very much agree with them. It seems much better to phrase the whole idea of a breach of trust in a common law way, allow it to be judged and interpreted and allow for a whole range of possible circumstances. "Being in a position of trust" is a well understood principle; to try and decorate it and define it in this detailed way seems to me to be destined for failure, as many other noble Lords have pointed out. I am sure that we could have a simple amendment to replace all this verbiage.
I am also sure that we could introduce something to deal with the problem of predatory males on both young men and young women, which has been mentioned by several noble Lords. We could have a thoroughly constructive Committee stage. I shall listen with interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Williams, may say about how the Government would respond to such suggestions. Other than a bit of time and effort—which is what we are here for—we would lose nothing.
750
I hope that we shall give the Bill a Second Reading today, reserve our options and listen in detail to the arguments about how we might achieve a practically better Bill, rather than have a convenient vote today and a clean conscience for those of us who oppose it.
11.21 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, it is late and it behoves those of us who are summing up to be as brief as possible. This has been a very thorough debate in which many people have spoken from the heart, very deeply and from fundamental principles. The balance of the debate has been very different from last July; we have had different views from every part of the House. We, on this Bench, have been keeping a rough tally of the balance of the speeches. We calculate that there have been 25 speeches for the Bill and against the amendment; 17 speeches for the amendment and three undeclared. As it is fashionable these days to break down the numbers of hereditary Peers, we calculate that there were six speeches for the Bill from hereditary Peers and eight speeches for the amendment from hereditary Peers. We did not carry out an age break-down but I am fairly confident that, had we done so, it would also have followed the fairly clear balance between the elderly and what we in this House laughably call the younger.
It has been a very reasoned debate of carefully considered arguments. I shall remind noble Lords of what was said in some of the earlier speeches: it is the job of this House to offer a second opinion and to disagree with the elected Chamber when we are convinced that it is wrong or that it is misrepresenting the opinion of the majority of people in this country. It is not our job to impose a different view upon the people as a whole. We will come to a free vote which, I hope, will reflect the balance of the arguments which have been presented. I do not intend therefore to attempt to sum up but to comment briefly on three of the perspectives which have emerged during the debate.
First, many of us have spoken as parents, many of us have spoken as Christians, and many of us have spoken in terms of our own fundamental political principles. As a parent, I, like many others, have naturally discussed this with my children, aged 21 and 17, who attended a large, very rough, mixed comprehensive. I am struck by their strong sense of equity, their commitment to openness and the extent to which they see this as an issue alongside, and of the same quality as, equal treatment between white and black and women and men. Inclusion rather than exclusion is the attitude that they and their fellows seem to take.
The question was raised in several speeches about parental responsibility and the family and the way in which families should respond to children growing up and discovering that their sexual identity is different from that of most of their friends. In the past four or five years, a friend of mine and a relative of mine have been through this experience—one with a young man and the other with a young woman—and I know something of the slow and personally painful discovery of people in their teens that they are different from the majority of their fellows. In neither case was there any

751
seduction and certainly not any promiscuity; rather a gradual realisation that that was who they are. One of them grew up in South Africa and my daughter went with him on the first Gay Pride march in Cape Town, at which he came out. It was for her a very emotional experience. I am glad she did it.
I compare this generation with previous generations. I think of those in my age group who grew up under the same painful process of self-discovery. I have very good friends, two men. who have lived together for the past 30 years. Both have been very good to my children and I would trust them with my children under any circumstances. I am conscious that in my parents' generation there were many whom one used quietly to talk about in those wonderful circumlocutions: "He's a confirmed bachelor", "He's not the marrying kind", or, as they say in Yorkshire, "He's t' other way inclined." I see no evidence that the number of homosexuals in our population has increased over the past 50 years. What I do see—and I welcome it—is that we have become less embarrassed about it and more open about it.
Secondly, perhaps I may say as a Christian that I grew up in the 1950s as a member of a choir school, hearing two sermons every Sunday and thinking, when I was nine or ten, that sin and sex were the same thing and indeed that there was not anything in sin that was not sex. I have lived in the Church of England through the realisation that the Church of England's attitude to women was deeply founded in prejudice. The noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, used the term "unclean" about homosexuals. I remember discussing with a vicar, of whose congregation I was a member at the time, why he could not allow women into the chancel during services and realising that he considered women to be unclean—the curse of Eve—and that this was all part of that old medieval and 19th century attitude. I am very happy that the Church of England has overcome that prejudice and has understood that faith does not require that part of it. I am happy that the Church of England is now coming to terms with the other large area in which one has to disentangle faith from prejudice.
Lastly, we all have to re-examine our political principles. I am a liberal, and I use that word not in a party sense but in terms of the British political tradition which is, by and large, a liberal tradition. It dates, as does the Church of England, from the Elizabethan settlement, from Queen Elizabeth's great statement that, "We do not seek to open windows into men's souls." We have slowly, in the centuries since then, extended the practice of tolerance; first, to nonconformists, then to Catholics, eventually to women, finally to blacks, and now, we hope, to those of a different sexual orientation.
The noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, made an excellent speech on the libertarian dimension of this and I was rather puzzled that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, who I understand is chairman of the Society for Individual Freedom, did not follow the same libertarian logic. The noble Lord, Lord Plant, remarked that an open, civil society depends on tolerance, freedom, justice and equality. Some noble Lords were unhappy with the use of the word "equality" in terms of people
752
of different sexual orientation. Let us use the word "non-discrimination." Let us talk about an end to discrimination. If we can accept that, then we should vote against the amendment and for the Bill. Let us remember, since we have been discussing Kosovo rather a lot in recent weeks, that the enemies of an open society are ethnic hatred, nationalism, prejudice against outsiders and those who are different—"the others".
I am for an open society. Britain has gained immensely from greater toleration and openness in its society over the past 30 or 40 years. To me, and I hope to most of us, that has extended the best of Britain's democratic and political traditions. I hope, therefore, that this House, reflecting the balance of this debate, will reject the amendment and support the Bill.
11.30 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am personally hopelessly addicted to unnatural practices, as your Lordships well know. Before Easter I got up and came to work at seven o'clock, listened to 180 speeches, summed up and went home after midnight. I am a complete recidivist: this morning I came to work at seven o'clock, listened to 50-odd speeches and shall go home after midnight. I really think there ought to be a law against it—or I need a better trade union.
There are a number of things with which this debate is not concerned. It has nothing at all to do with political correctness. I repeat what I said earlier, because I meant it deeply. When Mr. Hague supported this principle and voted for it on the previous occasion in the House of Commons, it was an act of personal political moral courage. It has nothing to do with political correctness, as the speeches made from every corner of this House have demonstrated. Nor has it anything to do with ageism.
I very much enjoyed, as always, the speech made by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. He put forward his non-controversial views, pointing out that there was a very thin veneer on civilisation, pointing to the dangers that might follow if this Bill were passed, pointing so far as I could understand it to swirling waters of sexual miasma and the necessity to keep ourselves in perpetual over-drive because, otherwise, murder, rape and cannibalism might inevitably follow.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord is, as usual, engaging, but he really cannot pluck words out of one's speech, join them all together and make something totally different out of them.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am bound to say that the way I joined them all together was a good deal more coherent. Indeed, as he stood there, the noble Earl was casting his mind back to his past experience—he and I are both approaching the prime of life—which I assumed must have something to do with the place where he was educated. I must say, had I a son and had

753
I sent him to Winchester, I should have been inclined to look for some of the money back! I shall give way if the noble Earl wishes me to do so.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I should ask the noble Lord to give way only if I thought it was worth his giving way, but he has made such a fatuous argument that I shall not do so.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Earl normally does better than that.
This has been a good-humoured, good-natured debate. That is in a sense a tribute, because so many people in this House hold passionate views and have rightly expressed them with the conscientious concern that these issues require.
On a point of clarification, I hope I made it plain that I could see no moral difference between a man of, let us say, 50 using power, status, influence and prestige to seduce a girl of sixteen-and-a-half, as opposed to a similar man using the same tools, weapons and devices to seduce a boy of 16-plus. I remain adamant in that view.
The facts are these. If this measure is overthrown, it will be no defeat to us. It will be a victory of sorts. What sort? On what basis? And for how long? I simply repeat what the Home Secretary, Jack Straw, said in another place on 28 July:
"The new legislation [the present Bill] will be introduced first into this House [the Commons], to ensure that it has the benefit of the Parliament Act should that prove necessary".—[Official Report. Commons, 28/7/99; co1.183.]
A number of your Lordships asked what the position would be, and I have repeated unambiguously what the Home Secretary said. A question was put as to whether I, junior to him, endorsed what he said about homosexual marriages, reduction of the age of consent and related matters. Of course I reiterate it. In fact, I was trying to say a good deal of it when I began earlier this afternoon. There are no proposals to reduce the age of consent from 16. The reason that I gave the example of Spain was to repudiate it. I would not be a party to any attempt to reduce the age to 12 because I think it is wrong as a matter of principle.
What I think is right as a matter of principle is that we should define where we are. My noble friends Lord Alli and Lord Stallard, for whom I have great regard, offered different views. The speech of my noble friend Lord Alli was notable because it was courageous, it was clear and, I believe, overwhelmingly persuasive and convincing. He described a view, honourably held. My noble friend Lord Stallard said that he and my noble friend Lord Alli lived in different worlds. They do not, and that is the point of principle that we need to address. It is the same world that we inhabit; it is the same legal system which. we have erected over the generations; and it is the same legal system which, if imperfect, needs reform.
Perhaps I may offer a point of principle. Except on the most compelling basis, the state has no place and no proper business in the bedroom. It is idle, I believe, to
754
try to say that young men of 16 are all different in their development and maturity from all young girls of 16. That is not my experience. I defy anyone to suggest that that is a position which can sensibly be held.
The fact is that we have failed those young people between the ages of 16 and 18 in not having a proper law to protect them. It is worth remembering that the girl who can give consent to sexual intercourse at the age of 16 has no present protection under our law. The consequence of the noble Baroness's amendment is to take away immediately the certain prospect that that protection would be given to young women between 16 and 18 and young men between 16 and 18. Your Lordships' choice is, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, put it, "Vote Young" or "Vote Williams", and I am sure that there is no difficulty in coming to the appropriately correct conclusion. That is the inevitable consequence of trying to destroy the Bill at this stage in these extremely unusual circumstances.
A number of questions were put about the Government's view with regard to the European Convention on Human Rights. Our advice is that we are most unlikely to succeed in the court. Since it is legal advice, it is not necessarily perfect, but I believe it to be correct advice. A question was asked about margin of appreciation. That did not succeed as a developed theme before the commission and it is unlikely to succeed before the court. In any event, when the Human Rights Act is fully implemented in this country, margin of appreciation as a concept will have little, if any, place.
I shall spend a moment or two on those organisations which support the thrust of the Bill. They are not polemicists; they are not paid advocates of any group dependent on ignoble motive. I take almost at random the NSPCC, the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Nursing. At least they are serious organisations with a considered, deep past and continuing interest in the welfare of those to whom we have been addressing ourselves this evening.
This is nothing to do with age but it may have to do with knowing. There is sometimes a deep cruelty about not knowing, and an even worse cruelty about not wanting to know. I always listen to all the speeches in this House because everyone has something of value to offer. But even when one listens to those for whom one has feelings of friendship, attachment and loyalty sometimes one wonders on what basis their views, pronouncements and sometimes prejudices are expressed. I listen and wonder as do many noble Lords because I have heard them say so this evening and on other occasions. Our children do not just listen and marvel; they hear and start to despair and condemn, and they are right.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, rightly said that this was a child protection issue. It is. The second part of the Bill is wholly directed to the protection of those who have no present protection. If there is a shaking of heads in disagreement perhaps I may briefly describe the legal position. There is no criminal sanction against a teacher who has sexual intercourse

755
with a girl of 16 plus. There are disciplinary sanctions that I believe are inadequate. That was why we listened carefully. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, was gracious enough to say that we had had conversations. It was from her urgings in substantial part that we decided that the proposed original penalty was too low.
A number of questions were put as to the Government's response to amendments. It is the usual response that I have always made; namely, if there are amendments which genuinely improve the Bill consonant with the philosophical approach of the measure, of course I shall listen to them. But if they are designed to do nothing more than water down the Bill or alter the conclusions to which we have come we shall resist them.
The semaphore principle in approaching legislation is not always the best guide. What signal, for or against, will it give to the large number of persons mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Alli, and others, many of whom have parents who love them and have brothers and sisters who may be different but still care for them? Perhaps they approach the matter as many of us do. It is a matter of perfect indifference to me whether my friends are heterosexual, homosexual or entirely celibate. What matters to me is whether they are my friends. Some are boring and some amusing, but they are not boring or amusing because of their sexual orientation. Our true approach should be that some people's private business is exactly that. It is not my business or anyone else's.
I assert that this is a profound question of justice. We cannot dole out justice, equality or fairness in penny packets. To try to do so will pollute our system of justice and undermine the principles on which we hope to base that system. We, in this Bill, want to do the right thing. I have no doubt myself what is the right thing. I repeat that this is a free vote, and I offer my own opinion to anyone who wants to listen or not, as the case may be. I invite the House to give the Bill a Second Reading and to reject the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and in that way to do the right thing, not least because if the Bill is killed now quite a number of people will believe, with significant justification, that they are excluded, discriminated against and badly treated simply because of what they are, and that is wrong.
11.44 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, at this late hour I wish to start by thanking all those who have supported me in this long debate today. I agree very much that we have heard some wise and brave speeches from all parts of the House—speeches with which I agree and those with which I do not agree. I regret that I missed some speeches and I apologise to those whom I did not hear, but of course I shall read in Hansard tomorrow what they said.
It is too late tonight to comment on all the individual points that have been raised. However, I think that the House will understand that I should
756
particularly like to thank my noble friend Lord Ferrers for his contribution. He always speaks from the heart and says what a lot of people really think; and he says it in a kind, sound and sensible way.
I thank also the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich whose help and advice to me over these past weeks has been valuable. I listened with great interest and appreciation to what he said this evening.
I wish to make three points in conclusion. First, I should like to answer a question posed by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. Of course, I entirely accept without any rancour whatever all the points he made about myself. He and I have often crossed swords on different issues. I greatly respect his sincerity and think that he respects my sincerity too. He asked an important question, which the Minister also asked: what is the point of moving the Motion on the Order Paper? I shall try once again to explain my reasons.
Over many years I have taken a great interest in family policy, widely defined. I have argued on a number of Bills to try to support and uphold those principles which I also hold as a Christian but which I believe to be profoundly important for society. Sometimes I have been fortunate and I have carried your Lordships with me. At other times I have not been so fortunate and I have lost the argument and the debate. But I have been always consistent in what I have done. Noble Lords may not agree with my view, but I think that no one can say that I have been in any way inconsistent. I say this evening, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, that this Bill is not amendable because I do not agree with Clause 1. I do not regard using your Lordships' House for all kinds of technical and tactical reasons as the right way to deal with a very serious issue. It is not a game; it is a very serious matter. It is only right to say to the House straight out what I believe to be right and true; and if I think that the Bill is unamendable, it is more honest to take this course than to take another course.
I accept what the Minister said: that the Government will invoke the Parliament Act. Of course, that is their right. In your Lordships' House we can do only what we are constitutionally allowed to do. Our powers are limited. I accept all that. But because they are limited, it does not mean that they should not be used. I think that noble Lords are perfectly entitled to say what they think on this important matter of social policy. That is the answer to that question.
Secondly, I am sorry to have to say that we have heard endless repetition of matters which are not true. I will not rehearse again the question of the poll and the assertion that people cannot obtain medical advice. That is quite untrue; they can. I have in my brief here—I will not take up the time of the House—leaflets and pamphlets from local authorities showing and informing gay young men where they can receive help and advice. It does not help the debate constantly to repeat things which are not true.
Many of the arguments which we heard tonight about criminalising young people—there are real

757
arguments about that—would apply to any age of consent, no matter what it was. They could be easily used were the age of consent to be lowered to less than 16. As regards human rights, I do not believe that there is any human right to commit buggery.
The last point I turn to relates to all the organisations which have come out in support of lowering the age of consent. I accept that it is very difficult to stand up in the face of all those people and say that you think they are wrong. I wish to take up a point made by my noble friend Lady Blatch. She wondered whether, when they took the view, it was put to the council members of every one of the organisations. Was it ever put to the thousands of volunteers from one end of the country to the other who work to support them, who raise the money for them and who enable them to do the work which they do? It would be interesting to hear their answer. The evidence I have heard so far is that that is not the case. As we heard from my noble friend Lady Blatch, the NSPCC had no idea that its name would appear in the advertisement in The Times. It is a casual way, to say the least, to conduct its business.
Leaving all that aside, the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, and others made the point—and perhaps I should apologise for my age now—that we are in a very different world. How right he is; we are in a very different world. One of the reasons why I am so concerned is that we are in a world in which we have never been before; in which we are actually witnessing the break-up of society. Now, 40 per cent. of marriages end in divorce; in some places, nearly 50 per cent. of live births are outside of marriage. We hear constant reference, which is true, to teenage pregnancies; and we have all the other evidence of an army of unhappy children whose parents have divorced and who are bewildered.
I believe that that is a tragedy. One of the reasons why I have spoken out on so many similar issues is that although we may not be able to do much about it, it seems to me that if we are in public life and we believe in principles we should stand up for them. I believe that the Bill is another small nail in the coffin of the upholding of family life and traditional beliefs. Your Lordships may call me a Victorian and somebody from the 19th century. I can assure the House that I have had plenty of unpleasant letters and have been called plenty of unpleasant things during the past month. I try to bear all these things with Christian fortitude, which is sometimes a difficult task. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Annan, back in his place and I am reminded that these intellectuals put up these clever arguments. Was he—I can never quite recall—the Provost of King's or the Provost of Queen's?
Consistently over a number of Bills, I have worked very hard for those things which I believe to be right and to be true. The reason why I have stood up today to express the view that I have is that I believe that we will be helping young people in a very difficult
758
world. We will unquestionably be supporting responsible parents who want all the help that the law can give and the support of people in public life. And I am quite sure that if it votes with me today the House of Lords will be reflecting much more clearly what the public at large want than another place did when it voted on the Second Reading.
I commend the amendment to the House.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, the original Question was that this Bill be now read a second time, since when an amendment has been moved, to leave out "now" and at end to insert "this day six months". The Question is that the amendment be agreed to.
11.56 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 222; Not-Contents, 146.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Ahmed, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Aldington, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Coleridge, L.

Ampthill, L.

Cooke of Islandreagh, L.

Annaly, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Arran, E.

Cowdrey of Tonbridge, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Cranborne, V.

Attlee, E.

Crawshaw, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Cross, V.

Bathurst, E.

Cumberlege, B.

Beaverbrook, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

De L'Isle, V.

Bell, L.

Denham, L.

Bellwin, L.

Derwent, L.

Berners, B.

Dixon, L.

Blackwell, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Blatch, B.

Donegall, M.

Boardman, L.

Donoughmore, E.

Bramall, L.

Downshire, M.

Braybrooke, L.

Dulverton, L.

Brentford, V.

Eden of Winton, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Ellenborough, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Elles, B.

Brookman, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Elton, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Exmouth, V.

Burnham, L.

Falmouth, V.

Burton, L.

Feldman, L.

Buscombe, B.

Ferrers, E.

Butterworth, L.

Fitt, L.

Byford, B.

Fookes, B.

Caldecote, V.

Freeman, L.

Canterbury, Abp.

Gage, V.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Carnarvon, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Geddes, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Gisborough, L.

Chadlington, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Chalfont, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Grantley, L.

Chesham, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

759

Greenway, L.

Northesk, E.

Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.

Norwich, Bp.

Haig, E.

Nunburnholme, L.

Halsbury, E.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Orme, L.

Hampton, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Hankey, L.

Palmer, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Patten, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Pender, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Hemphill, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Henley, L.

Quirk, L.

Hesketh, L.

Rawlings, B.

Hogg, B.

Reading, M.

Home, E.

Reay, L.

Hooper, B.

Rees, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Renton, L.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Renwick, L.

Islwyn, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Keith of Castleacre, L.

Romney, E.

Kimball, L.

Rotherwick, L.

King of Wartnaby, L.

Ryder of Warsaw, B.

Kingsdown, L.

Saatchi, L.

Kingsland, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Kinloss, Ly.

Seccombe, B.

Kinnoull, E.

Selsdon, L.

Kintore, E.

Shannon, E.

Kitchener, E.

Sharples, B.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Knutsford, V.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Southwell, Bp.

Lane, L.

Stair, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Stallard, L. [Teller.]

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Liverpool, E.

Stewartby, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Long, V.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Longford, E.

Strange, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Luke, L.

Suffolk and Berkshire, E.

Lyell, L.

Swinfen, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Swinton, E.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Tebbit, L.

Manchester, Bp.

Tenby, V.

Manton, L.

Teviot, L.

Marlesford, L.

Thatcher, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Tollemache, L.

Middleton, L.

Torphichen, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Trenchard, V.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Trumpington, B.

Monro of Langholm. L.

Tryon, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Ullswater, V.

Montrose, D.

Vivian, L.

Moran, L.

Waddington, L.

Morris, L.

Waverley, V.

Mountevans, L.

Weatherill, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Weir, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Westbury, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Wilcox, B.

Nathan, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Nolan, L.

Winchester, Bp.

Norrie, L.

Wynford, L.

Northbrook, L.

Young, B. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Avebury, L.

Alderdice, L.

Bach, L.

Alli, L.

Barnett, L.

Amos, B.

Bath, M.

Annan, L.

Bath and Wells, Bp.

760

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Berkeley, L.

Lucas, L.

Biddulph, L.

Ludford, B.

Biffen, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Birmingham, Bp.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Bledisloe, V.

McNally, L.

Bragg, L.

Maddock, B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Brookeborough, V.

Mancroft, L.

Burlison, L.

Marsh, L.

Carlisle, E.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Carter, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Chandos, V.

Monkswell, L.

Clancarty, E.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Newby, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Craigavon, V.

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

Cranbrook, E.

Norton of Louth, L.

Crawley, B.

Oxford, Bp.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Patel, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Peston, L.

David, B.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Dubs, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Quinton, L.

Falkland, V.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Freyberg, L. [Teller.]

Razzall, L.

Garel-Jones, L.

Rea, L.

Gifford, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Glanusk, L.

Richard, L.

Goodhart, L.

Richardson of Calow, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Rowallan, L.

Grantchester, L.

Russell, E.

Grenfell, L.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Hamwee, B.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Sandwich, E.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Sawyer, L.

Harrowby, E.

Sewel, L.

Hattersley, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B. [Teller.]

Shaughnessy, L.

Holderness, L.

Sheppard of Liverpool, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Stafford, E.

Hoyle, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Hughes, L.

Taverne, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Thornton, B.

Hylton, L.

Thurlow, L.

Inchyra, L.

Tope, L.

Iveagh, E.

Tordoff, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Jay of Paddington, B. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Wallace of Saltaire, L

Walpole, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Warner, L.

Judd, L.

Whitty, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Kennet, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Lawrence, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Winston, L.

Lockwood, B.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
House adjourned at eleven minutes past midnight.

  Mozambique: Refugees
  Mozambique: Refugees
  Kosovo: Refugees of Albanian Origin
  Kosovo: Refugees of Albanian Origin
  Sudan
  Sudan
  Road Traffic (NHS) Charges Act
  Road Traffic (NHS) Charges Act
  Vitamin and Mineral Supplements
  Vitamin and Mineral Supplements
  Dietary Supplements and Herbal Remedies
  Dietary Supplements and Herbal Remedies
  Herbal Remedies
  Herbal Remedies
  Medicines Control Agency: Regulation Proposals
  Medicines Control Agency: Regulation Proposals
  Residential Services for People with Learning Disabilities
  Residential Services for People with Learning Disabilities
  Medicines Directive 65/65/EEC
  Medicines Directive 65/65/EEC
  Medicines Control Agency Consultation Paper MLX249
  Medicines Control Agency Consultation Paper MLX249
  Medicines Control Agency: Consultation Response
  Medicines Control Agency: Consultation Response
  Medicines: Advertising Control
  Medicines: Advertising Control
  Quality Protects Programme: MAPs
  Quality Protects Programme: MAPs
  Foods Reclassified as Medicines
  Foods Reclassified as Medicines
  Rough Sleepers, Victoria Street
  Rough Sleepers, Victoria Street
  Vehicle Odometer "Clocking"
  Vehicle Odometer "Clocking"
  Rocket Launches and the Ozone Layer
  Rocket Launches and the Ozone Layer
  General Pinochet
  General Pinochet
  EU Common Foreign and Security Policy
  EU Common Foreign and Security Policy
  UK Membership of European Union
  UK Membership of European Union
  Sudan
  Sudan
  Sudan: Al Shifa Factory
  Sudan: Al Shifa Factory
  US Senate NATO Observer Group
  US Senate NATO Observer Group
  Sea-based Satellite Launches: Regulation
  Sea-based Satellite Launches: Regulation
  Russian Weapons Grade Plutonium
  Russian Weapons Grade Plutonium
  US/Israeli Strategic Defence Agreement
  US/Israeli Strategic Defence Agreement
  Pakistan: Independent Power Project Dispute
  Pakistan: Independent Power Project Dispute
  Pakistan: Religious Minorities
  Pakistan: Religious Minorities
  Council of Europe Member States: Human Rights Conventions
  Council of Europe Member States: Human Rights Conventions
  Foreign Office Staff: Contacts with Private Military Companies
  Foreign Office Staff: Contacts with Private Military Companies
  Sierra Leone
  Sierra Leone