Sitting of 2 December 1999

Preamble
The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

    Learning and Work Bank
    Mrs. Christine Butler: If he will make a statement on his plans for the new learning and work bank. [99340]
    The Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities (Ms Tessa Jowell): As part of a major programme to modernise the Employment Service, the learning and work bank will be launched in autumn 2000, bringing together, for the first time in one place, information about learning opportunities provided by the university of industry's "learndirect", Employment Service job vacancies and information about careers.
    Mrs. Butler: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. I am excited by the prospect of a one-stop shop on a website to match jobs to those without jobs and to enable employers easily to find the right recruit. I welcome the fact that that will also be linked to upskilling information. Will my right hon. Friend tell the House about the existing experiments in certain areas so that my constituents can be encouraged by the prospect of the new scheme starting in autumn next year?
    Ms Jowell: I agree with my hon. Friend that we have to seize every opportunity to use new technology to improve and modernise public services, including the use of public-private sector partnerships, to ensure that the unprecedented opportunities for work—the largest number of people in work and the largest number of vacancies for a generation—are taken up and people without jobs are linked to job vacancies.
    My hon. Friend also made the important point that that project is being developed through pilots. Those who observe our proceedings would be disappointed if they did not hear the term roll out used at least once in Education and Employment questions, so, building on the experience of the 12 pilots, we will roll out the learning and work bank, with the supporting services, in autumn next year.

    Learning and Skills Council
    Mr. Ben Chapman: What representations he has received on proposals for a new Learning and Skills Council. [99341]
    The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): We have received more than 1,100 responses to our White Paper, "Learning To Succeed". More than 90 per cent. were in favour of our proposals.
    Mr. Chapman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the system he inherited from the Conservatives was wasteful, bureaucratic and incapable of producing high standards across the board and that what he has introduced is not simply an administrative change, but a step change that will provide a coherent, high quality system of support for skills and knowledge that will generate real savings and benefit directly those involved?
    Mr. Blunkett: Not only do I agree with what my hon. Friend says about the importance of those changes, but so do the CBI, the British Chambers of Commerce and the national council of the National Training Organisation, which has said that it sees the reform of the delivery of post-16 education and training as a golden opportunity to put right the legacy of individual under-achievement and business under-performance.
    Major companies have underlined that, including BP, which has said:
    "We agree strongly with the need to change. The bureaucracy of the existing system makes it very difficult for a national employer like us to access funding on a national basis for NVQ assessment."
    All those organisations are in the business of business. They know what they require and they will now have a much clearer directive to assist in making the changes work on the ground.
    Mr. Tim Boswell: Would not the Secretary of State accept that the devil is not only in the detail of his proposed changes but in the principle of them? With further education colleges warning about the threat to their autonomy and their ability to deliver in response to local needs, with local education authorities worried about the threat to their budgets from top-slicing for the Secretary of State's pet projects, with business concerned about being marginalised in decision making and with the threat to school sixth forms whitewashed but still unresolved, is not there a real danger that the Secretary of State may run out of friends?
    Mr. Blunkett: Given the lack of investment in repair and maintenance in schools around the country, whitewashing would be a positive gain for some of the schools that we inherited. The business community is very satisfied with my announcement of 28 October, and it supports the changes, for the reasons that I read out a moment ago.
    The business community believes that coherent investment, the purchaser-provider split and the involvement of business in decision making are crucial to making the changes work. That is why it supports the changes that we have announced, which are long overdue. The era of confusion, bureaucracy and top-slicing, when

    415
    money went anywhere except into training, is coming to an end. I am pleased that we have been able to take this step in this Parliament, rather than in the next.
    Mr. Hilary Benn: Would my right hon. Friend say what role he sees for the lifelong learning partnerships in the new arrangements? Does he share my view that they are central to identifying local need and to encouraging local collaboration? Will he ensure that they have the support and the resources that they need to do that very important job?
    Mr. Blunkett: Not only will we ensure that they have sufficient resources this year, but we will allocate resources for next year to ensure that their continuing work can be developed. My hon. Friend is entirely right: those partnerships are very important in pulling together providers, thus giving a coherence that prevents gaps in local provision from emerging while dealing with the questions raised by the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell).

    Education SSA
    Mr. Michael Fabricant: When he will next meet the relevant Minister in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to discuss the education standard spending assessment in shire counties; and if he will make a statement. [99342]
    The Minister for School Standards (Ms Estelle Morris): The Government announced in November 1998 a three-year review in partnership with local government to look for a way of distributing revenue support grant that is simpler, more stable, more robust and fairer than the present arrangements for SSAs. The Government do not expect to discuss or make fresh changes to the method of calculation of SSAs while that review is taking place.
    Mr. Fabricant: Further to the question put to the Prime Minister last week by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), is the Minister aware of the concern felt by Staffordshire parents? Does she know that a leaflet has been circulated by the Staffordshire federation of parent teacher associations outlining the existing discrepancy? It states that Staffordshire primary school pupils receive just £2,151, whereas pupils in Hertfordshire receive £2,370. Moreover, at high school level, Staffordshire children get £2,761, while Hertfordshire children receive £3,029.
    Does the Minister understand the frustration felt by Staffordshire parents at that discrepancy, given that Labour promised before the election that it would be rectified in the first year of a Labour Government?
    Ms Morris: I have seen the leaflet, as many have ended up on my desk. I understand the frustration that the hon. Gentleman describes, which existed well before the general election. Over 18 years, not only did the previous Conservative Government do nothing to change SSAs, but year on year they cut the money going to Staffordshire.
    I do not defend the present SSA structure, which is unfair to some local authorities. Staffordshire is one authority where that unfairness is most evident. We are determined to change the structure for the better, but we need to do so with the consensus of those local authorities
    416
    that may suffer as a result. If we have not achieved that in one year, it is because that consensus did not exist. However, we are examining the matter and our conclusion will be announced within three years.
    The hon. Gentleman knows that, although the SSA has not been changed, the Government have put extra funding into Staffordshire. That extra funding has comprised £6.3 million in extra capital funds and increased SSAs year on year, while almost £2.5 million extra has been given to help with class sizes. I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman might acknowledge the £45,000 that has been made available to schools in his constituency alone. That money has been used to pay for more teachers and to reduce class sizes for the children of his constituents.
    Mr. David Taylor: I am pleased that the Government are attempting to detoxicate the poisoned chalice of local education authority funding passed on by the previous Administration. Is my right hon. Friend aware that Leicestershire is at the bottom of the shire tables for SSA per school pupil, and that SSA revisions must bridge an £8 million void? We in Leicestershire are happy to be at the top of sporting leagues in cricket, rugby and football, but we are very unhappy to be at the bottom of the funding leagues for health, emergency services and education. Can she offer some hope in that regard to the people of Leicestershire?
    Ms Morris: Yes. I am aware that Leicestershire is another of the local authorities that does not do well out of the present SSA formula. However, the House must be aware that I cannot remember an hon. Member standing up and saying that his or her local authority does too well out of the present structure. No one should underestimate the difficulty of changing that structure to make it fairer. However, we are determined to do that, and I will not apologise if the process of getting the structure right takes more than a year.
    I repeat the assurance that I gave to the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant). We are determined to introduce a more robust and fairer system. Meanwhile, we will do everything that we can to continue to honour our pledge of putting more money into local authorities. Leicestershire has received more than £1.5 million in the first year to help with class sizes, and in the form of extra capital. It and other LEAs will share in the increased resources that the Government are putting into education, but I am afraid that the change to the SSA formula will take a year or two longer to implement.
    Mr. Phil Willis: The next time that the Minister and the Secretary of State meet the Deputy Prime Minister, will they discuss the importance of forward planning? So far, we have had three different settlements for local authorities. In July last year, we had a 6.2 per cent. settlement. In September, it went down to 5.4 per cent. as £150 million was slashed off the budget to pay for performance-related pay. In the settlement a week ago, we suddenly had £50 million put back in. It is difficult for local authorities to plan on that basis. Given that the essence of PRP is consistency, does she realise that many heads, governors and local education

    417
    authorities are finding that uncertainty in planning for PRP is causing immense discontent and unrest in our schools?
    Ms Morris: What a headline: "Lib Dem complains that Secretary of State puts more money into education". What is life coming to? That is exactly what my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister did last week.
    Mr. Willis: He took money away.
    Ms Morris: No money was taken away. I and the Deputy Prime Minister have always said that standard spending assessments would increase by 5.4 per cent. and that the money for PRP was on top of that, making 6.1 per cent. None of that has been taken out. What happened last Thursday was that he put a significant amount of money into local authority funding in plenty of time for local authorities to make decisions about the budgets they will announce for schools next year. I would have thought that that more than anything else would have been greatly welcomed by the hon. Gentleman. His reaction is a touch churlish and does him no justice.
    Mr. Barry Gardiner: My right hon. Friend will be as delighted as I am to learn that schools in Brent are transferring from the private sector into local authority control. Will she ensure that when such a welcome event happens, corresponding funding is made available in the education SSA? This year, Brent faces a £500,000 shortfall, which would be unfair on children in existing local authority schools. Will she consider that?
    Ms Morris: I accept that. As with many such matters, it is a question of timing. Sometimes schools transfer to the maintained sector at a point in the financial cycle when the numbers have already been collected. I would be happy to talk to my hon. Friend about schools transferring to the maintained sector to see whether we can offer more help. I am not aware of the schools or their circumstances, so perhaps a further conversation outside the House would be the best way forward.
    Mrs. Theresa May: Does the Minister not understand—I hope that after the representations that she has heard this morning she will be closer to understanding it—the resentment building up in shire counties such as Staffordshire and Leicestershire as yet again, on eduction funding, the Government say one thing and do another? They say that extra money is going into schools but there is no extra money for the new A-levels. In Northumberland, which received one of the lowest grant increases, a head teacher has warned of A-level classes of more than 30 as a result. The Government promised local authorities that they would fund the teachers' PRP proposals centrally and that all the money would come out of the £1 billion that they claimed had been set aside. Now they are top-slicing money away from local authorities and school budgets. The Government said that school sixth form funding would be guaranteed, yet five months on, they still have not announced what it will be. Today, we learn that teachers and students will have to pay to take their cars into school. Is not that all another part of the great Labour lie? Is it not time that
    418
    the Minister admitted that this over-bureaucratic and centralising Government are failing to get money where it is needed—into the schools?
    Ms Morris: What changes between a Labour and a Conservative Government is that the argument is about how much extra goes to schools, rather than how much is being taken out of schools. That was the form that questions and answers took under the previous Government.
    The money for PRP for reforming the teaching profession is exactly as we said it would be; £1 billion is being held centrally, and will be transferred for threshold payments as and when teachers cross the threshold. My right hon. Friend and I said that there would be 5 per cent. extra on the SSA this year; more money will be held centrally by the Government—some out of the SSA and some kept in a separate fund that will be held back. We can argue about whether the figure is 5.4 or 6.1 per cent.; frankly, I am happy to defend either figure—compared to what schools had to put up with, year after year, under the Conservative Administration.

    Class Sizes
    Ms Claire Ward: What progress is being made on the reduction of class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds. [99343]
    The Minister for School Standards (Ms Estelle Morris): We are well on course to deliver our pledge to limit infant class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds to 30 or fewer by September 2001. Recent figures show that the number of children in large infant classes has halved since September 1998, from 354,000 to 181,000 in September 1999. That means that about 300,000 children have benefited from the initiative since January 1998. A total of £620 million has been made available to implement the pledge early in virtually all schools by September 2000.
    Ms Ward: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, and congratulate the Government on being on target to reach that limit. Is she aware that, sometimes, many primary schools find it quite difficult to keep to the limit when the appeals process is instigated? Does she agree that the Government should revisit the appeals process to ensure that there is a balance between maintaining the limits—the maximum number on class sizes—and giving each child's case a fair hearing? That would ensure that each child who needs a place at a school is considered. The balance is a difficult one, but does my right hon. Friend feel that the Government should reconsider the issue?
    Ms Morris: Perhaps this is a good opportunity to point out that most schools are in the fortunate position of being able to offer more places, because we have provided 12,000 additional places in popular schools. That has done much to increase the exercise of parental preference. However, if the number in a class is to be limited to 30, we must be firm about that. I should be worried if the number were to sneak up one by one, because for every child who is allowed to break the limit, 29 other children are in larger classes. My hon. Friend will be aware that we have now allowed admissions authorities to admit

    419
    children above the limit of 30, but only in specified circumstances. I am happy to keep the matter under review, but I am not happy to do what the previous Government did—to turn our back on class size so that the number increases not just to 31 or 32, but to 40 or 45. Neither my hon. Friend, parents nor teachers would want us to do that.
    Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Does the Minister agree that, during the past two years, 1,500 playgroups have closed? What has caused those closures? Does she accept the figures of the Pre-School Learning Alliance, which show that, during next year, a further 1,700 will close?
    Ms Morris: The number of playgroups tends to differ from year to year: some open and others close. The hon. Gentleman may want to look up the figures for the number of playgroups that has opened, as well as the number that has closed. He may also be interested to learn that, over the next three years, the Government will double the number of places for three-year-olds, and that 80 per cent. of those new places will be in playgroups.
    I am happy to pay tribute to the role of playgroups in early years provision. We said repeatedly that the strength of the playgroups, and the time for them to take advantage of the extra resources, would be during the expansion of places for three-year-olds. That is exactly what has happened. Meanwhile, as the hon. Gentleman will know, we have given playgroups financial support to help them over that difficult transition period. I am sure that they will welcome the efforts that we have made on their behalf.
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: Although I share the fears expressed, a few moments ago, by my right hon. Friend the Minister about the danger of creeping increases, how do we solve the problem? In a Catholic school in my constituency, the addition of one child would take the class size to 31, so the child is being refused a place and will have to be sent to another school. That is not what the parents or the child want.
    Ms Morris: If it is not the 31st child, it is the 35th, the 36th or the 41st. It has never been possible to guarantee that every child will attend the school that their parents choose. By expanding the number of places in popular schools by 12,000, we have ensured that more parents get their first choice. However, at some point we must say, "Enough is enough. We are not prepared to allow this class to become any larger." If we did not do so, we should allow everyone to attend the school that they wanted, regardless of size. I am sure that my hon. Friend would agree that that would be a silly situation.
    Mr. Phil Willis: It is part of "The Common Sense Revolution" to let admissions rip.
    Ms Morris: It is indeed the Opposition's policy.
    The situation must be managed carefully. No one should imagine that before the class size pledge, every child attended the school that they wanted, because that was never the case and it will never be possible.
    Mr. James Clappison: While the Minister is talking about reducing class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds and selectively collecting information for those ages, as the Government did in September, the same is not true of class sizes for other age groups, as I saw for myself last week in Sheffield, when I visited a class of eight-year-olds with 37 pupils in it at a junior school. Is not the situation especially bad in secondary schools, where there has been an increase of more than 25 per cent. in the number of classes with more than 30 pupils?
    While the Minister talks about the 36th and the 40th pupil, is that not a reality now in all too many secondary schools, the number of pupils in classes of more than 36 having doubled under the present Government, and classes of more than 40 now being more common? [Interruption.] Yes. Under the present Government, classes of 40 are more common in secondary schools.
    Would it not be fair and more accurate for the Government to give the whole picture instead of picking out part of it? Does it not defy common sense to speak about reducing class sizes for children of one age while allowing class sizes for children of other ages to let rip? Is not this, in effect, yet another example of saying one thing and doing another—the great Labour lie?
    Ms Morris: I believe that I have just found out why the Opposition's new policy document on education is so thin. They are spending their time scouring the class size list for one statistic that is not moving in the right direction. I am happy to respond to his invitation to make it clear to the House and others exactly what is happening to class sizes.
    Class sizes for infant children are down. Average class sizes in primary schools are down. There are 4,000 extra teachers. There are extra classrooms. The pupil-teacher ratio has fallen. Key stage 2 class sizes are steady. [Interruption.] Yes, there has been a 50,000 increase year on year. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right.
    In secondary schools, there has been a 0.1 increase in class sizes, but the figures on key stage 1, key stage 2, the pupil-teacher ratio, extra classrooms, extra teachers, early years education and nursery provision are all going the right way. We have achieved that in two years because our priority should be younger children, to give them the best possible start.
    Having achieved that record—an incredibly good record to defend—in two years, I can give the hon. Gentleman every assurance that, in due time, we shall also tackle class sizes at key stage 3. We have made a start, but we inherited from the Conservative Government such a mess, with all the statistical trends moving in the wrong direction, that if I have to apologise for not quite having moved on secondary class sizes yet, when we have moved on class sizes in every other bit of the system, I shall apologise.

    Child Care
    Mr. Andrew Dismore: How many extra child care places were created last year. [99344]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Ms Margaret Hodge): We created nearly 66,000 new places last year. In the first two years of this Labour Government, we created more new child care places than the previous Conservative Government managed to do in 18 years.
    Mr. Dismore: Is my hon. Friend aware that Barnet council has been working closely in partnership with Barnet Play Association, Barnet Pre-School Learning Alliance and the North London training and enterprise council to create a total of almost 1,100 new child care places in my constituency in after-school clubs and summer play schemes? I should especially like to welcome the new child-minding network, which has created 24 places on Grahame Park estate—one of the more deprived parts of my constituency.
    We still have quite a long way to go in providing child care places for under-fives. Is my hon. Friend aware of the real need to do more work in that direction?
    Ms Hodge: I would like to congratulate Barnet on its achievements so far. A massive expansion in the provision of child care will be achieved only if 150 early years development and child care partnerships deliver it. I am delighted by the hard work, enthusiasm and commitment that the partnerships have shown so far. I am aware of the massive task that we still have to undertake to meet the needs of children and the changing needs of families as we move to the 21st century. Our target to create 1 million new child care places by 2003 is on course and the partnerships are exceeding their targets.

    Local Education Authorities
    Mr. David Kidney: What assessment he has made of the effect on quality of education provided of variations in the level of Government funding to local education authorities. [99346]
    The Minister for School Standards (Ms Estelle Morris): The Government accept that there are valid objections to the variations in the level of Government funding to local education authorities. That is why we are engaged on a fundamental review of this issue and hope to make proposals for changes in due course.
    Mr. Kidney: My understanding of the provisional education standard spending assessment settlement for next year is that per pupil the best funded schools will be getting richer at a faster rate than the worst funded schools. Is there an educational justification for widening the gap between the best and worst funded schools?
    Ms Morris: No, there is not, which is exactly why we are setting about changing the SSAs. During the period while the SSAs are as they are, the difference in funding to local authorities will reflect changes in demography, the number of children in local authorities and whether they are in the primary or secondary sectors.
    I know how strongly my hon. Friend's constituents feel about this matter and I am aware of how much he has done to represent their interests in presenting the case to myself and to my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Deputy Prime Minister. I assure my hon. Friend
    422
    that we shall move as quickly as we can. Meanwhile, we shall ensure that the other way in which funds are routed into Staffordshire means that his constituents' children will get their fair share of the increased resources. I know that my hon. Friend and many other hon Members will not be satisfied until we change the formula. For all the reasons that I have outlined, it will take one or two more years.
    Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: The Minister said a few moments ago that she is proud that the Government took instant action on something that they thought was unfair. Can she understand the frustration when local authorities hear her say that she is seeking consensus? If she is looking for consensus on this matter, she will be looking for a long time. The statement that she has just made—I do not know whether it was a slip or whether it was deliberate—is quite worrying. I believe that the Minister said that she would ensure through other ways that pupils in Staffordshire would get a fair deal. Can that apply also to pupils in Leicestershire and Derbyshire? If she is using a secret formula, can we all know about it, please?
    Ms Morris: The hon. Gentleman fails to understand that SSAs are only one way of routing money to schools. We are increasingly putting more money through the standards fund, and £1.6 billion went through it this year. The assurance that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) is one that I am happy to give to the hon. Gentleman. The extra money that will be distributed will not be under the SSA formula. Schools will not lose out because that is their formula for adjustment. It is not a secret formula but an open one to ensure that the extra money that we are putting into schools through the standards fund means that everyone can benefit.
    The hon. Gentleman must realise that under this Government we have seen an increase in funding over the past two years of £200 per pupil, compared with a drop in funding for primary pupils of £30 and one of £80 for secondary age students under the Conservative Government. We shall change the formula in due course. Meanwhile, every school in the hon. Gentleman's constituency is getting more money through both the SSA and the standards fund than they did at any time during the years of the previous Government.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: Is it not at least welcome to hear Conservatives now claiming that class sizes have some significance in the quality of education, when for many years they denied that that was the case? Is my hon. Friend aware that shortly after I and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State entered Parliament, I asked the then Prime Minister, Lady Thatcher, if she would compliment Derbyshire county council on having the smallest class sizes in the country? It was the Local Government Act 1988 and the introduction of standard spending assessments that destroyed those class sizes and made them among the largest in the country.
    In Derbyshire, we are very pleased with the moves on funding that have been made by the Department for Education and Employment. However, our problem is with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and with the standard spending assessment.

    423
    It has not been adjusted, and we shall have to wait a long time before alterations are made in new legislation that will finally get rid of existing measures. Does a brick wall exist between the DFEE and DETR?
    Ms Morris: No brick wall exists between those Departments or any other Departments in Whitehall. I am sure that my hon. Friend will lobby DETR as much as he lobbies the DFEE, and I wish him well if he does. I am delighted that Derbyshire has made such good progress on class sizes. We were very pleased that in the first year that we delivered the pledge on class sizes—if my memory serves me well—Derbyshire received more money to deliver smaller classes than any other local authority. I think that it received £1 million in the first year and it received at least as much, if not more, in the second year. I am so pleased that infant children in my hon. Friend's constituency will now start their schooling in classes of 30 or fewer, giving them a real chance to get a firm foundation. I wish them well, and I wish the local authority well in delivering the rest of the class size pledge.

    Grammar Schools
    Mr. Graham Brady: How many (a) challenges and (b) queries he has received regarding grammar school petitions. [99348]
    The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): Since consultation began on the grammar school ballot regulations arising out of the White Paper "Excellence in Schools" in July 1997, we have received 2,300 queries regarding the grammar school petition and ballot process, 16 of which have been complaints about campaigning material in areas where petitions are currently being circulated.
    Mr. Brady: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that response. He will recall that, during the passage of the Schools Standards and Framework Act 1998, Ministers were keen to stress that it would be a breach of the regulations for local authorities, schools or governing bodies to publish information or express views that were intended to influence parents during the ballot process.
    Nearly two months ago, I wrote to the Secretary of State highlighting a very clear breach by the head of Trinity school in Hulme. There has still been no concrete action taken to uphold the Government's own regulations. That is now resulting in the process in the borough of Trafford descending into farce. The so-called cabinet member for education in Trafford, Councillor Peter Mitchell, has expressed the view publicly in the local press that the 11-plus is resulting in "social selection" and "economic apartheid" in our schools. When will the Secretary of State enforce his own regulations and ensure that there is a fair contest?
    Mr. Blunkett: As the hon. Gentleman knows, because he has asked eight oral questions on this issue, we are taking decisive action. We are investigating the complaint about that school, as we did the complaint relating to the material put out by Urmston grammar school. That complaint was resolved this week by taking action to ensure that that material was withdrawn as it was inadequate and inappropriate and broke the regulations.
    424
    We will take action, case by case, if complaints are made about the conduct of either secondary modern schools or grammar schools and if they are made by the Conservative party or by anyone else. We shall do that fairly and openly for the sake of the children and their futures.
    Mr. Bill Rammell: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there are very fair procedures in place to ensure that parents decide such issues in local ballots? Does he agree that the Conservative party's obsession with this issue, which affects a small percentage of children in the country, is very revealing and shows that it is still concerned with that minority agenda instead of with raising standards for every child in every school in every part of the country?
    Mr. Blunkett: Yes.
    Mr. John Bercow: I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) was grossly unsatisfactory and exudes the sort of complacency for which the right hon. Gentleman has fast become renowned. Given the extraordinary behaviour of the head teacher of Trinity Church of England school in Hulme, Manchester, Mr. Michael Evans, in sending out anti-grammar school propaganda to Trafford parents, and the further abuse, which was rightly highlighted by my hon. Friend, of Labour councillor, Peter Mitchell, in indulging in ludicrous hyperbole that accused grammar schools of being responsible for economic apartheid in that area, will the right hon. Gentleman now stop dithering and use the powers available to him under sub-paragraph (e) of paragraph 15 on page 10, lines 8 to 11, of the Education (Grammar Schools Ballots) Regulations 1998 to declare that this year the petition process in Trafford is null and void? Does not the Secretary of State understand that if he will not do so, people will rightly conclude that he is working hand in glove with left-wing educational vandals, who are plotting to destroy some of the finest state schools in the country?
    Mr. Blunkett: Knowing the particular line or paragraph of a regulation does not make one intelligent or right. Again, I make it clear to the House that when complaints are made, they will be investigated and, if they are upheld, dealt with. That will be the case for complaints from either side in the discussion about the future of selection.
    The hon. Gentleman was recently quoted in the press as saying that some of my honourable colleagues in the Labour party whose children went to selective schools were exercising their right to choose such schools. I point out to him that where selection exists, parents do not have a right to choose because the pupils are chosen by an 11-plus examination that excludes 75 to 80 per cent. of the children and their parents from any right of entry to those excellent schools.
    Dr. Phyllis Starkey: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that once a ballot has taken place, he will expect the results to be complied with? Is that not in contrast to the behaviour of Conservative-controlled Buckinghamshire county council, which under the previous Conservative Government three

    425

    times ignored the result of ballots in Milton Keynes, where the majority of parents expressed their opposition to the creation of a grammar school? Yet right up until the general election, the previous Government and Buckinghamshire county council tried to impose a grammar school on Milton Keynes in opposition to the clearly expressed views of its people.
    Mr. Blunkett: That is why the artificial indignation of Conservative Members takes the biscuit, because they will do one thing to protect their own and quite another to protect the rest of the population.

    Special Educational Needs
    Mr. Laurence Robertson: If he will make a statement on his plans to integrate pupils with special educational needs into mainstream schools. [99349]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Jacqui Smith): "Meeting Special Educational Needs: A programme of action", which was published in November 1998 following extensive consultation, sets out our strategy for promoting the inclusion, within mainstream schools, of pupils with special educational needs where their parents want that and appropriate support can be provided.
    Mr. Robertson: I thank the Minister for that reply, but does she accept that some local authorities are going too far and trying to include in mainstream schools all children with moderate learning difficulties—a term that under-describes the problems of many children? Does she further accept that not all children with special needs can be integrated and that each child should be treated as an individual? Will she join me in condemning those local authorities that are trying to close special schools in their area?
    Jacqui Smith: I know that the hon. Gentleman has taken a close interest in developments in the Gloucestershire special educational needs review. However, I am sure that he will agree that specific proposals for local provision should be a decision for local education authorities, and that if any proposals for closure are made, they should go through the statutory procedures, including being referred to the school organisation committee, which will of course include specialist school representatives.
    I am, however, happy to say that our approach to inclusion has been practical and not dogmatic, and I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the key objective of all our policies for children with special educational needs must be to safeguard the interests of all children. If parents want a mainstream setting for their child, our policy is to try to provide that, but, equally, if more specialist provision is sought, it is important and right that parents' wishes are respected.
    Mrs. Diana Organ: As a special needs teacher of 20 years, I particularly welcome the Government's policy of inclusion for children with special needs. However, is my hon. Friend aware of the problems facing secondary schools in the Forest of Dean in providing the necessary support for children with mild emotional and behavioural difficulties or moderate
    426
    learning difficulties? Does she agree that the skills and expertise of teachers at the area's special schools, such as Dean Hall and Alderman Knight, should be kept and used, and that, if need be, we should find methods of deploying their skills and expertise to support the mainstream schools?
    Jacqui Smith: Yes, and I thank my hon. Friend for her question. I agree that it is important that the expertise that clearly exists in our special schools is brought to bear also on improving standards in our mainstream schools. That is why, for example, my Department has brought together in a group representatives from around the country to consider how we can develop that work, so that we get the most out of our mainstream schools and use the undoubted expertise in our special schools to improve standards for all children.

    Bett Report
    Dr. Evan Harris: What representations he has received from higher education bodies and institutions on implementation of the recommendations of the Bett report. [99350]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Malcolm Wicks): My Department has received several representations from higher education bodies, institutions and individuals. However, I should emphasise that the Bett committee was established by and reported to the higher education employers. It was not a Government committee, and it is for the employers to consider the committee's recommendations.
    Dr. Harris: Is the Minister aware of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals' analysis, confirmed by the House of Commons Library, which shows a continued reduction—1.1 per cent. this year, more than last year—in the funding per student per year in higher education? That is projected to continue for the remaining years of this Parliament, despite the income obtained from the discredited and tawdry policy of charging students tuition fees. Students will be paying more and getting less funding per student under this Government. Is the Minister aware that the CVCP does not believe that that can be sustained without damaging the quality of education in universities?
    On the Bett report, does the Minister at least accept that he has a responsibility for the fair treatment of women lecturers, who are shown to require additional resources for fair treatment and fair pay?
    Mr. Wicks: We of course support the principle and the practice of fair pay, regardless of gender.
    On funding, the policy of tuition fees enables more money—I stress that—to be invested in our universities. The funding of universities by the Government is impressive. In 2001–02, higher education will receive an extra £295 million, compared with the preceding year. That is a cash increase of 5.4 per cent. and comes on top of the £253 million extra the year before, and £318 million the year before that. It is the job of Government and the Department to invest in

    427
    higher education. It is not our job to set individual pay rates. If we had that power, we would be accused of being control freaks, and we would not want that, would we?
    Mr. Ian Pearson: Does my hon. Friend agree that outside our top universities, nobody who is any good lectures full-time in information technology, computer studies, accountancy or law? If such people are any good, they can get two, three, four or more times more money in the commercial world. I urge my hon. Friend to reject categorically the approach of the Bett committee report, which wants the Government to stump up more cash to pay university lecturers more. Will my hon. Friend urge the universities to look instead to the private sector for a solution?
    Mr. Wicks: I do not accept the proposition that everyone teaching in those disciplines is second-rate. Many people are motivated to serve in our universities and teach young people because teaching is their vocation. Not everyone is motivated by money. However, there are some problems in some disciplines, and some universities may want to find out whether some employees of accountancy and IT firms want to teach on a part-time basis. That is one possible approach in future in this difficult area.
    Mrs. Theresa May: The Government have consistently washed their hands of the Bett report, and the Minister has done so again this morning, but does he not understand that universities are getting fed up with the Government's failure to tackle the issue of university funding?
    The Government said—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Barry Gardiner: Carry on.
    Mrs. May: I intend to.
    The Government said, and the Minister has repeated it this morning, that introducing tuition fees would mean more money for further and higher education, but, under this Government, funding for higher education has gone down by £135 per student—yet another example of the Government saying one thing and doing another. Perhaps, given that, it is little wonder that drop-out rates are rising.
    The Government charge tuition fees and then take the money away from the universities by the back door, giving with one hand and taking away with the other. Will the Minister confirm that next year £80 million of tuition fee money will be taken away from the universities? When will he scrap the glitzy press releases and come clean on the Government's failure to deliver on their promises on higher education funding?
    Mr. Wicks: I cannot accept any of that. The Government are investing more each and every year in higher education. We grasped the nettle of tuition fees so that more money could be invested. With all due respect to the hon. Lady, she should examine her Administration's record when, between 1989 and 1997, unit funding—[Interruption.] You may not want to hear this, but I shall tell you—not you, Madam Speaker, although you may be interested as well, but the hon. Lady who has a specific interest in this. Between 1989
    428
    and 1997, unit funding fell by 36 per cent. That was the hon. Lady's record. We are investing more in higher education and maintaining standards.

    Equal Pay
    Maria Eagle: What discussions he has had with the Equal Opportunities Commission on equal pay for women. [99351]
    The Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities (Ms Tessa Jowell): Since my appointment six weeks ago, I have met Julie Mellor, the chair of the EOC, and I was delighted to take part in the launch of the EOC's valuing women campaign on 26 October. That campaign will complement the cross-Government action being taken under the auspices of the women's unit and the DFEE to tackle the range of factors that gives rise to the pay gap. I will be in regular contact with the EOC to review progress.
    Maria Eagle: Does my right hon. Friend agree that toleration of continuing pay inequality will perpetuate unfairness into the future, particularly in respect of its impact on women's pensions? If we do not get the matter right now, 20 or 30 years hence, women will be retiring into income inequality.
    Ms Jowell: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, who has also touched on the important point that the pay gap is due to a range of factors, and the likelihood of a pay gap is often established early on when girls make career choices as little more than teenagers. That is why we shall be considering the range of measures that need to be taken across Government, working with business, the careers service, schools and young people themselves, to address what is unacceptable and unfair.

    Older Workers
    Dr. Vincent Cable: What assessment he has made of barriers to employment, including age discrimination, facing older workers. [99352]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Ms Margaret Hodge): The Government continue to assess the employment barriers facing older workers. We now publish annual key indicators and we are assessing rigorously the impact of the code of practice on age diversity. We are also assessing the pathfinder pilots on the new deal for 50-plus and the new deal for disabled people. In December 1998, the Prime Minister asked the performance and innovation unit in the Cabinet Office to undertake an assessment of the full impact of the trend towards economic inactivity among older people. The project findings will be published in the new year.
    Dr. Cable: Does the Minister agree that age discrimination is pervasive and extremely damaging to individuals and the economy as a whole, and, if so, do the Government have any plans to legislate to outlaw it? What plans do they have to improve practice within the public sector, which they directly control, to avoid the kind of situation that affects one of my constituents, who is desperate to work because he has no pension entitlement,

    429
    who is fighting fit as he is a former world boxing champion, who applied to the Post Office for a job as a postman, of which we are desperately short, and who was told that because he was 59 he was too old and there were no circumstances under which he could be hired?
    Ms Hodge: I certainly agree that discrimination against older workers is damaging to them and the economy, and that we cannot take unfair advantage of older people's long service and experience. On legislative intervention, the Prime Minister gave an undertaking to review the effectiveness of our code on age discrimination. I stress to the hon. Gentleman that experience elsewhere leaves us with some questions. For example, fewer older workers participate in the work forces of Spain and Canada, which have legislated against age discrimination, than in that of the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom's record places it third in Europe, after Denmark and Sweden. All three countries have no legislation on the subject.
    On the point about the public sector showing an example, we are doing that through the new deal for 50-plus and the new deal for disabled people, of whom 50 per cent. are over 50. Government Departments are re-examining their retirement age, and I am delighted that someone in my private office has been given the cheerful news that she can remain there after the age of 60.
    Mr. Barry Sheerman: Does my hon. Friend agree that, rather than legislating, we should take a lead in highlighting the fact that many talented people in their 50s and 60s, who have an excellent education, skills and enormous experience, should use that talent in many jobs, including in education? Does my hon. Friend agree that our employment policies have led to skill shortages and that we need those talented older people to fill jobs?
    Ms Hodge: As my hon. Friend was my contemporary at university, he is in the over-50 age group. I am delighted that the House has had the common sense to use him by appointing him to the chair of the Education Sub-Committee. I welcome him to that post. I agree with him entirely that experience, talent and a long record in work is crucial to ensure economic prosperity and to take advantage of individuals' great skills.
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: But when the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), who is now Minister of State, Cabinet Office, was in opposition, he made it clear that a Labour Government would legislate on the subject. Can the Minister tell the House why the Government have resiled from that commitment?
    Ms Hodge: I can inform the hon. Gentleman that we have published a code on age diversity. We rigorously monitor the code, and the Prime Minister has given a commitment to the House that if the code does not operate effectively, we will consider legislation.

    Child Care
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: What progress has been made in delivering child care information to parents. [R] [99353]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Ms Margaret Hodge): Building on the innovative work of my hon. Friend, excellent progress has been made to improve parents' access to good quality child care information. All early years development and child care partnerships are developing local children's information services that meet minimum service standards. Yesterday, I launched ChildcareLink, a freephone national child care information line and child care website.
    Mrs. Campbell: As the unremunerated chair of opportunity links, I have a relevant registered interest in the provision of child care information. Does my hon. Friend agree that easily accessible information on child care is vital to help parents to return to work? Does she also agree that information must be accurate, timely and bang up to the minute in order to be effective?
    Ms Hodge: I agree entirely that information is crucial, and I was delighted when I recently visited a site in a supermarket to discover that 200 hits a day were made by people matching their child care needs to child care places. We are funding local authorities generously to ensure that they can keep their information networks up to date. This year, that funding has increased by 150 per cent. We are considering the further assistance that we can provide to monitor and support partnerships and thus ensure that their information is up to date.

    Class Sizes
    Mrs. Jacqui Lait: If he will make a statement on the impact of the Government's class size pledge on (a) capital expenditure on school buildings and (b) the provision of teachers. [99354]
    The Minister for School Standards (Ms Estelle Morris): So far, our class size pledge has resulted in the allocation of capital funding of more than £122 million to build 1,700 extra infant classrooms and revenue funding of more than £100.5 million to recruit 4,600 extra infant teachers. In total, £620 million is available for additional classrooms and teachers to reduce infant class sizes.
    Mrs. Lait: I thank the Minister for that reply. Is she aware that a primary school in Beckenham has had to double its planned size because of the effect of the 30-pupil limit? Can she guarantee that the capital funding required for that school will be provided without affecting the capital funding required for other primary schools also to meet the 30 limit? Can she also guarantee that sufficient teachers will be available when that school comes on-stream in two years' time?
    Ms Morris: Yes, I am happy to give the hon. Lady those guarantees if that is the plan that has been approved and agreed between the Department and the local authority—I do not have it in front of me. We have always said that we shall provide both the capital and the revenue separate from other funding that goes to local authorities. That is yet another example of the Government putting money into raising standards for children, and I am pleased that the hon. Lady welcomes the doubling of places at what I assume is a popular school in her constituency.

Business of the House
12.31 pm
Sir George Young: May I ask the Leader of the House to give us the business for next week?
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 6 DECEMBER—Second Reading of the Government Resources and Accounts Bill.
TUESDAY 7 DECEMBER—Second Reading of the Freedom of Information Bill.
WEDNESDAY 8 DECEMBER—Until about 7 o'clock, there will be a debate entitled "Cuts in Tube Investment, Ways of Paying for more Tube Investment and the General Transport Budget", followed by a debate entitled "Coalition Discussions between the Government and the Liberal Democrat Party". Both debates will arise on Opposition motions.
Motion relating to the Postal Privilege (Suspension) Order.
THURSDAY 9 DECEMBER—Debate on the World Trade Organisation Millennium Round on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 10 DECEMBER—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the following week will be as follows:
MONDAY 13 DECEMBER—Until 7pm, debate on the Common Fisheries Policy on a Government motion, followed by a motion on the Christmas recess Adjournment debate.
TUESDAY 14 DECEMBER—Second Reading of the Prevention of Terrorism Bill.
WEDNESDAY 15 DECEMBER—Consideration in Committee of the Representation of the People Bill [1st Day].
THURSDAY 16 DECEMBER—Estimates Day [1st Allotted Day].
There will be a debate on aviation safety, followed by a debate on inward and outward investment in Scotland. Details will be given in the Official Report. At 7pm, the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates. That will be followed by proceedings on the Consolidated Fund Bill.
FRIDAY 17 DECEMBER—The House will not be sitting.
The House may also be asked to consider any Lords messages that may be received.
Sir George Young: The House is grateful for the next week's business and an indication of the business for the following week.
I welcome the announcement that the Representation of the People Bill is to be taken on the Floor of the House, in response to the matter being raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) last week, but remain concerned at the continued absence of a debate in Government time on economic matters. I raised that omission a fortnight ago and my hon. Friend raised it last week. He was told that the Government were
"looking anxiously for an outcome to those discussions."—[Official Report, 25 November 1999; Vol. 339, c. 757.]
432
Nothing has been said today to allay those anxieties, and we still have not had the normal two-day autumn defence debate. Does not the failure of the Government so far to find time for those debates on the economy and defence show that the role of the House in holding them to account is already being undermined by the large number of Bills that they have decided to introduce?
Yesterday, the Chancellor announced new joint action committees to link England with Scotland and Wales. The House has yet to have a proper debate on the concordats published in October. Can the right hon. Lady find time for a debate on those two important aspects of devolution?
Can the Leader of the House confirm that the next millennium bug statement will be oral? Does she plan to make a statement in the new year telling us how things went, assuming that we all make it back here?
Can the Leader of the House confirm that the Deputy Prime Minister will reply to the first debate on Wednesday, to deal with the mounting criticism of his performance? As for the second debate, on coalition, which is of interest to all three major parties, is it not clear that only one Minister knows what is going on? Can the right hon. Lady assure us that the Prime Minister will respond to that debate?
Mrs. Beckett: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for welcoming the news that the Committee stage of the Representation of the People Bill will be taken on the Floor of the House. As he said, the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) raised the matter last week, and the Government have agreed to the request.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me for a debate on economic matters in Government time. I am conscious that such a debate is outstanding, but the right hon. Gentleman will have observed that I have not announced all the business before we rise for the Christmas recess.
Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman, especially in view of his final remarks—although I recognise that he asked perfectly reasonably for a debate in Government time—that, if the Opposition are so anxious to discuss the economy, their wish to waste half a day discussing some mythical coalition suggests rather a strange order of priorities.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the defence debate. He knows, because I have said it before, that the Government have every intention of providing a proper two-day debate. He also knows not only that we have made it plain for some time that the defence White Paper has unfortunately been delayed, but that the White Paper must then go to the Select Committee on Defence, because that is part of the House's scrutinising role.
The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. The White Paper does not have to go to the Select Committee but, if he talks of the undermining of the House's role while simultaneously suggesting that we should forget the Select Committee, I can only say that it is not we who are undermining the role of the House in engaging in proper scrutiny. We will have those debates when we can present the White Paper, and when the Committee has had a chance to look at it.
I note the right hon. Gentleman's request for a debate on the concordats, although there have been a number of debates on devolution issues. I can confirm that I expect the next millennium bug statement to be oral, because it will be the last before the date change.

433
I am perfectly prepared to consider making a statement in the new year. I note what the right hon. Gentleman said about the possibility that not everyone would "make it back"; I could give him a small list of the people whom we could do without, but it might get longer as scrutiny of it continued.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me who would respond to the Opposition day debates. He will appreciate that we have only just received notice of the debates that the Opposition intend to schedule. I can only say that the appropriate Ministers, representing the relevant Departments, will take part. I fear that I cannot undertake to provide the Prime Minister for the second half of the Opposition day, as he has much better things to do with his time than to respond to a rather frivolous debate based on frivolous newspaper reports.
Mrs. Linda Gilroy: Does my right hon. Friend agree that some of the most distressing complaints brought to our constituency surgeries concern medical cases in which people feel that their health has been more damaged than helped by interventions on their behalf? Some such complaints were the subject of a Channel 4 news programme broadcast in July 1998, and our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health was quick to commission an independent review of the allegations that were made. I am pleased to say that the report resulting from that review is published today, and I hope that Derriford hospital in Plymouth will act equally swiftly on its recommendations.
A report by the Select Committee on Health also deals with such matters of concern. Would my right hon. Friend arrange an early debate, so that we can examine the way in which complaints are handled in the health service, and can ensure that they are dealt with as swiftly and seriously as we would all wish them to be?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is right to say that people's concerns about the impact and effect of medical intervention can be some of the most distressing cases that Members have to deal with. Obviously, people hope for a successful outcome in all their dealings with the health service and will be particularly disappointed and distressed if they feel that that is not the case. I am grateful to her for drawing to our attention the recent publication of the two reports. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for such a debate in the near future, but if, say, the Liaison Committee were to select the Health Committee report for debate, either in the Chamber, or in Westminster Hall, that would give an opportunity for those issues to be raised.
Mr. Paul Tyler: I warmly endorse the request from the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy) not only from a constituency point of view—my constituents also use the hospital to which she referred—but because much wider national issues are involved, as I am sure that the Leader of the House recognises.
Can we have a debate, if not before the Christmas recess, soon after, on the resources available to the House of Commons Library? Did she notice in Prime Minister's questions last week that, in answer both to the leader of the Conservative party at column 610 and to my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) at
434
column 612, when faced with facts that were made available by the House of Commons Library, the Prime Minister said that those facts were "simply wrong"?
In my experience and, I am sure, in that of the Leader of the House, the House of Commons Library provides an excellent service to all hon. Members. It is the first time, at least in recent history, that any Prime Minister has cast aspersions on the validity of such facts—at least since Baroness Thatcher, who used to take the view that she did not want to be confused with the facts. Will the Leader of the House arrange for an early debate on the way in which we are served by the House of Commons Library?
Mrs. Beckett: I thank the hon. Gentleman for recognising the worth of the observations of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy) and the degree to which there is common ground on the matter across the House.
Of course I noticed what the Prime Minister said. Naturally, I hang on his every word at Prime Minister's Question Time.
Sir Patrick Cormack: We all do.
Mrs. Beckett: As we all do. I entirely share, as I know the Prime Minister does, the view of the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) that the Library provides an excellent service. Equally, however, the hon. Gentleman will know that the Library would dissociate itself from having any responsibility for what statistics are sought and how they are used.
I cannot promise an early debate on resources for the Library, but the hon. Gentleman might ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) a question on the matter when House of Commons Commission questions come up next.
Mr. David Winnick: My right hon. Friend will know that, despite strenuous opposition from some Members in the past century, ways were found for Catholics, Jews and non-believers to take their seats without in any way undermining their religious, or non-religious, principles. Will she consider the possibility of a change of wording that would allow Sinn Fein MPs to take their seats? After all, they were elected in the same way as we were. If the peace process is to continue and, as we hope, to be consolidated, will that not be an encouraging sign of our own flexibility as a parliamentary democracy? Of course, we would need to work on the basis that there is a genuine wish on the part of the people to whom I have referred to take their seats.
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend raises an interesting and important point. He is right to say that the House has, historically, found ways to enable people to be at ease with their conscience and to operate properly as Members of Parliament. I am not entirely sure who the issue that he has raised would be a matter for, but I will draw it to the attention of my relevant right hon. and hon. Friends. However, I share his view that, before the matter could even be considered, there would have to be a genuine wish to operate properly as Members of Parliament and in the context of the development of peace.
Mr. Peter Brooke: Has the Leader of the House been struck

435
by the irony of the fact that, on Tuesday, we shall debate the Second Reading of the Freedom of Information Bill and, at 7 o'clock the following evening, we shall be talking about a matter so arcane that only two members of the Government could be informed about it?
Mrs. Beckett: It is important that we are to have a debate on the Freedom of Information Bill, which will, for the first time, give a statutory right of freedom to receive information. I take no responsibility for the other debate to which the right hon. Gentleman refers. It is the choice of his right hon. and hon. Friends.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I am grateful that the Leader of the House has found time for us to debate aviation safety, which is essential, particularly in the run-up to the millennium. Will she also find time to debate the role of Railtrack—a company at the centre of the railway system? A report issued today shows that changes in the management and the culture of the company are long overdue. It might be a good idea to look carefully at the role of a private company at the centre of one of our most essential services.
Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her welcome for the debate on aviation safety. I understand her interest in, and concern about, the role of Railtrack. The Transport Sub-Committee, which she chairs, has done a great deal of worthwhile work on those issues. I cannot undertake to find time in the near future for a special debate just on Railtrack, but she will know that the Transport Bill has been published and will offer opportunities for such concerns to be raised. I shall bear her further remarks in mind.
Sir Peter Emery: The right hon. Lady has had on her desk since she took office the fourth report of the Select Committee on Procedure about delegated legislation, which was published three years ago. As the present Procedure Committee is also considering the issue, would it not be helpful if the Government were to respond to the report, or at least arrange a debate on it, so that the current Committee can have the views of the House as it proceeds? We are debating modernisation. With more than 1,700 pieces of legislation going forward every year, often unconsidered by the House, it is an essential matter for debate.
Mrs. Beckett: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we have found time to debate a number of Procedure Committee reports of late. He says that at least we should have a debate on the report that he referred to, but as he was, if I recall correctly, one of the principal movers behind the establishment of the sittings in Westminster Hall, he is as aware as anybody of how tight time is for debates. I shall bear his remarks in mind, but, given that discussions are in train, I am not sure whether I fully accept his view that now, rather than when the discussions are further advanced, is the time for us to have a debate.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Given the welcome developments in Northern Ireland, what does my right hon. Friend see as the scope of Northern Ireland business in the House in future? We have the Northern
436
Ireland Grand Committee, the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs and Northern Ireland questions. Has she had any indication that the Ulster Unionists might be willing to take their seats on the British-Irish parliamentary body?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. There may be issues in the aftermath of developments in the peace process that the House will need to discuss, although I cannot anticipate what they will be. I have not had any indication of what changes are intended for the membership of the various bodies, perhaps because people have been more engaged in dealing with the aftermath of the re-establishment at Stormont. I shall draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, but I fear that I cannot give him the information that he seeks today.
Rev. Martin Smyth: The Leader of the House knows that there have been some unfounded concerns about aviation with the millennium coming on. Would it be possible to have a debate when we come back—if we cannot have it before then—on the open skies policy? The Government might be impeding some of our people from reducing transatlantic fares and allowing people to travel with more speed and freedom.
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman is entirely right, and I am grateful to him for saying that some of the stories that have appeared have been unfounded. I recognise his ingenuity in linking that to the open skies policy. However, I fear that, at this stage of the Session and with legislation to get under way, I see little prospect of finding time for a specific debate on the open skies policy, although I recognise its importance.
Mr. Andrew Love: Will my right hon. Friend make time available for an early debate on housing? The House will be aware of the developing housing and homelessness crisis in Greater London, where more than 38,000 people are now in temporary bed-and-breakfast accommodation and considerable numbers are sleeping rough on the streets. The problems and concerns in other parts of the country are more about declining estates and empty properties. The Conservative party has expressed collective nimbyism about the building of new homes in the south-east, where there is a great demand and need for affordable accommodation, and those issues should be aired. We are to have a Green Paper in the next few months, and Parliament should express some views before then.
Mrs. Beckett: I understand my hon. Friend's concerns about the continued aftermath of the difficulties and deficiencies in housing policy that we inherited from the Conservative party. He will know that the Government are seeking to turn that around. However, he will know also that the provision of sound housing takes time. Previous Governments of all political shades have sometimes regretted a great rush to throw up housing in the short term. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate on the issue in the near future, but my hon. Friend may like to bear in mind the opportunities that arise in Westminster Hall, and seek a debate in that forum.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Could the right hon. Lady induce the Deputy Prime Minister to put

437
right his dereliction of duty in not coming to the House to present a statement on the withdrawal of his proposal that Railtrack should assume responsibility for the modernisation of the sub-surface lines—the District, Circle and Metropolitan lines—of London Underground? Would it not be better—even at this late hour—if, in advance of Wednesday's debate on cuts in London Underground, he came to the House to provide the background for that debate, and to allay our suspicions that his decision had more to do with buying off the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) than with providing an effective strategy for the modernisation of the tube?
Mrs. Beckett: It is unusual for someone to want a statement even before a debate, and I fear that I cannot satisfy the hon. Gentleman in that regard. He talked about the withdrawal of a role for Railtrack. In fact, the Deputy Prime Minister has announced that Railtrack will not be charged with sole responsibility because it has been unable to confirm that it could do so on the basis of an integrated system. My right hon. Friend has made it plain that that was the basis of any possibility of Railtrack being given the sole role. That was announced in June. In consequence, I see no need for a statement to confirm what my right hon. Friend said was the framework of the negotiations then.
Dr. George Turner: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the extreme frustration of many of my constituents in Norfolk about the fact that they are having to watch Yorkshire and north English television regionally. Last week, the Minister responsible for broadcasting came to Norfolk. Although supportive of the need to address the problem, she had to relay the information that the next major legislation on broadcasting is not likely to be until the next Parliament. In those circumstances, and given the good will expressed by Ministers—and the fact that I must be one of 30 or 40 hon. Members with constituents in this position—is there any chance that the Government will be willing to give a fair wind and some time to a private Member's Bill specifically addressing this issue?
Mrs. Beckett: I have great sympathy with the concern that my hon. Friend expresses, and I know that it is a cause of great resentment in the areas the he and other hon. Members represent that that choice is denied. However, I am not sure that I share my hon. Friend's confidence that legislation would be the best way to tackle the problem, still less that the best solution would be a private Member's Bill. However, I have no doubt that my hon. Friend will exercise his persuasive powers on those hon. Members who won a place in the ballot for private Member's Bills. I wish him well with his efforts, but I cannot undertake to provide the support that he seeks.
Mr. Eric Forth: May we have a focused debate on the relationship between the Prime Minister, Mr. Prodi—the Prime Minister's friend and a man whom he admires—and the Prime Minister's crony, Lord Simon of Highbury, to explore the nature of the relationship between them, especially their views on Europe and its future, and the national veto in the European Union? The Prime Minister may agree with his crony and his friend, or he may not, but the issue is vital
438
for the future of this country and its relationship with the European Union. We need an urgent debate to get to the bottom of the problem and find out whether the Prime Minister is a good European or whether he has already—although I can hardly believe it—fallen out with his friend, Mr. Prodi, and taken a different view.
Mrs. Beckett: I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that we had a debate on Europe yesterday, so it seems strange for him to call for an urgent debate today on the same European matters. He will be mindful of the fact that no Labour Government have ever given up any element of the British veto, because that was done by the Conservative Government under Baroness Thatcher. The right hon. Gentleman should perhaps focus on the rethinking that seems to be happening in the Conservative party.
I find it offensive that a senior, distinguished and internationally recognised British businessman should be dismissed and sneered at in the way that the right hon. Gentleman did by describing him as "a crony" of the Prime Minister. Every time that the right hon. Gentleman and people like him make such remarks, people in the City wonder more and more about the direction of the Conservative party.
Mr. David Taylor: Could my right hon. Friend find Government time to debate the role, function and effectiveness of local health authorities? The Leicestershire health authority, in an acute hospital review in the county of Leicestershire, has concluded that the almost new Glenfield hospital—a lung cancer centre of county importance; a breast care centre of regional importance, with a unit recently opened by the previous Secretary of State for Health; and a cardiology unit of national importance—is imperilled by its downgrading in status to a planned care and rehabilitation unit, which is a concept not yet known in the United Kingdom. We need to review that issue, which is of great concern to 1 million people in the county of Leicestershire.
Mrs. Beckett: I am aware of the reputation of the Glenfield hospital, which I visited as shadow Secretary of State for Health. I understand the concerns that my hon. Friend expresses, although I am sure that he accepts that there has never been a proposal to change, reform or close a hospital anywhere in the United Kingdom that has not caused great anxiety and concern locally, because people are naturally and properly attached to their local hospitals. I am afraid that I cannot find time for a special debate on the matter in the near future, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health is in his place and will have noted my hon. Friend's remarks.
Mr. Adrian Sanders: May I add my voice to the calls from the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy) and my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) for a debate on the report published today, "Thoracic Surgery Services within the Plymouth Hospitals NHS Trust"? Several questions were not asked and several answers were not published in the report. It is imperative that there is public confidence in health services, and those questions and answers need to be heard in this House, which is the appropriate forum.
Mrs. Beckett: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, and it is clear that there is considerable interest across the

439
House in the issues that the report has raised, although, as it was published only today, it is too early to respond. However, the issue is a good example of one on which hon. Members with a common interest might get together to request a debate—perhaps in Westminster Hall—to air the issues of concern across the locality.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: The right hon. Lady will recall—probably with some horror—that she was kind enough to tell me last week that she could think of nothing that she would enjoy more than to take part in a debate on pensions policy. With Christmas coming along, may I urge her to indulge herself and arrange for such a debate next week, so that the House can discuss at some length issues such as the scrapping of the married couples allowance and of dividend tax credits, and the abolition of home income plans, of the widow's bereavement allowance and of medical insurance tax? We could also debate the £5 billion a year in increased taxation that has been imposed on pension funds. Would not the Leader of the House admit that her instincts were basically sound and that we should have a debate next week on all the many ways in which her Government have betrayed middle-class pensioners?
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman probably understood that, although I said how much I would enjoy taking part in such a debate, my role will prevent that. Although it remains my view that I would enjoy taking part in that debate—as I would then be able to wrap the record of the previous Conservative Government around the necks of the hon. Gentleman and of other Conservative Members—I fear that that is an indulgence that I must deny myself, even at Christmas.
Mr. Desmond Swayne: In Committee Room 9 this morning, we had the opportunity to debate the Government's change of policy with respect to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. The Government now require the institute to consider the affordability as well as the clinical effectiveness of procedures. Is that not such an important change in policy that the right hon. Lady should give the whole House the opportunity to indulge in debate on that matter?
Mrs. Beckett: I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman, who makes the mistake of assuming that what the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) said during Prime Minister's questions yesterday was accurate. However, I fear that his confidence is misplaced. The Government have not changed policy and the consultation document issued in July 1998 entitled "A First Class Service—Quality in the New NHS" stated that the institute would promote
"clinical and cost-effectiveness through guidance and audit, to support frontline staff."
There has therefore been no change in policy.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Is the Leader of the House aware of the disturbing incident in the Chamber on the night of 9 November, when my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) was allegedly threatened with physical violence by a junior Government Whip? I do not think it fair to name the Whip in question,
440
but the episode was seen by the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George), who I understand is willing to come forward as a witness.
Will the right hon. Lady find time for the Government Chief Whip to make a statement to the House about the investigations that have been undertaken into the formal complaint submitted by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot? Although a long time has passed since that deplorable incident, the Chief Whip has not seen fit either to acknowledge that it took place, or to reply to my hon. Friend.
Mrs. Beckett: I am afraid that hon. Gentleman merely confirms that my ear for gossip is much worse that I feared, as I was not aware of any such incident. Although Chief Whips do not make statements to the House, I shall draw his remarks to my right hon. Friend's attention. It is always regrettable when relationships between hon. Members deteriorate. However, may I gently suggest to the hon. Gentleman that I am not sure that those relationships are improved by raising such matters on the Floor of the House.
Mr. Graham Brady: In her reply to my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), the Leader of the House highlighted the confusion in the minds of both the Government and the public over whether cost-effectiveness will be taken into account in deciding whether people can have certain treatments or drugs. Is it not in the public interest that there be a statement—or better still a full debate—on the matter? Did not what the Prime Minister said yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) about the cost-effectiveness of drugs amount to an admission that drugs will be rationed and that some people will get them if there is money available, and that others, regardless of their clinical need, will not?
Mrs. Beckett: It is an interesting phenomenon in politics, of which this is a classic example, that sometimes someone says something and someone else hears something completely different. I am at a loss to understand how the hon. Gentleman can read confusion in the Government into my identification of the fact that what was said in a document published in July 1998 is exactly what the Prime Minister said yesterday. If there is confusion, it is not on our side.
Mr. Michael Fabricant: Is the right hon. Lady aware that the Italian chairman of the Federation of European Master Butchers has said that, because of consumer resistance to British beef, British farmers are singularly disadvantaged, as their beef has to be identified in Europe as being British? He said that he is perfectly happy to stock British beef, but knows that, as long as it is, uniquely, labelled as British, he will not because he and other members of the federation know jolly well that no one in Europe will buy it. Can we have an urgent debate on that and ensure either that all countries have to label their beef as French, German, Italian or whatever, or that the ridiculous ban on British beef being exported to Europe without being labelled as British is withdrawn?
Mrs. Beckett: I realise that it is a gross dereliction of duty, but I was not aware of the views of the Italian

441
chairman of that federation. I know that that is a disgraceful confession, but I must be honest with the House. If he is speaking as an advocate of British beef, that is good. I know that Italy has been a good market for British beef and we hope that it will be again. I understand that the hon. Gentleman and his party are seeking what relics of advantage they can from the aftermath of the BSE crisis. However, in the long term, it would be to the advantage of British agriculture if the labelling of beef as British came to be seen as a mark of quality. Conservative Members should think more carefully about where our long-term interest lies before continuing to assert that such labelling will cause people not to buy British beef.
Mr. John Bercow: Will the Leader of the House reconsider her complacent replies to my hon. Friends the Members for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) and for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) and agree to a full day's debate in Government time next week on the role of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence and the policy on drug prescribing? Is she aware that the Department of Health previously assured Dr. John Chisholm of the British Medical Association that no one would be denied the investigations, drugs or treatments that he or she needed? Is she further aware that the Prime Minister's response to my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) at Prime Minister's Question Time yesterday was markedly different from that earlier pledge? Will she accept from me, in my characteristically non-partisan spirit, that my constituent who suffers from relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis, Caroline Cripps of Westcott in the south of my patch, requires those matters to be urgently addressed? Can we have a full debate on the Floor to thrash them out once and for all without delay?
Mrs. Beckett: I would normally be surprised at the hon. Gentleman returning to a subject on which his hon. Friends have comprehensively lost since I pointed out that what is being said now is what was said and published in 1998. However, I understand that he wished to refer to the case of his constituent, and I recognise his interest and concern in doing so. He knows that NICE is urgently considering MS treatment. Not only is what was said in the past few days about the institute to be found in the consultation document in July, but the White Paper published in December 1997 said:
"Efficiency and quality should go hand in hand … Patients suffer if resources are not used efficiently or to best effect."
442
It has long been clear that the Government, too, recognise the importance of cost-effectiveness.
Mr. James Gray: Yesterday, the Government published the massive Transport Bill, with some 231 clauses and 26 schedules. Will the Leader of the House confirm that despite the pre-legislative scrutiny that one part of it recently underwent, full parliamentary scrutiny will be given to the Bill as a whole? As a mark of her earnest, will she confirm that there will be a two-day debate on Second Reading before Christmas, with perhaps one day on road and rail and the second on the vital matter of the privatisation of National Air Traffic Services?
Mrs. Beckett: No, I cannot confirm any such thing. As the hon. Gentleman says, the Bill has been published only recently; it will be debated in the House in the proper way, and will receive full and proper scrutiny. It is no good for the hon. Gentleman to say dismissively, "despite the pre-legislative scrutiny". Yes, the Bill did receive pre-legislative scrutiny of one of its most important parts. The Bill will be properly dealt with in accordance with the normal conventions of the House.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Would the right hon. Lady be kind enough to amplify the answer that she gave to her hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) about the oath and affirmation that members have to take before assuming their seats in the House? Does she accept that the requirement to take the oath, or to affirm, cannot be altered save by legislation? Will she confirm that, although the House has very properly addressed the matter of Members and their consciences in the past, it has never sought to suspend the requirement for a Member to proclaim and acknowledge the sovereignty of the Queen as monarch?
Mrs. Beckett: I cannot amplify my remarks; the hon. Gentleman raises several important issues relating to conclusions that the House came to, presumably many decades ago, as to how we handle such matters. I can only repeat what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick); the issue is important and I shall make inquiries into it. However, I am sorry that I cannot—on the hoof, so to speak—answer the question today.

Points of Order
Mr. Desmond Swayne: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Official Report for Monday contains a list of the members of the Government. The hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig) was omitted from that list. Is there any way that you, Madam Speaker, can confirm for the benefit of hon. Members whether the hon. Member for Islwyn is a member of the Government? Is this something that we should be told?
Madam Speaker: I think perhaps that it was a clear printers' error. However, I am sure that the hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig) will be grateful for the oxygen of publicity that he has just received from the Conservative Benches acknowledging his appointment as a new Whip.
Mr. Oliver Heald: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. When the Leader of the House discovers that there was a Committee sitting this morning in Room 9 that amended the terms and provisions of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence so that, henceforth, it will have to take account of available resources as defined by the Treasury, will she be able to correct the record of the remarks that she has just made suggesting that the Government have been consistent throughout? Will she be able to change the Official Report—to have it amended—or will she have to come to the House to make a statement because she was wrong?
Madam Speaker: I have no comment to make on the political exchanges that take place in the House. I have no responsibility for the comments made either by Ministers or by Back Benchers. However, I note that the hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber while the Leader of the House was answering business questions. I should certainly have been willing to call him so that he could have put the question to her at that time and given her an opportunity to answer for herself. I am sure that that would have been the correct way to proceed.

Points of Order
  BILL PRESENTED
    TERRORISM
    Mr. Secretary Straw, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Prescott, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Cook, Mr. Secretary Reid, Mr. Secretary Murphy, Mr. Secretary Mandelson, Mr. Charles Clarke and Mr. Adam Ingram, presented a Bill to make provision about terrorism; and to make temporary provision for Northern Ireland about the prosecution and punishment of certain offences, the preservation of peace and the maintenance of order: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed [Bill 10].

Long-term Care
[Relevant documents: With Respect to Old Age: A Report by the Royal Commission on Long-Term Care (Cm. 4192-I); Modernising Social Services (Cm. 4169); Long-Term Care: The Government's Response to the Health Committee's Report on Long-Term Care (Cm. 4414).]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Clelland]
1.14 pm
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): First, I apologise to the House for the fact that I shall not be here for the winding-up speeches due to a prior engagement. I have informed you, Madam Speaker, and the spokesmen of both the main Opposition parties.
We live in an ageing society. For too long, old age has been seen as a problem. People talk of the burden of an ageing population; some even say that changes in the ratio of working to retired households in our country are unsustainable. That is not the view of the Government. A growing elderly population is a success, not a failure; it should be celebrated, not denigrated. Older people are valuable in our society, not a burden on it. That is why we have taken action throughout Government to improve the health, well-being and security of older people: restoring free eye tests, introducing winter fuel payments, cutting VAT on fuel, the introduction of the minimum income guarantee for poorer pensioners, free TV licences for older pensioners—all of that a recognition of the importance of older people to our society.
Underlying each of these approaches is a recognition that, far from there being a demographic time bomb that will overwhelm society as we have known it, the rate of growth in the numbers of older people in the next 50 years will be about half that of the last 50 years. It is true, however, that there will be more very old people, aged 85 years or more, during the next few decades. That, too, is something to be celebrated, but it means that the way that we care for people in old age must change.
Today's debate gives the House the opportunity to consider these issues in what I hope will be a calm and considered fashion. The future of long-term care is an issue that concerns each of our constituents in each of our communities. Long-term care is not just about caring for older people. It is about younger, disabled people too. The need for changes to the system of long-term care is therefore not just the product of demographic change. Change is needed for other reasons. For too long, standards of care have been too variable. Standards of care have been a matter of local discretion. About 150 local authorities and about 100 health authorities regulate care homes, often to very differing standards. Some services, such as home-based care, are not currently regulated. The regulation system has not been properly independent.
There are very real concerns about the funding of long-term care. Although only one in five old people need long-term care, as they approach old age many more become anxious about how well they will be looked after, who will look after them, how much it will cost and who will pay. The current system has failed to be explicit about these issues, not least because it has developed in such an ad hoc way in recent decades. Under the previous Government alone, there were six major changes to the benefits and rules governing long-term care.

445
The current system of care is confused and confusing. It provides too many incentives to care for old people in care homes and too few incentives to care for them in their own homes. Arguably, the current system is premised upon the idea that older people do not want what most of the rest of us want—the chance to live a fulfilling life in as independent a way as possible. All the evidence suggests that, all things being equal, older people want to remain as independent as possible for as long as possible.
It is right, therefore, that we re-examine all the issues to do with long-term care in the round. In our election manifesto, we said that we would set up a royal commission to examine the funding issues. In December 1997, we established a royal commission chaired by Sir Stewart Sutherland. The commission took oral evidence, conducted public hearings and received more than 2,000 written submissions. We published its report in March 1999, and I want to place on the record my thanks to the royal commission for all its work.
When the report was published, my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) said that he hoped that it would stimulate debate to help find a way of ensuring that people could have access to high quality long-term care that was fair for individuals and the taxpayer. Indeed, the royal commission explicitly called for such a debate. Today the House has an opportunity to take part in that debate.
In the past, there have been too many short-term solutions for long-term care. What is needed instead is a properly considered solution that should be capable of standing the test of time. Today's generation of older people, and the generations to follow, deserve no less.
As the royal commission said, there is no obvious answer. That was reflected in its conclusions; it published a majority and a minority report. Since March, there has been an active debate on the commission's approach and its 23 recommendations. A wide range of ideas and views has been expressed. My Department has received more than 800 responses to the commission's recommendations.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: It is very interesting that the Department has received 800 responses as a result of Sir Stewart Sutherland's excellent piece of work. Does the Minister know off-hand how many that he received were in favour of the minority recommendation of the royal commission?
Mr. Milburn: I do not know the answer. I know from my discussions with Sir Stewart that he, too, has been receiving a fairly weighty postbag. I guess that many right hon. and hon. Members have as well. We need to consider extremely carefully the range of views that have been put forward by a full range of organisations and individuals. We need also to consider the royal commission's recommendations.
Miss Julie Kirkbride: Can the Secretary of State tell us how many of the responses that he has received support the recommendations set out in the majority report? Perhaps he could give us a guide rather than an absolute number. Is it 50, 60 or 70 per cent. Can the right hon. Gentleman give us an idea or a clue?
Mr. Milburn: It is so tempting to guess from the Dispatch Box. On balance, however, that is a temptation
446
that I shall probably avoid. [Interruption.] I know that Liberal Democrats often guess about policy issues but it is probably wiser that the Government continue to take a considered view of these issues.
Since March, the Government have been taking action to improve long-term care. We are improving services by allocating £140 million over three years to help fund respite care as part of our new national carers strategy. We are providing local authorities with special grants totalling almost £300 million this year to encourage them to help older people return to independent living and prevent their unnecessary admission to institutional care. We are extending direct payments to people aged 65 and over as well as to the parent carers of disabled children.
Our approach recognises that any system for funding long-term care must be part of a wider policy of support for older people. Over the next year we shall extend this programme of support for older people still further. For too long older people have found the care system a bewildering maze full of differing rules and confusing criteria for access to services. There has been a lottery in long-term care just as there has been one for health care. The Government are determined to tackle both.
Rev. Martin Smyth: Has an assessment been made of the pressure upon both the independent and voluntary systems at this stage when we are emphasising community care? So many statutory homes throughout the country have been closed and people are puzzled about what the future holds for them.
Mr. Milburn: I understand the concerns of the residential care sector. I shall be coming to that. However, I do not accept that there is a wholesale crisis in that industry. The hon. Gentleman should remember that over the course of this year, next year and the following year, social services budgets are being increased by more than 3 per cent. in real terms, with an extra £3 billion going to them.
Miss Kirkbride: Not in Worcestershire.
Mr. Milburn: The hon. Lady says that she wants more for Worcestershire. She should have a word with the Conservative Treasury spokesmen. They are always telling us that our spending plans are reckless, madness and irresponsible. The Conservatives, Back Benchers and Front Benchers, cannot have their cake and eat it on these spending issues.
We will be taking four important steps to ensure greater fairness and transparency in the care system. First, today we are honouring another manifesto commitment by publishing a new charter for long-term care. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) scoffs. I think that it is an important idea to honour manifesto commitments. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree? "Better Care, Higher Standards" will for the first time give people who need long-term care the information that they need to know what they can expect from their local health and housing authorities as well as social services.
The charter will require local health, housing and social care agencies to implement local charters by June 2000. In that way everybody will know what to expect,

447
how they will be treated and where to go to get effective help and advice. Annual public satisfaction surveys of services covered by the charter will be published.
As we know from our postbags and surgeries, many people going into long-term care, and their relatives, are naturally anxious and worried about their future. I hope that the new approach to setting standards will ease some of these worries and ensure that people receive a higher quality service at this crucial time in their lives.
Mr. Edward Leigh: It is all very well talking about charters, but the Prime Minister spoke about these issues in the most inflammatory terms during the general election. He said that we, the Conservatives, were
"forcing pensioners to sell their homes"
and that pensioners deserved better than that. There is a royal commission report, and the Secretary of State passed over it in about four minutes. It was allowed to gather dust for six months. Is it true that the report will never get out of the long grass because its recommendations will be too expensive?
Mr. Milburn: I would be extremely cautious if I were the hon. Gentleman. As I remember it, he served as a Minister in the previous Government. They established a royal commission on criminal justice. It was set up in June 1991 and the final Government response was made in June 1996—five years later. If the hon. Gentleman will wait a moment or two, I shall set out very clearly the timetable for our response. It will be far shorter than the previous Government managed with their royal commission.
Mr. Paul Burstow: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the announcement he has just made about a long-term care charter is about providing guidance to local authorities to draw up their own local charters? Will he confirm that that was a policy of the previous Government, when they required local authorities to produce community care charters? Is his announcement not just a relabelling and recycling of old policies?
Mr. Milburn: No, that is not true. We want to ensure that there are clear national standards in all areas—in the national health service and in social services, too. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, last week, the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), published new information about the performance of individual social services authorities. I take a fairly fundamentalist view on this issue. I believe that the people who pay for and receive such services have the right to know how well they operate or, in some cases, how poorly they operate. We shall continue the drive to make such information available, not just locally but nationally.
Mr. Frank Field: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Milburn: Yes, but I will get on to my second point.
Mr. Field: If we publish information about how well local authorities do, is it not important that it is accurate
448
and up to date? Is it not true that the information recently published on Wirral social services was grossly inaccurate on the improvements that Wirral has made not only during the period of the inspection, but, much more importantly, since the inspection?
Mr. Milburn: I am reliably informed by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Health that the Wirral local authority not only provided the information that was published, but that it was invited to comment on the draft publication. My right hon. Friend's point is not quite accurate.
Mr. Field: Wirral made comments, but damn all effect they had.
Mr. Milburn: We shall look into that issue, but I am now determined to move on to my important second point; it is only the second out of four.
Secondly, early in the new year, we shall consult on new guidance to give everyone fairer access to social services. We want to iron out the unacceptable variations that exist at present and to create a fair set of rules and procedures that everyone can follow and understand. The aim will be to achieve greater consistency between local authorities in the way that they apply eligibility criteria for accessing all adult social services, including long-term residential care. Importantly, the guidance will stress the need to align social services criteria with NHS continuing health care criteria. It will also stress the need to agree eligibility criteria with housing agencies to ensure a properly co-ordinated response to people's needs.
Thirdly, we also want the care provided to older people by the health service to be of a higher standard in future. Older people are entitled to be treated with dignity and respect wherever they use the NHS. They are entitled to have fair access to health care; age discrimination has no place in the modern national health service that we seek to establish. That is why next year we shall publish a new national service framework for older people. For the first time, we shall lay down clear national standards, defining the treatment and care that older people can expect in all settings—whether in hospital, general practitioners' surgeries or from social services—as they move from hospital into care or back home.
The national service framework will be ready next year for implementation by April 2001. In the meantime, we are making good progress in eliminating mixed-sex accommodation in the NHS, which many old people feel—I agree with them—threatens their dignity and self-respect.
Fourthly—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) is having difficulty counting, but this is my fourth point. Fourthly, we want to ensure higher quality in all aspects of care. We are currently consulting on draft national minimum standards for residential and nursing homes. Final standards will be published next year. The quality of care provided in people's own homes, however, is not currently regulated at all, so in the new year we shall launch a consultation exercise on possible new standards in that area.
The setting and enforcement of standards of home care providers will be central to our drive for higher quality social care services. Other elements will include the first

449
ever quality strategy for social care, together with improvements in the training, qualifications and regulation of the social care work force, far too many of whom remain unqualified.
Mr. Brian Cotter rose—
Mr. Oliver Letwin rose—
Mr. Milburn: I want to make a little progress. I have given way many times, and I know that many hon. Members want to speak.
Together, those four steps will help to deliver a fairer and better integrated system of care for older and disabled people. They will improve user and carer choice, as well as the consistency and quality of the long-term care system. All those initiatives were either called for by the royal commission, or go significantly beyond its recommendations. In total, we are already actioning 11 of the royal commission's 23 recommendations, so we are making good progress.
Mr. Letwin rose—
Mr. Milburn: I shall give way, and then I shall turn to funding issues.
Mr. Letwin: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I rise on a genuine point of information. Has he just said that he will establish a new police force to oversee how people are, in their own homes, looking after elderly people?
Mr. Milburn: No. The hon. Gentleman should try to put aside his ideological convictions and think about the type and quality of care that people receive. We are contemplating, for the first time, means of ensuring that standards among home care providers are as high as possible. That sector has never been regulated, and as a consequence, as we are all too aware—or should be aware—from our constituency experience, standards have not always been as high as they should be, and in some cases abuse has taken place. We are determined to avoid that.
Mr. Cotter rose—
Mrs. Joan Humble rose—
Mr. Milburn: I shall give way once more and then I must crack on.
Mrs. Humble: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that the many frail, elderly people who are cared for in their own homes by a single carer are more at risk and more vulnerable than elderly people being cared for in a residential setting, where they are surrounded by many more people and have regular visitors? That is one reason why it is vital to consider regulating home care.
Mr. Milburn: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support. I know that she comes from an active background in social services and that she understands the issues.
450
Social services authorities are all too aware of some of the problems that occur precisely when the system of domiciliary care services is improperly regulated.
Many of the royal commission's suggestions for changes to the funding system for long-term care have substantial cost implications, both now and for the future. Those costs range from over £1 billion a year to over £6 billion a year. As a Government, we are committed to a prudent, disciplined approach to public spending, so we have already set out our spending plans for the three years to March 2002.
Looking to the future, the 2000 spending review will agree new spending plans for a further two years. We intend to complete the review by next summer. It will aim to find out how best our spending programmes can contribute to achieving the Government's overall objectives. In particular, we want to create a fair, inclusive society where communities are secure and healthy. Improving the care of older people will be an important element of the Department of Health's input into the spending review. The review will consider long-term care funding, alongside changes to improve the quality and delivery of care. Our proposals on financing long-term care will be completed next summer when funding decisions will be announced. We aim to publish a White Paper around that time.
We shall base any future reforms in this area on three key principles: choice, fairness and quality. Similarly, just as elsewhere in our welfare reform programme, our policy will be that people should provide for themselves where they are able to do so. In particular, people prefer and should have the opportunity to remain at home for as long as possible. There will, of course, be situations where a person needs to be admitted to a residential care or a nursing home, and that choice should be available, but any reforms to the system of long-term care must reflect and reinforce the crucial policy objective of encouraging independence through choice.
We know that we need to find a fairer way of funding long-term care for the future. There are around 375,000 older people in residential care and nursing homes in England. The taxpayer already helps to fund the care costs of about three quarters of them, fully or in part. Of those people in residential care and nursing homes, about 100,000 with assets over the present capital limit of £16,000 fund their own care. We established the royal commission because of widespread criticisms of the current arrangements.
The means test for residential care is hard on those with only modest amounts of capital, usually their family home, and lower retirement incomes. It also leads to a widespread fear that people will be forced to sell their homes in order to fund their long-term care requirements. There can be pressure for the immediate sale of the home when people enter care. Sometimes, of course, selling an empty house makes sense, but premature sale can rule out the possibility of people returning home after some support and rehabilitation. Many older people are anxious about a decision to sell, and the move into care can itself be extremely stressful.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Does he agree that long-term care requires long-term solutions? Is he aware that the average worker, over a 40-year

451
working life, pays more than £100,000 in national insurance? Would it not be better to move towards a system whereby a properly funded pension was built up, which could be put towards the funding of proper long-term care?
Mr. Milburn: As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, we must consider these highly complex issues. They are issues not just for the Department of Health. They cut across the entire Government—the Department of Social Security, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the Treasury and other Departments are all involved in the discussions. It is extremely unlikely that there is one simple big-bang solution, but it is important that we understand the nature of the problem in order that we can begin to posit where we could move in the future.
Mr. Burstow rose—
Mr. Milburn: No, I will not give way. I have already taken too much time and I must move on.
There are insufficient incentives for authorities to rehabilitate and support people in their own homes. The charges that people pay for care at home vary too much between different parts of the country. Private financial products for long-term care, as they are currently structured, do not deliver attractive options for most people who have to pay for their own care. Finally, the system as a whole needs better ways of assuring and improving the quality of care.
Mr. John MacGregor: The Secretary of State said that one of his principles was fairness. As he develops his proposals, will he bear in mind that what many people regard as one of the most unfair elements of the present system is having to sell the family home, particularly a modest family home, in order to qualify for state assistance, whereas others who have not struggled to build up a home of their own are in a better position?
Mr. Milburn: I understand that. I understand both the unfairness and the very real fear that that causes among people who are growing old, their relatives and carers.
Mr. Burstow rose—
Mr. Milburn: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman because he is so persistent, but that will be the last time.
Mr. Burstow: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for recognising my persistence. Will he ensure that when he returns to the House after the review, he can justify the present situation in which a dementia sufferer must pay for nursing care? How can that be fair? Will it be addressed in the review?
Mr. Milburn: I shall come on to these important issues in a moment. They were raised explicitly by the royal commission and in the commission's consultation, and I am sure that they are reflected in the postbag that the Department of Health has received since the royal commission produced its report.
452
It is now time to explore practical ways of addressing these fundamental failings in the current long-term care system, and I shall set out for the House how we intend to do just that.
Many of the possible changes to the funding system raise complex practical issues. As part of the 2000 spending review process, we shall be exploring some of those issues and the commission's recommendations in detail. The royal commission raised six issues in both the minority and majority reports which we are examining in particular detail.
First, the royal commission recommended that consideration should be given to providing nursing care free, whether delivered in the NHS or in private nursing homes. Even within the royal commission, there were different approaches to the definition of nursing care. We will be working with interested parties to see if the definitional problems can be overcome. Come what may, we will need to weigh that option against other priorities for funding long-term care.
Secondly, we intend to explore with the financial services industry how it could best design long-term care insurance products and other financial products to see if they could be made attractive to a wider audience.
Thirdly, we are exploring the costs and effects of possible changes to the residential charging rules. Those include the treatment of houses where a former carer continues to live. They also include measures to ensure that local authorities use their powers to avoid an immediate sale by helping with care home fees while taking a charge over the person's home.
Fourthly, we are considering the implications of changes to two social security benefit payments. As we said in the social services White Paper, we are considering transferring to local authorities the funds for the income support residential allowance, which is currently paid only to people living in independent residential care homes. We are also considering transferring to local authorities the funding and care management responsibility for people who entered care homes before the 1993 community care changes and who have preserved rights to income support towards their care costs.
Fifthly, we are reviewing policy and guidance on continuing health care with a view to improving consistency and equity of access to services.
Sixthly, we shall consider the implications of a forthcoming report by the Audit Commission on charges for care at home, as we look at ways of reducing the scale of variations in local authority domiciliary care charging policies.
Where appropriate we intend to publish short consultation papers on those issues. The lead Government Department in each case will involve key organisations, including users and carers as well as independent sector care providers. That detailed work will help to inform the Government's final decision on the future funding of long-term care following the conclusion of the next spending review.
As well as preparing for that detailed work on funding issues, we have been considering the royal commission's other central recommendation for a national care commission. Devolution means, as the royal commission recognised, that the remit of any such organisation is likely to be confined to a single country. However, we

453
believe that many of the functions proposed for a care commission are just as usefully done for England as for the United Kingdom as a whole.
The four main roles suggested for the care commission were monitoring, representing the consumer, providing national benchmarks and encouraging the development of better services. Those are all important. Each is already being carried out, at least in part, by existing organisations, including my Department, ombudsmen for the NHS and local government, and professional training and regulatory bodies. We also believe that there is merit in bringing together many of the individual functions suggested for the care commission through a single organisation covering England. The key test is that any such body should have a coherent role which will improve matters for everyone who needs long-term care.
Our social services White Paper published last November proposed the establishment of eight regional commissions for care standards to enforce new minimum standards for residential as well as domiciliary services. In the light of the royal commission's report I have looked again at whether eight regional bodies would give us the national overview and consistency that we seek. I have concluded that they would not. I can therefore announce today that we have decided broadly to accept the royal commission's recommendation in this area. Our Bill on care standards will establish a single national care standards commission. The measure, which sets out its broad functions, will be introduced in another place today. The commission will take up the four main roles that the royal commission proposed and will, therefore, be established in the way in which the royal commission suggested. I hope that the Bill will complete its parliamentary stages next summer.
The national care standards commission will be responsible for ensuring that all long-term social care in this country is provided at a consistently high standard. For the first time, there will be a single, independent, national watchdog, which will be responsible for ensuring high standards of care wherever it is provided and whoever provides it. The new regulatory regime will be simpler and more streamlined than previous regimes, and, crucially, there will be a level playing field for public and private sector providers.
The new commission will be uniquely well placed to advise and inform Government and consumers. It will build on its regulatory function by monitoring and reporting on trends in the provision of long-term care. We also intend that the commission will be able to put together the information with demographic and resource data, and thus advise Government, as required, on trends in the long-term care market.
The commission will have the power to investigate complaints and to report on them. It will also be able to ensure that consumers have clear and accurate information on services. Building on its regulatory role, it will be able to take a view on quality standards nationally, as well as reporting publicly on each of its inspections. The standards that it enforces will include output measures, and it will have to reflect the views of local service users on the service.
The commission will report every year on service performance against standards, and it will give providers advice on meeting the national standards. It will also be able to run helplines to guide people to registered providers.
454
Overall, the national care standards commission will be a powerful new body, which, I believe, will make a major contribution to driving up standards of care and to giving people the necessary information to make choices about their long-term care needs. I hope that it will be up and running by spring 2002.
The Government are committed to improving long-term care for older people and for disabled people. The changes that we are already implementing, and the further changes that I have outlined today, seek to promote choice, improve quality and provide fairness for people who need long-term care.
The royal commission has played its part, and I thank it for its work. My speech today, by outlining work in progress and broadly accepting one of the royal commission's two main recommendations, shows that we are tackling seriously and constructively the issues that it raised. My announcement today is not our last word on long-term care, but it shows our determination to take the necessary steps to put long-term care on a sounder and more sustainable footing.
1.48 pm
Mr. Philip Hammond: The Secretary of State has created a smokescreen of minimalist announcements and reheated old announcements in his attempt to distract attention from the Government's simple failure to address the royal commission report's principal recommendation. There is much worthy exploring and investigating, but nothing of substance. I hope that the Secretary of State appreciates the disappointment that his words will cause those up and down the country who have waited with bated breath for some sign of a Government response to the royal commission report, which has been in the Government's hands for nearly nine months.
Mr. Kirkwood: The hon. Gentleman puzzles me. I have a brief from the Conservative parliamentary resources unit—
Dr. Julian Lewis: I hope the hon. Gentleman paid for it.
Mr. Kirkwood: I shall happily pay for it—it is a very useful document. It contains a revealing sentence:
"Over the next few months, the party will develop new areas of policy which will be ready well before the next general election."
Is the hon. Gentleman criticising the Government for that?
Mr. Hammond: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is reading Conservative research department briefs—perhaps he seeks a position in the shadow Cabinet. However, his idea of opposition may be different from mine. We shall develop our policies and put them before the electorate at the next general election. They will be based on our response to Government policies that are outlined at that time. It is no part of our responsibility to develop policies and feed them to the Government to steal from us—just as the hon. Gentleman has acquired that brief by means that we know not.
It is a delicious irony that the Secretary of State, who has come to the House today to defend the Government's inaction in response to the principal recommendations of the royal commission report,

455
may be the Treasury Minister who ensured that those recommendations were rejected in the first place. Before the general election, Labour apparently identified long-term care as an area for urgent action. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that it identified that as an area to be exploited in the pursuit of votes. In a press release dated 10 March 1997, the then shadow Secretary of State for Health said:
"We will establish a royal commission which will lead a national debate on a comprehensive review of the care system. Changes cannot be made piecemeal."
I hope that the Secretary of State will bear that in mind as the Government embark, as he has said, on an exercise to cherry-pick the report and dribble out a series of piecemeal changes, as he has admitted they are doing.
Dr. Nick Palmer: The hon. Gentleman has said that the Government have rejected the main recommendations of the report. There are two main recommendations, one of which they have accepted. They have promised a response on the other within months, so how does he explain his assertion?
Mr. Hammond: Well tripped. When I referred to the principal recommendations of the report, I meant the one concerning funding. As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is the key issue being debated in the country and it is of key concern to the 400 organisations that submitted evidence to the royal commission. We must address ourselves to that issue first and foremost.
In a press release dated 25 April 1996, the—now—Secretary of State himself said:
"Labour would end the geographical lottery in community care by setting national eligibility criteria for NHS continuing care".
To date, the Department of Health's contribution to fulfilling that pledge has consisted of intervening with taxpayers' money in the Coughlan case to overturn the court decision and re-establish the legal basis for precisely that
"geographical lottery in community care".
Most laughably of all, in a press release dated 10 March 1997 the current Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport told the world that by focusing
"on quality rather than throughput in the NHS we will remove the perverse incentives for hospitals to discharge patients too early".
In office, the Government have sacrificed quality of care and practically everything else on the altar of throughput in an attempt to meet the Prime Minister's waiting list pledge. Far from ending premature discharging, the system of cash bonuses and penalties that they have introduced has encouraged health authorities and trusts to discharge patients early.
Immediately after the general election—in fact, on the first day of the new Parliament—the right hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), then an Under-Secretary at the Department of Health, gave some pointers to the Government's thinking:
"We recognize … the importance that people attach—particularly in their later years—to the home in which they have lived all their lives and which, if they are home owners, they hope to pass on".
456
He identified at that stage that avoidance of enforced home disposals was a key issue. In the same debate, he said:
"The previous Government … began a process of consultation on insurance provision as a response to the crisis in long-term care … We will not go down that road."
He was ruling out in advance any consideration by the royal commission of an insurance-based solution—a policy that contradicts the later Green Paper on welfare reform—which does not seem to have done his career any harm. However, I was interested to hear the Secretary of State apparently ruling insurance-based solutions back into the equation.
The then Under-Secretary went on:
"For us, consensus on how we provide for our senior citizens … is a critical issue that we do not intend to shirk."—[Official Report, 14 May 1997; Vol. 294, c. 156-58]
Whether he intended it or not, the Government have given a pretty good imitation of shirking. After the setting up of the royal commission in December 1997 and its reporting in slightly more than 12 months, as it was asked to do, nine months have passed during which the listening audience of 10 million pensioners could have heard a pin drop.
Mr. Desmond Browne: Will the hon. Gentleman remind the House of how long it took the then Tory Government to respond to the Audit Commission's 1984 report? Was it not an Act of Parliament of 1990, which then took three years to implement, that represented that response?
Mr. Hammond: What I will remind the hon. Gentleman of is the fact that, at the last general election, the Conservative party presented a specific proposal for starting to deal with problems in long-term care. The then Opposition rubbished that proposal, and promised the public an urgent alternative solution. Here we are, two and a half years later, with 100,000 more homes forcibly sold to pay for long-term care; and what has the Secretary of State told us today? He has told us that we shall have to wait another year for the Government's solution.
The former Secretary of State, who presented the royal commission's report to Parliament, indicated that he agreed about the need for an informed debate on the recommendations. Given that he told us in the same statement that the commission had taken evidence from 400 organisations and received more than 2,000 written submissions, had made more than 100 visits and had met 1,000 individuals—all of which had informed its recommendations—I think we are entitled to ask what further debate will achieve, other than providing the Government with a fig leaf enabling them to reach conclusions that are diametrically opposed to those of the commission.
More experienced hands than me, both inside and outside Parliament, instantly recognised in the call for informed debate Whitehall-speak for "Drive it into the long grass, and hope that it gets lost." Ministerial answers to oral and written questions since then have confirmed that view. Typical was a question posed on 6 July by the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), who humbly inquired when the Secretary of State expected to have concluded the debate. And the answer he received?
"We expect that debate … to be an on-going one".—[Official Report, 6 July 1999; Vol. 334, c. 499W.]

457
In other words, "Never".
Even more enigmatic was the Prime Minister's reply to a similar question asked by me on 26 July. He told me:
"We are considering the Royal Commission's proposals and the reactions to the Commission's report. We will announce our decisions in due course."—[Official Report, 26 July 1999; Vol. 336, c. 30W.]
That prompts us to ask whose reactions were being considered—those of the hundreds of organisations that have welcomed the commission's principal recommendation with open arms, or those of the Prime Minister's next-door neighbour.
The truth is that the Government set up the royal commission expecting it to propose a low public spending solution. The Government would then have hidden behind the commission's report, and argued that it had weighed the evidence and reached a proper conclusion. Unfortunately for the Government, however, the commission did not play ball.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: May I make a point on that very subject of funding? Is my hon. Friend aware of a serious report in today's Times? It states that, according to the Royal College of Nursing,
"many of the 42,000 nursing home residents who pay for all or some of their nursing home costs could be entitled to have the nursing care element of their fees paid".
Furthermore,
"Christine Hancock, general secretary of the RCN, said that the way health authorities used criteria to exclude the vast majority of nursing home residents from long-term NHS care amounted to 'wholesale rationing in the NHS'."
Is that not wholly contrary to what Ministers, including the Prime Minister, have been saying? Unless further funds can be found for the health service, there will be no real solution to the long-term care problem.
Mr. Hammond: I have seen the draft report from the Royal College of Nursing, which will be published tomorrow, and I will shortly deal with the implications of the Coughlan judgment and access to long-term care.
The Government find the report's principal recommendation unacceptable, but they have not had the courage to say so openly. Only the persistence of the grey lobby has prevented the ball from being lost in the long grass—and, if I may say so, only the repeated insistence of Opposition Members has eventually given the House an opportunity to consider the matter.
Mr. Desmond Swayne: Is my hon. Friend aware of the recommendations of the Select Committee on Health consequent on the report? It said:
"Failure by the Government to act urgently would be a serious dereliction of duty."
Does my hon. Friend think that there might be anything in the fact that the Select Committee happens to be abroad while we are holding this debate?
Mr. Hammond: The Secretary of State feigns amazement, but my hon. Friend is right. The Health Committee clearly stated that failure to act urgently on the commission's recommendations would be a gross dereliction of duty. I was looking forward to hearing whether the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), the Committee's Chairman, regards the Government as
458
guilty of that charge. Sadly, as we know, the debate has been timed to ensure that some of the most well informed and interested Members who would have wanted to contribute cannot be here. Most notably, some Labour Back Benchers who are critics of the Government on the issue are not able to take part in the debate. I look forward to a discussion with the hon. Gentleman, when he returns, to find out his view on that issue.
One suspects that the only debate on the royal commission report that really mattered happened long ago in the Treasury and that the conclusion of that debate was clear some time before the public even saw the report. As I have said, one might speculate even that the Secretary of State for Health, then Chief Secretary to the Treasury, would almost certainly have been the one wielding the veto.
Meanwhile—we must never forget the point—each year, some 40,000 home owners whose plight the then Under-Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Brent, South, so touchingly acknowledged in May 1997, have been forced to sell their homes to pay for long-term care. Another 100,000 homes have been lost as another early pledge gathers dust.
Mrs. Humble: How many people were saved the indignity and distress of selling their homes by the Conservative Government's proposals to increase the limit to £16,000 in the early 1990s?
Mr. Hammond: A number of people will have been saved that indignity and distress by the increase in the limit. It is self-evident that if the thresholds are increased, fewer people will be caught by the trap. At the general election, the previous Government proposed immediate relief—not a total solution to the problem—which the Labour party rejected outright with the promise that it had a comprehensive solution. Two and a half years later, 100,000 homes have been lost and no comprehensive solution is available.
Dr. Palmer rose—
Mr. Hammond: I allow the hon. Member for Broxtowe to intervene and tell me what the royal commission said about those proposals.
Dr. Palmer: The royal commission said:
"The scheme as presented by the previous Government was rather complex, and it was difficult to see where the benefits lay, and to whom."
I also note that a later paragraph casts considerable doubt on the £40,000 figure.
Mr. Hammond: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman believes that everything in the royal commission report should be accepted. Is he arguing that all the report's arguments should be accepted by the Government and the House? I do not accept the royal commission's analysis of the previous proposals.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the private insurance industry feels that it was not given an adequate opportunity to present its ideas to the royal commission. The royal commission rightly observed that private insurance could never be the complete solution. The industry itself has acknowledged that, but it feels that it

459
was not given an adequate opportunity to put the case for a mixed model of private insurance and public provision. Now the Secretary of State has effectively told us that the Government are considering going down the route of private insurance.
The range of options is no different from what was available in May 1997. The only difference is that 100,000 people who could have benefited then from change have already lost their homes. "The debate" is code for delay and indecision, while a private battle rages between the Treasury and the Department of Health over who should take the rap.
Mrs. Sylvia Heal: The hon. Gentleman appears to be concerned about people losing their homes as a result of the cost of long-term care. I suggest that he refresh his memory as to which party was in power when many long-stay national health service beds were closed and care was transferred from the NHS to local authorities, which marked the beginning of the policies that he is now criticising. I remind him, in case he has forgotten, that it was, of course, the Conservative party.
Mr. Hammond: The hon. Lady is right, but that is not the point that we are discussing. I shall come to the demarcation line between NHS continuing care and social care provided by local authorities in a moment.
I make no apology for concentrating the greater part of my remarks on the Government's inaction in response to the royal commission's principal recommendation, which is about funding. However, the report also deals with other vital issues that remain largely unaddressed as a result of the Government's paralysis over the principal recommendation.
The provision of care—what type of care, what type of choice and who should provide it—is as important as the means of paying for it. I was pleased to hear that the Secretary of State agrees that choice is the key. We must never forget that in discussing long-term care for the elderly we are talking not about statistics or units, but about individual people—and elderly people at that, who almost by definition have clear and precise ideas about what they want and do not want. No single model of care will provide adequately for such a disparate population. It is essential that in structuring a funding system we should seek to stimulate choice and diversity in supply so that provision is responsive to the needs and wants of the individuals who will use it.
There is a consensus across the House that the promotion of domiciliary care—care for people in their own homes—is greatly preferable where practicable. All the surveys show an overwhelming preference among elderly people for staying in their own homes for as long as possible. I was interested in the Secretary of State's announcement on standards for domiciliary care and his allusion to the possibility of a short-term disregard at the beginning of a period of care to avoid what might be termed accidental institutionalisation of people because they needed to leave their homes for a relatively short period. It was disappointing that the Secretary of State had nothing concrete to say on that, even though the press had been speculating that the Government might be able to make an immediate announcement.
460
The Government have rightly recognised the vital role of voluntary carers in supporting the elderly, among others. How best to support them—whether to provide support directly or through more effective respite provision—is a matter for debate. There is broad consensus that support for carers is not only a moral imperative, but economic common sense, recognising the huge burden of work that they shoulder, unpaid and often unsung. I hope that the Secretary of State will acknowledge that we confirmed to his predecessor our broad support for the initiatives on that.
There has been a significant transformation in recent years, as local authorities have increasingly retreated from the direct provision of accommodation. However, there is still a significant amount of local authority accommodation in the system. We support the Government's proposals, subject to seeing the details, to level the playing field by requiring local authority care homes to meet the same standards as those operated by the independent sector. I should like an assurance that the final standards that the Secretary of State alluded to will be available before the House has to consider the forthcoming Bill on care standards, so that if, as we suspect, the detailed standards are to be introduced by regulation, we might at least have an idea of the standards that are to be imposed later when we consider the principal provisions of the Bill.
Mr. Cotter: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has had the same experience as I have. Residents in residential homes have expressed concern in my surgery that their homes might be closed. Does he agree that any future regulations must be implemented sensitively, particularly with regard to the size of rooms in residential homes? A lot of small homes are concerned, and we hope that a constructive point will be made here.
Mr. Hammond: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for introducing that point. The Government have gone about this from the wrong angle. The "Fit for the Future?" document is an inspector's document, designed for the convenience of inspectors. It seeks to focus on what is easily measurable and to ignore what is not, including—importantly—the overall care experience of residents. It totally fails to acknowledge the individuality of elderly people, some of whom may have different needs and wants from others.
In its present form, the proposal would drive a significant part of the independent sector—and an even larger part of the local authority sector—out of business. We have to hope, for reasons both philosophical and practical, that the Government will approach the draft standards with caution, especially as they refer to minimum room sizes. It is for that reason that I asked the Secretary of State to give an assurance that we will be able to see the definitive form of the regulations before we debate any Bill on care standards, or at least at the same time.
Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Is it not essential that the costs to both sectors be fully taken into account, especially if the income to meet those costs does not follow? I suspect from what the Secretary of State said earlier that it is unlikely that that income will follow. It is therefore essential that, in any

461
steps that are taken, an assurance be given to private and local authority homes that the income will be there to meet the extra costs.
Mr. Hammond: My right hon. Friend makes an important point, too. One cannot have quality without paying for it. If one is prepared to pay for it, one does not need regulations to get it. If providers were offered premium payments for premium products, they would be happy to provide them.
The Secretary of State has not introduced any voluntary premium payment scheme—or encouraged local authorities to pursue such a scheme—to increase the standards of the physical amenities and the training of staff in care homes, and intends to do that by regulation. From that, we can only conclude that he is not willing to pay or to provide the resources that will be needed to support the Government's wholly laudable aspirations.
The Secretary of State will be aware that although he said that there was no crisis facing the financing by local authorities of care, his much vaunted increase in social services spending has not been distributed evenly around the country. I am sure that there is not a problem in Darlington, but there is certainly a problem in Surrey, Sussex, Hertfordshire, Oxfordshire, Essex, Kent, Buckinghamshire and Worcestershire.
Local authorities' own funding crises have forced them to keep payments to independent sector providers down below the rate of cost inflation and, in some cases, below their break-even levels. This has resulted in local authorities in some areas—Hertfordshire, for example—being unable to purchase beds in the independent sector at a price they are willing or able to pay. The evidence for that—as the Secretary of State will know—is to be found in the re-emergence of extensive bed blocking by elderly people awaiting social services placements across the south-east of England, before the onset of the—now routine—winter crisis.
The scandal is that, against the background of inadequate funding, leading to a drying up of independent sector supply, there are still many local authorities all over the country which are directing elderly people to local authority-provided accommodation that carries with it a much higher cost than equivalent or better independent sector accommodation.
Without bringing ideology into this matter, it seems to me that there can be no justification in a resource-constrained environment for restricting the total amount of care that can be purchased by a local authority by buying a more expensive product, where an equal quality, less expensive one is available. I urge the Secretary of State to take steps to assess the scale of the problem, and to calculate the additional care that might be purchased with the money saved if expensive local authority provision were substituted by better value independent sector provision.
The figures are substantial. In many councils—on local authorities' own admission, as the Secretary of State knows—the cost of providing care in their own establishments is 60 per cent., 70 per cent., 80 per cent. and, in some cases, more than 100 per cent. higher than the price at which they can buy comparable care in independent sector establishments.
On eligibility, I am grateful for the comments made by hon. Members, and by the Secretary of State. The dividing line between NHS and social care for the elderly is of
462
great importance, because NHS continuing care is free but local authority care is subject to the means test, making this a critical issue for many families. The royal commission's principal recommendation would greatly reduce, if not entirely eliminate, the significance of the distinctions.
If the Government have set their face against that recommendation, they have to revisit the aftermath of the Coughlan judgment and issue clear, transparent and universally understood guidance as to the demarcation line between free NHS care and means-tested social care. I am not entirely sure whether the Secretary of State's mini-announcement earlier was an undertaking to do that early in the new year. If it was, I welcome it.
To date, the Department of Health's involvement in the matter has been limited to paying lawyers to slug it out. I see that the Royal College of Nursing is now spending its money on obtaining counsel's opinion on the matter. I say to the Secretary of State that it is abundantly clear that this is a policy issue, requiring a political decision. It is a job for Ministers, not lawyers.
It will be clear from what I have said that there are huge areas beyond the central issue of funding which can and must be addressed if we are to establish a proper system of long-term care delivery in this country. At present, unsurprisingly, the focus of attention is on the Government's response—or lack of it—to the central recommendations of the royal commission. Until we understand how the Government are to take that agenda forward, there can be no real progress on the broader issues.
I hope that the Secretary of State will contemplate the fact that while he ponders and announces another delay of six or eight months before something is to be done, 800 people each week are losing their homes to pay for their long-term care needs.
Mr. Milburn: That is pathetic.
Mr. Hammond: I am sure that the people facing the loss of their homes while the right hon. Gentleman dithers and considers the matter further do not agree with him.
Mr. Leigh: May I be fair to the Government for a moment? Sir Stewart Sutherland and his colleagues have put the Government in an impossible position by asking for an increase in spending of up to £6 billion. The key is the means test, and I hope that my hon. Friend will commend the note of dissent from the royal commission report—particularly the point made on page 115 concerning
"modifying the existing means-test, so that it is less harsh towards people with small amounts of wealth and does not force elderly people to sell their home".
That seems to be a sensible proposal, and I hope that both sides of the House can agree that we should at least do that.
Mr. Hammond: I thank my hon. Friend, and there is much to be recommended in the minority report of the royal commission. I can assure my hon. Friend that we are working hard with outside bodies and looking at an appropriate response to the issues raised by report.
There is much in the royal commission's report that all sides will welcome and can agree on, but it seems to me that the commission has missed one of the most important

463
points. The crisis today in long-term care arises from a real and genuine sense on the part of many older people of a breach of contract by the state. For years—perhaps all their working lives—they paid high taxes on the assumption of a cradle-to-grave welfare system. That system changed, as it had to if our nation was to prosper, and this generation of politicians and taxpayers—operating in a globalised economy—prefers, indeed needs, lower taxes. The intergenerational contract, to which the report refers, has failed. The state, as a contracting party, suffers from a fatal flaw—it is above the law and reserves to itself the right to change the rules unilaterally and, in the case of the time scales for the subject of this debate, at the whim of generations of politicians yet unborn. When the report speaks of a contract between Government and people, and between all generations of society, it means not a contract but a blind faith that can draw little inspiration from experience.
I make a distinction between the need for a system for future generations and the need to relieve the immediate, legitimate concerns of today's generation of pensioners. If a system for future generations is to command the confidence of today's 20-somethings that it will deliver for them 50 years hence, it will have to be based on enforceable contractual rights or on individual control of assets. A vague promise of "pay up now and we will look after you later" is unlikely to convince them.
Government policy would appear to dictate that the partnership between the state and the individual for future generations will depend on the principle that those who can make planned provision for their long-term care should do so. One of the principles of the Government's Green Paper on welfare reform says precisely that. We urgently need to know what the Government's solution for future generations of older people will be.
There can be no doubt in anyone's mind that today's generation of retired people have legitimate expectations that the current system does not meet. The royal commission has proposed a solution for them based entirely on an additional public spending commitment, but it also offers the same solution for future generations, which inevitably generates an open-ended public spending commitment scary enough to guarantee a Treasury veto.
Today's elderly are left in limbo because the Government will not seize the initiative and separate the question of provision for them from the longer-term and perhaps more challenging question of provision for future generations. It is only by separating those two issues that there is any hope of clearing the Treasury hurdle and moving forward rapidly to address the real injustice that is being experienced by hundreds of thousands of older people. In each week of delay that goes by, another 800 pensioners lose their homes.
The Government, in this area as in so many others, have cynically raised voter expectations. Now they must deliver on those expectations or pay the price.
2.23 pm
Mrs. Joan Humble: I am sure that we can all agree that this debate is very important. It affects many people—not just the elderly, but those with disabilities and young people who will need to look to the future when they may need long-term
464
care. The Government inherited a system in a mess. It was full of uncertainty, with no coherent policy on funding for long-term care. That has caused concern and anxiety to the users of the services and to the planners who need to deliver the services.
In what is a complex debate, I shall concentrate on two key points. First, we need to consider a fairer system of funding long-term care and finding solutions that are fair to the current generation of older people and to younger people, so that they know what to expect for their futures. Secondly, I shall consider the quality standards necessary to reassure people about the care available to them, given the uncertain and variable pattern found in different parts of the country.
One of the major reasons behind the Government's decision to set up the royal commission was the genuine anger and resentment that had built up in the 1980s and 1990s among many older people who had been forced to sell their homes. That has been mentioned already in the debate. We should not use those older people as a political football—they are real people with real concerns that should be addressed in our debate. The problem is not new, but it demands complex solutions. I doubt whether any homes in my constituency are worth less than the £16,000 capital limit introduced by the previous Government, so virtually all home owners fear losing their homes if they go into residential care.
Many people come to Blackpool and the Fylde coast to retire. They save up and buy a home to live by the seaside, and then when they need residential or nursing care, they face selling the lovely bungalow they had bought to settle in for the rest of their lives. We must find a fairer way to fund long-term care, but—just as important—we must give back to today's pensioners a faith in the state and a belief that Members of Parliament listen to their needs and are willing to address them.
Many of my constituents will welcome the Government's announcement today that they will examine the charges for nursing care. That issue formed a large part of the Sutherland report. It is difficult for many people to understand why nursing care provided in one setting is free, but not free if it is provided in an alternative setting. I hope that all the issues covered by the report will be examined to offer people reassurances and to enable them to understand the system, because they do not understand it now.
I am sure that many people will also welcome ways to delay the sale of a property to finance care. We have all had cases of constituents who had gone into residential care but had then recovered sufficiently to want to go back to their homes, only to find they had a "For Sale" sign outside. Any mechanism that we can introduce to ensure that homes are not sold prematurely will be very welcome.
In this debate, we must consider the spectrum of care available. Many people prefer to remain in their own homes as long as possible, so we need to consider the support services available to them—whether provided by social services, health services, voluntary organisations or church groups. I also welcome the Government's announcement of the long-term care charter. That charter and the draft guidance that was issued to social services, health departments and housing authorities will improve services for people needing on-going support by setting out exactly what they can expect from their local service

465
providers. Many people come to my surgeries to find out what is available: information should be much more easily available in local libraries and day centres.
The introduction of the charter next year will be a vital step towards the seamless service that should be provided for people. We think of the services as a spectrum that starts with people in their own homes having home helps coming in, then going to day centres, followed by residential care, where they end their lives. However, it does not always follow that pattern, even for people who have been in residential care for some time.
I attended the 100th birthday party of an elderly blind lady who had been in residential care for three years. Two or three weeks before she turned 100 she decided that she could manage in the sheltered accommodation in which she had previously lived. I walked across the road with her to the home in which she had lived until recently, and she marched into the room where all the other residents were sitting around. Even though she could not see any of them, she said, "I know what you are doing. You're all sitting there slumped in your chairs and you're only 70. I'm 100 and you should imitate me and get out into the community." People's social and health care needs can improve, as well as deteriorate, and we need a flexible system that can cope with that.
I especially welcome the Government's announcement that they will look at and regulate home help services. Traditionally, people have thought of such services as involving cooking, cleaning and basic domestic tasks, but that is not so now. Home help services have become home care services, and they are often intensive. The workers going into elderly people's homes perform very personal care tasks for them. Because such work has never been regulated, untrained and unqualified young people have gone into the homes of frail, elderly and vulnerable individuals to perform very intimate functions without supervision or regulation. I believe that those elderly people are therefore at risk. Any mechanisms that we can employ to introduce appropriate registration and monitoring of home care services will reassure them. They welcome the people who come into their homes to look after them, but they need to know about those people's backgrounds and training.
Ms Debra Shipley: I agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said about home care help, and I endorse her view that not all the people caring for the elderly are of the appropriate type. I hope that a vetting system can be established, but does my hon. Friend agree that it would have to be statutory rather than voluntary? Does there not have to be a requirement that the people providing that help are vetted, and should not sanctions be applied to people who fall short of the required standards?
Mrs. Humble: I recall that, four or five years ago, Lancashire county council social services department introduced a voluntary system of registration and inspection of domiciliary care agencies. That has worked very well, but such systems do not operate elsewhere in the country. We need to consider whether a national voluntary system would work: if it would not, we should consider putting the system on a statutory basis. The bottom line is that we must protect those vulnerable people who are cared for in their own homes.
466
I also welcome the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that he is to examine the charges for home care services, as they vary across the country. Why should a frail, elderly person in my area pay more—or less—than one in Kent, Shropshire or somewhere else? It is very important to find a way to remove the huge variation in charges that exists.
There is a perverse incentive for local authorities to place people in residential care, as that is often cheaper than providing intensive support in a person's home. Most people who come to see me want to stay in their homes for as long as possible, but their local authorities often encourage them, for financial reasons, to go into residential care before they want to. As part of the comprehensive review, I hope that the Government will consider that problem and listen to what elderly people say.
We must also remember that not only elderly people require long-term care. In his opening remarks, my right hon. Friend referred to the many younger disabled people who require long-term care and who prefer to receive it in a community setting. I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the thousands of informal carers supporting relatives or friends in the community. Over the past two years, I have had several meetings with the parents of adults with disability at one of the day centres in Fleetwood in my constituency. Those parents are in their 70s—some are in their 80s—and have cared for their now adult children throughout their lives. They have done so with love, care and affection, and they have accepted their responsibilities as parents. However, they are getting old: the elderly carers now need care, and the adults with disability must plan for their future.
In Lancashire, the local authority has been developing schemes to involve those carers in planning the future long-term provision for their adult offspring. Some of the necessary resources have come from the very welcome additional funding that the Government have made available to support carers. The carers whom I meet are pleased to be part of the planning process. In the past, they felt very excluded and that decisions were being taken by faceless bureaucrats and social workers a long way away in county hall. They very much welcome the fact that they are now being consulted, but my hon. Friend the Minister of State will not be surprised to hear that they want more—more respite services, more support and more homes in the community for their children.
Many other people in the community provide care. Their role is vital in ensuring that the phrase "long-term care" means what it says. I am sure that all hon. Members will praise the professionals whose job it is to look after people with care needs, in both the residential and community setting. However, without the support of informal carers, many of those professionals could not do their jobs. I hope that the House will take the opportunity provided by this debate to pay tribute to the invaluable work of those informal carers.
The second element that I want to mention is the quality of care. The recommendation for a national care commission is excellent, and will be widely welcomed. Standards of care are very variable, depending on where people live and on whether they are able to find out about the services that are available.
Mention has been made of the quality of care in nursing and residential homes. The Department of Health commissioned the Centre for Policy on Ageing to consult

467
on and prepare draft standards for such homes. Those draft standards included minimum requirements for space, facilities and quality of service provision. I understand that the Government have considered the CPA document and have published a consultation paper entitled "Fit for the Future?".
The question of standards is very important. Everyone wants standards to be improved, but it is also vital to ensure continuing provision in communities so that people can choose. Care for older people should be consistent throughout the country. Many of the requirements in the consultation paper are found already in good quality residential and nursing homes. Other requirements can be adopted at little or no cost, and they will substantially improve the quality of care provided.
However, it must be acknowledged that, in Lancashire, some of the physical elements of the standards could be achieved only with great difficulty, and some could not be achieved at all. It is not easy to move walls in old buildings, for example, and many of the care homes in Lancashire are both old and small. Although many people prefer them because of their homely environment, they would be hard to adapt to modern requirements. Simply knocking down a wall between two small rooms to make a larger one is not always the answer, as that may undermine the viability of a small home.
The regulatory impact analysis in the consultation document attempts to quantify the impact of the proposed changes. Given the surplus capacity in the market, the analysis states that
"compliance could be achieved without markedly destabilising the market."
However, that is not what care home owners in my constituency tell me.
I recently met representatives of the Lancashire Care Association, who told me that of the 556 private homes in the county, 394, or 71 per cent., will not meet the proposed standards. That is nothing to do with the quality of care in the homes; it is the physical nature of the buildings. The picture is even worse in Blackpool, where the figure is 91 per cent. There is understandable concern. My worry concerns the residents of such homes and elderly people planning to enter them as part of their long-term care. We must ensure that there will still be homes for people to go into and that elderly residents in existing homes will not be threatened with evictions or moves. All that must be considered in the context of wanting the highest possible standards.
I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to consider carefully the representations that have been made. All those to whom I speak, including those in the private care sector, want to improve standards, but they want to have time to do it. They want to discuss some aspects of the document that they feel are not conducive to improving care standards. It is an important issue in my constituency. Lancashire, with perhaps Kent, has the highest number of private care homes. We have 20,000 residential and nursing home beds. It is clearly an issue, but I stress that there is a genuine commitment to move forward because we want top quality homes so that people will want to enter them and, if necessary, enjoy their final years in them.
468
On a more positive note, Blackpool is improving standards through a new star rating system. People can choose a hotel in Blackpool by how many stars it has, and now they can choose a residential or nursing home in the same way. It is a new and innovative scheme that I commend to my colleagues. I believe that it is the first independent scheme—it is not run by the local authority. There was a good deal of consultation between my local council, the private sector and the voluntary sector to consider ways of guaranteeing standards in homes. They brought in a company called Residential and Domiciliary Care Benchmarking Ltd.
I have seen the documents involved. They are immensely complex and ask a range of questions across every possible aspect of care in a home. Care home owners have to pay for the scheme, which is self-financed, but they come forward voluntarily, answer the questions and are assessed according to the star rating. Blackpool council's care homes have been subject to the same scrutiny as the private sector. The new scheme has already raised expectations, increased staff awareness of good practice, encouraged the spread of training and, perhaps most importantly, enabled purchasers of care—elderly people and their relatives—to make informed choices about which home they want to enter.
Earlier this year, I presented the awards of the first ever star certificates. I hope that more homes will come forward to be tested in that way and so improve standards in the industry. An independent, second opinion on care should help to promote public confidence in the residential care industry, as well as improving the confidence of the people who enter such homes.
The purchase of care is invariably a traumatic moment for individuals and their families and involves major budgetary expense for local authorities. A reliable standard of care is essential to allow the purchase to be made in confidence. Blackpool's system is expected to do exactly that. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will see this as Blackpool moving ahead before the introduction of the new national care commission, and examine it. I am advised that there is information on the net and a website. Brochures will be produced. This is my hard sell; I will give anyone more information about it.
Mr. Hammond: The hon. Lady may be interested to know that I visited Blackpool recently and was told all about the scheme. I have just been told that at least one other county council in the south of England is actively considering it.
Mrs. Humble: Where Blackpool leads, the rest of the world follows. This is a serious matter because there is over-provision in residential care and elderly people often do not know what to look for in choosing a care home. Too often, they look at the furnishings and the depth of the carpet instead of asking about the care provided.
Such schemes are an excellent way forward, as are the other proposals announced by the Government today. Long-term care is complex. There are no easy answers, but it is incumbent on us to review and revise the current confused situation to make it fair and acceptable to all.
2.46 pm
Mr. Paul Burstow: This is an important and, I hope, informative debate on long-term care and the Government's position. From what the

469
Secretary of State said earlier, we appear to have moved from the phase where the Government fly kites about what they will do to the phase where they consult and review, but not yet to the stage where they actually do anything. That concerns many who expected the Government to move ahead on such questions, not least the person who said:
"I don't want to live in a country where the only way pensioners can get long term care is by selling their home."
That is what the Prime Minister told the Labour party conference in 1997.
Since then, at least 100,000 people have been forced to sell their homes to pay for their care. Those people had every right to expect that things could only get better after the general election. By the end of this Parliament, the essentials of our long-term care system will remain the same. We will have had a lot of consultation but not much delivery.
What the Secretary of State said was welcome in that it removed some of the veils behind which the Government have been working—feverishly, I hope—to respond to the royal commission. Unfortunately, it was little more than window dressing because it ducked some of the fundamental questions that were raised and, I believe, answered in the report.
I start with a proposition that I hope all hon. Members can agree with: the current system for funding long-term care cannot continue. The status quo is not an option because we are all living longer. As the Secretary of State rightly said, that should be a cause for celebration, but too often the talk is of crisis, demographic time bombs and tidal waves. Such language is unhelpful and divisive because it sets generation against generation and sets older people apart. What is more, it is not true.
The trends are clear, but they are not new. We have had birth certificates to enable us to plan for many years. We know that over the past 100 years, the number of people aged over 85 has increased 15 times. By 2050, there will be three times more people over 85 than today. The demographic time bomb is not ticking; it has already gone off.
As things stand, the way in which long-term care operates robs people of their dignity and drives them into dependency. Care is means-led, not needs-led. Who pays for care depends on where they are being cared for. The economics of health and social care are warped and twisted. Putting means testing at the front end of assessment drives people into high-dependency, high-cost institutionalised care. As a result, the NHS and social services are locked in a vicious circle of crisis management. Bed blocking, cost shunting and buck passing are the hallmarks of the system. This drives standards down, wasting resources and delivering poorer outcomes for many people.
However, what would another Tory term have delivered? The boundaries of state-funded care would have been even more tightly drawn than they were during the previous 18 years of Tory government. The destination of Tory social policy was a residual welfare state, based on exclusion, stigma and less eligibility. If the Conservatives had been re-elected, the fate of the public sector would have been to be the 21st century administrators of a new poor law. Before the general election, the Conservatives set out plans for a private,
470
insurance-based solution to finance long-term care costs. Those plans were complex, as the royal commission rightly pointed out. It noted:
"it was difficult to see where the benefits lay, and to whom."
The American experience of schemes similar to those proposed by the Conservatives shows that take-up has been low. In practice, many current pensioners would be too old, too poor or too poor a risk to qualify for immediate private cover. However, as we have heard today, the Secretary of State wants to examine how the private sector can make itself more attractive through the insurance packages that it offers. If that is to be so, I hope that proposals will soon be introduced for the proper regulation of the insurance market in long-term care. At present, the market is unregulated. If it is to be successful, the industry must be regulated to provide people with security and certainty.
We are only halfway through this Parliament. What have the Government done so far? They set up the royal commission, and the Liberal Democrats very much welcomed that. The royal commission reported in March—almost nine months ago. The Government wanted the commission to report quickly, and the commission delivered its report in 14 months. When will the Government deliver? We have been told that they will produce a White Paper, but when will action flow from that White Paper?
By the end of this Parliament, the essentials of our system of long-term care will remain unchanged. Each year, 35,000 to 40,000 homes will continue to be sold to provide care that many people thought would be provided free when they needed it. More than 100,000 have been forced to sell their homes since the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), announced the royal commission. How many more must sell their homes before there is any action?
Dr. Palmer: We heard earlier in the debate that, despite their rhetoric, the Conservatives are not ready to respond to the royal commission's report and that they may be ready to do so only at the next election, although the tenor of their response was against the majority report. Do the Liberal Democrats have a view? Do they accept the majority report, the minority report or neither?
Mr. Burstow: The hon. Gentleman asks a fair question. For the past three or four weeks, I have been making applications for an Adjournment debate on the Coughlan case and its impact on long-term care. I should welcome the opportunity to have such time allocated to me so that we could debate the issue on my terms. In today's debate, the Government are setting out what they are doing, so we must test them on their proposals. The Liberal Democrats welcomed the royal commission and its terms of reference; we believe that provides a foundation on which we can build a modernised—to use the Government's word—long-term care system.
It is no wonder that Labour Members do not want to dwell on their policy, because too many aspects of it will cause great concern to people outside this place—not least the majority members of the commission. The majority members will feel that much of their work—especially in respect of their main recommendation on personal care—has been jettisoned as a result of the statement made by

471
the Secretary of State today. I shall return to that matter. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us when he replies to the debate—[Interruption.] If he wants to intervene now to tell us that personal care costs—not just nursing care costs—will be included under the six points that the Secretary of State set out earlier, that would be most helpful.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): I am glad to correct the hon. Gentleman's wholly false assumption on that matter. Most of his remarks have been completely inaccurate and wrong. We have not ruled anything out today, and we have not ruled anything in. He is quite wrong to infer from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's speech that we are not giving full consideration to all the royal commission's recommendations.
Mr. Burstow: I am grateful for that non-statement—the Government are not ruling things in and they are not ruling things out—
Mr. Hutton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Burstow: Perhaps the Minister would at least allow me to finish the sentence. I shall then be happy to take his intervention.
I listened to the Secretary of State's speech. He spoke explicitly about looking at nursing care and then about definitions. Did he mean that the definition question extends to the possibility of widening the definition of nursing care to include personal care?
Mr. Hutton: The hon. Gentleman is making heavy weather of this matter.
Mr. Kirkwood: No, he is not.
Mr. Hutton: With respect to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) is making heavy weather of the matter. I tried to make it clear to him and to the House that we are considering all the royal commission's recommendations, including the one to which he refers. I cannot make it clearer than that.
Mr. Burstow: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. I hope that it will help some of his Back Benchers, who may have been misled by some of the comments earlier in the debate. It is helpful to know that the comprehensive spending review will consider all the royal commission's recommendations, and will thus consider the possibility of providing personal care free at the point of use, based on assessed need. That is important and it is useful to hear it from the Minister.
The Select Committee on Health considered some of those matters, as well as the interface between health and social care, and received some forthright submissions. I quote one of them:
"NHS services are provided to all on the basis of clinical need regardless of ability to pay, whereas local authority services are subject to charges. A particular problem of the caring regime is that many packages of care include elements from health and social services (for example, community nursing from health; home care
472
from social services). Sometimes the difference in the nature of the tasks performed is not clear to the user, and they resent paying for one and not the other. The situation is particularly acute in nursing homes, where a proportion of people are placed by the NHS, free of charge, but the bulk are either local authority placements or self-funders who may have to pay or contribute towards all costs, including nursing costs."
Too right—people resent paying. However, that was not just any submission, but the considered opinion of the Department of Health.
When quizzed by the Committee, even the then Secretary of State for Health had to admit that he could not offer clear definitions of health and social care. It is anomalous for the same type of nursing care to be provided free by the NHS in NHS settings—or paid for by the NHS in nursing homes—but to be charged for in nursing homes. There could be two people sitting next to one another, one of whom could be paying for care while the other received it free.
The Coughlan case has already been mentioned. It brought into sharp relief the way in which the previous Conservative Government redefined the role of the NHS as a provider of acute care, by drawing its boundaries more tightly—dumping and decanting people into nursing and residential homes and shedding responsibility for their care. That is rationing by stealth, as the Royal College of Nursing quite rightly described it.
When asked to explain their continuing care criteria, several health authorities listed tasks that they excluded from NHS care—such as artificial feeding, pain control, care of the dying and catheter care. Seven in 10 older people admitted to nursing homes in England and Wales come from acute hospitals. As other hon. Members have pointed out, those people have chronic, complicated medical and social needs, and multiple problems. However, many of them arrive at nursing homes with inadequate documentation—sometimes with no medical information whatever. Through no fault of their own, those people have drawn the short straw of sickness and dependency.
The courts have made it clear that when nursing care is the principal need, the place in which it is provided is irrelevant—it should be paid for by the NHS. As the RCN revealed today, 90 per cent. of health authorities have illegal arrangements for assessing and meeting the continuing care needs of their patients. I realise that Ministers dispute those figures; perhaps the Minister will comment on the matter in his winding-up speech. Furthermore, I hope that he will commission his own review and publish it, so that the House can debate it.
In February, a national audit of nursing home placements for older people in England and Wales was published, although it did not receive much press attention. It is a technical but important document. It was commissioned by the clinical audit unit of the NHS. It found that one third of all people placed in nursing homes were inappropriately placed; that is about 63,000 people who are so dependent that their principal need is nursing care—63,000 people who should not be paying, who have been let down by the system and who are not receiving the care to which they are entitled.
Even the former Secretary of State had to acknowledge to members of the Health Committee that
"nursing care is something that people have expected would be provided free by the National Health Service … so in the eyes of many people I guess to say that all nursing care should be provided free is not an extension of what most people see as the principles of the National Health Service."

473
We have heard from the Secretary of State that the Government are promising to align social services eligibility criteria with the eligibility criteria for continuing care in the NHS. The findings of the RCN about how the NHS is shirking its responsibilities cause me great concern, and I am sure that many people outside the House will be worried that an alignment of the two will level down, not up, the standards of care that people may expect.
The RCN survey suggests that nine out of 10 health authorities are currently breaking the law. If that is the case, given that the Minister said, in a Health Select Committee meeting in July, that the Government were looking at issuing fresh guidance, I hope that today he can tell the House when that fresh guidance will be published. We need to know soon where the line is to be drawn, because practitioners do not know where to draw it, and it is a lottery whether one gets free nursing care; it depends on where one lives. That position cannot be acceptable; it should not be allowed to persist.
The Government are moving at a snail's pace on other matters, too. Care standards in residential and domiciliary care will remain unchanged during this Parliament, and nothing is proposed in respect of day care and day centres.
I hope that when the Government introduce legislation, we shall, as the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) said, see the regulations for domiciliary care and for residential care alongside the Bill so that those matters may be debated together. However, it is worth bearing in mind the fact that, although the Centre for Policy on Ageing—which carried out for the Government 10 months of detailed work and consultation on residential care standards—presented its new standards to Ministers in January 1999, it was another eight months before the Department of Health published them for further consultation. As a result, a comprehensive set of standards for all regulated services is unlikely to be completed until 2002. As is clearly stated in the impact assessment attached to the document "Fit for the Future?", that is the year when the regulations will start to come into effect. I am sure that the Minister would have put his pen through that statement if it was not the case. I look forward to his telling us that that is wrong, and that the document will be reprinted.
Reports such as those in the Express earlier this year show why action is needed now. The Express found evidence that residents in one care home were
"put to bed against their will and woken as early as 4.30 am to get ready for breakfast; not properly cleaned even though they regularly soiled themselves; left to sit for hours without activities and woken at two hour intervals during the night to be taken to the toilet because they are not given incontinence pads."
The Express made it clear that there was no deliberate abuse at the care home that it investigated, but no one could describe what it found as anything but unacceptable and appalling.
As has been said, there are beacons of good practice. The star scheme that was described by the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) may be a very good way to proceed. Those places that follow good practice need to be recognised and acknowledged. However, there are still too many care homes where care has been reduced to little more than life support.
Why must elderly people wait for the Government to legislate for new commissions for care standards? Why not use the existing inspection and registration system,
474
patchy and inconsistent though it may be, to start to drive up standards? Why must we wait another two years to tackle some of the issues of control, quality and choice? I hope that the Government will stop the dither and delay in that respect.
Dither and delay characterise issues of charging policy, too. It is a further damning indictment of the Conservatives' record in that respect that they failed for 10 years or more to commission any serious work on the impact of local charging policies on the provision of social services. The Government therefore inherited a chaotic picture of charging methods, ambiguous Department of Health guidelines and confused local procedures.
The confusion remains. Local authorities set their own rules, driven by Government funding plans that assume that councils will recoup at least 9 per cent. of what they spend on social care. The variations are enormous. In a recent report, the Audit Commission found that Tower Hamlets recouped 1.1 per cent., whereas Slough recouped 1.5 per cent. Social care charges are a complete and utter lottery. They distort local priorities and fail to meet need. What will the Government do to get things moving? We have heard that there will be further consultation about how a level playing field is to be provided. When will that level playing field be a reality?
The tone and substance of the Secretary of State's speech had more in common with the note of dissent in the royal commission's report than with the majority recommendations, although the note of dissent was not written by two people who agreed with each another on everything. In fact, there was a note of dissent to the note of dissent.
In the kite flying of the past nine months, far too much attention has been paid to the views of the dissenters, and not enough to the majority recommendations. I believe that the dissenters lost the plot during the inquiry, because they were more concerned about cost than social justice and failed to grasp the paradigm shift inherent in the majority's proposals.
In reaching our view about the best way forward, we as Liberal Democrats have set three goals for a reformed system of long-term care. First, the system must promote independence and dignity. The central goal of policy on long-term care should be to ensure the greatest possible opportunity for people to lead the life that they want. Services should be directed to and by older people.
Secondly, the system should ensure intergenerational equity. The risk of long-term care should be spread across the whole population and over the lifetime of the population. That is the most efficient way economically to address both the risk and the cost of insuring against it. Thirdly, the system should be based on co-payment. We believe that it is a shared responsibility between us as individuals and collectively, as a society and a community, to pay the costs of old age.
The royal commission provides a way forward, but all the kites that have been flown in the past nine months and all the negative press briefing have obscured what the majority on the commission proposed.
Mr. Letwin: The hon. Gentleman used the words "intergenerational equity", but I am unsure what he meant. Did he mean that people now living should pay collectively for those who now need long-term care;

475
or that a person, during the course of his or her lifetime, should pay, effectively, for their own long-term care and that of their generation?
Mr. Burstow: In their evidence to the Health Select Committee, the Government said that many people felt that there was a clear contract between the state and themselves—that they were paying towards not only their own care but future care. I believe that we need a system that reflects the fact that we, as a community, are a wealthy nation, that we can afford to pay for long-term care, and that one generation should be able and willing to afford the costs of care for their elders. That is really what this is about.
All the kite flying that I was talking about obscures some key aspects of what the majority on the commission proposed—first, that a clear distinction should be drawn between living costs, housing costs and personal care; and secondly, that a national care commission should be set up to set standards and oversee the system. We have heard that the Government will consider all those questions, and we welcome the fact that the Minister has clarified that, but hon. Members and people outside the House still do not know what the Government's stance will be in six or seven months, when they publish their White Paper.
We therefore want to know whether the Government will seriously consider, and give high priority to, the commission's proposals on personal care, including nursing care free at the point of delivery after a rigorous assessment of needs. Do the Government understand that such a change would honour the Prime Minister's commitment before the general election to free people from the crippling financial burdens and the prospect of selling their home to pay for care? It would give everyone a stake in how care is provided.
Above all, such a move would mark a step change in the way that care was provided. It would end at a stroke perverse cost incentives and create a level playing field between home-based and residential care. For example, it would remove the need to decide whether a bath was being provided to meet social needs, in which case it would be means-tested, or medical needs, in which case it would be free. By drawing a clear distinction between personal care and daily living costs, the royal commission offers clarity where confusion has reigned.
The second, and equally important, recommendation supported by all members of the royal commission is the establishment of the care commission.
Mr. Hutton: The hon. Gentleman started his speech by stating that he could not say whether he agreed with the royal commission's main recommendation on personal care, but—I am sure he will correct me if I am wrong— he has just accepted, on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, the main recommendation about personal care being free. Can he confirm that?
Mr. Burstow: I have been saying that there are very powerful arguments in the majority's report, and I have outlined them this afternoon because not enough has been done to outline them until now; and apparently the Government have not been listening to them, but have been listening far too much to the dissenters.
476
The debate is about what the Government are doing, not about what the Conservative party or the Liberal Democrats are doing. It is about what the Government, who are charged with this responsibility, are doing, not least because they set up a royal commission to do a job for them and have since spent nine months wondering what to do with its findings.
The second of the Government's main proposals is undoubtedly a welcome piece of news from the Secretary of State. There can be no question but that we need a body to provide a strategic overview of the care system. We shall obviously consider in detail the Secretary of State's proposals when the Bill comes before the House. However, I wonder why we must wait for two more years before the new body comes into being. Why cannot we take a leaf out of another Secretary of State's book and establish a shadow body to start pulling together the necessary elements of the new agency so that it can start to do some of its work in advance? It is possible for a shadow body to be established, and I wonder why the Minister has not considered that possibility.
Mr. Hutton: We have. We have already announced that we shall be doing that. That is what we have in mind.
Mr. Burstow: I am pleased that the Minister has been able to make that announcement. I do not think that the Secretary of State said that a shadow body would be established. The right hon. Gentleman talked about 2002, but we have now had an additional announcement, which is very much welcomed.
I believe that the royal commission offers a rational and humane basis for reforming our care system, but how is the care to be afforded? We know that the costs of the royal commission's proposals come out at about £1.1 billion. All too often we hear the figures of £6 billion to £7 billion, which might be the costs in 2050. I cannot think of any other policy that any Government have produced that has had costings through to 2050. The comprehensive spending review, for example, had a three-year forward view.
If we average out the good and bad years over the past 100 years, our gross domestic product has grown by 2.25 per cent, a year, and over that period there has been an explosion in the number of people living longer. However, we have been able to afford the increased costs. Perhaps these facts have been overlooked.
It is said that the royal commission's proposals will benefit only the well off. I believe that those who produced the minority report have that wrong. If the argument is valid, surely it applies to the winter allowance and free television licences for the over-75s. Both those welcome new universal entitlements are going to rich and poor alike, and they add up to £1.1 billion per annum in public expenditure.
Why is personal care any different? The fact that personal care costs fall heavily and unexpectedly on a few makes the case for ending charges even stronger. That is why I asked the Secretary of State—I did not get a satisfactory answer—why the wealth of a dementia sufferer should determine the care that he or she receives.
The Government set up the royal commission to recommend reform of the long-term care system, and it has reported. However, the report is not a manifesto pledge redeemed on its own. The Prime Minister told us

477
at the beginning of 1999 that this was the year of delivery. Nine months of dither and delay have fuelled uncertainty about future arrangements for long-term care. Can we have some straight answers? Will the Government rule out free personal care? We have heard that they are not ruling it in, but nor are they ruling it out.
If the royal commission's personal care proposals have no place in the Government's plans, they should make that clear and not wait for a White Paper in six or seven months' time. Are the Government saying that the nation cannot afford to vote an extra one fifth of 1 per cent. of GDP—0.2 per cent.—to the care of senior citizens? The next comprehensive review must deliver a durable and compassionate policy that puts an end to uncertainty about long-term care costs.
We had a royal commission at the beginning of the Parliament, and we have learned today that we shall have a White Paper at the end of it. I fear that many people outside the House will take the view that what we have heard today is little more than a whitewash.
3.13 pm
Mr. Phil Hope: I welcome the debate. I particularly welcome the announcements made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on national care standards; the finance of long-term care; consultation papers on the detail, which we look forward to; access to social services; and minimum standards.
The royal commission has produced a far-reaching report. It is interesting that it is entitled "With Respect to Old Age". Perhaps it should have been subtitled "In Condemnation of the Tory Government". The report includes some damning indictments. It describes the system of care that we inherited when we took power. It refers to it being designed around a series of different bureaucracies rather than around the needs of individual older people. It prevented the national health service and local authorities developing joint working and created a strong lack of trust in the system. The commission says that the result was a sense of betrayal, a lack of trust and a genuine sense of helplessness. That is what we inherited from the Conservative Government. It is so important that we have a response from a Labour Government, who will tackle the inequities and unfairnesses and allow older people to have trust in a system that meets their needs.
Miss Kirkbride: Is the hon. Gentleman proud of those on the Government Front Bench and of the Government, who clearly will not introduce legislation on these matters within this Parliament? Only a White Paper is on offer next summer, not legislation and not real proposals.
Mr. Hope: According to my maths, the Conservatives were in power for 18 years, during which time they could have brought forward proposals to deal with the needs of older people. We inherited a situation where 1 million pensioners were living below the poverty level. We have tackled that directly through a basic income guarantee for pensioners and free television licences for over-75s. We need take no lessons on support for pensioners and other people from the Conservative party.
I shall draw attention to experiences in Northamptonshire and to the work that the county council has been doing in its best value review—one of the most comprehensive and detailed analyses of social care ever
478
undertaken in the county—of residential care for older people. The provision of social care services to older people represents possibly the largest area of activity for social service departments, in terms both of spend and of the number of people receiving those services. The spend in Northamptonshire is about £45 million, and 7,000 people are affected.
The review highlighted the key issue that services for older people cannot be considered in isolation. For example, the provision of residential care is directly affected by home care services, care management and assessment services by other organisations such as health authorities and health trusts, and housing departments. There is a complex interrelationship between different services. If change is introduced in one area, we must consider the impact of that on others.
A critical feature of the review was that the county council widely consulted and involved users, carers and staff at all the homes in the area to ensure that they understood the problems and the issues that the council was trying to tackle and had some ownership of the outcome of the review.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take note of what I am about to present as Northamptonshire's solutions. A consensus has been built up in the county about the right way forward—a way that builds on best practice. I hope that the work that has been done will provide a model that will inform the response and the White Paper when it is published.
Emphasis was placed on offering choice in meeting the needs of older people, on supporting people in their own homes when that is their wish, supporting carers, ensuring high quality in all service provision, joint working between the different agencies that affect the lives of older people and a whole-systems approach. That is designed to ensure that everything is taken into account, including the policies of the health authority and the Department of Health, as well as of the local authority and the social services department. Unless we take the picture as a whole, we create perverse incentives, bed blocking and the practice of passing on elderly people like parcels around the system, without the resources to meet their needs. Unless we adopt a systemic approach, we shall not achieve the outcomes that older people deserve.
All the available evidence from service mapping, activity data and expenditure patterns reveals in Northamptonshire an over-reliance on residential care, with the result that funding is being diverted to relatively high-cost residential care. Fewer resources are available to invest in a broader range of preventive and other services that would help people to be supported at home. That over-reliance on residential care appears to be associated with relatively high rates of admission to hospital of older people, especially those aged 75-plus.
What can we do about that? What is being proposed in Northamptonshire? The research that was carried out in association with the review showed that any decision to enter into residential care does not have to be inevitable. It showed also that early action can be taken to provide support in the community, and that that can alleviate a perceived risk and a major factor. People are predisposed to think that they have to go into care because they cannot be cared for at home. However, if there is a full assessment of need and a consideration of rehabilitation and the wider range of services that can provide support in

479
the community, many service users, who would otherwise enter residential care, can be cared for in their own homes. That is an important philosophy for the individuals involved and it has huge implications for the development of services in the community.
The widespread consultation that I mentioned clearly highlighted a strong preference for people to remain at home wherever possible, and the provision of a broad range of community-based services was also seen as particularly important. The need for residential care will remain—there is no question about that—but there should be a strong emphasis on high standards of provision and of care, with more people being cared for in their own homes.
Northamptonshire began to develop specialist services in several key areas. We discovered that rehabilitation can provide the time and the opportunity for service users to regain lost skills and abilities, for example, after a period of hospitalisation or an accident at home. Experience elsewhere suggests that, with the appropriate services, people can be helped to return home with support rather than being warehoused inappropriately in residential care that does not meet their individual needs.
Another area of specialism is respite care. It can provide essential support to carers and it is most effectively provided in familiar high-quality surroundings. Flexible respite care can benefit both service users and carers.
Services for older people with mental health needs must be arranged in a way that is appropriate to the particular needs of that user group. Familiarity and continuity will be important features in that specialist service to offer a continuum of care that offers day, respite and long-term residential provision.
Another area that we considered was access to services and fairness. There is evidence that the take-up of services by members of black and minority ethnic communities is low, although, if special services are provided, the take-up is significantly higher. Therefore, all services—whether in the local authority, the independent or the health sectors—need to ensure that they provide equality of access at all times. An emphasis must be placed on that. As well as recognising the merits of that approach, we need to recognise the merits of supporting initiatives that provide specific services to meet specialist needs. The Government could take many new initiatives to promote equality of access for the black and minority ethnic communities in Northamptonshire and the rest of the country.
Supported housing is another critical way of promoting independence. The importance of developing a range of housing options for older people was widely identified during the consultation process, as a critical element of any strategy to maintain more people in the community. Full consideration of housing needs, through joint assessment arrangements, must be an integral part of any care management activity. The potential of aid, adaptations, new technologies and imaginative approaches to the flexible delivery of care in people's homes must be exploited to the full. I am sure that the Government can do a lot more to promote such innovative approaches. Similarly, a greater availability of very sheltered housing
480
provision, which offers intensive care and support, can be part of the strategy to promote the independence of older people.
The conclusions as to the way forward were interesting. The best value option that is provided in Northamptonshire has three or four main elements. The first involves the transfer of 15 to 17 of the county council's residential care homes to the independent sector. In Northamptonshire, what works is what counts. Seeking to find the right blend of provision includes that transfer. The county council is also developing the specialist services that I mentioned and works with district councils to promote a programme of reprovision in the form of very sheltered housing.
That package enables the commissioning of such specialist services and of very sheltered housing through the release of capital that was locked up in existing long-term care provision. That service model may also be able to attract private finance into the sector in Northamptonshire to support older people. Better value for money is therefore being achieved in the long-term care places purchased by the council, and that releases money for community-based alternatives. Early action to prevent admission to hospital and residential care will limit the growth in the number of people supported in long-term care in the future. The strategy is to keep more people in their own homes and to provide specialist services, very sheltered housing and private sector residential care of a high quality. That strategy will provide a continuum of care for older people in Northamptonshire.
Of course, some issues—especially that of raising standards—need to be addressed. I much welcome the review of standards in residential and nursing homes that is being undertaken. We have seen the draft standards and there are resource implications. If those standards are to be met, we must provide the means to do the job. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) referred to home care, and we need to increase standards there.
If I heard him correctly, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) seemed to say that we did not need regulations for the care of people in their own homes or in council or independent residential nursing homes. I cannot believe that anyone could possibly leave older people vulnerable to the problems that were mentioned earlier without a regulatory regime being in place. That is the legacy of the 18 years of the previous Government that we inherited. We want no more of it; we need a real change. We need proper standards and must take a systemic look at the whole way that older people are handled by all the different providers in the system in any locality to ensure that people are not shunted about.
The Government's announcements are welcome. We all look forward to the White Paper that will be published in response to the royal commission on long-term care. Choice, fairness and quality are critical and we must have action to achieve them. I hope that the experiences and the proposals being introduced in Northamptonshire will provide a model of good practice for the Government.
3.27 pm
Sir John Stanley: I wish to focus my remarks on one group of people and on one provision in one piece of legislation. The people on whom

481
I want to focus are those who are called the "preferred rights group". They were in residential homes on 1 April 1993 and therefore, by definition, they include some of the frailest and most elderly in our community. The legislation on which I wish to focus is section 43 of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990, which inserted a key new section, section 26A, into the National Assistance Act 1948.
The key consequences of what the then Conservative Government did to that group of people were to give with one hand and to take away—and to take away a great deal—with the other. They conferred an entitlement to a higher rate of income support on that group of frail, elderly people and they preserved their rights to that higher rate. However, in section 43 of the 1990 Act, the then Government imposed a statutory block on any form of financial assistance, through local authority social service departments, for that group. That block was total and inflexible and it was not capable of being tailored to any individual's circumstances. It left no discretion whatever in the hands of local authority social services departments and it took no account of the consequences for individuals of those legislative provisions in particular cases.
The course of events in a significant number of individual cases has been as follows: inescapably, as elderly people get older, they become more frail and incapacitated and require more care, and the cost of providing that care inevitably escalates. The residential home is therefore obliged to increase its fees to cover the cost of increased care. As fees go up, they often rise beyond the level of the higher rate of income support. In those circumstances, if the individual resident has no means left of providing additional funding and has either no relatives or none willing or able to provide the increased funding, one appalling option is left—eviction.
The royal commission on long-term care recognised that this was a very serious position. In paragraph 4.30 of its report the royal commission said that it was aware that "preserved rights" rates of income support
"are becoming increasingly inadequate. Many of the people concerned are in increasingly difficult circumstances. As they survive longer, it seems increasingly difficult to justify treating this group of people differently from those who entered the care system on or after 1 April 1993, for whom local authorities meet fees in full, subject to a contribution based on means. Equity demands that they should be treated in the same way. We recommend that the Government should consider whether 'preserved rights' cases should be brought within the post-April 1993 system or whether some other solution can be found to address the shortfall in funding experienced by this group."
Of course I very much welcome the royal commission's recommendation, but its implementation is time critical. I share the disappointment expressed by hon. Members who have already spoken about what the Secretary of State said about his time scale for responding to the royal commission's report and introducing the legislation necessary to give effect to that response. As hon. Members have pointed out, we are promised a White Paper this summer, and, on that basis, we cannot even be sure that legislation will be forthcoming before this Parliament ends.
I can only try to bring home to the House just how time critical it is to deal with the outrageous situation that will exist as long as section 43 remains on the statute book unamended. I shall tell the House of the latest constituency case with which I have been dealing.
482
My constituent is 96 years old. She is a widow. She has multiple infirmities, but she is sound of mind and therefore fully aware of what is going on around her. She has been living in a nursing home in my constituency since 1989—for the past 10 years—and her room there has become her home and her security. She is, by definition, one of the preserved rights cases on whom there is, under section 43, a total block on any financial support from local authority social services departments.
In August, my constituent's daughter and son-in-law came to see me with what for me has become an all too tragically familiar request. They found that the nursing home, faced with increased care costs for my constituent, was no longer able to cover those costs even with the higher rate of income support, and had said that there was no alternative but to have her forcibly removed from the home that she had been occupying for the past 10 years.
I brought the case to the attention of the Secretary of State, who said that there was nothing that he could do. I brought the case to the attention of the Kent director of social services, who took fresh legal advice and confirmed that the position was exactly as I have described it to the House: section 43 is totally inflexible and there are no circumstances in which it is legally possible for local authority social services departments to provide top-up funding, even when the individual concerned is facing eviction. He went on to say that he and all his care team considered that my constituent should remain in her home.
I am sorry to have to tell the House that my constituent's eviction took place yesterday, Wednesday 1 December. She was moved, forcibly, to a cheaper home where she no longer even has a room of her own. Earlier this morning, I rang my constituent's daughter. I wish that the whole House could have heard the conversation, because she could have conveyed the trauma of the situation and its impact on her mother far more eloquently that I possibly could. However, I took down what she said to me as best I could, and these are her words. She said:
"The move has been terribly, terribly distressing for my mother. When it was time for me to go, my mother took my arm and said, 'Please don't leave me. Please don't leave me. I want to go home.' To which I could only reply, 'Mother, this is now your home.' It was heartbreaking. I wish you people in Parliament could have been there."
It is a monumental disgrace that there is legislation on the statute book that results in infirm, elderly people who have made their lifetime's contribution to this society, have paid their taxes and national insurance contributions throughout their lives—and, in this generation, helped to see this country through a world war—being offered by the state at the end of their lives only the option of eviction from their home. I am deeply ashamed that such legislation has been passed and has so far remained unamended.
I hope that my sense of shame will be shared in all parts of the House. I am sure that no right hon. or hon. Member would want their constituents to face such treatment. I hope also that Ministers will take account of the fact that, while section 43 remained unamended in the four years between it coming into operation on 1 April 1993 and the general election in 1997, it remains unamended today. I hope that that is a matter of the utmost concern to the Secretary of State.
I shall end by making a proposal. I put the proposal forward not as a rhetorical gesture, but with the utmost seriousness and sincerity, believing that it can produce an immediate solution to the problem.

483
We require an amendment to section 43 that would enable local authority social services departments to provide the necessary top-up funding to prevent an eviction taking place. I suggest to the Secretary of State that the situation calls for emergency legislative treatment, and I propose a short, simple legislative provision. I do not believe that any hon. Member in any part of the House can consider it acceptable that, at the end of this century, frail 96-year-old people are forcibly evicted from their home because the legislation provides no other option.
I have examined the legislation. It could conceivably be amended by secondary legislation but, assuming that that is not possible, the primary legislation required would not be more than two or three clauses. The House is perfectly able to deal quickly with emergency legislation. I am in no doubt that the legislation would receive all-party support. I have no doubt that such a two or three-clause Bill could go through the House in all its stages in a day, and through the other place also in a day. If the political will existed, that amending legislation could be on the statute book by Christmas.
That is the proposal that I put to the Secretary of State. It does not necessarily have to be the permanent solution. He may want to deal with the problem in a different way in his White Paper, but I implore the Government to recognise the seriousness and the unacceptability of the present situation, and to do something about it as a matter of urgency. While section 43 remains unamended, it is a shameful piece of legislation to be current in Britain at the end of the 20th century, and this House ultimately has the responsibility for amending it.
3.42 pm
Ms Rachel Squire: I, and I am sure other right hon. and hon. Members, share the deep sense of shame and disgrace so powerfully expressed by the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley). We must ask ourselves how our society has reached a point when elderly residents of homes that they have occupied for many years do not seem even to be covered by the United Nations convention on human rights.
Whatever system of funding long-term care is eventually decided on, I hope that we ensure that nothing similar can happen again. In the light of what the right hon. Gentleman told the House, I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to give serious consideration to the urgency of amending the legislation.
On the wider issue, I pay tribute to the royal commission for tackling so ably and effectively the subject of long-term care, and for producing an excellent report. I also pay tribute to the Government for establishing the royal commission so early in their term of office, and for showing a genuine commitment to tackling one of the most complex, sensitive and difficult areas of welfare reform.
I admit that, like many other hon. Members, I had hoped that it would be possible to have a full Government response to the report by now. However, I would much rather the Government took their time and made a full and comprehensive response than rushed to make an inadequate and problematic one. A properly considered resolution, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State
484
said earlier when he outlined his timetable, is certainly in order, especially as we inherited a total mess from the previous Government of 18 years, who seem to have combined the closure of free NHS provision, such as Milesmark hospital in my constituency, with a massive increase in independent sector residential and nursing home care, much of it means-tested.
The previous Government also failed to deliver on community care. In its report to the royal commission, Alzheimer Scotland—Action on Dementia stated:
"Figures show that community care has meant a redistribution of places between types of provision within the institutional sector, not an increased provision of the human resources necessary for successful domiciliary long term care."
Part of my anger with the present system is due to the fact that, too often, it does not allow a real choice between long-term care in one's own home and residential or nursing home care. Although I accept that that is not always a realistic option, all too frequently families and individuals have been pressured into accepting some form of institutionalised care.
All of us hope to end our days in our own home, and we as right hon. and hon. Members have a responsibility to do our utmost to make that possible for as many of our constituents as we can. However, our present funding system for long-term care, which combines a false division between health and social care with a lack of an integrated and diverse range of domiciliary services in many parts of the country, pushes people into institutional care. I make no criticism of much residential and nursing home care provision. I have such homes in my constituency which provide a high level of care and a decent life style, but they should not be the only option.
I welcome the Government's actions so far and their efforts to break the mould of institutional care and to promote the possibility of independence in one's own home—for example, the Government's special grant to local authorities of £293 million this year to support independent living at home for older people, and the improvement of services to carers through the allocation of £140 million over three years to fund respite care.
I welcome the announcement today of the publication of the long-term care charter setting out a national framework for improving housing, health and social services to promote independence. Those measures, combined with other Government action, such as the £100 winter fuel allowance, free television licences for over-75-year-olds, and the reduction to a 10p rate of income tax on savings from last April, all make it possible for more people to remain in their homes.
Those steps are all welcome, but we must tackle the crucial issue of who pays and for what when long-term care is needed. I urge the Government to consider carefully the recommendations of the royal commission on the funding of long-term care. That is seen by many of our constituents as one of the most important political decisions that the Government will make.
We have a moral responsibility to provide decency and dignity for the elderly, who are the majority, although not all, of those requiring long-term care. That is especially the case for the present elderly population who endured so much during the first half of the century to give our generation and subsequent generations greater opportunities and a better life style than they have had.
Today's pensioners believe that they deserve state-funded long-term care. They believe that they have paid for it through their taxes and national insurance

485
contributions. The majority believed that they had a responsibility to work hard, to pay tax and national insurance and to support their families, but they did so believing that, on their death, any savings that they had accumulated or assets that they had acquired could be passed on to their children and grandchildren. They believed that if they ever became ill and in need of full-time care, it would be provided without additional charge.
We are dealing here with a generation who accepted responsibility for their lives and those of their families. Even today, around 1 million do not claim benefits because they see them as charity. However, today's pensioners, certainly in my constituency, feel betrayed— a word that many have used to me, not just the political activists or members of the lobby groups with whom we all come into contact.
It is all very well for us to say that a two-tier system of free NHS care and means-tested social care has existed since Beveridge's reforms. That is true, but the majority of today's pensioners see it differently. Their view is that during their working lives they paid for long-term care in the event of their ever needing it. Until the previous Government, most long-term care was provided free in NHS long-stay beds, but during the past 20 years, thousands of those beds have been eliminated and replaced by means-tested care.
Particularly galling to pensioners who have worked and saved all their lives is that they now have to pay, whereas those with no assets or savings do not. If one of the Government's aims is to encourage people to save more and to make arrangements for an income in their retirement, we must consider carefully whether our eventual decision on long-term care will achieve that.
I urge the Government to recognise and deal with the crucial injustice highlighted by the royal commission that someone diagnosed with cancer receives care free of charge, while someone diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease is required to pay. Any action on long-term care funding must tackle that.
I appreciate that the cost implications are substantial, but for a number of reasons I urge the Government to be cautious in believing that they can offset the costs of long-term care to the state by going down the road of private insurance. First, the private insurance sector is not particularly interested in long-term care in general. It made that clear in its evidence to the royal commission. In the United States of America, that most privatised of care markets, only 5 per cent. of the population is insured against long-term care.
Secondly, I know from my own experience that private insurance companies are basically reluctant to provide any kind of cover to anyone with a blemished health record. Because I had a serious illness a few years ago, I, a Member of Parliament, have been refused insurance by private companies as large as Scottish Widows. It has now been five years since I had major surgery and radiotherapy, which is considered to be a bit of a guarantee that one will be around a bit longer yet, but if I sought long-term care insurance I would be required to pay a thumping price for it, which I would find difficult even on a Member of Parliament's salary, let alone the average family income. As a result, I believe that the private sector would cherry-pick and the state would end up carrying the majority of such costs. We need to take that into account.
486
We are finding it difficult to encourage people to save more and to put more into a second pension, so we must recognise the difficulty of persuading people to put money aside for an event which they hope will never happen— the need to leave their homes to go into some form of long-term care.
I welcome yesterday's announcement by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his St. Andrew's day speech on a joint action between the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the UK Parliament to tackle pensioner poverty. However, supporter as I am of devolution, any decision on the funding of long-term care must be UK-wide. It would not be right for pensioners in Dunfermline, Dorking and Denbigh to have different rules and regulations on the funding of long-term care.
Mr. Letwin: I have been reflecting on the hon. Lady's latest series of remarks and I am unclear whether she supports the position that I think we clarified was that of the Liberal Democrat's spokesman, that the state, and hence the present generation of taxpayers, should meet the full cost of long-term care for those in long-term care today regardless of their income or capital. Is that what she is saying?
Ms Squire: I am urging the Government to give serious consideration to the royal commission's recommendations on personal care and on that being free of charge. Today's pensioners deserve top priority in whatever money is available. I need to hear more of the arguments about whether that should apply to those of us who have a few years yet to retirement age. But we have a particular responsibility to today's pensioners because of what they went through and the expectations that they built up during their working lives.
I welcome Ministers' comments about the importance of recognising the contribution of carers to our society. Voluntary carers provide the largest amount of long-term care, free of cost or at low charge, estimated to be worth up to £40 billion a year. I hope that Government announcements next summer will recognise the role that carers play and ensure a system of full support for them.
I welcome today's debate, but I urge that we recognise in our decisions and in our future debates our moral obligation to today's pensioners that long-term care funding should be universal. We must tackle the false division that exists between health and social care and, all too often nowadays, between nursing and residential care. We must meet the needs of carers as well as users, and ensure decency, dignity and independence. The awful circumstances of the 96-year-old that the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling described must never occur again.
4 pm
Mrs. Marion Roe: I welcome the opportunity to contribute to a debate on the important subject of long-term care, and to consider the recommendations in the royal commission's report and the points made in the note of dissent. However, I must point out, as other hon. Members have done, that people inside and outside Parliament have expressed grave disappointment because the Government have not made decisions on all the report's recommendations, although

487
they were published in March—nine months ago. The Government have still not declared their position on future policy.
The royal commission's report is not the first report on long-term care to be presented to the House of Commons. When I was chairman of the Select Committee on Health, it held two inquiries into long-term care. One related to national health service responsibilities for meeting continuing health care need, and was published in November 1995. The other covered the future provision and funding of long-term care, and was published in July 1996. Both reports were unanimous and provided the initial investigation into and detailed analysis of a highly complex and controversial issue. Therefore, I speak as somebody who has taken an interest in the subject for a long time.
What is the question to which answers are required now? Population forecasts up to the middle of the next century are relatively reliable. Unfortunately, future demand for long-term care is dependent not only on the size of the elderly population but, crucially, on much more unpredictable factors such as the number of people who live alone and the health status of the elderly. Of course, the latter depends on developments that cannot be foreseen, such as the extent of medical progress and the degree to which healthier life styles are adopted. Therefore, all attempts to calculate future demand towards the end of the lifetimes of those who are not young will contain an element of crystal ball gazing; I think that statisticians call it "an expanding funnel of doubt".
I endorse the royal commission's view that there are no immediate demographic time bombs for long-term care; the demographic and dependency ratio trends suggest that no major problems loom in the short to medium term— that is, up to around 2020. After that, the trends will present more of a challenge and we should consider their implications now.
It is right that any changes to present models of care and methods of financing long-term care should conform to seven key principles. First, any changes should maximise the individual's independence, self-respect and choice. At the heart of any system should be encouragement of independence and autonomy for the individual, and provision of reasonable opportunity for people to choose the type and setting of the long-term care that they require. It is also important that the system is sensitive to the particular needs of ethnic and religious minorities.
Secondly, any changes should be understandable and perceived as equitable. There is a widely held perception that the current arrangements for funding long-term care lack fairness.
Thirdly, any changes should improve the way in which long-term care is planned, organised and purchased by multidisciplinary, knowledge-based agencies. The community care reforms are based on the aspiration for services to be purchased and provided to suit the needs of the individual rather than the interests of service providers. Therefore, good information is required on the needs of individuals and local populations, and on the effectiveness of the varying forms of long-term care services, including, for example, preventive and rehabilitative services.
488
Fourthly, any changes should provide better support and encouragement to informal carers, in terms of practical help—for example, training and respite care—or financial help. Informal care is, and will remain for the foreseeable future, the bedrock of long-term care provision. Given the potential for changing demographic and other social trends to reduce the supply of informal carers, there is a strong argument for ensuring that priority is given to changes that will improve the ability and willingness of informal carers to provide care.
Fifthly, any changes should include mechanisms to ensure that an efficient and high-quality service is provided in all care settings. Long-term care services are often provided to clients, who, by the nature of their conditions, are vulnerable. Therefore, it is clearly important that mechanisms are in place to ensure high-quality services in all care settings.
Sixthly, changes should be affordable. Public support for changes is likely to be forthcoming only if they are seen to be affordable by individuals as well as the state. Any movement towards a system of long-term care that is "funded" as opposed to "pay-as-you-go" should recognise that one generation would be expected to contribute twice—for its own future care and for the care needs of today's elderly people. I believe that any such change would need to be phased in over a long period in order to be affordable and acceptable to the transitional generation.
Seventhly, any new programme of public expenditure on long-term care should, in the case of services provided or funded by the national health service, be—as it is now—available equally to all citizens according to their assessed need for care and, in the case of means-tested social care services, be designed to meet necessary care need for citizens who have insufficient income or capital to pay for such care from their own resources. We all listened carefully to the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) about his constituent, with whom we have great sympathy.
What are the options for funding long-term care? It is apparent that long-term care is an expensive service for the taxpayer and for any individual who contributes towards the cost of his or her care. As I said earlier, there is a perceived unfairness in the current system for financing long-term care by means testing state-supported residents in residential or nursing homes. That approach penalises people who have saved during their working life, while rewarding with free care those who have been unable, or unwilling, to save. It is grossly unfair to the thrifty, because it represents a disincentive to save and a challenge to those able to divest themselves of capital. If we are to build a more secure society, we should encourage people to help themselves and to be independent, if possible, through saving carefully for their old age. Thrift should be encouraged and assisted, not undermined.
Surely it must be right to find a way for the state to work with those who are prudent and not against them. For example, partnership schemes give additional protection of assets against a means test when it is applied. We must not forget that society as a whole has become wealthier and the substantial increase in the number of elderly people who own their own homes means that many people have assets significantly above those specified in the means-tested threshold. If that is

489
coupled with the fact that people are, on average, living longer, the disquiet on that issue can be understood. I therefore fully support the Conservative party's policy whereby, if individuals make provision for themselves, the Government will protect more of their assets should that provision run out and they need to use state-funded care.
It is important that as many options for future funding of long-term care as possible should be considered and assessed. The partnership schemes are only part of an overall package that may include other mechanisms such as immediate need annuities, long-term care insurance, equity release schemes, geared pensions and tax relief as well as schemes founded on general taxation or social insurance such as those in Germany. As we know, state expenditure on long-term care in the United Kingdom is currently funded on a pay-as-you-go basis, which would mean—bearing in mind the changing demographic profile and, in particular, the changes in the dependency ratios— that such schemes could ultimately become too expensive for the country as a whole to afford. I wait, with great interest, to learn exactly where the Government are going on that crucial question of financing.
I shall now discuss the caring services that should be provided. There is no doubt that examples of good practice in the provision of long-term care should be publicised more widely and that there is a need to expand the scope and quality of domiciliary, rehabilitative and respite care. In my view, that would benefit the individuals concerned and be likely to be more cost-effective for the funding authorities. Greater attention should also be paid to the need to improve housing facilities for the elderly and the disabled and to achieving more effective liaison between housing, social services and health authorities.
Housing improvements can offer a happy conjunction of cost-effectiveness for the providing authorities and improved quality of life for those who inhabit the housing. It is important that housing services fully exploit their potential for contributing to the Government's community care objectives, particularly with regard to the development of very sheltered housing schemes and ensuring that ordinary sheltered housing schemes are attractive to current and future generations of users. For example, account should be taken of the wider development of collaborative schemes such as those in respect of community care alarms.
We are all aware of the anomaly whereby it is possible to receive free nursing care in some situations but not others. Nursing care is free in hospital and at home, but citizens pay for it if they have to go into a nursing home. That creates all sorts of barriers to achieving seamless care. However, the cost implications of any changes to that situation must be taken into account for any comprehensive provision of nursing care. A number of colleagues have commented on those implications, and again I await with interest the Government's decision on an important issue.
I should also like to raise the question of under-resourcing by social services departments for independent sector placements and the resulting pressure that that is putting on the sector. My hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) has already commented on that issue. There is no doubt that many people who have been assessed as needing residential care are being forced to wait on a waiting list while some local
490
authorities persist in wasting money on direct provision of care that is often more than 60 per cent. more expensive to provide than comparable or even better care provided by the independent sector. Surely that cannot be an acceptable way to proceed and I should like the Minister to tell the House what action he is taking to stop that practice.
As chairman of the all-party hospice group, I should like to make a plea on behalf of the hospice movement and its involvement in long-term care. The Department of Health, in circular EL(96)85, stated that the palliative care approach should be integrated into the routine clinical practice of all health care professionals in the NHS. The hospice movement believes that that principle and policy objective should be extended to all long-term care in the private and voluntary sectors.
The Government's proposals for regulating private and voluntary health care present an opportunity to introduce new national standards for nursing homes and one of those standards could be that the staff in nursing and residential homes are trained in palliative care. The voluntary hospices and NHS specialist palliative care units are well placed to lead the development of education and training for nursing and residential home staff in the palliative care approach, provided that they are resourced to do so. Some nursing homes already seek out and pay for such training, but all need to be encouraged to do so through the introduction of training and staff development standards. The professional carers of those in long-term care need to be able to access the specialist advice and support of the community-based hospice and specialist palliative care services. They need to know in what circumstances to seek specialist advice. Education, and perhaps the development of locally-agreed procedures for assessing such advice, would assist in that.
Finally, whatever the outcome of the Government's deliberations, may I draw the Minister's attention to, first, the importance of public awareness of the issues and choices involved? After all, the decisions will affect every one of us. Secondly, I remind him of the current Health Committee observations on the issue:
"There is a consensus that the status-quo is unacceptable. Failure by the Government to act urgently would be a serious dereliction of duty".
4.18 pm
Ms Debra Shipley: Like other Members, I welcome the debate as an opportunity to discuss important issues concerning the care of our elderly citizens. How we care for them must surely be a clear marker as to what kind of society we are and what values we hold dear, and there are many examples of excellent care, both in residential homes and families.
Families often struggle with difficult conditions and circumstances and have access to far too few resources and support systems. Carers of dependent relatives are nothing short of heroes and heroines who work hard and make great personal sacrifices to give their loved ones all the attention that they need and deserve. We all owe those individuals a great debt: not only do they help us to believe that we live in a caring society, but they save us all a great deal of money by endeavouring to care for elderly relatives and partners at home.
It is, therefore, only right and proper that the Government are improving services to carers by allocating £140 million to help to fund respite care. I welcome

491
that measure, which is a good step in the right direction. Of course it is not enough; we want more. I also pay tribute to those who devote effort, enthusiasm and commitment to making some residential homes beacons of excellence. They are the shining light in what I believe to be a murky world of neglect and, on occasion, abuse.
I had the great honour, as a Back Bencher, of being the Member in charge of what has become the Protection of Children Act 1999. The Act contains mechanisms to help protect children from abusers. During the Bill's passage, I was approached by numerous colleagues who wanted the protection offered to children by my Bill to be extended to elderly people. I also received numerous pleas from people all over the country who begged me to help elderly relatives or friends who had been consigned to leading what I would describe as a dehumanised existence. I was given many examples of neglect and, in some cases, abuse.
It was with immense sadness that I had to dash the hopes of those desperate people. I had to tell them that, as a Back Bencher, I had limited means at my disposal, and could not extend the powers contained in the Protection of Children Act. Ministers, however, do have the means and the powers. I hope that the Minister of State will be able to tell us about any measures that he can take to make it a statutory responsibility for all who work with elderly people to be vetted, and, if found to be abusers, prevented from working with them. I also hope that my hon. Friend will find ways in which to tackle the numerous instances of neglect.
I welcome the proposals for a new regulatory system, and the development of a set of national standards through the national care commission. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to say something about how the standards will be enforced, what sanctions will be imposed against those who fall short of them, and how the standards will be policed. On the basis of the evidence I have been given, I firmly believe that fully accredited lay visitors with powers to enter residential homes at any time of day or night must be part of any monitoring scheme. Only unscheduled spot visits will capture the sort of neglect that is currently prevalent in residential homes for the elderly.
Carlton's "Thirty Minutes" programme recently sent an undercover reporter to a number of residential homes in the west midlands, where I come from. The broadcast that resulted featured none of the headline-grabbing shock stories that require immediate action—someone being sacked or prosecuted, or both. What it did reveal was constant, pernicious neglect: neglect that can be described as institutionalised. There seemed to be little comprehension among those being filmed that the ways in which elderly people were being treated were, quite simply, wrong.
For example, an elderly woman was left lying, for a considerable time, on the floor in a communal area where she posed a danger not only to herself but to other residents. She was also denied dignity. The programme also revealed poor standards of hygiene, and the incorrect administering of drugs. A reporter seeking work in a residential home was not asked for a reference, and no checks were made on her suitability. It is a measure of the complete lack of any sort of proper employment practice that on one occasion she was not even asked for her home address before being allowed to start work;
492
she was simply allowed to work with vulnerable, dependent elderly people who relied on her for their care and well-being. Given such poor employment practices, is it any surprise that our elderly people are neglected and abused?
Neglect, however, is even more far-reaching than that. Our elderly people are often subjected to regimes that, on occasion, defy human rights. There are examples of elderly people being woken and dressed at 5.30 am because that suited the shifts of the employees, and of elderly people being forced to go to bed early in the evening—perhaps at 6.30 pm—because that, too, suited the staff. That reminds me of a prison regime, rather than a home. It does not make me think of a place of safety, warmth and care. Dragooning people into behaviour patterns better suited to a penal institution is no way to treat our elders, and if we continue to allow it that will say as much about us as it says about those who perpetrate such regimes.
In fact, it says much about us that we can allow elderly people to lead the remainder of their lives sitting in an armchair with little to stimulate, interest or entertain them. What kind of society is it that turns and looks away because the problem is difficult to solve, or because it is inconvenient to take action?
I have visited residential homes in my Stourbridge constituency, which is a delightful place to live. It has pleasant surroundings, working practices that ensure dignity and respect for residents and activities that provide companionship and interest. Those homes are good places, but many others are not. I plead with the Minister to act as a matter of urgency to raise standards in residential homes. There is a vital need for an independent agency to inspect homes. Can the Minister tell us whether there is a proposed date for such an agency to become operational? Failure to act would be a national disgrace.
Let me deal briefly with the funding of residential care. My Stourbridge constituents have raised the issue with me at two public meetings, and on numerous occasions individually. Their comments show a lack of trust in the present system. Many people are unclear about what to expect for their relatives and, looking a little into the future, for themselves. I think that their fears are understandable. The last Government left the system in a mess, and it is up to the present Government to take urgent and serious action.
The last Government failed to offer support to elderly people and their carers to help the elderly to stay in their own homes—something that most people want. They also encouraged the creation of an independent residential care sector without introducing the checks and balances that were necessary.
Miss Kirkbride: One thing that can be said of the last Government is that we introduced the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990, which allowed people to stay in their own homes—[Interruption.]
Ms Shipley: That comment has provoked a good deal of sedentary dissent. Certainly, if the necessary measures were in place to safeguard elderly people, we should not need to take the steps outlined earlier by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
As I was saying, residential homes need checks and balances which are certainly not there at present. I look to the present Government to introduce them as a matter

493
of urgency. Furthermore, as has already been said, people were pressurised to sell their homes as soon as they entered care. That meant that, if their health improved, they would have no homes to return to. That is clearly a deplorable and very sad situation.
I believe that the Government's proposals to keep as many people in their own homes as possible for as long as possible is what the vast majority want, and must be properly supported. Most of my constituents tell me that they want to stay in their own homes, looked after by their relatives in the first instance, and moving into residential care only later, if that proves necessary. Individuals, however, must be free to choose the living conditions that provide best for their needs, and must be able to plan financially to meet the choices that they make.
My constituents are realistic. They realise that long-term residential care costs a great deal. The royal commission estimated that free personal care would cost around £1 billion a year. My constituents realise that funding for a high-standard programme of care will have to be provided in a variety of ways, but they want it to be fair funding. We urgently need a better funding system for elderly people who need residential care, and it must be fair and be seen to be fair. Vitally, it must be sustainable over a long period, so that people can plan to meet their own needs and those of their families. I should be pleased to hear from the Minister how he will ensure that those with modest amounts of capital are not hit hardest when they come to fund their care.
I welcome the fact that the Government have honoured their election commitment to publish a charter for long-term care. It is important that, for the first time, people will have access to information that they need: they need to know what they can expect from local services.
To be elderly and vulnerable is difficult. To be fearful as well is totally unacceptable. We have a duty to offer high standards of care to the elderly and to build a new system that is transparent, sustainable and offering choice and quality. When we have done that, we will have earned the trust of the elderly and their carers—a trust that was destroyed by the Conservatives.
4.30 pm
Rev. Martin Smyth: I follow the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Ms Shipley), having served with her in seeking to bring the Protection of Children Act 1999 into being. As she spoke, I thought of long-term care for children with handicaps and the proposals for means-testing income with regard to the house that they might need.
A person wrote to me from the Foyle constituency urging me to bear it in mind that means testing was unnecessary because those who had the funds would go ahead. They were not prepared to wait for things to happen, whereas those who did not have the money or facilities required immediate help.
On long-term funding, the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) reminded us all of the problem of relying merely on insurance provision. I know that we are all glad that she has done the five-year sentence and look forward to her presence in the House for many more years.
From the poignant contribution of the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley), we all learned a lesson. It was the House of Commons that
494
passed the legislation in question. A Government of whom he had been a supporter, if not a member, brought it before the House. The tragedy is that, often, in passing legislation, we do not think about its impact on the community out there. It is a salutary lesson that we should bear in mind.
There is much excellent care and provision for the elderly, but the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling reminded us of the old saying that we are living in a generation of people who know the price of everything and the value of nothing. I have had to deal with young colleagues in the ministry who thought that paying attention to young people was all that mattered. I used to tell them to be careful. I told them that, if young people saw them ignoring their parents because they were concentrating on them, the parents could suddenly say, "Can we rely on them to look after us when we get older?" The Government have to look at the whole span. We may look for support from the younger generation, but we should also care for the older generation.
I am a little concerned. We welcome the fact that, as of today, Northern Ireland has devolution, but I am not convinced by some proposals. I understand the Secretary of State's view that the standards should be for England, but in my view, they should be for the whole kingdom. We should all have the same standards to aspire to. I hope that there will be not the lowest, but the highest common denominator—something that we build on, rather than trying to get away with what we can.
We have to bear it in mind that human beings look after themselves to a large extent. I am reminded of a person who did not live in my constituency, but who looked after her parents. Then, after years of caring for them, she required a break. She went on holiday. Her parents were looked after by her brother and sister-in-law, who suddenly discovered that it upset the routine of their home, so they put the parents in a residential home.
When the daughter came back, she was heartbroken, especially when she saw the conditions at the home, but it was the brother who had put the parents in. The authorities hid behind that fact.
We complained about the conditions at the home. The authorities replied that the home had a clean bill of health and that the general practitioner who was responsible for it had said that it was all right. Ultimately, they closed it: we were right and they were wrong. The GP was receiving a retainer fee of £3,000 a year to say that it was all right. We have to deal with human nature and to provide the standards that our people expect in relation to long-term care in the community.
There is a division between health and social care. Again, we have to be careful. Some time back, legislation was passed that did not permit local authorities in England to purchase provision outside England.
We had an interesting development. As we all know, we are a mobile people. People come to England to work from Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. I think of an individual who spent many years in England working. Then he was incapacitated and put into a home. No one around there really knew him. Cousins and others in Fermanagh would have been delighted to have him close to them, so that they could give him some back-up. Although the provision there was cheaper for the local authority and better for him, it was not allowed in law to purchase the provision to allow that person to go back to

495
his native heath, where family would be around to help him. In legislating, we have to be careful that we do not get so parochial that we hive off the different regions, forgetting that we are one common family.
I make a plea about financing and the concept of preserved rights. A voluntary home that was started by a Church of Ireland rector for people with profound learning difficulties has been going for some 25 years. It never had a ha'penny from the state to help with capital or running costs. Different authorities purchased its places, which have been kept at a certain limit.
The clergyman concerned has run voluntary efforts, raising, for example, £70,000 last year primarily to increase patient comfort and to give those people the quality of life that he believes they should have as human beings; but he cannot run the home on the amount that is received through purchase of the provision by the different boards—12 places with preserved rights were purchased by the Department of Health and Social Services. That is happening throughout the country. We have to re-examine it, so that we deal with people according to their needs.
We speak of community care. Is the problem affecting just Northern Ireland, or is it affecting other areas? One of the difficulties for people who would love to remain in their homes is that the adaptations required in their homes are so long in coming that they think that they will be dead before they get them.
One of the weaknesses is that occupational therapists' waiting lists are so long that they prioritise. I have asked how they prioritise. It seems that, as people come in, they add them to the list. That is not proper prioritisation, although it might seem fair.
A constituent of mine, a woman of 90, is blind. Her sister of 84 has a severe back problem. The OT said that they could handle the heater—one of those solid fuel things. I tried to move the thing myself. I know a little about fires and plumbing because that was my father's trade. My first Sunday work was helping him to do some maintenance work at the York street spinning mill. An 84-year-old with a back condition was expected to cope with the heater by herself. Then we were told that the problem was that there was no gas in the area. We knew that. The nearest gas point was two miles away, but no one wanted to put the oil in.
Having fought the good fight, the ladies now have a measure of comfort, but they should not have had to fight that good fight and a Member of Parliament should not have to act in that way. The servants of the state should at least be aware of human needs and should seek to help rather than sticking to red tape.
I understand the financial pressures on the Government when considering long-term provision for the elderly, but tell that to people who read about the billions of pounds in the national insurance fund. They wonder what it is there for if not to provide for the generation who were partly responsible for amassing it.
4.41 pm
Ms Ann Coffey: I congratulate the members of the royal commission on the work that they put into producing their report, which deals with some
496
difficult and complex issues for today and tomorrow. Those issues deserve consideration. I also welcome the Government's announcement of the establishment of a national care commission, which will regulate and improve standards nationally. That is long overdue.
I welcome the royal commission's call for the modernisation of long-term care in a framework of fairness, recognising that that involves shared responsibilities between the individual and the state. Funding arrangements should be affordable, sustainable and fair to present and future generations of older and working people.
Older people are not a homogenous group. With today's increased life expectancy, they are not even all of the same generation. The people we call pensioners can range in age from 65 to 90. That covers different generations with different life experiences that have shaped different attitudes. Every one of them is an individual with his or her own life story, successes, failures, family experiences and financial circumstances. In recognition of that, the commission emphasises that older people are contributors to society. They are carers, members of voluntary organisations, and neighbours who do a good turn for each other. Some of them have part-time work, but they are also enjoyers of society—they use leisure facilities, they go to the cinema, the theatre and the pub down the road and they go walking. They want the same opportunities as the working-age population. The Government must ensure that they have them. That is why I welcome the better government for older people initiative, which shares that view of older people.
Being old should not take away the right to be treated fairly or the right to exercise choice, but neither should it take away the responsibility to contribute. The royal commission considered the funding of long-term care, looking at elderly people's expectations for dignity and security and the constraints of public funds. That is the agenda of rights and responsibilities.
In looking at funding issues and sustainability and affordability, the commission tried to take a long-term view, while admitting the difficulty of that. The future is more unpredictable than ever, because we need not only to take into account medical advances, economic changes and the impact of technology, but to try to predict people's expectations and behaviour in 50 years. The challenge of the next century will be to maintain social cohesion. We need to hold together the rights of the individual and the expectation that we all have to control our lives and exercise choices with the responsibilities that we each have to others in a fair society. That can involve contributing financially for the good of others and limitations on our personal freedom. That is a tension in any democratic society.
I shall judge one of the royal commission's main recommendations on the criterion of fairness and balancing everybody's rights and responsibilities, examining whether it achieves a partnership between the state and the individual and, most importantly, whether it targets resources while ensuring that everybody gets a first-class service. The recommendation is that personal care, whether in a residential setting or in the home, should be provided free of charge irrespective of people's income, but that housing and living costs should continue to be means-tested and paid for by general taxation on the basis of an assessment of need.

497
In arriving at its recommendation, the commission commented on two general resentments from the public against an expectation that the welfare state should provide from the cradle to the grave, including care. There is resentment that some get for free that for which others, because of thrift, have to pay. It is also generally perceived as unfair that some are forced to sell their house and what they regard as their children's inheritance to pay for long-term care.
Residential care has never been free. It has always been means-tested. Before the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990, when older people decided that they needed nursing or residential care, the Department of Social Security provided a grant if they did not have the resources to support themselves. That means test has been applied to my certain knowledge for 20 years. I applied it as a social worker in 1971 and it still exists. For 20 years, people have been liable to lose their homes if the means test shows that they have sufficient resources. That is nothing new.
The argument for means-testing is that it is a good form of targeting resources on those in need. However, older people, particularly the poor, have powerful memories of the means test of the poor laws, when means-testing was synonymous with descent to the workhouse and was a mark of shame. I do not accept the argument that it stops people saving, which is the new argument against means-testing. People save because they want the choice that saving brings, and the independence that it provides. Of course there are people who do not save, but there are also people who cannot save because, during their working lives, they have not had the means.
The royal commission's main recommendation is free personal care. It provides for a partnership between the state and the individual. Housing and living costs would be the individual's responsibility, after means-testing. Personal care would be provided irrespective of income. It certainly creates equal treatment, but the problem is that that effectively passes the funding of the current private provision into the public sector, without one extra bit of care or improvement in care being provided. That does not deal with the savings issue, because people would still have to sell their homes to pay for their living and housing costs when they get below the capital limit. For domiciliary care, there are practical problems of implementation.
One of those problems would be that, at the moment, we have the attendance allowance, a direct payment for care needs which people can choose to spend as they wish—on care, on paying home helps or paying informal carers to do tasks for them. It gives them the choice. Logically, if one accepts the royal commission's recommendation, the attendance allowance for care costs would have to be withdrawn, so the choice would be taken away from the elderly. That would not be popular.
There is an argument over what constitutes social care and health care, and it has been raging for several years—particularly when changes in technology or in what professionals do change the boundaries. However, the argument over what constitutes personal care—which the royal commission defines as being care which involves touching people—and what constitutes indirect care is also difficult. In accepting the royal commission's argument about making personal care free, we would not
498
escape the difficulties of deciding where the boundary is, or about what should be paid for and what should not. It simply puts that into another area.
The National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 wanted to develop alternatives to residential care and to increase choice for older people. The evidence is that community care has increased, but the concern is that provision is pooled for those with greater care needs. One can hardly be surprised about that. There are arguments about the importance of early intervention—in domestic help and other support—to enable people to retain their independence. There is concern that those sort of services are disappearing.
If the royal commission's recommendation is accepted, it would make the position worse because personal care would be free and the kind of domestic help which people describe as important would be subject to a means test. Those on low incomes would not then have the attendance allowance to enable them to pay. It might have the opposite effect to what is intended.
The main difficulty I have with the recommendation is that free personal care would not provide any extra care—even in the community or in the home—and would not benefit those on low incomes, as they already have free provision. More importantly, public funds would be diverted from raising standards in homes, which I believe to be a matter of priority, the essence of social justice, and fundamental to decent care for all our elderly. That is the essential fairness that old people, whatever their situation, need and deserve. They deserve and need good quality domiciliary and residential care, and we have not got there yet. It requires money—it requires public funds and investment. I believe that if public funds are available, that is where they should be directed as a priority.
There is an issue of how care is paid for. There must be a partnership between the state and the individual. However, I do not believe that free personal care achieves that partnership. The system could be made fairer, and could achieve a better balance between the benefits that people get from their savings and the contributions they then have to make from their own resources. The case has been well made.
The Government could look at freeing up equity schemes where older people might have choice about how they use their capital resources to fund long-term care. I do not believe that there is one solution, and we need a range of options to enable people to have choices and to make plans about how they fund long-term care. A multiplicity of provision would enable people to make those choices. I believe that they would welcome that.
I welcome the White Paper "Modernising Social Services" and the Government's intention to regulate, to have independent inspection, to encourage flexibility in the provision of care and to introduce nationally required standards which all homes will have to meet and from which all people would benefit. That is making progress on the road to social justice for the elderly.
I welcome the Government's intention to legislate for joint budgets, which will help the development of community care. It is an exciting proposal. I have noticed the feeling of excitement in my constituency at the possibility of working across agency boundaries and at being able to achieve a common objective without being constrained by an agency. As the legislation stands, it is still constraining. Legislation that allowed joint budgets

499
would release a lot of creative talent among the people working in the agencies, and I have seen an example of what can be achieved by working in that manner. Last year, a hospital—not one in my constituency—used some of the winter pressures money to employ a social worker in the casualty department. That social worker worked with a nurse and, when elderly people were admitted to casualty after a fall or some other accident, all the outside agencies were involved to try to return them home as soon as possible—which is what they wanted.
I hope that such initiatives will be carried further after the legislation for joint budgets. When I was in the casualty ward of the hospital I mentioned, I noticed how many elderly people were admitted after falls. As we all know, this is the time of year when the leaves fall from the trees and make the pavements difficult to walk on. Clearing pavements of leaves tends to be bottom of a local authority's priorities, but it could result in huge savings for health authorities. Under joint budget arrangements, perhaps health authorities could pass some money to local authorities which could sweep up the streets so that nobody would fall. That seems to be a simple answer to the problem, but it cannot happen at the moment. The Government's legislation would allow it to happen and would have a huge impact on the way in which agencies work together and the value for money provided. Millions of pounds is spent in each of our constituencies and we can all think of ways in which it could be better spent. The artificial boundaries between agencies is one factor that prevents that from happening.
Dr. Palmer: Does my hon. Friend agree that the process works both ways? For example, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence is considering whether treatment for multiple sclerosis will enable social services to reduce the amount of care they need to provide. Joint planning of social services and health could mean money flowing both ways, rather than one donating it to the other. I understand that some counties in Sweden have carried out successful experiments of that kind.
Ms Coffey: I am sure that all hon. Members could give further examples, not to mention the people who work in those agencies. The freeing up of that creativity will have a major impact on the quality of life for the people they work with.
I welcome the announcements by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State because they will make important progress towards improving quality of service for older people, and I look forward to more announcements to come.
4.58 pm
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: We have just heard a fascinating speech from the hon. Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey), who has previous professional experience and who, in her current position as a Parliamentary Private Secretary in the Department of Social Security, might have had a glancing involvement in some of the Government's discussions—
Ms Coffey indicated dissent.
Mr. Kirkwood: I accept that that was not the case. I am not saying that the hon. Lady was not the author of
500
her own speech, because she spoke with passion and brought experience to the argument. My point was that it was interesting that she and my close friend, Lord Lipsey—who was the author of the main part of the dissenting note in the royal commission's report—have come to roughly the same conclusion.
The arguments made by the hon. Lady sought to attack the main recommendation of the royal commission, and Lord Lipsey, who has good contacts at all levels in the Government, took the same view. I fear that they may have predicted what we are going to get, and the hon. Lady's speech may have been the most honest of the afternoon. The argument is between the main and the dissenting points of view, and I can tell the Minister that I am happy to engage in that argument. However, I am grateful that he cleared up the point on which the Secretary of State left me in some doubt.
The Secretary of State certainly left some doubt in my mind about what the Government intend to do. However, there is certainly no doubt in my mind that the royal commission's report is an excellent and ground-breaking piece of work, not just for its volume of recommendations but for its three volumes of appendices. I sat down last summer and read it all. I must admit that that was the first time in my parliamentary career that I have read a report all the way through. Although I have forgotten much of it—my excuse is that the Government have taken so long to stage this debate—I learned a lot from it and it certainly repays careful study.
I hope that we will not concentrate solely on the recommendations as that would not do justice to the work that went into the report, which was done in a very short time by a group of exceptional people. We shall not do their work justice if we concentrate on the political points that have been discussed today, important though they are.
When it came out, the report received a disappointingly dusty response from the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). If today's statement had been made nine weeks after its publication, I for one would have been delighted and would have said that it provided something for us to work on. I should have been happy to enter into some of the discussions that must take place.
However, a gap of nine months between the publication of the royal commission's report and today's announcement is too long. We have lost quite a lot of time. A White Paper will be published in the summer. In his report, Sir Stewart Sutherland said that many of the royal commission's recommendations could be implemented without primary legislation. However, given the three-year departmental spending review, the Government have no realistic chance of achieving in this Parliament the primary legislation needed to establish the care commission and the necessary reform of the funding system.
I welcome much of what the Government are doing. I was a fellow Lib-Lab co-conspirator with the former leader of my party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), but I do not keep diaries, so the Government need not worry about any revelations that I might make. However, although I think that the Government are doing much good work, I do not think that it will now be possible to deal with these matters properly until the next Parliament.
It is legitimate for the Government to say that they tried to deal with a previously intractable problem by setting up a royal commission. I was prepared to accept that at

501
the last election, but at the next election the Government will be saying that the response to the White Paper will come in the Parliament to follow. The process of delay will continue, with the result that the momentum will slip seriously. That is to be regretted.
I believe passionately that to do justice to the report, the House has to decide whether the hon. Member for Stockport is right, or whether I am right. That key question must be decided. If we do not find the necessary funds, a huge opportunity will be missed.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) made an excellent speech. He has much experience in these matters. The trends in the national insurance fund must be examined. We must be a little careful about the idea that the fund has a surplus of £12 billion. That is easily said, and £12 billion sounds like a lot of money. However, the Government Actuary believes that if current trends prevail, there will be the possibility that the level of individual contributions to the national insurance fund could be reduced.
As the hon. Member for Stockport knows better than most, there is a projected underspend at the Department of Social Security of about £7 billion over the next three years. The Select Committee on Health looked into the matter and was quite robust about how the necessary funds should be secured.
Sir Stewart Sutherland has himself suggested recently that increasing inheritance tax could provide a potential source of additional revenue, although it clearly would not be able to realise the whole cost of £1 billion. In that context, it is not helpful to talk about an end cost of £50 billion in 50 years. Of course one has to be prudent, but it does not further the argument to talk about Monopoly money figures such as that, which are totally meaningless.
I do not doubt that the sums of money involved are large, nor that such matters must be considered very carefully, but the reaction of the great British public should also be taken into account. I hope that the Minister will look at the British social attitudes survey that was published recently. The copy that I have ordered has not arrived yet so I am quoting from press reports, but the survey apparently makes it clear that a significant majority of British people want more money to be spent on education, health and the long-term care of the elderly—even if that means increased taxes. The survey also states:
"people still favour rather than private or voluntary provision".
That is what the focus groups tell pollsters. I do not know why the Labour party is not picking this up. It has a national network of focus groups. Some of these questions should be put through that process. People do not want to pay taxes for nothing, in a profligate, unfocused way. However, I bet a monkey to a mousetrap that if the question were properly constructed and taken to a properly constituted focus group that was told what we would have to spend to achieve our end, we would get a majority. We would need to promote the argument but we could win a majority in favour of moving in the direction that I have described in the longer term. If the Government were prepared to do that, I would support them.
The current system is not fair. If any hon. Member doubted it, Sir Stewart Sutherland's royal commission demonstrated it beyond peradventure. The system is
502
unjust and insufficient. Eloquent speeches from hon. Members of all parties made that point. The right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) made one of the most powerful speeches that I have heard for a long time. I am sorry to keep referring to her, but the hon. Member for Stockport may have a role in this. The long title of the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill that was published yesterday suggests that it might admit of a new clause that could deal with preserved rights and section 43 of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990. Can she write that down and take it to the Department? If she does not get an answer soon, we will start tabling written questions. The right hon. Gentleman's speech deserves some positive response. I will happily sign up to such a new clause if he succeeds in tabling one.
We all have constituency stories and I want to mention my local circumstances to underscore the urgency of getting something done. Starting from now, with a White Paper in the summer, it will take at least two or three years before we get beneficial outcomes that change things on the ground. Some 70 or 80 families in my region of south-east Scotland face terrible decisions each year about selling their houses to pay the costs of long-term care.
The hon. Member for Stockport is wrong to say that the main majority recommendation would not produce new resources. Nor is she right to say that it is simply a question of this always being the system. When the current system was introduced in 1948—she is right that as a social worker in 1971, she was applying it—people were not paying as much as £1,600 a month in long-term care costs or living to 96. Events on the ground have overtaken available provision. If we do not recognise that, it will be another 10 years before we do anything about it. I find that an intolerable prospect. Thankfully, I have never had an eviction from a home take place before my eyes. I hope that it never happens, but it is a real and corrosive problem.
The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) spoke well. She has had a good track record on the subject in her time in the House. Trying to talk people through the implications of care costs is corrosive. People end up feeling let down, if not, as she eloquently said, betrayed. That is happening in the borders now. I checked before the debate and found that 28 NHS beds are blocked. What does it cost to leave 28 people languishing in long-term NHS hospital wards when they could perfectly well be put in residential nursing places in south-east Scotland? The care homes are all full up. If we multiply those local figures to a national level, we would find that such care costs a fortune. We cannot ignore those costs lightly.
Several hon. Members mentioned respite care. The Government allocated£140 million for carers, which will be most helpful. Although it has not yet started feeding through the system, it is a step in the right direction. I endorse the eloquent and passionate plea made by the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Ms Shipley) on that matter. In the borders, we do not have the means to take the pressure off, for example, families who have to deal with youngsters with multiple disabilities. Those families are deeply affected and concerned. Science enables some of those young people to outlive their parents. It is devastating for parents to know that when they die, they will bequeath the state a complex set of different

503
problems, and they cannot even receive a little respite care to enable them to pick a way through their domestic difficulties.
By the summer—between now and the publication of the White Paper on this subject—several of the private residential homes in my constituency will have closed. There will be shutters on the windows and the staff will have had to go to the jobcentre. That will put more strain on a hard-pressed local authority. Those are urgent problems—they are happening now. Families hit by such problems—often unexpectedly—are devastated, as the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing so eloquently explained.
We have no time to lose. I welcome the Government's statements on standards, care, consultation and so forth. However, they must make haste to introduce legislation. I am a passionate advocate of the primary recommendation for funding made in the royal commission's report. I will argue the case for finding that money with anyone, at any time and in any place. The money will not be easy to find; perhaps we shall have to make do. In five years' time, the hon. Member for Stockport and I will meet and she will no doubt say, "I told you so." Perhaps she will be proved right, but I am not yet conceding the argument. I hope that other Members on all sides take the same view.
5.12 pm
Dr. Nick Palmer: Like other hon. Members, I welcome the Government's speedy establishment of the royal commission after the general election. However, we should note that the debate is not on the royal commission. That is probably just as well, because we have discovered that none of the parties has yet finished analysing all aspects of the commission's report. The Government have come closest; they have already adopted more than half the commission's recommendations. The Conservatives say that they are waiting until the next election. The Liberal Democrats welcome the establishment of the commission, but they have not yet told us whether they accept its conclusions— with the exception of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), who took a refreshingly clear view of the matter.
I declare an interest. Until three months ago, I was the sole carer of my mother, trying to combine looking after her with the work of the House. That was possible only thanks to the good will of the Whips. We should all declare an interest, because each of us might eventually need long-term care. On current trends, about six of those who have spoken in the debate will do so. We do not know which six—that is the problem.
We all hope that we will not end up in a home such as the one that I visited some time ago. When one of the inhabitants asked if she could have a cup of tea, the manager shouted into the canteen, "Here's a silly old woman who wants some tea". That seemed to sum up the policy of that home: he ran the place and no one else was worthy of much respect. Of course, many homes are completely unlike that. I mention that example only to demonstrate that there is a range of care—I shall return to that subject later.
We are all familiar with a general problem in dealing with welfare reform: the system has been built up piecemeal and it is replete with inconsistencies and
504
unfairness. If we try to level it up, it is extremely expensive; if we try to level it down, it is distressing for those people who have benefited previously.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire suggested that focus groups would advise us to spend more money on long-term care of the elderly. I am sure that he is right but, although I am second to none in my admiration of focus groups, I believe that one tends to get from them slightly imprecise answers. I do not believe that we have obtained a clear picture of what a focus group or the public in general would say if we asked, "Would you prefer us to spend more money on better care for the elderly"—as my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey) advised—"or on enabling people not to use their own resources for care?" Those are two distinct areas, which we shall grapple with today.
Apart from the general problems of welfare reform, of which we are all aware, long-term care presents the additional problems that the people involved are elderly and vulnerable, and that there is a huge dependence on unpaid voluntary carers. No political party has got to grips with that to any degree. If there were a voluntary carer strike, we would all be in a mess.
Broadly, there are five ways in which we look after elderly people. There is voluntary care, for which relatively little has ever been done. The new Government have introduced two important new features there—the money for respite care and stakeholder pensions for carers. Those are the first steps towards recognising the importance of the service that voluntary carers provide. The second level is paid home care, for which there are no standards whatever, and for which the amount of support varies with the area. The statement by the Secretary of State emphasised what is being done in for home care, with the proposed national standards and national levels of provision and support.
There is nursing home care, where limited support is provided, although not for the nursing; there is residential care, where partial support is provided, including for nursing; and there is hospital care, where full support is provided. People note those inconsistencies and feel that it is unfair—and it is. The problem is what to do about it: whether to level up, level down or try to find a third way.
The royal commission report and this afternoon's debate may have downplayed the fact that it is very much what most people want, and in the national interest, that people should stay at home for as long as they feel comfortable there. About 70 per cent. of people spontaneously say that that is what they want—and it obviously makes life easier.
The royal commission gingerly suggests that more help could be given to improve the home to make it easier to live in. I believe that it underestimates the amount that can be done by imaginative local councils. For example, the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) suggested community care alarms. In Stapleford, in my constituency, a centre is being built that will support houses in the vicinity. Without changing the architecture of every house, one can do more to help areas where there are many elderly people by ensuring that there is nursing care—and other kinds of care—close by. Experience in Denmark and Switzerland suggests that there is a big role to be played by mixed communities of older and younger people, who spontaneously give one another support.

505
Given the limited time, I shall focus on the aspect of the issue that comes up most frequently—distress at the loss of one's home. People who have gone into care that they hope will be temporary find that they must sell their home to cover the cost, and they feel a door slamming shut behind them. They know that they can never go home. That is very grim for them.
I believe that, if we asked the focus groups, or the population at large, whether they would accept that taxpayers' money should be used to help avoid that agony for our elderly people, the great majority would say yes. If we went a step further and said, "Do we also feel that taxpayers should help ensure that young people can inherit valuable homes as far as possible without deduction of value and that this is a key area for public expenditure?", I think that we would get a more mixed response. Nowadays it is quite rare for the children of a couple still to be living in the home when the couple die. Usually, we are talking about a house that is left to the children but that they will not live in. They will sell it and share out the proceeds. That does not seem to be a crucial element of national priority.
I favour any solution that enables the couple to maintain ownership of the house for as long as they live. One solution, suggested in the minority report, is the long-term loan. Another, referred to rather dismissively in passing in the majority report, involves the local authority imposing on the house a charge that is exercised only when it is sold on death of the owners. Both solutions would provide a relatively low-cost option to protect the couple from the trauma of losing their home.
I have talked to older people on the doorstep, including some of the angry pensioners whom most hon. Members have met. I find a somewhat reluctant but basic acceptance that such a solution could be the way forward. It provides security and leaves the bulk of the money that we hope will be provided for long-term care to make improvements in care to enable people to live better. It gives them the chance to hang on to their home as long as they are alive and it also gives the health authority the chance to recover the costs before the next generation takes over. Basically, I favour the minority report or a variation of it. Difficult though it is, I think that it achieves the right balance.
5.22 pm
Miss Julie Kirkbride: I am honoured to be called in the debate. I shall not speak for too long, so that all hon. Members who are in their places and who have not yet spoken may contribute to the debate. To take up a remark of my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), I put on record again that, when the debate has been called for since the royal commission made its recommendations some time ago, it is improper that it should take place when the Government knew that the Select Committee on Health was away, given its trenchant criticisms of the Government for not moving forward quite so quickly as it wished. As a member of that Committee, who gives it her time and attention, I think that it is a gross discourtesy that other members of the Committee have not been given the opportunity to participate in a debate on matters that they feel strongly about.
We welcome the debate, but the time scale within which the Government will address these issues is disappointing. There is no doubt that, at the last election,
506
the selling of homes in this context was a major issue. The Conservative party brought forward proposals, which it intended to implement had it won the general election. It is clear that the Labour party felt strongly about it. The Prime Minister said that it was a major issue that people should not be expected to sell their homes and that action needed to be taken. The public had a reasonable expectation that more would be done more quickly than the time scale envisaged by the Secretary of State as set out today.
If the opinion polls are correct, Labour Members, who will be fighting hard for their seats in some instances, will find it difficult at the next election to justify the fact that their Government, who will probably have been in power for four years when the general election is called, did not put any legislation on to the statute book to deal with a major issue. The fact that we shall have a White Paper by the end of next summer without any proper legislation in place is deeply disappointing to Opposition Members, to the nation and most particularly to our constituents, in whose name we all speak.
It has been an interesting debate. Members from both sides of the House have expressed their ideas on the royal commission's suggestions and on other proposals for the funding of long-term care. The hon. Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey) may have been privy to some information, and she made an interesting speech. Her views on the attendance allowance will be pored over at a later stage, because they may represent the views of Ministers as well.
My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) set out an interesting picture of the difficulties that will be faced. The bottom line is financing. Although many ancillary issues are involved, the bottom line is how we will pay for long-term care, given that we have an ageing population. People are living longer and medical care will allow them to live even longer. Later in their lives, people will rightly expect to enjoy, and participate in, the improving standard of living that will be available to everyone in the United Kingdom. That fact raises some difficult issues.
I have listened to the debate, and it appears that there is a growing consensus that the people who are elderly today may deserve a better deal than the rest of us might be able to expect if we are elderly, infirm or require 24-hour care. I hope and believe that proposals will be introduced that will provide extra help for the elderly of today. However, the current working population will not be able to afford such help unless we make proper provision for ourselves. The statistics suggest that one in six people will find that the lottery of life means that they require long-term care in their old age, while five in six will, I hope, avoid what can be for some an unhappy option. However, many people enter nice nursing homes, and there are many of them in my constituency. They find that they are pleasant places in which to live out the rest of their natural lives.
The rest of us will require private insurance schemes. I am pleased to hear that Ministers, having decisively rejected that option when the Government first came to office, will reconsider their potential. We should expect people to insure themselves against a need that is foreseeable in one in six cases. A mixed economy of provision for long-term care is the right answer. I regret only that that right answer will not be in place sooner. It will not be in place until after the election, and then it

507
will take legislation to implement. Private providers and private insurance companies will have to get the schemes up and running before the mixed-economy regime is put into place.
Mrs. Humble: Will the hon. Lady comment on that part of the royal commission report that deals with insurance? It points out that women are more likely to be in residential care for longer, but that they also earn the least. Therefore, the people with the least to pay would have to contribute to a system, but the insurance companies would have to pay out the largest sums for them.
Miss Kirkbride: The hon. Lady ignores the fact that many working women participate in the work force, and their number is increasing. Not everyone will be able to save, and there will always be a safety net. However, the primary political concern at the moment is for those who have saved all their lives and now have to sell their homes to pay for their long-term care.
Two issues have already been set out. On the one hand, it is difficult to say that such people should not contribute to their long-term care needs if they leave an inheritance to their children and benefit from other people's tax bills. On the other hand, if we can offer those people an insurance scheme, a portion of which is guaranteed by the state—that is similar to the proposals that we made before the previous election—we can share the provision of the care that people reasonably expect now that standards of living are improving.
Like the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), who fears that some of the care homes in his constituency may need to close, I make a plea for care homes in my constituency because I fear that Worcestershire is facing a serious situation. Historically, Worcestershire gets a poor settlement from the standard spending assessment, and that has not been addressed by the Government's reforms of the SSA. Last year, our social services budget was cut by £5 million. Nevertheless, the county council was able to offer care homes a funding increase of 3 per cent.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) mentioned the huge problem of preserved rights. That keeps people in long-term care homes on a low amount of money, which means that, in most cases, others subsidise their stay, although sadly that is not true in the case of my right hon. Friend's constituent. The amount of money that is available for long-term care needs is a growing problem.
The Government's programme to improve employment rights, such as the minimum wage, is part of that problem. The Government's own figures suggest that the minimum wage costs industry as a whole some £8 billion. The working time directive, which will significantly affect care homes, costs around £6.5 billion. It is estimated that the cost of running a care home has increased by some 9 per cent. over the past year. Yet, as I said, care homes in Worcestershire have received only a 3 per cent. increase in funding. We do not know what the increase will be this year, but it will clearly affect care homes a great deal because it is very unlikely that any increase will match the costs brought about by the Government's legislation for improved employment conditions.
508
We are talking about not only jobs but the closure of people's homes. Many will have been used to living in a care home for several years. I therefore appeal to the Minister to consider that matter along with the proposals, however welcome, that people going into homes should be assessed according to national requirements. I appeal to him also to consider what impact the proposals will have on various counties, particularly Worcestershire, and how they will be financed in counties that, like mine, have historically received a low SSA.
I draw attention to the "Fit for the Future?" proposals, mentioned by the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble), which are causing great concern in my constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) put forward the very valuable proposal that we should be increasing the amount of money available for those nursing homes that make improvements, rather than trying to penalise those that cannot improve because of strict financing requirements and low funds.
I hope that, in his closing remarks, the Minister will mention the problem that VAT is to be levied on personal social services, a problem that has not yet been mentioned in the debate. That development might cause great problems for the supply of labour in nursing homes and for the supply of personal social services because the cost of such services will rise while the people receiving them will get no extra care.
5.34 pm
Mr. Desmond Browne: As I have listened to the debate, I have collected a whole sheaf of paper containing comments that I hoped to make in response to contributions by other hon. Members. They will understand, however, that as time is short, I will cut to the chase.
I hope that hon. Members will excuse me for taking the opportunity to speak in support of the call by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) for the same rules to be applied throughout the United Kingdom in the determination of which services will be free and which will be means-tested, and how the means test will operate. If I understood my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, he said in his introductory remarks that he was aiming to achieve consistency throughout the UK, and perhaps when replying my hon. Friend the Minister of State will address that issue.
We are reaching the end of a century that has been rich in advances for older people, from the introduction of the old age pension in the early years of the century, through the advances made by the Labour Government in 1945 in implementing the Beveridge report and introducing the national health service, to the present, where the issue is how we provide for those who, through improved nutrition, a better standard of living, better health services and so on, are living longer.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in his introductory speech, we should see that not as a problem, but as a success story. The aspiration of every Labour Government has been to reduce poverty, improve living standards and improve health. The task that we now face is to manage the consequences of that success.
The challenge to us is to ensure that we put in place arrangements that continue to fulfil our aspirations to promote social justice and social welfare. We need to put

509
arrangements in place that will enable our older people to remain part of the local community, with clear rights to services to meet their reasonable expectations. Clearly, because of the legacy of the previous Government, we are not getting that right at present.
Sir Stewart Sutherland and his committee thought not, and others agree with him. In a memorable quotation, Professor Alan Walker said that care services for older people put in place since the formation of the NHS and national assistance have been
"50 years of broken promises".
When the Audit Commission examined community care in 1984, its report concluded that
"the only option that is unavailable is doing nothing",
and as the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) said, the status quo is not an option. That should be our watchword, and indeed it is.
Echoing the words of the Audit Commission, the Sutherland commission stated in its executive summary:
"The Commission conclude that doing nothing with respect to the current system is not an option."
There we have three ways of saying the same thing.
What the Government asked Sir Stewart Sutherland to examine is not a picture with which we should be comfortable. In each of our constituencies, there are older people who want to remain at home, but cannot do so because the services are unavailable. In each of our constituencies, older people assessed as requiring intensive 24-hour support cannot be admitted to an establishment because the funds are unavailable. In each of our constituencies, carers are placed under extreme pressure over many years because support services are unavailable.
How did we get into such a situation? To understand that, we must examine the funding of community care in the past. In the 1980s, it became the norm for older people who had become more dependent to be admitted to institutional care. That was a pattern quite different from previously, and in some ways we are still dealing with the legacy of that change.
To some extent, it is still the expectation of individuals and families that care in an institution is the inevitable consequence of increasing dependency among older people. That is not necessarily their wish, but their expectation, because that is what they have been conditioned to expect since the 1980s.
I shall digress for a few minutes to instruct the House that that is not a new idea. As I was preparing for the debate, I was reminded of a Para Handy tale. As some hon. Members may know, the great Para Handy tales were written by Neil Munro at the turn of the century, at just about the same time as pensions were being introduced. They are a wonderful set of short stories about the Vital Spark, the puffer that plied its trade up and down the Clyde crewed by Para Handy the captain, the chief engineer, and Dougie, the boy.
Tale No. 27 is entitled "Pension Farms". It was written in 1906. Let me set the scene for the House:
"The Vital Spark was making for Lochgoilhead, Dougie at the wheel, and the Captain straddled on a waterbreaker, humming Gaelic songs, because he felt magnificent after his weekly shave."
As they were looking over what they call the Glasgow promontory, Macphail was musing that there was a hen farm at the end of the promontory, and he had always
510
wanted a hen farm. Para Handy told Macphail that he did not want one of those; what he wanted was a pension farm. The tale continues:
"'Rearm pensioners?' remarked Macphail, 'ye would lie oot o' your money a lang while rearm pensioners; ye micht as weel start growin' trees.'
'Not at aal, not at aal!' said Para Handy, 'there's quick returns in pensioners if you put your mind to the thing and use a little caation. Up in the Islands, now, the folks iss givin' up their crofts and makin' a kind o' ferm o' their aged relations.
I have a cousin yonder oot in Gigha wi' a stock o' five fine healthy uncles—no' a man o'them under seventy. There's another frien' o' my own in Mull wi' thirteen heid o'chenuine old Macleans. He gaithered them aboot the islands wi' a boat whenever the rumours o' the pensions started. Their Men's had no idea what he wanted wi' them, and were glad to get them off their hands. 'It's chust a notion that I took,' he said, 'for company; they're great amusement on a winter night,' and he got his pick o' the best o' them. It wassna every wan he would take; they must be all Macleans, for the Mull Macleans never die till they're centurions, and he wouldna take a man that wass over five and seventy. They're yonder, noo, in Loch Scridain, kept like fightin' cocks; he puts them ott on the hill each day for exercise, and if wan o' them takes a cough they dry his clothes and give him something from a bottle.
'Holy smoke!' said Dougie, 'where's the profits comin' from?'
'From the Government' said Para Handy. 'Nothing simpler! He gets five shillings a heid in the week for them, and that's £169 in the year for the whole thirteen—enough to feed a regiment! Wan pensioner maybe wadna pay you, but if you have a herd like my frien' in Mull, there's money in it.'"
So, this was nothing new.
When, in the 1980s, the Audit Commission urged the Government to action, it did so because it had found two things about those pensioner ferms that were growing up. First, the uncapped budget for nursing home and residential places was out of control and far beyond any financial projection provided to the Treasury. Secondly, it was becoming normal for older people to be placed in residential and nursing homes because funds were available for such placements but not for services at home. The Audit Commission called that—a phrase that we have already heard today—the "perverse disincentive" to care at home.
On the basis of the Audit Commission's promptings, in 1985 the Government commissioned Sir Roy Griffiths to report on future arrangements for community care. It is clear in retrospect that it was not within Sir Roy's remit to identify the required level of funding for community care; he was explicitly told to deal with the funds already in the system. They were the funds that became available as part of an unplanned growth, but there has been no growth in the funding arrangements for community care since 1993. The legacy of the Griffiths' recommendations and the legislation that followed them in 1990 are the problems that we face today. It is only this Government, in their remit to Sir Stewart Sutherland, who have taken the step of projecting the anticipated need for the next 20 years and identifying the level of commitment required to provide appropriate services.
We have now had the royal commission report for nine months. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) made an impassioned plea for more speed, but this time we should get matters right, not just quickly.
Mr. Kirkwood: Come on.
Mr. Browne: We already have the experience of a Government taking nine years to do the job and getting it wrong, giving us these problems, so it is better that we get it right.

511
We all know that we cannot allow the crisis to continue. With an eye on the Whip, I simply say that, having reached the meat of my argument, I need not propose the arguments which are ably set out in chapter 6 of the report. However, I am impressed that at 1995 prices the commission's core recommendation for the separation of the elements of long-term care would cost about £1 billion, and I understand that that will rise to £5 billion in 2051.
I, like the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, have read the report only once, but I understand that the commission itself says that its model breaks down after 20 years and is unreliable thereafter. All I say to the Government is, if we can get the job right for 20 years, it will be 20 years longer than any previous Government have managed.
5.44 pm
Mr. Desmond Swayne: It is always a great pleasure and privilege to follow the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne). I am particularly grateful to him for reminding me of that great fount of wisdom and humour, the Para Handy tales.
The political imperative for striving to deal with the problem of long-term care is, in many cases, the 40,000 houses per year that have to be sold to meet the cost of providing such care. Behind those 40,000 houses are many tales of horror and misery. An impression prevails that legitimate expectations have been dashed and that a contract for welfare either never existed or has been torn up. In analysing the problem, we must be clear about the precise nature of the complaint.
What is wrong with people using their savings to pay for their long-term care when they are old? That is a proper way in which to spend one's savings. It is often said, "Well, using savings is fine, but not the house." However, in this country we have used the tax system for many years to encourage people to use houses as their principal savings vehicle. I supported those policies and regret that we have abandoned them in recent years. Nevertheless, the consequences remain: most people's principal saving is their house. Why should not it be used to fund their long-term care? If one is not prepared to use one's own savings for that purpose, whose savings would one use?
Those who have legitimate expectations of inheriting a property form a powerful lobby. However, is it proper for us to encourage people to have their cake and eat it? In our society, which is increasingly dominated by the nuclear family, people make implicit life style choices throughout their lives that often prevent them from actively participating in the care of their elderly relatives. Therefore, is it proper to encourage them to expect to inherit property and assets from those elderly relatives?
The sense of betrayal and unfairness persists. The real source of the grievance is means testing, and the perception that the state will provide for both the unfortunate and the improvident. I apologise for mentioning those categories in the same breath. However, we have no alternative but to put them in the same category because no state-run welfare system in the world has successfully devised a means of distinguishing between the deserving and the undeserving poor.
512
Nevertheless, it is perceived that those who are unable will be cared for whereas those who have been prudent, or merely fortunate, will be penalised. That powerful sense of injustice fuels much of the argument that underpins our problems with long-term care.
The imposition of a means test will always generate a sense of unfairness and the belief that it will encourage anti-social behaviour by reducing the incentive to be prudent and save, thereby providing an incentive to be dishonest. The only way to deal with the irritation caused by the means test is to implement an accompanying principle of less eligibility whereby those who qualify on the means test will be provided for according to means that are less than those that would provide any form of independent existence. However, I do not believe that a return to the principle of less eligibility is politically possible. Indeed, we have heard powerful arguments today—not least from my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley)—to show that less eligibility already exists in the system and is unacceptable.
We are left with a problem, and there are two principal ways of dealing with it. First, we can nationalise by providing a universal benefit funded by the taxpayer. That is an attractive if expensive option, but we should always remember that, ever since the passing of the Great Reform Act 1832, whenever a Government have offered us such an attractive option they have bribed us with our own money. We shall pay for that option, with all the consequent economic inefficiency that flows from high taxation.
The second way in which we might deal with the matter is by reviving the concept of social insurance. We could seek the widest pooling of risk based on a renaissance of the contributory principle, with all the social virtues that that might also revive. If we were to take that route, early in the next century we should have to learn a great deal from the mistakes that we have made in the latter part of this century regarding the contributory principle. In many respects we must await the findings of the Social Security Committee report on the importance of that principle, but I suspect that we shall pursue neither of the two options. We shall be left with our existing difficulties, although we might implement a number of measures that mitigate the most offensive aspects of the problem by providing new incentives and removing, to an extent, old disincentives.
I see the substantive and minority reports of the royal commission making their most significant contribution in that respect. They are welcome and contain little that I can disagree with; indeed, I have heard little this afternoon that I can disagree with. I appreciate that these are long-term problems and we have to consider carefully what proposals to implement, but we have discussed in the debate a number of short-term measures that could alleviate the problem. I urge Ministers to act as, indeed, the Health Committee report enjoined them to do— urgently.
5.52 pm
Mr. Kerry Pollard (St. Albans): The concept of a nationally applied standard for care of the elderly is welcome, but care home owners and proprietors have concerns about its application—in respect of room size, for example. I ran care homes before being elected to the

513
House and remember having endless arguments with the local authority about the small box room of a standard house; it was fractionally below approved size. I therefore had to persuade the authority, with lots of arguments, that using the room was a viable option. We had clients ready to go into it.
The standards for room size are fine for new-build houses—they can easily be incorporated at the design stage—but it is often difficult to meet every standard when houses are being converted. That is particularly relevant to small homes—for instance, when a pair of semi-detached houses are being knocked together—and in such an example two rooms could be lost as they would be below standard. Major refurbishment, including knocking down walls, could be required, and that would increase costs considerably; it might even make the scheme non-viable.
I recently attended a regional conference in Towcester organised jointly by the National Care Homes Association and the Forum of Private Business. Also present were the hon. Members for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) and for Havant (Mr. Willetts), as well as about 100 care home owners. A great deal of concern was expressed by those owners because they believe that full implementation of the proposed standards will force many of them out of business. Indeed, a recent survey of care home owners undertaken by the Forum of Private Business found that 73 per cent. of homes would not be viable if the standards were implemented as presented in the report.
Although other recent changes made by our Government—such as the minimum wage and extra holidays—are welcome, they have added to the financial burden on the care sector. I can speak from certain knowledge of the squeeze that the care sector has been experiencing for many years, and there is no doubt that the financial situation is grave. The departure of one client, for example, can mean that a place is empty for some weeks while a replacement is found—someone who will need to be assessed and fitted in. That often places small care homes in great financial difficulties.
Twelve years ago, there was an independent review of the charges on which current fees are based. I think that it may be time for another such review. If we are to have national standards, we should have a national minimum fee. In Northampton, for example, the local authority fee is £247 per week, while in neighbouring Norfolk it is £265 a week. Moreover, benefit increases are not always passed on, and the same applies to Government grants to local authorities.
I am particularly concerned about elderly people suffering from learning difficulties and mental incapacity, who are often overlooked. Traditionally, some were not even cared for in their own towns, but were farmed out to where care was cheaper. In my view, carers are saints. I well remember taking a newly elected councillor in my constituency to meet some residents in a care home. One lady whom we approached had just messed herself, and had messed her hand. My councillor colleague shook her hand, and when he realised what he had done, had to dash out to be sick. The care staff did not turn a hair; they persuaded the lady to go out and be bathed, after which she was given new clothes and taken back. Not a job for me!
Rates of pay are also among the lowest. In my area, a care assistant is paid £10,500 a year, while the head of a small care home is paid £15,500—and must be qualified
514
to national vocational level 4, and be approved by the local authority. None the less, those who work in the sector are dedicated, and provide high-quality care.
In St. Albans we have many excellent care homes. We have Grace Muriel House—an Abbeyfield home—Fosse House, Vesta Lodge, Allington Court and Maryland, run by the Sisters of Mercy. They are first rate, and I would have no difficulty in living in one of them when my time came.
Although high standards are obviously necessary, what is vital is tender loving care. It is small comfort to be in a home that meets the "square metre" criterion and has the right number of double sockets if physical care does not match the tender loving care that we would all want for ourselves.
5.57 pm
Mr. Edward Leigh: This is a sensitive subject. It is easy for us to assuage our consciences by speaking in debates such as this or writing reports, but we shall each be judged on what we do to help our own elderly relatives by looking after them and visiting them.
I say that because I am critical of the royal commission's report. I consider it irresponsible. I know that it is well researched, and that those who were asked to be members of the commission put a great deal of their personal time into its work, but I see no chance of the report's being implemented by any political party that is likely to take power. That is why I think it irresponsible. Politicians as a race are derided, but they are not part of a debating club; they must propose solutions that are capable of being implemented. No serious politician would come up with a proposal whose implementation would cost £1 billion now, rising to £5 billion or £6 billion over the century. Some doubt has been cast on those figures, but they are based on demographics.
If the report were ever implemented, however, it would not just be demographics that would result in such enormous expenditure; perceptions and behaviour would be changed. I think that the report is wrong—not factually wrong, but in a sense morally wrong, and dangerous and irresponsible for that reason. I believe that those who wrote the note of dissent were more courageous, fairer and more realistic. I was not surprised that neither the Secretary of State nor my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) were prepared to commit themselves to carrying out the royal commission's proposals. Even the Liberal Democrats, who are usually anxious to please everybody, tiptoed back from that precipice.
The proposals are not going to be put into effect. We have heard metaphors about long grass, but this is not a ball lying in the long grass—it has already been chucked out of the stadium by the Treasury. That is not a criticism, because I think that the Treasury is right.
We should be realistic. No one denies that the issue causes a tremendous sense of grievance, but that is what the real world is about. Means testing is rough justice, but it broadly works. I do not understand the principle of believing that people have to be responsible for their care and their housing throughout their life—until the unique moment when they reach retirement age, when, whatever their resources, the state should be willing to care for them. That does not seem morally right or justifiable—or even to make sense.

515
Implementing the proposals would require massive resources. If elderly people are in need, it does not matter whether they have been improvident. Are we going to deny them resources because we are worried about people who are angry because they want to inherit an entire property from their parents? Of course children want to inherit their parents' property, and of course they resent the fact that when their elderly parents go into a nursing home the state says that the family home has to be sold to pay for the care; but why should we satisfy those children and deny other elderly people who have nothing? Those are the people we should be spending our resources on.
Dr. Evan Harris: I apologise to the House for not having been here earlier. I was in a Delegated Legislation Committee during the early part of the debate. Does the hon. Gentleman recognise the fairness of the case for helping those who were told that they would be provided for by the state, including those who fought in the war? Is there not a legitimate case for realising their expectations of help without forcing them to sell all their possessions? If £1 billion is too much for the Conservatives, is there any amount that they would spend to bring back fairness for those people?
Mr. Leigh: I understand from the report that we already spend about £11 billion. If the report were implemented we would spend a lot more. I accept that a myth has been propagated. There is profound misunderstanding about the contributory principle. Every poll carried out on the subject shows that people think that what they pay in national insurance contributions covers all the welfare that they might receive and their health care costs. It does not even begin to pay for those services. We have to be honest with people about the real world. We do not have enough money to meet people's expectations. The more people's expectations are raised and their behaviour is changed, the greater the trap we end up with.
I am prepared to accept some compromises. The real political world tells me that a lot of what was talked about in the note of dissent is sensible. Perhaps the present cut-off point of £16,000 causes enormous resentment. Perhaps people who live in modest houses are being made to pay too much. Perhaps we should phase the threshold in more slowly between £10,000 and £30,000. Perhaps people are being forced into nursing homes and having to make their decisions too quickly. As the note of dissent says, they should be able to take out a loan based on their equity so that nobody is forced to sell a home. Perhaps we should look at the real cost of nursing. Those who wrote the note of dissent said that providing that facility free might cost only £100 million, which might be affordable.
Mr. Kirkwood: I well understand the point of the hon. Gentleman's thoughtful speech, but how does his pragmatic approach to the proposals in the note of dissent answer the problem that if I am disabled as a result of a heart attack, nobody looks at my bank balance, but if I
516
get dementia, my credit card is taken from me before I am given treatment? How will his pragmatic approach deal with that essential question of fairness?
Mr. Leigh: Those who wrote the note of dissent answer that point. There is no entirely logical answer to the hon. Gentleman's fair question. Everyone understands the principle that people are entitled to free health care. It is based on clinical need, not their resources, but we have to draw the line somewhere. If people—I think they understand this—need clinical care, that will be provided free. If they go into a nursing home and need general care, that will not be provided free.
I know that this is messy and illogical, but it is all we can afford, so why not just be honest with people? If we were to—of course, we will not—go down the path that the royal commission recommends, a general expectation would build up in people's mind that, when they were elderly, the state would be prepared to care for them. That may be a civilised thing to contemplate. If we lived in a Scandinavian country, where people are genuinely prepared to pay 60 per cent. of their income in taxation, we could tread that road, but in this country people are not prepared to pay much more than 40 per cent. in taxation. That is why the new Labour Government have decided—or so they claim; we will not get into that argument—not to increase taxation. That is the real political world. No future Government would commit themselves to that level of expenditure.
We should say honestly to people that the family must help. And we must reinforce the contributory principle, which both parties have attacked over many years. That is why the report of the Select Committee on Social Security, chaired by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), is important. We must try to rebuild the contributory principle; and we must be honest with people about social insurance.
We were prepared to create the immensely unpopular Child Support Agency. We said that the state would no longer provide; the father would provide. That was intensely unpopular. We have to be prepared to do the same in relation to long-term care. I will not make myself any friends by saying that, but I firmly believe that it is the truth.
6.7 pm
Mrs. Sylvia Heal: I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate. It is right and appropriate that the House should deal with long-term care, which is of concern to many of our fellow citizens. The issue is likely to affect any one of us: we may require care, or provide it for a spouse, partner or relative.
It is sad that our society's success in reducing mortality and increasing life expectancy has not been a cause for celebration. Instead, the predominant concerns of the media, health planners, policy makers and politicians has been the cost of the growing older population and whether the country can afford to pay for pensions and health care. That often results in older people being seen in a negative light. That is not only ageist but sexist, because women are likely to live longer than men.
Such attitudes ignore the contributions of older people. Many provide care for their spouses or for neighbours and friends—that is particularly the case when members of a

517
family live many miles from the relative who requires the care. Those of us who value the enormous contribution that older people have made and continue to make to society want to ensure that they feel respected, valued and cared for, with choice and dignity in the later years of their life.
The previous Government's policy in the early 1980s was to reduce the services that local authorities provided, just when demographic changes and changes in the national health service produced increased demand for residential and nursing care for a growing number of elderly people. The result was that people were no longer able to rely on the welfare state and the NHS to provide them with that free care—something about which today's pensioners still feel angry and betrayed. We will all have heard senior citizens recalling a lifetime of working, making national insurance contributions and paying taxes in the belief that care would be provided free of charge if they should ever need it.
The previous Conservative Government's policies on continuing care shattered that belief. In the 1980s, we saw the reduction of long-term NHS beds and local authority provision, and the growth of private sector residential and nursing homes. I recall clearly in the late 1980s and early 1990s that, when businesses of every description were going bankrupt and collapsing around the country, the one growth industry was private residential and nursing care. People with little or no experience of providing care became owners of residential and nursing homes. I recall someone I knew who went from owing a garage and selling second-hand cars to opening a residential care home.
The balance of long-term continuing care has been changed radically in recent years. Whereas the majority used to be looked after in either an NHS hospital or a public sector care home, and the minority in the independent sector, the position is now reversed. People are concerned about the quality and cost of residential care and the loss of savings. In many cases, people are concerned about having to sell their homes. Many children are disinherited by a parent entering a care home. Although some are phlegmatic, others are angry. Usually, it is the parent who is angry, because he or she wanted to pass on an inheritance to the next generation.
Let us not forget that some of those who would benefit from the savings are not well provided for. Some will have been carers of that relative, with little or no opportunity to save for themselves. We want to make sure that we can provide good quality care for the elderly and examine how costs can be shared between the taxpayer and the individual. The royal commission was given that task. The report, published earlier this year, made a number of recommendations. The three principles involved in the commission's approach to funding are as follows: that responsibility should be shared between the individual and the state; that any new system should be fair and affordable; and that any new system should be transparent in respect of resources, entitlements and personal responsibility.
The key factor that the commission recommends is the exemption of personal care from means-testing, to make it free to all those who are in need. When Ministers are considering the Government's response to that aspect of the report, I urge them to give serious consideration to this point. I recognise the difficulty of defining personal care, but I urge Ministers to tackle the matter and come
518
up with a solution. They will know, as I do, that there are many organisations working with the elderly and with carers' groups—as well as individuals—who feel that time is no longer on their side. I have every confidence that the Government's decision will be based on fairness and equality.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State rightly reminded the House that continuing care is not provided exclusively for older people. There are many younger people with a congenital disability, or who, as a result of an accident or long-term illness or disability, require continuing care. They may have younger families to support and therefore have additional responsibilities and demands made upon them. Clearly, first-class domiciliary and respite care for them and their families is essential.
Funding is an important aspect of long-term care, as has been said. For those who are able to remain in their homes with support, the role of carers is important. The Carers National Association—an organisation for which at one time I was privileged to work—estimates that 80 per cent. of long-term care is provided by carers' relatives or by friends of those who need support. Much of the care for older people is provided by people who themselves are over 65, and in many cases it is only when the carer becomes ill and is unable to continue caring that help is sought from the community or social services. It clearly pays to support carers practically and financially. Together with all the many carers in this country, I was delighted when the Government came into office and began to acknowledge the contribution that carers make.
Fine words are not enough. It is not sufficient to say that carers are a hidden army who have worked very hard. They want a positive, practical response to the huge contribution they make. Therefore, the launch of the national carers strategy was widely welcomed. Also welcome was the provision of £140 million to fund short-term breaks. If there is scope for any extension of that money, that will also be warmly welcomed.
Many carers are either unable to work or can manage only part-time employment. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to assure me and the many carers who will be listening to or reading this debate that a review of their benefits, which recognises the value of what they do, will take place. Most people want to stay in their homes for as long as possible, and giving people the choice and the support they need to remain there is an important principle. To achieve that requires a good partnership between the health authority, the local authority and the voluntary sector. I am proud to say that both Sandwell and Dudley in my constituency contain some first-class examples of how that partnership is working and supporting some of our senior citizens in their homes.
Sandwell is a health action zone and it has discovered that the very elderly population—those over the age of 85—is rising significantly. Between 1997 and 2011, the number of very elderly people is expected to increase by 37 per cent. It is therefore important to have a well-thought-out strategy. Sandwell's age well strategy aims to increase the expectation of good health and social well-being later in life. It is about older people being involved and consulted about what strategies will benefit them and enable them to stay in their homes.
Some of the solutions have been so simple and obvious that they have been overlooked in the past. The focus is on enabling people to remain in their homes, so the

519
strategy has introduced respite care and a specialist health rehabilitation team; and a housing scheme for Asian elders. It has extended the availability of the community alarm scheme and introduced a new gardening and handy person scheme in conjunction with Age Concern to address the issues that can present problems to older people staying in their own homes.
The other borough in my constituency, Dudley, has also been innovative in its approach to try to ensure that people do not have to go into long-term care and to encourage them—through extra support—to try to stay in their homes. In April, it introduced the extra care housing initiative, which is a partnership approach in which the housing department provides the housing provision elements, while the social services department—in partnership with health colleagues—provides the extra care element through care assessment processes and home care schemes.
That scheme has offered prospective tenants sheltered accommodation with wardens who have an enhanced care role as an alternative to residential care. It provides a package of recuperation and rehabilitation that enables older people to achieve a maximum independent life style within a supported environment. The Government are encouraging such schemes by modernising social services and providing resources, and many Labour-controlled authorities are responding.
I welcome the announcements made today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, many of which are based on aspects of the royal commission's report. I want to highlight the long-term care charter, the national service framework for older people, and the insistence on monitoring home care services. In the past, those aspects of care have been neglected.
This Government will be judged on many things at the next election, and one will be their response to the demands for long-term care. The hallmarks of this Government have been fairness and social justice, and I have no doubt that those same hallmarks will be evident in their approach to the problem of long-term care.
6.20 pm
Mrs. Caroline Spelman: It is not the Opposition's job to respond to the royal commission's recommendations. That is the Government's job, and I am disappointed that the key points of the commission's report have not been addressed. We are working on our own policy for long-term care which will go much wider than the terms of reference given to the royal commission, but perhaps that is one of the privileges of opposition. However, we shall certainly take account of the needs of young people who need long-term care. They should not be forgotten in any debate on this subject.
This has been a strange sort of debate, with hon. Members on all sides of the House describing the problems accurately. The debate has been interesting, too, as many hon. Members have lobbed into the arena their suggestions for tackling the problems that they have described. They have had the freedom to do so because the vacuum at the heart of the debate is the fundamental question of funding.
I am sure that many hon. Members would agree that they have presented their personal ideas on the matter rather than the official lines adopted by the parties to
520
which they belong. Perhaps the debate has been all the better for that, but the curious effect has been to create the impression that we have prowled around the central question of funding without discovering what the Government intend to do about it.
The welfare state was set up to provide a cradle-to-grave formula for care. There is no point in wasting time discussing how miscalculations were made at that time, but those miscalculations mean that the wrong expectations were set for a fifth of our population. The debate is serious because it concerns so many people.
I expect that the politicians of the time were tempted to oversell their policies somewhat. That problem exists today and probably will persist in the future, but the difficulty left for today's politicians is serious, and it is getting worse.
There has been a consensus in the House in support of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire), who said that we have a moral obligation to the wartime generation, if I may call them that. The people of that generation are the ones who feel most keenly that their expectations have been dashed.
In both the majority and minority reports from the royal commission there is a worrying note of complacency about the affordability of long-term care, which is based on the fact that the threat of a demographic time bomb has been exaggerated. However, other key social trends in British society will affect our ability to afford the quality of long-term care that we would like to provide for those who need it.
The effect of increasing job mobility and of more women going out to work will inevitably cause a reduction in the level of informal care provided, especially for older kith and kin. Another, darker trend in British society—family breakdown—will also affect our ability to pay for long-term care.
One in three marriages now end in divorce, and the proportion is rising. More relationships are informal than used to be the case but, sadly, they are also prone to fracture. In families that are constituted along less traditional lines, the sense of obligation to older family members is becoming weakened. Will step-grandchildren feel the same obligation to care for the grandparental generation? Will children feel the same sense of obligation to the absent parent, be it father or mother?
The burden of such broken family relationships and of the weakening of the obligation of family bonds will be borne by the state. While the demographics may prove to be more predictable, the new social interpretation of honouring thy father and mother could turn out to be much more difficult for Governments to cope with. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne) may find that the £6 billion assessment of what the royal commission's recommendations would cost the Government in 2051 turns out to be wildly inaccurate because of the loss of informal care. We were rightly given a timely reminder by the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) that we must be realistic when dealing with human nature.
We do not start from a strong position in 1999. There is already a significant gap in funding. All over the country, there tends to be a shortfall of about £50 in the funding of residential care. To take only a couple of examples, in Cornwall the cost of residential care averages £252 a week but funding from social services is

521
£208. In Birmingham, the figures are £290 and £230. That gap presents politicians and relatives of people in residential care with the problem of who should pay. The money comes from family members if they are willing to pay; sometimes they are not. That causes enormous friction in the family. It also places the elderly resident in a predicament that can become embarrassing in a care home setting. If residents still have faculties, they worry about the shortfall from week to week.
Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Does my hon. Friend accept that that is a particular problem in some of the high-cost home counties, where the independent sector, to provide a quality service—but one that hon. Members will feel is appropriate for older people—pays 30 per cent. above normal rates for care staff and nurses? In the home counties, the health service gets no London weighting allowance. Those areas are penalised for being prosperous without any recognition of the enormous cost of care. The crisis for the elderly is probably more acute now in the home counties and the officially prosperous areas than anywhere else in the country.
Mrs. Spelman: I thank my right hon. Friend. In this debate, several examples were given of how that is inextricably linked with the standard spending assessment, which varies around the country. The problem is aggravated in counties where assessments are unsatisfactory. She provides another example of a badly affected county.
How is the funding gap filled? The resident or the resident's family often have to dip into residual capital. The lower threshold of £10,000 introduced by the previous Government has not proved sacrosanct in reality.
There is some dispute over the number of homes sold annually to pay for residential care, but I hope that no one disputes that it is happening. The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) used the word "agony" to describe the reaction of some people whose expectations are dashed and who find that they cannot pass on to their offspring the things that they have worked, scrimped and saved for all their lives. It is to try to underpin a savings culture that the Conservative party has been keen to encourage people to make savings and to avoid policies that would reward profligacy. As the savings ratio is going down, we urge the Government to pay attention to the matter.
Our document "The Common Sense Revolution" sets out some of the steps in our consideration of long-term care for the future. Long-term care partnership is a cornerstone of our ideas. We propose that for every £100 of insurance bought by individuals, £150 of their assets would be protected. In case that proves too ideologically difficult for Labour Members, I refer them to the comments on the report on long-term care made by the former Secretary of State for Health, the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). He said that the Government would
"apply the principles set out in our welfare reform Green Paper—in particular: expecting people to insure against foreseeable risks and to make provision for their retirement."—[Official Report, 1 March 1999; Vol. 326, c. 743.]
522
Given those remarks, there can be no major ideological objection from Labour Members. Indeed, we are encouraged to hear that the Government are willing to explore that avenue.
Dr. Palmer: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Spelman: I should prefer to continue, as we have only limited time for the debate.
The hard facts are that 500,000 people are in long-term care—150,000 of them in nursing homes—and, of that number, 42,500 are funding their own care. While the commission was holding its consultations and producing its report, 75,000 homes were lost. If we are prepared to be honest, we know, as politicians on the doorstep, that people find that situation unacceptable. Rather like explaining the facts of life, I have had to justify, painfully, to elderly constituents—indeed, to my own relatives—the fact that almost all their assets have had to be used for funding their care. There is not much dignity for elderly people when youngsters have to tell them that.
There is even less dignity in the situation described so movingly by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley)—the disparity experienced by those who have preserved rights but are evicted from nursing homes where they have lived for a long time. It is worth making one point that he did not make in order to increase the note of urgency in his request to the Government: when elderly, frail residents are moved from one establishment to another, unfortunately some of them do not long survive such an upheaval late in their life.
Given the family unfriendly life style of most Members of Parliament, there is a high chance that many colleagues who have spoken brought some of their personal experience to the debate. Nearly all of us brought experiences gained in our professional capacity. We are concerned when we visit a nursing home and see that something is going wrong—perhaps it was the stale smell of urine, or the vacant look of residents with nothing more stimulating than a flickering television to look at. Perhaps it was the undetected toothache of an elderly resident that resulted from malnutrition, or toenails uncut because chiropody services have to be paid for—that is a false economy because it impedes mobility.
It is not hard to see what we would do better, as a blood relative facing that situation, but, in so many cases, for practical reasons, care has to be delegated. We therefore repeat our request to the Minister that when he reconsiders the care standards Bill, extra attention will be paid to the regulation of the quality of care provided. Perhaps the Minister could confirm that when he winds up the debate.
We question the focus of the document "Fit for the Future?". As the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Pollard) pointed out, the document's proposals would saddle those who provide nursing care with some most unwelcome burdens. It is the quality of human care that is important, not the room sizes, the allocation of wardrobe space, the position of windows or the number of double or single rooms.

The training of care assistants is minimal. My researcher described how, during one of her vacations when she was a student, she was put straight to work in a residential nursing home with no training at all. It would be so different if we heeded the words of my hon. Friend

523
the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe), who suggested that training should include palliative care, which is such an important part of quality long-term care.
Moreover, vulnerable adults are often involved. We gave assistance to the private Member's Bill, introduced by the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Ms Shipley), that became the Protection of Children Act 1999. I listened with great attention to what she said about the need to legislate for vulnerable adults, and I should like to place on the record the fact that it was my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) who tabled an amendment to that Bill to try to ensure that adults of diminished capacity—I think especially of those who suffer from dementia, who often make up a large number of those in long-term care—might be protected by legislation as a matter of urgency. Proper training and checking of the suitability of those who care for people with long-term needs is an imperative.
An older person living in their own home, in need of long-term care, may be subjected to all sorts of indignity: a veritable army of different carers calling during the day, chopping and changing, with no continuity. Demarcation may be a distinct problem when, for example, a home help cannot help someone with a personal care issue. The service is provided at the convenience of the service provider rather than at the convenience of the person to whom that service is administered. Not every grown-up with all their faculties wants to be put to bed at 9 o'clock in the evening. Recipients of long-term care often feel more done to rather than done with.
In the few moments that remain to me, I shall return to a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) regarding value added tax. Apparently, under the regulation of the private recruitment industry proposed by the Government, there will be a shift in employment responsibility from the elderly or handicapped person requiring a carer in the home to the agency supplying the carer. Agencies will then incur irrecoverable VAT charges. Naturally, the costs will be passed on to the client—hence the term "granny tax".
We have taken advice from Queen's Counsel, and we believe that the Government have the possibility of obtaining an opt-out from the sixth VAT directive as a result of article 13, which permits an exemption for
"services closely linked to welfare or social security work".
We would most strongly urge the Government to seek such an opt-out because, probably alone in Europe, we have so much private provision of domiciliary help compared with other European Union member states. It is absolutely in our national interest to request such a derogation, which would protect our elderly and vulnerable from that unnecessary tax.
Mr. Burstow: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Spelman: I shall not, as I have only a couple of minutes left.
It seems to me that we have spent most of the last six hours walking round and round the main problem of long-term care—its funding—without a proper response from the Government. The promise of a White Paper is a poor substitute. What is the point of a comparison with other royal commissions on different subjects in the past?
524
The present Government pledged to work out a fair system of funding. The royal commission said that change was imperative, and today we have missed an opportunity.
6.38 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): The debate has been of a high quality. It may say something about the time that I have spent in the House of Commons, but I feel that it has been one of the best debates that I have heard.
We have had the benefit of some very strong opinions from my hon. Friends the Members for Stockport (Ms Coffey), for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) and for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (Mrs. Heal), largely based on their personal experience of that aspect of our society, and from the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe), who made an excellent speech on the basis of her long association with, and interest in, the subject, which certainly showed. The debate has given us a useful opportunity to discuss these very important issues.
After my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had spoken, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) responded on behalf of the Conservatives. I am afraid that it struck me, and I suspect my hon. Friends, that he had used a speech that he had—obviously and rightly—prepared earlier, which failed to recognise the significance of some of the announcements that my right hon. Friend had made, and the clear timetable that my right hon. Friend had outlined for responding to the royal commission proposals. The hon. Gentleman made the interesting and intriguing remark that he felt that local authorities were inadequately funded. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, will want to query and question the hon. Gentleman about exactly what additional money he is asking to be spent in that area.
Mr. Hammond: For the record, I said to the Secretary of State that the much-vaunted increase in social service spending was not evenly spread geographically, as the Minister well knows. Counties in the south-east are suffering from underfunding of their social services because of the distribution to the north.
Mr. Hutton: All right. I am prepared to accept that the hon. Gentleman might have said that if that is what he thinks he said. We will all have the benefit of checking and reading Hansard in the morning. However, as the hon. Gentleman was speaking, I made a note of his reference to the inadequate funding of local authorities. I am sure that we will resolve the issue in the usual way.
Rather interestingly too, the hon. Gentleman referred to a breach of contract represented by the existing arrangements for funding long-term care. Generally, the debate has been marked by the absence of party rancour, and I do not want to spoil that. But—[Interruption.]—there is always a but—I have to point out to the hon. Gentleman that it was the Conservative Government who drew up the contract. If there has been a breach of contract, we know who is responsible and we know who drafted its terms. Some Conservative Members—not all, because others have approached the debate in a very

525
responsible way—have been attempting to airbrush themselves out of any responsibility for the present mess—
Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hutton: I will certainly not give way to the right hon. Lady. I have a great deal of respect for her, but she has not been present throughout the debate. I am happy to give way to hon. Members who have been part of the debate, but the right hon. Lady has not.
Mrs. Bottomley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that it is a courtesy that, even if by implication an hon. Member has referred to another hon. Member, it is appropriate to give way. I understand that the time that the Minister was referring to was almost certainly the time when I was holding office and responsible for community care legislation. It is—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. It is entirely a matter for the Minister whether he gives way.
Mr. Hutton: My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood made a good speech. She expressed her concerns about whether the new national minimum standards would be a voluntary, as opposed to a statutory, scheme. I can confirm that it will be a statutory scheme enforced by the new national care commission. Our proposals in relation to the national minimum standards will be set out in the Bill on care standards. My hon. Friend has not had the opportunity to read it because it has not been published. It will be published tomorrow, and she will be able then to read the details of our proposals.
My hon. Friend and several other hon. Members referred to their concerns about "Fit for the Future?", our draft standards for residential and nursing homes in England. I shall deal with their concerns later in my speech, because I want to reassure them about the proposals.
The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) and other hon. Members wanted us to announce our final conclusions today in response to the royal commission. I must point out to the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) that both their parties have been asking for the debate so that the House might express its views before the Government announce their final decisions. It is rather remiss of the hon. Gentleman, and rather a cheap shot, to make the allegation that he did, given that his party has been pressing the Government for a listening debate, for an opportunity to discuss these issues before any final decisions have been made. With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I think that it is probably better if we all avoid that sort of cheap-shot approach to these important issues.
When the hon. Gentleman tried to expound his position on the royal commission, I think that he probably left most of us completely in the dark when it came to whether he was supporting its main recommendations. [Interruption.] I was listening to him. I think that the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) might have shot his fox because he announced his strong support for the main recommendations set out in the
526
majority report. That left the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam slightly exposed. I am sure that we shall become aware of the position of the Liberal Democrats on these issues in due course. However, I am not confident that that will be before the Government have announced their final set of proposals.
My hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Hope) made a very good speech. He highlighted the need to develop better preventive and rehabilitation services in the national health service and local authorities. I am sure that he heard my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State make the Government's position on those issues clear: we strongly support such initiatives and developments. That is why we are making additional resources available.
The right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) made an outstandingly impressive speech. Anyone who heard the strength and the depth of his concern for his constituent could not fail to have been moved; I certainly was. In particular, he asked whether I could announce the introduction of emergency legislation to amend section 43 of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990. I am sure that he will not be surprised to know that I am not able tonight to confirm the Government's intention in that respect, but I hope that he heard the Secretary of State make it clear, when he opened the debate, that we are actively considering the implications of transferring to local authorities the funding and care management responsibility for people on preserved rights of income support. That may not be sufficient to satisfy the right hon. Gentleman's immediate concerns, and I understand that. However, I am always willing to talk in more detail with him about them. I should welcome such a conversation, because he obviously has very strong opinions on the subject.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) also, I am glad to say, welcomed the Secretary of State's announcement. She spoke strongly about her views on the subject, and we all respect the strength of her feelings. Her support for pensioners was made clear.
The hon. Member for Broxbourne clearly has a great deal of knowledge of the subject, and that certainly showed. She announced that she had seven principles on which she wanted to base any future reform. She has rather trumped the three principles that we announced today, but the broad thrust of the principles that she outlined was consistent with those that the Secretary of State announced. I look forward to her continuing support as we try to introduce fairer arrangements.
I particularly welcomed the hon. Lady's comments about carers, because they are an important part of the system. It is important that we try to build, if we can, a solid basis of support for any future changes, so that people know exactly where they stand and can make proper decisions about their own futures. I also welcome her support in principle for the idea of national standards for nursing homes. I hope that she can persuade those on the Opposition Front Bench about that, because they seem to oppose the idea.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Ms Shipley), who introduced and saw through the House the Protection of Children Act 1999, also made a very good speech. She raised the question of protecting vulnerable adults. I am glad to tell her that new provisions protecting vulnerable adults along the lines of those in

527
that Act will be included in the Bill on care standards, which will be published tomorrow. I hope that she will be able to support those proposals.
My hon. Friend also raised the issue of new national minimum standards. They will be implemented by the national care commission, and I assure her that compliance with those standards will be a condition of continuing registration. She can be confident that those national standards will make a difference.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) advised the Government to take time to get any new framework right; we certainly want to get it right this time. We now have an important opportunity and we want to make the most of it. We have set out a clear timetable for proceeding, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will think that that is the sensible approach. He asked whether national minimum standards will apply throughout the United Kingdom. My understanding is that there will be minimum standards for England, Scotland and Wales, but I am not sure what the position is with the new devolved Administration in Northern Ireland. That clearly will be a matter for that Administration.
Rev. Martin Smyth: The Minister will remember that I pleaded that the standards should be not the lowest common factor, but the highest common denominator.
Mr. Hutton: Yes, I remember the hon. Gentleman saying that. However, he should remember that this will be the first time that we have attempted to set national minimum standards throughout that important sector. That is a significant step forward, which is necessary if we are to tackle the quality of care being provided in residential settings. I know that some people do not like that idea, and I intend to address those concerns in a few minutes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport made a particularly good speech, in which she explored some of the wider principles that could, or should, guide our approach in future, as well as the detailed points arising from the royal commission. She will know that, today, we are not making final announcements about all the royal commission's recommendations on funding long-term care. I am sure that she will continue to take a close interest in those matters, and we certainly look forward to hearing her further contributions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) expressed his concern about the need to avoid compulsory house sales to fund long-term care. I am sure that he will be glad to hear that, as the Secretary of State made clear, that is one of the six areas to which we are giving particularly detailed attention.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne) made an interesting speech. I tried to follow it closely, but I am afraid that I missed most of it, and I have some sympathy with the Hansard reporters. I wonder what they will make of his contribution. He told me that he had taken the precaution of sending them in advance a copy of his speech, and I am sure that that will make all the difference.
The hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) made one of his characteristically interesting speeches. He struck me as being a fan of the old poor laws, and some
528
of his terminology harked back to those desperately grim times. If I have done him an injustice, I am sure that he will correct me whenever he wants to.
Many hon. Members have expressed their concerns about the present system of providing long-term care. It is clear that, if we are to address those concerns in a sensible and sustainable way, we will need long-term solutions. That is certainly the Government's approach, and one that my right hon. Friend spelled out clearly in his speech earlier this afternoon. However, we need to recognise that finding those solutions will not be the responsibility only of social services or the NHS. The issues raised are for our society as a whole to face and resolve. As my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis made clear, old age will, inevitably, touch us all, either in our own lives or the lives of those around us. It was Francis Bacon, in 1625, who rightly said:
"Age will not be defied."
We live in an ageing society. Over the next 40 years, the number of people aged 85 and over will double. People are entering care later—the average age is already 84. When older people enter residential care, they are more likely to be frailer and in need of more intensive care and support. As the hon. Member for Meriden said, as patterns of family life are changing, so too are the networks of care and support for older people. There are therefore big challenges ahead of us if we are to respond effectively to those trends, and in so doing, lay the foundations for a better and more secure environment for our older people. Those are issues on which I hope we can all agree.
First and foremost, we have to ensure that we maintain and promote the independence of older people. All hon. Members who have spoken in the debate have expressed their strong support for that aim. People naturally want to stay for as long as possible in their own homes, where they feel most comfortable and content. We all would want to have that option and to be able to exercise it.
That means providing the necessary support that older people need at home, at the time that it is needed. It also means helping their informal carers to do their vital job more easily, and giving them the support that they need. That is why we are making significant additional resources available in both those areas over the next three years. We are providing £140 million for our carers strategy and £750 million in new local authority grants.
Secondly, when people need to enter residential care, they need reassurance that the quality of care will be of the highest standard, in conditions that respect their privacy and dignity at all times. That is why we are developing, in consultation with providers and all other interested parties, new proposals for national minimum standards for residential care homes so that the public at large can have full confidence in the system.
Those standards must be realistic and affordable. They must give providers a sensible time scale in which to make any necessary changes. The new independent national care commission will need to be up and running before they can be properly implemented.
Clearly, the present arrangements are not good enough. They do not provide a level playing field between the public and the private sector, nor do they guarantee proper consistency across the country. Those are both crucial if any inspection and registration scheme is to be effective

529
and satisfy proper public confidence. There are too many loopholes and problems in the existing scheme, which mean that some homes are not inspected at all, and poor quality homes are not easily closed down.
Our new proposals will deliver a more effective and efficient system. The principle of independent regulation has been widely welcomed by the industry. The care standards Bill, which will be published tomorrow, will contain the details of the new arrangements and I am sure will be considered in detail in the House and in another place. I hope that our announcement today that we are broadly accepting one of the two main recommendations of the royal commission by establishing the new national care commission will be welcomed by hon. Members.
Mr. Hammond: I thank the Minister for giving way. Will he clarify whether the care standards Bill will contain the details of the standards, or only the details of the framework? If the latter, can he assure us that the standards will be available to us to consider in parallel with the Bill?
Mr. Hutton: Let me correct any misunderstanding that I may have caused the hon. Gentleman and the House. The Bill will not contain the details of the national minimum standards—I hope that that is clear. It could not contain such details, for the simple reason that we have not yet decided what the national minimum standards will be. We are still consulting on that, and the end of the consultation period has been extended to 21 January, because of the concerns about accessing and having the document available for people to read and digest. We have had more than 10,000 copies of the document prepared, given the extensive interest in its contents.
I want to reassure the hon. Gentleman and several of my hon. Friends who have raised concerns about "Fit for the Future?" that we are consulting. No decisions have yet been taken in relation to the detail of those standards. That would be quite improper while the consultation was under way. The consultation period will finish on 21 January, and we hope to settle the final national minimum standards thereafter.
As I do not know the Committee timetable in the House for the care standards Bill, I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the absolute assurance that he wants that the standards will be available by the time that the Standing Committee meets to discuss the Bill. We shall try our best to make sure that that is possible, but I cannot give the absolute assurance that he seeks from me today.
Improving the quality of long-term care will require us to look further than just the buildings in which residential care is delivered. Improving the training of the social care
530
work force will be vital. The social care work force as a whole is now more than 1 million strong, and yet 80 per cent. of the work force have no social care qualifications of any kind.
We must improve the situation as a matter of urgency. That is why the Government have established a new national training organisation for personal social services. We are currently consulting on a draft national training strategy, which has been prepared in consultation with the employers and providers. We are providing an additional £120 million through the training support grant to improve social care training.
Thirdly, the system of funding long-term care must be fairer, not only between the taxpayer and the individual, but across the generations. Any changes must be sustainable over the longer term. That is why it makes sense for decisions in this important area to be taken as part of the spending review that is currently under way and will be completed by next July.
My right hon. Friend identified six issues raised by the royal commission which we are examining in particular detail and which reflect many of the concerns expressed during the debate today. That shows that the Government are taking these matters seriously and are moving forward as quickly as we can.
The way in which long-term care is funded is an important part of the debate, but it would be a mistake to overlook the importance of the quality agenda and the need to give people real and effective choices about where their care is delivered. Making changes to the funding mechanisms without tackling those two related issues would undermine our efforts to find a genuinely long-term solution.
Today, the Government laid out the clear timetable that we are following in responding to the royal commission's recommendations. We have set out the principles that underlie our approach to making the system fairer and better. I am grateful to all hon. Members for their contributions to this important debate, which I am sure will continue both in this place and outside. There are big challenges ahead. We have made it clear that work is in progress. The Government will respond fully and comprehensively to each of the challenges.
It being Seven o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

LIAISON COMMITTEE
Ordered,
That Mr. Chris Mullin and Mr. Malcolm Wicks be discharged from the Liaison Committee and Mr. Barry Sheerman and Mr. Robin Corbett be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

Rural Areas (Policing)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
7 pm
Sir Peter Emery: Good evening, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is kind of you to stay for this debate.
I start with a positive and absolute statement, which I hope can be accepted by all. It is that, wherever one lives, one has the same right to the full and proper protection of the police authority. In other words, whether one lives in the country or in a sparsely populated area of the country, one has the right to the same expectation of police protection as those who live in an urban area or in a city.
That being so, I want to express the deep concern of many who live in the countryside and of the police force whose responsibility it is to deal with crime in the countryside, and to show that the cost of policing sparsely populated areas has been made clear to the Home Office, not just by my chief constable of the Devon and Cornwall constabulary, but by 13 other police authorities—those of Cambridge, Cumbria, Dyfed Powys, Gloucestershire, Lincolnshire, Norfolk, Northamptonshire, North Wales, North Yorkshire, Suffolk, Warwickshire, West Mercia and Wiltshire.
I will show that, whereas the Government claim to be flexible and modern, they are not; whereas they claim to react sensibly to logical argument, they do not; whereas they claim to care about and to understand the problems of the countryside, most palpably they do not; whereas they talk of open Government, it is fake since they refuse to publish a Home Office report, thereby turning it into a secret document.
Let me start at the beginning. I was alerted by a letter—dated 16 September from the 14 police authorities to which I have just referred—to the Home Office on the impact of the cost of the provision of police services in rural areas. It states:
"the rural police authorities have argued that they were disadvantaged because of insufficient recognition of the extra costs incurred by sparsity. As a result, most Police Authorities have suffered reductions in Police Officers. Some of these Authorities are facing considerable criticism from rural localities because of a lack of a 'police presence'."
It goes on to say:
"the latest report on sparsity provides conclusive evidence that it results in additional policing costs and recommends an adjustment to the funding formula"—
and that is even though the cost of patrol has been excluded from the figures.
The Minister should know that your predecessors, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), who went from your job to the Cabinet—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The right hon. Gentleman is gently straying away from parliamentary language.
Sir Peter Emery: I thought that I was saying that the Minister's predecessors, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth, who went from the Home Office to the Cabinet—I wish the Minister the hope of such a promotion—and the right hon. Member for Brent,
532
South (Mr. Boateng), Minister of State, Home Office, who has also been promoted, both stated that they would respond positively to the findings of the national research on sparsity.
Thus I was sufficiently worried to write a letter to the Home Secretary on 5 October. It stated:
"The costing of this area of policing I believe is not fully calculated in the funding formula."
I asked the Home Secretary whether he would examine that problem, irrespective of previous views on the matter. I believed that my letter was reasonable and I hoped for a positive response.
On 20 October, I received a reply, which stated:
"There was general agreement that a sparsity factor had been detected, but less agreement about how to include it appropriately in the police funding formula."
The letter continued:
"the Government will need to be satisfied that the research has provided a final answer to this question which is beyond dispute or challenge."
That is a rather optimistic goal in any political matter. I shall return to that point later. The letter went on:
"There is also the matter of the three-year freeze on changes to the funding formulae announced by the Deputy Prime Minister."
I subsequently learned that the Home Office report showed that if the sparsity factor in Devon and Cornwall is taken into account, £3.6 million extra should be paid to that authority because of the vast rural area that the police have to cover. I wonder whether I can ask the old Cholmeleian as a former Highgate councillor for seven years to confirm the figure and not to sidestep the question?
I wrote another letter to the Home Secretary, which stated:
"I have read with considerable care your letter of October 20th…You will not be surprised…to learn that it did not give me any of the assurances which are necessary for policing in rural areas."
I was disturbed by the Home Secretary's introduction of facts that had nothing to do with rural areas—for example:
"The £1.24 billion extra money will do little to help police expenditure in line with increases in pay and pensions and the cost of living over the three year period".
The money will not cover all that. My letter continued:
"The funding for 5,000 new police officers is not to increase establishments by an extra 5,000 men, but will with luck just replace the drastic fall in officers now being felt by most forces".
A reference in the Home Secretary's letter to £50 million towards the new national radio communications system sounds marvellous but is inadequate because it will leave between £700 million and £950 million to be found by local police authorities, probably through cutting personnel. My letter went on:
"Now turning to the main reason for my original enquiry. I wrote because I am certain that urban and city police authorities will always find reason for objecting to money for the extra cost of rural policing."
There would never be a single view, which the Home Secretary seemed to want. I asked him:
"how can one overcome the factual agreement that a 'sparsity factor' does actually exist"?

533
Everyone accepts its existence. The Government tried to mitigate that by saying:
"the Government will need to be satisfied that the research has provided a final answer to this question which is beyond dispute or challenge".
However, as I made clear:
"there will never be an answer that is 'beyond dispute or challenge'".
That is a civil servant's phrase and represents a "Yes, Minister" approach of doing nothing.
My letter continued:
"I am also massively concerned with what appears to me to be a further let-out for no action."
I went on:
"You say, 'there is also the matter of the three-year freeze on changes to the funding formulae announced by the Deputy Prime Minister. We hope to announce details of how the police funding formula will operate in relation to next year's financial settlement shortly.' Therefore, unless you accept the need to include within the new formula aspects of the cost of rural sparsity, further delay is guaranteed."
That, I believe, is unacceptable.
It is interesting to note, however, that at that time—without my knowledge—a letter was being written by and on behalf of the Association of Chief Police Officers of England, Wales and Northern Ireland, making two particular points:

"You will recall the time scale for consultation was relatively short".
It added that a number of chief police officers felt that, in composing the ACPO response to the report, the
"strongly held views of a number of Forces that present funding arrangements take insufficient account of the costs of delivering effective police services to communities in thinly populated areas had not been sufficiently taken into account."
Most interestingly, it went on to say that
"the Chief Constables' Council…while still conscious of the concern of those Forces with high intensity policing areas which might expect to lose grant if greater account is taken of sparsity factors resolved that the urgency of the needs of those Forces affected by sparsity is such that the Report's recommendations on adjusting the mechanism for calculating grant on the basis of sparsity factors should be implemented without further delay."
Those are the people who the Home Office suggested could never come to an agreement, but here they are—making a direct reference to the Home Office and the director of the police policy directorate—saying that action should be taken.
In answer to a written question, the Home Secretary states:
"I understand the wishes of rural police forces to see the research findings implemented. Before doing so the Government will need to be satisfied that the research has provided a final answer to this question, which is beyond dispute or challenge."
However, all our chief constables are saying that the answer is beyond dispute or challenge. What greater evidence can the Home Secretary have? He goes on to say:
"Our present intention is that, subject to consultation…we shall not make any changes to the method of police grant distribution, or revenue support grant distribution, generally for 2000–01."—[Official Report, 2 November 1999; Vol. 337, c. [18W.]
There will be no substantive change in the operation of the police funding formula for the next year. That is massively disappointing.
534
The chief constable of Devon and Cornwall wrote to me and made a point that is most relevant in all this consideration:
"The research into the impact of sparsity was commenced well before the moratorium was introduced",
and announced by the Deputy Prime Minister. Therefore it should at least be arguable—and positively the case, I believe—that the changes should not be caught up by that moratorium. However, retrenchment by the Home Office continues. On 22 November, in the last paragraph of his letter, the Home Secretary says that
"we propose to set considerable store by stability in the grant system to help police authorities plan ahead. As you know, the Deputy Prime Minister has announced a three-year freeze on changes to SSA funding formulae pending the wide ranging review of the revenue support grant system across local government. In view of the moratorium, the Home Secretary has decided that it would not be appropriate to make substantive changes to the method of police grant distribution next year."
What does all this show? It shows that, as I have suggested, the Government have been entirely inflexible. They have refused to act, not just in response to logical argument but to deal with proven injustice. No modern government there. They will not publish the secret report, and that, too, does not betoken open government. As for overcoming the problem of crime in the countryside, the Government are turning a blind eye—or else they just do not give a damn for country folk.
The situation is not acceptable, and it must be overcome. The sparsity factor with respect to the cost of providing police services in so many parts of the country must be not just recognised but acted on, and acted on smartly.
7.16 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): I congratulate the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) on securing the debate, and on raising what I agree is a very important question. Although my constituency is urban, it is located in a rural county, the county of Norfolk, and I am well aware of sparsity questions that are constantly put to me by my police authority and my chief constable.
The issues of rural crime and policing have been raised here in earlier Adjournment debates—most recently on 19 October, by the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard)—and in other debates on crime. The Government have taken measures to ensure that the whole community, along with police and local authorities, can deal with crime issues in the context of partnership.
I accept the force of the right hon. Gentleman's opening comment that it is important for every citizen to feel secure in regard to these issues, and to be treated equally. That is an important principle of our national life; the right hon. Gentleman was right to highlight it, and the Government adhere to it. I shall say more about that shortly.
We believe that partnerships, and the provisions of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998—I shall say more about that shortly as well—have proved to be a means of developing effective partnerships on the ground, reducing the impact of crime and the fear of crime. However, I want to set the debate in the context of the issue of crime and the policing of rural areas more generally. The right hon. Gentleman may be interested to learn that I met his chief constable—

535
and a number of other chief constables—in his capacity as president of ACPO, at a very pleasant dinner on Tuesday evening in London. We discussed some of the issues in—how shall I say?—a friendly and comradely way. Perhaps "comradely" is not the appropriate word, but we engaged in a positive and constructive exchange.
Sir Peter Emery: Is the Minister saying that the chief constable enjoyed the dinner?
Mr. Clarke: He did—and we paid for it, so he should have enjoyed it. Anyway, we had a very useful exchange.
The latest Audit Commission figures show 59 crimes per 1,000 of population in Devon and Cornwall. That is significantly below the national average of 78 crimes for every 1,000. The number of burglaries per 1,000 dwellings is 12, compared with the national figure of 20. In its policing plan for 1999–2000, the police authority said:
"The people of Devon and Cornwall live in one of the most crime free areas of the United Kingdom. Improved detection rates and falling crime figures…ensure that the South West rightly has the reputation as one of the safest places in Britain to live and work."
Those are not the words of a Minister; they are the words of the police authority.
According to the most recent figures, during the 12 months to March 1999 there was a 4.7 per cent. reduction in crime in Devon and Cornwall—some 4,300 fewer offences. That compares with a 1.4 per cent. reduction nationally. I do not suggest that there is no cause for concern in Devon and Cornwall; I am merely saying that the area has a good record.
Mr. John Burnett: Does the Minister realise that, in the country, it takes a policeman a very long time to travel from the station to the scene of a crime? In the case of a night-time burglary, it may take half an hour or three quarters of an hour, in marked contrast to the time that it takes in inner cities.
Mr. Clarke: Of course I appreciate that. It is a real point. I will come to it in referring to the research report.
Devon and Cornwall's budget this year of £175.9 million showed an increase of 5 per cent. over the previous year—the sixth largest budget increase among all the police authorities. I was not going to mention it, but, additionally, the Government recognised the pressures on policing the eclipse of the sun in August. The Home Secretary approved a special grant of up to £520,000 to deal with those costs. We knew that not even Devon and Cornwall could evade the forces of nature that meant that the eclipse took place there.
In 1999–2000, Devon and Cornwall will spend an estimated £112.30 per head of population, compared with the shire county average of £114.5 per person. A succession of above average funding increases for Devon and Cornwall has reduced the gap between the force's spending per person and the shire county average.
On Thursday, the Home Secretary announced that the Government proposed to increase Government funding for Devon and Cornwall for the next year by 2.6 per cent. Of course, the police authority will decide how to deal with the matter generally. That is all I intend to say
536
specifically about Devon and Cornwall. I come to the sparsity arguments that the right hon. Member for East Devon fairly raised.
Not only am I familiar with the issues as a Norfolk Member, but, earlier this year, I met a delegation from the police authorities that are directly affected—the group that the right hon. Member for East Devon mentioned—to discuss and to consider the issues in some detail. I acknowledge those issues.
Here is the so-called secret report. I have it in my hand. There is no secret report on which the Home Secretary has been sitting. In April 1998, the Home Office commissioned a research study. The right hon. Member for East Devon might have been slightly more graceful. He could have congratulated the Government on setting up the study, which was never commissioned in detail over the 18 years of the last Conservative Government, to establish the position. It might have been gracious to acknowledge that we had gone ahead with it.
Earlier this year, the report was finalised. It found that additional costs were involved in policing sparsely populated rural areas for precisely the reasons to which the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) referred. The report was not about police numbers; it was about the additional costs involved in policing rural areas.
The report recommended that the police funding formula should be changed to reflect those additional costs—that some funding should be switched from metropolitan forces and allocated to shire county forces. There is no reference in the report to claims that an extra £3.6 million would come to Devon and Cornwall through such a formula. Other figures have been bandied about for other authorities. In response to the specific request by the right hon. Member for East Devon to clarify the matter, I cannot confirm that the report states that Devon and Cornwall will receive an extra £3.6 million.
Sir Peter Emery: The Minister will realise that, under House procedure, as the report has been laid on the Table, it will be placed in the Library for us all to see.
Mr. Clarke: I was coming to that.
On 21 July 1999, a copy of the executive summary of the report was sent to all police authorities in England and Wales, so that they could all have access to the data. A copy of the full report and the executive summary was sent to the House of Commons Library earlier this week. It is in the Library for the right hon. Gentleman and any of his colleagues to examine its detail. I understand his point, but we were there a little before him in looking at the issues.
In a parliamentary written answer on 2 November, the Home Secretary announced that he did not intend to make changes to the police funding formula for 2000–01 for the reason that the right hon. Member for East Devon stated. In July 1998, the Deputy Prime Minister announced a three-year freeze on changes to the SSA funding formula, pending a wide-ranging review of the revenue support grant system throughout local government.
In view of that moratorium, the Home Secretary decided, subject to consultation and parliamentary approval, that it would not be appropriate to make substantive changes to the method of police grant distribution for 2000–01. I acknowledge that that has been

537
disappointing to the forces where sparsity is a significant factor; that is a fair argument for the right hon. Member for East Devon and others to make. I confirm that we will fully consider the position in the next round, taking into account a number of reforms that need to be considered, including sparsity. However, the needs of police forces with sparsely populated areas are already taken into account in the funding formula. A sparsity element accounts for about 0.5 per cent.—about £35 million—of funding. The report examines whether that is enough.
The Government are addressing the issue of police numbers constructively. On 30 September, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced a new crime fighting fund, part of which will be used to recruit 5,000 police officers in addition to the number that forces would otherwise have recruited over the next three years. Some £35 million of new money, not in the comprehensive spending review settlement, is to be allocated to meet the costs in 2000–01 under the challenge fund.
Today, we published our guidelines for forces to apply for resources from the fund. I shall not detain the House by going through all the criteria, but forces are specifically requested to supply information to support the size of their bid, including details on issues such as tackling crime hot spots and innovative proposals addressing the need to put more officers on front-line duties. The needs of rural areas should be considered in the bids.
I am not in a position to know what bids will be made by what authorities, but I should be very surprised if the Devon and Cornwall authority and others, including my own, for which sparsity is a factor do not take the opportunity of bidding for some of the new money to argue that the costs of policing rural areas should be reflected. Although we do not have any proposals on sparsity in the current spending round, the guidelines are significant.
I need to clarify something that I said earlier. There are exemplary tables in the document with figures, including the £3.6 million, but there is no Government commitment
538
to the tables. The figures do not show the precise amount that will come through. They are useful for debate on the development of the issues.
Our approach to the issues and the guidelines for the new money are positive and constructive. I should like to conclude by emphasising the virtue of partnership. Rural communities have different needs from urban ones. Many police forces covering large rural areas have mounted initiatives to tackle crime there. The allocation of police resources is an operational matter for chief constables, but we believe that the most effective response is through the partnership approach, which is at the core of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and the new crime reduction partnerships.
There have been some positive developments in the partnership approach. Some crimes are particular to the countryside, including the theft of livestock and farm equipment and threats of violence from the activities of animal rights activities. There are also concerns that crime is being displaced from urban areas, with criminals from elsewhere going into rural areas. Those are legitimate concerns.
In areas where the partnership approach has been taken forward, positive ideas have been developed. For example, there are 35 different watch schemes along the lines of neighbourhood watch, including farm, horse, country and even poacher watch schemes. Such schemes are directly relevant to rural areas. There are more than 500 farm watch schemes across England and Wales to combat rural crime.
We are glad that this important matter has been raised. Through resources and partnership, the Government are fighting rural crime and will continue to succeed in their aim.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Seven o'clock.

Preamble
[MR. MICHAEL J. MARTIN in the Chair]

Sea Fishing
[Relevant documents: Eighth Report from the Agriculture Committee Session 1998–99 HC 141 and Seventh Special Report (Government Reply).]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
2.30 pm
Mr. Peter Luff: It is a great privilege to be opening the first debate on a Select Committee report to be held in this place. I believe that it is also the first debate to compete with the main Chamber, so I am pleased to see so many colleagues from all parties here this afternoon.
I confess to some reservations about this experiment, but the widespread welcome received by our report from all parts of the industry and the lobby groups around it perhaps suits this less confrontational style of debate. I am reminded that in New York, the best plays are often off Broadway. I have reservations about the name of this place, but I hope that the best debate this afernoon will be off Westminster Hall.
There is nothing new about a horseshoe style—Select Committees have used it for years—but I understand that Madam Speaker has instructed that there should be some segregation in the Committee, and we are obeying that ruling. Sitting just to my left we have the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mrs. Organ).
Mr. David Curry: And the Liberals on the far right.
Mr. Luff: As my right hon. Friend says, we have the Liberals on the far right, which makes a change.
The Government's response to our report was one of the best that we have received, and I am grateful to the Minister and his officials for it. To use a fishing metaphor, it does not look as though the Government will be discarding our report; it was certainly not undersized. With around 90 pages and 58 recommendations, it is one of our larger reports. Its combination of quality and quantity owes everything to the Committee staff and advisers, and I am grateful to them. I commend the photographs on the front cover, which were produced by me and the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), who is in the Room. That is the only compliment that he will be receiving from me this afternoon.
During my first year as Chairman of the Agriculture Committee, we held a wide range of inquiries, but the nearest we got to sea fishing was flood and coastal defence. It is interesting that that report also received a fine response from the Minister.
I must strike one note of sadness this afternoon. Three of the key members of the Committee who worked on our report on sea fishing have left or are shortly to leave
118WH
the Committee. The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George), who is in his place this afternoon, has a deep knowledge of the industry and contributed greatly to our considerations. He has already left the Committee to take on the onerous responsibilities of speaking on social security for his party—
Mr. Andrew George (St. Ives): And fishing.
Mr. Luff: And fishing.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), whose exploits in Vigo fish market are probably best forgotten—for reasons which I shall happily share with the Minister at a later date—also contributed greatly to the work on the report. He is sadly missed, although he is now doing great service in Kensington and Chelsea and elsewhere.
We are also to lose the hon. Member for Forest of Dean, who will be replaced if a motion in the House is passed today. It is sad to see her go because she has contributed greatly to our Committee. She was a lively and intelligent questioner and we shall miss her very much.
The real reason for holding an inquiry into sea fishing was that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby would have made my life a living hell if we had not. I share with him a constituent who operates a fish stall in Droitwich Spa market, but at weekends lives in Grimsby, from where he brings all his fish. I feel that I am a kindred spirit with the hon. Member for Great Grimsby, although his constituents have shown little gratitude for the effort that we made in the report to protect their interests. The Worcester Evening News stated on Wednesday 24 November under the headline "Fishy sales warning" and "'Grimsby traders' are bullying OAPs":
"Pensioners are being bullied into paying hundreds of pounds for fish by tradesmen claiming to be from Grimsby.… The fish sellers are described as driving a red or orange-coloured Transit van and speaking with northern accents."
I hope that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby will call the troops off and let the pensioners of Worcestershire buy their fish wherever they choose.
I do not claim to have had a deep understanding of the industry before we began the inquiry. Like most Committee members, I approached the inquiry with an open mind and a largely closed mouth, which is perhaps unusual for a politician. I freely admit that, as we conducted our inquiry, I discovered much that surprised me. My first big surprise was that it was possible to inquire into the United Kingdom fishing industry without becoming bogged down in the high politics and intricacies of the common fisheries policy. Others shared that surprise, which many continue to articulate to this day. We set terms of reference that expressly excluded the common fisheries policy from our deliberations, and our report, which was widely welcomed, proved that we were right to do so. Indeed, that great Labour Eurosceptic, the hon. Member for Great Grimsby, told Fishing News that our report was
"the best overview of the industry for years."
Like most of my party, I do not like the common fisheries policy. It is far from the ideal tool for managing fish stocks, but it is the best that we have. British fishing policy must not resemble a startled rabbit that is caught

119WH
in the headlights of the common fisheries policy and unable to focus on anything else. A great deal can be done by the Government to help the industry, as our report clearly demonstrates. The Committee put the common fisheries policy to one side because the Europhiles and Eurosceptics—to use those crude terms—understood that simple fact. Moreover, we knew that, on such an important political question, it was unlikely that agreement could be reached on anything worth while. Select Committees are at their best when they operate on the basis of consensus, and I took pleasure from the Government's analysis of our report. They said:
"The Government welcomes this thorough and constructive report".
Today's debate should concentrate not on the common fisheries policy, but on the real and substantive issues raised in the report.
As I said, sea fishing was our major inquiry last year. We began taking evidence in November 1998 and held our final session with the Minister in June. I am glad to see that he holds the same post that he held when the inquiry began. That is a rare feat. Our inquiries were not limited to London; we travelled the length of the country. In February we travelled to Newlyn, which is in the constituency of the hon. Member for St. Ives. In May we travelled to the Shetland Islands, via Grimsby, of course, and Aberdeen. I admit that we also made a detour to Brussels. We visited fish markets and processing plants, and saw for ourselves the industries in Spain and Iceland.
Most important, we listened to the views of enforcement officers, scientists, fish merchants, processors, producer organisations and, of course, fishermen themselves, both individually and through their representative organisations. I believe that I speak for the whole Committee when I say that we were grateful for the warm welcome that we received everywhere. For many of us, our view of the industry changed dramatically. As we travelled, rather like a travelling circus, from a Committee Room in Westminster via a hotel ballroom in Cornwall to a council chamber in Peterhead, we learned a great deal.
I learned that the industry's image is often substantially at odds with the reality. That was my second big surprise. As the report states, although the industry
"is often represented by itself and others as an industry of victims",
many in it have broken with the past, leading to an important political conclusion. Having set out the five essential fishing policy objectives—I refer hon. Members to the report—we said that
"our overriding concern is that the Government establish a settled, transparent long-term strategy for management of fisheries which takes into account the competitive position compared to other EU countries and within which the industry can plan, confident that any necessary changes will apply equally and be introduced fairly, with proper consultation and with regard to clear and agreed objectives. There is a very bright future for the UK sea fishing industry and the Government has to play its part in helping to bring this about."
That conclusion is of fundamental importance. I believe that the people whom we represent in this place like to
120WH
back winners. Support for the fishing industry would grow if people realised that many fishermen are winning, and that many more could do so in the right environment.
The Committee was pleased with the Government's response to that recommendation. The Government said:
"The Government notes the Committee's suggestion of drawing up an agreed long term management strategy, covering inter alia rationalisation of the fishing fleet and fishing ports, and will consider this with the industry."
Judging from our earlier discussion, the Minister has anticipated my first questions. What has been done in respect of that recommendation? Have those joint considerations begun? How will progress be reported to the House and to the Committee?
The more we travelled and the more we saw, the more we became convinced that the sea fishing industry had a bright future. People are investing in boats, embracing new, modern equipment and adapting to the demands of the consumer. As in all other industries, whatever their activities, that is the way to succeed in the modern world. I should say to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby that we were very impressed by the fishermen whom we met in Grimsby. They had overcome their traditional hostility to the supermarkets and were entering into new kinds of contracts, which should bring real advantages to both consumers and the industry. We were especially impressed by the industry in Shetland, although I accept-as I am sure that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby would wish me to point out—that the financial situation there has been helpful in supporting changes in the fishing industry.
Our central strategic conclusion is that the industry must be allowed, as far as is humanly possible, to take charge of its own future. To help it to do so, we made many individual recommendations to encourage cooperation between the different links in the chain from the sea to the supermarket shelf, including scientists, administrators, processors and retailers. We called for a better exchange of information between all parties, measures aimed at encouraging mutual trust and concerted market-led strategies.
My third big surprise was the often low level of trust between scientists and fishermen. Perhaps I should not have been surprised, but I was. In other countries, scientists and fishermen are far more obviously allies in the battle for their industry's success. That is a culture that we must create in the UK. It is not a uniformly disappointing picture—there are some shining examples of good practice in the UK—but the general situation struck me as dispiriting.
As we stated in recommendation 14,
"We recommend that MAFF consult with the scientific community and the fishing industry on the best way to establish a permanent formal procedure for collaboration and consultation on fisheries research."
The Government responded:
"The Government agrees this recommendation and Fisheries Departments and scientists are already in touch with the industry to improve contacts on science and to establish a more formalised approach."
The Minister may have anticipated my next question. What is happening in respect of that recommendation?

121WH
My fourth surprise was the lack of multi-species modelling. Our report shows that more than half the fish that disappear from the North sea are eaten by other fish. In that context, multi-species modelling is tremendously important in working out the state of stocks. I was a little disappointed with the Government's response on that. They stated:
"Multi-species work poses considerable scientific and practical problems and"—
I suspect that this is a clue—
"is expensive. It is being advanced in the North Sea to develop the range of scientific methods necessary to understand, and predict, the consequences of management actions in a multi-species context. As such work bears fruit—and as resources permit—it can be transferred to other regions where it is believed multi-species interactions are significant to our fisheries."
I do not find that a confident enough statement about the profound importance of multi-species research.
I emphasise the Committee's overriding concern that the Government should take full account of our competitive position compared to that of other EU countries and apply necessary charges and regulations equally and fairly, with proper consultation with the industry. Given the long-term interest of the industry and the state of stocks, we understand that some regulation is, and always will be, inevitable. However, the Committee felt strongly that more attention could and should be paid to the cost of compliance and the overall regulatory burden when the Government considered new measures for the industry. Both the cost and complexity of the regulatory regime must be minimised.
The Committee also felt strongly that greater account must be taken of our competitive position abroad. That does not mean that UK fishermen should automatically receive extra money if fishermen in another member state receive it, but the Government should increase their awareness of how regulations are implemented and enforced in other countries to ensure that our fishermen are not competitively disadvantaged. As we stated,
"We recommend that the Government prepare an audit of all regulations and their compliance costs relating to the UK fishing fleet".
That leads me logically to my fifth surprise, which I have also experienced in other areas of MAFF's work. The Government do not seem to think that embassies—and, where relevant, high commissions—are there to find out what our competitors do. I regret that, in their response to our report, the Government insisted that it was the responsibility of the European Commission to gather the necessary information. I do not understand that. Why will the Government not use their embassies to monitor implementation and compliance issues in other EU states? It would require very little effort to do that. Keeping an ear to the ground and reading the specialist and local press would suffice.
That line has softened recently in other areas. I welcome that. I hope that the new approach will be extended to fishing. Our posts overseas are best positioned to find out what other Governments are doing. When we impose costs without knowing whether our competitors are doing the same, it is worse than doing it in the full knowledge that they are not. A conscious act of policy to disadvantage a UK industry is generally wrong, but it is a scandal not to know whether one is doing so.
122WH
However, I am sure that officials at the Ministry would welcome receiving any evidence of breaches from fishermen and from the fishing industry. The Government have undertaken to investigate any breach, when hard evidence is provided, and I urge fishermen to provide the Minister with that evidence. However, I do not propose to let the Government off the hook. Their response to our concerns about regulation was inadequate. Why will they not agree to a proper, full-scale audit of the regulatory burden facing fishermen?
A sixth surprise is the fact that the trade in licences and quotas—a very valuable trade—is built on sand. What is the legal title to these phenomenally valuable commodities? Whatever one's point of view on individual transferable quotas, it is difficult for someone on the outside looking in to believe that so many millions rest on trusting politicians not to change the policy. We are not normally so easily trusted. MAFF's response to us on that point was a little lame. It may suit Ministers to keep the waters murky, but it does not suit a modern industry. The Government have promised to seek the views of the industry on managing the trade in licences and quotas. They stated:
"There are no plans to change the existing position whereby licences and quotas apply at the discretion of Ministers but with fishermen's interests protected by the legal concept of legitimate expectation. Nevertheless the Departments"—
that is Departments in the plural; it includes the devolved Departments in Scotland, Wales and now, I presume, Northern Ireland—
"will consider, in consultation with fishermen's representatives, if any further steps might be taken to clarify entitlement to licences and quotas under present legislation."
That is better than nothing, but I should like to know what progress has been made on that consultation. What is the timetable for action? Decisions need to be made urgently, and speed is of the essence.
The Committee was not unanimous on the larger question of tradeable quotas, as the report shows, and our recommendations were modest. I suspect that other members of the Committee may speak on this later. Our report stated:
"We recommend that, in conjunction with representatives of the fishing industry, the Government devise proposals for managing the existing trade licences and quota, with a view to introducing them as a matter of urgency. We recommend that the Government consult the fishing industry on the merits and drawbacks of tradeable quotas and the most appropriate form for their introduction in the UK, including the future management role of the POs"—
the producer organisations—
"and the extent of safeguards, for example to protect fishing-dependent communities, and report on the outcome of these consultations within a year."
The Government's response was encouraging, but no time scale was given. They said:
"In the light of the Committee's recommendations the Fisheries Departments in the UK will seek the views of the industry on whether further changes should be made to quota management and what measures might sensibly be taken to manage the existing trade in licences and quota."
Others who speak after me may wish to explore this issue in more detail. It goes to the heart of the question of what structure we want the UK fishing industry to have. There were those outside who expressed doubts on this score, but our trip to Iceland, where the trade in

123WH
quotas is further advanced, did not blind us to the problems that such systems create. We saw the deep controversy that surrounds the system there.
The Government will have to grapple more openly and honestly with the issue than they have before, and I would like to know how those discussions are progressing. We have to make explicit choices and develop clear policies to address the often conflicting objectives of policies in this area, such as helping the more remote fishing ports, encouraging young people into the industry and building an efficient and internationally competitive industry.
I should not have been surprised by how unprepared the Government seemed to be for devolution, but I was. That is the final surprise that I shall mention today. The Government talked about concordats, when they stated:
"The Government notes the Committee's wish for urgency in concluding the subject specific concordats on fisheries management … Publication of these documents must be subject to prior agreement … bilateral departmental concordats between MAFF and the devolved administrations … have yet to be finalised."
The concordat was published on 1 November, which was several months after devolution. I should like to know the background to that issue, to find out how it is developing and how the relationship with the devolved administrations is working in practice.
I should like to discuss many other matters, but other hon. Members are interested in the report and I should let them speak. I suspect that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby will discuss the urban waste water directive. Other subjects that may be mentioned include the scrapping of the vessel safety equipment grant, the level of discards, coastal and zonal management, the marketing, processing and port facilities scheme, new marketing initiatives by the Sea Fish Industry Authority, a range of environmental issues, the role of sea fisheries committees and, above all, the proposed national institute for fisheries in Grimsby. However, I leave those matters to other hon. Members.
The Agriculture Committee wanted to present a positive image of the industry, and I am pleased that the report appears to have been accepted in that spirit. The sea fishing inquiry was one of the most interesting that the Agriculture Committee has undertaken. We hope that we have done something to bring about changes for the better and to focus attention on what—paradoxically—appears to be both a neglected and an over-regulated industry.
Perhaps the most famous thing ever said by a British politician about fish was the comment that Aneurin Bevan made at the Labour party conference at Blackpool in 1945. He said:
"This island is made mainly of coal and surrounded by fish. Only an organising genius could produce a shortage of coal and fish at the same time."
We are getting pretty short of coal mines these days, but there is no reason why sea fishing should share a similar fate.
I assure the Minister that, although the inquiry has been concluded, we shall continue to monitor developments in the industry closely. We are determined that the bright future that we predicted will come about.
2.51 pm
Mr. Austin Mitchell: I am happy to follow the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff), who was the Chairman of the Select Committee on Agriculture, and I am glad that in this Chamber we are seated in a semicircle trying to persuade each other. We had a similar experience on the Agriculture Committee. People from all parties and, more importantly, of all views on Europe worked together to produce a good report on fishing. I believe that we succeeded in doing so. The fishing industry's reaction has been very good—fishing organisations and fishermen have congratulated me on the report. That was a novel experience for an hon. Member whose constituency is based on fishing and whose party is in government. Perhaps that shows how well members of the Agriculture Committee worked together.
The Agriculture Committee produced a good overview of the fishing industry's needs and problems. That was necessary because people do not know much about the industry. It is divided because different interests pull in different directions. Although it suffers from an inferiority complex, it is not paranoid—it has been badly treated, which tends to confuse the issue. Our overview assessed the present situation and considered how the industry could progress to a better future.
With effective conservation, the harvest of the seas could be stabilised and looting and pillaging would end. There has been a desperate need to catch any size of fish just to survive, although that approach has done much damage in the North sea and elsewhere. There is a worldwide overcapacity in fishing, and problems with conservation. Unless we correct those problems, the fishing industry will cease to be effective. We want it to move away from a continual process of improvisation, which involves trying to catch as much as possible, towards an organised and structured system. The industry should co-operate with Governments rather than continue in its antagonistic relationship with them. That was one of the aims of our report.
Fishing has been neglected because it has been low among the Government's priorities. I praise the efforts of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, who is an effective Fisheries Minister. He made a conscious effort to listen to the industry and he earned its respect. However, where does fishing come in the Government's priorities? It is not as high a priority as it is for other European Governments, who regard fishing as an important industry. More people are employed in the industry in other European countries and it receives more support from European Governments than from the United Kingdom Government. In this country, it makes awkward—and, in a European context, disruptive—demands. The UK Government do not pursue those demands properly because they have to make progress in other areas.
Quota hopping, for example, tends to be moved down the list of priorities to achieve a deal on other matters that, for understandable reasons, are more important to the Government. That is a problem. The Select Committee was impressed by my hon. Friend the Minister's stewardship, by the clarity and straightforwardness of his evidence and by his concern for fishing. I can now hit him with all the things about which we had reservations.

125WH
We stayed off the European issue because it would have been divisive in a Select Committee. There is a real problem, however, because fishing was sacrificed in the initial entry negotiations. The deal provided for equal access to a common resource and it is difficult, on that basis, to ensure proper conservation of our waters. The answer always given to those who, like me, whinge on about the common fisheries policy is that co-operative arrangements with European countries would be required. However, if we had not accepted equal access to a common resource, we could have imposed our own common agreements and policy and we could have followed our own conservation needs.
Conservation measures, such as the introduction of square mesh panels and closing off grounds—which we can do against our own fishermen, but we cannot do without agreement against other fishermen—are difficult to achieve because of Europe. It is difficult to reach an agreement on technical conservation measures, which are the way forward and increasingly necessary, because Europe agrees on common, basic, across-the-board, minimal measures. Other countries have been better at building up and retaining their fishing industry—Iceland, Norway, the United States and New Zealand—by imposing a conservation regime that suits their national purposes. The odds are against the regime in which we have to participate because of the basic disparity of equal access for other nations to a common resource. That resource is at its richest in British waters, which in value terms provide three quarters of the catches.
Although the Select Committee stayed off the European issue, it is a genuine problem. As the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire said, it makes Governments prone to impose costs on fishing that are not imposed on competing fishing industries. They are inclined not to support fishing as the industry wants and, I think, needs to be supported, because such assistance is provided through European measures. Our fishing industry falls between stools—for much of the period, it has not had European financing on the scale that Spain and other countries have had. Spain has had considerable European finance to rebuild its fleet. We lost Icelandic waters, but we were not given compensation in the fishing grounds of third parties. Spain, however, benefited from Moroccan waters and a whole series of African waters as compensation for the consequences of entry. Compensation has never been given to this country, even though other fishing regimes receive considerable aid.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Whose responsibility is it that the UK industry in England and Scotland has not had access to such grants, while the industry in Spain and other European countries has?
Mr. Mitchell: That is an opportunistic point, which I might have made two and half years ago but do not make now. It is partly because there would have to be a Treasury contribution to European funding, and partly because we have not achieved the multi-annual guidance programmes that we were set, so we have not qualified for European funding. We have not achieved those multi-annual guidance programmes partly because other nations were transferring their fishing fleets to the
126WH
British register. By reflagging their vessels as British, they solved the problem of reducing their efforts, but at the same time they were increasing our problem of reducing our own efforts.
I do not want to engage in a party political argument with the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), but it is an objective fact that the industry has not been supported by either Europe or the Government to the same degree that other fishing fleets have been. Our industry now relies on an ageing fleet. We were told in Spain that the Spanish had problems with an ageing fleet too, but their big catching fleet—the large vessels that fish in our waters—is extensively modernised in a way that our fleet is not. The overall figures indicate an ageing fleet, which is not only a danger to safety—I think that my hon. Friend the Minister recognises that—but makes the industry less effective than its European competitors.
We must constantly bear in mind the need to give our fishing industry a deal that is equal—a level fishing ground, as it were—to the aid and support that its competitors have. It is unreasonable to impose extra burdens on it. As we emphasised in the report, we need to keep the matter constantly under review. MAFF must know what costs are being imposed on competitor industries. Why should we put up with the tendency constantly to impose extra burdens on our industry that are not imposed on competitor industries? Waste water charges are a classic instance. Competitiveness means a level playing field, but we do not have that in the fishing industry. That worries me.
While I am discussing the neglect of fishing, we note in the report the way in which safety grants—as well as processing grants, harbour grants and harbour safety grants—were suddenly ditched because MAFF found itself in a difficult financial situation. It came quite out of the blue with terrifyingly short notice. "Sorry," MAFF said, "there is a black hole in our accounts and we cannot pay these grants for safety and other aspects of deep concern to the industry, including processing." The industry should now be applying for support for processing to cover the cost of re-equipment and meeting the standards of the waste water directive, but the grants have all been cancelled, just like that. It indicates an appalling sense of priorities. The low position of fishing in the Government's priorities is unacceptable. I hope that our report does something to redress that by highlighting the problems of the industry.
I do not want to go on because there is no point in repeating the entire report, but its general tenor was that fishing needs to upgrade its game. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister shares that view because we have talked about it constantly and it is in the nature of the evidence that he gave. Our report is written with this question in mind: how can we turn fishing into a more efficient and effective, better skilled, better trained and more stable industry with better investment? Training and education are ways of upgrading the game and I am glad that the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire mentioned the Committee's recommendation, which I want to emphasise, in that regard. Our report states:
"We commend such far-sighted ideas"—
on training—

127WH
"to the Government and urge MAFF to explore with the Department for Education and Employment the possibility of establishing a National Institute for Fisheries, on the basis set out in the Grimsby submission".
That is what we need. Training and education have been drastically cut, university courses have been closed and the number of places available on them has shrunk, and there has been a failure to establish a national centre. We were impressed in Shetland by the—
Mr. Luff: The North Atlantic Fisheries college.
Mr. Mitchell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding me of that.
The college is impressive. It trains people from all over Scotland. A similar training institution is needed in England. We believe that it should be in Grimsby and we are preparing submissions on that for the Minister. The Government's response to our suggestion for a national institute of fisheries was a little disappointing. They said that it would
"have to be considered in the light of other existing facilities."
We took that into account and there are no adequate existing facilities.
The Government went on to say that the scheme was considered in July 1997 and referred for European funding, which was not taken up because the scheme was not developed. However, now it is developed and our recommendations will be sent to the Minister. As the report says, the Minister's Department and the Department for Education and Employment need to coordinate to provide an institution that will upgrade the industry.
Marketing needs to be tackled. Co-operative arrangements with the supermarkets, which are selling more fish, would help to bring their strength and power to this industry. The role of the supermarkets is in contrast to that of the jobbing people who are plaguing constituents elsewhere. The report that I read said that they were posing as coming from Grimsby. People pose as doctors and perform operations, but that does not mean that they are qualified. To come from Grimsby implies a weighty role and a sense of honour and integrity that is alien to the people who have been selling lorry loads of fish to poor pensioners for thousands of pounds—although it is interesting that pensioners are able to buy lorry loads of fish for such high prices.

Marketing needs to be upgraded to involve the supermarkets, which are an unexplored resource. We need their commitment. The co-ordination of markets, in particular the supermarkets, with the catching of fish needs to be upgraded. That would mean better catches of bigger fish and would cut out the discards. We could cut down on fishing that is not for human consumption. The plague of industrial fishing continues. It is damaging the stocks by killing and catching young immature fish on a scale that is unacceptable when the resource is so depleted. Where do we draw the line? We need to stop industrial fishing.
Fishing needs to be put on a higher level so that it is a more efficient, effective and better invested industry. We emphasise that in our report. The fishing industry cannot do that on its own. I realise that it is convenient
128WH
for Ministers to say that catches are down but prices are up, and a viable industry is able to provide for itself. But fishing cannot do so; it needs Government leadership and a measure of Government support.
Committee members can argue about how much support the industry needs. When we wrote the report, there was a divergence of view between the free marketeers, who believe that industry should not be supported by Government, and those members who were acquainted with the needs of fishing and who wanted some Government support. Both views were held by people at either end of the political spectrum; it was a cross-party argument. The free marketeers won on too many issues. It is interesting to hear those same free marketeers, whose farming constituents are clamouring for help, say that it is important to sustain that industry with Government support. They were not prepared to give that support to fishing. However, I do not want to make a party political point.
Mr. Luff: I must leap to the defence of the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) whose intellectual analysis of every situation is rigorous and consistent, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will confirm.
Mr. Mitchell: I heard my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire, who has agricultural constituents, say something about the need to give temporary financial support to farmers in difficult marketing conditions, who were affected by the rise in the price of the pound and the collapse of eastern European markets. The argument becomes one of self-interest.
It is diffcult for the fishing industry to act on its own without leadership and without Government involvement. We were impressed by the way in which the Shetland industry has developed, the way in which it has bought quota, the way in which funding is given and the way in which the industry is trying to provide entry for young fishermen, who find it increasingly difficult to enter the industry because costs are so great and because the banks are so reluctant to lend the necessary money, given the uncertainties. The Shetland industry has been able to do that because it has had money available—initially highlands and islands development money. More important, oil revenues have been invested and loans have been provided from that money to keep the Shetland industry going. The rest of the industry does not have such a resource and, without it, upgrading such as has occurred in the Shetlands is difficult to achieve.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): I was interested in the Shetland scheme—I have discussed with the industry how it achieved that. I was anxious to be assured that such a scheme, which has the advantage of being underpinned by oil revenue, was not unfair to sections of the industry without that advantage. The argument that I heard there was that the scheme amounted to a business arrangement—the quota was held in trust and was leased by the fishermen. They were paying a commercial return. In fact, they complained that the return that they were paying was more than a commercial return.
Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend is right; annoyingly, he usually is. However, the issue depends on timing and

129WH
stages. Previously, many of the quotas bought from Grimsby were purchased with highlands and islands funding when that was more widely available. Now, there is a commercial loan system. The important point is that Shetland's local authority has money available that can be used by, and has been offered to, the fishing industry; banks in many other parts of the country will not make money available on the same commercial basis.
Mr. Morley: I apologise, but I must point out that Grimsby's producer organisation has bought a fair amount of quota recently on a completely commercial basis.
Mr. Mitchell: Of course that has happened—everyone is rightly in that game. However, that purchase occurred after a disastrous loss of quota—mostly to Shetland, but also to other parts of Scotland—which was in danger of making the size of the Grimsby fleet unviable. A fleet of a certain size is needed to support a centre for excellence in fishing. We arranged that scheme to buy back and to keep quota in the port because the loss of quota was putting the fleet in danger of falling below that size. That was a sensible precaution which everybody has to take. Shetland has advantages in that game that the rest of the country lacks.
My hon. Friend said—I am sure that he was right—that the Shetland industry was not given a commercial advantage. However, it is more difficult for other sections of the fishing industry to raise from commercial loans and from banks money equivalent to that available in Shetland—the struggle is tougher.
I have been diverted from coming to my conclusion; I was going to have a ringing conclusion. However, I wish to consider the waste water directive. The Select Committee recommended that that directive should be phased in. It will apply to the Grimsby fishing industry first. Anglian Water Services has been able to build a waste treatment plant outside the town at Pyewipe. A plant will eventually be built at Hull and others will be built in other ports, but Grimsby is on the front line. At first, charges increased by 500 per cent. or, in some cases, by 1,000 per cent.—they were massive. By a series of negotiations, we had the charge brought down to a two and a half times increase—still a massive increase for small processing firms. I am talking not so much about the big processing firms which will face an isolation of costs as about small firms and fish merchants who process on the premises. They have invested considerable sums to install treatment equipment. That is a big burden for a small firm—a big firm may be able to bear such a cost, but Government help should be available. An expression of horror has just crossed the face of my hon. Friend the Minister.
Help is given in other countries. The industry in France benefits from 75 per cent. financing of the cleanup machinery. We do not benefit in this country. I accept that the increase is down to two and a half times, but the amount is still massive. In the light of our report, the Chairman of the Select Committee and I wrote to Anglian Water Services, which has since then maintained a stunning silence. Further letters to it from fish merchants suggesting that the charge should not be applied have been referred to its legal department. That seems ominous, but it is unfair and unacceptable that
130WH
the charges should be imposed at a higher level on Grimsby when a new system of reviewing the charges will be introduced, as the Government said in their reply. Why should the costs be imposed in Grimsby before then? They will distort competition and hit the town, where a large number of merchants need to be maintained to set a better price for fish.
I commend the report to the Government. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister will examine it seriously because it represents many of the lines along which he is thinking. The industry needs sustained help and support from Government if it is to move forward in the way that the report suggests.
3.16 pm
Mr. Andrew George (St. Ives): It is a pleasure to have this opportunity to speak in this important fishing debate. I congratulate the Chairman of the Select Committee on Agriculture, the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff), on the way in which he not only chaired the debate and inquiry, but presented the findings of the Select Committee this afternoon. I welcome to the debate the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss). I think that this is his first time speaking on behalf of the official Opposition on this subject and, given the comments of his predecessor, it will be interesting to hear what he has to say about the industry.
We embarked on the inquiry with some trepidation. There are at least two inevitable outcomes when a politician pops his head above the parapet to get involved in fishing matters. First, the usual handful of head-bangers are provoked on to their high horses to go on about Europe and, secondly, the media usually ensure that several angry fishermen are wheeled out to tell the politicians in no uncertain terms how out of touch they are with the industry and that they should give up and go away.
On the first point, fish may not be bright, but at least they do not have any hang-ups about their nationality. As for the second point, fishermen are, of course, right. Politicians cannot understand entirely the realities of the fishing industry. We are not out with fishermen all the time. We cannot experience what they experience, but we can and should begin to recognise their problems. Discussions with the fishing industry usually result in a fudged stalemate until the next time an unwary politician or political committee stumbles inadvertently on the subject. It remains a political no-win area, which is probably why the leader of the Liberal Democrat party gave it to me. It is usually avoided, preference being given to issues over which spin doctors can exert more control.
The problem is that fishing policy has become piecemeal and reactive. As they always rush for the politically sunlit uplands of health, education or law and order, politicians do not generally understand the problems faced by fishermen—and fishermen do not understand the problems that politicians have with the fishing industry.
If one were to contrive a position from which to establish a really bad fishing policy, one could do no better than the current one, and the unhealthy stand-off does not help, because it results in a short-term, reactive, piecemeal fishing policy. I do not criticise the

131WH
Government, because the Select Committee tried to be apolitical, but under successive Governments our reaction to the fishing industry has been instinctive and we inevitably react to short-term problems rather than look at the medium and long-term solutions to the problem. I endorse the main recommendation of the Select Committee that there should be a coherent, joined-up vision of where British sea fishing policy is heading in the medium and longer term.
The country must know where its fishing industry is heading in the next five to 10 years. Some argue that we do not give the fishing industry sufficient importance. I agree. In political terms, priority is given to consolidating the regulations on sea fishery committees and so on, but the Government cannot find sufficient parliamentary time to introduce primary or secondary legislation to tidy things up.
The Select Committee found that £108 million per annum is expended on research, enforcement and so on, which represents 7 per cent. of the value of the fishing industry to the UK. That is a phenomenally large proportion of its overall value. We cannot argue that we devalue our fishing industry in financial terms.
If we were trying to plan a successful fishing industry, a good starting point would be Spain. Compared to the UK, Spain operates a relatively successful fishing industry. A fisherman in La Coruna was asked why he was successful and we were not. He answered, "You need three things for a successful fishing industry. You need fish, you need a means of catching them and you need a market." We have not yet got any of those factors right. We are worried about a continual decline in our fish stocks. A great deal more needs to be done to manage it properly.
British cosumers tend to like fish without skin and without the bone, in a fairly square shape, white and preferably covered in batter. That does not make for a good fish market. For example, 80 to 85 per cent. of the fish landed in Newlyn in my constituency, which is a larger catch in terms of value than that of any fishing port in England or Wales, is exported, mainly to Spain and also to France.
We need to look at the industry from each of those points of view. I begin with stock. One of the Select Committee findings, which should be further emphasised because we have not yet learned from it, is that in those countries with a successful fishing industry—particularly Spain and Iceland—the relationship between scientists and fishermen is good. To a certain extent, that applies also to Shetland, where the North Atlantic Fisheries college operates. One has to learn something from that. There must be give and take on both sides. It is not right for the Government to say, "Well, it's time fishermen started behaving and recognising the importance of science," and I do not think that the fishermen should have things the other way round.
The relationship needs to be worked at and improved and, although it has improved over the past three or four years, a great deal more needs to be done. One of the criticisms that the Select Committee made of the system operated at present, which has been operated under
132WH
successive Governments, is the eleventh-hour annual brinkmanship over the setting of quotas and total allowable catches.
The Minister accepts that such brinkmanship happens. We will go through the process again within weeks of the start of the next fishing year on 1 January, and fishermen still do not know exactly what quota will be set for the next year. There are still arguments to be had, which is unsatisfactory. Fishermen have been told far too late in the day what the likely TACs and quotas will be. We need to find ways to avoid such brinkmanship if we are to go forward in a way that will improve that relationship.
The Committee recognised that, even if it is not possible to stick legally to the Committee's recommendation of setting multi-annual quotas in subsequent years, scientists know a great deal about the likely recruitment-age profile of key species. Scientists can set and the Government can agree to quotas in future years to allow the fishing industry to plan.
In my off-the-record discussions with them, fishermen voice increasing fear about stock collapse or near-collapse in several important species. The Minister is aware of that. I met him recently to discuss bass in area VII, where stocks are in a poor state. I agree with his approach of bringing in a 5-tonne-a-week limit on landings per boat.
The Select Committee specifically cautioned the scientists and the fishing industry about going too far with deep water trawling when seeking new fishing grounds and opportunities, especially in relation to the deep-water north Atlantic species, about which we still know little. We have ageing techniques for assessing the impact of fishing on both grounds and species for only three of the 340 species known to live in the deep Atlantic. In that sense, there is a need for greater joint investment by fishermen and scientists.
The subject of inshore fishery was alluded to by the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire. We would like the importance of the sea fisheries committee to be fully appreciated. In future negotiations, the sensible extension of limits from six to 12 miles is desirable and I hope that the Minister will push for that.
Sea fisheries committees need the Acts under which they operate to be clarified and consolidated. The powers that they can use are complex and there is confusion. For example, although the Environment Agency is responsible for estuaries there is a quarter of a mile overlap between two authorities. As I said earlier, the sea fisheries committee has set a landing limit of 37 cm for bass, but the agency has set a limit of 36 cm. Such details must be tidied up, and sea fisheries committees deserve support in that.
The purpose of the powers is to protect the stock and the industry. In any overview of the industry, the inshore fishery and the effect of low-impact fishing should not be overlooked, as it often is. The Minister knows my view that we should put greater emphasis on seeking ways in which to encourage low-impact fishing, such as mackerel hand lining and bass pole-and-line fishing. It is absurd that mackerel hand-liners are in the quota system, but they have not been taken out of it because, we are told, it has been difficult to define them exactly.

133WH
I know from recent meetings that the Minister recognises that it is possible to reach a definition—for example, a maximum of one mackerel hand-line per man and four lines per boat. It is not beyond the wit of man or woman to define low-impact fisheries sensibly or to negotiate in Europe and with Norway the removal of such catching techniques from the quota system.
It is important to recognise that it is possible to make a living from the most rudimentary fishing methods. In farming, conventional wisdom dictates that the only future is in greater intensification, capitalisation and labour productivity, but fishing can provide a living for those who practise low-investment, low-intensity and low-impact methods, and that should be recognised and encouraged. People can make a living using mackerel hand-lines.
The Minister will be aware of another encouraging finding on management. It was emphasised time and again that many fishermen and fishing leaders are prepared to consider new methods of fishery management. Environmental organisations and large fishing interests are prepared to consider no-take zones and closed areas and seasons. The encouragement of those management techniques will produce environmental, stock and financial benefits. The Minister would do well to work with his European colleagues in seeking to introduce those techniques as swiftly as possible.
Appropriate emphasis has been placed on individual transferable quotas. I agree that we need to avoid the problem experienced in Iceland; we cannot skirt around the fact. We can learn from that track record. I do not want formal ITQs to be introduced unless the problems have been solved properly in a social market. Those issues include the state conveying "undeserved" wealth to owners and the impact on small communities. In Iceland 10 of the 67 ports were particularly affected. Some lost their entire quotas. Quotas were being traded at enormous prices, which kept young people out of the industry. If the Government intend to go foward with another round of decommissioning, I believe—as does the industry—that they should review the fact that skippers can sell their track record.
On 21 May, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced the withdrawal of fishing safety grants. After due consideration, on 1 June the Deputy Prime Minister announced, with a fanfare of publicity, the reversal of that decision in respect of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. On 2 November, the Deputy Prime Minister quietly sent a letter to the chief executive of the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations stating that it could not go forward with the proposal, partly because it was unprepared for devolution. The proposal has now been kicked back to MAFF. That is not good enough. Fishing safety is vital. In my constituency, where we lost 10 men to the sea in 18 months, it is paramount. The Minister must look at the matter again and realise that fishermen deserve support in investing in fishing safety.
The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) referred to the proposal for a national institute for fisheries. Although, as he said, it was based on the Grimsby submission, that does not necessarily mean that it would be in Grimsby. There are certainly some very good places from Shetland to Cornwall and, with information technology, there is no reason why the
134WH
work that such a national institute could do should not be spread around all the fishing ports so that all can benefit from improved access and focus.
I commend the Committee's report to the House.
3.37 pm
Mrs. Diana Organ: I begin by adding my congratulations to you on your appointment, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak in this debate in Westminster Hall. Congratulations are also due to the Modernisation Committee. This format is ideal for debating Select Committee reports because it provides for a more consensual and less confrontational and oppositional approach, which is similar to the approach that we deployed when we carried out the sea fishing inquiry.
I should like to say how innovative the inquiry was. That is wonderfully illustrated by the cover of the report, which is just like a magazine. However, it was not designed only to display the camera prowess of my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff); it was designed in the hope of attracting a wider readership. We are aware that House of Commons Select Committees perhaps do not have the readership that they should have and we thought that the cover might be a way of encouraging a wider public to take on board what we have to say. The cover also illustrates the various facets of the fishing industry. My only criticism is that it does not show any consumers actually eating the stuff.
The fishing industry is often perceived as an industry of victims—although, with my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby as its champion, perhaps we should not worry about that too much. I believe that with proper guidance from the Government, the industry has the opportunity to be successful. It is true that it has to meet the challenges of a competing and increasingly global market, and that it is governed by a large amount of regulation, which is imposed mainly to preserve the natural resources that are harvested from the sea.
The Committee discovered several instances in which regulation is not only copper-bottomed and seriously enforced, but overladen. That seems to be peculiar to the United Kingdom—perhaps it is due to our bureaucratic past. However, against those challenges, local communities such as those in Shetland and Cornwall, who form their own co-operatives to add strength to themselves and value to their product, increase their opportunities in mass markets. There are also opportunities in small niche markets for specific products and luxury items for the tourist trade, in the local community and restaurants.
It is unfortunate that successive Governments have been unable to give a clear lead to the industry. They have been unable to deliver a settled, coherent strategy for the management and development of the fishing industry. The present Government are aware of that and my hon. Friend the Minister is determined to put in place such a strategy. The Government's response to our report shows that they are willing to adopt such a strategy.
I want to focus on two areas of the report: research and the marketing of fish. If the long-term success of stocks and the industry is to be safeguarded, it is vital to

135WH
have sustainability of resources. Everyone agrees. However, to do that, we need to know the extent, quality and projected future of those resources. Stocks must not be out-fished; they must be fished only to safe levels. Therefore, we introduced regulation, with total allowable catches for each important species, which were then divided into quotas. That is what causes so much frustration and anger among fishermen. They argue again and again that the quota levels are wrong, the total allowable catches are wrong, and the information is wrong, and that they are given the information too late and cannot plan for the future.
The setting of the total allowable catch is done following the collection of data by scientists through the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, which comprises 19 member states. The research is scientific and carried out rigorously in the context of the regulatory system. But how accurate is it? There is much concern that it is inaccurate. How much confidence do fishermen and the industry have in it? I suggest that there is little confidence in the quality and robustness of the research. Is enough being done to communicate the results to the fishing industry? Even ICES
"has expressed concern about the quality of catch and effort data from most of the important fisheries in the ICES area".
The Minister has said that the advice given by ICES was
"as accurate as it can be within the restraints they face."
The science is very difficult and very inexact. One of the main problems is that counting fish in the sea is not easy. They do not hang around waiting for a scientific trial to be carried out in a specific area. It is a taxing problem. Fish are animals in a natural environment. They move from area to area with the seasons, depending on climatic conditions and at different times of their cycle. Counting them scientifically is a taxing problem.
Without accurate knowledge of the population and the age profile of a species in a fishing ground at a specific time, it is impossible to achieve stability to ensure that fish are not fished out. The single most important source of information for annual assessment is the fishermen's own record of catch and effort, with data coming from more than 55,000 fishing chips—[Laughter]—fishing trips in England and Wales, but fish and chips when they return to land. They measure the landings. There is an assessment of discards and ICES makes provision for that, but I suggest that that is a rule-of-thumb adjustment. When we visited the Vigo Centre of Oceanography in northern Spain, we learned that it estimates that 33 per cent. of catches are discarded globally. In a recent paper, the European Commission put that figure as high as 50 per cent. If we are basing scientific evidence on landings when we know that 50 per cent. is discarded, we are already horrendously inaccurate. Landings have little in common with what is being fished. As was said, there is little contact between fishermen and scientists in the UK.
In his evidence, Mr. Michael Hosking, who is a Cornish fisherman, said that a survey is conducted only once a year. The composition of the catch is not examined, and the time of year of the survey and the gear used are not taken into account. At this point, I should mention another innovation that the Committee
136WH
introduced. Instead of dragging fishermen to the House of Commons to give oral evidence, we visited them at the Queen's hotel, Penzance, where Mr. Hosking spoke. Listening to him and others while looking out at the steely blue sea and the departing fishing boats gave one a genuine feel for the subject. In the light of Mr. Hosking's evidence, it came as no surprise to discover that fishermen have no confidence in the research or the science.
I shall quote another fisherman, Mr. Robert George, who gave evidence to the Committee. As his description of himself shows, he is an experienced fisherman. He said:
"I am Robert George and I started fishing when I left school in a cove boat from the beach. I progressed to a crabber from Newlyn and then to a gill-net boat in the 1970s and then into a trawler, a seine-net boat and then into the boat I have got now. We started in this boat pair-trawling from Markle here in the Inch and then we went into a seine-net fishery. We fished Southern Ireland into the North Sea during the winter months and then we were in the North Sea working from Aberdeen from November to Easter for six or seven years. That was up until nine years ago, 1989, when in the Shetlands one of my crew was killed. Since then we have fished 12 months a year off the Irish coast on a fast-net, seine-net."
On the subject of the science, he says:
"I do not think anyone has any idea how much fish has been landed in certain places over the last few years … The scientists know it is a load of rubbish, and I'm sure it is."
So we have real problems with the quality of, and confidence in, the science.
According to Mr. De Rozarieux, who is chief executive of the Cornish Fish Producers Organisation, the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science boats that are used for survey and research purposes are out of date compared with those used by fishermen. The gear is 20 years old and does not reflect changes in technology.
Mr. Morley: I shall deal with some of the points to which my hon. Friend has referred in a moment. With regard to CEFAS boats, the same gear, which may well be out of date by modern standards, is used because the catch is measured by visiting the same spots at the same times. To get a consistent response and an accurate idea of fish stocks, the same gear has to be used each time.
Mrs. Organ: I thank the Minister for that intervention. Nevertheless, one must concede that there are particular problems with the quality of research and the models used. As the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) said, when in Iceland we discovered that half the fish that, as it were, go missing, are eaten by other fish, but our models for sustainability of resources do not take that into account. There are problems with the robustness and accuracy of the science. As a result, there is a lack of confidence in the figures and quotas.
Mr. Luff: The Minister's intervention was interesting and I believe that he is right. It is also interesting to note that the experienced fishermen to whom the hon. Member for Forest of Dean referred are unaware of the point that the Minister made. That shows that, as the hon. Lady says, there is a gulf between fishermen and scientists.
Mrs. Organ: Absolutely. There is no real communication between scientists and fishermen and

137WH
we must improve on that. We need much more sophisticated models that provide better outcomes. We need greater involvement on the part of the fishing industry in approaches to research. We need a financial relationship with the industry, as happens in Spain. Those in the industry should contribute towards research, so that they feel that they own it and are involved in it. We need a wider consensus on the methodology used throughout the industry. We need closer working relationships, which the Chairman of the Select Committee identified. We need more observers on board more ships and we need scientists to be on board more frequently, to develop better procedures.
The Government spend a high percentage on research in comparison with other EU members, although, as the hon. Member for St. Ives mentioned, with 7 per cent. of the industry's gross value of landings, we are getting poor value. The money could be used more efficiently and effectively. We should look more closely at the self-regulated fishing industry in Iceland, which is a model for research commitment and development. We spend a lower percentage on research than Spain, which has very good research opportunities and a better budget. Spain spends between £150 and £180 million a year, while we spend £108 million.
On the special problems connected to devolution in Scotland, it is important that the UK Government should ensure that research is co-ordinated and not duplicated. Fisheries Research Services in Aberdeen, which used to be funded by the Scottish Office, should be used to assist in the overall work of research. The current research vessels are not being used to their full extent, which is mainly because of their age. I urge the Minister to ensure that the new research vessel comes into commission as soon as possible, perhaps before the four-year time scale. In the meantime, specialised vessels should be commissioned by charter to cover the extra effort that is needed to improve scientific work. The programme must not be allowed to fall to the level of one ship, which it seems is possible. We should also spend more on other areas of research, such as the economic performance of the sea fishing industry and the economic issues surrounding the design and implementation of fisheries measures. The UK spends very little on such areas directly, and we could learn much about the industry if we increased such spending. All those problems must be tackled to achieve more credible data and greater confidence in the industry. Everyone should feel that they can understand the regulatory measures.
I do not have a constituency interest in sea fishing, as I represent the Forest of Dean, which has no coastline at all. I am more concerned with eel, elver and salmon fishing, in our great River Severn and beautiful River Wye. As I want all my constituents to live a happy and healthy life, however, I have an interest in the eating of fish. I eat little red meat, although I would not want the farmers to know that, but I am a keen fish eater. Whether the industry thrives is dependent on the continued and increased consumption of fish, so the marketing of fish is crucial to success. Fishermen are more aware of customer demand than they ever have been. The development and strengthening of producer organisations have provided fishermen with an opportunity to market their fish better and add value to their product. As was mentioned earlier, there is always
138WH
a place for the niche, luxury market. There are other enhancement strategies, however, such as eco-labelling to highlight the promotion of a sustainable method of fishing. Much needs to be done to promote eco-labelling of fish, such as mackerel, as consumers are not widely aware of what it is, what it stands for and what value it has. If the public can be informed, however, there is much benefit to be had, as is evidenced by the marketing of dolphin-friendly tuna.
As for the wet fresh fish market, consumers are becoming increasingly demanding. On a cold, wet trip to Iceland, on a boat out of Reykjavik, I was surprised to hear that a skipper had been contacted on a mobile phone by Harrods food hall with a request for 500 kg of flounder for its customers on Saturday morning. It was then Thursday afternoon and the skipper had caught only half that amount. The rest of it was alive and kicking in the north Arctic seas. The skipper agreed the contract and the price and he went out that afternoon to get the other half of the catch. He got his processors to work through Thursday evening and into Friday morning. The catch was delivered to the airport on Friday morning, flown to London at Friday lunchtime and at 8.30 on Saturday morning it appeared fresh on the slab in Harrods food hall. It is amazing that fish that were swimming around in the Icelandic seas on Thursday evening can be bought and eaten for breakfast on Saturday morning in London. It will be difficult to compete with that, but it has to be done.
The market is dominated, I am glad to say, not by Harrods food hall but by the major multiple retailers. They want freshness, choice, a guaranteed supply of volume, increasing traceability and higher hygiene standards. In the United Kingdom, we have dramatically raised hygiene standards for meat in recent years, but the same needs to be done for fish. We once spent an early morning in Vigo sidestepping mountains of shark, swordfish and monkfish, the largest of which were literally thrown on to the concrete floor. Hygiene standards have a long way to go. The situation was not very different in Newlyn.
The main market value of fish is mostly in the frozen sector, but the fresh sector accounts for one third of the market. The market dominance of the supermarkets is rising. They account for 60 per cent. of fresh fish sales and 70 per cent. of frozen fish sales, and the figures are rising. In 1996, they were responsible for only 50 per cent. of such sales.
Although the industry has been supply driven, the dominance of the multiple retailer, who wants continuity of supply, consistency and standardisation, has created many structural programmes in the supply chain. The Sea Fish Industry Authority should consult the industry, take account of supermarkets' views, devise a marketing strategy and deal with the whole process, from the catching sector through to the suppliers. It should do so with the aim of increasing the competitiveness of the UK industry.
The Food Standards Agency, which will be set up next April under the chairmanship of Professor John Krebbs, has a role to play. We need to campaign hard to convey how healthy, nutritious and convenient fish is for all ages, especially the elderly, who need light nutritious meals, and those who are on a diet and who want to look after their waistline. The FSA should encourage consumers to eat more fish. Many people

139WH
have problems with it—they think that it looks funny and they do not know how to cook it or turn it into a meal. We have not really overcome that problem and serious promotional work is needed. However, the popularity of salmon steaks shows that success is possible. At one time, they were rarely bought, but now they are regarded as convenience food.
I hope that the FSA will work so hard that our consumption levels will reach those of the Spanish, who eat six times the amount of fish that we do. Fish is good stuff. It is good to eat and it is good for people. If the Government give a helping lead, the whole of the UK fishing industry has a bright future.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody): Order. Before we make further progress, I must make a short appeal. If the speeches of hon. Members who are waiting to speak are as long as some of those that have been delivered, it will be difficult for everyone who wants to speak to do so. I believe that three hon. Members want to speak, after which I shall call the Front-Bench spokesman. I know that my ruling may be hard, but I hope that hon. Members will bear it in mind.
3.58 pm
Mr. David Curry: I shall bear your injunction in mind, Madam Deputy Speaker, and agree with two points that have already been made without elaborating on them.
The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) discussed the waste water directive, which is a burden on the industry. Another burden that we should consider is the integrated pollution control mechanism, which is intended for the intensive livestock sector. There are legitimate arguments about how much one should subsidise an industry, but there are parallel arguments about the burdens that one should impose on an industry. Those two factors should be considered together.
I also agree with the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George), who mentioned fisheries safety grants. We recognise that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was under financial pressure. However, the Deputy Prime Minister leapt in with much publicity to say that he would bail us out and that the situation was unacceptable. Suddenly, the mountain labours and brings forth a mouse—[Laughter.]—nothing happens, the grants have been suspended and the matter is back in the hands of MAFF. The lesson there is that people should reflect before putting themselves in that situation.
When this inquiry started, I had a certain set of ideas or postures about the industry. One was that controls and bureaucracy were multiplying, another that not much was being done for conservation. The Ministry had introduced designated ports, which had been around for a long time. However, every time there is a new stock, the industry goes for it hell for leather regardless of injunctions to exploit it reasonably and one ends up with more regulations.
In the case of North sea prawns, everyone thought that they had discovered a gold mine and no one took a blind bit of notice of any injunctions to be reasonable.
140WH
The result is that there are now quotas on North sea prawns. We shall debate cod in a few days-a fish that seems to spend its life on the borders of crisis and extinction. Much of the regulation exists because fishermen have shown that they are not prepared to exercise restraint.
We are not delivering conservation or a sustainable fishery under the present regulations. One reason is that fishermen do not have a sense that they own the policies-I know that the word "ownership" is fashionable nowadays. Many fishermen say how much the present system obliges them to cheat or to find ways round it. They do not believe that the policy is working in their interests. There has been some improvement recently: the black fish problem is probably not as bad as it was. However, we still have a problem and need to create a system with which fishermen will feel at ease—one that will serve their interests. They would then want it to work and would be willing to take part in an enforcement policy.
The industry is extremely fragmented and, frankly, often bloody-minded. There is not a single UK industry—there are a dozen. The differences between Shetland, Peterhead, Aberdeen and the south-west of England are legion. Those places have few interests in common. It is difficult to apply a policy across that whole, fragmented industry. If the Minister intends to seek consensus on that policy, we shall be here until the next millennium and he still will not have one. The time has come for him to make up his mind about what is right and to get on and do it.
We are also dealing with an aged industry, in terms of the people involved in it and the equipment that they use. There is pressure on them to go to sea for longer and to cut corners. That creates a safety risk and there is a penalty to be paid in the quality of the fish landed because it does not reach the ports and the retail sector as quickly as it should.
The industry also consumes vast amounts of public expenditure—the Minister mentioned £108 million a year for 18,000 primary producers. If that were applied to a relatively small agricultural sector such as potato production, I suspect that the chips would be worth more than the fish, to use an analogy mentioned earlier. The industry is changing, however, and one must not be tempted to attribute a particular mindset to it. For example, important market mechanisms are being introduced into the operation of the pelagic sector, which is principally Scottish and, on the whole, well invested. People are content with that.
Given that this panoply of regulation does not seem to be doing the job, is there another system that could? More precisely, is there a way in which the market might deliver what regulation does not? Have there been experiences elsewhere in which resorting to market mechanisms has delivered a more sustainable fishery? I am not seeking the transposition of the entire system. I merely wonder whether there are elements of experience elsewhere that could be relevant in the United Kingdom. How would we strike a proper balance between a regulatory process and one in which the market could take some of the strain?
What are we looking for? By what standards would we judge this system? There must be optimal exploitation of the stock. It would be absurd not to get

141WH
the most out of it, while leaving it sustainable. The industry must be profitable—there is no point if people make no money, because investment must be generated to modernise. The resource must be sustainable and the marketplace must want the product, which must also be delivered to that marketplace. Frankly, we want a limit to public expenditure; as the hon. Member for St. Ives said, no other sector of the economy gets anywhere near the same commitment of public expenditure in proportion to the value of the industry. We also want a system that reasonable fishermen feel is working for them and with which they are at ease.
Other criteria are perhaps more optional. Do we want to maintain traditional fishing communities? There is a choice. On the whole, we have chosen not to maintain traditional coal mining or steel making communities and there is no point in pretending that a fishing community has a different moral value from any other economic community.
Mr. Andrew George: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Does he accept that the existence of the fishing industry in many traditional communities adds to the area's tourism potential? That does not apply to the same extent to coalmining and steel making communities, wonderful as they are.
Mr. Curry: I would be interested to know to what extent that is true. If we are to consider economic importance, I can understand that the hon. Gentleman would wish tourism to be calculated as part of that, but I would be interested to see the results.
Mr. Salmond: Aside from the tourist potential, some of us like the idea of maintaining traditional fishing communities. Had it been possible, we would have liked the idea of maintaining traditional coal and steel communities, too.
Mr. Curry: I am sorry that the wonderful consensus that we all set out to produce appears to be fragmenting at such an early stage—rather like the industry itself. I was merely saying that we have already decided that we are not willing to pay the price of maintaining many communities in Britain and we have the same choice about our fishing communities. I am not saying that we should not save them. On the whole, I am inclined to use these instruments to rationalise the industry because it needs to rationalise and to become less fragmented and more capital intensive. That would work for the consumer and for the industry itself. But there is a choice; that is my point.
Individual transferable quotas have interested me for some time. I weigh them, not against some abstract, perfect system but against the realistic alternatives, on the assumption that the current system is probably failing all six tests on which I elaborated earlier. What can the ITQ system do according to the experiences that we observed elsewhere? It looks as though it could deliver an economically successful fishery. I accept that the fisheries in which it is practised are different to those in the United Kingdom—our fisheries are more mixed and foreign ports are closer. I do not pretend that there is an exact parallel, but I am making certain arguments from which we can draw. Moreover, the system appears to curb the incentive to maximise the catch at the
142WH
expense of the stock; ultimately, if the stock suffers, the balance sheet suffers, too. Clearly, the system also cuts public expenditure.
Could we therefore make ITQs cope with the social criteria that we might want to bring to the argument—that is, the maintenance of fishing communities? I believe that we could if we wanted to, but it would depend on how we made it work. In Iceland, for example, they prevented 100 per cent. leasing, vessels were obliged to fish part of their quota and there was a separate regime for smaller vessels. We could make the quota tradeable only at the level of the producer organisation—by and large, that is the current practice—rather than at an individual level. In the UK, people do buy it individually, but it then tends to be exploited by the person who brought the quota in. There is a mechanism by which we can make it a common rather than an individual resource, so long as we are careful that we do not build producer organisations into a modern version of ancient guilds, which themselves became monopoly dominant and sometimes abusive organisations.
We could also tax for transfers. Just as a sheep transfer or an agricultural quota is taxed, so we could tax a transfer in fisheries to raise resources that would go, for example, to new entrants or for a social purpose. There is nothing about an ITQ that could not be amended to meet the social criteria of our requirements. Enforcement is always a problem. Of course, foreign ports are close, but we could use modern technology, which is a large part of all our lives. Given the size of the fishing industry, which even across Europe is tiny, the technology must be available to develop a harmonised system to allow the instant communication of information between ports of landing. If we cannot do that, we are not being effective.
My approach to the report is not to lay down a perfect system to replace an arrangement that is not working, but to recognise the steady movement towards the introduction of market forces, most notably in the pelagic sector, but also in the purchasing of quota by producer organisations. Market forces have an extensive role throughout the United Kingdom. The Government recognise that and have regularised them to some extent. However, they could take other steps to make ownership a more absolute transfer. We are pushing not against a closed door, but against a door that has been opened informally.
I do not ask the Government to accept market forces in their entirety, but ask them to consider whether it is time to re-examine the concept against the criteria of a sustainable fishery, a reasonable use of a reasonable amount of public funding and a need to maintain a modern industry. We could usefully transpose the lessons from that into our system. The Minister should do that; there is no point waiting for the whole world to agree that it is a good idea. If he takes the leadership and decides what the progressive side of the industry is likely to be able to make work, the Committee will have done a service and the Minister will reinforce his reputation for reasonableness.
4.11 pm
Mr. Alex Salmond: May I start with a debating point? The former Fisheries Minister, the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry),

143WH
and I have never agreed on individual transferable quotas; I dare say that we never will. They have been tried around the world and, in almost every case, have put a huge concentration of fishing power into very few hands and destroyed fishing communities.
As for pelagic fishing, I do not agree that there is a choice between fishing communities and market forces. Let us consider the pelagic fleets south and north of the border. The English pelagic fleet consists of two freezer trawlers that are owned by Dutch interests; they are flagged-out boats. The Scottish pelagic fleet consists of 50 tank boats that fish productively and efficiently for a resource that is not under substantial pressure and is fished within quota according to a sustainable position. The only major difficulty that faces that catching sector is a regulation difficulty on the matter of engine size. There is no problem with resources or the efficiency of the fleet; there is only an administrative difficulty with engine size.
The Minister knows that I hold him in the highest regard. We had a productive meeting in Glasgow earlier this year and I thought that we were making substantial progress. However, the fishing industry would never forgive him were he to allow the determination of some of his over-zealous officials in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to bring about a situation in which the Scottish pelagic fleet went the same way as the English pelagic fleet or large sections of the English white fleet. When we sat on the Opposition Benches, he and I protested many times about how much of the English white fleet was flagged out. Fishing communities in Scotland depend on our pelagic fleet. We want it to continue in its present form and not change into something that is very different.
I give three welcomes. The first is to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your much deserved elevation to the position of Deputy Speaker, although I hope that that is not an attempt to silence one of the few truly independent voices left in the House of Commons.
My second welcome is to the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss), who has been appointed to the Conservative Front Bench. When we served on the Energy Committee 10 years ago, I realised immediately that he was a future Conservative fisheries spokesperson. He is a vast improvement on his recent predecessor, though not, obviously, on all former Conservative fisheries spokesmen. None the less, I welcome him to his position.
Thirdly, I welcome an innovation—the provision of spring water to hon. Members. Conservative Members have correctly identified it as being Campsie Fells spring water from Lennoxtown, which makes it especially welcome. Water is not generally available in the main Chamber—Front Benchers get rather bad tap water that I would not touch with a bargepole—so I welcome that innovation.
I do not welcome the innovation of the Chamber—[HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."]—and I shall explain why. If the Select Committee on Agriculture produces an excellent report on the fishing industry, it should have an opportunity to debate the report in the main Chamber so that the report's excellence and its positions can be broadcast to a wider audience of Members of
144WH
Parliament and, we hope, of the public. There is a great danger in the adopted procedure. With great respect to Select Committee members, we effectively represent the Select Committee in session plus only one or two interlopers, such as me; a meeting might have been sought with the Minister instead.
The fishing industry deserves debates in the main Chamber. With that in mind, I await the annual fisheries debate a week on Monday. I note with great regret that, yet again, it is to be a half-day debate. I recall that the Minister and I made a point on that matter at length when we were both in opposition. I even recall a commitment from him about the time that would be allocated to that annual debate.
Mr. Morley: I confess that I can confirm that, but the hon. Gentleman will remember one annual debate that was squeezed into one and a half hours, which was not acceptable. He will confirm that that has not happened under this Government.
Mr. Salmond: If we are considering the difference between one and a half hours and three hours, I note and accept the improvement. Some hon. Members who represent fishing constituencies would welcome the industry's being given the debating time that it deserves. The question is one of priority.
Sir Robert Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman take the Minister's comment as an assurance from the Government that there will be no statement on that Monday to take time from that debate?
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have been indulgent, but it might be helpful if we returned to the main debate.
Mr. Salmond: Having praised your elevation, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am hardly likely to disobey such a sensible ruling; I shall not be tempted on that point. The question is one of priority in the fishing industry.
I found myself agreeing with much of what the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) said, which is a worrying development. I hope that my fishing constituents will understand. I note that much of his speech concerned the priority given to the industry. I greatly welcome the fact that he, after a long career in which he has made speeches in fishing debates, has reached a conclusion that I have made in every fisheries debate in which I have participated. The question of the priority allocated to the industry is central to fisheries policy, whether that policy is within the context of the common fisheries policy or any other area. The key contrast between the fisheries policy pursued by the United Kingdom and that pursued by other nations within the European Union has been the different allocation of priority to the industry. Three hours, or even a full day, of debate might be small compared to the priority allocated to the industry.
Hon. Members will be aware that the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament is one issue covered by the Committee's report. However, there is European Union involvement in several areas and, even where there is such involvement, decisions are taken by United

145WH
Kingdom Ministers. I wish to focus on two main areas and to consider more generally fishing policy and the future of the common fisheries policy.
First, as has been said, the report focuses substantially on the relationship between scientists and the fishing industry. I agreed on that point with many of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mrs. Organ). I underline what she said about communication—there is distrust, a breakdown of communication and suspicion. I am sure that the Minister is aware that there are concerns in the industry about the extent and timing of fisheries' input into the science. I understand that this year the fishing federations were involved in consultation only two weeks before the scientists began preparing their total allowable catch recommendations. Furthermore, the industry feels that the science does not take adequate account of effort reduction measures—for example, the large number of white fish boats now involved in the prawn fishery. In the case of the haddock quota, the sicence is based on over-quota catches of 20 per cent., but the industry would argue that the reality is somewhat different. That concern will certainly be ventilated during the debte that will take place a week on Monday.
For a long time the industry has been calling for a standing committee of fishermen and scientists so that discussion and involvement in the preparation of scientific advice can be an on-going process whereby there can be fishing involvement in the analysis and preparation of the science starting from day one. Such a move would build confidence in the scientific advice and, more importantly, produce science that more accurately reflects the realities in our fisheries. It would also mean that quota allocations do not come as such a surprise to the industry, and that they are not left with too little time to press for further investigation into areas where they feel that the scientific advice is deficient or flawed.
It would also allow the industry to highlight the steps that could be taken to allow greater or higher quota levels. For many years, the Minister and I have argued that technical conservation measures could allow higher quota levels if they could be taken into account in terms of the TAC. Clearly, if that discussion does not take place on an organised basis from year to year, it can never be incorporated into a proper estimate of fisheries effort. That argument is regularly presented during the annual fisheries debate and by the industry. Paragraph 49 of the Committee's report calls for a more formalised and permanent approach and, in their response, the Government agree. However, there does not yet seem to be a firm commitment to the creation of a meaningful structure for that consultation. I hope that the Minister can give us some comfort in respect of full involvement, early consultation and a committee linking scientists and the industry in the preparation of scientific advice.
Secondly, I noticed with interest the recommendation in the Government's response regarding the issue of fishing safety grants. The Committee called for the reinstatement of the vessel equipment safety guard scheme. However, I understand that the Government
146WH
have indicated in a letter to the industry in England that that is not possible because of "devolution and legal technicalities".
Mr. Mitchell: It is Scotland's fault.
Mr. Salmond: I am used to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby attempting to intervene on me.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We are all delighted by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby, but if he intends to make interventions they should not be from a sedentary position.
Mr. Salmond: I know that the hon. Gentleman will have taken careful note of that, Madam Deputy Speaker. You may be the first person in the Chair to be able to keep him fully under control.
My understanding is that money is available to reintroduce the scheme in Scotland, but not in England. I am concerned, unlike the hon. Member for Great Grimsby, that Scotland might be held back because of problems facing the English Department. I would be grateful if the Minister would explain what is the problem in terms of reinstating the grant, what discussions he has had with the Scottish Minister for fisheries on this issue, and what involvement he has had in reintroducing the grant.
The Minister will be aware of the wider debate that is raging about whether Westminster Departments are engaged in a desperate attempt to retain control over areas that are properly the province of the Scottish Parliament through ministerial committees, as they seem to have ended up in the chair of every such ministerial committee. I am sure that the Fisheries Minister would not chair such a committee and hold back the Scottish Department if it wanted to reintroduce safety guards, because that is a vital issue.
I hope that the Minister will confirm that he accepts that there is a relationship between the age of the fleet and the safety issue. I know that that relationship has been challenged in the past. None the less, those of us who have experience of representing fishing communities believe that that link exists. We are deeply worried about the ageing structure of the fleet, given that younger skippers are going to ever more distant waters and, under pressure of economic circumstances, going out in ever more difficult conditions. I hope that the Minister will accept that and tell us some good news about the reintroduction of the safety grant regime, which was supported by the Committee.
The Minister is also aware of the increased compliance costs facing the industry and of the fact that the costs borne by our fleet are often not borne by the industry in other EU countries. He knows that that is inequitable and that he made a variety of commitments on that—it was one of his strongest points during his years as Opposition spokesman. He is aware of the concern about the introduction of new safety requirements for the under 12 m fleet. The industry wants safety grants to be reintroduced to assist that sector of the fleet to meet the new requirements. It is wrong to suggest that there is no link between safety at sea and safety grants and I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us on that.

147WH
With review of the common fisheries policy in 2002, time is short. We must press our solutions to the problem of the common fisheries policy. That means coastal state management of the fisheries—a cause that my late colleague, Dr. Allan Macartney, argued with such vigour in the European Parliament and with considerable success in its fisheries committee. It also means greater account being taken of discards and the promotion of technical measures to work hand in hand with other schemes to protect Scots—[Laughter.] Scots need a lot of protection from a variety of Ministers in this Parliament, but not, I hope, from this Minister. Stocks need protection and that should be taken into account in the calculation of effort reduction for the multi-annual guidance programme targets.
I was encouraged recently to hear that Commissioner Fischler had said that he could not envisage a common fisheries policy without relative stability. In his discussions with the Commissioner, I hope that the Minister will confirm that the review of the common fisheries policy will take that direction because it is of substantial importance to our position north and south of the border.
Those are the challenges for the Minister. I hope that he will not take personal offence when I say that I do not want him to be the lead Minister in European negotiations, not because of his personal qualities, which are substantial, but because the Minister who speaks for two thirds of the fleet, or should do—the Scottish Minister—should be the lead Minister in European negotiations. While the Fisheries Minister holds the position of lead Minister at European level, I believe that he will fight for our fishing industry north and south of the border and hope that he will satisfy the Committee on the points that I have raised.
4.27 pm
Mr. Michael Jack: I, too, welcome you to your new position, Madam Deputy Speaker. There must be something special about the west coast main line because Madam Speaker's constituency, which is close to Birmingham, can be reached by the west coast main line, as can yours. Those of us who travel on that train will expect a new discipline as a result of your promotion.
I was not a member of the Agriculture Committee while it carried out its investigation, but I joined it just as it had reached its conclusions. I do not feel bound to follow its recommendations, but will make some observations about its findings. My right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) and I are previous Fisheries Ministers and bear the scars of that office. We held our responsibilities at a time when the industry was under pressure to restrict fishing effort and to adapt to changes in the common fisheries policy to allow the full introduction of Spain and Portugal to their treaty-given and rightful positions as full members of the common fisheries policy.
When the industry is fighting for its survival and what it believes to be threats against it, one sees it at its best and its worst. It is an industry of great passion and anyone who has had any connection with it knows that it is unlike any other. It is the very life blood of the
148WH
individuals and communities that serve it. When someone has been involved with the industry, it is very difficult to give up being interested in it. It has its own committed fan club, although it may be painful for Ministers to be members of that club.
I concur with much of what has been said about the relationship between fishermen and scientists, and the report comments properly on that. Two years ago, as a Front-Bench spokesman for my party, I took part in a debate on fishing. I, too, made the point that a council of fishermen and scientists should be formed to achieve the objectives that have been outlined. As we reach the end of the 20th century and the start of the new millennium, I am disappointed that such a forum has yet to be created. At a fundamental level, the industry finds it difficult to believe in scientific findings, particularly given that it has not been involved in the process, and findings on fish stocks are constraining fishermen.
When discussing the question of regulating fishing, I am mindful of what happened in the waters of Newfoundland, where a cod fishery that could sustain a catch of 300,000 tonnes a year and some 58,000 jobs was reduced to a barren sea within a very short time through over-fishing and a wholly unregulated regime. We need rules and regulations to constrain not merely, as the report states, fishermen's natural desire to enter a race for fish, but their desire to win that race time after time. Given the prevalence of modern technology, fish are significantly disadvantaged in the battle with man the catcher. A visit to a modern trawler shows that computerised techniques are increasing the precision with which fishermen operate. Once fish are located, they become involved in an unequal battle.
I was somewhat saddened by one of the report's general findings. It comments with authority and clarity on the current regime embodied in the common fisheries policy, but there is little evidence of new thinking. The question of bringing fishermen and the rule makers together in a real partnership is not addressed. My hon. friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon and others have talked about ownership. In that context, the concept of the fisherman as farmer is an interesting one to explore. One cannot see the fisherman as a farmer, because he cannot think carefully about which parts of the ocean to exploit, when to exploit them, and which to leave fallow, if he has little control over his work.
Although the report did not deal with the future of the common fisheries policy, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) was right to raise questions about its reform. The common fisheries policy sets the report's boundaries and constraints. If we do not think radically about the way in which the common fisheries policy is formulated, so that fishermen are involved with the rule makers—be they national Governments, the commission, or any other body—in a true partnership, we will not generate the responsibilty in the industry that we advocate in the report.
I suggest that we should put forward a model scheme for the Irish sea. In the first instance, the Governments of England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland should get together with fishermen and their representatives to form a council for the Irish sea, and formulate a management plan. In the context of the common fisheries policy, such a plan would then be put to the Fisheries Council for endorsement. The same model could apply to other designated waters. Unless

149WH
the fishing industry and Governments are brought together in a true partnership, all the wonderful science in the world will not prevent fishermen from railing against sudden and dramatic quota cuts, which will inevitably occur in the round for which the Minister is preparing. Instead of continual dialogue, scientists will arrive, MAFF officials will sit in a little room in Brussels with their computer, decisions will be made on whether the quotas can go up a bit or down a bit, the Council will meet, someone will give something away, swaps will be done and, magically, with a combination of science, political horse trading and general wheeler-dealing, the quotas will emerge. Those who are the winners will love them, and those who are the losers will have total distaste for them, without any real consideration of the impact on the spawning stock biomass, which is the seedcorn of the fishing industry.
I would have liked the report to say a little more about the tools and methods for determining when a stock is under pressure and in danger. The scientists have become clever; they know that the politicians will magically water down the numbers, or the warnings, when fishing quantity is discussed. The fishermen are somehow not involved in that argument. The only way of finding a better basis on which to judge the threat to stocks is better definition of when stocks are under pressure. It is not necessary to be a genius to realise how the pressure on stocks has grown. The extremely high cod stocks in 1945 were the most telling example of that. There was a rapid decline in those stocks as fishing effort increased after the derelict years of the war. Currently, stocks seem to be up one year and down the next. We need a better definition of when stocks are under pressure and we need the industry to believe and respect scientists who say, "Enough is enough".
The report considers the question of reducing fishing effort. It states:
"We recommend that the Government fully support any proposals for stronger sanctions on Member States to ensure compliance with MAGP targets and for greater transparency as to the cost of restructuring".
That is almost in the realms of apple pie and motherhood. We all want to raise the targets, but there are grave difficulties in persuading the industry to reduce fishing effort. My right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon still bears the scars from his efforts in that respect.
Mr. Mitchell: The industry does.
Mr. Jack: The hon. Gentleman says that the industry does, but the industry has always been reluctant, unless there is a little oil of decommissioning between the wheels, to indulge in any effort reduction. Perhaps a better marketplace for the buying and selling of quotas will help naturally to reduce industry effort. The only way out is to sell fishermen's economic assets. Unless that mechanism is allowed to work and develop, I cannot see more public funds becoming available for further decommissioning activities.
It is vital to recognise the special nature of the fishing industry to those communities that are dependent on it. One question that has not been mentioned much in this debate—the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mrs. Organ) mentioned it en passant—is the marketing of fish and the state of fish markets. It is important to
150WH
maintain high quality fish markets in this country, as only 25 per cent. of the fish sold in this country comes from our own catches. A substantial import industry exists, and anyone who wants to understand the nature of modern fish sales needs only to go to Billingsgate market to see that there is a varied offering of fish, including fruit-eating piranha, which clearly do not come from any of the seas around the United Kingdom. The marketing and sale of fish have taken on a new dimension—there is new interest and a strong public following. However, imported fish stocks are worth about £1 billion and are double the value of the catch from UK fishermen. Fishing is a small industry, but for the communities that depend on it, it is disproportionately important.
Fishing News is an interesting newspaper. The first half of the paper is a commentary of despair—it details all the bad bits in the industry and all the complaints, and it follows the debate on the future of the common fisheries policy. If one read only the front part of the newspaper, one would think that fishing as we knew it was about to go out of existence. However, when one reaches the centre section and the second part, a wholly different industry emerges—one of new investment, new techniques and new equipment. Those sections give a remarkably positive view of the industry. One could read the newspaper from the back, as the Chinese do, in which case one would begin in positive mode, but if one started from the front, one would be deeply disappointed. The one clear message—which I am sure would have been endorsed by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan, if he had been in his place—is that the Scottish industry is, in economic terms, of growing and considerable importance. That is where most of the new investment is occurring. The health and strength of the pelagic fleet are major contributors in that regard.
There are important lessons to learn from the debate about the future of Britain's fishing policy. By and large, the Scottish industry has resolved to accept that its rule-making body will be the European Union in the context of the common fisheries policy. There will be a great opportunity in 2002 to consider those changes, and I hope that in a future report the Agriculture Committee will revisit territory that it perhaps wisely eschewed in this report. The CFP mechanism, which determines the rules under which fishermen have to work, is designed to sustain fisheries. The rules will be better respected if scientists and fishermen have a common purpose. Mechanisms such as the one that I described are needed to create a real, meaningful and working partnership of fishermen, Governments and others, and ensure that the industry operates to the benefit of all.
4.42 pm
Mr. Malcolm Moss: I join those who have welcomed you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to your new position. It is another staging post in a very distinguished career.
I also thank the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), who has not remained in this Chamber to hear what I have to say, for the welcome that he afforded to me, and the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George), for his welcome. I fear that I must disappont the hon. Member for St. Ives—I shall not, on this occasion, go into the details of our policy. We are

151WH
discussing the report, which specifically rules out any reference to the common fisheries policy and its mechanisms. I shall restrict my comments to the report and the Government's response to it.
The report contains no meaningful references to the CFP. I am new to my brief—I had seven days to mug up on the CFP and the Agriculture Committee's report—and I am mindful of the fact that two distinguished former Ministers are sitting behind me. Facing me—or perhaps I should say around the corner from where I am speaking—is a distinguished Minister who has spent about nine years—
Mr. Morley: Ten.
Mr. Moss: The Minister spent 10 years as the Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson with responsibilities for fishing and he has spent two years as Minister. I have a rather daunting task ahead of me.
When I read the report, the first thing that puzzled me was the fact that neither its terms of reference nor its conclusion refer to the crucial distinction between the industry that depends on the six to 12-mile limit and that which depends on the waters beyond it, which I call the offshore waters. Bearing in mind the crucial date of 31 December 2002 which looms ahead of the Government, I would have expected more analysis from the Committee on the prospects of the industry. The fact that the Committee did not tackle the CFP gave it some problems. Even the Government's response to the report alluded to that fact, albeit obliquely, in saying that there were constraints on the scope for drawing up a UK strategy and citing in particular our obligations under the CFP.
However, despite those limitations, it is a good in-depth report. I agree with the Select Committee's Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Lull), that it presents a positive image of the fishing industry. From the little time that I have had in which to consult, I understand that it has been widely accepted by those in the industry. It investigates issues that I believe were important. However, it was put to me by someone in the industry that it would have been more helpful had the Government been in a position to exercise proper and total control over the fishing industry.
The Committee's report sets out some clear-cut objectives and aims, and says of them:
"These depend upon the Government first deciding on the type of industry it wishes to see and the level of intervention it wishes to retain."
Surely this relates only to the six to 12-mile limits to which I alluded. Elsewhere, the UK Government have precious little influence over decisions made by Brussels. The Committee has not been assiduous enough in probing the limits. In paragraph 154 of the report, the Committee quotes the concerns of the Association of Sea Fisheries Committees of England and Wales over the limits, stating that
"the ASFC in particular was concerned that 'unless and until they are permanently established under national control then the future for the coastal fishing industry will continue to be uncertain.'"
152WH
Later in the report, the Committee accepted reassurances from the Commission that CFP regulation 3760/92 was under no real threat. That is reflected in recommendation 48. In the Government's response, they speak of a commitment to retaining the six to 12 mile limits, yet nowhere in that document—or anywhere in print—is there a guarantee that they will continue.
The report also states:
"our overriding concern is that the Government establish a settled, transparent long-term strategy for management of fisheries"
How can the Government do that? Their response did not address certain key problems, one of which is the fact that new member states have joined, and will continue to join, the European Union.
Regulations agreed in 1994—special fishing permits—give the Community the power to control all aspects of EU fishing. In the accession treaties of Austria, Finland and Sweden, it is laid down that those permits must be in operation by the end of 2002. How will that leave us at the end of that year, with the derogation ending at the same time? How are the permits to be introduced? What effect will they have on existing licences and/or quotas? Will they apply to derogated coastal zones, if those are extended at that time? These questions may lie outside the scope of this report, but the Government failed to allude to them in their response to what the Committee said was its "overriding concern".
Page iv of the Government's response concerns their broad objectives for improving the common fisheries policy. It alludes to an objective of
"integrating environmental considerations more fully into the CFP to make it a more effective instrument for the conservation of fish stocks".
I believe that some new measures are to be introduced from 1 January 2000 and I know that in his deliberations the Minister has fought for significant changes, particularly on mesh sizes; unfortunately, he did not win that particular battle. As I look through the records, I wonder how many of our Ministers ever did win any battles.
The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) noted that some of these excellent rules are not implemented because of the problems of harmonisation and the mesh size measure was one of those that fell. Instead of it, the Commission seems to have introduced lower minimum landing sizes for hake, megrim and plaice, which the Government have put into thier objectives. How on earth can the Commission think that lowering minimum fish sizes is in any way a conservation measure? Should there not be a rule not to take any fish smaller than the necessary size for each species to breed at least once? Does the Minister still hold the view that he put to the Council, or does he believe that reducing minimum landing sizes is a conservation measure? Perhaps it is simply a concession to the southern countries which, as we all know, have a ready market for under-sized fish.
A little later in their response, the Government talk about
"increasing the regional dimension of the CFP so that it is more sensitive to local differences."

153WH
What does that mean? In the minutes of the Committee's oral examination of the Minister, the hon. Member for St. Ives honed in on that very point. When he asked whether
"some delegation to zonal management is a realistic prospect",
the Minister said:
"But, before we actually get down to, if you like, the nuts and bolts of how it would work, there are some key issues to resolve, and one of the key issues is the definition of both regional and zonal management, because it means different things to different people, different countries and different parts of the industry. So, before we even start to make much progress on this, we need to resolve that particular issue. But we are giving thought to that at the present time."
That is very reassuring, but as no definition is available it hardly seems to meet the requirements of a policy statement.
A number of hon. Members alluded to safety at sea grants. The real question is why MAFF thought it necessary to take them away in the first place. There is some inconsistency in the statements from MAFF and those made by the Deputy Prime Minister.
Under the heading "Licences and quota", recommendation 21 of the report states:
"We recommend that MAFF provide clear guidance on the legal title to licences and quota in the context of transactions between individuals and/or organisations".
We all know that there is no legal title to quota, but the Government should have pointed that out in their response. Instead, they said:
"There are no plans to change the existing position whereby licences and quotas apply at the discretion of Ministers but with fishermen's interests protected by the legal concept of legitimate expectation."
What does that mean? What is a "legitimate expectation"? Why did not the Committee probe that further? It is meaningless. In fact, we were recently told that a Scottish Minister with responsibility for fisheries told fishermen in Scotland that they could not count on quotas because they were unreliable. He gave the example of potato quotas. Why is a Minister pointing out the problems of transferring quotas if he does not intend keeping them in some form?
The section on no-take zones is important. The Government agree that more should be done about them. There are 500 m exclusion zones around our oil rigs in the North sea. I am told that the sea under the oil rigs is teeming with fish to such an extent that it is impossible to lower the cameras to see what is happening at the base of the rig. Instead, divers have to go down and swim through the fish. If that works so well, why not extend the zone to 1,000 m?
Recommendation 26 on the non-profit sale of over-quota fish alludes to a model in Iceland. I have been told that we should not adopt that model because a significant quantity of fish, in particular cod, is dumped even though the system is designed to prevent such discarding.
As for discards, which are dealt with in recommendation 27, the Committee asked
"MAFF to consider measures to reduce discards through a more flexible quota management and that it continue to promote within Europe the use of more selective fishing gear".
That is all very well, but it takes years to implement such changes. It took six years for the square mesh panel for prawn fisheries to be adopted. That modest change was
154WH
introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) in, I think, 1993. It took another six years to implement it in Europe and it is predicted that it will be another six years before the square mesh panel is adopted for white fish. There is little point in saying in a document that this is a practical policy for the immediate future because it takes so long to make changes.
I had to laugh at the part of the Government's response where they said:
"Also, it must be borne in mind that a high proportion of discards are due to undersized fish being caught."
Talk about stating the obvious! The Government's response on discards is weak. It is no wonder that the industry is frustrated because changes, which take years to implement, could be made that would make a phenomenal difference to problems such as discard.
The Government speak about new technical conservation measures that
"are designed to make fishing gears more selective".
That is news to the industry. What are the new measures? What "fishing gears" is the response referring to? What impact will the changes have on the volume of discard? There is no evidence in support of the Government's response.
On balance, this is a good report and it has brought me up to speed in a short time. It is wide ranging and goes into problems in reasonable depth. I commend the Chairman and the Committee on an excellent report.
4.58 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): May I also start by congratulating you on your new post, Madam Deputy Speaker? Having served on many Committees with you, both in opposition and in government, I think that it is a well-deserved appointment. I also welcome the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) to his new position, although much of what he said went beyond the remit of the report. I will be happy to discuss wider issues in the annual fisheries debate.
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman said that it is self-evident that discarded fish are predominantly undersized and immature. I say that because, although that was not the view of his immediate predecessor, it is the basis of my argument.
I welcome the report, which provides an example of a Select Committee doing an excellent job in scrutinising the Executive. We should not forget that that is part of its role. I am therefore pleased to respond to the report both as a Minister on behalf of my Department and in the sense that I am keen to keep in touch with the Committee in relation to new developments and answering questions.
In the spirit of the format of this new Chamber, I have not come along with a Ministry-prepared speech. I have listened to what hon. Members have said during the debate and intend to base my responses precisely on the matters that have been raised. I will, of course, allude to what has been said in relation to the Government's formal response to the report. I hope that I am not making my officials too nervous.

155WH
I welcome the positive thrust of the Committee's report, which has been mentioned by several members of the Committee who have spoken today, because there is much to be positive about in the UK fishing industry. Of course there are problems and difficulties, and some sectors of the industry feel that they have got a bad deal. However, there is also a great deal of innovation and success, and many sectors of the industry are doing very well. The report highlights that fact.
It is worth stressing that the report approaches the whole issue of fisheries management in a mature and sensible way. I wish that some sectors of the industry would do the same. I do not get up in the morning and say, "How can I annoy the fishing industry today? How can I reduce its quota? Let's find a new rule that will make fishermen really mad." I, my officials and the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science do not take that approach, although I know that the phrase "I'm from MAFF and I'm here to help you" has fishermen rolling in the aisles. We are trying to help the fishing industry. We are trying to look to the long term, introduce sustainability and address the industry's problems. Some of the answers to those problems are not easy, and sometimes they are not the ones that the industry wants to hear. I shall return to that in a moment.
The report is a class act. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) has a detailed knowledge of the fishing industry and is a great champion of it. He is also prepared to recognise that the industry has problems and faults, and is not afraid to say so and deal with the implications.
The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) is knowledgeable about the fishing industry in general and the south-west fishing industry in particular, which is an issue in itself. He is very perceptive, and has been honest in his approach. As he said, an honest approach sometimes attracts criticism because people do not always want to hear the truth. That is one of the problems in fisheries management.
Having said all that, I must express a mild criticism. As an avid reader of provincial newspapers, I read The Western Morning News—although it is not generally good for my blood pressure—and I noticed that the hon. Member for St. Ives had criticised me for telling the industry about the quota cuts too soon. He suggested that they should have been discussed behind closed doors before we spoke to the industry. I should point out to him that we are trying to give the industry the information that it wants as early as we possibly can.
Mr. Andrew George: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I particularly wanted to hear him amplify his point about transparent long-term policies for the industry, and I hope that he is coming to that. As for The Western Morning News, I am afraid that I cannot answer for the way in which local journalists report what I say. I do not remember having made such a comment.
Mr. Morley: Having had experience of The Western Morning News for many years, I can accept the hon. Gentleman's point. However, I shall have to redraft the article that I am writing for it.
156WH
My hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mrs. Organ) stressed consumerism and the fact that the ultimate issue is one of providing for markets of various kinds and qualities. She also referred to confidence in scientists, to which I shall return.
The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), a former Minister with responsibility for fisheries, knows the industry very well. Indeed, in that capacity, he tackled many of these issues in a fair and sensible way. He has raised a number of detailed points, which I shall deal with in due course.
Like me, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond)—the leader of the Scottish National party—has occupied his current post for a very long time. He and I have debated these issues for many years, and seen many changes in the industry, and I shall deal with the points that he raised.
The right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), another former Minister with responsibility for fisheries, made some good points, particularly in relation to regional management and the Irish sea. Such knowledgeable people have added to the quality of our debate on the fishing industry. His thoughts on the Irish sea, which he has raised before, are interesting, and I have discussed them with officials as part of the regional approach that we would like to develop. In that respect, his comments were positive and constructive.
Some of the report's recommendations are being acted on and some will be acted on. We are studying others, and none will be ignored. Of course, I accept that the common fisheries policy is not perfect. This is not a debate about reform of the CFP, but the Committee may consider that as we approach 2002.
The report did not consider the CFP because a single report cannot consider both the industry's management and the CFP's structures. We are looking at regional management issues, and talking to the Commission. The new commissioner, Franz Fischler, has taken a constructive view on fisheries issues. Some of his statements have been very encouraging.
The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan raised the subject of relative stability. We believe that relative stability will remain post-2002. It is an important part of fisheries management, and is certainly one of the Government's objectives. Similarly, I am confident that existing coastal limits will remain post-2002. They are in the interests of our country and other countries. I am aware of no other member state that holds a different opinion. As a Minister, making predictions is risky, but I am confident that progress can be made.
With regard to quotas, it is trust that many stocks are in poor shape. There is also the important issue of science and confidence in scientists, which was raised by a number of Select Committee members. We are taking steps to act on the Committee's recommendations, which are sensible and practical. The industry needs to become more involved in what we are doing, and that process has begun. We arranged for the chairman of the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations to sail on the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science research ship. I believe that he spent five days on that vessel, and found it very useful. I understand that he played an important role: he gained practical experience and even repaired the nets. He enjoyed the exercise and found it useful, as did CEFAS.

157WH
I should correct the impression that scientists talk to the industry only at the end of the year. They visit ports throughout the year, and keep in touch with the industry. As a result of the Committee's recommendations, we have arranged meetings between the fishing industry and CEFAS scientists, which have proved very useful. However, I accept that there is more work to be done. As was said, we need to involve the industry at an earlier point, and perhaps in a more formal way. Recently, I had a number of meetings with scientists and the industry prior to the quota negotiations. It would be useful to begin contacts between scientists and fishermen in January, which would enable us to formalise and prepare the process. I assure the Select Committee that we shall try to improve on what we have done towards accepting its recommendations. That is sensible and the best way forward. On the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean, the tenders for the new fisheries research ship will go out within weeks. I do not know whether that can be brought further forward, in view of the building process. I understand that British shipyards have submitted tenders, and I hope that they are successful.
I support multi-species modelling. Although it is complex, it is the way forward for stock calculations. It will be seriously addressed. Hon. Members stressed our competitive position, which is important. On the issue of the overall regulatory burden, controls and regulations are necessary. However, streamlining and simplification would take some pressure off the industry. The advent of satellite monitoring, for example, might allow us to review regulations such as the two-licence rule.
We are keen on uniform enforcement, and I was interested in the idea of using overseas posts. We receive reports from overseas posts about trends in different industries, and I accept that we could make further use of them. If I may digress, we intend to make extensive use of overseas posts to recapture beef markets. We shall consider how to use overseas posts to collect information on enforcement and costs.
A point was made on the legal title of quotas. Following the Select Committee's recommendation, we started discussions with the industry on how to formalise the issue of quotas. I am reluctant to concede the issue of legal titles, because I do not want to concede management flexibility. However, many fishermen and producer organisations have invested a great deal of money in quotas, which is the right thing to do. One way of removing the threats to regions is collective, co-operative ownership of quota within producer organisations. I do not want to undermine such investment.
We need to consider security issues in relation to the Ministry, which holds the title to the quotas, and year-to-year management. Stocks change from year to year—people do not buy a stock, but buy a share of a stock—and the overall total allowable catch alters. A meeting with the industry took place on 14 October, and proposals were made for a joint industry-Ministry working group to discuss the issue further.
The issue of concordats was mentioned. As the Chairman of the Select Committee said, concordats have been published. We are establishing sensible and close working relationships with the Scottish Executive. My hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian
158WH
(Mr. Home Robertson) is doing an excellent job—I could not hope for a Minister with better knowledge of the industry—and he is working with us to obtain the best deal for the UK industry, including the Scottish industry. He has already spoken in the Fisheries Council, where he has taken the lead for the UK, especially on issues of interest to Scotland. We are working closely together, and that has strengthened our position.
Safety grants have been discussed in detail. Clearly, the financing of safety grants is an issue for the Scottish Executive, and I do not have the necessary knowledge to comment on that. I am not aware of any stance taken by MAFF that is difficult for the Scottish Executive. I shall refer to safety grants in a moment.
Mr. Salmond: Will the Minister clarify "devolution and legal technicalities"? It was claimed in the letter to the industry that that was an obstacle to the reintroduction of safety grants.
Mr. Morley: Yes. I can clarify that and will do so when I speak about safety grants.
We must examine competitiveness, but people sometimes refer to competing with other member states for fish. That is not competition because we have our national quota and we do not compete with other countries for that. There is competition in the overall cost of getting fish to port and to market, but we must examine the total cost figure. That includes lower business taxes in the United Kingdom compared with many of our European competitors and other cost advantages. I am not complacent about that matter and other issues must be considered, such as the waste water directive. MAFF made representations to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions on the directive's potential effects on the fishing industry.
New build is another issue, and age and safety are important. Analysis of the figures does not show clearly whether there is a clear correlation between the age of a vessel and safety. However, the matter is being considered and a new report has been produced recently by the Sea Fishing Industry Authority. We shall examine the figures because safety is a serious matter.
I do not believe that grants for new build are in the interests of the industry. A number of hon. Members have referred to increasing efforts and the problem of constantly trying to manage a fishing industry that does not stand still. One example is the catch of North sea prawns by the under 10 m fleet, which has increased by 400 per cent. since last year. Our quota was exhausted in August and we managed to obtain some extra quota for the North sea fleet until September, but that was also exhausted and the prawn fishing industry had to be closed temporarily, which was not popular. I did not want to do that and nor did the Ministry, but we have a responsibility for managing stocks.
The stock of prawns is one of the few in the North sea that is in good shape. We made an application to obtain extra quota and in the meantime we have applied monthly catch limits, which seem to be working. One reason for the problem is that the industry has been profitable in the past couple of years. People have been investing in new boats without grants. Those new boats

159WH
have a greater catch capacity than old ones and that is the main reason why the prawn fishery in the North sea is in trouble. The Germans were very successful in the design of pocket battleships. Pocket trawlers—new under 10 m boats—are very efficient and result in increased effort.
Grant-aiding new boats might involve grant-aiding a vessel to such a specification that its catch could not be maintained. That would not be good for the industry because it would increase competition and put more pressure on stocks. The value of quota and licences varies according to the size of the vessel, but the range can be in millions of pounds. When people have assets of hundreds of thousands of pounds and possibly millions, the justification for providing public money for support is not strong.
I have discussed the matter with the industry and the banks, which have made it clear that they have no problem in providing finance for new boats. They believe that the returns in the industry are good at the moment and there has been a lot of investment around all our coasts, not just in Scotland. I am pleased about that, although I realise that some sections of the industry have had more difficulty.
It gave me no pleasure to see safety grants withdrawn. I am prepared to justify difficult decisions but, ideally, we should not have taken that decision if MAFF had been able to provide the necessary funds. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister gave an undertaking that the safety grants would be reinstated.
In response to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan, the difficulty with devolution did not so much involve establishing who had and who had not got money; rather, it involved a legal and technical difficulty. The grants were withdrawn and a new order would have been needed to reinstate them because the relevant provisions no longer applied to the UK.
We should also consider the fact that new structural funds will be introduced in the new year under Agenda 2000. Those funds offer an opportunity to reconsider safety grants and marketing and processing grants. Within the context of structural grants, they might also provide help with onshore installations and facilities. I am keen to secure that—
Mr. Salmond: I know that the Minister has further points to make, but this is an important issue. He discussed the technical difficulty with devolution and the fact that the scheme no longer applied to the UK. The Scottish Parliament is not going to go away. Will the technical difficulty be overcome, or will it frustrate the Minister and the rest of us for any length of time?
Mr. Morley: No. The issue will be one for the Scottish Parliament, but it must consider the issues raised by structural funds. Structural funds will be allocated to both the Scottish and the Westminster Parliaments. The funds will have Treasury implications for England and Wales and there will be financial implications for the Scottish Executive. Both Parliaments will have to resolve those issues.
Mr. Curry: Is the Minister saying that if an order had been made, it would have applied only to England?
160WH
Does that mean that the English might have had their grant restored, but that the Scots might not unless they had taken action? If so, what would be wrong with that?
Mr. Morley: The situation, as I understand it, is that the order under which the grants operated no longer applied when devolution was introduced. To introduce new provisions would have meant introducing new orders. We are about to enter into new structural funds and we should perhaps consider the possibility of a new scheme. The majority of fishing vessels were not in the old safety grant scheme.
Mr. Salmond: I can speak for the main Opposition party in the Scottish Parliament and perhaps on behalf of the Opposition parties in the Westminster Parliament. There would be no difficulty, from the Opposition's point of view, if the orders had been laid in the Scottish and Westminster Parliaments, even if they would operate only in the short term and until the structural funds were introduced. What was the problem?
Mr. Morley: The problem was technical and the issue was that the income stream—the funding—from the MAFF had gone. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] I do not want to mislead the Chamber. The proposal was stopped because of insufficient money and MAFF could not reintroduce it. However, the technical issue was also involved and it was clear that it was better to consider the possibility of starting a new scheme next year with the introduction of the new structural funds. We should also consider how the scheme should operate. The old scheme was by no means perfect.
Mr. Salmond: The Minister brings us back to the start of my speech. I suggested that money was available in Scotland but not in Westminster, and that a Scottish order was not introduced because the Minister wanted the proposals to apply throughout the UK. Has not the Minister confirmed that that was the case?
Mr. Morley: Absolutely not. I was not aware that any money was available in Scotland for the continuation of the old scheme. In that respect, this is an issue for Scotland. So far as I am aware, if the old scheme had been reinstated, it would not have applied to Scotland. Technically, a new order could have been introduced, but the money would have had to be found—we did not have it in MAFF. I am not sure whether any money was available in Scotland.
The most sensible way to reintroduce the scheme would be to do so through the new structural funds and with a new scheme to arrange the funding. We are currently discussing the best way to take that forward, together with the marketing and processing grants and other important aspects.
Time does not permit me to cover the other sectors, including the pelagic sector. I am sorry about that, but hon. Members will have an opportunity to discuss those subjects during the annual debate if they wish. If hon. Members would like to write to me about points that they feel that I have not covered in my reply, I will be pleased to respond to them in detail.
In conclusion, this has been a very good debate. The report is excellent, and a great credit to all those who have been involved with it. I emphasise to the

161WH
Committee that we take it seriously and are looking at ways in which we can act to implement its recommendations.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Lull) wish to speak again?
5.25 pm
Mr Luff: With the leave of hon. Members, Madam Deputy Speaker. I join other hon. Members in welcoming you to your new role. It is no doubt your presence in the Chair that has so inspired today's debate, which, as the Minister said, has been a fine one. I was remiss in not welcoming my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) to his place as Opposition spokesman on these matters. I congratulate him on his inventiveness in finding issues to dispute in such a non-contentious report. However, I have a word of advice for him taken from my limited experience of the industry: to be careful to whom he speaks. It is easy to justify any prejudice if one speaks to the right individuals in the fishing industry. My advice is to take wide soundings.
The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell)—who explained why, sadly, he has had to leave the Room—was right to emphasise the need for the industry to up its game, as he put it. That is one of the report's key themes. I am pleased that we have not concentrated too much today on the difficulties and challenges, but rather considered the opportunities and ways in which the industry can seize them. However, I echo what the hon. Gentleman said about the waste water directive.
I was amused by the comments of the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) about the lack of comprehension between fishermen and politicians. I am beginning to think that we should have put a recommendation about that in the report. It was perhaps a sin of omission, to which theme I shall return later.
I was delighted by the comments of the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mrs. Organ). I had wanted to speak about marketing, but I knew that she intended to, and she said all the things that I would wish to have said. The development of new markets is crucial.
Every hon. Member who spoke highlighted the danger that is implicit in the lack of trust between fishermen and scientists. That was a major theme of the report, and the Minister clearly understands that.
I was pleased that my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) emphasised the difficulty of achieving consensus. He was right to say that on many tricky issues the Minister will have to lead rather than seek that consensus.
162WH
The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) is a welcome interloper. He emphasised the important point about the lack of priority that sometimes attaches to fishing. I have great sympathy with his frustration about safety grants in Scotland, which he discussed with the Minister. I had similar frustrations about the lifting of the beef on the bone ban in England, but we had to wait for Scotland. It seems to me that devolution means differentiation. If the hon. Gentleman cannot accept that, what does he think was the point of having devolution in the first place?
My right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) criticised the report for sins of omission. He is allowed that luxury, not having been a signatory to it. I plead partly guilty to the charge. His comments about coastal and zonal management and his novel ideas for the Irish sea were absolutely right. However, they are implicitly covered by paragraphs 151 to 153. Similarly, his comments about research issues are covered by paragraphs 36 to 41.
I accept the main thrust of the criticism of the report by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire. However, I do not think that the six and 12-mile limits issue should detain the Committee. I agree with the Minister's judgment about the inevitability of protecting the 12-mile limit. My hon. Friend referred to the omission of some matters that we could have considered. The report was already a tad on the long side, however, and I should not have wanted to make it any longer.
I was hugely encouraged by the Minister's response—although I know that he has a habit of killing with kindness. We will be following up our recommendations—not necessarily in writing, as the Minister kindly invited us to do, but probably through the mechanism of our annual report. We attach importance to ensuring that Select Committees follow up their own recommendations.
Our objective was summed up by the title of our press notice about the report:
"Committee forecasts bright future for UK fishing industry".
Nothing that I have heard this afternoon dissuades me from that view. There is indeed a bright future and it is vital that we talk up the industry to help it to achieve that. In that positive spirit, I am delighted by the excellent attendance this afternoon. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan was a little worried about the fact that the debate was taking place here, but more hon. Members contributed than probably would have been the case for a debate in the main Chamber. I find that interesting and I am grateful to all the hon. Members who participated.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at half-past Five o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Target Setting
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many targets have been agreed between his Department and (i) local authorities and (ii) other bodies apart from his own agencies and non-departmental bodies since May 1997. [99475]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 24 November 1999]: The Department's Public Service Agreement (PSA) sets out the Department's own targets in respect of local government. Details of any targets agreed with local government are not held centrally, although the Secretary of State will specify performance indicators and targets covering the broad range of local government functions under the best value provisions set out in Part I of the Local Government Act 1999. These indicators and targets will be introduced by Order by the end of 1999, and will apply from April 2000.

  Total estimates of drink drive fatalities

  1981–851

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  (i) Built-up roads

  Motor vehicle drivers

  170

  90

  90

  80

  110

  100

  Two-wheel motor vehicle riders

  170

  40

  50

  30

  40

  50

  Motor vehicle passengers

  140

  60

  50

  70

  80

  60

  Others

  120

  40

  40

  30

  40

  30

  (ii) Non-built-up roads

  Motor vehicle drivers

  350

  190

  190

  200

  220

  190

  Two-wheel motor vehicle riders

  100

  30

  30

  40

  30

  30

  Motor vehicle passengers

  170

  90

  70

  90

  70

  80

  Others

  40

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  1 Average

  GM Crops
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will describe the nature of the unacceptable effects on the environment which he would consider sufficient to prevent commercial exploitation of GM crops. [99907]

  Mr. Mullin
  Before any release of a GMO can take place, the regulatory authority must ensure that all appropriate measures are taken to avoid any adverse effects on human health and the environment which might arise. Assessment of adverse effects is carried out on a case-by-case basis, looking at such things as gene transfer to wild relatives, toxicity of gene products, allergenicity,

  Rail Services
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what information has been provided for local residents on the proposed reduction in rail services between Nunhead and Victoria. [99586]

  Mr. Prescott
  The changes which will affect Victoria to Nunhead services from the start of the new year are currently shown in the timetable information available at stations, as these form part of the winter 1999–2000 timetable which came into effect on 26 September 1999. Since that timetable was agreed, Connex have reinstated the two trains per hour to Victoria, and will provide an hourly service from Victoria.

  Road Deaths (Alcohol)
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many(a) drivers, (b) riders, (c) passengers and (d) others have been killed in crashes where one or more driver or rider has exceeded the legal alcohol limit in each of the past five years, for (i) urban and (ii) rural areas; what the average figures were for 1981 to 1985; and if he will make a statement. [100041]

  Mr. Hill
  The numbers of fatalities in road accidents where one or more driver or rider was over the legal alcohol limit are not available for urban and rural areas; however, estimates can be made by the speed limit of the road on which the accident occurred. The estimates in the table, shown rounded to the nearest 10, are for built-up roads with a speed limit of 40 mph or less and for non-built-up roads with a speed limit of more than 40 mph, for the last five years for which figures are available.

  invasiveness and persistence of the plant as a weed, etc. The statutory Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE) has been set up to advise ministers on these issues and has published the guidance note "The Regulation and Control of the Deliberate Release of Genetically Modified Organisms" on the risk assessment procedure.

  In the case of the farm-scale evaluations of GM oil seed rape and fodder maize currently underway, ACRE has already advised on the risks to the environment of the GM plants themselves. In addition, the independent scientific steering committee will also be able to advise Government on the significance, and therefore the acceptability, of any impacts on farmland wildlife associated with the

  275W
  management of the crops as compared with equivalent non-GM crops, such as a reduction in invertebrate or weed numbers.

  In the light of the results and the advice from the committees, decisions will be made on the commercialisation of the GM crops.

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what research he is currently undertaking into the role that the cauliflower mosaic viral promoter may play in enhancing horizontal gene transfer. [100169]

  Mr. Mullin
  The statutory Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE) has recently been asked to consider this issue and will be advising shortly. ACRE's advice will be published, and if the committee considers it necessary, appropriate scientific research will be commissioned.

  Carn Brea Leisure Centre, Cornwall
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the proposed closure of Carn Brea Leisure Centre in Cornwall. [100231]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  It is for Kerrier District Council to explain its decision to close the sports hall and swimming pool at Carn Brea and to justify any alternative proposals in its Best Value Performance Plans, which must be completed by 31 March 2000. In the meantime, I would expect the Council to do everything it can to keep the facilities open.

  Bio-diesel
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to encourage the production of bio-diesel to help the UK achieve its target of 20 per cent. reduction in greenhouse gases; and if he will make a statement. [100240]

  Mr. Hill
  Many alternative road fuels have the potential to offer significant environmental benefits, and the Government are keen to encourage their wider use wherever it is cost-effective to do so. Bio-diesel has the potential to offer reduced CO2 emissions compared with ordinary diesel. We will continue to keep under review bio-diesel's potential for cost-effective reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from road transport.

  Road Tolls
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the countries in which tolls have been imposed on road use on roads which had existed free of use, for at least five years prior to tolling. [99926]

  Mr. Prescott
  [holding answer 26 November 1999]: We are aware that charges have been applied to previously free roads in many parts of the world, for example in Singapore, Norway and the United States, and will shortly be introduced on roads in Rome and Melbourne. However, comprehensive information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mobile Phone Installations
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what plans he has to produce guidance for planning authorities on the handling of public health concerns that arise from proposals to site mobile phone base stations in residential areas; [100264]

  (2) what plans he has to amend planning guidance for telecommunications permitted development in order to allow planning authorities to apply a precautionary principle in sensitive areas until the full non-thermal health effects of mobile phone radiation have been established. [100267]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Government are aware of public concern about mobile phone systems and health and have set up an independent expert group to advise on possible risks to public health. The group, chaired by Sir William Stewart FRS, FRSE, is currently holding open meetings around the UK to take views.

  My Department issued for consultation the draft of a joint circular with the Department of Health on land use planning and electro-magnetic fields (EMFs). The draft circular provides advice to local planning authorities in deciding applications for development giving rise to EMFs, such as telecommunications base stations. The guidance will be finalised as soon as practicable.

  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received in the last six months regarding(a) the conduct of mobile phone companies, (b) their applications for new mast sites and (c) such applications by Orange PCS. [100266]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  My Department has received correspondence concerning the amenity and health aspects of the siting of telecommunications masts proposed by the different mobile phone operators, including Orange plc.

  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proportion of mobile phone masts erected in the United Kingdom in the last 24 months have been shared by licence holders. [100263]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Department's Circular 4/99, "Planning for Telecommunications", makes clear the Government's expectation that developers should provide the local planning authority (LPA) with clear evidence that they have fully considered the use of existing masts, buildings and other structures before seeking to erect any new mast. If this evidence is not considered satisfactory, the LPA may be justified in refusing approval of the mast's siting. The information on shared masts is not available in the form requested. However, the mobile operators have told us that one third of existing masts owned by them are shared.

  Dial-a-Ride (West London)
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what level of funding West London Dial-a-Ride has received from his Department in each of the last five years. [100192]
  277W
  Mr. Hill
  The Government provide grant funding to London Transport for London Dial-a-Ride services, but the distribution of the grant between the six regional Dial-a-Ride companies is a matter for London Transport. Government funding for Dial-a-Ride services in London over the last five years is as follows:

  Year

  £ million

  1994–95

  11.3

  1995–96

  10.4

  1996–97

  10.1

  1997–98

  10.6

  1998–99

  11.5

  Uniform Business Rate
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list in respect of each local authority area in England and Wales the projected yield of the Uniform Business Rate in(a) 2000–01 and (b) 1999–2000. [100741]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The information requested on Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  For England, the information requested on the projected yield of the Uniform Business Rate is not yet available. However, I have today placed in the Library of the House a table which shows the projected contribution to the Business Rate Pool for each local authority in England for 1999–2000.

  Regional Government
  Mr. Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has for introducing democratically elected regional chambers in England. [100520]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  We have said that, in time, we will introduce legislation to allow people, region by region, to decide whether they want directly elected regional government. We remain committed to this. Finding the right solution may take time, just as the arrangements for Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and London have taken time.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Mr. Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what involvement Regional Development Agencies will have in monitoring social exclusion in the regions. [100518]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Government have developed a set of 9 core "State of the Region" indicators which the RDAs used to inform the development of their strategies. These include an indicator entitled "Percentage of the population with above average living conditions" which is based on the standardised mortality ratio. In their strategies, RDAs have also developed, or have given a commitment to develop, further indicators which address the specific features of their region. These will include indicators covering some key social issues.

  Signals Passed at Danger
  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many signals passed at danger were recorded for each train operating company since 1990. [100662]

  Mr. Hill
  The information is not available. Incidents of signals passed at danger (SPADs) have been reportable under statute only since April 1996. At present, SPAD incidents are reported by the seven regional Railtrack zones and are not broken down into train operating companies. The Health and Safety Executive's 1996–97, 1997–98 and 1998–99 annual reports on railway safety contain details of SPADs listed by Railtrack zone. Copies are available in the House Libraries.

  Rail Link, Solihull
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his policy on the construction of the rail link between the Land Rover plant in Solihull and the west coast main line; and if he will make a statement. [100521]

  Mr. Hill
  The Rover Group Ltd. applied on 18 November to the Secretary of State for an Order under the Transport and Works Act 1992 to authorise this rail link. The period by which objections or other representations should be lodged ends on 14 January 2000. The Secretary of State will then consider whether a public inquiry should be held into the proposal.

  The application will be considered on its merits in the light of relevant policies. These include, on the one hand, our policy of encouraging the movement of freight by rail rather than road where appropriate and, on the other, the restrictive planning policies that apply to development in the Green Belt. These issues and any others raised by interested parties will be carefully considered by the Secretary of State in deciding whether or not to make the Order.

  Trans-European Networks
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which countries are eligible for the increase in funds in Trans-European Networks, following the Cologne Summit; what is the amount of the increase in funds; if the UK share has been allocated; and if he will make a statement. [100995]

  Mr. Hill
  Regulation (EC) No 1655/99 of 19 July 1999, which amended the 1995 trans-European network (TEN) financing Regulation (2236/95), established a financial framework of euro 4,600 million (about £2,890 million at current exchange rates) for TENs in the fields of transport, telecommunications and energy for the period 2000–2006. The financial framework for the period 1995–1999 was 2,345 million ECU. Any member state, or body within a member state, is entitled to bid for TEN funds to support a project of common interest. The decision to grant aid to a project rests with the Commission, with assistance from a Committee of representatives of member states for each TEN sector. There is no provision for sharing out the budget between the member states.
  279W
  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the progress of renegotiation of the Trans-European Networks. [100884]

  Mr. Hill
  The transport trans-European network (TEN) guidelines (Decision No. 1692/96/EC) required the Commission, before 1 July 1999, to submit a report to the European Parliament and the Council indicating whether the guidelines should be adapted. The production of that report has been delayed and its publication is not now anticipated before Easter 2000. The Commission has indicated that, should the report suggest that the guidelines do need to be adapted, it expects to come forward with formal proposals before the end of 2000.

  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will name the schemes which the Government will propose for Trans-European Network funding; and if he will make a statement. [100887]

  Mr. Hill
  Bids for funds from the 2000 transport trans-European network (TEN) budget must be with the Commission by 10 January 2000. Our officials have received a number of proposals and are currently considering which of these should be submitted to the Commission. Ministers will make a decision on the bids later this year. At this stage, it is possible to confirm only that we will submit bids for support for the Channel Tunnel Rail Link and for the West Coast Main Line modernisation, as we indicated in our 1998 White Paper on the Future of Transport (Cm 3950).

  Lindane
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the recommendation of the EU to ban lindane; and if he will publish the scientific evidence which he has received on lindane. [101067]

  Mr. Mullin
  The recommendation to suspend the use of lindane as an agricultural pesticide was contained in a report that the Austrian authorities, as rapporteur, submitted to the European Commission as part of the EU review of pesticides. The Commission has yet to reach a decision on the future European status of lindane.

  A "review report", which includes the rapporteur's monograph, together with reports of the peer review meetings and a summary cover report, will be made available after a final decision has been taken.

  Daylight Saving
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the effect of Daylight Saving on the numbers of road(a) injuries and (b) deaths of children in each year since 1990. [100116]

  Mr. Hill
  The Department commissioned research into the likely benefits of changing British Summertime to increase the safety benefits of daylight hours. The report by TRL published in 1998 looked essentially at potential casualty reductions if the clocks were set one hour 280W
  forward in Winter (October to March) and two hours forward in Summer (March to October). This would in effect mean that throughout the year it would be lighter in the evenings and darker in the mornings.

  The conclusion was that this might save over 100 deaths per year, and taken together with serious injuries save well over 400 casualties. There are no separate figures pertaining to children.

  Eye-Tests (Drivers)
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what tests(a) train drivers and (b) drivers of public service vehicles are required to take to determine their ability to distinguish between colours; and how often they are required to take them. [101167]

  Mr. Hill
  Train drivers are required to pass a medical which includes a test for colour blindness, using the Ishihara Plates Test. Train drivers are also required to meet certain visual acuity requirements. The period between medical assessments is determined by the age of the train drivers; those aged less than 56 are medically assessed every five years, those aged 56 to 62 every two years, and train drivers over 62 every 12 months.

  Drivers of passenger carrying vehicles (PCV's) are not tested specifically for colour blindness but do need to meet certain visual acuity requirements.

  Local Authority Housing Finance
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what further consultations he proposes on the detail of his proposals to reform local authority housing finance. [101417]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Improving local authority financial accounting is an important part of our agenda to modernise local government. As part of our plan to introduce resource accounting to local authority housing finance, we intend to remove rent rebates from the Housing Revenue Account (HRA). Today I have published a consultation paper asking for views on the details of how this could be done. Removing rent rebates from the HRA will make councils housing finances simpler and more transparent. It will be easier for local residents to see how money is being spent, increasing openness and accountability. Copies of the new consultation paper have been placed in the Library of the House. We published two other consultation papers earlier in the month on other aspects of improving local authority housing finance.

  Nitrate-vulnerable Zones
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he is proposing further designations of nitrate vulnerable zones in England; and if he will make a statement. [101592]

  Mr. Mullin
  Following a reference to the European Court of Justice, the Government have now widened their interpretation of the EU Nitrates Directive, beyond monitoring nitrate levels in drinking water sources, to include monitoring in non-drinking water freshwaters. It is expected that this extended testing will lead to the
  281W
  designation of new Nitrate-vulnerable Zones, in which Action Programme measures will help to reduce nitrate levels in water. Nitrate levels in non-drinking surface waters are already being monitored by the Environment Agency and parallel work will be undertaken to establish nitrate levels in groundwater not used as a source of drinking water.

  Technical assessment of the extended monitoring as a result of this change is already under way, and completion of the associated mapping of areas proposed for designation is expected next year. The Government will then publish a consultation paper, detailing their designation proposals, which will set out the exact number and location of the new Nitrate-vulnerable Zones. It is expected that, as with existing Nitrate-vulnerable Zones, the majority of any new designations will be in central and eastern England.

  River Thames (Safety)
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when Lord Justice Clarke's interim report on safety on the River Thames will be published. [101593]

  Mr. Hill
  Lord Justice Clarke's interim report has been published today (CM 4530). The report deals with safety on the River Thames and is the first product of the Thames Safety Inquiry, which the Deputy Prime Minister announced on 18 August this year. I am glad to receive this welcome and thorough report, which is helpful as we approach the Millennium celebrations. Lord Justice Clarke has asked for any comments on the report by 10 December, and I will be very interested to see all the reactions to his recommendations.

  I will, of course, review the report in detail and have already asked the Department for an action plan to be submitted to Ministers before Christmas. I have the following immediate announcements:

  As to Millennium Night celebrations on the river:
  I am grateful for the extensive planning already done to ensure safety on the River on Millennium night by the Port of London Authority (PLA), by the Government Office for London and by the emergency services. As Minister for London, I have been closely involved and fully concur with Lord Justice Clarke's conclusion that the emergency services are as prepared as they can reasonably be expected to be for the Millennium celebrations. This should reassure users of the river and its banks that they will be able to enjoy a spectacular evening in safety.
  In the past few months the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) has inspected every passenger ship operating between the Thames Barrier and Teddington Lock to make sure they continue to operate safely. Each vessel now carries a specific Search and Rescue (SAR) plan agreed with PLA, and those plans will also be approved by MCA before the Millennium.
  As to the important issue of alcohol controls:
  My Department has today issued a public consultation paper on the introduction of alcohol controls, considering options not only in relation to masters and crew of merchant shipping and fishing vessels, but also for those navigating other vessels (including privately owned pleasure craft). We will finalise our proposals next year in light of comments received.
  282W
  As to the year 2000, when we expect peak use of the Thames:
  In the coming year, MCA will continue its enhanced programme of inspections of passenger ships on the Thames, to ensure continued operational safety.
  Riverbank authorities are urgently invited to review the provision of bankside life-saving equipment in light of Lord Justice Clarke's recommendation.
  We are studying urgently how we can improve search and rescue facilities on the river allowing for those already provided by the Port of London Authority, the River Police and the London Fire Brigade. We are considering, in collaboration with other relevant authorities, the provision on an experimental basis, of an inshore rescue craft service on the Thames. Any such provision would be reviewed later in 2000 to inform decisions on permanent provision on the river in the light of operational experience. I am glad to announce that the PLA would be willing to manage this experiment for the Department.
  The Department will also work closely with PLA to produce a formal assessment of the risks associated with navigation on the tidal Thames. This will include consideration of search and rescue arrangements, as recommended by Lord Justice Clarke. I have asked for the first results of this assessment to be sent to me personally as soon as possible so that it can influence further planning.
  As to subsequent years:
  I am attracted by the recommendation that a duty should be imposed upon an appropriate single authority to assess and ensure the provision and coordination of search and rescue facilities on the Thames. I have asked for urgent advice on what legislation would be needed to secure its legal and financial basis. This will underpin the progress on safety which Lord Justice Clarke acknowledges has already been made and is now further enhanced by his recommendations.
  I am grateful for Sir Anthony Clarke's practical proposals for the Thames safety regime. I now look forward to receiving his final report, which will contain his recommendation on whether there is a case for a further investigation or inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the Marchioness disaster.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Crime Fighting Fund
  Mr. Hope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to publish the bidding guidelines for forces to follow when bidding for a share of the Crime Fighting Fund for police recruits. [101472]

  Mr. Straw
  I have today placed a copy of the Bidding Guidelines, together with a copy of the form which forces and police authorities should use to apply for a share of the fund, in the Library.

  Copies of the Guidelines and the form were sent to all Chief Constables and Chairmen of police authorities today. Those wishing to bid should complete the form and return it to the Home Office by 10 January 2000.

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate
  Mr. Hope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to make available the latest revisions of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate's country assessments. [101473]

  Mrs. Roche
  Revised country assessments were made available to caseworkers during September 1999. They will be made publicly available on the Home Office internet site
  283W
  within the next few weeks and copies have been placed in the Library. The assessments are all sourced to information obtained from independent external sources and from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

  A list of the countries for which assessments are prepared was previously set out in a reply from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg) on 13 May 1998, Official Report, columns 127–28W. They are revised at six-monthly intervals, previously in March and September. The schedule will change to April and October from 2000.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department to what extent, under the proposed new arrangements for support of asylum seekers, it will be possible for voluntary or charitable bodies to supplement in cash or in kind the support provided from public funds without a corresponding reduction in that support. [99941]

  Mrs. Roche
  Under the new Asylum Support Arrangements, it is intended that the National Asylum Support Service may take into account support from voluntary and charitable organisations when assessing the amount of support it will provide. This will not apply to emergency assistance provided while an application for support is being considered. This proposal is included in a consultation document which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced in a reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor) on 25 November 1999,Official report, column 176W. The closing date for comments on these proposals is 14 January 2000 and we shall finalise our policy after that date.

DEFENCE

  Criminal Records Bureau
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the cost of fees incurred by the Air, Army and Sea Cadets in using the Criminal Records Bureau will be met by his Department; and if he will he make a statement. [100610]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Cadet Forces will be required to pay for their use of the Criminal Records Bureau. I understand that the fee is likely to be around £10 per inquiry. We would expect such costs to be met from within existing resources.

  Falklands
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions RAF flights serving the Falkland Islands have been delayed by mechanical or other failures since September; and if he will make a statement. [100899]

  Mr. Spellar
  Since September, there have been 42 flights to and from the Falkland Islands (21 outbound and 21 return). Of these, eight flights were delayed for aircraft serviceability or availability reasons.

  Army (Retention)
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make available to the public(a) Major-General Spacie's report, "Welfare in the Army", (b) the Army's Retention Study and (c) the Continuous Attitude Surveys for service leavers produced by DASA; and if he will make a statement. [100219]

  Mr. Spellar
  The purpose of all three reports is to inform the Army's personnel management policies and there are currently no plans to publish the findings externally. Major-General (Retired) Spacie's report, "Welfare in the Army" and the Army's Retention Study were commissioned to study Welfare provision and personnel policies across the Army. The Continuous Attitude Survey aims to determine the attitude of serving personnel, their families and Service leavers; this highlights trends which are useful in the development of sound personnel and training policies.

  East Timor
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on force levels in East Timor. [101476]

  Mr. Hoon
  There are now over 10,000 troops in the international force in East Timor (INTERFET) and the Australian Force Commander has agreed that circumstances now enable the withdrawal of British forces.

  The UK currently has some 290 service personnel in East Timor. Lead elements of the contingent from 2nd Battalion Royal Gurkha Rifles will return to their base in Brunei on 8 December. The remainder of the troops, including UK-based headquarters staff and signallers, and an RAF C-130 aircraft deployed to the region, will be withdrawn by 15 December.

  Although the UK does not plan to contribute units to the follow-on UN peacekeeping force (UNTAET), a small number of military observers will be provided. The Government have also offered Australia assistance with airlift for a short period during the transition from INTERFET to UNTAET.

  The deployment of the Gurkhas, RAF C-130 aircraft, and earlier of HMS Glasgow, is another example of the UK's ability to provide forces capable of decisive action in the difficult initial stages of a crisis. British troops were able to lend their considerable expertise and experience to the international force. This has assisted the swift return of over 100,000 refugees.

  Army Personnel (Compensation)
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made on the review of compensation arrangements for members of the armed forces. [101477]

  Mr. Spellar
  I am considering draft proposals from the review of compensation arrangements and hope to publish a consultation document early next year. The review represents the first comprehensive look at compensation arrangements since the War Pensions Scheme was introduced over fifty years ago. It is a highly complex subject. The review has examined from first principles the way in which service men and women and their
  285W
  dependants are compensated when they suffer illness, injury or death due to service. I am determined that we should provide our service men and women with a compensation package which will give them the reassurance that they will be provided for when facing the challenges and risks associated with service life.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many shelter kits have been sent to Kosovo for relief aid; and what is the cost of the kits. [100750]

  Mr. Foulkes
  I have been asked to reply.

  Over 100,000 houses in Kosovo suffered damage in the conflict, of which half are beyond repair. This situation affects over 700,000 people. Emergency shelter is co-ordinated by United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). 57,100 emergency repair kits are being provided through United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the European Commission Humanitarian Office (ECHO) and Office For Disaster Assistance / USAID, in order to create dry shelter in repairable houses, on the basis of one room per family. According to the latest available figures, over 60 per cent. had been distributed by 15 November. UNHCR and OFDA/USAID are also distributing some 10,000 extended roofing kits which aim to provide shelter for several families within a single less-damaged dwelling.

  ECHO have committed 16.5 million euros for NGO programmes focusing on shelter. The EC Task Force have separately committed 14 million euros. OFDA spend $33.4 million on shelter in the last US fiscal year (ending September 1999), and have so far spent $12 million this fiscal year. Figures for UNHCR are not currently available.

  The Department for International Development's (DFID) chief contributions to winterisation complement shelter initiatives. Through DFID's Emergency Infrastructure Engineering Unit we aim to get essential work done on utilities, particularly power and water supply, before the winter becomes too severe. We have committed £19 million for these works. Pristina airport is crucial to emergency rehabilitation as an alternative supply route to the congested Blace crossing. DFID has committed up to £3 million to carry out emergency works to keep it open for 24-hour civilian air operations through the winter.

  Goats (Experimentation)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many goats have been killed as a result of experiments conducted on them in the last six months by the MoD. [100748]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 2 December 1999:
  I have been asked to reply to your question about the number of goats killed as a result of experiments in the last six months by the Ministry of Defence.
  286W
  As I explained in my letter of 14 April 1999 the total number of goats killed in 1999 will be higher than in recent years. In addition to the on-going submarine escape programme carried out on behalf of the Ministry of Defence, DERA is also taking part in a 3 year co-operative programme with the United States Navy looking at safe rescue from submarines. The conditions of this co-operative research will result in a higher number of animals humanely killed for the 3 years of the programme's duration. In addition, a restocking programme has taken place as many of the goats were getting old and, on veterinary advice, these have also been humanely killed.
  In view of these factors, it may be misleading to provide figures for the last six months and I will, therefore, address the period from 1 January 1999. From 1 January to 29 November 1999, 62 goats were humanely killed following experiments, 36 were humanely killed for reasons of old age and another 4 on grounds of ill health.
  The Animal (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 assumes that all experiments cause stress to the animals involved and it is therefore normal practice to humanely kill the animals at the end of the experiment. Only where the experiment is considered sufficiently benign for the animals not to suffer any long lasting stress do the terms of the Act, subject to Home Office review, allow them to be used on more than one occasion. This is usually the case with the goats used in the submarine research programme.
  I hope this is helpful.

  RAF Ash
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans his Department has for the future of RAF Ash. [100291]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  None. RAF Ash was sold on 24 July 1998.

  Recruitment (Fiji)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many personnel went as part of the British Army recruiting team to Fiji. [100756]

  Mr. Spellar
  A total of 26 personnel, military and civilian, have been involved in the Army selection visit to Fiji. One military officer visited prior to deployment to brief the Fijian Prime Minister. The team that subsequently deployed consisted of 25 personnel. Of these, two have already returned to the UK. The purpose of the visit was not recruitment, but to process applications to the British Army already received.

  Himalayan Kayak Expedition
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British soldiers are participating in the British Army Himalayan Kayak Expedition. [100749]

  Mr. Spellar
  Adventurous Training Exercise Himalayan Encounter Finn was a tri-Service kayaking expedition conducted in Nepal by 42 British Service personnel between 23 September and 6 November 1999. Thirty-three of the participants were Army personnel.

  Recruitment (Ethnic Minorities)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what targets he has for the recruitment of ethnic minorities into Her Majesty's forces. [100570]

  Mr. Spellar
  The recruiting goal for this financial year is for 3 per cent. of all new recruits to be drawn from ethnic minorities. The goal, first set in 1998–99 at 2 per cent., rises annually by 1 per cent. to a goal of 5 per cent. by 2001–02.

  Land Disposals
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what was the value of surplus land disposals for the Army for each of the last three years; [100883]

  (2) what is the value of surplus land disposals by the Royal Navy in each of the last three years; [100747]

  (3) what was the value of surplus land disposals for the Royal Air Force in each of the last three years. [101196]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The information requested is not held centrally. However, I will write to the hon. Member once it is available and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Campaign Medals
  Mr. Trend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will assess the benefits of issuing a campaign medal to service personnel who served in the Suez Canal Zone between 1951 and 1954. [100335]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  My hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces, when Under-Secretary of State for Defence, reviewed the matter of a medal for those who served in the Canal Zone between 1951 and 1954 last year. He concluded that he could find no grounds for reopening the case to award a medal for service in the Canal Zone between 1951 and 1954. He saw no new evidence that he believed would enable him to persuade the Committee on the Grant of Honours Decorations and Medals to overturn their policy of non-retrospection, or revoke any of the decisions made at the time or following the various reviews since 1990.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Departmental Transport
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much his Department has spent on ministerial transport in each of the last two years. [98709]

  Mr. Byers
  Ministers in the Department of Trade and Industry are required—under the terms of the Ministerial Code and Travel by Ministers—to make efficient and cost-effective travel arrangements. For Information on spend on the Government Car Service, I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office on 1 December 1999,Official Report, columns 255–56W.

  Post Office
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the post offices that have opened in England and Wales in the last 12 months. [99606]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  I understand from the Post Office that 9 new post offices have opened in England and Wales and a further 136 offices have reopened since October 1998. I have arranged for a list of these offices, prepared by the Post Office, to be placed in the Library of the House. The Post Office definition of a reopened post office includes offices which have relocated and those to which a new subpostmaster/subpostmistress has been appointed, as well as offices which reopen after a period of closure.

  Cannabis
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what initiatives his Department is undertaking to test the medicinal benefits of cannabis. [99646]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 25 November 1999]: The Medical Research Council (MRC) has invited a number of research proposals on the potential therapeutic uses of cannabinoids. A funding decision is expected in December on a clinical trial concerning the therapeutic uses of cannabinoids/cannabis in the treatment of spasticity in multiple sclerosis. Two further trials of its use in post-operative pain will be considered next year.

  The MRC currently co-funds a "Realising Our Potential Awards" (ROPA) grant with Zeneca at the University of Manchester. This study investigates the effects of cannabinoids on brain cell degeneration. MRC have contributed £97,260.

  Also, the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) supports two individual projects/grants investigating the medicinal effects of cannabis.

  Mobile Phone Installations
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will estimate the number of new mobile phone masts to be erected in the United Kingdom in each of the next three years. [100265]

  Ms Hewitt
  No estimate has been made, and I do not have the commercial information available to enable me to make one. However, it is Government policy to limit the number of masts where possible through mast sharing. The Telecommunications Act 1984 licences of the mobile network operators therefore require that before they erect a new mast they investigate the possibility of using an existing mast belonging to themselves or another licensee; of replacing an existing mast belonging to themselves or another licensee with a mast for joint use; and of erecting, in co-operation with any other telecommunications operator, a mast for their joint use. This is reinforced by the Government's planning policy, which is to encourage mast and site sharing where appropriate.

  Refrigeration
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the regulations with which a company manufacturing refrigerators and employing 1,500 people has to comply. [100482]

  Ms Hewitt
  The following regulations apply specifically to a refrigerator manufacturer, employing 1,500 people:The Energy Information (Refrigerators and Freezers) Regulation SI 3076, 1994
  The Energy Efficiency (Refrigerators and Freezers) Regulation SI 1941, 1997
  Environmental Protection (Control of Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer) SI 506, 1996.
  In addition, a refrigerator manufacturer will need to meet other regulations including those deriving from company law, taxation, employment, health and safety, land planning requirements and environmental legislation.

  Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the potential IT benefits from fundamental research at CCLRC; and what steps he is taking to mobilise UK enterprise to maximise the opportunities. [100241]

  Ms Hewitt
  IT is intrinsic to CCLRC's research activities, not just those of the computer science and engineering and IT departments. Its benefits are continuously assessed by the other Research Councils, which are its primary customers.

  CCLRC is actively involved in programmes to disseminate knowledge and technology to the wider business community. These include regional initiatives to provide access for SMEs to the skills base, and participation in a programme on behalf of the EU to involve industry in future developments of the worldwide web.

  It is also active in encouraging development of start-up companies on CCLRC sites, where the business development offices at Daresbury and Rutherford encourage technology transfer and act as 'incubators' in the initial growth phase. A particular success story is that of Bookham Technology Ltd., founded in 1989, and located at Rutherford Appleton Laboratory from 1992–97.

  The company designs and manufactures silicon integrated optical devices for the next generation of fibre-optic cable. It has raised $90 million of investment to date from such firms as Intel, Cisco, and 3I, and now employs 210 staff on sites in the UK, USA, and Japan.

  Business Rates
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate he has made of the impact upon the competitiveness of businesses in England and Wales of the increase in business rates for 2000–01. [100742]

  Ms Hewitt
  The purpose of the revaluation of non-domestic properties on 1 April 2000 is solely to update rateable values in line with changes in the property market since the previous revaluation in 1995 and to ensure they accurately reflect the relative rental value of properties. Although the total rateable value for England will increase—reflecting the improved state of the economy since the 1995 revaluation—the National Rate Multiplier will be reduced for the first time since it was introduced in 1990. Overall, the total amount collected in rates will be broadly the same in real terms as in 1999–2000.

  A consultation exercise was undertaken on the need to introduce transitional arrangements to mitigate the impact of the 2000 revaluation of the rates bills of individual businesses. In their responses to the consultation paper—which included a draft Regulatory Impact Assessment—the vast majority of businesses supported the need, under the present arrangements, for a transitional relief scheme. The scheme announced on 25 November will place tight limits on the amounts that individual bills can rise as a result of the revaluation.

  Textile Industry
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to meet representatives of the textile sector to discuss job losses in the industry. [101058]
  290W
  Mr. Alan Johnson
  I met the Textiles and Clothing Strategy Group, which includes representatives of textiles and clothing manufacturers, trade associations, unions, retailers and academia, to discuss issues affecting the industry on 13 October. Other DTI ministers are planning to meet representatives of the industry to discuss these issues further before Christmas

  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received from the(a) Knitting Industry Federation and (b) National Union of Knitwear, Footwear and Apparel Trades about the textile industry; and if he will make a statement. [101057]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The Department has received a number of representations about the textiles industry, including representations from the National Union of Knitwear, Footwear and Apparel Trades.

  I appreciate the widespread concern in the industry about the number and rate of job losses in the sector and I am keeping a close eye on developments. In particular, I am looking forward to seeing the report from the industry-led Textiles and Clothing Strategy Group, which will contain recommendations for action to address a number of the issues currently affecting the industry.

  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what(a) capital and (b) revenue financial assistance he has given to the textile sector in (a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98, (c) 1998–99 and (d) 1999–2000. [101059]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The Government offer support for capital investment under the Regional Selective Assistance (RSA) scheme. RSA offered to the textiles and clothing industry in Great Britain in recent years was as follows:

  Year

  £

  1996–97

  12,505,000

  1997–98

  5,863,000

  1998–99

  4,175,000

  In addition to capital support, the textiles and clothing industries have benefited from a wide range of government assistance in areas such as trade promotion, training, research and technical development, supply chain development, spreading best practice and support for design.

  Post Office
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the extent to which first class mail is delivered the next day by the Post Office. [100927]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The latest statistics published by the Post Office show that nationally, for the July-September quarter 1999, 92.1 per cent. of first class mail was delivered on the next working day following posting against a target of 92.5 per cent.

  Arms Exports (Channel Islands)
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what end-user undertakings were given with regard to arms exports to the Channel Islands between 1 January and 31 December 1998 regarding the
  291W
  permanent OIELs issued under summary classifications 14 and 333 and the SIELs issued under classifications ML1, ML2, ML3 and ML4; and if he will make a statement. [100112]

  Dr. Howells
  In almost all circumstances, applications for a Standard Individual Export Licence (SIEL) must be supported by an appropriate end-user undertaking. Where the intended consignee is a Government body, and the application is not for a licence to export chemicals listed in Schedule 2 or 3 to the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) to a state which has not ratified the CWC, a copy of the official purchase order or a copy of the relevant part of the contract covering the order is normally sufficient.

  An Open Individual Export Licence (OIEL) is specific to an individual exporter and covers multiple shipments of specified goods to specified destinations and/or, in some cases, specified consignees. The exporter must obtain from each consignee an appropriate end-user undertaking for each export before the export takes place, or not later than one month after the date of exportation.

  Under arrangements between the DTI's Export Control Organisation (ECO) and Jersey and Guernsey Customs and Excise Departments, the latter send ECO all applications for a licence to export arms or other goods controlled for strategic reasons from the Channel Islands. ECO then circulates these applications to OGDs for advice in line with their policy requirements as determined by them, before giving advice to the relevant Channel Islands licensing authority. Copies of licences issued for the export of such goods to the Channel Islands are sent to the Channel Islands authorities.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on arms exports to the Channel Islands, with specific reference to Clauses 5(a), 11(a) and 11(d) of the criteria used in considering conventional arms export licence applications. [100114]

  Dr. Howells
  All applications for a licence to export to the Channel Islands any goods subject to control by being listed in Part III of Schedule 1 to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994, as amended (commonly known as the Military List), are considered against the criteria announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on 28 July 1997,Official Report, columns 26–29, and the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports. Copies of licences issued for the export of such goods to the Channel Islands are sent to the Channel Islands authorities.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on how many occasions since 1 May 1997 the export licensing authorities of the Channel Islands have consulted his Department with regard to the re-export of arms originally exported to the Channel Islands under licence from his Department; what the outcome was of these consultations; and if he will make a statement. [100115]

  Dr. Howells
  Under arrangements between the DTI's Export Control Organisation (ECO) and Jersey and Guernsey Customs and Excise Departments, the latter send ECO all applications for a licence to export arms or other goods controlled for strategic reasons from the Channel Islands. ECO then circulates these applications to OGDs for advice in line with their policy requirements 292W
  as determined by them, before giving advice to the relevant Channel Islands licensing authority. Copies of all licences issued for the export of such goods to the Channel Islands are sent to the Channel Islands authorities.

  While ECO do not maintain a central record of the number of times that the Channel Islands authorities have requested advice, I understand that all decisions taken by the latter have been in line with the advice they have been given, whether or not the goods concerned were originally exported to the Channel Islands from the UK.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Milk Tokens
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent representations he has received on the provision of milk tokens to(a) pregnant students and (b) all women on a low income. [100037]

  Mr. Bayley
  We have received no recent representations on these matters.

  Carer's Premium
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the cost of allowing pensioners who become carers to receive the carer's premium in income support; how many new claimants he estimates would become eligible each year; and how long their entitlement would last on average. [100042]

  Mr. Bayley
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is as follows:It is estimated that the extension of carer premium entitlement to those becoming carers aged 65 or over would cost £15 million in Income Support in the year 2000–01, with 20,000 gainers, together with a much smaller sum of Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit. Information to estimate how long entitlement would last is not available.

  Notes:

  1. Cash prices. Costs rounded to the nearest £5 million, gainers rounded to the nearest five thousand.

  2. As survey based estimates, the above will be subject to sampling error. The accuracy of the costing is also affected by the limitations of the data available on the time spent caring for a sick or disabled person.

  3. The answer depends on their being underlying or actual entitlement to Invalid Care Allowance (ICA). It is assumed that all other ICA entitlement rules remain in place after the proposed change—including 35 hours spent caring, benefit overlap rules, earnings limits and receipt by the person being cared for of Disability Living Allowance (care) at the middle or higher rate or Attendance Allowance.

  Source:

  Family Resources Survey 1997–98.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people receive the carer's premium in income support; how many of these are pensioners; and at what ages these pensioners first became entitled to the benefit. [99920]

  Mr. Bayley
  As at August 1999 there were 193,000 Income Support claimants with a carer premium, of which 11,000 were aged 65 or over. The table provides
  293W
  information on the age of the claimant when they first became entitled to Income Support. They may have been in receipt of the carer premium then or subsequently.

  Income Support claimants aged 65 and over with the carer premium by age at the start of their current claim to Income Support, August 1999

  Age of claimants

  Number of claimants

  All claimants

  11,000

  Aged under 59

  3,000

  60 to 64

  5,000

  65 and over

  3,000

  Notes:

  1. Figures are based on a 5 per cent. sample of Income Support claimants as such are subject to a degree of sampling error.

  2. Caseload figures are rounded to the nearest thousand and may not sum to totals.

  Source:

  Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry, August 1999.

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the estimated loss to his Department as a result of benefit fraud during the last 12 months. [100440]

  Mr. Rooker
  Previous estimates have shown that £2 billion a year has definitely been lost through fraud. A further £3 billion may have been lost in cases where fraud is strongly suspected and a further £2 billion where there is some suspicion of fraud.

  We are now measuring the level of fraud and error in Income Support and Jobseeker's Allowance, the two most vulnerable benefits, thoroughly investigating a monthly random sample of cases in each Benefits Agency area. Staff error is measured separately by a special team within the Benefits Agency. The latest period for which figures are available is the 12 months ending September 1998 where the level of fraud and error in these benefits was £1.4 billion or 9 per cent. of the total benefit paid.

  Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in Scotland are in receipt of industrial injuries benefit. [100256]

  Mr. Bayley
  The number of assessments for Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit in payment for Scotland was 27,000 on 4 April 1998, the latest date for which statistics are available.

  Note:

  Figures for assessments are "provisional" and are based on a 10 per cent. sample of Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit, including an adjustment for late returns.

  Source:

  DSS (Analytical Services Division).

  Departmental Performance Targets
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the targets and performance indicators for his Department's policies. [100916]
  294W
  Mr. Rooker
  The Department has set out the key performance targets on which it will be judged in its PSA, and the measures of success it will use in the Output and Performance Analysis (OPA) published in March this year.

  In addition, the Secretary of State sets annual targets for the Department's agencies. These targets are announced to Parliament by means of a written parliamentary answer. A full list of the targets and target dates for the Department's agencies can be found in the Next Steps Report and in individual agency Business Plans. Performance against targets is also reported in agencies' Annual Reports. Copies of these documents can be found in the Library.

  These high level targets are supported at operational level by numerous other internal targets in order to ensure delivery by individual units.

  NIRS2
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the implications of NIRS2 problems for the implementation of stakeholder pensions in April 2001. [100646]

  Mr. Rooker
  IT support is one of a number of key issues we are addressing in the development of our implementation plans for stakeholder pensions. We are ensuring those plans take account of the difficulties so far experienced with NIRS2.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to have eliminated all remaining delays in payment of retirement pensions resulting from the transfer to the NIRS2 computer system; and if he will estimate(a) the total number of such payments still outstanding, (b) the total amount still outstanding, (c) the total number of pensioners who have been affected since the problem first occurred and (d) the likely total cost of compensation. [101141]

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many recipients of SERPS are receiving payments which have been estimated rather than calculated precisely because of NIRS2 problems; [100648]

  (2) what provisions the Government have made to ensure that pensioners are not living in undue hardship because of the NIRS2 computer problems and benefit payment backlog; [100650]

  (3) how much the Government have so far paid in compensation for NIRS2 delays; how much they expect to pay in future; and on what basis compensation is calculated; [100645]

  (4) how many pensioners are suffering unreasonable delays in receiving contributory benefits as a result of the NIRS2 problems; [100649]

  (5) how much money the Government still owes pensioners affected by the problems with NIRS2 in (a) unpaid benefits and (b) compensation. [100647]

  Mr. Rooker
  We have long-standing contingency arrangements to ensure that pensioners do not suffer undue hardship in the event that computer problems arise. Where NIRS2 cannot provide the information required to finalise a claim, clerical calculations are undertaken. Additional resources have been made available for
  295W
  processing the clerical calculations, of both additional pension and the increase earned by people who have deferred receipt of their pension beyond minimum State Pension age.

  A National Insurance benefit task force was set up to assist people who experience difficulties or who have queries about the problems arising from NIRS2.

  As at 31 October 1999 we have paid £2.113 million in compensation for NIRS2 delays to benefit recipients. Of this £1.986 million relates to the flat-rate £10 compensation payments and £0.127 million to payments made under the normal rules of the Department's Special Payments Scheme. It is not possible at this time to estimate how much more compensation will be paid because of NIRS2 delays.

  The Department operates a long-standing non-statutory compensation scheme, the terms of which have been agreed by the Parliamentary Ombudsman and his predecessors. Under the terms of the scheme compensation is calculated using the "Retail Shares and Deposit Average Rate" provided by the Building Societies Commission. Compensation may be provided for any period of delay beyond normal processing time (referred to as the "indicator of delay") for the benefit concerned. The rate currently in use is 3.872 per cent. Where a person would be due more than £10 under the terms of that scheme he or she is paid the balance in addition to the £10 outlined above.

  As at 1 November 1999 the Inland Revenue estimate the cost of additional payments to Pension Providers, in respect of individual scheme members, for the delay in the payment of Age Related Rebates, was £36.2 million.

  Up to the time that NIRS2 began providing Retirement Pension calculations on 6 January 1999, it was estimated that 285,000 pensioners had been affected by NIRS2 problems. Of these there remain about 40,000 cases to be reviewed. Not all of these will be in receipt of an incorrect amount of benefit.

  Since 6 January NIRS2 has not been able to provide the amount of additional pension (SERPS) in about 10 per cent. of the cases in which it is known SERPS entitlement exists. For these estimated 60,000 claims a year the Benefits Agency is carrying out clerical calculations, with a view to ensuring that all new pensioners are receiving their full entitlement by the date of their retirement. In total, therefore, the maximum estimated number of new pensioners affected by NIRS2 problems to the end of 1999 will be 345,000.

  Information about the full amount of Retirement Pension which has been underpaid because of the delayed implementation of the NIRS2 computer, and the compensation payable, will not be available until recovery action is complete. This is expected to be during next year.

  Benefit Payment (Methods)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the advice given to pension and benefit recipients about whether they can choose to collect their payments in their local post office. [101069]
  296W
  Mr. Rooker
  All pension and benefit recipients receive advice on all the available methods of payments including collecting their payments in their local post office.

  Free School Meals
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the estimated value of the notional amount included in family credit to compensate for non-entitlement to free school meals. [101144]

  Mr. Bayley
  When the Family Credit scheme was introduced in 1988, provision was made to replace the value of entitlement to free school meals (and free milk/vitamins for the under-fives). This was done by adding £2.55 a week to each child credit. The total child credit has since been uprated annually by the Rossi index.

  Working Families' Tax Credit was introduced from 5 October 1999. It is more generous than the Family Credit it replaces.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners aged over 75 years live with adults of below pension age; and what proportion that is of all pensioners aged over 75 years. [99397]

  Janet Anderson
  I have been asked to reply.

  An estimated 0.4 million pensioners aged 75 or over live with adults below state pension age. This represents approximately 12 per cent. of all pensioners aged 75 years or over.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Kenya
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what financial aid was given by her Department to Kenya in the last year for which figures are available, indicating the projects for which aid was given. [99585]

  Clare Short
  UK aid to Kenya in 1998–99 totalled approximately £29 million, including £23.7 million from Technical Co-operation funds, £1.3 million Financial Aid, and £4 million Emergency Aid.

  Projects over £1 million funded from Technical Co-operation and Emergency allocations and their expenditure in 1998–99 were as follows:

  £000

  Project

  Expenditure

  Kenya Agricultural Research Institute

  2,274

  Association for Better Land Husbandry

  744

  Smallholder Dairy Project

  258

  FarmAfrica Goat and Animal Health Project

  121

  Kwale Rural Support Programme

  160

  Wajir Pastoral Development Programme

  125

  ActionAid Capacity-building Programme

  95

  Wedco Microfinance, western Kenya

  743

  Kenya Women Finance Trust

  214

  Business Deregulation Project

  287

  Faulu Microfinance Project

  885

  Civil Society Umbrella Project (civil and political rights)

  236

  Support to 1999 Population Census

  400

  Primary Schools Management Project

  1,118

  297W

  £000

  Project

  Expenditure

  Strengthening of Primary Education

  1,486

  Family Health Project

  1,802

  HIV/AIDS Prevention and Care Project

  2,047

  Family Planning Interim Support Project

  162

  Emergency Provision of Malaria Drugs

  799

  Social Marketing of Condoms

  975

  Oxfam Floods Emergency Project

  1,608

  Eradication of Polio

  2,879

  Bomb Blast

  Re-equipping Kenya National Examinations Council

  967

  Re-equipping Co-operative Bank

  994

  Financial Aid in 1998–99 consisted of:

  £000

  Project

  Expenditure

  Molo-Litein Road Improvement

  589

  Pension1

  726

  1 Financial aid allocations include expenditure on the pre-independence element of pensions of former colonial public service officers.

  British Council
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what amounts were paid by her Department to the British Council in respect of work carried out overseas in(a) 1997–98 and (b) 1998–99; and what is the estimated figure for the current financial period. [100054]

  Clare Short
  The Department for International Development's payments to the British Council in respect of work carried out overseas from 1997 to the current financial period are as follows:

  £million

  1997–98

  44.8

  1998–99

  40.4

  1999–2000

  132.8

  1 figure for the financial year 1999–2000 is the current total to date

  Contracts
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance is given by her Department to British companies to win contracts from Governments in receipt of aid from her Department. [100050]

  Clare Short
  None. The Department for International Development is responsible for promoting development and the reduction of poverty. British companies are assisted by British Trade International to win business overseas.

  Complementary Medicine
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on her support(a) for traditional medicine in treatment and management of HIV/AIDS and malaria in developing
  298W
  countries and (b) for the work of the Commonwealth Working Group on traditional and complementary health systems. [100726]

  Mr. Foulkes
  We will look with interest at any conclusions which bear upon improving the health of poor people in developing countries. The Working Group promises a comprehensive review of the contribution which traditional and complementary medicine can make towards better health.

  Abortion
  Ms McCafferty
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the impact on the provision of(a) DFID and (b) joint DFID/US funded overseas family planning projects of the US Administration's decision to prohibit funding of foreign non-Governmental organisations which take part in public discussions on abortion in their own countries. [100476]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The US Administration's decision makes no difference to the commitment of this Government to helping poor people access good quality family planning and reproductive health services. It will not have a significant impact on jointly funded programmes.

HEALTH

  Nursing and Residential Homes
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the financial impact that(a) the national minimum wage, (b) the working time directive and (c) the increase in registration fees will have on nursing and residential homes. [99050]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Low Pay Commission has been asked to monitor and evaluate the introduction and impact of the national minimum wage. The Commission has undertaken a consultation and fact-finding exercise during which it paid particular attention to the effect on low-paying sectors, including social care. The Government are due to receive the Commission's report in December and will then carefully consider its findings.

  A regulatory impact appraisal on the costs and benefits for business generally resulting from the implementation of the Working Times Regulations was made, copies of which are available in the Library.

  We will carefully consider the financial impact of increases in regulatory fees on residential and nursing homes before implementing any increase.

  Epilepsy
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the prevalence of epilepsy is in each health authority area. [99839]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information is not available in the format requested.

  Epilepsy is the most common chronic neurological disorder, affecting between 400,000 and 420,000 people—one in 200 of the United Kingdom population, including 100,000 children.

  Free Prescriptions
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the basis for his policy for free prescriptions for those, not otherwise exempt, with certain medical conditions. [100014]

  Ms Stuart
  Entitlement to free prescription for those not otherwise exempt is based on the principle that those who can afford to contribute should do so, while those who are likely to have difficulty in paying should be protected.

  The extensive exemption and charge remission arrangements are intended to ensure that no-one need be deterred from obtaining any necessary medication on financial grounds.

  NHS Dentistry (Stoke-on-Trent)
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which dental practices in Stoke-on-Trent, North are currently accepting new NHS patients. [100182]

  Mr. Hutton
  We understand that two dental practices in Stoke-on-Trent, North are currently accepting new National Health Service patients and another practice in the area will also be accepting new NHS patients from January following the appointment of a vocational trainee.

  In addition, a practice in Stoke-on-Trent, North has had Investing In Dentistry moneys approved and it is anticipated that an additional surgery and the acceptance of new NHS patients will commence in the near future.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the waiting time between registration of new NHS patients and earliest appointment in Stoke-on-Trent, North; and if he will make a statement. [100183]

  Mr. Denham
  Specific data on waiting times between registration with a National Health Service dentist and earliest appointment in Stoke-on-Trent, North are not collected centrally. However, North Staffordshire Health Authority report that in Stoke-on-Trent, North new patients registering with an NHS dentist requiring urgent treatment will be seen within a week, while new dental patients requiring an extensive examination will be required to wait for a period of four to six weeks on average.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he will take to ensure emergency NHS dental services are available in Stoke-on-Trent, North. [100184]

  Mr. Hutton
  Emergency National Health Service dental services are provided as part of the General Dental Service contract to all patients registered with a NHS dental practitioner. North Staffordshire dentists operate an out-of-hours emergency rota which provides advice and care as appropriate to registered and unregistered individuals.

  There is a salaried dental service located at Basford House, Stoke-on-Trent which provides access to dental care Monday to Friday for those unable to access general dental services. In addition, an emergency dental clinic also operates at Basford House every Saturday and Sunday, including Bank Holidays.

  Optometrists
  Mr. Patrick Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) for what reason optometrists do not have a place as of right on the boards of primary care groups in England; [100492]

  (2) what discussions he has held with the First Minister of the Welsh Assembly on the (a) contribution and (b) role of optometrists on the boards of local health groups in Wales; [100491]

  (3) what plans he has to review his policy on whether optometrists should have a place as of right on the boards of primary care groups in England. [100493]

  Mr. Hutton
  The differing professional representation on primary care groups and local health groups reflects the differing roles of and expectations which we and the Welsh Assembly have of the two organisations. We feel that, in England, primary care groups can achieve high quality eye care by consulting both local optical committees and individual optometrists as appropriate. We will, however, be watching developments in Wales with interest to see what lessons can be learned.

  Mr. Patrick Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will review his policy on whether an optometric adviser should be appointed to each health authority in line with those persons already appointed to advise on general practice, dentistry and pharmacy. [100494]

  Mr. Denham
  This is for individual health authorities to decide, but we will be pointing out to them the highly worthwhile contribution which optometric advisers can make to both the development of primary eye care and the probity of general ophthalmic services.

  Primary Care
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many Primary Care Act pilots (1) were planned by the previous Government; and how many have been developed; [100196]

  (2) have been planned by the present Government; and how many have (a) been developed and (b) are in the process of being developed. [100197]

  Mr. Denham
  No Primary Care Act pilots were initiated by the previous Government.

  Personal Medical Services pilots

  Since 1998 there have been two waves of applications. In the first wave, 134 expressions of interest were received; 118 applications were received subsequently, and 102 approvals were issued. 88 schemes went live on 1 April 1998, with 83 pilots still operating at 1 September 1999.

  In the second wave, announced in October 1998, over 400 expressions of interest were received. This resulted in 315 proposals being submitted by the end of June 1999. Of those, 204 were approved, with 116 going live in October 1999 and a further 86 by April 2000.

  Personal Dental Services pilots

  Since 1998 there have been three waves of applications. There were 15 pilots in the first wave, 13 of which started in October 1998 with a further two starting in January 1999. In the second wave, 72 expressions of interest were received, and the roll-out of 23 pilots commenced in October 1999. 120 expressions of interest were received

  301W
  for the third wave. These are currently being considered. Pilots in the third wave will commence from October 2000.

  Down's Syndrome
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he will take to reduce prejudice against and misunderstanding of the clinical needs of Down's Syndrome patients within the NHS. [100194]

  Mr. Hutton
  We have already published good practice guidance on health services for people with learning disabilities: "Signposts for Success" (on commissioning and providing health services for people with learning disabilities) and "Once a Day" (for primary health care teams). We propose to build on these by ensuring that the clinical needs of people with Down's Syndrome are fully considered in our work to develop the new Government Learning Disability Strategy.

  Herbal Remedies
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the nature and scope of the proposed forthcoming recommendations from the European Commission for possible amendments to EU Directive 75/318 relating to herbal remedies; and if he will make a statement. [100252]

  Ms Stuart
  The Commission Directive 99/83 EC, adopted in September 1999, amends the Annexe to Directive 75/318 EC. This new Directive provides additional guidance on the data required to meet efficacy and safety requirements where a company seeking marketing authorisation wishes to use bibliographical data for the purposes of establishing that the product has a well established use. We will shortly be bringing forward an amendment to the Medicines for Human Use (Marketing Authorisations Etc.) Regulations 1994 to incorporate the change into United Kingdom legislation.

  It has become evident recently that there is uncertainty among a number of European Union member states on how to interpret 99/83 EC. We wish to provide stability and certainty for business. Accordingly, the Medicines Control Agency (MCA) is currently raising the issue with the European Medicines Evaluation Agency and the European Commission with a view to achieving greater clarity over interpretation. The MCA will also be discussing this question with our statutory advisory bodies, the Medicines Commission and the Committee on Safety of Medicines.

  In on-going discussions in the EU over the interpretation of Directive 99/83 EC, and over the possible creation of an additional category of traditionally used medicines, our objective for herbal remedies will be to achieve proportionate regulatory arrangements, effectively balancing consumer choice and public safety. In working towards this objective, the MCA will continue its programme of informal dialogue with the UK natural health sector.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to update the list of specified or toxic herbs which are subject to restrictions on sale and supply set out in the Schedule to the Medicines (Retail Sale or Supply of Herbal Remedies) Order 1977. [100253]
  302W
  Ms Stuart
  At Ministers' request, the Medicines Control Agency has considered the need to update the lists of herbs which are subject to restrictions on sale and supply set out in the Schedule to the Medicines (Retail Sale or Supply of Herbal Remedies) Order 1977. The agency believes that the protection of public health will be best served by updating the lists, and work is in progress to that end. Any proposals will be subject to public consultation.

  Mental Health Act 1983
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has evaluated regarding the role of paramedics currently involved in conveying people to hospital under the Mental Health Act 1983; and what training will be provided to enable the police to convey people appropriately. [100780]

  Mr. Hutton
  We know of no research on the role of paramedics involved in conveying people to hospital under the Mental Health Act. It is for individual chief constables to consider their forces' training needs in specific areas of work. National police training includes some formal training on mental illness, supplemented by practical role play exercises, during the course of the fifteen-week residential phase of the probationer training programme undertaken by all recruits to police forces other than the Metropolitan Police (which has its own training programme, including training on mental illness).

  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will encourage other police forces to adopt the arrangements which exist between the Metropolitan Police and the London Ambulance Service regarding the transport to hospital of people with excited delirium and people detained under section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983. [100781]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Mental Health Act 1983 Code of Practice encourages the development of local protocols by all the agencies involved in the operation of section 136 of the Mental Health Act. This section gives the police power to remove to a place of safety mentally disordered people found in a place to which the public have access and who are considered to be in immediate need of care or control. I understand that, in accordance with the Code of Practice, the Metropolitan Police and the London Ambulance Service are currently discussing a draft procedure to be followed on the transport to hospital of people who have been arrested under s136 of the Act. Once finalised, this will supplement existing guidance on admitting mentally ill patients to hospital and I would expect that both authorities would be willing to make it available to other organisations with an interest in these matters.

  GP Referrals
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what right NHS patients have to access to information on the length of consultants' waiting lists before they are referred for treatment by their general practitioners; and if he will make a statement. [100643]
  303W
  Ms Stuart
  Patients are entitled to ask their general practitioner about the length of the hospital consultants' waiting lists in their area before being referred to a consultant. Most National Health Service trusts routinely send information to local GPs on waiting times for their consultants, and patients can access this information by phoning the Health Information Service on freephone 0800 66 55 44.

  The Department also publishes data on the Internet on how long patients have waited for outpatient appointments and how long people are waiting on in-patient lists by speciality and by NHS trust.

  Children's Rights
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to ensure that legislation affecting the rights of the child is available in a language and format suitable for children. [100906]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information about children's rights is increasingly available in a language and format suitable for children.

  The Department has published summaries of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, some of which are available in minority languages, and leaflets on the Children Act 1989. Major child care voluntary organisations have also produced valuable materials for use in schools and other settings, some of which have been funded by central government.

  Prozac
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the possible adverse reactions to Prozac (Fluoixtine), including reported cases of depression and suicide. [99940]

  Ms Stuart
  As with all medicines the safety of Prozac is continually monitored by the Medicines Control Agency (MCA) and the independent expert advisory body, the Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM). The possible association of suicidal thoughts and hostile behaviour with Prozac was reviewed by the MCA and CSM in 1990. The available evidence did not suggest an increased risk with Prozac.

  It is well known that suicidal ideation is associated with depression. Features of depression, including suicidal behaviour, can worsen after introduction of any antidepressant prior to its beneficial effects being apparent and therefore reports of suicide attempts associated with Prozac are not unexpected. The Summary of Product Characteristics for Prozac warns that the possibility of a suicide attempt may persist until significant remission of depression occurs.

  Cystic Fibrosis
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received opposed to the extension of free prescriptions to adults with cystic fibrosis. [100111]

  Ms Stuart
  No such extension has been proposed. We have therefore received no representations opposed to it.

  NHS Employee Opinion Survey
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made on the development of a core employee opinion survey for use by NHS trusts; and if he will make a statement. [100938]

  Mr. Denham
  All National Health Service employers are required under the NHS human resources framework, "Working Together", to have conducted an annual staff attitude survey by April 2000.

  Guidance for NHS employers on good practice in designing, administering and acting upon the results of employee opinion surveys will be issued shortly. It will describe core areas which all NHS employers should cover in their surveys.

  There are no current plans to develop a core employee opinion survey for use by all NHS trusts.

  Cottage Hospital, Epsom
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reasons the question tabled on 8 October by the hon. Member for Thurrock concerning the cottage hospital at Epsom was not answered. [100935]

  Mr. Denham
  I apologise to my hon. Friend that he did not receive a reply to his earlier question. This was due to an administrative error.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what services are provided at the cottage hospital in the vicinity of Horton Country Park, Epsom. [100940]

  Mr. Denham
  The New Epsom and Ewell Cottage Hospital which is part of Epsom and St. Helier National Health Service Trust is a 20-bedded general practitioner hospital. It takes patients with any diagnosis i.e. medical, post-surgery and the terminally ill but not the mentally ill.

  It has an outpatient department covering a range of services from general medicine, general surgery, dermatology, rheumatology, ear, nose and throat, audiology and plastic surgery. GPs do minor operation sessions there.

  The hospital is also a base for nurse-led clinics for stoma, breast and urology. It is also a base for a district nursing service, health visitors for the elderly and a continence advisory service. There is also a rehabilitation team, comprising occupational therapists, physiotherapists, speech and language therapists, chiropodists and the hospital at home team.

  Winter Pressures Funding
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has for additional funding for winter pressures for 1999–2000; and if he will make a statement. [100936]

  Ms Stuart
  There are no plans to provide additional money for winter pressures in 1999–2000. The 5.1 per cent. over and above inflation increase in National Health Service expenditure awarded by the Government is allowing health authorities to plan more effectively for the health and social needs of their populations, including the provision of services throughout the winter.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Education (Leicestershire)
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the impact of the current level of Government funding for Leicestershire on education in the county. [99355]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Leicestershire will be getting an extra £12.8 million for 2000–01. It is very important that this extra funding is delivered to education by the county. They did not do so last year—I hope they will do it this time.

  Science A-levels
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proportion of(a) girls and (b) boys who take A-levels obtain at least one science A-level. [99359]

  Mr. Wicks
  Of A-level candidates in 1998, 48 per cent. of boys and 32 per cent. of girls passed at least one science subject. However, more girls than boys taking a science A-level gained a pass.

  New Deal
  Mrs. Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the New Deal for Lone Parents. [99360]

  Ms Hodge
  The programme is working well. Since October 1998, 93,690 lone parents have voluntarily agreed to have at least an initial interview with a personal adviser and 89 per cent. of those have agreed to participate further. 23,000 have found jobs.

  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the destination of those young people in Sussex who have completed the New Deal programme without securing long-term employment. [99361]

  Ms Jowell
  We know that over 1,100 young people left New Deal in Sussex for sustained work. Over 750 did not tell the Employment Service their reason for leaving but a recent survey suggests that over half of them will have found work. A further 850 left for a variety of destinations including education, training and sickness or other benefits.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much has been spent on all aspects of promotion of the New Deal. [99362]

  Ms Jowell
  A sum of £19,657,565 has been spent on promoting New Deal to employers and unemployed people. This has resulted in high levels of awareness of New Deal and positive attitudes towards it among employers and unemployed people. It helped ensure that large numbers of employers offered good quality job vacancies to those on New Deal and it demonstrably improved the motivation of unemployed people.

  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the progress of the New Deal for the unemployed. [99377]
  306W
  Ms Jowell
  The New Deal for young unemployed people continues to make good progress towards our manifesto target of moving 250,000 young people into work, which we expect to meet next year. By the end of September 1999 over 155,500 young people had found work through the New Deal, and more than 101,000 young people had benefited from training or work experience.

  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps the Government are taking to improve access to financial services for people on the New Deal. [99345]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I am pleased that earlier this year we signed an agreement with the Royal Bank of Scotland that allows New Deal participants easier access to banking facilities. I expect other banks will follow this lead.

  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will estimate the level of staff turnover among personal advisers in the New Deal programme since its inception in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) Greater London and (c) Leaside District; and if he will make a statement. [99641]

  Ms Jowell
  Information relating to the job title of Employment Service employees is not held on our central HR Information System. The estimation of the level of staff turnover for personal advisers would therefore be at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on his Department's plans for the development of the New Deal for those over 25 years. [99357]

  Ms Jowell
  We have set aside £100 million next year to enhance the existing New Deal for long term unemployed people aged 25 and over. Building on this, and to give every unemployed adult the best possible chance of finding a job, we will introduce a strengthened package of help for unemployed people aged 25 and over from April 2001, which will include a range of enhanced, work focused and high quality options for all participants.

  Standards Fund
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what recent representations he has received about the operation of the standards fund. [99364]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations about the funding of schools and local education authorities, including the standards fund.

  Internet
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he is taking to prevent children at school accessing inappropriate material via the internet. [99365]

  Mr. Wills
  We are determined that pupils should be protected from unsuitable material while accessing the wealth of educationally valuable material on the internet. DfEE and the British Educational Communications and
  307W
  Technology agency (BECTa) have produced a detailed information pack for teachers and parents about pupils' safe use of the internet. The Superhighway Safety pack, which is available free and is also on the National Grid for Learning, provides guidance on the wide range of measures which schools can adopt. These range from using walled gardens and filtering software, to monitoring and tracking pupil access and providing "user contracts" for pupils, spelling out how they should behave.

  The Grid itself is a safe area of the internet, with all sites linked to it conforming to ground rules and a code of conduct. Content must not contain unsuitable material, or links to unsuitable material. Linked sites are required to co-operate fully with GridWatch, which provides a reporting mechanism in the event of unsuitable material appearing on the Grid, as well as immediate remedial action.

  Asylum Seekers (Children's Education)
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he is taking to assist local councils in making provision for the education of children of asylum seekers who do not speak English. [99367]

  Jacqui Smith
  Children of asylum seekers are entitled to education in the same way as all other children and local education authorities receive funding for their education in the same way as for other pupils on school rolls. Children of asylum seekers who do not speak English receive extra help at school to develop their language skills through the Ethnic Minority and Traveller Achievement Grant, which is over £430 million for the next three years.

  Performance-related Pay (Teachers)
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the funding arrangements he intends to put in place to finance performance-related pay for teachers. [99368]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  We will establish a Special Grant to target resources for the performance threshold separate from schools' delegated budgets. Schools will be able to draw additional funds from this grant via their local education authority for each teacher promoted to the upper pay spine. There will be no quota on threshold successes.

  We are considering the most appropriate mechanism for funding other pay costs deriving from the Green Paper proposals.

  Disruptive Pupils
  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what action he is taking to assist schools in dealing with disruptive pupils. [99369]

  Jacqui Smith
  We are making some £500 million available over three years for projects to tackle truancy, exclusion and disruption. This is backed up with new guidance "Social Inclusion: Pupil Support" on attendance, behaviour, the use of exclusion and re-integration. In 308W
  addition, the Excellence in Cities initiative includes the provision of Learning Mentors and Learning Support Units to help schools better manage disruptive pupils.

  I recently hosted a seminar to consider the principal issues about the education of children with emotional and behavioural difficulties. We shall consider carefully the many constructive suggestions that were made.

  Textile Industry
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will assess the impact of recent purchasing decisions by Marks and Spencer on employment in the textile industry; and what measures he plans to take in response. [99371]

  Ms Jowell
  The commercial decisions of private companies are a matter for them, and the DfEE do not assess the employment implications of individual cases. In a dynamic modern economy, jobs are being created and lost all the time. However, the total number of people in employment in the UK is growing—up by over 700,000 in the last two and a half years.

  The Employment Service is there to help all individuals who lose their job to find another one, and most do so quickly. In addition to advice with jobsearch, re-training help is available for those who find it difficult to get work in their previous occupation, while people affected by a redundancy that has a significant impact on a local labour market can get access to ES programmes straight away. The Government have also established Rapid Response Units to ensure that, when a major redundancy occurs, the help individuals need to get back to work is quickly in place.

  With specific reference to textiles and clothing, my colleagues at the Department of Trade and Industry have taken a keen interest in the work of the Textiles and Clothing Strategy Group, which has been looking at ways in which the UK's textiles and clothing industry can become more internationally competitive.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Quinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the Government's plans to ensure equal opportunity and access for children who have special educational needs. [99372]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Government's strategy for raising standards for pupils with special educational needs is set out in the document "Meeting Special Educational Needs: A programme of action" published in November 1998. One strand of this programme was to expand the Schools Access Initiative to fund capital allocations to make mainstream schools more accessible to pupils with disabilities. We have allocated £20 million in the 1999–2000 financial year and expect to allocate a further £80 million over the next two years.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how he proposes to consult with children with disabilities on the provisions of the proposed Special Educational Needs Bill. [100905]
  309W
  Jacqui Smith
  The Special Educational Needs Bill will incorporate undertakings made in "Meeting Special Educational Needs: A Programme of Action", which were drawn up following extensive consultation—including with disabled children and their representatives—on the Green Paper "Excellence for All Children: Meeting Special Educational Needs".

  In consulting on the Bill, we will welcome comments from all interested parties including children with disabilities.

  Specialist Schools
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the success of specialist schools. [99373]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Specialist schools submit annual reports about progress against their targets and we monitor their examination performance compared with the performance of all other schools. Their examination success is illustrated by their average 2.5 percentage point improvement in GCSE 5 or more A* to C results between 1998 and 1999 compared with an average of 1.5 percentage points for all other schools. Research projects about the effectiveness of the specialist schools programme carried out by the London School of Economics and Leeds University will be reporting soon and will be published in the new year.

  Rural Schools
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many rural schools were closed(a) between 1979 and 1997 and (b) since May 1997; and if he will make a statement on the future of rural schools. [99374]

  Jacqui Smith
  We estimate that around 450 rural primary schools closed between 1983 and 1998. Since the increased protection for rural schools that we announced in February 1998, only six such schools have been approved for closure. We are determined to preserve access to local schools for rural communities, and our guidance to local education authorities and school organisation committees makes clear that the presumption should continue to be against the closure of rural schools.

  Local Education Authorities
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the criteria in the funding formula for local education authorities. [99375]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  My right hon. Friend is well aware that there are problems with the current funding formula for local authorities. We looked at this issue in our first year in office. But there was no consensus among the various different groups of local authorities about the way forward. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister therefore announced in December 1998 that we would conduct a fundamental review in partnership with local government: we expect to make proposals emerging from the review by the summer of 2000.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on class sizes in secondary schools in England since May 1997. [99376]

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on average class sizes in secondary schools. [99370]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The average size of classes in secondary schools remains at less than 22. That is around six below the figure for primary schools. Between January 1998 and January 1999 overall class size figures dropped from 24.9 to 24.8. Over the same period the overall pupil-teacher ratio fell from 18.9 to 18.8. Both these statistics represent the first reductions in 10 years. We have not only stopped the year on year increases seen under the previous Administration, but are reversing the trend towards higher average class sizes and pupil-teacher ratios.

  Learning Through Landscapes
  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the effects of the learning through landscapes project on schools in Eltham. [99378]

  Jacqui Smith
  The school grounds programme in Eltham is managed by Learning through Landscapes in partnership with Greenwich Local Education Authority, and with support from The Bridge House Estate's Trust Fund and the Sir John Cass's Foundation. The programme is accountable to these partners but, as an original promoter of Learning through Landscapes, my Department would be interested to receive reports of the achievements of the Eltham project in due course.

  GCSEs
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what progress the Government have made towards achieving their targets in respect of GCSEs. [99379]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  This year's GSCE results have improved for the fourth year running and indicate that we are on course to achieve the national targets for Key Stage 4 for 2002.

  Further Education
  Ms Blears
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what progress has been made in encouraging young people to remain in further education. [99358]

  Mr. Wicks
  The Government have a range of policies to encourage young people to remain in further education. For example, the £275 million Further Education Standards Fund will help to promote better retention rates in colleges; and our new student support arrangements, with an additional £30 million funding, will also help young people to keep studying.

  Secondary Education
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on expenditure on secondary education since April 1997. [99366]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The unit cost per secondary school pupil in England in 1997–98 was £2,480. This rose to £2,490 in 1998–99. We expect the upward trend to continue and have provided funding to ensure that it does. The projected estimates for the period to 2001–02 are as follows:

  £

  Year

  1999–2000

  2,540

  2000–01

  2,610

  2001–02

  2,680

  In contrast, between 1992–93 and 1997–98, secondary funding fell by £200 per pupil.

  Employee Development Schemes
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to encourage the involvement of trade unions in employee development schemes. [99938]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 30 November 1999]: My Department provides support to encourage trade union participation in Employee Development Schemes and other workplace learning activities in a number of ways:

  (i) through the Union Learning Fund, established in May 1998, which encourages trade unions to build their capacity as learning organisations. The fund supports trade union influenced workplace learning activities. A total of £12 million is allocated to the Fund;

  (ii) through co-funding projects that help the TUC to develop case studies and good practice. For example, a project that encourages the use of individual learning accounts as a mechanism for adding value to Employee Development Schemes and the TUC publications "Employee Development Schemes—case studies of union involvement" and "Trade Unions and Employee Development Schemes—a negotiator's guide";

  (iii) the TEC funded Bargaining for Skills projects have helped trade unions to raise awareness of Investors in People. Unions have use the Standard as a tool to develop skills in the workplace and to ensure the long term employability of their own staff and members.

  Education Spending
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if the extra money for education announced under the Comprehensive Spending Review (Cm 4011) includes contributions from local authorities. [100840]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The £19 billion additional funding for education across the UK (£16 billion in England) is made up of increases in central Government spending and in amounts allocated through Education Standard Spending Assessments for local authorities.

  St. Luke's Primary School, Worksop
  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will investigate the 312W
  delay to the extension to St. Luke's Primary School, Shireoaks, Worksop, Nottinghamshire; why there has been no response from his Department to documentation submitted by the architects; and if he will make a statement. [101074]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Officials gave approval that this project proceed to tender on 24 November 1998 subject to confirmation from Nottinghamshire Local Education Authority that the phasing of spending could be contained within the overall "Local Education Authority Minor Works" allocation. This confirmation was given on 8 December 1998. It is for the school, diocese and Local Education Authority to agree when the project should proceed to the next stage—that is, the invitation of tenders—and advise the Department accordingly in order to allow the subsequent release of grant. It is understood from the consultant/architects acting for the school in this matter, that the Department will receive relevant documentation shortly and it is hoped that this will enable matters to be progressed.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Kingston Internet
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department under what circumstances the Lord Chancellor's Department has required a website to be closed. [101091]

  Mr. Lock
  The Department's attention was recently drawn to material on a webspace provided by Kingston Internet to a Mr. J. F. Hulbert which contained a series of defamatory allegations against individually named judges and court staff. Consequently, the Department wrote to Kingston Internet drawing its attention to the material and inviting the company's proposals for closing the site. However, it was for Kingston Internet to consider whether the use of the webspace complied with the terms of its contract with Mr. Hulbert and it subsequently disabled the webspace.

  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what recent communications there have been between the Lord Chancellor's Department and Kingston Internet Ltd. [101090]

  Mr. Lock
  The Lord Chancellor's Department wrote to Kingston Internet on 25 October drawing attention to material on a website provided by that company to Mr. J. F. Hulbert. On 4 November the company responded indicating that it had disabled the webspace. This crossed with a letter from the Department of 5 November inquiring whether any consideration had been given to the letter of 25 October. The Department's letter of 5 November was in turn acknowledged by the company on 9 November. There have been no further communications between the Department and the company.

  Inquests (Legal Aid)
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department under what circumstances
  313W
  and for what special reasons legal aid can be made available to enable bereaved families to be legally represented at inquests. [100715]

  Mr. Lock
  An inquest is an inquiry concerned with the facts surrounding a death, rather than issues such as civil or criminal liability. Legal representation is generally considered unnecessary. Full civil legal aid is therefore not available to someone appearing at an inquest. Legal advice and assistance may be available under the Green Form scheme to those who are financially eligible in connection with inquests.

  Under section 4 of the Legal Aid Act 1988, it is possible in exceptional circumstances for the Lord Chancellor to direct that help be given in cases where it would otherwise not be available. In future, the Legal Services Commission (successor to the Legal Aid Board) will be able to seek authorisation from the Lord Chancellor to provide funding, under section 6(8)(b) of the Access to Justice Act 1999, for representation in exceptional cases where they believe that funding is warranted. My Department is currently considering with the Home Office the criteria to take into account in deciding what constitutes an exceptional case in respect of an inquest, and will seek the views of interested parties.

  Judicial Appointments (Peach Report)
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when the Lord Chancellor will publish Sir Leonard Peach's report on the operation of the appointments procedures in relation to all judicial appointments and Queen's Counsel. [101594]

  Jane Kennedy
  Sir Leonard Peach's report is being published tomorrow. Copies will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Archives
  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he proposes to publish a policy statement on archives. [101475]

  Mr. Lock
  The first ever Government policy on archives is published today. Copies of the report have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The report is also available on the internet.

  Archive services have both governmental and cultural functions. Effective records management is essential to good governance, and at the same time, our documentary heritage is a crucially important cultural asset. The revolution in Information and Communications Technology (ICT) gives the archives sector the opportunity to make major advances in both areas and to provide genuinely inclusive services to ethnic minorities, women and young people who are under-represented among archive users.

  The policy document has been produced by all the Government Departments with a responsibility for archives. It is an example of how joined-up government works to good practical effect. It will provide a framework for future Government thinking and action on archival matters.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Departmental Transport
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) how much his Department has spent on civil servants' transport in each of the last two years; [98692]

  (2) how much his Department has spent on Ministerial transport in each of the last two years. [98691]

  Mr. Battle
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Cabinet Office, 1 December 1999,Official Report, column 256W.

  GCHQ
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs who has responsibility for payment of energy bills at GCHQ in Cheltenham following the signing of the relevant PFI contract; what criteria the contract includes covering energy efficiency requirements; and if he will make a statement. [100804]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  [holding answer 1 December 1999]: GCHQ will be responsible for the energy costs. The contract requires that the Private Sector Provider (PSP) minimises energy usage, use of natural resources and associated operational costs over the life of the building.

  GCHQ has an objective to be energy efficient and environmentally friendly in line with Government policy. The PSP's contribution to this objective will be addressed in the design of the building.

  EU Code of Conduct for Arms Sales
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to ensure that the licensing authorities of(a) the Channel Islands and (b) other UK Dependent Territories are subject to the EU Code of Conduct for Arms Sales; and if he will make a statement. [99939]

  Mr. Hain
  I will write to the right hon. and learned Member shortly.

  Strategic Export Controls
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to include a summary of licences issued by the Channel Islands and Dependent Territories in future annual reports by the UK Government on Strategic Export Controls; and if he will make a statement. [100113]

  Mr. Hain
  None at present. But we will review the format and content of future reports, taking into account responses to the first two Annual Reports and, in particular, the eventual conclusions of the Joint Inquiry being carried out by the House of Commons Foreign Affairs, Defence, Trade and Industry, and International Development Committees.

  Kosovo
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many(a) Serbs, (b) Roma, (c) Bosniaks, (d) Montenegrins, (e) Turks and (f) other minorities have been abducted in Kosovo since

  315W
  the KFOR occupation; how many have (i) been rescued, (ii) left Kosovo since the KFOR occupation and (iii) been murdered since the KFOR occupation; and how many people have been charged with offences against (a) to (f) since the KFOR occupation. [101119]

  Mr. Vaz
  Since KFOR's deployment in Kosovo on 12 June 1999 and mid-November, there have been 137 abductions reported, including 43 Serbs and 77 Albanians. No figures are available for other minorities abducted nor for the number rescued.

  UNMIK estimate that 97,000 Serbs remain in Kosovo from a pre-war population of around 200,000. It is estimated that between 6,000 and 7,000 Roma or "Gypsies" remain in Kosovo. Pre-war population figures for Roma are not exact. The 1991 census figure for Roma in Kosovo was 45,000.

  In the same period from 12 June to mid-November, 379 murders have been reported in Kosovo. Of these 139 were Serbs, 145 Albanians and 99 of unknown ethnic origin. There are no details for the number of people charged with these offences.

TREASURY

  Consolidated Fund
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the instances in which sums required for fulfilling guarantees made by the Government were charged on and issued out of the Consolidated Fund in each of the last five years. [100745]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Such sums are normally paid out of voted moneys. While Departments are advised that they should consider whether an immediate statement should be made to Parliament in respect of a maturing contingent liability of this kind, information is not collected centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. There have been no payments under guarantees charged by statute directly on the Consolidated Fund in the last five years.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it is the policy of the Government that sums required for fulfilling guarantees given by the Export Credits Guarantee Department are charged on and issued out of the Consolidated Fund. [100744]

  Mr. Timms
  It is established Supply procedure for departmental payments such as claims in respect of guarantees issued by ECGD to be made out of moneys voted by Parliament. An excess requirement would necessitate drawing on the Consolidated Fund.

  Government Resources and Accounts Bill
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has for a body to be set up under Clause 15 of the Government Resources and Accounts Bill to undertake projects outside the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [100743]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Government Resources and Accounts Bill includes provisions to enable the Treasury to incur expenditure in respect of the formation of Partnerships UK and to provide financial assistance to 316W
  it. The exact size and nature of any commitments will be determined during the development process, which is currently under way. The legislation means that Partnerships UK will not be precluded from carrying on public private business outside the UK.

  EU Budget Council
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the outcome of the Budget Council held in Brussels on 25–26 November; and if he will make a statement. [100571]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Budget Council gave its second reading to the Draft EC Budget for 2000 on 25 and 26 November. This was consistent with UK objectives. The Council was firmly against any reopening of the financial perspective agreed at Berlin. The Council fully respects the EU's obligations with respect to needs in Kosovo, and is clear that the EU's share of reconstruction activity in Kosovo can be met without revising the financial perspective ceiling.

  Population Growth
  Mr. Tony Clarke
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the 10 fastest growing towns and cities in England which had the fastest population growth. [100789]

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

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Tony Clarke, dated 2 December 1999:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question asking for the ten fastest growing towns and cities in England on the basis of current population growth.
  The ONS does not produce population estimates for towns and cities. The smallest areas for which population estimates are produced are unitary and local authority areas. The following ten unitary and local authority areas have shown the largest percentage increase in population between mid-1991 and mid-1998, which is the latest year for which population estimates are available.

  East Cambridgeshire,

  Westminster,

  Kensington and Chelsea,

  Forest Heath,

  Milton Keynes UA,

  Elmbridge,

  Worcester,

  North Dorset,

  Bracknell Forest UA,

  Cambridge.

  Married Couples Tax Allowances
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the number of new pensioner couples who will be affected by the withdrawal of married tax allowances. [99085]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 29 November 1999]: Today's pensioner couples will keep the married couples allowance. Any couple where at least one spouse is 65 or over before 6 April 2000 will continue to be able to claim the allowance. In addition, any new pensioner

  317W
  couples—single people aged 65 or over before 6 April 2000—who subsequently marry will be able to start claiming the allowance after they marry.

  EU Economic and Finance Council
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the outcome of the ECOFIN Council held in Brussels on 29 November; and if he will make a statement. [101478]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer attended the Economics and Finance Council of Ministers. The Paymaster General; in her capacity of chair of the Code of Conduct Group, was also present.

  The Council adopted a directive on electronic money.

  There was a discussion of the so-called "tax package" (code of conduct on business taxation, taxation of savings, and elimination of withholding taxes on cross-border interest and royalty payments between companies). The United Kingdom position, set out in its paper on international bonds presented by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the informal meeting of the Council in September, remains unchanged. A draft report from the Council to the European Council was agreed.

  Following discussion, the Presidency concluded that Greece no longer had an excessive deficit. The formal decision would go to a future Council as an 'A' point.

  The Council finalised their report on Economic Policy Co-ordination, which will go to next week's European Council in Helsinki.

  The President of the European Court of Auditors gave an oral report on the Court's Annual Report published earlier this month outlining the priorities for reform.

  The Council discussed the progress of the Financial Services Action Plan, and draft Council conclusions, submitted by the Presidency, were agreed without discussion.

  The Commission gave a report on Financial Management and stated that improving it was one of their top priorities.

  Diesel/Water Emulsion Fuels
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how he proposes to treate, for excise duty purposes, the water content of diesel/water emulsion fuels. [101595]

  Mr. Timms
  Both EU and UK law make any liquid that is added to fuel liable to duty, even water. We do not think that is fair. We shall therefore be applying to the European Commission for a derogation enabling us to propose an amendment to the law in the next Finance Bill.

  EU Commission Draft Own Resources Directive
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures are planned for an explanation of Commission Own Resources for entry into force in 2002 under the Berlin Conclusions; and if such will lead to an increase in the Communities budget. [101034]
  318W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  An explanatory memorandum on the Commission's Draft Own Resources Decision that enacts the agreement reached in Berlin was sent to the European Scrutiny Committees on 28 July 1999. The new Draft Decision maintains the Own Resources ceiling.

  Cologne European Council
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the future role of the European central bank in employment policy, pursuant to the Cologne Summit, with particular reference to the macro-economic dialogue. [101028]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  It is recognised in the UK and across the EU that long-term, sustainable job creation requires a macro-economic climate of stability and steady growth. The addition to the European Employment Pact at the Cologne European Council of a macro-economic dialogue is a recognition of this fact. As Annexe I of the Cologne Conclusions makes clear, the dialogue is intended to be"a confidence building and confidential exchange of ideas"
  among a variety of policy actors for a better understanding of the best way to achieve macro-economic stability and hence facilitate long-term job creation. The European central bank, along with governments and social partners, will play an important role in these discussions.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will define the combat of harmful tax competition as referred to in section 22 of the Cologne Council Conclusions; and what measures are currently under discussion at EU level on this issue. [101031]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The conclusions of the ECOFIN Council meeting on 1 December 1997 concerning taxation policy state that there is a"need for coordinated action at European level to tackle harmful tax competition in order to help achieve certain objectives such as reducing the continuing distortions in the single market, preventing excessive losses of tax revenue or getting tax structures to develop in a more employment friendly way".
  There have been regular discussions in the Council of the proposed "tax package".

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the UK will be subject to the provisions of section 19 of the Cologne Council Conclusions on(a) increased policy co-ordination, (b) dialogue between the social partners, (c) dialogue with the European Central Bank and (d) development of the European Employment Pact. [101029]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Section 19 of the Cologne Conclusions refers to the Council's adoption of Broad Economic Policy Guidelines of member states and the Community. The UK Government support the use of non-binding Broad Economic Policy Guidelines as a means of developing a co-ordinated macro-economic policy mix. They welcome the involvement of a variety of relevant policy actors—including both sides of industry and the ECB—in this process through the macroeconomic dialogue, agreed at the Cologne Council as a third prong in the European Employment Pact.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures are understood by(a) limitation of the burden imposed on low-skilled and low-paid workers and

  319W
  (b) characterising retirement provision by responsibility towards future generations, in the report to the European Council at the Cologne Summit on the European Employment Pact. [101026]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The European Employment Pact recognises the importance of improving the incentives for people to work and ensuring that employment policies are sustainable. An appropriate incentive structure is one that reduces the burdens of tax on low-paid workers and ensures that they are better off in work than on benefits. The Government have implemented a number of reform measures to put this into place. The Working Families Tax Credit, reforms to National Insurance Contributions, the new 10p rate of income tax and the cut in the basic rate to 22p all reduce the burden of tax on labour, and help to ensure work pays for everyone. A long-term approach to fiscal sustainability must include a strategy to cope with demographic change, including population aging. To this end, member states—the UK included—have an interest in pursuing fiscal and budgetary policies which respect the objectives of the Stability and Growth Pact.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on, and clarify the intent of, section 24 of the Cologne Presidency Conclusions. [101032]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Section 24 of the Presidency Conclusions from the Cologne European Council relates to a proposal enabling member states to introduce a lower VAT rate on labour-intensive services for a three-year trial period beginning in January 2000. With a view to making the taxation system more employment friendly, member states are invited, without obligation, to examine this proposal.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the implementation of appropriate wage development, as called for in section 20 of the Cologne Presidency Conclusions; which sectors of employment are referred to; what his policy is thereto; and what his Department defines as appropriate. [101030]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The maintenance of "appropriate wage development", in the context of section 20 of the Cologne European Council conclusions is an essential factor in achieving macro-economic stability, in particular in keeping control of inflation. As section 20 makes clear, this is particularly imperative for the Euro 11 (the group of countries adopting the Euro in the first wave). The Cologne Conclusions do not bind the Government to specific policy measures on wage developments; however, the Government believe it is important that wage developments across all sectors reflect productivity and labour market conditions and accord with the aim of maintaining low inflation and a stable macro-economic climate.

  European Central Bank
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Court of Auditors will have access to all documents held by the European Central Bank. [101033]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Under Article 27.2 of the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank, the Court of Auditors shall 320W
  have access to the accounts of all revenue and expenditure in an examination of the operational efficiency of the management of the ECB.

  Petrol
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reasons lead replacement petrol is subject to higher duty than unleaded petrol. [101092]

  Mr. Timms
  Although LRP does not contain lead, it will generally be used by cars that formerly used leaded petrol. This part of the car population tends to be older and less fuel efficient than newer cars and consequently to have poorer emissions performance. The higher duty rate continues to keep in place an incentive for replacement of less fuel efficient cars.

  NIRS2
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many items of data are waiting to be input onto national insurance records held on the NIRS2 computer system. [100915]

  Mr. Timms
  The information requested is not available.

  Fuel Duty Escalator
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will assess the cost to the Treasury of exempting(a) the police, (b) the Fire and Rescue Service and (c) the Ambulance Service from the effects of the fuel duty escalator. [100061]

  Mr. Timms
  The Chancellor announced in the Pre-Budget Report statement that the pre-announced fuel escalator will no longer apply. Instead decisions will be made Budget by Budget.

  Incomes (North Staffordshire)
  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people are in receipt of working families tax credit in the(a) Stoke-on-Trent and (b) Stoke-on-Trent, South parliamentary constituencies. [99876]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Reliable estimates for the numbers in receipt of the Working Families Tax Credit in the Stoke-on-Trent, South parliamentary constituency are not yet available.

  Third World Debt
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the likely cost to the British exchequer of the debt cancellation package agreed at the recent G7 Cologne summit. [100044]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The debt cancellation package agreed at the G7 Cologne Summit and subsequently endorsed at the IMF/World Bank Annual Meetings provides for the cancellation of 90 per cent. or more of commercial debt in the Paris Club and 100 per cent. forgiveness of ODA debt. The UK has, of course, already cancelled all of its ODA loans ($5 billion in 98 prices). The costs of cancellation of commercial debts under the terms of the Cologne deal will fall to the Export Credit Guarantee Department (ECGD), where debt written off is scored as losses against ECGD's recoverable assets.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Tourism
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what national body is responsible for marketing tourism within England. [100259]

  Janet Anderson
  The British Tourist Authority continues to market England abroad as part of its overall remit. It does so in partnership with the Regional Tourist Boards and the English Tourism Council, with which it has an Overseas Marketing Agreement. Domestically, the English Tourism Council retains a strategic policy overview of marketing and has a major role in carrying out market research and providing advice on techniques and best practice.

  Television Licences
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if pensioners over-75 years who are to receive free television licences will also be exempt from a future digital licence fee supplement. [100048]

  Janet Anderson
  No decision has been made on the recommendation of the independent review panel on the future funding of the BBC for a digital television licence supplement for people using digital receivers.

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many pensioner households will not benefit from the introduction of a free television licence for the over-75s. [99072]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 29 November 1999]: An estimated 4.6 million pensioner households do not include a member who is aged 75 or over.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, (1) pursuant to his answer of 24 November 1999,Official Report, columns 155–56W, on TV licence concessions for 60, 75-year-olds and over, what assessment he has made of the number of households that will benefit in each of the next three years; [100473]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 24 November 1999, Official Report, columns 155–56W, on concessionary TV licences for pensioners aged over 75 years, if he will estimate the cost, at current prices, of providing licences in each of the next three years. [100472]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 30 November 1999]: I refer the hon. Member to my earlier reply on 24 November 1999, Official Report, columns 155–56W. The available forecasts of household numbers, by age group, are not sufficiently accurate to enable detailed information to be provided for future years. The costs of the concession will also be affected by the precise structure of the scheme, which the Government intend to announce shortly.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will estimate the cost of making television licences available at no cost to all pensioners. [100572]
  322W
  Janet Anderson
  The estimated cost of providing free television licences to all households including a pensioner would be nearly £700 million a year, while the cost of free television licences for all pensioner-only households would be approximately £490 million a year.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many more pensioners would benefit if the free television licence concession was extended to all households comprised only of people of state pensionable age; and how much this would cost in each of the next 10 years. [99670]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 29 November 1999]: There are an estimated 3 million households consisting only of people of state pensionable age but below the age of 75, of which approximately 100,000 qualify for the existing concessionary television licence. The estimated cost of providing free television licences to all such households is approximately £290 million a year at current licence fee levels. Costs in future years would depend on the number of households consisting solely of pensioners below the age of 75 and the level of the television licence fee, which is not fixed for the next 10 years.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many households comprising one or more people aged over 75 years are currently in receipt of a concessionary television licence. [100316]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 29 November 1999]: Detailed figures are not available, since records do not distinguish between beneficiaries who have attained the age of 75 and those who have not. However, it is estimated that approximately 500,000 households currently in receipt of a concessionary television licence include a person aged 75 or over.

  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on what date the scheme to provide free television licences to pensioners over the age of 75 will be introduced. [99860]

  Janet Anderson
  We will announce full details of the scheme, including the starting date, in the near future.

  Mr. Tony Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many households with members over the age of 75 years will receive free television licences from August 2000; and how many households with members between the ages of 60 and 75 years will not receive free television licences. [100785]

  Janet Anderson
  Over three million households include a member aged 75 or over and will therefore benefit from the free television licences announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We hope to announce details of the scheme, including the starting date, shortly. An estimated three million households consist only of people of state pensionable age but below the age of 75, of which approximately 100,000 qualify for the existing £5 concessionary television licence.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) how many people aged 75 years and over in(a) Shrewsbury and Atcham and (b) Shropshire will receive free television licences; and if he will make a statement; [101129]
  323W
  (2) how many pensioners in (a) Shrewsbury and Atcham and (b) Shropshire will benefit from free television licences for those aged over 75 years; and if he will make a statement. [100591]

  Janet Anderson
  As at mid-1998, the latest date for which figures are available, the estimated number of people in Shrewsbury and Atcham County District aged 75 or over was 7,900 and the estimated number in the County of Shropshire 23,300. As the Government have announced, every pensioner aged 75 or over will receive their television licence free of charge.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if it is the policy of the Government that households with one or more people aged over 75 years should be able to enjoy free access to the digital services of the BBC. [100317]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 29 November 1999]: All BBC public service channels are and will continue to be available free-to-air to all licensed households with the necessary receiving equipment.

  Corporate Assets
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what his estimate is of the current value of property(a) in Scotland, (b) in England, (c) overseas and (d) in total held by (i) the BBC, (ii) the ITC, (iii) the Radio Authority, (iv) Channel 4, (v) the S4C and (vi) the Office of the National Lottery; and what is the value of other assets held by these bodies. [99826]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 26 November 1999]: The value of property and other assets held by these organisations is:

  £ million

  Property

  England

  Scotland

  Overseas

  Total

  Other assets

  BBC

  434.8

  8.0

  15.1

  477.90

  1,407.0

  ITC

  2.5

  0

  0

  2.5

  1.7

  Radio Authority

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0.53

  CH4

  70.0

  0

  0

  70.0

  0

  S4C

  0

  0

  0

  11.0

  3.6

  OFLOT

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0.93

  Total

  507.3

  8.0

  15.1

  561.40

  1,413.76

  Note:

  These figures are the latest available (1998–99). The total value of property held includes that held in Wales and Northern Ireland. S4C hold property only in Wales. OFLOT became the National Lottery Commission on 1 April 1999.

  New Earnings Survey (Tourism)
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport following the publication of the Government's New Earnings Survey, what action his Department is taking to reverse the trend of falling incomes among the lower-paid workers in the tourism industry. [100258]

  Janet Anderson
  It is not possible to draw conclusions about tourism as a whole from the New Earnings Survey because there is no single tourism industry. Average weekly earnings for people with manual occupations 324W
  associated with tourism activities grew between 1998 and 1999 by at least the average increase in manual earnings for the economy as a whole.

  Carn Brea Leisure Centre
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations he has received regarding Kerrier District Council's decision to close Carn Brea Leisure Centre in Cornwall. [100228]

  Kate Hoey
  I have received numerous letters about the proposed closure of Carn Brea Leisure Centre. The majority of these have come from local schools and those in the surrounding area, which will lose the important swimming facilities provided by Carn Brea when the Centre closes. I also met a delegation of Leisure Centre users, led by my hon. Friend, on 23 November to discuss their concerns about the Centre's closure.

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list those individuals and companies who have expressed an interest in(a) purchasing and (b) leasing the Millennium Dome after the end of the Millennium Experience. [99321]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 24 November 1999]: The competition to find a sustainable use for the Dome beyond the Millennium Experience was launched in March of this year. It is being managed on behalf of the Government by English Partnerships (EP), the urban regeneration agency for England, in co-operation with the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC), the operating company for the Millennium Experience.

  Initially, more than 60 organisations responded and their ability to deliver a possible future use for the site was assessed before issuing the invitation to a long short-list of 12. Those 12 organisations were asked to submit outline ideas by the end of October. Nine responses were received and assessment of their proposals are under way. Details of the nine responses remain commercially confidential.

  The Government hope to make an announcement on the final short-list early in the new year. A final decision on the successful bidder will be made in the summer of 2000.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will publish a list of those invited to attend the Millennium Dome on 31 December, other than those described as ordinary members of the public. [99336]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 30 November 1999]: I hope the hon. Member will understand that for reasons of security it is not possible to publish a list of those invited to attend.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture. Media and Sport what advice his Department is giving to the Millennium Experience Company on the disposal of the Millennium Dome after 31 December 2000. [100261]

  Janet Anderson
  The Competition for the future use of the Dome was launched in March 1999, and is being run on behalf of the Government by English Partnerships
  325W
  (EP), the urban regeneration agency for England, in co-operation with the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC).

  Officials from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) are monitoring all stages of the competition and advise Ministers accordingly.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many accidents at work have been recorded so far during the construction and preparation of the Millennium Dome, broken down by quarter and by type of accident. [99337]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 1 December 1999]: Accidents reported by the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) under the requirements of the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995 (RIDDOR; SI 3165) are as follows and cover the period 1 August 1997 to 10 November 1999:

  1997

  1998

  1999

  1st Quarter

  Major Specified Injuries1

  —

  1

  0

  Three Day Reportable Injuries1

  —

  1

  1

  2nd Quarter

  Major Specified

  —

  1

  0

  Three Day Reportable

  —

  0

  5

  3rd Quarter

  Major Specified

  0

  0

  2

  Three Day Reportable

  3

  0

  4

  4th Quarter

  Major Specified

  1

  2

  22

  Three Day Reportable

  0

  1

  24

  1 As defined under RIDDOR (Major specified injuries include any break of bones except fingers or toes; three day reportable injuries are those where the injured person does not report for work for a three day period after the date of the accident)

  2 To date

  Note:

  There have been no fatalities on the site.

  The accident frequency rate for the Dome site, which takes into account the number of injuries, the normal working life-span of employees and contractors and the number of hours worked, is below the national average established by the Health and Safety Executive. NMEC has provided Safety Induction Training for over 13,000 employees, contractors and sub-contractors. For a construction and work programme of the size and complexity of the Dome the RIDDOR figures reflect a laudable safety record.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will break down the construction costs of each zone within the Millennium Dome. [99338]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 1 December 1999]: The New Millennium Experience Company considers the construction costs of each zone to be commercially sensitive. Release of the information could prejudice the company's ability to obtain optimum value for money from the range of procurements applicable to each zone, and potentially its relationship with contractors. The Shareholder of NMEC supports this view as do I.
  326W
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what proposals for the content of the Millennium Experience were received by ministers and the New Millennium Experience Company from the National Book Committee; and what response was given. [98824]

  Janet Anderson
  Clive Bradley of the National Book Committee wrote to the Minister without Portfolio on 27 March 1998 with proposals for how the importance of the written English language might be reflected in the Millennium Experience, and suggesting some authors who might play a role. The Minister passed the letter to NMEC for their consideration and asked Mr. Bradley to keep him informed of developments. No further correspondence can be traced.

  Mr. Bradley also wrote to Jennie Page, NMEC Chief Executive, about the role of the book sector in millennium activities, and included proposals prepared by the Children's Book Group of Publishers Association linked to the theme and content of certain zones in the Dome. Ms Page explained that it was unlikely that the proposals would be taken forward in the precise format outlined, but that they would be fed into the creative process by those in the company with day-to-day editorial control of the relevant zones. Ms Page said that she was interested in exploring the future of books as part of the focus on literacy in the Learning zone and also the function of books as a tool to help us expand our minds in the Mind zone. She said that she would welcome any further views the National Book Committee might have on these issues and asked that they be addressed to the named zone editor who would coordinate NMEC's response. NMEC are unable to trace any further correspondence.

  Digital Television
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many households have digital television in(a) the UK and (b) each other EU country. [100047]

  Janet Anderson
  By the end of September, BSkyB had signed up 1.8 million subscribers and ONdigital had signed up 411,000 subscribers in the UK. Information about the number of UK households which have digital television without subscribing to digital pay-tv services is not available. My Department has no readily available information on the numbers of digital television households in each EU country.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on his plans for securing access to the Internet through digital television. [100136]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 30 November 1999]: As we take forward plans to switch analogue television transmissions over to digital, the Government will consider whether internet access might be guaranteed as part of a core package of services available to all viewers. We are also working with the industry on a public information campaign which will inform consumers about the benefits digital television has to offer; the services available, including internet access, and the equipment they will need.

  Sydney Paralympics
  Mrs. Betty Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assistance his Department has provided to paraplegic athletes in their preparations for the Sydney Paralympics in 2000. [99843]

  Kate Hoey
  [holding answer 29 November 1999]: In preparation for the Sydney 2000 Paralympic Games, the British Paralympic Association (BPA) has

  £

  Sport

  Period of award

  Combined performance and subsistence

  Athletics

  1 May 1998–31 December 1999

  2,171,522

  Swimming

  1 August 1997–30 September 2000

  3,133,136

  Wheelchair basketball

  1 October 1997–31 May 2000

  8,226,739

  Wheelchair rugby

  1 August 1999–31 July 2000

  149,476

  Table Tennis

  1 December 1997–31 January 2000

  185,858

  Shooting

  1 July 1999–30 November 1999

  65,000

  Powerlifting

  1 July 1999–30 September 2000

  112,566

  Goalball

  1 August 1999–31 July 2000

  110,220

  Sport England Lottery Fund
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the cities that have received funding from the Sports Council's lottery funding. [100442]

  Kate Hoey
  To date, the following cities have been awarded funding from the Sport England Lottery Fund.

  £

  City

  Total award

  Total project cost

  Birmingham

  11,850,738

  16,478,416

  Bradford

  2,461,949

  4,356,305

  Bristol

  4,317,967

  6,272,568

  Cambridge

  9,012,993

  14,717,658

  Canterbury

  3,836,475

  5,032,395

  Carlisle

  1,531,910

  2,549,444

  Chester

  1,211,912

  2,054,664

  Chichester

  1,095,369

  1,890,041

  Coventry

  46,412,826

  67,927,735

  Derby

  1,193,414

  3,218,349

  Durham

  620,170

  1,013,347

  Exeter

  41,337

  76,557

  Gloucester

  11,984,003

  16,989,376

  Greater London

  226,754,885

  484,433,107

  Kingston upon Hull

  218,656

  339,016

  Lancaster

  5,051,541

  11,383,754

  Leeds

  16,009,144

  24,628,060

  Leicester

  1,637,226

  3,835,822

  Lincoln

  467,821

  603,044

  Liverpool

  17,660,223

  26,914,325

  Manchester

  28,712,462

  41,151,069

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  10,898,180

  16,123,864

  Norwich

  14,567,220

  17,657,920

  Nottingham

  22,721,667

  39,260,006

  Oxford

  191,186

  346,764

  Peterborough

  331,531

  756,172

  Plymouth

  4,222,530

  6,608,519

  Portsmouth

  12,414,360

  22,381,600

  Salford

  966,049

  1,353,583

  Sheffield

  15,748,753

  21,389,041

  Salisbury

  677,088

  984,223

  Southampton

  11,657,261

  19,398,699

  St. Albans

  2,307,272

  4,713,275

  Stoke-on-Trent

  8,753,332

  10,973,800

  Wakefield

  5,974,631

  7,721,503

  Winchester

  2,051,808

  3,048,480

  Worcester

  353,658

  744,968

  York

  768,486

  1,098,222

  328W
  received a World Class Performance funding total of £455,030. Paralympic athletes—who include paraplegic competitors—will also benefit from the BPA's Core Preparation Programmes funding and should be in receipt of both personal subsistence and core programme capital if their sport has made a successful application for World Class Performance funding.

  The funding support to date for each Paralympic sport, which includes paraplegic programmes, is as follows:

CABINET OFFICE

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many executive agencies and non-departmental public bodies were in existence; what was their total annual running cost; how many employees they had; how many board members they had; and how many were in existence per sponsoring department in each of the last five years. [101066]

  Mr. Stringer
  The number of executive agencies in existence in each of the last five years is as follows:

  Year

  Number of agencies as at 31 December

  1994

  1104

  1995

  1111

  1996

  1131

  1997

  2142

  1998

  2142

  1 Figure includes HM Customs and Excise and Inland Revenue which are departments operating fully on Next Steps lines.

  2 Figure includes HM Customs and Excise, Inland Revenue, Crown Prosecution Service and Serious Fraud Office which are departments operating fully on Next Step lines.

  The Next Steps Agencies in Government Review 1995 and 1996, and the Next Steps Report 1997 and 1998, provide details of the total annual running cost and the number of employees for each agency. The Next Steps Agencies in Government Review 1994 also provides details of the number of employees for each agency. Details of the total annual running cost for each agency in existence in 1994 is not centrally held. Executive agencies do not have board members.

  The number of non-departmental public bodies in existence in each of the last five years is as follows.

  329W

  Year

  Number of NDPBs as at April

  1994

  1,345

  1995

  1,227

  1996

  1,194

  1997

  1,128

  1998

  1,073

  The Government's annual publication "Public Bodies" for these years provides the relevant details for each body. Copies of these publications are in the Library of the House. "Public Bodies 1999", which is due to be published later this month, will set out the figures for 1999.

  £

  Value of assets

  Land and property

  Executive agency

  In Scotland

  Total

  Total assets

  Civil Service College

  0

  8,003,000

  9,567,000

  Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency (CCTA)

  0

  0

  1,386,000

  Government Car and Despatch Agency (GCDA)

  0

  0

  2,560,000

  Property Advisers to the Civil Estate (PACE)

  699,000

  1,683,000

  18,667,000

  The Buying Agency (TBA)

  0

  0

  527,000

  Central Office of Information (COI)

  0

  0

  1,295,000

  Total

  699,000

  9,686,000

  34,002,000

  PACE: Surplus land and property on the Civil Estate for disposal

  2,200,000

  52,699,000

  —

  The Department is at present implementing resource accounting. Values have been derived from audited accounting information. The first year of published resource accounts will be in respect of 1999–2000.

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office which executive agencies were(a) established and (b) abolished in (i) 1998 and (ii) 1999. [100623]

  Mr. Stringer
  A list of executive agencies which were established and abolished in 1998 and 1999 is set out as follows:

  Agencies established in 1998
  Debt Management Office
  Defence Communication Services Agency
  Forest Service
  Maritime and Coastguard Agency1
  Agencies Abolished in 1998
  Security Facilities Executive Agency2
  Agencies Established in 1999
  Defence Aviation Repair Agency3
  Defence Housing Executive
  Defence Procurement Agency
  Defence Storage and Distribution Agency4
  Defence Transport and Movements Agency5
  Agencies Abolished in 1999
  Government Property Lawyers6

  Departmental Estate
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office (1) what his estimate is of the current value of land and property held by the Cabinet Office in (i) Scotland and (ii) in total; [99727]

  (2) what his estimate is of the current value of land and property (a) in Scotland and (b) in total held by each of the executive agencies within the responsibility of his Department; and if he will give the total value of assets held by these bodies. [99728]

  Mr. Stringer
  The total current value of the land and property held by the Cabinet Office, excluding executive agencies, is £69,715,000, none of which is in Scotland.

  The current value of assets held by each executive agency within the responsibility of the Minister for the Cabinet Office in the requested categories is given in the table.

  1 The Maritime and Coastguard Agency was launched as a result of the Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions merging the Marine Safety Agency and the Coastguard Agency.
  2 On 14 May 1998, the then Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, Peter Kilfoyle, announced that the Security Facilities Executive Agency was no longer a viable organisation and that it would cease to be an executive agency from 1 July 1998.
  3 Defence Aviation Repair Agency was launched as an agency incorporating the RAF Maintenance Repair Organisation and Naval Aircraft Repair Organisation.
  4 Defence Storage and Distribution Agency was launched as an agency incorporating the majority of the Army Base Storage and Distribution Agency.
  5 Defence Transport and Movements Agency was launched as an agency incorporating the Defence Transport and Movements Executive.
  6 Following an evaluation of Government Property Lawyers (GPL) and a Prior Options Study, the Attorney-General concluded that against the background of a declining work load, the business of the GPL Agency had become non-viable and there was no longer a requirement to maintain a central conveyancing function in the public sector.
  In addition to those agencies above which were abolished, in 1998 the Historic Royal Palaces Agency changed its status to that of a Non-Departmental Public Body. The Social Security Contributions Agency was incorporated in Inland Revenue in 1999 as an Executive Office (National Insurance Contributions Office).

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Organic Farming
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of whether the additional sum he has allocated for organic conversion will provide for all those farmers who have already begun the investments required for certification. [100792]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 30 November 1999]: Information provided by the organic sector bodies shows that the additional funding will be sufficient to provide for all farmers in England who had applied to them for registration by 4 October when the Organic Farming Scheme (OFS) was suspended. Registration with an organic sector body is a condition of entry to the OFS. A number of farmers who applied for registration after 4 October will also have been able to submit applications for aid.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to promote meat products produced from animals raised to high standards of animal welfare. [100761]

  Ms Quin
  For species such as pigs, where animals produced in the UK are subject to higher statutory welfare standards, we have been encouraging retailers, caterers and public procurement authorities to source their supplies to British standards. These high welfare standards offer the domestic pig industry a strong marketing advantage. This is recognised by the Meat and Livestock Commission, the body responsible for promoting meat and meat products, which has made welfare an important part of its British Quality Standard for pigmeat scheme.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the enforcement regime for animal welfare legislation for farm animals. [100762]

  Mr. Morley
  Our approach to enforcement of the law on farm animal welfare is kept under regular review. The recent report on this subject from the Farm Animal Welfare Council and the secondment to MAFF of local authority enforcement officers contribute to this process.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received in the last six months suggesting changes in the legislation on animal welfare for farm animals. [100763]

  Mr. Morley
  I have received a number of representations in respect of farm animal welfare legislation, in particular in response to consultations on the draft Welfare of Farmed Animals Regulations and on the Welfare of Animals (Transport) Order 1997.

  Fishing Sectors
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his policy on vessels from the Republic of Ireland fishing in the British sector of area Vila and south west of the Isle of Man. [100728]
  332W
  Mr. Morley
  The rights of vessels from the Republic of Ireland to fish within UK six to twelve mile territorial waters are set out in Annex I of EU Regulation 3760/92.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in respect of vessels from the Republic of Ireland fishing in area VIIa and South West of the Isle of Man, what (i) surveillance and (ii) boardings have been carried out in the last 12 months; what conservation measures must they comply with; to what extent they are obliged to comply with conservation measures introduced by the UK; how many vessels from the Republic of Ireland have licences to fish these waters; and how these licences were acquired. [100729]

  Mr. Morley
  From January to November 1999, the total number of Republic of Ireland (ROI) vessels sighted in Area Vlla (which includes the water South West of the Isle of Man) was 87. Five boardings were made. These vessels must comply with the relevant EU Technical conservation measures for the area, including, for example, minimum landing sizes. They are not obliged to comply with additional conservation requirements laid down in our domestic legislation. Details of the number of ROI vessels licensed to fish in Area Vlla and the terms on which these licenses were granted are held by the authorities in Dublin.

  Floods (Bye Report)
  Mr. Tony Clarke
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made by the Environment Agency in respect of its action plan following the Easter 1997 floods and the subsequent report of Sir Peter Bye. [100784]

  Mr. Morley
  The Environment Agency produced an Action Plan for implementing the recommendations in the Independent Report on the Easter 1998 Floods, chaired by Sir Peter Bye.

  The Chairman of the Environment Agency has provided me with a report of progress up to the end of September 1999. Copies have been placed in the House Libraries.

  I am pleased to note that the Agency remains on course for completing the substantial work programme set out in the Action Plan to the agreed timetable.

  Key developments since the Agency's last report, which covered the period to end of June 1999, are as follows.

  Indicative flood plain maps for all watercourses with a catchment greater than 10 square kilometres in England and Wales have been delivered to over 450 local authorities.

  Pilot work on flood warning awareness has been analysed and brought together to form the basis of the 1999 public awareness campaign which commenced on 18 October and to which I was pleased to lend my support. The first phase of the campaign focused on raising awareness of flood risk and self help measures to reduce flood damage. Future elements will repeat and reinforce these basic messages and introduce new and additional information to improve public understanding.
  333W
  The head of the Agency's National Flood Warning Centre has been recruited and the programme is in place for the centre to be operational by the end of the year.

  The results of a review of the Agency's internal management have been translated into a project plan which will see the core flood defence roles and responsibilities harmonised across the Agency by the end of December 1999, with full implementation by April 2000.

  Work continues in other important areas such as the project to implement the operational changes to the colour coded flood warning messages by September 2000.

  The Agency continues to work with local authorities in inspecting and recording the condition of all flood defences. Details of defences owned and/or operated by the Agency and local authorities are being collated. However, one area of uncertainty is the inspection of flood defences owned and/or operated by third parties. The question of how to identify such defences, and the scale of the inspection exercise that will be required, is currently being considered by the Agency in partnership with other operating authorities.

  The Agency continues to make good progress in implementing the Easter Floods Report and I will ensure that the House is updated on future progress.

  Farmers (Diversification)
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures he is taking to assist farmers to diversify their businesses. [100275]

  Mr. Morley
  Funding to encourage a wide range of agricultural activities, including farm diversification, is available in the six areas designated under the English Objective 5b Structural Fund Programmes which are due to close on 31 December 1999. The European Council Rural Development Regulation (1257/1999), which applies from 2000, enables member states to support projects to encourage diversification of agricultural activities, among other things. A decision on the implementation of the Regulation will be made shortly.

  Climate Change Levy
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with(a) the Treasury and (b) the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions about securing an 80 per cent. discount from climate change levy rates for protected horticulture. [100459]

  Ms Quin
  We have discussed the potential impact of the levy on protected horticulture with both Departments.

  Animal Feed
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what evidence he has 334W
  received as to whether transgenic plant DNA is broken down in commercial processing and treatments in animal feed. [100167]

  Ms Quin
  Ministry-funded work has confirmed that DNA is degraded during the processing of most animal feed materials. For example, extracting oil from oilseeds caused complete degradation of the DNA in the by-products. This work, and a further current study, has concerned commercially available feed ingredients as an indicator of what would happen to transgenic plant material.

  Post Offices
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the principal activities of his Department and its agencies which provide business for(a) Crown post offices and (b) other post offices; if he will assess whether the level of business generated in each case is likely to increase or decrease over the next five years; and which new areas of business for post offices are likely to be developed by his Department and its agencies over the same period. [99559]

  Mr. Morley
  My Department and its agencies do not have activities or services which provide business for post offices, and currently no specific areas of business are foreseen, but the targets for electronic delivery of services (50 per cent. by 2005 and 100 per cent. by 2008) set out in the Modernising Government White Paper represent a real opportunity for additional business for the Post Office network across all public services delivered by central Government.

  Beef Exports
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimates his Department has made of the losses incurred by British farmers as a result of French and German import restrictions on British beef since 1 August. [98750]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 22 November 1999]: It has not been possible to sell British beef in France or Germany since March 1996, and inevitably it will take time to build up sales when these countries lift their import restrictions. Any estimate of sales lost since 1 August would be entirely speculative.

  Brixham Port
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on how many occasions he has paid a visit to Brixham in South Devon since May 1997; and if he will visit the fishing port before 2000 to discuss with local fishermen their quota problems in Area VII. [100800]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 1 December 1999]: Since 1997, I have had frequent discussions with fishermen, including those from the South West, on a wide range of matters. I shall be visiting Brixham on 6 December 1999.

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

Christmas Day
The Lord Bishop of Oxfordasked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to ensure that Christmas Day remains a day of value in the life of the nation, both as the celebration of the birth of Christ and as a shared day of rest.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, it is clear that Christmas Day continues to be of great importance to the people of this country, for both religious and family reasons. In a diverse multicultural society it can, of course, be celebrated in many different ways. I believe that the present legal framework, which has effectively remained unchanged for many years, is more than adequate to enable the special nature of Christmas to be preserved.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he share my concern that a major national food retailer is intending, in the course of time, to open 1,000 or more small convenient shops, employing more than 10,000 people and that the shops will open on Christmas Day with, as I understand it, no opt-out clause? That will undermine the general principle of a shared day of rest and enjoyment.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I recognise the right reverend Prelate's concerns and those of others about the decision by a supermarket last year to open one or two of its stores on Christmas Day. I am grateful to him for the information he has drawn to our attention this afternoon. However, to date the Home Office has received very few complaints about this or other matters relating to shop opening on Christmas Day. As noble Lords are aware, that is entirely within the law unless it falls on a Sunday.
Lord Elton: My Lords, will the Minister accept that that is one complaint? Does he agree that experience of legislation on Sunday trading has shown, without doubt, that changes in commercial practice entirely alter the character of the day and the ability of families of all denominations to get together on that day? Will not this change begin the process with Christmas Day that has been evident for years on Sunday? Should it not be checked by legislation?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord makes some interesting comments, as a contribution
908
to what could be a new area of debate. I am not convinced that our Sundays have changed so dramatically, as the noble Lord suggests. I quote figures from a survey by Healey & Baker, who are well respected in the field. They suggest that, while one in three people shop on a Sunday at least once a month, 45 per cent never shop on a Sunday and 20 per cent are strongly morally opposed to Sunday shopping. So there is clearly a divergence and diversity of views. Some people hold, and will continue to hold, Sunday as a special day. I do and I am sure the noble Lord does. All those with strong family commitments value the day for that and for its Christian purpose.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I should like to register one more complaint.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for the complaint, I shall register it, take it away and investigate it.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, is it not time that we stopped talking all this nonsense about a multicultural society? It is no more multicultural than it ever was. People come here; I am an immigrant from Ireland. We immigrants are a minority. We ought to stop talking about it. Only a handful of people belong to a different culture.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I defer to the noble Earl with his infinite wisdom on such matters, but the facts of the situation speak for themselves. We live in a multicultural, multifaith society and communities. That is the reality. We should live and work with it, celebrate it and enjoy it. It is a strength of our society and a strength of the diverse communities in which we live.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that, under the Bank Holidays Act 1871, no employer can compel anyone to work on Christmas Day or any other bank holiday?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I confess that I am not intimately conversant with that piece of legislation. Perhaps I should be and no doubt the noble Lord is. Working on Sundays is very much a matter of contract. The contract is the document on which employees should rely powerfully. If there are breaches of contract by employers, then employees are quite entitled to take those issues to industrial tribunals to have them properly resolved in their interest.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in the 1980s I represented shop workers when the question of Sunday trading was debated in both Houses? It was the party opposite who wanted to abandon the 1952 shops legislation. It brought in deregulation by default because this House was opposed to the system. However, does my noble friend agree that, although there may not be too many complaints from workers in the industry about

909
working on Christmas Day, it might be the result of fear over their security of employment and possible promotion?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord makes an important point about the relationship between employee and employer, and it is one of which we should take careful note. But the legislation on Sunday trading has worked well and appears to enjoy broad support. We have not received many complaints about it. We must always ensure that those who are in a weak and vulnerable position are properly protected by the law.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that we have celebrated Christmas very successfully for the past two millennia—taking the long-term view—and that it would be appropriate to continue so doing for the next millennium?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Baroness.
Baroness Young: My Lords, does the Minister agree that perhaps the reason that there have not been many complaints about Sunday trading is that very few shops were open last Christmas and none of us realised how many might be open in future which would affect the day? Will the noble Lord take into consideration the effect that this would have on people who would be required to work on Christmas Day? Does he accept that many of us who are unhappy about Sunday trading believe that the character of at least some towns has changed as a result of this activity on Sunday?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I believe that the situation is one with which most people in society are generally happy. I accept that not everyone is happy with the legislation. That much was clear when the 1994 legislation came into being and there was a wide and divergent debate about it. I believe that most people accept that Sunday is a special day and Christmas Day particularly so. I do not seek to become Minister for Christmas Day, but I shall play my part to ensure that it is protected in a way that fits with the traditions of our country.

United States: Ballistic Missile Defence
3.15 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaireasked Her Majesty's Government:
What recent exchanges they have held with the United States Administration on proposals to develop ballistic missile defence.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, the Government have a continuous dialogue with the United States
910
Administration on ballistic missile defence issues in general. The US Administration has also briefed us nationally and in NATO on its current thinking on the possible establishment of a national missile defence system designed to defend the US against limited attack by ballistic missiles.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her Answer, but can she confirm that it is part of the American assumption that US missile warning systems in this country are a necessary part of its defence and that Fylingdales would have to be upgraded for the proposed national ballistic defence system? Does that give Her Majesty's Government a certain additional standing and leverage in this American debate?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, although the US has briefed us on its current thinking on the kind of national missile defence system that it may seek to establish, should it decide to deploy such a system, it has not come to a decision that that is what it wants to do. It has also made clear that no such decision will be taken before next June. Questions about any possible UK involvement are, therefore, premature at this stage.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, as both the US and British Governments are committed, theoretically, to abolishing nuclear weapons, it would be a good idea if some of these discussions covered that subject instead of considering how the system can be improved? Is it not high time that the United States and the British Government got together and began to discuss nuclear disarmament?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have always taken the issue of nuclear disarmament very seriously in a number of fora. Discussions with our friends and allies continue. We entirely understand that we cannot afford to ignore the threat from the proliferation of ballistic missiles. That is a matter of real importance to all of us.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, does the Minister agree that NATO remains the bedrock of western defence? Is there not a huge danger in all this talk about setting up a European Union army that the United States will feel increasingly isolated in NATO, which will encourage her to think again about a ballistic missile shield?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, NATO remains extremely important. Currently, there is no sign that the United States feels isolated. We are discussing with our friends matters pertaining to that issue, and that situation will continue. There is no need at this moment for any degree of alarm.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, will the Minister take a rather more urgent attitude in view of the fact that, first, according to American sources

911
there is a possibility that the anti-ballistic missile treaty of 1972 would Lave to be breached, and, secondly, there is a real danger that Russia will not, as she has made clear, consider further the ratification of SALT II or proceed to SALT III if there is any question of the establishment of an anti-ballistic missile system? Virtually the whole of the slow progress towards mutual world disarmament could be put at risk. Will the Minister ponder that in her further responses?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the American Administration and the Russians are looking at this issue together. The US Administration has not yet decided to deploy a national missile defence system, and it has made clear that it will not do so until June. We have welcomed the US recognition that if an NMD system is pursued it will be important to preserve strategic stability.
We have also welcomed the agreement of Presidents Clinton and Yeltsin at Cologne in June that the US and Russia should begin talks on the anti-ballistic missile treaty and on further cuts in the US and Russian nuclear arsenal.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, does the Minister agree that we are not talking only about national missile protection systems but theatre missile defences and the defence of expeditionary forces, should we need to use them in the future? Does the noble Baroness agree that deterrence is no longer sufficient protection against rogue states in possession of ballistic missiles? Will she assure the House that we shall keep our minds open on this and continue our discussions to that end with the United States?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the UK, US and allies are actively engaged in efforts to counter the proliferation of missiles and of weapons of mass destruction. We are in discussion with the Americans about the consideration that they are giving to a defence system. We shall of course continue to consider openly the issue as to what would best meet British interests.

Defence Medical Services
3.21 p.m.
Baroness Coxasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the Defence Medical Services have the capability to meet the current and potential needs for medical care of the Armed Forces.
Lord Burlison: My Lords, I am pleased to say that the Defence Medical Services have met all their operational commitments to date. The call-up of medical reservists may be necessary in future according to the scale of possible additional operational commitments. Regrettably, shortages of medical personnel mean that service personnel in the
912
United Kingdom wait longer for hospital treatment than we would wish. However, we are working hard to address that issue.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Does he agree that there is a disturbingly high rate of premature voluntary retirement of senior experienced medical personnel which has serious implications for those still serving, for example, in over-stretch and stress and increased weekends on duty with yet more separation from their families? What are the Government doing to improve morale and conditions of service for those still serving?
Lord Burlison: My Lords, the figure for recent premature voluntary retirement of senior medical officers from 1st December to 30th November 1998 was 36 consultants and GPs. I agree with the noble Baroness that morale is a strong issue. It must be quite depressing for others in the services involved to see people moving out, especially at a time when we have difficulty recruiting personnel in that area. Quite a lot is being done to restore morale. We seek to identify which factors militate against recruitment and retention of trained personnel. However, there are national shortages of some medical disciplines which make it extremely difficult for the MoD to compete in the job market.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, the noble Lord says that 36 medical consultants have left or have given notice of leaving. What is the establishment of medical consultants? The House would then know the proportion of those leaving. Is the Minister satisfied that we have sufficient medical consultants in battlefield surgery to make certain, should the need arise, that our servicemen are properly catered for if wounded in action?
Lord Burlison: My Lords, at 1st September the total strength of the Defence Medical Services was 6,101, against an expected figure of 8,500. There is a shortfall of about 28 per cent. I shall write to the noble Lord. I am unable to give him the exact breakdown of the individuals and the level of membership in each of the senior medical areas. The Defence Medical Services have until now met requirements in terms of operational capability. The Strategic Defence Review allotted £140 million over the next four years to help with personnel and equipment. We are satisfied that we would be able to meet our requirements as regards operational capability. We might have to do a little juggling of our relationship with the National Health Service depending on operational circumstances. But in general we are satisfied that we can meet commitments.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, in asking a supplementary question, I must declare an interest. Many years ago I commanded the No. 1 Northern General Hospital in the TA. Having said that, and

913
accepting that the Reserve Forces are making an outstanding contribution to the medical care of service personnel, I ask the Government whether they are yet in a position to clarify the call-out responsibilities of such individuals in the reserve medical services. I understand that without that being clarified there is anxiety on the part of potential recruits, doctors and nurses, about the effect that call-out for peacekeeping operations, as distinct from a major national emergency, might have upon their civilian employment in the National Health Service.
Lord Burlison: My Lords, the noble Lord asks about the Reserve Forces. I acknowledge his greater knowledge in this area. The shortfall of voluntary reserves is some 40 per cent. So in that area, too, we have some difficulties. We seek to encourage recruitment. I am most heartened that the Department of Health is very helpful in respect of the reservists who are employed in that sector. With that co-operation—it is on the way to becoming very substantial—I am sure we can meet commitments.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that Catterick Military Hospital has been run down? Therefore the largest military camp in the country has to use a National Health Service hospital. There are many airfields in the area. Civilians are worried about the pressure being put on the local National Health Service hospital. Some who previously used the military hospital now have to travel over 40 miles to the nearest accident and emergency hospital.
Lord Burlison: My Lords, I am aware that the Catterick Military Hospital has reduced its commitment. However, we are in an arrangement with hospitals locally. There will be a relationship with, and a commitment to, the general hospital in Northallerton which will assist with the problems created by the changes at Catterick.
Lord Winston: My Lords, what percentage of defence medical work is currently contracted to the National Health Service? How much does that cost the defence services?
Lord Burlison: My Lords, I am unable to give the noble Lord those figures. I shall write to him. The relationship that the MoD has with the National Health Service is very important. Where a commitment is entered into between the local trust or the health service nationally, there would be an expectation that the MoD would pay for those services, and we would be establishing the best services to meet the needs of that area.

EU Withholding Tax
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatchasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will reject any proposal for a European Union-wide withholding tax.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there can be no agreement to the draft directive on the taxation of savings as long as it risks damaging the competitiveness of European Union financial markets.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful for that reply and wonder whether the noble Lord will accept my warmest congratulations that on this issue, and in the British interest, the Government are prepared to stand isolated in Europe. Does he, on behalf of the Government, agree with Hans Eichel who says that the United Kingdom's refusal to accept a withholding tax in Europe is undermining the euro?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government disagree with Herr Eichel. We understand that Germany has particular problems with its citizens who use overseas investments to evade legitimate German tax. That may be an explanation of his statement, but it does not excuse what he said.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, while expressing complete support for my noble friend's robust attitude to this issue, I ask him whether he will assure us that the Government as a whole have fully taken into account the recent speech of the President of the Commission addressed in impertinent and most insulting terms to the United Kingdom and that they will resist the endeavours which he has avowed personally to make in order to have the unanimity vote abolished.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I shall not participate in a personal attack on the President of the European Commission. The unanimity rule is not at issue when considering the withholding tax. There is a unanimity rule and we intend to adhere to it.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, I cannot see from this angle and would like to know whether the Minister really has a ball and chain around his leg. We, who know him well, know that he should not be described as having a ball and chain and we want to dissociate ourselves from that remark.
In order to avoid such remarks by the German Chancellor, will he try to persuade the Prime Minister not to be such a flirt? Why in October 1998 did the Prime Minister sign the document published by the Party of European Socialists entitled The New European Way? Why did he then say that he would

915
make efforts to avoid harmful tax competition? Why did he say that he would be aiming to co-ordinate savings and corporate taxation?
Noble Lords: Reading!
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, why on Monday did he tell the Finnish Finance Minister that he had no ideological objections to tax harmonisation? Could the Minister tell us that?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have no objection to the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, reading as long as he continues to read the words of the Prime Minister. That seems entirely legitimate. The Prime Minister's speeches, from which the noble Lord has given a selective summary, cover a much wider range of issues than the withholding tax. We have always said that there are virtues in measures to restrain harmful tax competition and that is the basis on which the Prime Minister and the Government were and are prepared to co-operate. However, we are not prepared to co-operate on a withholding tax which will damage British and other European financial markets.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, given that the Minister has rightly pointed out that part of the problem springs from tax evasion in relation to German investments, can he say what efforts the Government are making to put pressure on the German, Swiss and Luxembourg Governments to move away from their strict banking secrecy laws? Furthermore, what are the Government doing about money laundering in some of the tax havens which are Crown territories?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government have taken an active part in urging those countries which retain what we consider to be outdated banking secrecy laws not to do so. We believe that such laws are a significant cause of the abuses suffered by some EU member states. As regards securities outside Europe, that is a matter for another forum.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that. I am most happy to be able to congratulate him and the Government on their stance relating to the withholding tax? I sincerely hope that they will stick to it and not give way at the last moment, as has so often happened in the past. Will my noble friend confirm that in September last year the Government indicated that even the threat of a withholding tax was resulting in a flow of money away from the EU, particularly from London? Finally, I assure my noble friend that, if the Government continue to resist a withholding tax, they will have the support not only of this House but of the people of this country?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not know whether that is a threat or a promise!

Business
3.37 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that, subject as always to the progress of business, the House will rise for the Christmas Recess at the end of business on Thursday, 16th December. The House will sit at 11 a.m. on that day. The House will return from the Christmas Recess on Monday, 10th January.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip on making that announcement, which will greatly please the House. I also congratulate the noble Lord on his powers in persuading his colleagues in certain government departments to bring forward a number of First Readings in time to allow us to rise on Thursday, 16th December.
I wish to raise a matter which was brought to my attention only a few minutes before the House sat today, about which I have given the noble Lord notice. On Monday next, we shall have the Second Reading of the Local Government Bill. We have still not had the Government's response to the Joint Committee report on the draft local government organisation and standards Bill, which they received a month ago. The view shared by many on all sides of the House is that it would not be right for us to debate the matter without the Government's response to that Joint Committee report.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I was unaware of the matter raised by the noble Lord and intended to say that I would consult ministerial colleagues. However, I have just been informed that the document is now in the Printed Paper Office.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I went into the Printed Paper Office with the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, just before Question Time. We were informed that the document was in the office but was under embargo. It may be that Members of the Government Front Bench have copies, but it seems inadequate if other Members of the House are not allowed to have them.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I understand that the document is available to all Members of the House.

Care Standards Bill [H.L.]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to establish a national care standards commission; to make provision for the registration and regulation of children's homes, independent hospitals, independent clinics, care homes, residential family centres, domiciliary care agencies, fostering agencies and voluntary adoption agencies; to make provision for the regulation and inspection of local authority

917
fostering and adoption services; to establish a general social care council and a care council for Wales and make provision for the registration, regulation and training of social care workers; to make provision for the registration, regulation and training of those providing child minding or day care; to make provision for the protection of children and vulnerable adults; to amend the law about children looked after in schools and colleges; to repeal the Nurses Agencies Act 1957; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Race Relations (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to extend further the application of the Race Relations Act 1976 to the police and other public authorities; to amend the exemption under that Act for acts done for the purpose of safeguarding national security; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Succession to the Crown (Amendment)
3.40 p.m.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that Her Majesty may be graciously pleased to allow that Her undoubted prerogative and interest may not stand in the way of the consideration by Parliament during the present Session of any measure to remove the bar on a person who is not, or who is married to a person who is not, a Protestant to succeed to the Crown, and for connected purposes.—(Lord Forsyth of Drumlean.)
Lord St John of Fawsley: My Lords, I have taken advice on this matter both from the learned Clerks and from the Chairman of Committees and this is a debatable Motion. Nevertheless, I shall speak only briefly. I do not wish to go into the substance of the issue, but rather to the modalities; namely, whether this is a correctly-worded form of Address and
918
whether it is an appropriate way of raising a major constitutional issue.
First, I turn to the wording. In a matter of such importance the wording is all-important. It refers to removing a bar against succession to the Throne of a person who is married to a person who is not a Protestant. No such bar exists; the Act of Settlement 1700 forbids succession to the Throne of anyone who marries a papist. I do not object to the word "papist", but regard it as a term of honour. That is the wording, and the wording is vital. The Act says that if one marries a papist one is out of the royal stakes; but if one is married to a papist—that is, if he or she becomes a Catholic after marriage—there is no bar. That is contradicted by the Address. It is not an academic legal point. The Duke of Kent is married to a lady who, some years after the marriage, became a Roman Catholic. The Duke in no way lost his right of succession to the Throne. The Palace made it plain that that was the situation at the time. The Duke and his children in no way are deprived of their rights of succession. Therefore, I submit that the wording of the Address is fatally flawed.
My second point is that this is a matter of extreme complexity. The status of the Sovereign's Coronation Oath, made in 1952, is brought into the issue. The Address involves the amending of not only one statute, but of many, including the Act of Union with Scotland of 1706. Under the Statute of Westminster 1931, if the Address were to lead to legislation, that legislation would have to be approved by all the relevant Commonwealth governments and by their parliaments. Therefore I ask your Lordships to draw the conclusion that surely such a major matter is best set in train—and should be set in train—by the Government and Opposition parties officially acting together and not by a single Peer, even one so respected as my noble friend, whose intentions are beyond reproach.
Therefore, before we go through another period of debate, I ask my noble friend to consider the institution which I am sure he is seeking to benefit. The Crown has been through an unparalleled period of turmoil, and it has emerged successfully. It now needs a period of tranquillity, consolidation and peace. I repeat to my noble friend the words of a great Prime Minister, Lord Melbourne: "Why cannot you let it alone?"
Earl Russell: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord St John of Fawsley, is correct on all the points of form. What he has said deserves careful attention. However, subject to that point, on the substance of the matter, when properly digested, I have considerable sympathy for the position taken by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. If it were to come back in a digested form, I should wish to express that sympathy. My family had a share in creating the problem and would like a share in clearing it up.
3.46 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 14; Not-Contents, 65.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L. [Teller]

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Caithness, E.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Filkin, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Fitt, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.[Teller]

Sewel, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Mancroft, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Ampthill, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Avebury, L.

Monson, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Bridges, L.

Onslow, E.[Teller]

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Palmer, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Butterworth, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Quinton, L.

Chadlington, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Chalfont, L.

Rogan, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Russell, E.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L. [Teller]

Cockfield, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

David, B.

Sandberg, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Selsdon, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Ferrers, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Flowers, L.

Strange, B.

Glenarthur, L

Swinfen, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Tenby, V.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Kimball, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Laird, L.

Trumpington, B.

Laming, L.

Varley, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Vivian, L.

Lane, L.

Wakeham, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Warnock, B.

Liverpool, E.

Weatherill, L.

Mackenzie of Culkein, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.

Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) Bill [H.L.]
3.58 p.m.
The Attorney-General (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
It is in the interests of victims and witnesses—and indeed defendants—that our criminal justice system operates efficiently. It is also in the interests of the wider public. A civilised state should be capable of resolving criminal proceedings swiftly and justly.
In 1993 the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice recommended that defendants should not be able to choose, as an automatic right, to be tried by a jury in cases where magistrates have indicated that they
920
would be content to hear and try the case. In 1997 the Narey Review of Delay in the Criminal Justice System came to the same conclusion. We believe that the change is necessary and right. This Bill gives effect to that.
The venue for a criminal trial is determined by the seriousness of the offence. The most serious offences, such as murder, rape and robbery, can be tried only in the Crown Court. Many offences can be tried only by magistrates. They include offences such as common assault and indecent exposure which carry sentences of imprisonment. I believe that the latter offence is of significant detriment to reputation and often to livelihood. Criminal damage, where the damage amounts to less than £5,000, is triable only in the magistrates' court. Again, I believe it is self-evident that for many people conviction would significantly affect their reputation and livelihood. Finally, there are offences which can be tried either in the magistrates' courts or the Crown Court; for example thefts and burglary. As your Lordships know, they are known in the shorthand as "either-way" offences. In those cases the defendant must consent to be tried by the magistrates and, by not consenting, elects to be tried by a jury in the Crown Court.
Perhaps I may make one or two general comments before I come to the brief specifics of the Bill. I feel that it will not be the specifics—apart from one aspect—that will affect your Lordships' deliberations, but the generality. I know that many whose opinions I value have serious reservations, and I honour and respect them. I do not impugn or impeach the motives of anyone who takes a contrary view to that which I am putting forward. But I hope to convince your Lordships, not least those serried ranks immediately behind me, that if one looks at the argument and at the facts, where they are occasionally allowed to intrude, this is a proper, prudent, proportionate reform of a criminal justice system which is in need of it.
I wish to touch on another matter. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Bingham, very much wished to be present today to give his view. As your Lordships may know, he is sitting on the western circuit carrying out his judicial functions. He specifically asked me to tell your Lordships that it is a matter of great regret to him that he cannot be here today because the dates were an inevitable, unfortunate, unforeseen clash. But he also wished me to tell your Lordships that he is in support of the curtailment of the automatic right to trial by jury which this Bill brings about. He asked me to repeat that, not to say it for the first time because, as he reminded me, he has been on public record to that effect in the past.
I come quite briefly to the Bill, then I shall look at one or two facts and a little history. This Bill inserts new sections to replace the relevant provisions of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, omitting any requirement for the defendant's consent to summary trial in either-way cases. It provides that the initial decision—I underline the word "initial"—as to where

921
these cases are to be heard should rest with the magistrates, based on clear criteria which are new and set out in the Bill.
When determining the mode of trial on the initial decision occasion, magistrates will be required to have regard not only (as present legislation requires) to such factors as the gravity of the offence, the complexity of the case and to any defence representations, but also—this is of critical importance—to the effect of conviction and the likely sentence on the defendant's livelihood and reputation.
We believe that the court should be required to consider the seriousness of the case from the defendant's perspective. In reaching that decision, it will be possible for the magistrates to be informed that a defendant has previous convictions to rebut a claim that he or she is of good character. But a magistrate who is told about previous convictions will not be permitted to participate in a subsequent trial or appeal. I believe it is commonly known that I would not have been willing to agree to such a reform without the appeal mechanism, which I shall describe in a moment. Given the appeal mechanism which is available as of right to a Crown Court judge on this distinct, discrete question of venue, I believe that we have got the balance right.
I want to reiterate one or two facts. Every year well over 90 per cent of all criminal cases are dealt with in the magistrates' courts; that is, 1.8 million cases. Around 400,000 of those are either-way cases. By contrast, around 65,000 either-way cases are dealt with in the Crown Court. Of those, 47,000 were directed to the Crown Court by magistrates; 18,500 defendants elected for Crown Court trial. Those facts are based on 1998 figures.
When it is suggested that in some way, which I have not been able to understand (doubtless my own deficiency) this is an attack on immemorial rights, Magna Carta or any other statute that happens to be conveniently at hand, I remind your Lordships that of those who elected trial, 60 per cent pleaded guilty; 15 per cent were acquitted by the jury. Of those who elected trial at the Crown Court (these are the facts and I make no commentary on them) and were convicted, 90 per cent had previous convictions and over one-third had 10 or more.
I return to what I submit is critical in the scheme of this reform. This Bill introduces a new right of appeal to the Crown Court for the defendant where a magistrates' court decides to try the either-way case itself. The appeal will be heard by a circuit judge who will be able to review the papers relating to the magistrates' decision very quickly, in exactly the same way as Crown Courts currently deal with appeals relating to bail decisions. It is the same tribunal which will be deciding on the venue of trial as presently deals with bail.
I shall spend a sentence or two on bail. A decision on bail by a Crown Court judge is virtually an absolute decision because there is no prospect of appeal from it in the overwhelming number of cases. It is therefore a
922
determinative decision on liberty; it may well be on livelihood, on home and on employment. Therefore the appeal will be heard by a judge who is already entrusted in generally analogous circumstances with a decision on bail, and who has the power, if designated, to pass sentences as grave as those of life imprisonment.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, will my noble and learned friend allow me to ask whether there will be an automatic right to legal aid?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the intention is that legal aid costs would be included among these rights when exercised as an appeal to the Crown Court. As far as I am aware, those who apply for bail to the Crown Court, having been refused, have the right to legal representation. I am always happy to give way to my noble friend Lord Mishcon. It may be helpful if I continue with my exposition of how we see things and then deal with distinct points when noble Lords have raised questions which I know trouble some minds.
I retrace one step. Therefore, the decision about venue is to entrusted to a level of the judiciary. Already the Crown Court judge, sitting alone, decides on bail or sentence in the overwhelming number of cases. That is in the context of what presently exists as a right for those tried in the magistrates' court; namely, the automatic right of appeal to the Crown Court. So there is duality: the automatic right to appeal on venue—the place of trial—and the automatic right to appeal on conviction and/or sentence, if there is a conviction in the magistrates' court.
I remind your Lordships that no such automatic right of appeal against conviction and sentence is available if one is convicted and sentenced in the Crown Court by judge and jury. I also remind your Lordships that the automatic right of appeal to a Crown Court judge sitting with magistrates involves a complete re-hearing of all the evidence. That is quite different from the circumscribed right of appeal to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) which essentially is based on whether or not there were deficiencies in the conduct of the trial. We believe that under this scheme, with appeal to the Crown Court judge being automatic in the context of venue, the magistrates' decisions should be careful and responsible.
For serious cases, the accepted means for defendants to be tried in our jurisdiction is by jury. It is extremely important that that should continue where the state and the citizen are engaged in matters of proportionate importance. We want to strengthen and improve the workings of the jury system in serious cases. We do not want the system to be unable to deal promptly with serious cases so that very often those accused of serious crime are remanded for too long a period in prison conditions which very often are not satisfactory. Apart from the interests of the prosecution and the defendant, I suggest that the wider community has a legitimate interest, which is not confined to that of the prosecution or the defendant in a specific case. It has a wider, sustainable interest in the

923
efficient, just, fair and prompt conduct of the criminal process. I suggest that in many cases those who elect trial by jury on trivial matters are distorting the system. The law allows them to do I do not attach any obloquy to them. I suggest to your Lordships that we are entitled to have a care for the value of the jury system in appropriate cases.
I do not believe that that system has attached to it any great public support when it discovers that thousands of pounds and hours of scarce court time—it is a very scarce resource indeed—have been devoted to what would be looked at objectively in all the circumstances as quite trivial allegations of theft. Is it right that someone, let us say, who has 10 previous convictions for shoflifting a jelly or a banana from Tesco is automatically entitled to the right to trial by jury? That is disproportionate and not part of a system that should be encouraged.
I repeat that 97 per cent of criminal cases are tried by magistrates. They are drawn from local communities. They come from a wide range of social backgrounds. They are people of different ages and ethnicity. I agree and concede that in the past some sections of our society have been under-represented on the magistracy. I know that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is attending to that in the way he is appointing new magistrates.
Without impeaching anyone's motives perhaps I may mention that other reforms to the jury system were introduced, certainly within the living memory of quite a number of us in this Chamber. There was a dreadful outcry about majority verdicts and how the whole foundation of the criminal justice system would fall. Most independent observers—and I do not mean simply those who agree with me—believe that the majority verdict system has worked extremely well.
Peremptory challenges were taken away and there was great and bitter complaint about that. There was the proposal—objected to by the Bar Council at the time—that there should be the opportunity, with the consent of the Law Officers, to ask the Court of Appeal whether or not an unduly lenient sentence should be reviewed with the consequence that it is not academic but that the actual sentence is increased. I am very pleased to see the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, in his place. I forgive him if he smiles. I recognise why. I was among the unreconstructed neanderthals who objected to his prudent and proportional proposals. He will remember that I complained vigorously on behalf of the Bar. In fact, as regards unduly lenient sentences, the system has worked extremely well. I estimate that in about 90 per cent of cases leave is granted and the sentence increased. Public confidence has been improved because two filters were built in by the noble and learned Lord; namely, the 28-day time limit and the requirement lot the Attorney-General's consent. That reform was objected to tooth and nail. Every imaginable argument—and quite a number that were not reasonably imaginable—were deployed at the time.
924
There is always the danger for any of us, living in any kind of enclosed community, to believe that what is presently in operation is necessarily good in every possible respect. I simply suggest that if we look at fact and the scheme put forward, it is an appropriate reform of a criminal justice system which, despite its many virtues, has not yet achieved perfection in this world.
It is known to your Lordships that the ability to choose trial by jury was introduced in 1855 because there were great pressures and delays in the criminal justice system at that time. Jury trial is right for certain kinds of serious case. The real question appears to refine itself in mind to this: should it be available as an automatic right on demand or should it be restricted, subject to these very important safeguards, to criminal cases which objectively justify it? I suggest that the question resolves itself into that.
I know there are deep reservations. Many noble Lords having those reservations and concerns attended the meeting last night. I do not believe that agreement was to be found. But I repeat what my noble friend the Leader of the House has said on so many occasions. The door is always open after Second Reading. If any noble Lords wish to discuss these matters with or without advisers and see me, with or without officials, I am perfectly happy to hear any suggestions and to act on them if they improve the Bill and are consistent with its thrust. No serious offences will be affected in the way I have described. We are not reclassifying any offences.
A number of us have spent many happy hours at the Bar defending people—they always seemed to be farmers—who were charged with breathalyser offences. Certainly, on the Wales and Chester circuit, provided your client was not an English speaker it was quite normal to secure an acquittal. I am glad to see that my noble friend Lord Carlile nods and smiles at those memories. All those offences are no longer tried by jury; only magistrates can try them now. However, they may affect a man's livelihood. I refer to the offences of common assault, criminal damage of under £5,000 and assault of a police officer in the execution of his duty. All those offences are triable only by magistrates.
Offences of dishonesty are sometimes described as the watershed difference, but they are not. Taking a vehicle without the consent of the owner is an offence of dishonesty. You cannot elect trial by jury for that, but may it not resound in some cases in terms of a person's reputation and livelihood? As far as I am aware, the fraudulent use of an excise licence on a motor car is triable only by magistrates. Therefore I suggest—I hope carefully—that there is no fixed line in the sand which is never capable of being reviewed or revisited. What we have tried to put forward here is a proportionate response.
Obviously, financial considerations have their place. I shall not read the figures given in the explanatory memorandum because I know that your Lordships, who take such a keen interest in these matters, will have studied it. It is not simply a matter

925
of cash because cash is not the only relevant resource; judicial and Crown Court time is limited. It is not right, fair, appropriate or supportable that those who are complainants, alleged victims or witnesses in serious cases should have to wait a long time before the issue is determined. It is not right that a child should have to wait what is to that child an eternity to have a trial where the child is a complainant in a case of sexual abuse, with all the unimaginable strains and stresses that that child undergoes. It is not right that the system cannot accommodate those cases more promptly. It is not right that victims and witnesses should have to wait many months unnecessarily before they can give their evidence; to be subjected to the challenge that they cannot really remember what happened; to be disillusioned with what the criminal justice system offers them by way of solace; and to be bitterly discontented at the fact that time passes and they seem to be without even the claim for reasonable redress.
Therefore cash is not the only resource. Judges' time and Crown Court time are also important. It is important that our fellow citizens should wish to serve as jurors in cases they regard as appropriate to the time and voluntary effort they provide. The Crown Court system is more expensive but I stress that I do not believe that that is the determinant. I suggest that within the figures I have produced there are many people who elect trial in the Crown Court to put off the evil day; to delay proceedings; to "hobble" the sentencing judge in coming to the appropriate sentence, as it is much more difficult to sentence appropriately in the minor case where time has passed; and in the hope that witnesses will not turn up or simply become so disenchanted with the system that they can no longer be bothered with it.
We have listened with great care to the views of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice and the senior judiciary. They propose the safeguard of giving the defendant a right of appeal on venue. I have set out my own position—which was perfectly well known, in any event—which is in entire accord with what they suggested. I ask with a degree of confidence that this debate should at least address the issues. What I hope—perhaps with a lesser degree of confidence—is that I may already have persuaded some of your Lordships on this matter.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
Lord Ackner: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down—
Noble Lords: Order!
4.24 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I believe that as the Question had already been put from the Woolsack we should proceed. It is good to see the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General back helping out the Home Office after the excitement of introducing a rare Law Officer's Bill earlier this week.
926
However, the Home Office will certainly need some help because this Bill has generated enormous opposition from an extremely wide variety of sources. That opposition originally included the noble and learned Lord himself. When this measure was first suggested a few years ago the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General, who was then a legal spokesman for the opposition of the day, attacked the central notion of this Bill; namely, the ending for many serious offences of the choice by the accused of a jury trial. In a Times article he called that madness. However, now he recommends the measure to us.
The other day during a debate on the loyal Address he indicated—he told us this more specifically just now—that the difference now is that there is to be an appeal on the magistrates' decision to refuse a jury trial so that the ultimate decision will rest with the Crown Court in the system that the noble and learned Lord described. We are told that it is the existence of this appeal mechanism that turns madness into sanity.
The first conclusion that I draw from that is that the noble and learned Lord thought that the original proposal was mad because he did not trust magistrates to take correct decisions. Today, however, he wants us to think that the prospect of an appeal to a sane judge saves the accused from the madness of decisions that magistrates may take. Your Lordships may think that "madness" is rather a strong word. However, as we know, the noble and learned Lord chooses his words carefully, and that is the word that he chose in the article in the Times in 1993.
In any case, the idea of an appeal being built-in is not a novel one. It has been around at least since the time that the previous government were considering the matter. However, the insertion of an appeal mechanism has two other effects. First, it damages, and probably destroys, the financial savings which were originally expected from the Bill. But it also damages, and probably destroys, the time savings which were expected from the original proposal and which are now claimed as the principal practical reason for bringing the Bill forward.
We are told that the Government's reason for bringing the Bill forward is not primarily financial. The noble and learned Lord said that it was not the determinant in this instance. The Minister in another place also said that quite specifically in May. It is true that the memorandum on the Bill claims that it will, incidentally, as it were, save some money. The sum of £105 million is suggested. I remember that some years ago a Yorkshire ministerial friend of mine mentioned a Treasury demand to save such a sum from a multi-billion pound budget with which he was involved. He asked, "Why can't they just sweep up round the safe?" It is a sum which is well within the margin of error of expenditure on these matters.
However, there is something odd about this estimate. The memorandum also states that the Bill will not cost a single job in the public service. In other words, we are expected to believe that the changes will save £105 million without saving the time of a single judge, any Crown Court official, anyone from the

927
Crown Prosecution Service or anyone else in the public service. It is difficult to imagine how the figures of £105 million and nil can be reconciled. The saving cannot possibly come from administrative expenses alone with no staff effect at all. One can suppose only that the two different calculations are based on different presumptions. I am sure the House would be grateful if, when he winds up, the Minister will tell us more about the way in which the financial and staff estimates in the memorandum are arrived at and why different bases have apparently been used for the two estimates.
In any case, it is a good thing that the noble and learned Lord and the Government are not claiming that the Bill is primarily a money-saving operation. It would be both wrong and risky for the Home Office to put it forward on that basis. Wrong because justice should not be compromised; and risky because the savings are quite likely to prove entirely illusory once the appeal mechanism and everything else are in place.
The other thing which is likely to prove illusory is the idea that the Bill will speed up the process of justice. When the proposal for magistrates alone to decide the trial venue was put forward in 1993 by the Royal Commission, and again in the Narey report on delays in the system in early 1997, the right honourable gentleman the present Home Secretary said that he thought the reduction in delay would prove illusory. Now the new appeal provisions—the very element that makes the Bill sane in the eyes of the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General—will increase the delays above what the Home Secretary said at that time was illusory.
The Bill makes delay and expense more likely, certainly in comparison with the proposal in its original form. Under the Bill a case would need to go to the magistrates; then to the Crown Court on appeal; and, if refused, back to the magistrates or, if granted, to be heard by the full Crown Court. As the noble and learned Lord said, it would need to go to different magistrates in case the original ones were biased by having heard about any previous convictions of the accused. It seems therefore that the chances of reducing delay by the Bill are illusory.
Of course we all want to reduce delays in the law. The previous government considered this proposal from that point of view. After due thought—and, no doubt, after studying the noble and learned Lord's article in The Times—my colleagues in the Home Office at the time took different action to reduce delays and to deal with the apparent mischief of the accused waiting until he or she got to the doors of the Crown Court and only then pleading guilty. The heavier sentences being imposed by the Crown Court for pleading guilty at a late stage in the legal process have come to the attention of criminals and they have become much more wary of that ploy, judging by the figures that I have seen.
In addition, since 1997, under the 1996 Act there began the process known as "plea before venue", whereby the accused has to enter a plea of guilty or not guilty before it is decided whether the case will be
928
transferred to the Crown Court. For the past two years, only those pleading not guilty have had the choice of venue. The Minister of State, Mr Paul Boateng, said in July that plea before venue had led to a considerable decrease in Crown Court cases. Presumably as a result of these two changes, we know that the number of "either way" cases going to the Crown Court fell from 35,000 a year at the time of the Royal Commission to 18,500 in the last full year for which we have figures. I think those are the facts, one of which, at least, was confirmed by the noble and learned Lord in his remarks. So apparently the delay has been much reduced already.
In other words, the choice of jury trial is to be taken away in these circumstances for no good financial reason and illusory—certainly unproven—reductions in legal delays.
In any case, these practical arguments of finance on the one hand and delay on the other need to be weighed against the arguments of principle. It is said that this choice, ancient in origin—although I agree with the noble and learned Lord that it has been modified considerably over the years—is not allowed in many other countries' legal systems. "Modernisation", therefore, suggests that we should bring our system into line with those of other people. I do not accept that. What is at stake here is our people's confidence in our legal system.
English and Welsh people have been taught to expect that if they are in serious difficulty with the law they will have automatically, or be able to opt for, a trial by jury—that is to say, ordinary people deciding one's guilt or innocence; not clever lawyers or distant judges, but people like themselves. Those who practice in the courts often say how seriously jurors take their duties. Those who have been on juries recognise that this system works and take their duties seriously.
To take away this right of choice in such cases is to take the decision about venue back to the authorities. All authority is criticised these days and has to earn such respect as it can get. People can relate to a box full of jurors much more readily than to a bench of magistrates, however carefully chosen. They will trust their future to them more readily. It is essential that the criminal justice system should have the confidence of the public and this part of our traditional freedoms should not be taken away— particularly not for the sake of copying other countries and certainly not on such flimsy evidence of advantage in terms of money or swifter decisions.
There is a substantial number of our fellow citizens whose trust in the system is already particularly low and to whom we should give particular attention. I refer, of course, to the ethnic minorities. We have the report on the Lawrence case, which set that out for us. It is perverse in the extreme for the Home Office to be setting out now to damage that precious trust by this measure. Not long ago, we agreed in all parts of the House that the criminal justice system—not just the police—should do everything possible to build up the confidence of ethnic minorities. This measure attacks

929
that confidence. That has been made absolutely clear in the representations made to me and, no doubt, to other noble Lords.
The next point of principle concerns the nature of defence. The difference between summary jurisdiction in the magistrates' court and trial on indictment in the Crown Court is not only that the jury decide questions of fact instead of the magistrates; the whole defence arrangements are different. In the magistrates' court, the defence has to respond to the prosecution case as it develops during the trial on the hoof, as it were. In the Crown Court, the defence sees the prosecution case in full, with all the papers, before the trial and can therefore respond more fully to all the accusations that are made. It is no wonder that those concerned primarily with prosecution favour the Bill; they do not have to disclose before trial in that way. We above all people should look to the interests of the defence and the liberty of the subject. Parliament should be the champion of the rights of the individual against the state.
We shall also wish to examine the problem of how defendants are expected to argue that they should be tried in the Crown Court before they have seen the prosecution case, either when they are before the magistrates or when they are on appeal—if it goes to appeal—about venue. As the Bill stands, the defence is expected to make representations to the magistrates and, if necessary, to argue for the venue in the Crown Court on the basis of a formal charge only, without the particulars of the evidence and the witnesses that the prosecution would have to show to the defence before the Crown Court heard the case. If the magistrates are to make sound decisions about where the case should be heard, both they and the defence must have a clear idea of the case and of the evidence against the accused.
At one stage I thought that this idea might be part of a larger European-inspired move to remove the jury system and to replace it with career judges and public prosecutors trained from youth upwards. Of course, the idea emanates from the European Union proposal known as corpus juris. That is a rather grandiose name for a proposal under which, among other things, juries would be removed from cases involving financial fraud against taxpayers' money which had passed through the mechanisms of the European Commission. However, we debated that proposal last Thursday and the noble Lord, Lord Bach, who carried the Home Office flag on that occasion, was thoroughly against it. This House, reinforced by an excellent Select Committee report, was clearly in favour of keeping juries in such cases. I believe that we should all keep up the fight against corpus juris but, likewise, the Government need to explain why they are for juries in that context and against them as far as concerns this Bill.
There are some detailed points which we shall no doubt consider further at a later stage, but I believe that it is right to refer to them briefly here. The Bill states that magistrates, in deciding where a case is to be tried, would have to take into account the possible loss
930
of reputation or livelihood that might flow from conviction in a Crown Court rather than in a magistrates' court. Obviously, we shall want to probe those provisions but it seems to me that it would be wrong for someone with a public reputation to be treated differently in this respect from someone whose reputation extended only to their family and friends. I also believe that it would be wrong for an unemployed man or woman to have a different trial from an employed man or woman solely on the grounds that they were unemployed. Yet, if livelihood is to be the key, presumably that is how the decision would be made.
Similarly, the idea that previous convictions should affect the place of trial is, on the face of it, offensive. Of course it should and, indeed, does affect the sentence if the accused is found guilty at the end of the process, but offences should always be tried solely on the merits of the case. To do otherwise is to damn someone without possibility of reform because he has been convicted a number of times. I believe that the Government will have to work hard to persuade your Lordships that it will not be unfair and potentially prejudicial to decide the place of trial on the basis of the number of previous convictions held by the accused.
For all those reasons, we are opposed to the Bill. However, I suggest to my noble friends and to other Members of your Lordships' House who are against the Bill that we should not try to stifle debate by voting it down at this first debating stage but should abstain at the end of the debate. By saying that, I do not believe and do not wish to imply that the Bill can be changed by amendment into an acceptable Bill. But I have no doubt that we can tease out in Committee and in the later stages the dangers and problems of the Bill. I hope that we can succeed, both today and in the later stages, in persuading the Government to think again and to drop this measure. They would gain only credit for that, certainly with us. The measure was not in the manifesto and the Government can drop it without trouble. Otherwise, we shall do our best to expose the unfairness of the Bill in detail as well as in principle and to expose the frailties of the arguments for it. If the Government persist with it, we shall vote against the Bill passing into law at the appropriate stage at the end of this House's deliberations.
4.44 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I suppose that I should declare an interest. My father was a policeman. I was born in a police house. I spent the first five years of my life living in a police station, after which it became a magistrates' court. After that, my father was the prosecuting inspector in the town of Wrexham, a job which he held for 10 or 12 years. In my teenage years I used to leave school at one o'clock and go to the police station to eat my dinner in the police canteen. So I imbibed the "canteen culture" of the police force with my sausage and mash. Since then, I have been a solicitor for five years, a junior counsel for 10 years, Queen's Counsel for 20 years and, if your

931
Lordships will forgive me, a Recorder of the Crown Court for 25 years. I believe that I have a lifetime experience of the criminal justice system.
It should not be necessary for me to say so, but the noble Lord, Lord Maxwell of Framwellgate, who I see is in his place, suggested in the debate on the gracious Speech that trade unions at the Bar and the Law Society opposed the wonderful new reform which is being put forward. The Home Secretary said that we were pursuing our financial interests. Although the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General does not go that far, on Tuesday he referred to me as an "unreconstructed barrister". I am an unreconstructed solicitor, an unreconstructed son of a policeman, an unreconstructed liberal and an unreconstructed Liberal-Democrat, and I hope that there are some unreconstructed Members of the Labour Party opposite who will vote down the Bill.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. By the way, my name is Lord Mackenzie, not Lord Maxwell, but that is a minor detail. During the debate on the Queen's Speech I said that those points were being made by vested interests and, being a former president of the Police Superintendents' Association, I can recognise a vested interest when I see one.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I am not going to be lectured by representatives of police organisations when some of the problems that have occurred in the criminal justice system in this country over the past 10 or 15 years have been caused by the failures and negligence of the investigators and not by the lawyers, the courts or the juries.
However, it is not the police, the lawyers or the judges and it is certainly not the politicians who are crucial in attaining justice in this country; it is the people. For no reward to themselves, thousands and thousands of people come forward every day, sometimes at personal risk, to be witnesses or complainants prepared to endure the ordeal of giving evidence in court. They are not treated particularly well, even if they themselves are the victims of the crime in question. But there could be no detection, no trial and no punishment without the people playing their part. Why do they do it? They do it because they have confidence in the system; they believe in it. As the noble Lord, Lord Cope, pointed out, where that confidence is lacking in certain communities—for example, ethnic communities—in this country, the curtains are closed to the police. Every harassment on racist grounds, every wrongful arrest and every wrongful conviction seriously undermines the effectiveness of the system.
The outstanding miscarriages of justice to which I have already referred have changed procedures drastically in the higher courts. Trial by jury started with important safeguards and those have developed over the years to address the deficiencies which have emerged. Consider the jury as the judges of the facts, the arbiters of the ultimate decision of guilt or innocence. Juries are a cross-section of the community
932
from which they are chosen for their age, gender, religion, intelligence and ethnic background, and they determine the facts. They come to court for a fortnight or three weeks, open-minded, anxious to do their duty as they are instructed, and that is exactly what they do.
There have been developments to the jury system, as the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General pointed out: no challenge without cause, majority verdicts and so on. But the importance of juries is also that they are a crucial factor in increasing the confidence of the public in the system. By and large, jurors report favourably of their experience in the court and their feelings are widely disseminated among the population. That is the first strength of the jury system: a jury comprises a cross-section of the community.
There is also a professional judge who will ensure that the trial is properly conducted according to law and will give the appropriate rulings. In the Crown Court there is full disclosure. To balance the developments that have taken place elsewhere in the jury system, we now have not simply the disclosure of witness statements, which has always been part and parcel of the higher courts, but also primary disclosure of documents. There has been the introduction, for very good reason, of defence statements and there is now secondary disclosure where documents are brought out by the prosecution and handed to the defence. It is the failure of that to happen in the past that has caused some of the miscarriages of justice. There are now no surprises—nothing up the sleeve of either prosecution or defence. Indeed, where information or documents are withheld in the public interest—where public interest immunity is claimed—that is now vetted by the judge, who looks at that information and at those documents and either approves the decision of the prosecution to withhold it or rejects that decision.
The other advantage of a jury trial is that legal argument takes place in the absence of the jury; for example, on whether character should be an issue or whether admissions are admissible. Previous convictions or admissions which are not admissible are not heard by, and do not in any way prejudice the minds of, the jury. Furthermore, the legal principles that a judge in a Crown Court trial applies, both on matters in the absence of the jury and in a summing up, are stated and discussed openly in court and any error that there may be will be rectified on appeal. Finally, in the Crown Court there is a full record of the proceedings.
Let us contrast that with the situation in the magistrates' court. Lay magistrates themselves are extremely public spirited. They work for nothing. I do not criticise them on a personal basis. But if the Magistrates' Association wants to get involved in this argument on the side of the promoters of the Bill, I believe that the spotlight should be turned on that system and that we should take a proper look at it. It is, as the noble Lord said, an enclosed system with which magistrates on the whole are very pleased. But it is not

933
the envy of the world. No other common law system rushes to adopt the system of lay magistrates advised by a clerk. They do not exist as such even in Scotland.
In my father's day, the magistrates' court was known as the police court. In my day, looking back, it was extraordinary how the magistrates' courts were run by the great landowners and coalowners of the district. In a coal-mining and industrial area such as my own, which had returned no Conservative Member of Parliament in this century, it was nevertheless the landowners who ran the magistrates' courts. I shall not name them—their scions, their sons, were Members of your Lordships' House until three weeks ago and it would perhaps be inappropriate for me to do so. It may be that the composition of the magistrates' court today has changed from 30 years ago, but it is still predominantly white, middle aged and middle class. The understanding of magistrates and the sympathy that should be shown to the way of life of the young, the ethnic minorities and the gay community may not be outstanding features of magistrates' courts.
Very little else about the system has altered over the past 30 years. Advice on legal matters is still obtained from the clerk—perhaps one in two or one in three may be a qualified solicitor or barrister. Advice is given in retirement and not in open court. The clerk is called to discuss legal issues in the magistrates' retiring room. The advice cannot be checked. Only on an application to state a case to the Divisional Court has legal reasoning to be given. It is only then that one will learn what kind of advice and what quality of advice has been given to the magistrates. Disclosure is rudimentary. In summary-only trials, no obligation exists on the prosecution to disclose anything to the defence. In either-way cases, the prosecution must give what is called advance information, which may be no more than a case summary or perhaps a photostat of an officer's notebook. Sometimes—for example, my last experience in a magistrates' court earlier this year—one is given a series of statements on the day that one arrives in court. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, referred to the fact that one has to catch up with the prosecution case on the hoof. In the magistrates' court, the cards of the prosecution are still kept closely to the chest.
Legal argument is determined by lay magistrates. Previous convictions and alleged admissions and their admissibility are argued before the lay magistrates. If they decide that a character should not go in or that an admission is not admissible, they are then forced to conduct what in one case the Court of Appeal described as the "mental gymnastics" of thrusting out of their mind all that they have learnt about the particular defendant—his string of convictions or the fact that he has made admissions which have been ruled out. Again, as magistrates do not give reasons, it is a matter of pure speculation in a magistrates' court as to whether the magistrates have been properly advised as to the law and then actually applied the law to the facts. The proceedings are not recorded, save by the clerk writing it all out in hand—writing as much as he can get down. Not even stipendiary magistrates give
934
reasons. In other jurisdictions—for example, the district court in Hong Kong—reasons for verdict are a requirement. It is possible to look at the way the case has been decided by the magistrate, to look at whether he has got the law right, and to see whether he has applied the law to the facts, so that his conclusions can be challenged.
The only possible justification for these derogations from the fairness of a trial in the Crown Court is the limited sentencing power of the magistrates—six months for one offence or a maximum of 12 months for consecutive sentencing for either-way offences. If the Bill goes forward, I believe that the next step will be a Bill to increase to two years the sentencing power of the magistrates. That is the power of the sheriff in Scotland. I am quite certain that that would come in quickly and we would be told by the noble and learned Lord that, on balance, he has made the right decision. I have heard him say that about 20 times. In all the legislation that he promotes, "on balance" he has got it right. That is the way he always puts it. I sometimes think of him as a tightrope walker crossing the swimming baths in Rhyl, in spangled tights—sometimes falling in.
The point I am seeking to make is that the procedural reforms that have been made in the Crown Court in response to the well-known miscarriages of justice have passed the magistrates' court by. For each one of the well-known cases, there must be hundreds of little miscarriages going on in the magistrates' court which undermine, drip, by drip, by drip, people's confidence in the system. So when the acquittal rate in contested trials in the Crown Court runs at 40 per cent and in the magistrates' court at 25 per cent, the reason is not that juries are gullible, or are ready to be hoodwinked, or are easily moved by emotive speeches from mendacious counsel; it is that the trial process in the Crown Court is open, fairer and more up-to-date, and the jury which decides the issues understands the people who are appearing in front of it, whether as witnesses or as defendants.
These proposals mean that the proportion of wrongful convictions will rise and the confidence of the public will decline. They also mean—I know that other noble Lords will refer to this—that people from the ethnic minorities will suffer quite disproportionately. It is not necessary for me to fulminate about Magna Carta or ancient rights and so forth. There has been a lot of nonsense said on that. However, the fact is that for the purpose of saving money this Government seek to deprive defendants of their right to be tried by a fairer and more up-to-date system.
An amusing and ironic element of this matter is that the protagonists, the Home Secretary and the Attorney-General, have completely changed their minds in the space of two years. They have moved round a full 180 degrees. As the noble Lord, Lord Cope, pointed out, there is only a very narrow border between sanity and insanity when the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General speaks about these proposals.

935
Will the measures save money or prevent delay? The Bill envisages a hearing to determine venue at which both sides are represented, whereas at the moment an election to be heard by the magistrates is followed immediately by the hearing. That will no longer happen under the new proposals if convictions have been disclosed. There may be an appeal to the Crown Court. There is provision to return to the magistrates' court for trial and then a further appeal on conviction to the Crown Court. When the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General spoke of his concern for child witnesses, does he not appreciate that under this new system of appeal to the Crown Court in a case involving children, those children will have to give their evidence twice? The Crown Court starts from the beginning again. It is a hearing de novo and all witnesses are called again. Instead of continuing as at present where in the Crown Court a child or vulnerable witness comes to give evidence once, that witness will need to give evidence twice.
Are there any abuses of the present system? Yes, perhaps there are, and these take two forms. First, occasionally solicitors may encourage clients to choose a jury trial to make more money. However, they are easily discernible. Generally speaking, there will have been no discussion with counsel. If a solicitor is asked about the defence, he is unable to say. When in the Crown Court, I have refused costs or reduced the costs of counsel to a solicitor where I believed that the system was being abused. I believe that that is the way to deal with such abuse.
Secondly, perhaps there are times when a defendant wants to stay on remand for as long as possible. If one so wishes, the process can be speeded up under the present system by simply getting rid of the committal proceedings when a person elects or chooses to be tried in the Crown Court. I know that other speakers are anxious to deal with these points so I shall not develop those themes.
This is a bad Bill because it is divisive. It splits defendants who are, of course, all presumed to be innocent until proved guilty. They are split into the sheep and the goats. All noble Lords need to do is to envisage St Peter sitting as a magistrate. On one side he has a stairway that leads up to the Crown Court, while on the other side he has a stairway that leads down to the magistrates' court. The white-collar workers go to the left and up the stairs, while the blue-collar workers go down to the right. BUPA? Go up to the left. NHS? Down to the right. Freemasons and Rotarians whose reputations are at stake? They go up to the left and to the Crown Court. Round Table members, particularly those who dress up as Santa Claus, go down to the right to the magistrates' court. The noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General referred to North Wales. I can imagine the circumstances: a Welsh-speaking defendant? He goes up the stairs to the left. An English-speaking Welshman? He goes down the stairs to the right. Liverpudlian? Go straight to gaol. Do not pass Go because he has already pinched the £200 cash.
As I have said, this is a bad Bill. Those who propose it simply do not have the practical experience to realise that it will not achieve its professed aim of saving
936
money. The Bill is unamendable. My party will oppose it to the bitter end. Tempting though it may be, we do not seek to vote against its Second Reading. We feel that it is far better that the Government should have the benefit of the festive season to consider a question during the quiz after the brandy and the mince pies. Which famous government Minister of the Crown described the proposals when they first came forward as "madness"? The answer, as noble Lords will see from the list of today's speakers, is that the name at the top and the bottom of that list ought to be printed upsidedown. That is the way in which the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General has turned turtle on this issue. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, might say, they should be sent "Home Officewards" to think again.
5.5 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, one problem facing the newly appointed judge, or even the established judge, is to resist the temptation of entering the forensic arena once appointed to the Bench. I sought, in my time, to deal with that problem by reading the papers thoroughly, making a note of the questions that I thought were important, and then, sadly, seeing all those questions being asked by the Bar so that in fact I had little to do but to sit and act as an umpire. That was of course essentially my proper function.
I have done something similar in regard to this debate because repetition is tedious and judicial repetition is doubly tedious. As I anticipated, the various and many points that I would have made if I had started the debate have been admirably covered by noble Lords who have spoken ahead of me; namely, the noble Lord, Lord Cope, speaking on behalf of the Conservatives and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, speaking on behalf of the Liberal Democrats.
The point I wish to stress is the way that the Government have approached this problem. We have seen any number of consultative documents on the matter. I believe that virtually the last one was published in July 1998 where the Government sought to set out the history and the arguments on both sides. In the heading "History of Election for Trial" Magna Carta is sub-headed and then the section sets out the development of the present classification. Here one has the first mention of the Interdepartmental Committee on the Distribution of Criminal Business between the Crown Court and Magistrates' Courts which sat in 1975 and has since been known as the James committee. That is because it was Lord Justice James, an eminent and highly respected member of the Court of Appeal, who presided over the committee. The reference that it receives on the first page of the consultative paper is in relation to the largely unrelated developments in the summary jurisdiction of the magistrates' courts and the categories of cases, which had multiplied, and which were simplified by that committee. There is a later reference to the committee in the same document when the Home

937
Office gives a précis of the options and the status quo. It merely states:
"The fundamental argument in favour of the present arrangements is that allowing defendants charged with any non-summary offence to have access to trial by jury, which is a mode of trial that is considered appropriate for all serious cases, helps to promote confidence in the criminal justice system".
A great deal of the James committee's report relates to what we are considering today. Paragraph 47, under the heading, "The choice of forum", states:
"We now come to the central issue of our inquiry and the one which has exercised us most, namely how the mode of trial of offences in the intermediate category"—
the "either-way" category—
"should be determined … Within the framework of the present system there are three possibilities as to who should decide whether an offence within the intermediate category should be tried summarily or by judge and jury on indictment: the prosecution, the court or the defendant. Under any system all three will have some say, but the final decision must rest with one of them. We consider each in turn".
There follows a reference to the prosecution and the Scottish system, and there is later a reference to the court. The report states at paragraph 49:
"As the possibility of the court determining the forum attracted most attention in the evidence we received, we deal with it in some detail—
and indeed it does.
Paragraph 50 states that if the magistrates' court decided on a summary trial, then,
"both parties would have a right of appeal to the Crown Court against this decision. The right of appeal raised questions of the appropriate period for lodging an appeal; whether the proceedings should be adjourned until that period had expired or whether, to enable the trial to proceed, the defendant should be able to waive his right of appeal; and whether the appeal should he heard in chambers or in open court".
I have referred to the report in some detail because the right of appeal was raised some 25 years ago. It is not a sudden flash of wisdom which has returned to my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General his much appreciated sanity.
I continue briefly with references to how the committee dealt with the matter. The committee states at paragraph 53 of the report:
"In the great majority of cases the reasons given were that the case was gone into more thoroughly in the Crown Court; that there was a jury to try it; that there was a better chance of being acquitted there; that judges were better qualified than magistrates … The only reason given by a significant number of defendants that could be said to be unrelated to the perceived differences between trial on indictment and summary trial was to take advantage of the delay in the case being brought to trial. This was mentioned by l3 per cent of defendants".
In the same paragraph the committee states that it is,
"satisfied on the basis of the results of the survey and in the light of the evidence we have received that the number of cases in which defendants elect trial by jury for 'secondary' reasons (ie reasons not directly related to a preference for trial by judge and jury) is nowhere near large enough to justify substituting for the defendant's right of election a decision by the magistrates' court, even if that decision were subject to appeal".
So the relevance of that addition to the problem—the right of appeal—has been carefully weighed up.
938
Perhaps I may quote the committee's conclusions. They should be spelt out. I find it very depressing how little is to be found in consultative papers of what has happened in the past. Last week, during the last debate on the gracious Speech, I drew attention to proposals to reform the Crown Court—which clearly suppressed crucial past decisions because the Court Service must have known how some of its proposals had been treated and finally accepted as being of no substance.
During the passage of the Access to Justice Bill I drew attention to the Lord Chancellor's consultative paper, The Way Ahead, which blamed the barristers' profession for the fact that very few solicitors had effectively exercised their rights of audience. I pointed out that investigations made by two universities at the suit of the Lord Chancellor's Consultative Committee had indicated a variety of reasons for that situation. Solicitors found that it did not pay to do the advocacy work, or that it was disruptive of their practices; or too few solicitors were able to pass what were accepted to be reasonably easy examinations set by their own profession to qualify to exercise such rights.
This is what is said at paragraph 59:
"Despite the weighty support for the proposal that the decision on mode of trial should be taken by the magistrates' court, we finally rejected it, for several reasons. First, there would be an inherent difficulty in the court having to decide the importance of the case".
That point has already been brought out in the submissions made recently to your Lordships. It continues:
"It would be difficult to lay down appropriate criteria for the court to apply and there would be a danger of their being applied inconsistently by different courts. Secondly, the strong opposition of many of those who made representations and gave evidence upon this issue showed that the suggestion was unlikely to be acceptable to a wide sector of the public. Thirdly, a proposal to substitute the decision of the magistrates for the defendant's right to elect trial by jury is unattractive in so far as it would lead to the magistrates trying summarily a case in which the same court (albeit differently constituted) had refused the defendant's request for jury trial… Fourthly. a procedure involving the hearing and determination by magistrates of representations about the mode of trial, possibly a trial before different justices and the establishment of an appellate process would be a potential cause of delay in the disposal of business and would create an additional task for both magistrates' courts and the Crown Court. Fifthly, although the majority of defendants consent to summary trial, both the OPCS survey and the Sheffield research show that defendants themselves attach importance to the choice of forum at present vested in a defendant. Most of those who at present elect trial by jury do so for reasons connected with the possibility of conviction: they think they will get a fairer trial, or that their case will be considered more carefully or that they have a better chance of acquittal in the Crown Court."
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, has explained why they should reach that view. My quotation continues:
"What matters to them is the fact of conviction or acquittal. Except in the most serious cases, where the defendant knows that if convicted he will receive a substantial sentence of imprisonment, loss of reputation or loss of livelihood rather than the possible sentence may well be what is uppermost in his mind. But these are matters which are related not only to the particular offence, but also to the personal characteristics of the defendant. A professional person of good character, if convicted of a minor offence of dishonesty, for example, will suffer in reputation and may lose his livelihood, whereas for a person with a long record

939
of similar offences the only penalty will probably be the sentence actually imposed. This suggests that if the magistrates' court were to decide the mode of trial, it would be both necessary and right for it to have regard to the consequences of conviction for the defendant, which would inevitably involve considering his character and standing in the community. We consider that it would be quite unacceptable for the courts to discriminate in this way. It would offend against the principle of equality before the law if particular classes of people or people of some standing in the community were able, in effect, to choose their tribunal, while others were denied that choice."
The quotation ends with the memorable phrase:
"Jury trial should be available either to anyone charged with a particular offence, regardless of his personal position, or to no one."
That was the view of this highly experienced committee whose main function was to deal with this very problem. Your Lordships may ask, as I asked, why all this has been suppressed. It ought to have been brought to your Lordships' attention a long time back, and I am happy if the only function which I have performed is to make sure that your Lordships have it in full now.
5.24 p.m.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, juries have never had any role whatever in the vast majority of criminal cases which are tried in this country. In practice I would have thought that all your Lordships would agree that they never could have, unless of course a wholly disproportionate chunk of taxpayers' money was devoted to provide the resources arid facilities that a universal jury system would require.
Historically, jury trials have been available only for indictable offences for more serious crimes. The rest were tried by what I shall call magistrates' courts although, like the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, I recall that they have in the past been called something less attractive. Of course, magistrates' courts in various guises have been with us for a very long time. As the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General reminded us, it was only as recently as 1855, relatively recently for those of your Lordships who wish to quote Magna Carta, that what I will call this very curious and odd thing in terms of principle was brought in—a choice given to the accused, in certain formerly indictable offences, as to whether he wished to be tried by jury or not. It is that very curious choice which causes the great difficulty and debate, not only the one we are having today. It was also discussed by the James committee and, if I may refer to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, the James committee considerations were of course gone into very considerably by the Royal Commission in 1993—
Earl Russell: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that election acquired an importance it had never previously had when felony was abolished by Mr Harold Wilson in a fit of absence of mind?
Lord Borrie: My Lords, I agree, but my point relates to the types of case referred to at the beginning of the debate by the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General—very serious cases involving considerable
940
loss of reputation. For those convicted, both today and yesterday, and cases where one never have had any right to choose and where it is, as a matter of course, a summary trial.
Therefore the division between summary trial, either- way cases and, for that matter, indictable cases is a fuzzy one. My point is that over the centuries the lines have been drawn at different places at different times. The 1855 Act came in in the way I have described. The lines have been drawn by government and Parliament as to which cases should go to a jury and which should not. It has always been perfectly proper and indeed respectable, as I think your Lordships will agree, for the burden on the public purse of jury trial and the delays that are caused if the accused opts for trial by jury to be regarded as factors, albeit not as serious as the key factor of gravity of the offence, which divides indictable offences from others.
However, it has always been thought that those other factors I have mentioned have been perfectly proper ones to consider and the 1855 Act itself, which restricted automatically trial by jury, referred to,
"the need to diminish expense and delay in the administration of justice".
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, would the noble Lord not accept that theft was always an indictable offence?
Lord Borrie: My Lords, yes indeed, and in 1855 certain changes were made. The point I want to emphasise is that expense and delay have been very important factors as to where to draw the line. I think I follow the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General on the points which he made earlier about delays and how they pollute the course of justice. It is not just a matter of the accused and the delays that affect him: it is the delays as they affect victims and witnesses. I would suggest that these delays also adversely affect society in general, especially if one may assume that memories may not be so good as they were after a period of time has elapsed.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for allowing me to intervene and apologise for being the third person to interrupt him. In the balance between delay and a fair result in a trial, does he agree that a fair result wins by a mile on every occasion?
Lord Borrie: Yes, my Lords, of course. But part of the fairness of a trial includes consideration of delay. I shall not talk about the War Crimes Act 1991 and bringing people to trial after 40 or 50 years. In more everyday cases, one can surely agree that delay is a factor in fairness. It is not just the accused who needs fairness; it is fairness to the victim and the witnesses that there is no undue delay in the timely dispatch of criminal business.
Others have already said and will say, so I do not need to repeat it, that jury trial is a splendid feature of our criminal justice system. That is particularly so because it is a partnership between lay people,

941
ordinary members of the public and professional judges. If we were going abroad to a conference to talk about British justice, surely it would be important to emphasise the integrity and independence of our professional judges. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, we would also want to stress the uniqueness of the British system of lay magistrates.
There have been considerable changes since the days of police courts, to use the shorthand. The number of crimes and criminal cases over the past decades has put a heavy burden on magistrates. But it is generally accepted that, with increased resources, improved selection procedures which include ethnic minorities, improved training of magistrates—it is far better than it was 50 years ago—and greater assistance from legally qualified clerks or advisers, as they like to be called, lay magistrates have been and are a most successful and cost-effective feature of our system.
The Bill does not go into the merits of jury trial. Everyone must surely accept that jury trial must be for the more serious cases. We are dealing with a fairly narrow band of cases in the Bill which is concerned with the either-way cases. I do not need to elaborate on the detailed provisions of the Bill, they will be discussed at length on amendments when we come to the factors which the magistrates must take into account in determining whether jury trial should be available or whether the magistrates will hear the case. The important thing is that in the either-way cases, the accused person will no longer have an unfettered veto on the magistrates' decision. He will have a right of appeal to the Crown Court, in addition to the safeguards provided for by the Royal Commission in 1993 and by the Narey report in 1997.
I remind your Lordships that the Narey report quoted what it called a "senior and distinguished magistrate" as saying:
"Inevitably the [defendants] who elect [trial by jury]"—
in the either-way cases—
"are experienced defendants, the ones who know how to play the system".
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but it is too much. Does he not appreciate that that is precisely the attitude of the case-hardened magistrate about which we are complaining?
Lord Borrie: My Lords, the case-hardened magistrate is like a case-hardened barrister: very experienced.
No one would deny that the chances of acquittal are higher at a jury trial. Defendants, particularly if they are "experienced"—if I, a non-experienced magistrate, may dare to use the same phrase—know best how to work the system and which mode of trial will benefit them.
As no one else has done so, I remind your Lordships that the Royal Commission included a number of people experienced in criminal law. There was a
942
woman QC, experienced in criminal cases; a former president of the Law Society, also experienced in criminal cases; and Sir John May, a former judge of the High Court, later judge in the Court of Appeal. Their view had the same basis as the Bill. They commented that accused persons should be no more entitled to choose the mode of trial that will give them a better chance of acquittal than to choose the judge who is likely to give them the most lenient sentence.
I go back again to the 1855 Act and the curious choice given as to mode of trial. That is the cause of the great difficulty we have today. In the past 20 years, many bodies of distinguished persons have been trying to deal with it.
Magistrates' courts conduct about 95 per cent or 97 per cent of criminal cases in the country today. They can surely be trusted to try cases fairly. If not, the changes which the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, would like to see—and there must improvements to be made—would have to be much more substantial. Magistrates deal with huge numbers of cases.
I accept that respectable arguments for no change have been put and will be put later in the debate. That is particularly on the basis that not many cases are tried by jury at present. Juries deal with the serious cases and there is always argument as to where the line should be drawn. Perhaps it may be said that there should be no further change at present. That is the basis of it.
However, perhaps I may direct my fire not only at the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, but also at the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General. Both sides of the argument have a difficulty. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, said that he would like to put a "spotlight"—that was his word—on the magistrates' courts. I should like to put a spotlight on juries. One of the difficulties for anyone, on whichever side of the argument, is our great lack of knowledge of what goes on in a jury room. Discussions about what goes on in a jury room must be conducted on the basis of assumption, speculation and belief—particularly the latter.
In the debate on the gracious Speech, my noble friend Lady Kennedy said that she believes in the jury. To a greater or lesser degree, no doubt, we all believe in the jury. It seems to me that it is time for Her Majesty's Government to consider again the serious difficulties which, because of Section 8 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, lie in the way of research into how juries conduct their deliberations. That provision makes it a contempt of court for anyone to inquire into what is said, the opinions expressed and the arguments advanced by jurors in the course of their deliberations. There is no exception for even the most respectable and legitimate academic inquiries which would not seek to attribute views or to name names. It strikes me that not only are the Government bringing forward the proposals in this Bill, but their consultative document on serious fraud cases also contains a number of alternatives to juries because they are said not to understand serious fraud cases. The Government are

943
bringing forward alternative proposals for other modes of trial. It is odd to have such proposals brought forward and for us to discuss them, as with the Bill, when we do not know much about how juries work. How well do they follow such cases?
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I hesitate to intervene as a brother-Bencher pleads, but do we know any more about what goes on between magistrates when they decide? If not, the last five minutes of the noble Lord's speech have been entirely beside the point.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord makes an extremely good point. I was following the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, that a spotlight should be placed on magistrates. Jury trials deal with the most serious criminal cases in this country. We do not know how well juries follow the arguments of counsel, let alone the summings-up of judges. Surely, that is of some relevance if we are discussing a restriction on jury trial as in this Bill or any other proposals that the Government may bring forward.
I am glad to tell noble Lords that in 1993 the Royal Commission proposed that properly authorised research into how juries reached their verdicts should be allowed. As the Royal Commission then put it, informed debate is better than argument based on "surmise or anecdote". The present Lord Chief Justice, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham, said in an interview last year in The Times that he favoured strictly controlled research into jury deliberations which did not identify individual jurors. He said that nowadays many convictions were overturned by the Court of Appeal because of a judge's failure to give a direction to the jury or to express it in a certain way. It seemed to the noble and learned Lord that it was reasonable and natural to inquire into how juries received and understood those directions, and how much notice they took of them.
No doubt our thoughts about these matters vary. Noble Lords who have addressed juries will have thought about that on many occasions. With respect to all and every one of them, none of them knows. One's opinion of how well a jury understands, and how well the judge does his job in relation to the other partner in the administration of justice, can be based only on one's beliefs. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me for going on longer than I wanted; I was interrupted once or twice.
5.41 p.m.
Lord Alexander of Weedon: My Lords, the previous government flirted with this proposal, but Mr Michael Howard as Home Secretary wisely balked at it. There were times during that administration when I and some others on these Benches felt a little lonely and concerned that the Conservative Party had forgotten its traditional role as guardian of our civil liberties. I am glad that it opposes this deeply flawed Bill. I hope that this is the welcome renaissance of a firm, wide-ranging commitment to constitutional rights and
944
freedoms. The bouleversement of the former opposition, now the Government, may reflect no more than an aspect of what one sometimes regards as a truth: that all governments become authoritarian and the best oppositions become libertarian.
In opposing the Bill I speak as chairman of Justice, the all-party law reform group. Consistently and from the outset under all administrations, that group has criticised the proposal to deny a defendant the right to elect trial by jury where Parliament has determined that the cases are serious enough to warrant such mode of trial. It is important that opposition comes from all parties, as will be further shown in this debate. In the recent debate on the gracious Speech, the vice of the Bill was ruthlessly exposed by a formidable triumvirate from across the spectrum of opinion: my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew of Twysden and the noble Baronesses, Lady Williams of Crosby and Lady Kennedy of The Shaws. All are splendid and doughty fighters for our liberties.
I unreservedly accept the Attorney-General's observation that the category of offences triable by jury is not immutable. I do not understand that anyone in this debate seeks to draw a line in the sand. The reason why I regard this as a constitutional issue is that it should be for Parliament clearly and unequivocally to make any change and not leave it to the discretion of magistrates. There is a proposal in the Bill to amend Section 22 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 to deny jury trial for offences of comparatively small value. That may or may not be accepted, but it has been brought before Parliament in exemplary form for consideration. If that proposal is accepted, magistrates will determine whether the case is of comparatively small value—less than £5,000—but will have no discretion. With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, this is not about whether defendants have a veto on the decision of magistrates but whether defendants should have taken away from them an election which was originally introduced in their favour in 1855.
I move from the wider constitutional issue to stress, as have others, the practical difficulties of discretion. The case must be serious in character. All of us who have practised at the Bar know that often the degree of seriousness can be determined only at trial. It is also suggested that a criterion for exercise of the discretion should be that livelihood would be substantially diminished. How on earth does one apply that? Does a bank manager automatically get trial by jury? Does a housewife who is not working have it denied to her? Do the long-term unemployed have that right denied to them? Their chances of future employment may be diminished by conviction.
This Bill is shot through with distinctions of status. Take the suggestion that the question whether a reputation will be seriously damaged must be taken into account. I do not recall seeing a wider recipe in a more equal society for discrimination in favour of the middle classes and against blacks. We are all aware of the delicate situation revealed by the Lawrence report. The evidence is that blacks get a raw deal in the lower courts. If that be disputed, what is undoubtedly true

945
and I believe will not be disputed is that they have more trust in a representative jury. Both lay and stipendiary magistrates, admirable as so many of them are, are socially and ethnically unrepresentative of the general population. It is no good the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General saying that the Lord Chancellor will take care of that. Any change will take years to work its way through the system.
By contrast, juries contain people with a range of backgrounds similar to those of defendants and can judge with a mix of experience; nor do juries sit for long periods and become jaded to the extent that they become cynical through the process. If the exegesis of the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, as to the desirability of research into jury trials is designed to suggest that across society a jury verdict is somehow less desirable because the reasons behind it are not known, I remind him of the words of Lord Devlin which have tremendous resonance even today: today many feel that the right to jury trial is the lamp by which liberty lives.
The freshness of approach of a jury is central to the fairness of the system. Yet so-called reputation is to be the touchstone of whether someone gets a fair means of trial. At the Bar, like the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General, I did some libel work. My understanding of the principle is that every one of us is entitled to our proper reputation. That surely means equal opportunity to have the particular case—I emphasise "the particular case"—against us fairly determined. It matters not whether we are middle class, or active in the Conservative or new Labour Party. It matters not whether we are black, unemployed or living on a notorious sink housing estate. It matters not whether we have previous convictions. What matters is that this case, which will affect our reputation, should properly be decided.
I turn to the suggestion that the grant of the right of appeal cures all those difficulties. The delay and anxiety, and the exercise of the energy and resources in pursuing two mini-trials before an accused can get to a jury, I believe to be unfair. But if the principle of the Bill is flawed, if the approach is discriminatory, how can it be made less discriminatory by two hearings which have each to adopt the same unsatisfactory criteria? Flawed laws do not cease to be flawed laws by the grant of a right of appeal.
I have followed with interest the consistency with which the press across the spectrum have deplored the Bill. I think of The Times, the Observer, and the Daily Mail. On 19th May of this year the Daily Mail said:
"This initiative was not mentioned in Labour's manifesto. There is no evidence that the public wants it. And the 'minor' crimes that Mr Straw wants to take away from juries can be personally devastating to the families of victims and accused alike. No doubt juries are expensive and inconvenient. Sometimes they make mistakes. But they reflect the basic truth that the law isn't made for lawyers, judges, police officers or even Government Ministers, but for the whole British people. We have already lost so much that was once taken for granted … Now Jack Straw seems intent on stripping away the most treasured right of all, essentially to save money. It is difficult to view his plans with anything but deep misgivings".
946
I agree with every word of that trenchant article.
This is a Government who are not notably indifferent to the views of the media, and to how things play. I say quite simply that this one spins very badly. Perhaps this will give them cause for second thoughts even if they are deaf to the discrimination entrenched in the Bill and the erosion of an important civil liberty. I hope very much that at some stage we shall have the opportunity, since I believe with others this Bill to be incapable of sensible improvement, to assert the constitutional function of this House and vote it down in favour of the liberties of our people.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, before I—
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, is my noble friend saying that we should vote it down at Second Reading because it is such an awful Bill, saving time and money—that seems to be important to the Government—by not allowing it to go to Committee and Report stages?
Lord Alexander of Weedon: My Lords, as always my noble friend is extremely discriminating. My personal view would be that if the Front Benches of the opposition parties had decided that they should seek to vote it down today I should have rejoiced and followed them gladly and with high step into the Lobby.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, the noble Lord—
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, following what the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, said, the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, is quite entitled to challenge the Motion for a Second Reading. I listened carefully to what the noble Lord said. He objects so fundamentally to the Bill that he is perfectly entitled to put the Question, and oppose it.
Lord Alexander of Weedon: My Lords, the noble Lord is a talented cricketer and writer about cricket. Before that course is considered, perhaps he would care to give an assurance to the House that the Government do not have troops lurking in the pavilion against that very eventuality.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, whether the Government have troops in the pavilion, I know not. That is up to my noble friend the Chief Whip. I simply say to the noble Lord that having made his speech in the way he has, he would be entitled, probably following the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, to challenge the Second Reading of the Bill.
Lord Alexander of Weedon: My Lords, happily I am sure the noble Lord would agree that I would have a discretion—the very discretion that we seek to keep on behalf of defendants in criminal proceedings.
5.55 p.m.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, third time lucky! I find myself in a difficult position in wondering whether to follow the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, in

947
his powerful and destructive analysis of the Bill. I think that on the whole I shall not do so. Instead I shall confine myself to my principal objection to the Bill which is not to its contents but to the fact that it represents a further stage in chipping away the rights of defendants and the right to jury trial in this country—a stage embarked on long before now and which will continue well into the future.
I say that it has been embarked on previously because the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General gave a number of examples of measures covering, broadly speaking, related ground to the measure we are discussing today. Not one single one of the measures he mentioned increased the rights of the defendant. Not one single one of the measures he mentioned increased the opportunities of jury trial. I believe that if in due course we pass the Bill—I trust that we shall not—it will be followed rapidly by other Bills of a similar nature. Lurking in the background is the abolition of juries in long fraud cases. If that came into effect, it would be said, "If this applies to long fraud cases, let's abolish the right in all long cases, whether or not fraud". It would then be said, "If we abolish the use of juries in long fraud cases, why not in short fraud cases as well? The poor juries obviously cannot understand a word of what is going on". Then there would be an attack from the other end, diminishing the number of cases in which election for trial is possible, and increasing over and again the extent of summary trial without any option.
If the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General were to say that he has not the slightest intention of embarking on any further measures that will restrict jury trials, I would accept at once that he believes it completely; and I would accept that that would be his present intention. However, I believe also that because jury trial inevitably involves conflict with government, further attacks on the independence of juries will follow inexorably. They will follow to the extent of doing substantial harm eventually to the whole structure of which we should be very proud.
We should accept that the role of juries is not simply to return verdicts of guilty or not guilty. Although it is an important role, it is not simply that it should offer to the defendant the opportunity of being tried by his equals. The role of the jury fundamentally is this: I almost hesitate to recall the quotation, and if I begin with the words,
"The first object of any tyrant",
I expect that noble Lords gathered here will rise in unison and complete the rest of the quotation. It is from Lord Devlin's well-known work on jury trial, which states:
"The first object of any tyrant in Whitehall would be to make Parliament utterly subservient to his will; and the next to overthrow or diminish trial by jury, for no tyrant could afford to leave a subject's freedom in the hands of twelve of his countrymen".
That, I believe, is the role that juries play. If I may, I shall give some cases which support that and illustrate why there is a fundamental suspicion by governments of the whole system of jury trial.
948
I give the examples of some 35 years' experience at the criminal Bar prosecuting, defending and trying cases. I have been driven to the conclusion that juries—and I am proud to say it—stand up to authority, even if it may mean stretching the evidence and returning a verdict which is not true according to the evidence, but true in the interests of wider justice.
Before giving those examples, perhaps I may make three brief one-sentence provisos. First, for obvious reasons, I do not propose to identify individual cases. However, there will be one exception to that. Secondly, some of the cases to which I shall refer were not triable either way; not directly caught by the Bill. But that is totally irrelevant to my argument on the progress of jury trials generally.
My third point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. I refer to our lack of knowledge of what happens in the jury room. I wholeheartedly believe that any form of invasion of the privacy of the jury room would be a total disaster. I have always opposed the suggestion and I shall continue to do so. However, I must add, perhaps curiously, that during my observations I shall repeatedly say, "The reason why a jury took a view in this case is obvious and it is this". One is able to say that because, in certain types of case, a pattern develops. An unexpected verdict on a particular set of facts is repeated over and over again. Then it is possible to state beyond reasonable doubt the motive behind the jury's verdict.
The first category of case relates to the Official Secrets Act 1911. I am sorry to say that the Act was passed by a Liberal government, and went through all its stages in this House in five columns of debate in Hansard. It passed through all its stages in the other place in 35 minutes flat! Your Lordships will remember that Section 2 of the Act imposed draconian penalties on any civil servant who released any information, however trivial, about what was happening in his office. I refer, for example, to the number of cups of tea the Minister had drunk that day or the names of Cabinet Ministers.
A series of trials took place in the 1960s and 1970s in which governments attempted to intimidate, primarily, civil servants in their employment by prosecuting them under that draconian Act for the most ridiculous, absurd revelations or leaks. The matters were in no way related to the security of the country or to the safety of the state. Prosecutions were brought and the judge, bound by the law, had to tell the jury, "It is very difficult to see that there is any defence in this case"; and in one case after another, the jury returned a "not guilty" verdict. I suggest that it is beyond doubt that such juries were saying to the Government, "You are being oppressive. We do not like what you are doing and for that reason we are going to throw this case back in your face".
That series of cases came to an end when my noble friend Lord Hutchinson of Lullington and happened to co-defend in an Official Secrets Act case in which a High Court judge finally took his courage in his hands and told the jury he thought it time that Section 2 of the Act was pensioned off. In due course, it was.

949
The second type are obscenity cases. The decision as to what was or was not obscene was decided by the tribunal without further assistance from the law. Such offences were triable either way, but I cannot recall any case before lay justices, a stipendiary magistrate or a professional judge alone trying a case on appeal at Quarter Sessions in which the tribunal said, "This item is not obscene". Of course, if there had been a photograph of the noble and learned Lord in his spangled tights, perhaps a different view of the proceedings might have been taken. That was the view of the professionals—and I include lay justices.
When cases went for trial by jury, in one after another case the books, photographs or whatever were found not to be obscene. No one now doubts that the juries and not the professional tribunals were then in tune with the times. That is why that Act has, for all practical purposes, fallen into disuse.
The third type of case, recently in the news, relates to the battered wives syndrome. I refer to cases in which battered wives have been driven to such a state by their husbands that they have killed them. The charge has been one of murder and the judge has been under an obligation to tell the jurors that the law provides that they cannot convict of manslaughter instead of murder unless the violence was so imminent in relation to the killing that at the time the wife must have lost all her self-control. Some juries instructed in that way convicted, but some—and all praise to them—notwithstanding the judge's direction, proceeded to acquit of murder and return a verdict of manslaughter. Those cases and those actions by those juries, supplemented by the media, lead to cases being brought before the Court of Appeal and to the law being modified.
I turn to police evidence and try to put the matter as quietly and moderately as I can. Some time ago in some areas of this country, undoubtedly some police officers committed perjury over and over again in order to secure a conviction. There is now no doubt about that. It was not discovered by the lay magistrates, the stipendiary magistrates or the judges on appeal at the Quarter Sessions. The juries sensed that something was wrong and realised that at that time in those places police officers could not be trusted unless there was strong corroborative evidence. Juries, one after another, returned verdicts of "not guilty". As we now know, subsequent inquiries justified that.
There are other reasons why juries stand up to the judge or the tribunal and show independence. In some cases, a witness is malicious and offensively racially bigoted, and the jury takes the view, "Never mind what the defendant has done, we are going to teach that witness a lesson. We are going to put on record the fact that we thoroughly dislike him and hold him in contempt". The guilt or innocence of the defendant is let go in those circumstances. I said that I should mention only one such case; it is the recent case in the United States of O.J. Simpson. I believe that my suggestion is the only reasonable one for the "not guilty" verdicts which were eventually reached.
950
The role of the jury is crucially important in cases in which the prosecuting authority and prosecution witnesses show a degree of unfairness. It used to be a commonplace in my younger days that judges would sum up violently in favour of the prosecution, and over and over again juries would return and say "not guilty", for the simple reason that they wanted to cock a snook at the judge and make it clear what they thought of his behaviour. Similar cases exist where those responsible for the prosecution have failed at times to disclose the kind of evidence that they should have disclosed to the defence, yet it comes to the attention of the jury. Every defence counsel knows that from that moment onwards only one verdict will be returned.
I remember a particular case with some pleasure because the defendant was one of the few defendants acquitted after I had addressed the jury who was actually grateful for the result. The defendant was a detective superintendent charged with stealing a packet of crayons worth sixpence—which gives an idea of the date of the matter—from Woolworth's. On my advice he elected to go for trial. I cannot truthfully say that he had much of a defence. One did one's best with limited material. The jury were out for five minutes and then returned with a "not guilty" verdict. I have seen that pattern happen in cases over and over again. It is obvious that, in that case, the jury took the view: "Yes, he did it, but he is a detective superintendent. It is the first time there has been anything like this. If we convict him, he will lose his job and pension and he and his family will suffer for the rest of their lives. We know perfectly well that he will never do it again".
In those circumstances, in the interests of a wider justice, the jury found that man not guilty of that trivial charge. I appreciate that such a situation may be covered under the present Bill, but I should hesitate before putting my trust in magistrates or in the judge on an appeal to the Crown Court determining that that was a suitable case for jury trial, bearing in mind the trivial amount of the money involved.
In those circumstances, it seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate, was quite right when he referred, in the passage to which my noble friend also referred, to there being "vested interests" at work on those issues. There are indeed vested interests at work: those of authority, government, the Civil Service and the police. One must face up to that fact. It has always been that way and always will be. It is therefore a real temptation for governments to introduce such measures to try to restrict the right of ordinary people in this country to trial by jury.
To pass the Bill would be to take a significant step on a slippery downward slope. I am delighted to hear the contributions to the debate, exactly as I was delighted to hear, from the almost unanimous contributions made at the meeting last night with the Home Secretary, that there is every prospect that, in due course, we shall halt the Bill in its tracks.
6.13 p.m.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, finds that it fortifies him, I agree with almost every word he said. I hope that he will forgive me if, on a matter which is perhaps rather marginal to the debate, I say that I find myself on the side of my noble friend Lord Borrie. It would be helpful if we knew more about some of the dialogues that take place in the jury room and the workings of jurors' minds. It would be possible to introduce safeguards into that research. It is a subject on which I have been corresponding with my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and on which I welcome the support of my noble friend Lord Borrie.
I should very much like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, who did not introduce a disquisition about the previous convictions of my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General. My noble and learned friend does not require me to defend him. The question of whether he altered his mind since the matter was last discussed or whether anything turned on the absence of an appeal seems to me to be fairly marginal to what we are discussing today. If my noble and learned friend had said that he had listened to the arguments with an open mind and that he concluded it possible that on the previous occasion he might have been wrong, would that not have been commendable? Do we not complain that governments do not listen with an open mind?
I can think of a number of issues on which I hope my noble and learned friend and his colleagues will listen again with an open mind in the weeks that lie ahead. I do not criticise my noble and learned friend for having an open ear. Indeed, if I may say so—I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Cope, will forgive me for doing so—I should have thought that the change of mind might have received a more generous response from the Opposition. Two years ago, it was they who were deploying the arguments which my noble and learned friend deployed this evening.
The Government now say, "Well, you were right. We have decided that we agree with you". Was there rejoicing over the repentant sinner? Did the fatted calf collapse in mortal terror? No—the reply was not, "So glad that we can now agree", it was, "Well, if you have come to join us, we are no longer standing in the same place". Oppositions, too, are entitled to change their minds.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the noble and learned Lord and I am grateful to him for giving way. I should like to point out that the Conservatives changed their minds when in government, not when in opposition. Michael Howard did not proceed with the proposal, which was put to him by the Royal Commission. He received it along with other proposals and he left it somewhat in the air to await future developments—which have not been reported to us as yet. We did not proceed with this proposal while in government.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I believed that my noble and learned friend changed his mind while in
952
government. It is rather like a barn dance where the couples change over in the middle. I mention it only so that we do not go overboard. To change one's mind is not compulsory. If some of us today say precisely what we were saying two years ago and before that, I hope that your Lordships will find it in your hearts to forgive us, even if that is not fashionable on the Front Benches.
I turn to the merits. I begin with two propositions which are unlikely to be challenged. As I understand it, in this debate they are common ground. First, in a contested case, the prospects of being acquitted in a jury trial are substantially greater than in a trial before magistrates. The current statistics state that in jury trials the prospects of an acquittal are 40 per cent; before magistrates they are 25 per cent. So much is conceded in the consultation paper.
Of course there is room for argument about the conclusions to be drawn from that research: those with a good defence are more likely to opt for jury trial; many cases before magistrates were not a bright prospect from the outset. However, it seems to emerge that if one is charged with an offence, the prospects of persuading a jury that there is at least a doubt are greater than the prospects of persuading magistrates; in particular, I suspect, stipendary magistrates. In view of what some noble Lords have said earlier, I say at once that that is not a criticism of magistrates. I have been happily married for 45 years, for 37 of them to a magistrate. I am a respectful admirer of the magistracy.
We have no statistics as to how many acquitted defendants are really guilty, any more than we have statistics as to how many convictions were unjust. There is no institutional means within any legal system to ensure that a court never makes a mistake of fact. But the conclusion is inescapable that if one is charged unjustly with an offence of which one is innocent, one is more likely to obtain justice before a jury. It must follow that a right to choose trial by jury helps to safeguard the innocent.
The second proposition is that on this subject it is tempting to indulge in absolutes. Of course, it would be over the top to accuse my noble and learned friend of wanting to sweep away a right enshrined in Magna Carta. Those who drafted Magna Carta addressed a different issue. But those who speak of Magna Carta emphasise two quite important factors. First, the practice of trial by jury goes back a long way in our history. That practice developed during the 13th century, and by the 14th century it was established. Secondly, the claim to put oneself "on the country", to have guilt or innocence decided by a jury, has been a right—not a concession, not a privilege, not a matter of grace, not a judgment of convenience—for something like 600 years.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for giving way. Is it not right that a form of trial by jury existed in Saxon times?
Lord Archer of Sandwell: Yes, my Lords. The noble Lord should not tempt me. I had the privilege of being

953
reared at the feet of Theodore Plucknett, whose name is probably hardly remembered these days, but for those of us of a certain generation it was a name to conjure with. I could give a long disquisition on the point, but I doubt that would take me to the head of the popularity stakes in your Lordships' House.
By the time of Blackstone, in the 18th century, trial by jury was associated with constitutional freedom. Perhaps I am allowed one quotation. Blackstone said:
"Delay and little inconveniences in the form of justice are the price all free nations must pay for their liberty in more substantial matters".
Of course, my noble friends are right. The extent of the right has not always been clearly defined. The insistent voice of economy was not invented by my right honourable friend Gordon Brown, nor even by the previous Government. In the period of Henry VII there was discussion about methods of expediting legal trials. There have been successive inroads, but they always appear to relate to statutory offences which, at the time, were thought of as rather marginal and not really part of the criminal law. There was no summary trial for indictable offences, as my noble friend Lord Borrie pointed out, until 1855.
I stand to be corrected because I have not conducted deep research on the matter, but I have the impression that at that time those who were pressing for that statute were concerned about the severe penalties handed out in the higher courts. They were concerned to divert relatively minor offences to a court that passed relatively minor sentences. As I understand, at the time it was hardly noticed that they might be inventing a new procedure for determining guilt or innocence.
Most importantly, if an offence were indictable—if it were thought of as a real criminal offence—it could be tried summarily only with the consent of the accused. That has remained the position. I believe that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, pointed out that the James Committee considered the proposal to change that tradition and rejected it. However, it is quite true that four years ago the Royal Commission took a different view. That commission gave two reasons. First, it said that trials before magistrates were quicker and cheaper, although it said that that was not the reason why it made the recommendation. Secondly, it said that in principle a defendant should not be able to choose one mode of trial in preference to another because it offered him a better chance of acquittal.
That goes to the heart of the debate. If there is a difference between the prospect of acquittal in one forum rather than another, does that not indicate that there is a margin of doubt of which in one case the benefit is given to the defendant but in the other it is denied to him? If there is a right to the benefit of the doubt, is there not a right to choose the forum which is more likely to accord that benefit? If the reply to that question is yes, it is no answer to say that summary trial is quicker and cheaper. It is also no answer to say that there is a right of appeal from the magistrates as to the mode of trial and that the final decision is taken by someone else.
954
The right of the individual to choose has been removed. That is the central issue. We can discuss other questions in later debates, but perhaps I may be permitted a word on one other matter. It is common ground that the size of the penalty which the accused may face, if he is convicted, is not the only criterion when considering the seriousness of the question of guilt or innocence. A person's reputation may be totally destroyed by a conviction. The Government answer that by saying that it is a factor that magistrates will be required to have in mind.
Surely, the fact that that concession is made indicates that an acquittal may be seen as more important for an upright citizen with a good character than for a less respectable individual with criminal convictions or an individual who does not have a job? So the argument runs that we are justified in consigning that second individual to a forum where he is more likely to be convicted. That cannot be squared with simple justice. The second individual is more likely to be stopped and questioned, he is more likely to be arrested or charged, and he is more likely to be convicted, so we add to his handicaps by denying him a more advantageous forum.
I believe that there are ways of reducing pointless committals to the Crown Court. In issue is the right to have guilt or innocence decided by a jury. I see no injustice in requiring a defendant to indicate whether he is contesting a case before the matter of forum is addressed. If the case is not contested, the right to insist on a trial on indictment should fall because there is no issue of guilt or innocence.
That solution was canvassed in 1995 in a Home Office consultation document. I thought that a persuasive case was deployed. I confess that I have lost sight of that proposal.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: My Lords, I believe that has now been introduced by way of plea before venue. That is one of the reasons why we have seen such a considerable reduction in the number of people electing trial in the Crown Court. That procedure now exists.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. These days I find I am a little out of date on some matters. If that is the case, perhaps we should see what consequences have followed from that and give them time to develop.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: My Lords, since the Royal Commission considered this matter and made its recommendation that there should be a change on the issue of election the numbers have dropped by half. At that time 34,000 cases went to the Crown Court and now the number is 18,000—a halving—as a result of administrative changes introduced by the previous Government.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend. In future I shall always employ her to do my research!

955
Following the intervention of my noble friend, it appears that a great deal of this fuss addresses a problem that has already passed under the bridge. Of course, it will not be the first time in our history that that has happened under any government.
This is an argument about the merits of the proposal, and not about my noble and learned friend's right to change his mind. If that right is established and if, on reflection, he can change his mind perhaps, on further reflection, he can change it again.
6.28 p.m.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, has subjected the Bill to an intellectually clinical examination and one that has devastating effects for its acceptability. There has also been a passionate and no less intellectually rigorous speech in opposition to the Bill from my noble friend Lord Alexander of Weedon. Your Lordships will not be surprised to hear that I propose to ad opt a more earthy approach, but one which leads no less reliably to the same conclusion.
In a criminal case, it is for the Crown to shoulder the burden of proof; it is exactly the same in the case of Her Majesty's Ministers who bring forward this Bill. They must satisfy this House that this Bill will make a better provision for justice in England and Wales than exists at the moment. I agree with the Attorney-General that the wider public have an interest—this is not just a matter for experts—and that we must look to see what is most prudent and most sensible. Of course we must not set our faces against change, either because we live in an enclosed society, as he put it, or because we are getting older and simply find change harder to take.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams, should be worried about the depth as well as the width of the anxieties and fears expressed across such a wide range by bodies that are both knowledgeable and informed. One specific such body which is close to the Minister's heart is the Society of Black Lawyers. It has a special foundation in opposing this Bill by reason of what was stated by Professor Lee Bridges, who directs the Legal Research Institute at Warwick University, and who is highly respected. He said:
"Black people arc more likely to be stopped by the police than whites, more likely to be over-charged, more likely to elect trial to the Crown Court, where they are more likely to be acquitted".
In the light of the deep significance that the Government rightly attach to the Lawrence report, can they accept that there is a real perception of ethnic unfairness in the probable impact of the provisions of this Bill? If so, can they accept also that in matters of confidence generally—perhaps never more so than in the case of confidence in the justice system—perception is extremely important? It may be because I have spent so much time in Ireland that I tend to believe that perception sometimes matters more than objective fact.
I felt sorry for the Attorney-General as the debate progressed because all the fire was coming from one direction. When the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, spoke, I thought that a little support was coming his way,
956
which must have been welcome, but I am afraid that he was wounded by friendly fire, if I can put it that way, when the noble Lord talked about case-hardened magistrates being experienced magistrates and thereby dismissing the proposition that sometimes magistrates have heard it all a little too often to be able to discriminate in a case where there is genuine doubt.
I felt the Minister was not persuasive when in introducing this Bill he spoke as though its important function would be to prevent trivial cases being brought before the Crown Court at the election of the accused. I do not know whether I was alone—I do not believe I was—but I had the impression that the Bill was being sold on the basis that most of the cases it would catch were fairly trivial. He spoke of somebody being charged with the theft of a banana from Tesco. I hope and believe that it would be an extremely unusual prosecutor who thought the public interest lay in prosecuting the case of the theft of one banana.
It may be of interest to mention that either-way offences include grievous bodily harm; actual bodily harm; cruelty or neglect of children; indecent assault; gross indecency on a child; burglary; theft; false accounting; forgery; criminal damage; unlawfully importing, producing, supplying or possessing a controlled drug; violent disorder and so forth. Those are not sneezing matters and I strongly hold the view that it is not to improve the quality of the justice that we remove the right to elect for trial by jury when charged by matters of that kind. It does not matter that that right does not exist in Scotland; we are not comparing like with like. In Scotland, justice is dispensed by professional judges. It does not matter that it is only since 1857 and not the 14th century that there has been the right to choose. What matters is whether we believe that the present dispensation is a safeguard that we wish to preserve and which the wider public, sensibly advising themselves, ought to wish to see preserved.
I agree with the Attorney-General that we cannot draw a line in the sand and say that on the one hand this case is appropriate for jury trial, and on the other, this case is appropriate for summary trial; and expect to get general agreement. But we can say that there is an area in the middle where it is appropriate to give the accused person the right to have his or her case tried by jury. The case has not been made out to disturb that.
What is the true purpose of this Bill? I do not believe that it is to secure a better quality of justice. Is it to save money? It cannot be negligible in the eyes of the Treasury that over £100 million may be saved. I know how these matters are liable to arise. The Home Secretary wants more money to build more prisons. "Very well", says the Chief Secretary, "You can start by saving £100 million by changing the availability of jury trial for a start". I do not say that that is what happened, but I recognise all too readily that that may be the case.
Is it to save delay? The right of appeal will take up quite a lot of time. Have the Government made any estimate of the number of appeals that will he made and what they will cost? As we have been told already,

957
legal aid will be available. What will it cost? How long will it take? Then there are the problems of magistrates being disqualified who dealt with the matter in the first instance.
Is it to stop manipulation of the justice system? It is said that people opt to go to a jury trial and plead guilty at the last moment. That has been dealt with by more than one noble Lord. My noble friend Lord Cope said that that has now changed; it is now a matter for an increased sentence if a person changes his plea at the last minute. Or, putting it another way, there is an incentive to plead at an early stage in terms of a reduction of sentence. None of those objectives, if they are the Government's objectives, has been fulfilled.
I am not resisting change for the sake of it. The Attorney-General was kind enough to remind me that he objected to my measure which led to a right of appeal against an unduly lenient sentence. That was in the days when he was not decked out, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, observed, in the spangled pants of the tightrope walker; he came stomping in like a good' un dressed in battle dress; and very impressive he was, except that I thought he was wrong then and he is kind enough to realise that now.
The downside of this dubious coin, the other side of which I have ventured to examine, is that the Bill enshrines in statute the notion that one person's reputation is more worthy to be safeguarded by the state than another's. I find that deeply objectionable. I also find it astonishing from the point view of a Labour Government dedicated to equality of treatment for our citizens.
The next provision to which I object is one to which the Government are driven by the first because they have to continue by saying that, in dealing with the reputation point, magistrates may take into account previous convictions. Such defendants are most at risk of being wrongfully arrested, convicted and imprisoned. One, at least, of those previous convictions may have been incurred wrongly at the hands of magistrates doing their best but getting it wrong. I do not believe that that provision is justified. It is repugnant.
We are all considering whether this Bill will effect improvement. It will not. It is objectively and generally sustainable to choose trial by jury, but in every case where it is chosen, by definition it is subjectively sustainable and reasonable to do so. I have only admiration for magistrates, but where such a choice is made it will be done for reasons which appear to be good to the accused. I am not prepared to believe that, even in the majority of cases, those reasons are unworthy.
I uphold the continued right of the harassed and innocent housewife, for example, about whom I spoke a few days ago on the final day of speeches on the gracious Speech. She should continue to have the right to choose to be tried by jury when she is innocent in the belief that she has a better chance of not being wrongly convicted than if she were tried by the case-hardened magistrate referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie.
958
I uphold that right. Incidentally, the example I gave related to my wife. When reading Hansard, I was horrified to see that I had not made it clear that she had not even been arrested. I hope that she has not read it. She gave me permission to use that illustration from 25 years ago. She was deeply harassed; and somehow she left the supermarket wheeling a trolley on to the pavement, over one intersection and then the next, before realising to her horror that she had not paid. She rushed back. Can anyone seriously suppose that there would be as good a chance of having her innocence upheld by a magistrates' court with its great width of experience of "having heard it all before" as before a jury? It would be unjustified to remove that right. I find it alarming and the thin end of the wedge against trial by jury. Doubtless that is the reason why it was not in the manifesto when so much else was. That is certainly reason enough to justify the withdrawal of this Bill.
6.42 p.m.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, it is nice to see that the Union of Attorney-Generals is not as strong as it used to be. I say to my noble friend Lord Thomas that he is now going to hear a certain degree of fulmination.
This short Bill, with its anodyne and misleading title, is as dangerous a piece of legislation as has entered this House certainly in the 20 years I have had the privilege of being here. It is clear from the debate so far that many other speakers feel the same. If presented honestly, the title would have been the "Abolition of the Right to Trial by Jury" Bill which would have inconveniently alerted the public to what the Government were about.
When the idea of giving these unheard-of powers to the magistrates was floated by the previous Home Secretary in 1997, we know, as we have already heard, that they were roundly condemned by the Attorney-General and Mr. Straw. Indeed, on 27th February, Mr Straw said:
"If … a Member of Parliament or even a Secretary of State were charged with … dishonesty, would they not insist on being tried by a jury? … why should others be denied that right?".—[Official Report, Commons, 27/2/97; col. 434.]
Now he calls such a claim "eccentric".
Before his preferment the Attorney-General called the idea, as we know, "madness". I do not agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, that this 180-degree turn is not of importance. He now says, somewhat ingenuously, that the provision of an appeal is what made him change his mind. One should remind the House that in the same debate in the other place, Mr Howard said, at col. 432:
"There may also need to be a right of appeal against the magistrates' decision not to allow a case to go to the Crown court".
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, perhaps I may correct a number of mis-statements that have been made on this point. I wrote my article in 1993, not

959
1997, in response to the Runciman proposals which had no reference at all to right of appeal.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, I am grateful for the correction. I say straightaway that I was not aware of the two dates. The House may well feel that to change one's view on a fundamental principle such as this is a matter of some relevance in this debate. As regards the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, we are told by the Attorney-General that he agrees and supports this curtailment of the right to trial by jury. I do not know whether that is accurate or not because among the papers we have been given is one containing a lecture given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham, which I have here. He is recorded as saying that a more fundamental point was that an important guarantee of public acceptance of the unique role and function of lay justices was that a defendant accused of other than a minor crime was not obliged against his will to be tried by justices. He said:
"I think it is an important and valuable principle that those liable for conviction of serious crime by justices should voluntarily accept the justices exercise of jurisdiction".
I sincerely hope that we do not have another U-turn.
As we have heard, the accused person is described as having a veto on the magistrates and never having the right to choose the venue of his trial. That is a partisan choice and not a judicial one. As I have already said, it has been described as eccentric.
The truth of the matter is perfectly simple and has been so for many years. Unless Parliament has specifically legislated in regard to an offence, anyone charged with an indictable offence is entitled to trial by jury. That is the Englishman's right. Since 1855 and for centuries before that, Parliament has given the accused person the power to waive that right if he so wishes and to elect to be tried in the magistrates' court if the offence is of a minor kind and if the magistrates consider it suitable.
The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, said that the change introduced in 1855 was curious. However, it was perfectly straightforward. The defendant had that right on all indictable offences. I refer to the sensible course to be taken—which has always been taken ever since—as regards many indictable offences which can be of a quite small and unimportant nature. If the offence is of that kind, the defendant should be given the right to be tried summarily. There is nothing curious about that; there is no problem with it. When the accused appears in court, the clerk tells him that the magistrates think that the offence is one that could suitably be tried by them but only if the accused consents to their doing so. In other words, the accused has the right to jury trial, but he can waive it if he wants to. If he does not want to, he is committed to the higher court. The words, "if he consents", which have appeared in every single subsequent summary jurisdiction Act, simply express the recognition of the English law that if you have a right, it is for you to decide how you use it. There is no veto, no eccentricity or "playing the system."
960
When the Runciman Report states it does not think that a defendant should be able to choose the court solely on the basis of where he or she thinks that they will get a fairer hearing, I simply pose the question to the House, "Why not?", even if the course they choose is more expensive. I say to the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General that he is cherry picking as regards the Runciman Report which he has quoted so extensively. The Runciman Report states in terms that where a conviction for a minor theft means loss of reputation, in its opinion jury trial is appropriate. Yet, in his opening speech, the noble and learned Lord said that what clutters up the courts is person after person going to trial on what appear to be trivial affairs. The Runciman Report states that those are exactly the sort of trivial offences which, on the face of it, justify jury trial.
Mr Straw says:
"In no sense is jury trial a fundamental ancient right enshrined in the constitution".
In his opening speech the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General said that he too could not understand how anyone could argue such a thing. Is jury trial not part of our constitutional arrangements? Is it not the living proof of democracy in action? What on earth, then, did the noble and learned Lord, Lord Steyn—one of our more recent Law Lords—mean in the recent lecture, circulated to all of us before the debate, when he said:
"The jury system is an integral and indispensable part of our constitutional arrangements"?
adding,
"Only the most compelling grounds of public interest could ever justify the abandonment of trial by jury in any area".
Why does he agree with his illustrious predecessor, Lord Devlin, when he wrote, as mentioned by my noble friend, Lord Wigoder, about diminishing trial by jury? Lord Devlin described Parliament and the jury as the two wheels of the constitution.
It has also been said that the right we are discussing is not an ancient right. I do not know how far back one must go to establish that. We all know that in 1670 those eccentric Quakers, Penn and Mead, were charged with the street offence of unlawful assembly. They were preaching in public a creed that the Government did not like. They were tried by jury and the members of the jury were imprisoned and fined by the judge for sticking resolutely to their unwanted verdict of not guilty. That jury upheld the Quakers' civil liberties against the power of the state, against the establishment and against the vainglory and arrogance of Ministers, as they continue—I am glad to say—to do today, 300 years later.
The language of the Bill says it all. Let us compare it with the language of the Bill it seeks to amend. The 1977 Act states, in words we know so well:
"The court shall explain to the accused in ordinary language that it appears more suitable for him to be tried summarily for the offence and that he can either consent to be so tried or, if he wishes, be tried by a jury".

961
The proposed new Section 19 in Clause 1 of the Bill states:
"The court shall consider whether the accused ought to be tried summarily or on indictment".
The proposed new Section 20(2) states,
"Where the court decides—
not Parliament—
"that the accused ought to be tried summarily then, subject to the outcome of any appeal … the accused shall be tried summarily".
If I may say so, that language says it all. In those few sickening lines of prose, the citizen's right to trial by jury is to be swept away—Magna Carta buried by Labour nova.
In the proposed new Section 19 (2), the accused is to be permitted to make representations. He now becomes a supplicant; his ancient right is now a concession, an indulgence. But of course one must note in passing that freedom still lives in the proposed new Section 21 which states:
"This section applies where a prosecution is being carried on by—

(a) the Attorney General,

(b) the Solicitor General, or

(c) the Director of Public Prosecutions".

The proposed new Section 21(2) states:
"If the person carrying on the prosecution applies for the accused to be tried on indictment—
(a) sections 19 and 20 above shall not apply".
That is the position. As we have heard so often, justices must have regard to reputation. We have heard the comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, on that.
The Narey Report, on which this Bill is founded, had the astonishing arrogance to state:
"Such cases would only be a minority".
I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General agrees with that, but I, like others, venture to assert that every man or woman of good character standing before the court has a reputation. Be he white or black, English or Welsh, rich or poor, it is no business of any magistrate, any lawyer, or any judge, however powerful, to be a judge of that. What if the accused has a conviction? It is to be rolled out and presented in public to the justices. What about the concepts of innocent until proved guilty and equal justice for all? As has already been said, is the most vulnerable of all persons, the most open to wrongful arrest and false accusation, to be deprived of jury trial for all time? Is the man who is trying to remake his life, trying to go straight—even a man with 20 convictions—to be deprived of jury trial for all time?
I do not know whether the Attorney-General realises the power he is putting into the hands of the police or the apprehension of the black community. I do not know whether he remembers the appalling miscarriages which are still with us arising from false confessions and the like. This is the very two-tier system of justice which was so roundly condemned in
962
this House by the predecessor of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham, that doughty champion of the common law, Lord Taylor.
It is, if I may say so, in a long professional life in the criminal courts, always a moment to savour when an accused person, whoever he may be, stands in the dock alone, with the panoply of the law lined up before him, and claims his right to be tried—not by the establishment which has put him there, but by his peers, ordinary men and women from the world outside where he lives. Now, under this proposed amendment, he is to be humiliated before the court, turned into a supplicant and forced against his will to be tried by a tribunal which he sees as part of the establishment and which, rightly or wrongly, he perceives to be weighted against him.
But, in any event, Clause 19 of the Bill blows this whole shabby edifice to smithereens. Why should reputation or loss of a job entitle a person to jury trial? Why is a jury trial appropriate only for him or her? Why should an accused's rights be restored to him or her only in those cases? There is only one answer. It has not been given to us. When it really matters, we need a better, safer and fairer system of justice, a system which brings a higher quality of justice. Is not the whole basis of our system of law that everyone is equal before the law; that everyone is entitled to the same quality of justice, with the same guarantees of fairness and the same due process?
How on earth can the representations which the accused is permitted to make be presented to the justices? "You are not perceived to be fair minded and unprejudiced; you are perceived to accept too readily police evidence. You will not understand my lifestyle; you are all white, middle-class citizens and I am black and deprived. Your clerk is not legally qualified or, if he is, he is a very poor lawyer. If you turn me down, the judge to whom I can appeal sits with you regularly on appeals; he sits with you in committees and he knows you socially." Or maybe, in the end, the immortal words of the former captain of the England rugby team, "You are a lot of old prejudiced and incompetent farts." How is one to make that submission to this court?
Finally, to what offences does the Bill apply? The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, was the first in the debate to refer to them. They have never been referred to otherwise. I shall not repeat them all, but I can add a few more to those given by the noble and learned Lord: possessing offensive weapons; false accountancy; obtaining property by deception; all forms of criminal damage; indecent assault; all drug offences; possession of indecent or obscene material; all customs offences—a whole swathe of criminal offences which deeply affect the public in their ordinary lives. Remove all those from jury trial and what is left? A rump of heinous offences, most of which hardly touch the citizen as he goes about his daily business.
We know the next chapter; it has already been mentioned in the Government's dismantling of what they find is an annoyingly obstructive criminal

963
process. The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, wants research into the jury room. Who wants research into the jury room to find out something about the jury which makes it less authoritative and, as has been mentioned, the removal after that of all long and complicated cases from jury trial as being, in the view of the establishment, too difficult for the common man to understand and, of course, too costly for the poor taxpayer? Sliced off the top, sliced off the bottom. What is left for jury trial?
Again in the same lecture, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Steyn, said that without an independent Bar and the jury, the judiciary would be unequal to its task of protecting the individual from abuses by the executive. In the Access to Justice Act the Lord Chancellor has undermined, perhaps forever, the independence of the advocate. Now the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General—the leader of the Bar, the leader of my profession—is undermining the jury trial. This is indeed a sad day for justice, a sad day for the law and, if I may say so, a sad day for the common man.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I hope the House will forgive me. We are debating a very serious matter but perhaps it is apposite at this stage to remind noble Lords that the Companion states that,
"In debates not formally time limited"—
such as this one—
"Lords opening or winding up, from either side, are expected to keep within 20 minutes. Other speakers are expected to keep within 15 minutes. These are only guidelines and, on occasion, a speech of outstanding importance, or a Ministerial speech winding up an exceptionally long debate, may exceed the limit".
I hope that your Lordships will forgive me for reminding the House of that, but it is important for all Members of the House.
7.7 p.m.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, it is with some hesitation that I speak this evening but I think the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General needs all the help that he can get. I have been attacked twice already and I have not yet spoken. I am therefore speaking with even more trepidation. But I accept the challenge and I am happy to continue. It is an important topic.
I do not speak as a member of the Bar or as a member of the Law Society. I speak with some experience of the law as a former police officer. I was a detective constable, a detective sergeant, a detective inspector and a detective superintendent, so I do have some practical knowledge of what goes on in the criminal justice process.
I should remind your Lordships that you do not have a monopoly in expecting and demanding justice. Many people in society and many police officers—there has been some criticism of the police in the debate—work very hard to achieve justice, often at great risk to themselves. I say no more than that.
It is a truism running through the criminal justice process that justice delayed is justice denied. There is no doubt about that. It follows that anything that
964
speeds up the process will normally be welcomed, provided such expedition is achieved in accordance with due process and fairness. It is my submission that the Bill achieves both objectives.
I believe, with the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, in upholding the value of the jury. I do not demur one little bit. But it saddened me to hear him launch such a vicious attack on magistrates, who deal with 95 per cent of all cases. I believe it is unfortunate that when people read Hansard that will appear as a criticism of the quality of justice in magistrates' courts. Magistrates do a difficult job under difficult circumstances and they are, of course, lay people, as, indeed, are members of juries. I was surprised at the impugning of the value of magistrates.
In my view, the new procedures are in line with just and proper legal principles. As I mentioned, about 95 per cent of all trials now go through the lower courts without any major outcry about faulty or unjust procedures. Indeed, many of the complaints that I hear from colleagues or former colleagues are about perverse jury decisions in the higher courts. I found it rather interesting that the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, prayed in aid the case of the detective superintendent whom he represented, who was clearly wrongfully acquitted by a jury. Somehow the noble Lord seemed to know that the jury really believed that the superintendent was guilty but, nonetheless, he was acquitted. The noble Lord used that as an argument in favour of jury trial. I believe that it was a perverse argument.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. With his very distinguished service in the police and his very distinguished representation of senior police officers, would he agree that the occasional rogue police officer (there are some) who seeks to obtain a wrongful conviction by telling lies would far rather tell those lies to a magistrates' court than to a jury?
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, I find that question difficult to answer because I find it difficult to put myself in the position of a police officer who is prepared to tell lies in either tribunal. Of course, if noble Lords wish, I shall go on to talk about rogue lawyers in a moment. There are some of those about, too, as I am sure your Lordships are aware.
Many of the cases now dealt with in magistrates' courts are identical to those dealt with by the Bill. I mention cases such as theft, burglary and going equipped to steal. With the agreement of the accused, those are dealt with in magistrates' courts. As the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General has mentioned, also covered are offences involving violence against the person, some assaults and some woundings. But he also mentioned other offences, such as taking vehicles without consent, which presumably involves some dishonesty, and criminal damage under £5,000, which clearly affects reputation. He also mentioned, in detail which I shall not repeat, the case of the drunk driver who in the past used to abuse—there is no doubt about that—the jury system.

965
I notice that the noble Lord opposite nods. We all accept that from time to time there are abuses. But we are looking for a more expeditious way of dealing with such matters.
So what is the outcry about from those opponents who speak of breaches of fundamental rights and Magna Carta and so forth? Again, I was proposing to talk on that matter but I believe it has been well answered by the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham, the Lord Chief Justice, has been mentioned this evening. Perhaps I may quote something which he said recently:
"It would be absurd to grant a jury trial in all cases, however trivial, and those who drafted the terms of the Magna Carta would be surprised to find that intention attributed to them".
I agree, my Lords. Serious cases will continue to be sent by magistrates to the Crown Court for trial. Under the Bill, defendants will have a right of appeal to a Crown Court judge against the decision of the magistrates. In any event, almost 75 per cent of either way cases currently tried at Crown Courts are sent there at the behest of magistrates. I agree with my noble friend Lord Borrie that a spotlight should be placed not just on magistrates but on juries. The police service has argued for some time that perverse jury verdicts do occur. There is a dearth of research into what goes on in the jury room. Such research could be carried out in a confidential manner and I believe that there is some merit in that suggestion.
It may also be of interest that England and Wales is the only jurisdiction in the world—I repeat, in the world—which still allows defendants in some cases to choose the venue of their trial. In Scotland, our near devolved neighbour, the decision is made not even by the court; it is made by the prosecution.
I submit that the new process in this Bill is fair and just to the defendant, and it is supported, as I mentioned, by the Lord Chief Justice. It is also supported by the Magistrates' Association, HM Customs and Excise, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the police and some judges. We are talking about some 18,500 out of the 1.8 million cases where defendants are prosecuted each year in the courts. In any case, many of those plead guilty.
What about the £85 million wasted by aborted trials, needless adjournments and delays, defendants not turning up and lawyers' mistakes? Those are not my figures but those of the National Audit Office, as reported in The Times only yesterday. I know from personal experience of defendants who elect trial, not for better justice or a fairer trial, but simply because they know that they are guilty and that they will be found guilty. They elect trial because either they want to spend more time on bail with their families, if they are lucky, and that is perfectly understandable, or, if they go to prison, the time spent on remand will be far more agreeable than that spent as a sentenced prisoner. Of course, the time spent on remand comes off the prison sentence. Therefore, in my experience the process is abused by defendants.
966
I also know of solicitors who used to elect trial on behalf of their clients—it may be that some still do—again, simply to prolong the process and in order to maximise legal aid payments. Those are the realities. It is no good for your Lordships to put your heads in the sand and pretend that those things do not happen. Some members of the public see this place as a House full of lawyers, representing the interests of lawyers, passing laws and the like. I have to say that I do not agree with that view, but I can well understand that that is the perception of people outside this House.
We have a public duty to reduce the costs of justice to the public purse. Some of the funds may then be applied to provide the additional police officers noble Lords opposite are always so keen to appoint. The provisions in the Bill would save more than £100 million—a not insignificant sum. Although we cannot put a price on justice, it is a saving which must be made provided that justice is not diminished. That is the issue which perhaps divides us. I respect the arguments put forward by noble Lords who express an opposing view. However, I believe that the measures in the Bill, with the necessary procedure and appeal mechanism built in, meet the demands of justice.
Why on earth should we be out of step with the rest of the world on this matter? As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, said:
"It is wrong for the defendant, on whose list of priorities the reaching of a just and expeditious decision may not rank very highly, to have the ability to choose the mode of trial".
Neither can it be right to call upon 12 members of the public to give up their valuable time to serve as jurors to try extremely petty cases; for example, the theft of a can of lemonade by a man with 20 previous convictions who clearly is abusing the system. Even then the decision is subject to a right of appeal to a Crown Court judge. Not only do such cases cause disenchantment among jurors; they also undermine the whole system of jury trial itself.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Am I not correct that if "plod" see a chap who they know has a long list of convictions, they think, quite reasonably on many occasions, that they may as well pick him up? They then find that the man has been picked up unfairly. It is that man more than anyone else who needs the protection of the court because he has been unfairly picked up. I must make another point to the noble Lord. We should stand alone because we have stood alone in the quality of our justice for 800 years.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, the noble Earl describes a picture of the police—or "plod" as he put it—picking up someone because he has previous convictions. The noble Earl did not explain the reason and he did not explain what the evidence was. If he thinks that they simply go around looking for someone, he has a distorted sense of what the police do. They have far more important things to do than pick up petty criminals, who in many cases they will know have previous convictions. I reject that example outright.

967
I have mentioned the problem of undermining the system of justice. Is such a change compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights? Yes, it is. The convention guarantees the right to a fair trial; not to trial by jury. It is my submission, in spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, said, that a magistrates' court does provide the necessary legal safeguards for a fair trial.
I could go on, but time does not permit. In my judgment, justice is not diminished by giving this power to decide to a magistrate, with a right of appeal to a Crown Court judge. It will be a further step in the process of modernising the judicial system of this country.
7.21 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, perhaps I may assure the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate, that for years I have had great respect for the police, based partly on my four-and-a-half years in the Home Office but also on my judicial experience, during which I had to try more than 100 jury cases over eight years. On pretty well every occasion I respected the integrity of the police and their desire to help not only to secure convictions but to ensure that justice was done. I admire the noble Lord's attempt to defend the Bill, but I have to say that the arguments that have been put against the Bill by other noble Lords have been put so fully and powerfully that I doubt whether there is an answer to them. At any rate, their speeches have enabled me to shorten mine.
I am glad that my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew of Twysden has spoken. When I spent five years as Recorder of Rochester, he prosecuted in more cases than any other counsel. So much so that on one occasion—I hope that I am not being too frivolous—at a City banquet, when he was a junior barrister, I referred to him as "the Recorder of Rochester". I am glad, too, that my noble friend Lord Onslow is to speak, because I spent three years as Recorder of Guildford, of which he is the High Steward. There again, by the way, I had great respect for the police.
It seems to me that the responsibility given to jurors since the early 13th century for helping to achieve justice and enforce the law is a manifestation of democracy. Indeed, it was the earliest manifestation of democracy—of letting the people feel that it was they who were playing a part not only in achieving justice but in helping to govern the country by deciding whether or not someone should be prosecuted and sentenced. The jury system is democratic because it enables people at large to feel that they play a vital part. Furthermore, it has the advantage, to a greater extent in our country than anywhere else, of enabling the legal profession, especially those performing judicial functions, to feel that they can concentrate on applying the law while letting the representatives of the people decide the facts.
The Government hope that the Bill will reduce by £105 million the cost of administering justice. I think it is doubtful whether that will happen. As my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew pointed out, although
968
there would be fewer jury trials, there would be more appeals of various kinds, each of which would involve an increase in costs. Therefore, the Government's principal reason in favour of the Bill is doubtfully valid. However, even if the Government were correct in estimating that costs would be reduced by £105 million, surely your Lordships and Parliament in general have to consider whether depriving the people, to the extent envisaged by the Bill, of the fundamental right of trial by jury can be justified by a reduction of costs which might be rather more modest than the Government have pointed out. My own view is that it is not justified and so I hope that the Bill does not become law.
7.26 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, before I turn to the Bill, perhaps I may, as a long superannuated predecessor in law of the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General, pay a tribute to the way in which he introduced the Bill. My parliamentary memory goes back to 1951, but even reviewing all the great parliamentarians that I have heard, his speech was a model of persuasiveness and perfect in tone. One can really only judge its merits when one considers how completely this Bill and all the arguments sustaining it have been torn to pieces during the subsequent debate.
Having said that—it is a genuine tribute—perhaps I may turn to the Bill, which is "short-sighted, wrong and unfair." That is not language I normally use from the Cross-Benches about any government Bill. They are the words of the Home Secretary himself when this scheme was mooted in the previous Parliament.
Having been preceded by such conclusive arguments, and as I am to be succeeded by the noble Baroness who made such an effective speech in the debate on the Address and others whom your Lordships will want to hear, I shall confine myself to only two matters. The jury is a microcosm of democratic society. It has all the advantages of the macrocosm and some of its subsidiary drawbacks. In particular, it is an unexampled way of providing for hard cases without making bad law. Of course, a bad law makes hard cases, but even the most beneficent law will throw up hard cases. That was perceived in ancient times, where it was seen that a statute which did justice in the generality of cases would almost inevitably do injustice in a minority of cases—the exceptional cases. If one tries to frame a statute to cover those hard cases, one will create an injustice in the generality of cases. That is why hard cases are said to make bad law.
But the jury can take care of that. The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and other noble Lords have given examples. The judge must apply the law as laid clown by statute and by his predecessors. So must the magistrate, advised by the clerk. They cannot do palm tree justice. If they do, they will surely create injustice sooner rather than later. But the jury can do that, The jury, as has been shown, can meet hard cases—any hard case—by its verdict being unquestioned. The jury can do that without making bad law.

969
To my mind, that aspect is particularly important when we consider the representations that have been made by and on behalf of the ethnic minorities. I believe that all of us who have tried to devote our lives to justice have been deeply disturbed by the Macpherson proceedings. Now we are told in relation to this Bill that the ethnic minorities are genuinely anxious lest its implications would do them a disservice. That point was put in very measured terms by the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, in the debate on the humble Address.
So my first point is this. We need the jury in each-way cases to meet the hard case and so that the defendant knows that he is being tried by his fellows. I believe that it was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, who used the ancient phrase about the defendant putting himself on his country. That is a wonderful phrase. The defendant submits himself to the verdict of his fellow countrymen; people like himself.
The second matter with which I want to deal is the cost. The financial memorandum mentions a saving of £105 million. I am not one of those among your Lordships who say the word "Treasury" with a hiss. I believe that it is entirely necessary. If the queen is to eat bread and honey, the king should be in his counting-house. So I do not regard £105 million as a trifle. However, I should like to know how this figure was arrived at. Is it the cost at the time of the Royal Commission, or is it the cost today? I ask this because the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, demonstrated in her intervention, there has been a dramatic fall in the number of cases where a jury is claimed in the circumstances your Lordships are reviewing.
I should also like to know what is going to be the cost of the appeal procedures. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, elicited an assurance that legal aid would be available, so the costs will not be nugatory. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General will tell us what that figure will be, so that we can see both sides of the accounts. Of course, it is perfectly true that the system has been abused. However, it will also be abused under these provisions. Instead of simply claiming a jury trial at the outset, the defendant, in order to spin things out if he thinks it worth his while, will appeal. That will waste time and money. Such actions will involve delay and expense and are implicit in this Bill.
Finally, I wish to say this. Trial by jury, pace the noble Lord, Lord Warner, does go back in germ to Magna Carta. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, traced its potency afterwards, and that has been enlarged upon by others of your Lordships. Since 1855 we have vouchsafed to those who are the concern of this Bill the right to choose trial by jury. They value it and they protest that that right is being taken away. This proposal has been made without any reference to them and they are to be deprived of it.
7.38 p.m.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: My Lords, I shall start by taking noble Lords into my confidence. I have known the Secretary of State for a very long time. He did pupillage in the chambers my boyfriend was in back in the 1970s. I got to know him rather well and I am very fond of him. Indeed, when yesterday I saw him in the Palace, I clutched him to my bosom, as I always do, and I hope that I shall be able to do so again even after we have disposed of the Bill.
However, I must tell noble Lords that I am worried about my right hon. Friend because I believe that it is difficult to find an explanation for his recent rash of illiberalism and his volte-face on this subject. I can only think that he is keeping bad company. He must be spending too much time with the trimmers and the cost-cutters and those who exist without reference to principle. By way of mitigation for him I believe that this is a temporary aberration and I am sure that we shall be able to woo him back to the right path.
When we bumped into each other yesterday, my right hon. Friend said, "Helena, you're a proud Scot. They do this in Scotland". There is no election by the accused in Scotland on both-way cases; it is the procurator fiscal who is able to choose. I said that that was not a very good argument; we had just gone through the process of devolution, based on the principle that the Scots, proud of their traditions, which are distinctive in education and law, should be able to enjoy their distinctiveness. I believe that the English should be able to enjoy their distinctiveness too. I hope that the English will see that this proposal tramples on what is distinctive and precious for them and that it is an intolerable destruction of an important right.
My noble and learned friend the Attorney-General has said that there have been encroachments on the right to trial by jury on previous occasions; for example, the right to trial by jury in drink-driving cases was taken away, as it was in relation to criminal damage. It should be emphasised that the difference with this proposal is that in those cases everyone was affected, irrespective of class, or whether they were black or white or rich or poor; and no choice was being made by magistrates as to whether they were to benefit from one form of trial or another. What is especially invidious about this change is that it gives that discretion to magistrates, and we can almost invariably guess that it runs the risk of being abused on occasions. I want to emphasise the way in which the proposal is being received by the black community, whose members are very alarmed by the Bill—and they are right to be alarmed. I shall deal with that point later.
It is regrettable that the Government have embarked on such a politically controversial and unnecessary reform. A key theme underlying the Government's arguments in favour of abolition of the right of election is that many defendants are manipulative, almost malign, and that they play the system to cause unnecessary delay and to attempt to avoid the consequences of their anti-social behaviour.

971
Although I accept that there are such people in the system, in my experience that description does not fit most ordinary defendants. The majority of citizens say that they do not understand all that there is to understand about the criminal justice system and how it operates. I suggest that most accused people are in exactly the same position of bewilderment at the situation in which they find themselves. They are usually people with social problems rather than manipulative people. They are confused, and want above all else to escape from their immediate predicament as soon as possible, even when it may not be in their best legal interest to do so. Obviously, they want to minimise the negative consequences for themselves; but that is not the same as seeking to avoid the consequences altogether. After all, the vast majority of defendants, even those charged with the most serious either-way offences plead guilty—95 per cent plead guilty and are dealt with in a magistrates' court. The majority even of those who are dealt with on electable (either-way) offences ask to have them dealt with in the magistrates' court.
It seems that the findings of the Royal Commission report are the grounds most cited to justify the change. The commission reported in 1993, at a time when 34,000 cases were being taken to the Crown Court as a result of election. That number has been reduced to 18,000. The reasons are the introduction of "plea before venue" and the new legislative requirement that lawyers and the courts must advise those who are accused that credit will be given for an early plea. For those reasons, we have seen an enormous reduction in cases going for trial.
It is true that some accused, usually on legal advice, will delay their guilty plea, but often for good reason. I do not want it to be imagined that it is only those who are abusing the system who do that. Sometimes, people want to see whether the system itself will review the case against them in the light of emerging evidence. Perhaps I may quote from a letter in The Times on 25th November from Lee Bridges, the respected academic and direct or of the Legal Research Institute. He says:
"It is true that many defendants who elect and subsequently plead guilty do so after the charges against them have been reduced. But there is no evidence that such reductions in charges are the result of 'pressure on the Crown', or are unjustified.
In fact, both Home Office and independent research shows that black and Asian defendants not only have higher rates of acquittal but also have charges against them dropped or reduced more often than whites. This is consistent with a pattern of police discrimination in 'over-charging' ethnic minority suspects. When such defendants elect jury trial, this sets off a more thorough review of the evidence by the Crown, frequently leading to charges being changed.
Denying defendants this right may well serve to reinforce police racism".
We should also do well to remember that no fewer than 25 per cent of all either-way cases end up in terminations without a formal decision of the court, usually as a result of the prosecution dropping the charges. My noble and learned friend may say that, as a result of delay, sometimes witnesses do not turn up. But sometimes dishonest witnesses decide to retract
972
their statements, or want to avoid being cross-examined and found wanting. Sometimes, alibis are found, and that makes all the difference. Sometimes, when the CPS has had time to review the case, evidential issues come to light to show that the case could never succeed. So there are very good reasons why cases are dropped or original charges reduced due to over-charging. If we put the right of election for jury trial into that context, we know that the vast majority of defendants—24 out of 25—given the option, choose to have their case dealt with in a magistrates' court. So we are dealing with a very small proportion of cases.
It should be remembered that, in Scotland, where defendants do not have the right of election, the situation is different. It is not a case of an accused coming before a lay magistrate; the sheriff is a judge. It is also the case that, on conviction following summary trial, the sentencing powers of the sheriff are limited in similar ways to those of magistrates in England and Wales. I make that point because the Home Secretary has maintained that the sheriff in Scotland has greater powers; for instance, the power to impose a three-year sentence. Perhaps I may inform my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General of what happens in Scotland.
There are three modes of trial. There is summary trial before a sheriff (a judge), and his maximum powers are as follows. If my noble and learned friend wants confirmation, I refer him to Section 5 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995. Summarily, the sheriff can impose a three-month sentence on any one complaint. If a person has previous convictions and it is a second or third offence of dishonesty or violence, the sheriff can impose a sentence of up to six months. In a very small number of cases, it is possible to impose a sentence of 12 months, but those cases are classified and are very limited. An example would be possession of a Class A drug. So there is a real limitation on the sheriffs powers at the summary level. One complaint is considered to be a set of continuous offences. So if a person breaks into a car, steals a radio and sells it, that is one complaint. The maximum power would be to impose a sentence of three months, or six months if the person has a previous conviction.
At a meeting yesterday, it was maintained that the powers include a sentence of three years. That is not true. The sheriff has that maximum power in a trial by jury. He then has the power to commit for sentencing to the High Court if he deems that his maximum power to impose a three-year sentence is not enough. Then a High Court in the Scottish courts will sentence. That tells us that in the summary jurisdiction there is a limit on the powers of the sheriff, which is not the case here. Magistrates would hear such cases and then commit for sentence to the Crown Court; so there is not even that matter of principle: that, in taking away this right, at least it is not dealing with sentencing of a very high level and there is no significant risk in terms of liberty to the accused. It is a different system, and it really is invidious to make comparisons. There are issues here which need to be untangled. I think there has been a rush to this piece of legislation. That has been unfortunate.

973
What about the manipulative defendant? If anything, the Government's proposals, if implemented, will give manipulative defendants greater opportunities to play the system than they have at present. The defendant will first be able to advance his arguments in the magistrates' court as to why he should be tried in the Crown Court. If the magistrates decide against him, he will go up to the Crown Court on appeal, and if the appeal fails, the case will go back to the magistrates' court to be scheduled for trial. The defendant would then make an application saying, "I don't want the original magistrates who heard my case because they will know about my convictions". Then you would have the problem which always exists in a magistrates' court on a trial lasting more than one day. I refer to the fact that getting people who may be bank managers, teachers and so on to come back again a month later for the next stage of the hearing, or the month after that, is always very difficult. One will certainly see delays and "spinning out" here.
On conviction, the defendant could again appeal to the Crown Court for a rehearing of the case. I really cannot imagine how you would begin to explain the yo-yo type of procedure to the general public as making sense or being an improvement. I ask your Lordships to forgive me for the time I am taking, but I want to emphasise the detail because it is in the detail that one can see the folly of this.
In my view, the most rational way of dealing with a manipulative defendant is to get a case before the Crown Court as quickly as possible. If convicted, he should be punished in line with the fullest range of penalties available under the law, taking into account the fact that he chose to avoid having the case dealt with under summary jurisdiction. This can be best achieved by sending the case to the Crown Court, whether by way of a magistrate's direction or a defendant's election, as quickly as possible. It may even be possible, if the procedures for indictable-only cases going directly to the Crown Court prove to be successful, for such procedures to be extended to these both-ways cases. I really feel that my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General must look at this again.
Finally, on the issue of race, it will be argued that the Home Office's research into sentencing—and indeed into many areas—shows that black people fare no differently from white people. Recently this was called into question. Work has recently been conducted by the Commission for Racial Equality on whether there is any discrimination against Irish people. This relates to the aftermath of a long period during which, as we know, in Northern Ireland there have been acts of terrorism. It was therefore felt that Irish people, particularly in the major cities, may have experienced discrimination. It was found that they were indeed experiencing discrimination in the courts. Certainly, they have the perception that they have experienced discrimination in the courts. A piece of research was presented at a recent conference, and if Irish people are taken out of the white component, and white people are compared with black, it will be found that there is a very real distinction between the way in which white
974
people and black people are dealt with in the courts at many different stages. I put that point to my noble and learned friends. I hope that they will look into this question because I feel that they are relying on very unsatisfactory research. I hope that these submissions will be accepted in the spirit in which they are intended. I have been able to draw on the assistance of Professor Lee Bridges in drawing up these submissions to this House.
I do not regard myself, and I do not think that many people would regard me, as being among the forces of conservatism or as one who stands out against reform and modernisation of the legal system. I have been one of the voices most active in calling for reform of the legal system. However, I also think that it is possible to pursue reform and to achieve objectives such as efficiency in ways which are more in tune with our values and with the practical working of the system.
I heard the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, say that on occasion he has known what it is to be lonely on his Benches. I too have on occasion known what it is to feel lonely on one's own Benches; but happily it has not happened to me too often and, happily, it is not happening on this issue. There are many in the ranks of Labour Peers who are very unsettled by this Bill. There are many people in the Labour Party who are profoundly troubled and shocked by this Bill. Indeed, there are many who are sick at heart at the idea that these changes will be introduced. So I say to my noble and learned friend: think again.
I suspect that the true reason for this Bill is that the Human Rights Act is due to come into play next year and it is feared that it may take up quite a bit of time in the Crown Court. Therefore, the Government are trying to clear the way so that they are not criticised for having introduced that Act.
No one could ever think that an Act incorporating human rights provisions in this country was folly: no one with a good heart. But to start doing this in order to achieve that end is wholly inappropriate, and so I say: do think again and withdraw this Bill.
7.56 p.m.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, I would hope that all noble Lords and the noble Baroness who has just spoken would not regard this as a party political debate at all. Regardless of party politics, I think that the majority in your Lordships' House tonight agree that it is very difficult to find anything good to say about the Bill which is at present before us. The volte face, for instance, of the Home Secretary concerning this Bill is in direct contrast to his views which were stated when in Opposition. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has indeed already quoted the comment made on 23rd February 1997, when shadow Home Secretary: the proposal was described as wrong, short-sighted and likely to prove ineffective.
Indeed, this is what I think the majority of your Lordships are saying tonight. That opinion is held not only by my colleagues on this side of the House but also by members of the Law Society, the Bar Council,

975
Liberty, Justice, the Society of Black Lawyers and others, including, I understand, the Director of Public Prosecutions. It is indeed surprising that a government which claims to be giving more freedom to the individual, less bureaucracy and less intolerance, is clamping down on a defendant's right to choose the form of trial to which he or she might be entitled under the current law, which might be helpful to his or her case: a right which has existed since 1855, as many speakers have said. That is nearly 150 years ago.
It is irrelevant to claim that other countries do not give defendants an equivalent right. Those countries do not have lay magistrates to take such decisions: they are all taken by professional lawyers. That, I think, is the distinction between England and Wales and Scotland and other countries outside the traditional area of England and Wales. They do not have the lay magistrates that we have here. In Scotland, for instance, as the noble Baroness said, a decision concerning the holding of the trial is taken either by a judge or by a sheriff and a jury. Before any change might be made to deprive the defendant of his right to select a trial by jury, the lower or magistrates' court should also have stipendiary magistrates—that is, legally qualified professionals, conversant with aspects of law on which lay magistrates would almost certainly have to rely on their clerks to the court. Lay magistrates do not have, and cannot be expected to have, the experience and detailed knowledge of the judges of the Crown Courts. Figures for 1998, some of which have been mentioned by noble Lords, show, for example, that 18,500 defendants elected trial by jury, but over 47,000 cases were directed to the Crown Courts by magistrates. That comes from Hansard, Commons, for 22nd June 1999.
It is understandable that a sum of approximately £70 million might be saved annually by the hearing of more cases in the magistrates' courts. They will be heard by voluntary lay magistrates rather than by judges in the Crown Courts, but that will not ensure that justice and fairness are guaranteed. There is no guarantee that the defendants will be given the rights that they receive in the Crown Courts. Cost-cutting should he no grounds for denial of the right to jury trial, held to be a cornerstone of the British legal system.
The views expressed by Courtenay Griffiths QC of the Society of Black Lawyers also confirm the opposition to removing the right of defendants to make a choice in either-way cases. M any noble Lords have mentioned the problem for black citizens who come before the courts. Courtenay Griffiths said:
"A fair hearing from a randomly selected panel of jurors greatly enhances the confidence that minority communities have in the justice system".
We cannot deny that and we should riot close our eyes to that statement. It gives important backing to the position of black citizens who prefer to go to trial by a court rather than come before the magistrates.
As I understand it, lay magistrates have been appointed since the 12th century. There has been some discussion as to the date, but my latest information is that they existed in the late 12th century, starting in
976
about 1150 or 1160. Through the years, they have performed, and still perform, an admirable and important role in the administration of justice. It may be, however, that that role should be closely examined before new powers and duties such as those in the Bill before your Lordships today are imposed upon them and before restrictions are imposed on defendants seeking a fair and just trial.
8.2 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, at this stage of the debate I am sure it would be a mercy if I confine myself to what little bits of flesh remain on the bones of this great subject. Before I say my few words, I wish to make clear that I entirely share the sentiments of my noble colleagues in this House who have made plain their admiration for the lay magistracy. It seems to me to be the heart and backbone of our legal system. The fact that it deals with 95 per cent of all criminal cases is a measure of the huge importance of the lay magistracy. The fact that they are of the people, by the people and for the people gives them an importance and status which is not shared by other parts of the judicial system. Nothing I say tonight can be taken as reflecting ill on them.
Nevertheless, justice depends on public confidence. As many have said already tonight, there is a clear unarguable fact in all this. People choose trial by jury in either-way cases in large numbers, even though the rogues among them know full well that the sentences which would be handed out by a judge at the Crown Court will be two to three times heavier than the sentence of justices. The reason people choose trial by jury is that they have more confidence in it than in any other form of trial. It is as simple as that. It has nothing to do with whether magistrates are good or bad, it is that people believe, rightly or wrongly, whether through prejudice or enlightenment, that trial by jury is the best trial.
That public confidence and perception is made up partly of reason, partly of fact, partly of experience and partly of belief, or, some would say, prejudice. The groups who cling most strongly to that belief, who place most importance on the prospect of trial by jury are those among the poor, the socially excluded, the minority groups. They, in particular, have a perception of jury trial which makes them cling to it.
Those marginalised groups are the same groups as those from which are drawn a totally disproportionate number of accused people. They are the ones clogging our courts, the people causing trouble on our streets—not exclusively, but disproportionately. In anything that the Government seek to do, to ignore the issue of public confidence, particularly in those groups, is wholly self-defeating.
The question of reputation is of great importance. The noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General made plain that his change of heart in all this partly hinged around the fact that there would be an appeal against a refusal by magistrates of trial by jury. There has been introduced into the factors which magistrates must take into account the factor of reputation. I say

977
to the Government that there is subjective or private reputation and objective or public reputation. I believe that many people, precisely from the groups I mentioned, have no objective or public reputation. They are nobodies, they feel nobodies, they have little self-esteem, they cut no ice in their communities.
The distinction magistrates will be called upon to make in terms of reputation, between one person before them and another, is invidious in the extreme. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, put it eloquently. He gave the case of his wife's inadvertence in rushing out of the supermarket and the assumption made that had she been charged she would certainly have gone for a jury trial. If under the new aegis she had gone to the magistrates and sought trial by jury and they had been considering the question of reputation, she would have gone through like a dose of salts. They would say that there was no one who had more to lose with reputation than the wife of a former Attorney-General, now a Peer of the realm.
I am sure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, will not misunderstand me if I say that that would be complete eyewash, complete "cock", to use a good old Anglo-Saxon word. In my view, Lady Mayhew has no more right to trial by jury for shoplifting than her charlady or, even worse, the rogue and vagabond who steals apples from her apple tree. Most speakers have expressed the same view. I have absolutely no confidence in the reputation let-out.
Then there is the issue of equality before the law. We all mouth "equality before the law" endlessly. We Brits claim it as one of the great shining lights of our culture. Maybe. It is difficult to achieve equality before the law, and the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General has the merit in this debate of knowing what he is talking about, having had a career at the Bar. It is difficult to achieve equality before the law, and most difficult with the groups I have enumerated: the poor, the socially excluded and the minorities. I shall not spend time tonight explaining why that is so; noble Lords all know that it is so. They know the problems of lack of articulateness, lack of conviction, even with their own solicitors and counsel.
I repeat; unless the system of law in this country protects those people, it will be a bad day for justice overall. To the extent to which those groups lose confidence in a system in which they already have little confidence, the problems of crime, disorder and anti-social behaviour will, in the long term, insidiously, immeasurably increase and grow.
I turn finally to abuse of process. The Government have laid great stress on the degree to which rogues exploit the system by using the either way option that currently prevails. I believe that the choice is a simple one. We must decide what is more important: to ensure that innocent men and women are not convicted or that guilty ones are. Traditionally, we have made up our minds with absolute clarity that by far the more important aim is not to convict innocent people, but the price that is attached to that is that rogues will
978
exploit the very bias that we have built into the judicial system. They will be good at that—and they will do it for ever.
If we try to reduce the scope for potential abuse by amending the system of justice we shall end up reducing justice itself. We cannot have it both ways. If some noble Lords in this House become fed up with lawyers telling them that that is so, I believe that experience of the court system is required to understand the extent to which that crucial choice must be made. If one tailors justice to the need to frustrate the rogue one will end up with no justice.
With those few remarks—eschewing many others that I would have wished to make but knowing that they have been made eloquently by others—I revert to an earlier observation by my noble friend Lord Hutchinson. Quoting Lord Devlin, he said that the jury system was the lamp by which liberty lived. One must not always regard this as a dry, managerial measure. Justice is about feelings, convictions and beliefs. In this country our belief in the jury system is well placed. It is useless to compare us with other countries with different cultures, histories and systems—even the Scots over the Border. Clearly, in proposing this amendment the onus is on the Government. That onus is not the civil but criminal test. They must prove their case beyond reasonable doubt. I put it to the House that they have manifestly failed to do that and have not even satisfied the civil test based on the balance of probabilities.
8.12 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I never admire the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, more than when I hear him argue a bad case. He did so with great gentleness, excellent good manners and consummate skill. He put to us the proposition that this is an issue in which the wider community has an interest. I am no lawyer and speak as a member of that wider community. I therefore believe that that is the test to which I should attempt to rise.
When you hear a number of people speak in favour of this Bill, you form the suspicion that they believe it is in the wider public interest because it is not in the interest of lawyers. The noble and learned Lord himself must have been aware that he left a subliminal scintilla of thought in our minds that the wider public interest was in some way opposed to the interest of lawyers. This is where I believe we need to do a little more thinking. To my mind at least there is a presumption—rebuttable no doubt but still a presumption—that professions usually know more about how to run their own affairs than anyone else. I say "usually", but they do know a good deal more about it than other people. Even if they are in some respects wrong one cannot usually act with consummate skill when acting against one's conscience. If one believes that what one is doing is wrong, even if one is mistaken in that belief, one will tend to do it worse.
But when one comes to consider vested interests, it is not only lawyers who have a vested interest. Governments in all centuries have loved to speak as if

979
they spoke for the public interest and no one else did. But government also have a vested interest. Government has a collective will, culture and outlook which may on occasion operate quite as much against the public interest as the culture of any profession. That thought came into my mind when I heard the noble and learned Lord say that the Bill was intended to make the courts operate efficiently. I have been in a public service which has been made to operate efficiently. Here I declare an interest. When it comes to "work efficiently", to make the division according to Whitehall-speak, it ceases to operate effectively, because of course in Whitehall-speak these are two quite different things.
For some reason in any century people have tended to love the law and hate the lawyers. As a psychological phenomenon it is of great interest and needs more learned academic study than it has yet received. I believe that this reveals two points: first, that people cannot accept the idea that justice, which they believe to be a right, must be paid for. It has a price no matter who pays it. I believe that that is a thought which people resist. Secondly, a great many people cannot accept the idea that justice may, and very often does, hang on a technicality. So I believe we should forget any thought of welcoming the Bill because the lawyers do not like it. On the whole, they are more self-critical as a profession than any other with which I have dealt while I have been here, and for that I believe that they deserve respect.
However, as a member of the public I have interests in other aspects of the criminal justice system. I like it to be cheaper and quicker whenever possible but, when I wonder whether it will be, I find the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, extremely persuasive. But it matters a great deal more to me to consider whether judgments reached by the criminal justice system are likely to be right; even more, whether members of the public are going to believe that those judgments are like y to be right. The belief of the public that people condemned in the courts are, or are likely to be, justly condemned is perhaps the most important asset that a criminal justice system can have.
In 1637, the Earl of Strafford, watching people feting Prynne round the pillory, remarked:
"A prince that loseth the force and example of his punishments loseth withal the greatest part of his dominion".
So if this change were to have the effect of giving people less confidence in the verdicts of the criminal justice system I do not believe that that would be a good thing.
We are told that acquittals in magistrates' courts and Crown Courts run at 25 per cent and 40 per cent respectively. I do not know which if either of those figures is nearer to the truth, and I shall not make an argument on that basis. The argument on which I rest is that I know which mistake I would rather make.
I must confess that, like other noble Lords, I was a little worried about the way in which the noble and learned Lord talked about a man with eight previous convictions for shop-lifting and assumed that he must be abusing the system if he elected trial by jury. At least
980
the noble and learned Lord gave that impression. If the noble and learned Lord wishes to say that that was unintended I shall be delighted to take his intervention and have it in the record.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the point that one sought to make was that one had to look at the circumstances of each individual. I do not subscribe to the view that someone who is of perfectly clean character has precisely the same reputation as someone with eight previous convictions.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am most grateful for that useful clarification. The point of reputation is one of the worrying matters on which other noble Lords have touched. Obviously, a man without a reputation is as likely—one may say more likely—to be wrongly accused as anybody else. The fact that people with good reputations have a form of trial with a more substantial chance of acquittal than those who do not is in terms of both class and race patently discriminatory. I shall not develop the point about race because my noble friend Lord Dholakia intends to deal with it at some length. I have heard a lot of the evidence on which he intends to rely and I find it quite painfully persuasive.
I am not a human rights law specialist. I do not know what line the ECHR will take about the Bill. But were it to find it to be unjustified, I suspect that it is precisely that point of discrimination on which it would find.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate, suggested that there was no danger here because other restrictions of trial by jury have not met challenge. But they did not have this clearly discriminatory element. That perturbs me considerably. However, much more important is the significance for the concept of the active citizen of the concept of having a jury. The noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate, talked slightly dismissively about people having to give up their valuable time in order to take part in the criminal justice system. But of course it is precisely by giving up one's valuable time that one feels a sense of ownership in one's own criminal justice system.
The two peculiarities of England over the centuries were, first, a very early centralised monarchy; and, secondly, an exceptionally strong tradition of local self government—as F W Maitland felicitously put it: self government at the king's command. It is the marriage of those two traditions which has made our government capable of working. It is in that system of self government by the king's command that the jury system has a particular importance.
I have heard noble and learned Lords in this Chamber complaining about the need to protect the reputation of the courts, most particularly from the interventions of tabloid newspapers. You do not know anything about a court case if you have merely read the press reports. But if you have sat through the whole trial as a jury member then you do know something about it. It means that members of the public have ownership of the verdict. And, what is more, because they are anonymous no tabloid can effectively attack

981
them. That is a very precious asset. It is not lightly to be diminished—not even for a considerable saving of money or time. As the reputation of the criminal justice system declines, as we feel less ownership of the system, that asset will waste.
The noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, answered a question last week about public participation in the electoral system. The problem of dwindling public participation stretches wider than just the issue of criminal justice or voting. In other issues, such as Neighbourhood Watch, the Government have been particularly concerned to get people back into the process of being involved in, and feeling a sense of ownership of, their own political and judicial process. The jury is one part of that process which is working. It would be a shame to diminish that; to let people think that the criminal justice system is "them" when they could be thinking that it is "us".
I shall not follow the example of a former Archbishop of Canterbury speaking in this House in 1610 who moved that the Bill be committed to the pit of hell. I am a great deal more charitable than that. But were the Bill to be committed to the waters of Lethe, I should be very much relieved.
8.23 p.m.
Lord Warner: My Lords, I support the changes in the Bill. I listened with some fascination to the confessions of my noble friend Lady Kennedy about her close relationship with the Home Secretary. I, too, must confess that I have known the Home Secretary for 25 years and have worked as his policy adviser. So I may well be described as one of these trimmers and bad company that the Home Secretary has fallen into. However, the Home Secretary is a Fellow of the Royal Statistical Society and he has this extraordinarily dangerous trait among politicians of being data rational. Part of the difficulties may be that we are introducing a few facts. I know that it is rather boring and mundane, and has little to do with the romantic sweep of some of the speeches made today. But it is an uncomfortable fact that we have to look at a few of the facts.
In the past Session we debated the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Bill, another part of the rebalancing of the criminal justice system of which the current Bill is a part. There were speeches from many Members of this House who had spent their lives working in the criminal justice system. The feature of many of those speeches was the number of extremely elegant and splendid arguments advanced for doing absolutely nothing to the processes and procedures of that system.
I always listen with great interest to noble and learned Lords with their extensive experience of the criminal justice system and the way they love to debate the detail of that system. But the argument usually ends up at the same place: that we should reject change and maintain the status quo. Somehow experienced practitioners often convey the sense that they are the custodians of some secret garden into which the laity—
982
I freely confess that I am a member of it—peep from time to time. It is often regarded as rather vulgar to talk about money, costs and resources. There seems to be some underlying assumption that unlike other equally important public services like healthcare and education it is wrong to question whether we get good value for public money from the £11 to £12 billion spent each year on criminal justice, one of the fastest rising areas of public expenditure in the past decade.
I note that in many of our debates on criminal justice legislation there is much preoccupation with the rights of defendants; and today is no exception. I suggest that equal weight is too rarely given to the position of victims, witnesses and the public. If defendants continue with their present rights to choose the court in which they are tried, they can continue to opt for a court where the time it takes to bring a case to court means more delay and waiting for victims and witnesses, and higher costs to the public purse.
All that may well be justified when the charge faced by the defendant is a very serious one. However, those traditional arguments about being able to elect for jury trial seem to me far weaker when the charge could be, and currently usually is, tried now in magistrates' courts.
Much rhetoric has been deployed in the debate about fundamental liberties being eroded, reductions in fundamental rights, and so on. The reality of what we are discussing is far more mundane than some of its critics would have us believe. I shall not go into the fact that until 1855 defendants had no ability to choose to be tried by jury. Since then we have seen many reclassifications of offences.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, if the noble Lord will give way, defendants had the right and had to be tried by jury until 1855. An Act was passed allowing trial by magistrates' courts. It is that way round, not the way the noble Lord put it.
Lord Warner: My Lords, in my hurry I misrepresented the position. Perhaps I may continue. Since then there have been many reclassifications of offences which have restricted the area of choice to elect for venue and trial by jury. We have already heard about Scotland. The facts of life are that in Scotland the accused has never had the right to choose the court where the case is tried. Today the reality is that 97 per cent of all the 1.8 million criminal cases dealt with each year are tried in magistrates' courts.
We are not debating some great fundamental centuries-old right today. As far as I can judge, we are discussing whether there should be a further adjustment to the position of the 18,000 or so people each year charged with either-way offences who elect for trial by jury.
I suggest that the Government's proposal is modest. A great deal of sport has been had at the expense of the Attorney-General about so-called changes of position. I believe that the Attorney-General has been extraordinarily consistent. I have heard my noble and learned friend argue consistently within government

983
for the appeal mechanism which he has described in much detail as a robust safeguard for people under these changes. I hope that he will not charge me under the Official Secrets Act for revealing that.
I want briefly to reiterate some of the fact about the 18,000-odd cases a year in which the accused elects for jury trial in either-way cases. A large sample of 1998 cases strongly suggests that in about 60 per cent the accused pleads guilty before the case comes to trial—
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. More often than not, the accused pleads guilty to a lesser offence. It is wrong to suggest that he pleads guilty to the offence for which he was committed.
Lord Warner: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. If he had waited a little longer, I would soon have come to that point. In some of the cases, there is a strong suspicion that the accused elected for trial by jury so that their lawyers had time to secure lesser charges to which they could plead guilty—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Warner: Well, come on. They could then gain a more lenient sentence. Nine out of 10 of the convicted people who elected for trial at Crown Court had previous convictions, as my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General—
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lord, does not the noble Lord appreciate that often there is overcharging, particularly with the ethnic minorities in this country? People are charged with offences which are way above the conduct they have committed. What happens at the Crown Court is sensible discussion and negotiation. A basis for plea is worked out between the prosecution and the defence which enables the judge to pass a proper sentence for that which the defendant has done. I wonder whether the noble Lord has any experience at all of the courts since he talks so freely about our speaking in rhetorical terms about jobs we have done for 30 and 40 years.
Lord Warner: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I shall turn later to the issue of defendants from the ethnic minorities. He expressed more elegantly some of the facts that I was putting more crudely. I want to put on the record that nine out of 10 convicted people who elected for trial at the Crown Court had previous convictions. That is a fact. It is not a matter of opinion; it is a fact. One third of them had more than 10 convictions.
We are talking about only 15 per cent of those who elected for trial by jury being acquitted. That is fewer than 3,000 a year. I accept that there may have been discussions which led to a lesser charge and a plea of guilty being secured. That does not alter my argument that there was a case for electing for trial by jury in
984
order to secure that outcome. It seems that the noble Lord acknowledges that in his daily practice that is a feature of life in the criminal court.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, it is a feature in the Crown Court; it is not a feature in the magistrates' court. That is the point. There are experienced counsel who can arrive at a proper conclusion.
Lord Warner: My Lords, I do not accept that the noble Lord has made a point which destroys the factual argument I have tried to put forward. Perhaps I may continue to run the argument. Many of us sat patiently while the noble Lord expressed his arguments and did not intervene quite so often. We are not in court now.
There may be some who believe that magistrates may become power-crazed under these measures and keep more and more inappropriate cases to themselves. The facts are that in 1998 magistrates directed 47,000 either-way cases to the Crown Courts, far more than elected for trial by jury. Just in case some magistrates get delusions of grandeur, the Attorney-General has explained the appeal mechanisms that will be put in place.
I want to turn to the question of whether people from ethnic minorities—
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: My Lords, I wonder whether I may ask the policy adviser to the Home Secretary: were you one of the people who gave this advice to the Home Secretary? Was this your idea? Am I allowed to ask that question?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Baroness is not allowed to ask that question—
Noble Lords: She is!
Lord Warner: My Lords, she is allowed to ask it, but I do not have to answer it, if I may say so.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, the noble Lord could elect to answer it.
Lord Warner: My Lords, I might elect to answer it, but I suggest that I am entitled to behave in exactly the same way as does the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, and many noble Lords in protecting client confidentiality in these matters.
I want to turn to the question of whether defendants from ethnic minorities will be disadvantaged under the legislation. I must confess that this is one aspect of the proposed change that has troubled me. I was concerned that its possible impact on defendants from ethnic minorities might cause me some problems of conscience in supporting the Bill. People whose judgment I respect have expressed concerns to me.
However, I have looked carefully into the aspect and I can find no evidence that black defendants get a. raw deal in magistrates' courts. I do not believe that many of the arguments about whether the police produce

985
more charges in relation to ethnic minorities is germane to the Bill. The point at issue is whether they would get a more raw deal in magistrates' courts. I suggest that there is no evidence that black and white male defendants are sentenced there any differently and there is good evidence from mid-1990s Home Office research to show that.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene. Has the noble Lord looked at the question of whether the presence of white Irish accused might be distorting those figures?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I am well aware of that evidence, but I believe that there is an excitableness about many Members of this House who come from a criminal law background. It would be nice if one could continue the flow of the argument for a little while as some of us who do not come from that elegant background have sat patiently and listened to many of their arguments when we have not agreed with them.
I am aware of the evidence that the noble Baroness mentioned. I listened carefully to her speech. However, if I may be allowed to continue, I was about to say that I believe that the House will find that new Home Office research to be published soon will show that in magistrates' courts there is a higher conviction rate among white defendants than among those from ethnic minorities. Another so far unpublished study will show that the acquittal rate for black defendants is higher in magistrates' courts than in Crown Courts.
I have not been able to find a shred of evidence that if more either-way cases were tried in magistrates' courts as a result of the Bill, defendants from ethnic minorities would be disadvantaged. I suggest that the evidence points in the other direction. It would be helpful if my noble friends on the Front Bench could try to make some of that evidence more readily available so that we do not have the kind of scaremongering arguments about the Bill damaging the position of people from ethnic minorities if more cases were tried in magistrates' courts.
I shall not weary the House with a list of those who have spoken in support of changes akin to the proposals in the Bill. However, I want to mention the Lord Chief Justice and Sir lain Glidewell in his review of the CPS. They are not viewpoints which, in my short time here, I have seen noble Lords lightly cast aside. It is worth recalling that Sir lain Glidewell confessed that he had changed his mind on the issue after studying it further and looking at all the facts.
My right honourable friend the Home Secretary, in his characteristically honest way, has acknowledged frankly that he has done the same. He is entitled to be congratulated on that, as is Sir Iain Glidewell, who chaired the review into the CPS. I should encourage many noble Lords who have spoken today with great flair, energy and conviction, to show some of the same maturity as the Home Secretary and Sir lain; to look at the facts a little more dispassionately; and to set aside some of the institutionalised behaviour so widely demonstrated today.
8.39 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, if I were the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, I should be rather depressed by the quality of support I had had from my own Back Benches.
The noble Lord, Lord Warner, was bowled just about the fastest ball that has ever been bowled in this House, by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy. We have just introduced into the criminal law the concept that if someone refuses to give evidence, the judge may draw that to the attention of the jury to extract what conclusion they can from it. It seems to me that we should do well to draw conclusions from the eloquent silence of the noble Lord, Lord Warner, as opposed to his ineloquent speech.
Lord Warner: My Lords, I must put my position quite clearly. I refuse to say what advice I may or may not have given to the Home Secretary as a policy adviser, which is quite proper for me to do. The noble Earl is not in any position to draw the inference which he has drawn. I am not going to expand any further, but I believe that he is misleading the House by drawing the inference which he has drawn from my silence.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I am not misleading the House by drawing that inference; I am simply drawing that inference. I am sorry, but that is the inference which I have drawn, and I believe that other noble Lords may have drawn exactly the same inference. It is interesting also that the noble Lord said, "I am data rational". I suggest that data rationality has no soul. Justice has soul. It is quintessential to this country.
During a Division in March 1994 I was trooping through one of the Lobbies—I cannot remember which—to vote against my right honourable friend Mr Michael Howard. I believed that he was introducing illiberal measures into the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, and I still believe that he was doing so. Mr Straw spoke eloquently against some of those measures, but then changed his mind. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams, and I came, I believe, through the same Lobby, and I said to him, "Do you know, whoever wins the next election, Michael Howard's soulmate will still be Home Secretary?" Unfortunately, that has happened.
I notice also that in the Bill, under the heading, "European Convention on Human Rights", the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, has made the following statement:
"In my view the provisions of the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) Bill [H.L.] are compatible with the Convention rights".
All I can say to that is, "Oh does he?" Taking away the right to trial by jury is not necessarily compatible with the concept of human rights.
I have immense respect and a really genuine liking for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn. I have seen him do something today which I believed was almost impossible. He made a speech which could be classed as an insincere version of

987
Michael Howard. I know that the noble and learned Lord is a liberal and that he likes justice. I have heard him wax serious on the subject. What on earth has he got into with this Bill? It is taking away ancient rights from a system of justice which has done nothing but improve since Ethelred the Unready founded the jury system before the Conquest. Assizes followed; then Magna Carta, habeas corpus and quo warranto—that marvellous sweep of English liberty and justice for which we are deeply, emotionally and permanently grateful and which we should lay down our lives to protect, as people did from 1939 to 1945, because it is of such grandeur.
The Bill has been demonstrated by some of the best legal minds in the country to be a shabby, grubby reduction of the liberty of the subject. The idea that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, should take away what Ethelred gave to us sticks in the craw.
8.44 p.m.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will allow me the indulgence of the four minutes available, as I understand under the gap convention. As so little time is available, I shall not fall into the lawyer's habit of repeating of what other lawyers have already said.
Nor shall I criticise the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General for changing his mind. I have known the noble and learned Lord for long enough to be able to say with admiration that, as one would expect from Ffynnongroen's most distinguished son, he can change his mind with exquisite skill and estimable frequency without for one moment needing to boost his credibility by donning the spangled pants into which my noble friend Lord Thomas tried to put him.
The right to trial by jury for specific offences is not, in my view, fixed in tablets of stone. I am genuinely open minded as to whether there might be a need for change. Having said that, in order to be persuaded, in common with other commentators, should require evidence beyond reasonable doubt of three matters. First, I seek proof that the jury process does not provide a fairer trial than the magistrates' court. I asked a question of the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate. With great respect to the noble Lord, I believe that he knew the answer. A policeman who is putting forward a false case would far rather put that case forward to a bench of magistrates than to a jury. I suggest that that is evidence that the jury process is fairer than the magistrates' court process.
It is astonishing that the Bill has been presented to the House without any evidence or even any research whatever, save for a little which is founded on anecdote. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Warner, that as a policy adviser sitting in the Home Office he is of course entitled to keep his own counsel. However, he has chosen to come to this House this evening. Having chosen to expose himself in debate in this House, he should expose the whole of himself, warts and all. We should know and see the full monty in response to the noble Baroness's question.
988
Secondly, I require proof beyond reasonable doubt that the change commands public confidence. The analogy of the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General with the breathalyser provisions is of course completely specious for at least two reasons. First, when the right of trial by jury for Welsh farmers and others charged with breathalyser offences was removed, something which was originally regarded as a serious interference with personal liberty had come to gain wide public acceptance. Secondly, breathalyser offences required no proof of criminal intent, which is classically a jury issue. Therefore it is a quite different set of circumstances and a totally false analogy.
There is absolutely no evidence of public acceptance of the proposals. Such evidence as can be drawn from the press and the academic world is almost all to the contrary. Apparently the noble Lord, Lord Warner, is able to produce something from somewhere in a cupboard, but it certainly has not filtered into the minds of Members of this House.
A third point should be addressed. When the Government talk of savings of £105 million, it would be nice to know whether they have built in the cost of the extra miscarriages of justice. My time is up; many more points could be added. But, without proof from the Government that this is a good measure, we should not accept it.
8.49 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, there has rarely been a difference of opinion between the Attorney-General and myself on matters relating to the criminal justice system. I have followed his distinguished career with great interest, from his early days on the Bar Council. If on this occasion I disagree with him, please remember that he has changed his mind, albeit with the provision for an appeal mechanism, while I have maintained my position.
We have heard many important speeches for which your Lordships' House is the richer. There has been a tendency to complain because lawyers have dominated the debate. We should be grateful to them because no one can speak with greater authority than lawyers because they have day-to-day experience of what happens in our courts. On that point I fully endorse the views expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Russell.
I thank the Attorney-General for facilitating the meeting yesterday with the Home Secretary.
Since 1974 the mode of trial issue has surfaced on a number of occasions in Parliament. The idea has been dropped because it has failed to command support. Today's debate is no exception. Speech after speech has confirmed that there is an informed opinion in your Lordships' House that does not accept the Government's case.
I endorse what the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, said. Quite rightly, she cited a number of warnings. The Law Society, the Bar Council, the Black Lawyer's Association, Liberty, Justice, the Legal Action Group have all expressed concern about the diminution of the defendant's rights in certain cases. When the practitioners protest we should listen with great care.

989
The reality of the Government's proposal is that about 18,000 defendants a year—there is no dispute about that figure—would lose their right to a trial by jury. The Government's decision requires a number of clarifications. Unlike many, I do not object to the fact that the Home Secretary, when in opposition, said that such a reform was short-sighted and likely to prove ineffective. He is entitled to change his mind. However, are we not entitled to ask him whether he is driven by financial considerations and whether he has taken into account matters of civil liberties and the rights of individuals which have been established since 1855? Speaker after speaker has posed those particular questions. I am sure that the Attorney-General will want to deal with them. If money is the basis of our system of justice, that strikes at the heart of our democratic process.
The argument that no other country has a system similar to that in England and Wales, where in certain cases defendants can elect to be tried by a jury, does not mean that it is correct to remove that right. Scotland was cited as an example of a country where there is no ability to elect to go to trial, but the prosecution decides the venue. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, for her contribution on that point.
I go a stage further. In Scotland the choice is between summary trial before a professional judge—the sheriff—sitting without a jury, while here the vast majority of summary trials are before lay magistrates. Also in Scotland, once a decision has been made to try a case summarily, there are strict limits on the length of sentence that can be imposed. The proposal here is to remove the right of election from defendants, but for magistrates to retain their power to commit certain defendants, once convicted, to the Crown Court where they can receive longer sentences. Recent figures show a marked increase in the use of that power by magistrates. That is unacceptable.
The argument is advanced that the change is designed to end the abuse of the system which leads to delay, a waste of resources and a prolonged wait for justice. The number of cases in which the defendants elect to have trial by jury has been falling. We have been told that again and again. That has happened over the past 10 years. It is not a growing problem. Of course, there are cases where the system is abused, but that does not mean that the right should be removed from others. That is the wrong way to go about it.
There are cases which affect the livelihood, respect and dignity of individuals. We have heard some good personal examples of such matters. How will the new appeal system work in cases where the decision of the magistrates' court not to allow trial by jury is contested? We are now told that legal aid will be available for such an appeal. Will the appeal system simply create a new bureaucratic process which will diminish the aim of simplifying the justice system? What costs will be involved in such an exercise? I can foresee 18,000 cases a year in which people could, effectively, appeal.
990
I have served as a magistrate for a long time. I have also been involved in the training of magistrates and I am still invited to contribute at training courses, particularly on issues relating to race and the courts. The noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie, stated, in effect, that my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford had been less than kind to magistrates. As a magistrate I was comfortable with what my noble friend had to say. However, there is a perception in the community—I speak as a magistrate and as a member of the Board of Visitors, having visited prisons again and again and met people who are serving sentences—that magistrates are more likely to believe police officers than defendants. I draw no analogy from the background of the noble Lord, who was a police officer.
The vast majority of defendants elect for trial in a magistrates' court. Nobody disputes that. I had hoped that the Government would produce evidence that the right of election for trial by jury is widely abused. It is evident that defendants and their legal advisers use the process selectively. Do we base our argument on people in prison on remand awaiting trial? What statistical information is available that the increase in the remand population is a direct result of mode of trial in either way offences? I have searched for information on that and I have found none.
Often the argument has been put forward by those who support the abolition of the right of election that the majority of those who exercise that right eventually plead guilty. Again, I have searched for statistical information on that point. Where is the evidence?
One matter that often puzzles me as a magistrate is that, despite our powers on sentencing, far more defendants—often unnecessarily—are sent to the Crown Court by magistrates than by way of defendants' elections. I am often surprised that in the majority of such cases the Crown Court ends up imposing a sentence that could have been imposed by the magistrates. Would it not be wise to carry out a proper study of that aspect before putting all the blame on the delays, the remands and the abuse often attributed to defendants?
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: My Lords, perhaps I may reassure the noble Lord that there is no research on that.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, on a number of occasions I have worked with the noble Baroness and I am grateful for her comment on that point.
Yesterday the Home Secretary—as I understood him—suggested that research evidence is now available which demonstrates that there is no significant difference in the way in which black and white defendants are treated in the magistrates' courts. The Attorney-General sent me a briefing note on ethnic dimensions to mode of trial decisions, which I received this afternoon. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Warner, used that as a basis for his contribution when he said that he could see no difference. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord may be using the same document.

991
Let me deal with that matter. The study identified in that report caused me a considerable amount of anxiety. I am not satisfied that I can come to the same decision as the Home Secretary, for reasons I shall explain in a moment. But I was surprised to hear the noble Lord, Lord Warner, say that, as a member of the Royal Statistical Society, the Home Secretary has a better grasp of such figures. Let me take the House through the basis on which some of the information was used by the noble Lord.
The document says that currently pilots are taking place in 11 police areas into the transfer of ethnic appearance data collected by the police on persons arrested to magistrates' and Crown Court computer systems. What does the Home Office tell me? The report says the level of missing data is at least one quarter, thus making it difficult to identify ethnic differences in court decisions at local level. So that information cannot be used because part of it is missing.
We then come to four pilot schemes mentioned in this research document where such information was collected. It says that the missing data level in the four areas was 4 per cent, 12 per cent, 9 per cent and 12 per cent. Again, that is a Home Office conclusion, not mine. The conclusion of' the researchers was that the sample of ethnic data was too small to reach a decision. The noble Lord, Lord Warner, cannot use this document because it cannot give statistically sound information on the basis of which one can reach a conclusion.
The document goes further. It says that it is not possible to provide data by offence or age group, both of which are known to vary among ethnic groups. Also, factors such as previous convictions cannot be taken into account. I am trying to point out the negative aspect of this research.
Lord Warner: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept that I did not go into the detail of that study because I did not feel it was fair as I did not realise the noble Lord had the full briefing. If he reads Hansard tomorrow he will see that my point was that the evidence did not support the idea that people from ethnic minorities would be disadvantaged in magistrates' courts. I did not claim that they would be advantaged. He is knocking down an argument that I did not make.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that explanation. All I am saying is that if he had used the same research as that to which I am referring, his conclusion would not stand up, again, for reasons I shall explain in a moment. If the noble Lord wants to conduct proper research, I shall give an example of how that can be done.
That study, in its present form, is unhelpful. However, it points to one fact; that is, that ethnic minority defendants in those four police areas were found to be more likely to be committed to the Crown Court for trial. To draw a conclusion that there is no difference in treatment in the magistrates' courts on
992
the basis of such limited information is dangerous. I shall of course say more when the research is published on 9th December.
When Dr Roger Hood of the Institute of Criminology at Oxford undertook a study of Crown Courts he had a sample of over 6,000 ethnic men and women—the first time in the history of this country. Nearly 1,500 male offenders were identified from the records held by the police and he used 15 legally relevant variables and a variety of bases for making comparisons. That does not come out in the data of the document given to me by the noble and learned Lord. Dr Hood's conclusions were that, all else being equal, black offenders had a 5 to 8 per cent greater probability of being sent to prison than whites. Of course, that relates to the Crown Court and I do not dispute that. I am saying that if research is to be quoted, then it should be research which has a sound basis, taking into account sentencing variables, comparing like with like. Then we can come to a conclusion rather than just looking at the end product based on a decision-making process in three or four courts in this country. Those are less than reliable figures.
We will have more faith in research findings when similar methodology is applied. Unfortunately, that is not the case. I hope that that was not the basis on which a judgment was made about black people and magistracy. I was grateful that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, mentioned the Society of Black Lawyers and the research by Professor Lee Bridges. But I must say to him that it was not Lee Bridges; it was the Home Office which carried out that research for the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice. That was the information compiled by the Home Office research unit and given as a research paper to the Royal Commission.
It said that black youths were especially likely to be stopped by the police and arrested, although only a small proportion of arrests resulted from stops. If only one in 10 results in a criminal justice process, then it is no surprise that nine out of 10 have an adversarial contact with the police. Once arrested, black youngsters are less likely to be cautioned than whites. The overall pattern of charges brought against blacks differs from that for whites. Again and again we heard that argument. Black defendants are more likely to be remanded in custody. Black defendants are more likely to plead not guilty to the charges brought against them. Black defendants are more likely to be tried in the Crown Court. Black defendants are more likely to be acquitted. Black defendants, when found guilty of a crime, are more likely to receive longer and more custodial sentences and a different range of non-custodial disposals. That was the Home Office evidence. One has simply to go back in the file to find out the position of black people.
The result of all that—the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, is absolutely right—is that we are destroying the confidence of black people in this system. Corning after what happened in the case of Stephen Lawrence, it is even more painful. The result of all this is that

993
18 per cent of the male prison population is black and 26 per cent—one in four women—in British prisons is black.
The Home Office will have to ask why, within the criminal justice system, we have produced this discrepancy. Black people see the criminal justice process within the definition provided by the analysis of Sir William Macpherson of institutional racism, but time will not permit me to repeat that.
It is safe to assume that discrimination and differential treatment occurs in all fields and our courts are no exception. Almost all the research to which I have had access confirms that this is so. If we accept that that selection process is right and a broad cross-section of the community is involved, then the magistracy, and to some extent the judiciary, will not be exceptional in holding prejudicial views. It is no good being squeamish about it.
The late Lord Taylor once said,
"Race issues go to the heart of our system of justice which demands that all are treated as equals before the law. It is therefore a matter of the gravest concern if members of the ethnic minorities feel that they are discriminated against by the criminal justice system, more so if their fears are borne out in reality".
The working of the system is generally characterised by considerable variation in the way decisions are taken. The impact of these decisions adversely affects black defendants. For these reasons it is important to ensure that this perception, even if it is not borne out by the latest research evidence, offers an alternative so that the confidence of the minority in the system is not shaken. The jury system does offer that alternative.
The noble and learned Lord has already confirmed that the right of appeal will be available. We still do not know how many people will appeal or how much it will cost. I come back to the point about the need to build the confidence of our community in the justice system. The present Bill is unhelpful in that respect.
9.9 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, this is a one-clause Bill which your Lordships have been debating for, I believe, over five hours now. In the process your Lordships have dissected it, taken it to pieces and destroyed it. I can be very brief because it will take only a slight kick to bury it forever.
The noble and learned has suffered trial by jury by his peers. If there were majority verdicts in your Lordships' House he would have lost 18 to three this evening. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, said that the noble and learned Lord would make a good job of a bad case. If he manages that this evening he is worth every penny that the Government are paying him.
I am not a lawyer or a magistrate. I am not going to follow the noble Lord, Lord Warner, who showed, as a non-lawyer, how easy it is to lose a legal argument against a battery of legal experts using statistics which did not really match his conclusions and facts which did not prove the case.
994
Noble Lords have heard that this Bill strikes at the very heart of the judicial system of this country. Trial by jury dates back to at least the 13th century and Magna Carta. I understand that trial by seven of a defendant's peers replaced trial by combat or ordeal in which the accused might be required to plunge his arm into boiling water. If he survived the shock he was deemed to have God and right on his side. I say to the noble and learned Lord that if he manages to do that he might have a chance of getting this Bill through your Lordships' House, but it will require something at least as remarkable as that.
Some noble Lords have commented on the previous Home Secretary's position on this Bill. Perhaps I may briefly address that issue. The Conservative government effected a major change in the system with the introduction of plea before venue. That measure was introduced by the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 and came into force on 1st October 1997. In either-way cases a defendant is required to indicate his plea before the venue for his trial is decided. If he indicates that he will plead guilty the magistrates may proceed to convict and sentence him without him having the opportunity to choose a Crown Court trial.
That measure was designed to improve the efficiency of the system by cutting back on the number of either-way trials reaching the Crown Court unnecessarily where the defendant chose jury trial at the magistrates' hearing but pleaded guilty before trial at the Crown Court.
However, the Conservative government did not remove the right of a defendant pleading not guilty before the magistrates to choose jury trial despite that being a recommendation of the Runciman Royal Commission. The Conservative government stated that the recommendation should be reconsidered in the light of the effect of a plea before venue. The previous government were not persuaded of the need for change. So there is no change of mind.
There are many reasons to argue against this Bill. The Home Office consultation paper states that in 1990, 60 per cent of the cases dealt with in the Crown Court were sent there because magistrates declined jurisdiction in those cases, although magistrates' sentencing powers would have been sufficient to deal with the majority of those cases. In 1992, 46,500 cases—which is about 63 per cent—were sent to Crown Court because magistrates declined jurisdiction. Cases have not gone to Crown Court purely because defendants wanted their cases tried there.
These proposals will shift the burden to the magistrates' courts. One has to remember that only a year ago the Government berated magistrates' courts for their ever growing delays and inefficiency. The Government have failed to give proper consideration to whether magistrates' courts will have the capacity to deal with this sharp increase in the number of trials for serious charges which would result from this Bill. The Government should address the delays in Crown Courts, not bypass them.

995
Much has been made of the claim that lawyers have a vested interest in more trials being tried in Crown Court. That charge could be levelled against the legal profession in some circumstances, but one cannot say that about Justice, Liberty, the Institute of Race Relations, the Howard League and NACRO, all of whom oppose the Bill. Solicitors, of course, have an interest in more cases being tried in magistrates' courts.
I turn to trial by jury. Noble Lords opposite appeared to argue that this was not a fundamental right and that it was a right instituted about 140 years ago. That argument has been totally demolished.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, if the noble Viscount will allow me to intervene, I certainly never suggested any such thing. I suggested that trials by jury had always been only for the most serious cases and, in terms of numbers, were a small proportion of the total number of criminal cases. That was reduced somewhat further in 1855. The 1855 Act removed a number of previously indictable offences from the list of indictable offences and introduced the election which has existed ever since.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I take the noble Lord's point. It helps me to make my next point; namely, that it seems to me that a provision which has existed for 150 years has become a fairly fundamental right. Noble Lords opposite have argued about much more recent constitutional arrangements than the one we are discussing. It is important to stress that the concept of plea before venue has not had time to work properly in many instances. 'We know that the number of either-way cases coming to Crown Court has gone down. It would be helpful if the noble and learned Lord could give us the up-to-date figures.
It is interesting to note the comments of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, when he was opposition home affairs spokesman in your Lordships' House. He said:
"I remind the House that Section 49 has not yet been brought into force. Should we not try that first before we move on to a different and conflicting recommendation?"—[Official Report, 27/2/97; col. 1283.]
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. The current Secretary of State, Mr Jack Straw, said exactly the same thing on 27th February 1997. What evidence do the Government have that plea before venue is not working?
I shall say a few words about Scotland. The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, demolished an argument that the Government have used; namely, that all they were doing was to bring a provision into line with a provision in Scotland. However, it is quite clear that the position in Scotland is entirely different. The sheriffs there have different powers. There is good reason why the law in England cart, and should, be different from that in Scotland. I do not believe that this Bill will ever reach another place. However, if it did, it would be interesting to note whether, under the devolved Parliament, the Scottish MPs would feel that
996
they should speak and vote on the measure in another place. Or would they have some self-denying ordinance and not get involved?
I turn to magistrates and the powers that the Bill proposes in that regard. My noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew described the powers as repugnant. The proposed new Section 19(3)(d) states,
"whether the accused's livelihood would be substantially diminished as a result of conviction".
I am not a lawyer but it is my understanding that not many people who are convicted of an offence find that their livelihoods are not considerably diminished.
Equally, it refers to the accused's reputation. What does that mean? What kind of reputation? A public reputation? A private reputation? As far as I am aware, most people who are convicted suffer some damage to their reputation. That is the nature of convictions.
Contrary to what was said by noble Lords opposite, no one has attacked magistrates in the debate. The Bill proposes an unfair burden on magistrates. It will put them in an impossible position and give them an impossible task. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, spoke about admissible evidence and the different rules there would be for magistrates in comparison with the Crown Court. When magistrates have to rule whether or not evidence is admissible, they will know that evidence. In a Crown Court a judge may rule on admissibility and the jury will not get to see the evidence if it is ruled inadmissible. Electing for Crown Court trial gives the defendant access to material which would otherwise be available only upon entering a plea of not guilty.
In the light of the Macpherson recommendations, I find it extraordinary that the Government should bring in the Bill. It seems totally contrary to the spirit of those recommendations. The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, successfully demonstrated how that was the case.
The Government would have a case if they could argue that quicker justice was better justice, but there is nothing in the Bill that does that. There will be additional appeals to the Crown Court on venue and on conviction which will clog up the system. It will not be quicker. As noble Lords have said, there do not seem to be any great financial savings. It is extraordinary that the Government are looking for savings of £100 million. I do not see how they will ever get them.
On the question of delay, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, in discussing the James Report, drew attention to the fact that the existence of a right of appeal would mean that a case retained in the magistrates' court would have to wait until the time for appeal had expired. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General can tell us how long the time for appeal will be.
My noble friend Lord Alexander of Weedon described the Conservative Party in this House going back to its traditional role as guardian and protector of civil liberties. I believe that the Conservative Party has always been the guardian and protector of civil

997
liberties. I believe that the noble Lord on the Front Bench also believes that. But it seems that that is wrong.
This is an extraordinary Bill to introduce at this time. One can only come to the conclusion that the Home Secretary had his arm twisted by the Treasury; that he thought, "What do I do? I do not want to start the Bill in another place; I will start it in your Lordships' House. Then it will be mauled and kicked out and I can go and say, 'I am very sorry. I tried my best but it went down so badly that I have had to withdraw it'". That is the only logical explanation one can put on why the noble and learned Lord and the Government Chief Whip ever decided to start the Bill in this House. They do not have their hearts in the success of the Bill.
I invite the noble and learned Lord to put up the best defence he can this evening and then to go away and read Hansard. I then invite him to take a deep breath, go and see the Home Secretary and say, "I have done my best. I am sorry, there is nothing we can do about it"—and then to come back in the new year having quietly forgotten the Bill.
9.24 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, what I shall say to the Home Secretary, since I am not bound by the constraints that the noble Lord, Lord Warner, rightly is—it is quite wrong to suggest that he is ducking the issue when he has his constitutional proprieties to observe—is, and I shall say it privately, "Jack, all the arguments that you and I anticipated were duly rolled out. Nothing new was said, although it was said in a variety of different ways and most attractively."
By and large, I believe that the debate has been conducted very courteously: I think I had only two insults hurled at me. One, I thought, must be the worst; that was from the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, who suggested that in the privacy of my own home I might be wearing spangled tights. I found that deeply offensive as the Solicitor-General and I were the only two who went to the Lord Chancellor's Breakfast refusing to wear even black tights. I hasten to say that we did wear trousers! Then, the worst, most considered and most wounding of all insults came from the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, who said that I appeared to be an "insincere Michael Howard". If he reflects on it, I believe that a worse insult might have been that I appeared to be a "sincere Michael Howard".
I believe it is fair to say that this ground has been pretty well traversed. Any inconvenient fact, any phrase in the Bill which did not fit preconceived notions, was rapidly placed on one side. A number of your Lordships referred to what was said in the Runciman Commission report. I am happy to go back to that because I believe that the full citation is worth reading:
"Loss of reputation is a different matter, since jury trial has long been regarded as appropriate for cases involving that issue".
998
That was the citation. However, I continue:
"But it should only be one of the factors to be taken into account and will often be relevant only to first offenders. In our view, in either way offences the decision as to the mode of trial should rest on a variety of relevant factors including the gravity of the offence, the past record if any of the defendant, the complexity of the case, and its likely effect on the defendant (including the likely sentence) if there is a conviction. Under our proposed scheme the defendant would have the right to urge any considerations supporting jury trial that he or she wished".
That is what Runciman actually said. I disagreed with that recommendation then and, if it were in the Bill now, I should disagree with it still. I repeat what I wrote in response to the Runciman report in 1993:
"The magistrates would have the power to decide. That would be madness".
I do not believe that it would be right for the magistrates alone to have that determinative power. The reason I gave was:
"How would a defendant feel about his case if he has failed to obtain a jury trial and has his case heard in the very magistrates' court that refused him his present rights?"
The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, is quite right. Normally on these matters, apart from a shade of emphasis, there is virtually nothing between us. He says he has remained adamant to his position; he has. I have remained adamant to mine. That is not determinative of whether I am right or wrong. I simply point out that I have done no turn of any kind: 180, 90 or 45 degrees. I did not believe that Runciman was right then; I do not believe that he is right now.
In fact, what Runciman did not propose was the right of appeal which is included in this Bill. I hesitate to invite your Lordships' attention to the text but I shall. Incidentally, it was suggested that the defendant was to be there almost as a person making a petition to the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire as some sort of submissive creature. But quite the opposite is true. It is stated:
"For the purpose of subsection (1) above the court … shall permit"—
not the accused—
"the prosecutor and the accused to make representations".
They are both put in an equivalent position. Initially, the magistrates and then the court has to take into account,
"the nature of the case … whether the circumstances make the offence one of serious character … whether the punishment which a magistrates' court would have power to impose for it would be adequate … whether the accused's livelihood would be substantially diminished as a result of conviction or as a result of punishment of a kind or magnitude likely to be imposed … on conviction … whether the accused's reputation would be seriously damaged as a result of conviction or … punishment of a kind or magnitude likely to be imposed … and"—
not a word has been said about this all night—
"any other circumstances which appear to the court to be relevant".
I do not think that a wider judicial discretion than that could be offered to the magistrates.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble and learned Lord a question. In his opening remarks today he said that the application

999
would be similar to a bail appeal application to a judge. Is it envisaged that that would be in chambers and that if the defendant were on remand he would have no right to appear, no evidence would be given, and that it would all be done on paper, as happens with bail appeals at the moment? How does the noble and learned Lord see it happening?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord is confusing where we have reached. At the moment, I am still in the magistrates' court. That is where I am focusing my remarks. Those are the issues to which the magistrates' court must attend. What I said about bail a few hours ago was that we trust the Crown Court judge in matters of bail. If we trust the judge in the Crown Court to deal with questions of bail, I repeat that those are absolute powers not subject really to any overthrow or contrary determination.
I deal with the matter in two stages. First, although this is a matter for rules of court in due time—I am more than happy, as I said right at the beginning, for representations to be made about what should be in the rules of court, which I would of course transmit to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor—I would anticipate that when the application was made in the magistrates' court, the defendant would be there. I would thereafter anticipate—I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas—something not dissimilar to the bail appeal to the Crown Court, where it is normally substantially a paper appeal, but oral representation is allowed where appropriate. I would anticipate—I recognise that this cannot be more than an educated assessment or guess—that there might be appeals in about a quarter of the cases.
As questions of right have been mentioned, perhaps I may indicate that this is not a Bill to take away the right to jury trial. A number of noble Lords have, I say with great respect, mistakenly put that argument. This is not such a Bill. It is actually—if noble Lords will allow me to explain, they will then understand—a Bill to take away the automatic, absolute right of a defendant in some circumstances to insist on jury trial. The two concepts are of course quite different.
Perhaps I may give a citation as it expresses my view and the Government's stance perfectly:
"It seems to me objectionable to accord such an absolute right to the defendant on whose list of priorities the reaching of a just and expeditious decision may not rank very highly. This is a judicial decision properly to be made by the magistrates' court on consideration of all the relevant circumstances".
I add to that—I shall give the authorship in a moment—my own belief, which is reflected in the Bill, that there should be the automatic right to appeal for reflection and consideration by the Crown Court judge. That citation comes from the Lord Chief Justice. Some of your Lordships will have been present when we had very extensive debates and differences of view—the noble arid learned Lord and I—when we were discussing questions of sexual offences and protection for either complainants in rape cases or defendants in rape cases. I do not think that anyone could fairly say about the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice that he does not commonly—
1000
indeed, I find on every occasion—take an independent view. What I quoted was his view. Therefore, I do not think it is bad motive on either side, whether institutionalised legalism or governmental absolutism, that should bring us to our conclusion.
The real tests are: what are the facts; what do we want from the criminal justice system; and how do we get it? The facts are that 97 per cent or so of all criminal cases—1.8 million a year—are tried in the magistrates' courts. That is a wholly different set of circumstances from the beginning of the jury system and its history in this country. Let us not forget that jurors were originally called to serve on juries because they knew all about the case. We then developed the opposite pole in that particular journey so that no one can be sworn to serve on a jury who knows anything at all about the facts of the case or the defendant. Let us remember that—not in any sense to diminish the present role of the jury, but to bear in mind that it should be a confident, functioning tool in the society we presently inhabit.
I shall move on to what the wicked magistrates have been doing. Four hundred thousand of the 1.8 million cases are either-way cases. If I am not mistaken, that means that in 400,000 cases, the defendants were content to be tried by the magistrates. I do not think that an alternative conclusion can be drawn from those bleak facts. Of the 65,000 either-way cases that went to the Crown Court last year, 47,000 were sent there by the magistrates. That was not because they wanted to clutch the trial of those cases to their own sweaty bosom, but because, in those cases, they thought it appropriate—for various discrete reasons, and those reasons are decided on a more limited basis than is provided in the Bill—to send 47,000 for trial in the Crown Court. Of the remainder who went to the Crown Court, as we have heard so often, 18,500 elected; of those 18,500, 60 per cent pleaded guilty.
Sir Iain Glidewell, in his review of the Crown Prosecution Service, said—and I am bound to say that whatever criticism I have heard against him, not being independent is not among the vocabulary—that he reached the conclusion that the fact that well over half of those people who elect for trial plead guilty raises a serious question about the present system. Although I know that not all noble Lords will necessarily agree with me—or at least not this evening—I am hound to say that his conclusion is rational and would seem the only one to be drawn here. We are talking about a relatively small number of people involved in cases that have substantially different consequences.
Noble Lords will not like me for saying this, but since it is true I shall. A person in the notional position of the wife of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, is in a different category from someone who has done 10 burglaries, elected on 10 different occasions to go to the Crown Court, and pleaded guilty on every occasion. I assert that to be a fact.
Lord Alexander of Weedon: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for giving way. I understand the distinction that he has made, which is a distinction

1001
between someone without any previous convictions and someone with previous convictions. Can he envisage any circumstances in which someone without previous convictions would not have his or her reputation seriously damaged as a result of a conviction?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, probably not. I take the noble Lord's point, but I think one has to look at the particular case.
I have been attempting to develop a theme that the noble Lord was good enough to raise last night. It is right that your Lordships should know what was the noble Lord's question and what my response would have been. The noble Lord asked, perfectly legitimately and helpfully, what are the prospects of the young, black, unemployed lad as opposed to—I shall cite the example he gave me—a white man with a professional qualification. I, too, should like to raise a question. What is the difference between the young, unemployed white lad and the successful black or Asian professional man? I do not believe that one needs to narrow these issues, except that I invite noble Lords to return to the tests set out in the Bill. They give a very full—I would say a super-abundant—discretion to the magistrates. If the magistrates are not fair—I take the noble Lord's point entirely—the Crown Court judge is there. He has no personal investment in the sense that he wants to retain the case in the Crown Court.
Furthermore, I take the point that has been made about all institutions. Those who dwell in an institution tend to become part of it and are not capable of looking in from the outside. I am trying to look in from the outside.
I teased the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, the other evening by saying that he was an unreconstructed barrister. But I think I teased myself more by admitting my gross error when I objected to the perfectly rational proposals of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew—the fact that they were perfectly rational was more reason to attack them! They turned out very well in practice.
It could be said that that element of double jeopardy which undoubtedly exists, and still subsists in the present state of law, is wholly alien to the British system and utterly inconsistent with the spirit of Magna Carta. I dare say that, had I thought of it, I should have said that myself. But times have changed. We have to bear in mind that many of our systems—again, this is simple fact, even if it is unpalatable—were brought into existence at a time when a defendant could not give evidence on his own behalf. That was still the position in 1855 when defendants were illiterate, innumerate, and, by and large, in the overwhelming majority of cases, were not represented and their cases were disposed of in under an hour. I merely refer to historical fact.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for allowing me to intervene. Is he not taking a false point in saying that
1002
this was an instance of double jeopardy but we learnt to live with it? The concept of double jeopardy and one's antipathy to it historically lies in the concept of the prosecution having two bites of the cherry in establishing a person's guilt. It is not an apt analogy to the case with which the noble and learned Lord is dealing, which is a question of sentence.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am bound to say that I disagree with the noble and learned Lord. If one is in jeopardy, one is in jeopardy at two stages at least: one is guilt or lack of guilt, as a result of the verdict of the jury; the second important question of jeopardy—and for many defendants it is the critical question—is the nature of the sentence: prison or not, community sentence or fine. If, in January, one is given a sentence of 12 months' probation and, six months later, after an Attorney-General's reference, with the filters that the noble and learned Lord built into the legislative scheme, one receives a sentence of three years' imprisonment, I suggest that that is fundamentally an aspect of double jeopardy. Many of the arguments mounted against the noble and learned Lord's new scheme, which was to work admirably well in practice, were on that basis.
As I said at the beginning of my remarks and am happy to repeat, I am not impugning anyone's motives. I do not think that anyone can fairly have detected that in what I said. It would not be right to do so; I do not think that anyone who has spoken in this debate has discreditable motives. The only disharmony arose when some disagreeable comments were made about the noble Lord, Lord Warner, who simply attempted to develop his theme with noteworthy patience.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord looks irritated that he is interrupted, but he invites interruptions. He is a past master at not answering the question. Is he prepared to answer the very simple question put to him by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander? He has spoken a great deal about other matters since. Will he answer it?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I answered it plainly. I said that the noble Lord had a perfectly good point but I could not conceive of every possible circumstance in which the magistrates would come to their conclusion. The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, may not like the answer; however, he is not entitled to say that I did not answer the question. I am not irritated on any occasion when noble Lords interrupt me, although if I continue speaking for much more than a minute, some of your Lordships will become irritated with me—quite unfairly.
The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, raised many aspects of great substance, and in some detail. He raised a question during our meeting yesterday about the state of the up-to-date material. I promised to get it to him as soon as possible. He is right to point out the statistical deficiencies. All I will say is that we ensured that the digest—which is all it was—went to him, pointing out the nature of the statistical

1003
deficiencies. It is all there. It points out that the data are not perfect, that some of them are not as good as in other areas of the 11, and that is how the matter was left.
I am conscious of the difficulties of relying on statistical material because there is always someone who can challenge the variables, but according to the figures that I have the acquittal rate is 48 per cent for black defendants in the magistrates' court. I repeat that I am always conscious of the deficiencies of statistical samples. The equivalent figure for white defendants of acquittals in the magistrates' court is 42 per cent. In the Crown Court the acquittal rate is 36 per cent for black defendants and 30 per cent for white defendants. If those figures can tell us anything—and I repeat that I know the limitations of small samples—they show that the acquittal rate for black defendants in the magistrates' court is higher than the acquittal rate for white defendants in the magistrates' court.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, I have been endeavouring not to interrupt at any stage, but I am tempted by that observation. Dc not those figures merely demonstrate that more black people than white people are being wrongly arrested?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, of course that may be so, and indeed I volunteered in response to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, that there are very significant variables. I do not think that your Lordships would expect me to justify any malpractice by the police: I do not. I have to remind your Lordships, when the Home Secretary is assailed for illiberalism, that it was he who introduced, as a Home Office Bill, the Human Rights Bill. It was he who set up—quite a while, I remember, after the murder of Stephen Lawrence, but not long after we came into government—that inquiry, determined that it should be in public, insisted that it should be fully reported in public and accepted immediately at least three-quarters of the recommendations.
I repeat that there are difficulties with statistics. That is one of the reasons why it would be helpful if we were able to pool the relevant material that is available. One can derive different conclusions from apparently perfectly respectable statistical material. I do agree that perception is important. I also think that we sometimes have a duty not to add fuel to the fire of misperception, and when those from ethnic minorities, whether black or Asian, have wrong perceptions of the fairness of our systems, if they are wrong we ought to he bold enough and confident enough and sufficiently strong in discharging our duty to tell them so.
1004
I have not been able to deal with every single point that has been raised, even in the 23 minutes that I have taken this evening. Indeed, I am sorry to have taken so long, but I must repeat that my own prognostication is that we are not going to arrive at a situation where your Lordships agree with the Government's view. On the other hand, I ought to reiterate that the opportunity for consultation and for comparing different pieces of research remains available. The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, referred to research about white Irish defendants. I have not seen that research; I first heard of it yesterday and I would be most obliged if she could provide it to officials so that they may study it and see how representative it is.
I will say just one more word this evening, if I may. I am convinced, having listened with care to what has been said—and I have not been out of my place for one second: I have listened to every syllable that has been spoken—that this is a proper and prudent way to go forward. I believe that we have a duty to make sure that this resource—I am not talking about money but about the resource of the criminal justice system—should be appropriately focused on those serious cases where the state and the citizen clash, because my own view is that that is the true value and glory of the jury system.
Lord Alexander of Weedon: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, perhaps I may trespass on the great courtesy and patience that he has shown throughout this debate, which has impressed us all though we know it to be typical of him, to answer one further short question. It is simply this: will the magistrates have to give reasons for their decision?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, again, I think that is something that ought to be part of the discussion that we develop. It is certainly something that needs to be considered in the context of the rules of court, and I am perfectly happy to receive any representations that are made. One would have to consult the Magistrates' Association. Ultimately it is a matter for the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor as to how he determines the rules of court.
I take the noble Lord's sub-theme that giving reasons is beneficial in at least two respects. First, if it is an adverse decision, reasons sometimes soothe the wound. Secondly, often they make a better decision possible.
I should have mentioned one tiny point. I was going to write to the noble Lord. He slightly misunderstood the £5,000 question. The £5,000 relates only to the value of criminal damage, not to the value of theft.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at ten minutes before ten o'clock.

  Equality Issues: Policy
  Equality Issues: Policy
  Armed Forces: Compensation Arrangements
  Armed Forces: Compensation Arrangements
  East Timor: Force Levels
  East Timor: Force Levels
  Judicial Appointments: Peach Report
  Judicial Appointments: Peach Report
  Archives Policy
  Archives Policy
  Heritage Policy Review
  Heritage Policy Review
  Sudan: Export Controls
  Sudan: Export Controls
  Wandsworth Prison: Chief Inspector's Report
  Wandsworth Prison: Chief Inspector's Report
  Offences against the Person
  Offences against the Person
  European Union: Forthcoming Business
  European Union: Forthcoming Business
  East Tinnor: Emergency Appeal
  East Tinnor: Emergency Appeal
  Diplomatic Missions: Rate Arrears
  Diplomatic Missions: Rate Arrears
  Sudan: Truck Export Licence
  Sudan: Truck Export Licence
  Westminster Underground Station
  Westminster Underground Station
  Supplementary Fuel Tanks in Vehicles
  Supplementary Fuel Tanks in Vehicles
  House of Lords Website
  House of Lords Website
  House of Lords Media and Information Service
  House of Lords Media and Information Service