Sitting of 3 February 1999

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

  Genetically Modified Food
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pope.]
  9.33 am
  Ms Joan Walley: I feel as if I have hit the jackpot because there are so many hon. Members here on a Wednesday morning. I welcome their attendance, which supports the call made in business questions last Thursday for a debate on genetically modified food. I am delighted to have an opportunity to discuss the issue.
  Food is of fundamental importance to us all. It is obvious that public concern about food standards is extremely high. As well as opinion survey evidence, we can see for ourselves that our local supermarkets are stocking more organic produce—food produced by farmers working without chemicals. The organic food market's annual growth rate is estimated to be about 40 per cent. That growth is happening despite the premium that customers must pay to eat those foods, and demonstrates people's desire to eat healthy, nutritious food.
  That concern is entirely understandable. Fifty years ago, many people grew food themselves on allotments or in gardens, and I have to declare an interest in that my family has an allotment. Farms at that time seemed more understandable and less mechanised. Many people worked casually in fruit and vegetable picking. Only the other week, when we had a debate about school terms, we were reminded of how the school terms were organised around the need for people to go and pick fruit and vegetables. We seemed closer to our food then and felt that we understood where it came from. Now, food production seems much more distant.
  More than ever, we rely on big business to provide our food. It travels great distances, comes from huge mechanised farms and is sold by huge supermarkets, so people do not know exactly what has gone into it. Antibiotics, pesticides, herbicides and other chemicals are all used in growing food. People's uncertainty about how our food is grown and produced is driving the growth in the market for organic produce. I strongly believe that the Government have a role in making sure that all the necessary safeguards are in place.
  Now, with technology moving on, the building blocks of food itself are being altered through genetic engineering of crops. People are concerned about that. A MORI opinion poll taken last June found that 61 per cent. do not want to eat genetically modified food. They want healthy food, produced in an environmentally
  844
  sensible and sensitive manner. It is those concerns that I am so grateful to have an opportunity to raise today. I owe it to my constituents to do so.
  I bring to the attention of the House a letter that I received the week before last from a constituent from Middleport. She writes:
  "I just want to say that we as a family do not want genetically altered food, and I don't know many who do. Perhaps you could pass this message on".
  My message to my constituent is that I am passing on her words to Parliament. I do not apologise for doing so because this is the one place where GM food needs to be discussed.
  I want the Government to respond to the concerns of my constituents and those who participated in one of the first citizens' jury panels organised by Dr. Tom Wakeford. I am pleased to see here my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), who last week chaired a meeting of the parliamentary environment group on the subject.
  The time is right for this debate. The report of the inquiry of the House of Lords European Communities Committee into EC regulation of genetic modification has just been published and awaits the Government's response. The Cabinet enforcer has just announced the joint review of the framework for overseeing developments in biotechnology. There is still time for late submissions to the public consultation. We are also in the throes of setting up a Food Standards Agency. As a vice-president of the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health, I am delighted that the Government are making that move and I want this debate to take place in good time for it.
  The reform of the common agricultural policy is likely to be agreed in mid-March, setting the future direction of EU agriculture. In February, Environment Ministers from 170 countries will meet in Colombia to sign the biosafety protocol. In researching and raising this issue, however, I have the sense that time is running out and that this is an 11th-hour attempt. I also have a sense of deja vu because I tabled an early-day motion in January 1997—two years ago—which set out my concerns.
  Since then, much has happened that is regrettable and makes informed public debate much more difficult. For example, since GM soya beans were mixed with non-GM soya beans in America—Monsanto has persisted in its view that segregation is impractical—it has become impossible for consumers of many processed foods to know whether those foods contain GM soya. Some 60 per cent. of processed foods use soya. The vast majority of us have, therefore, already been exposed to those beans, whether we like it or not.
  Many share my concerns. Sainsburys, for example, in evidence to the House of Lords, made a point of saying that it had tried unsuccessfully to persuade Monsanto and the American Soya Bean Association of the need to segregate genetically modified soya from the standard crop for reasons of consumer choice. This is a timely debate. Things can be done, but there needs to be an urgency about them.
  Mr. Cynog Dafis: The issue of segregation is very important. I know that farmers in my constituency feel increasingly obliged to ensure traceability, which imposes considerable additional cost

  845
  on them. They accept, however, that that is necessary for consumer confidence. Should not traceability apply particularly to genetically modified organisms?
  Ms Walley: I could not agree more. The hon. Gentleman has exposed the myth that genetically modified food is somehow in all our interests because it is cheaper.
  My first request of the Government is for the Minister to give careful consideration to announcing a moratorium on the planting of GM crops. That has been requested by a wide range of groups, from the Government's official advisers on wildlife, to the wholefood trade, environmental groups, consumer groups and organic farmers. The reasons for such a request are numerous.
  Despite reassurances that the products are rigorously tested and safe, unexpected incidents of illness have, apparently, been caused by such products. In the worst case, I understand that a United States epidemic of eosinophilia myalgia syndrome—EMS—affected about 5,000 people. An estimated 37 died and 1,500 were left permanently disabled with sickness.
  I understand that the outbreak was traced to a batch of food supplements produced by genetically engineered bacteria. Dr. Michael Antoniou, senior lecturer and head of a research group at one of London's leading research hospitals, pointed out that that illustrates the difficulty that,
  "Even in simple cases such as bacteria, where genetic modification can be carried out with some precision, unpredictable disturbances in bio-chemical functioning with disastrous outcomes can occur."
  He comments that it is
  "not surprising … that unexpected toxins and ill effects have been documented in more complex genetically modified organisms such as plants."
  There are questions, too, about the testing of GM products. I have been sent a series of letters on the testing of GM soya, which raises concerns. In one, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food officials confirmed that animal feeding studies were carried out when testing the safety of GM soya beans. In a subsequent letter, the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes confirmed that the feeding tests
  "were considered in the context of the evaluation and safety of human food use of the soya. They were indeed relevant".
  However, in the final letter, the Minister, who I am pleased is present, told us that
  "the information from feeding studies is … not considered … to be of much value to novel food assessments."
  If information from such tests is really of little value, it is surely a matter of concern that it was a relevant part of the testing procedure. I hope that the Minister can expand on that point in his reply.
  As well as the safety issue, we must consider the environmental impact of the products. I am delighted to bring to the House's attention the fact that the Environmental Audit Committee, on which I sit—I am pleased to see other members of it present—has decided to inquire into and report on the issue.
  Farms cannot be isolated; cross-pollination inevitably occurs. I attended a meeting only last week at which fear was expressed to me, especially on behalf of beekeepers,
  846
  who are concerned about cross-pollination. It could result in weeds inheriting resistance to weedkiller, raising the spectre of so-called superweeds. Other effects, such as plants generating their own insecticide, could lead to insects developing immunity to the toxins.
  The impact of GMOs on wildlife is of great concern to organisations such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, whose views I value. Along with other organisations, it suggested that the Advisory Committee on Releases into the Environment—ACRE—does not have a broad enough membership. ACRE' s chairman, Professor John Beringer, suggested in oral evidence to the Lords inquiry that there are holes in the regulatory system, whereby no Government advisory committee is currently looking into the impact of agricultural practice on wildlife population. All such issues deserve the House's urgent scrutiny.
  Furthermore, there are fears that the introduction of plants that are resistant to specific weedkillers will lead to farmers using more such weedkillers on their fields. Given that the Government's wildlife adviser, English Nature, is linking the major decline in farm wildlife with intensive farming, that cannot be a sensible way to go. Indeed, English Nature is so concerned that it has issued a statement declaring its support for a moratorium on the commercial releases of GM crops. Its GM adviser, Dr. Brian Johnson, said:
  "There is plenty of evidence that our farmland wildlife has suffered a major decline in recent years. The environmentally untested introduction of GMOs could be the final blow for such species as the skylark, corn bunting and the linnet, as the seeds and insects on which they feed disappear."
  I very much welcome the work that the Government, especially the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, have done on indicators. We could be undermining all that brilliant work.
  Dr. Ian Gibson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the birds that she has delimited have declined in numbers anyway due to pesticides, insecticides and other chemicals in the environment? Indeed, the DETR takes account of the number of skylarks and other such factors in setting parameters for the assessment of the assuaging of the environment.
  Ms Walley: My hon. Friend is right to say that there has been a decline in all kinds of wild bird species, which is of concern. I am also aware, however, that companies such as Monsanto have been blaming some of that decline on farm cats. We must consider the production of food and its effect.
  Dr. Lynne Jones: Will my hon. Friend clarify whether she is calling for a moratorium on the planting of all genetically modified crops, or just one on the commercial planting of GM crops? There is a difference.
  Ms Walley: There is certainly a difference. I am calling for a moratorium on commercially grown crops, which may be a practical first step, but I would not rule out support for a general moratorium. We must assess how we can make progress in stages—and certainly quickly.
  Mr. Barry Sheerman: However well intentioned the Government are, there is great frustration

  847
  at the fact that a steamroller, which seems to be centred in American business, through the World Trade Organisation, is stopping us as a nation, and even through the European Union, withstanding genetically modified crops or growth hormones in beef, for example. Such things are being forced on us, and there seems to be little that we can do about it.
  Ms Walley: My hon. Friend has put his finger on the exact pressure point. The great steamroller of the World Trade Organisation is telling us, and the European Union that, in the interests of world trade, we cannot develop policies based on the precautionary approach that I would want. There is a fundamental issue about whether democratic Governments such as ours can determine the way forward on food production, or whether we must follow multinational companies. Huge issues are at stake. I am pleased to bring to the House's attention the recent work of the Environmental Audit Committee, which is about to be published, in respect of multinational agreements on investment. I note with great interest recent calls by Sir Crispin Tickell for an environmental body that equals in strength the World Trade Organisation.
  Mr. Anthony Steen: I agree with everything that the hon. Lady has said. In view of the problem, would not it be a good idea for every food item on the shelf to carry a warning in a big black box, just like on a cigarette packet, "This food contains genetically modified organisms"?
  Ms Walley: I shall come to the issue of labelling later, but that is one proposal which could be considered.
  I want to pre-empt a point that the Minister may raise. In October 1998, it was announced that a moratorium of sorts had been agreed, in that no
  "insect resistant crops will be introduced into the UK for the next three years."
  That announcement was made before the Lords Select Committee by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment, and led to headlines proclaiming, "Genetic crops banned".
  As the Minister must surely be aware, no such crops would have been introduced during those three years anyway. Making such an announcement is like promising that the sun will not rise in the middle of the night. The only insect-resistant crop that might be ready for planting in that time scale is a maize made resistant to the European corn borer—and that would not be grown in Britain anyway. The Government should not try to confuse the issue with false proclamations of action. The issue is serious, and should not be obscured by "spin" in such statements.
  As questions remain unanswered about the safety of GM crops in terms of their effect on human health, the testing regime that they are subjected to, their effects on wildlife and the wider environment, and the wider effects of the changes in agricultural practices that the use of GM crops will inevitably lead to, I am persuaded of the case for a moratorium; I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister is, too.
  Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe: I fully support and welcome the moratorium. There is also a call at present—especially in the Council of Europe, where three
  848
  Committees are considering the issue—for a five-year freeze on genetically manufactured food and all its implications. That call is being made with reference to some 41 countries, which want further research on the subject. Would it not be wise, because of the wide implications of this technology, to support the moratorium with, technically, a five-year freeze? My hon. Friend knows that such a campaign will be launched; will she support such a policy?
  Ms Walley: I certainly would. I am glad that my hon. Friend has raised the issue on behalf of the Council of Europe, because there has been concern in Europe generally about the decision by countries such as Austria and Luxembourg to take action against genetically modified crops, despite the fact that such action is illegal in the eyes of the European Commission. I believe that we should accept that the precautionary principle is central to everything that we do in this area. We now need to find ways of moving on. I hope that the Council of Europe will be an important partner in that debate, which involves the European Commission.
  I want to impress on the Government the crucial importance of labelling and segregation schemes, which allow consumers to choose whether they eat genetically modified foods. However much people may differ on the rights or wrongs, or the risks and benefits of GM food, there is no question in my mind but that people should be entitled to choose for themselves. Surely we all have a right not to eat GM food.
  I believe that support is solid throughout Europe. A Euro Barometer poll, carried out by DG XII last year, found that 82 per cent. of respondents in the United Kingdom wanted labelling. In other countries, it was the same story. In Denmark, the equivalent figure was 85 per cent.; in Germany, 72 per cent.; in Sweden, 81 per cent.; in France, 78 per cent. In case anyone thinks that I am picking the high numbers, the lowest score—for Ireland—was a 61 per cent. majority in favour of labelling.
  Even Monsanto, manufacturer of many of these products and the firm that recently spent £1 million trying to convince the British public about them, headed one advertisement:
  "Food labelling. It has Monsanto's full backing".
  The advertisement continued:
  "We believe you should be aware of all the facts before making a purchase."
  Mr. Norman Baker: Does the hon. Lady agree that labelling, although terribly important, will be useless unless we can guarantee diversity of supply, and guarantee suppliers of food that their purchases are not genetically modified?
  Ms Walley: I am grateful for that intervention; I shall come to that subject shortly. That point was made in a presentation that I attended 10 days ago. Producers that are now sourcing non-GM maize and soya from Brazil are in a real dilemma, because we are a very short planting season away from the time when those non-GMO supplies in Brazil will become GM supplies. There is a real feeling of urgency about that. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that labelling must be backed up by GM-free sources, as well as traceability and proper monitoring of that at all times.

  849
  I return to the subject of Monsanto, about which I sound a word of warning. Despite the fact that Monsanto has issued statements such as the one from which I quoted—with which I wholeheartedly agree—it was that company, I understand, which brought a court case in Vermont, USA to prevent the passing of a state law requiring the labelling of products made using one of its genetically modified products, recombinant bovine growth hormone, which is used on milk-producing cows. Monsanto invoked the US constitution to argue that it did not need to disclose that information, and won. So much for believing people that should be made aware of all the facts before making a purchase! To my mind, this country's freedom of information Bill cannot come soon enough.
  The moral is clear: we cannot rely on Monsanto to take these decisions for us. It must be for the Government to ensure that foods made using genetically modified ingredients are labelled as such. The Government must ensure that there is a truly free market in which consumers can choose between GM and non-GM food.
  Labelling regulation must be well designed, too. Current EC labelling regulations apply to just two genetically modified foods—maize and soya. Even with those two foods, the requirement is that
  "genetically engineered protein or DNA"
  is detectable. That definition excludes products containing oils, lecithin and other additives made from GM crops, as the DNA is not detectable in those products after the original foodstuffs have been processed. Products made with GM tomatoes, rennet or growth hormones also need not be labelled. That cannot be right. Foods in whose development GMOs have played any part—as a major or minor ingredient—must be labelled as such. So-called "identity preservation" schemes must be used to guarantee that GM-free foods are really GM-free. That is only fair to consumers who, as Monsanto says, should be aware of all the facts before they buy.
  The rules must also be policed. Even the current limited and inadequate rules are not being upheld. Last week, trading standards officers in Worcestershire found that five of 24 samples contained GM soya or maize, despite the fact that only one item was labelled as such. That is unacceptable. The current laws must be enforced. In addition, we must consider the fact that the new EC directive does not apply retrospectively, and does not apply to food sources that were on the market before it was introduced.
  I congratulate Bob and Carol Stevens, public analysts in Worcestershire, on the work that they have done to develop a technique for detecting genetically modified foods. Worcestershire's report is also to be congratulated. It exposes so well the fact that, although we have strict labelling laws, when it comes to GM food, we do not have truthful—I emphasise that word—labelling of foods. Consumers should be told. I hope that, in his reply, the Minister will take on board the recommendations of the director of environmental services in Worcester that he implements the provision of EU Regulation 1139/98 as soon as possible.
  The Government must remember their duty to our wholefood industry, too. The Department of Trade and Industry should consider how it might protect that
  850
  industry when it faces the threat of its GM-free sources all but drying up, as more countries fail to segregate their GM and GM-free products, especially soya. I know that other countries' policies are matters for them, but I want at least to hear that the Government are actively involved in diplomacy and pressure abroad to protect supplies for an important sector of British industry. That is crucial.
  Through highly resourceful sourcing work, the wholefood industry has so far managed to switch its source of soya from the United States, which stopped segregating, to Brazil. That guaranteed a steady supply for the industry's products and enabled it to continue to provide the GM-free produce that its customers wanted. However, Monsanto has opened a major plant in Brazil, and GM soya will shortly be planted by Brazilian farmers. There are fears in the wholefood industry that those crops will not be segregated.
  If that happens, sourcing non-GM soya could become extremely difficult. The industry would be in a difficult situation, faced with customers who want GM-free products, but no ready source from which to obtain them. We could be as close as one crop-planting season away from such a changeover. I hope that the Department of Trade and Industry will take the matter seriously and work to protect our wholefood industry.
  What pressure can be brought to bear to dissuade Brazil from going down that route? Having read a report, apparently by Stan Greenburg, on the significance attached by Monsanto to persuading the political elites in the United Kingdom to accept GM food, and having read a similar assessment entitled "The Grim German Mood: Biotechnology and Monsanto", I wonder what weight the new German Government will give to the issue when they take over the European Union presidency.
  One political elite that seems to have swallowed Monsanto's propaganda is the House of Lords Select Committee, which published a report two weeks ago on GM regulations in Europe. Much was made of its endorsement of the technology, but I urge the Government to tread carefully, as the report contains some alarming discrepancies. I am not saying that the report was not carefully prepared, but we must examine its recommendations cautiously.
  The most glaring concern is that the Lords consider that genetic modification "offers great potential benefits", although they accept that the risks are difficult to estimate. That begs the question of how the Lords weighed up the risks and benefits, while admitting that they cannot quantify one half of that equation. I am still to be convinced about who will really benefit from GM food.
  Their lordships' approach to the precautionary principle is deeply worrying. They appear to explain that important principle in paragraph 41 of the report, discuss it a little further in paragraph 42 and do away with it entirely by paragraph 43, arguing for a step-by-step approach. I am conscious of our obligations under the Rio convention, and I want us to adopt the precautionary approach.
  On segregation and labelling too, the report is confused. It states that
  "the use of GM products … is an ethical issue",
  but goes on to support a system of labelling that would deny consumers the chance to make that ethical decision, by keeping them in the dark about whether foods contain GM produce.

  851
  The Lords have been ridiculed for claiming that genetically modified organisms have much to offer organic farming, yet it has been pointed out that organic farming does not allow any genetic modification at all. English Nature, the Government's official wildlife adviser, released a blistering attack on the report's failure to recognise the effect of GM crops on the UK's wildlife. In a new release, English Nature states that the Lords
  "failed to understand the implications for farmland wildlife of growing genetically modified crops … they say that these crops may benefit wildlife but there is no scientific evidence … to back this up."
  English Nature went on to say that
  "the Committee has completely failed to grasp the point that applying broad spectrum herbicides to herbicide tolerant crops"
  will put
  "yet more pressure on our wildlife."
  Those are all important complaints. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will accept that there are serious flaws in the Committee report. It fails to alleviate any of the concerns that I have raised and leads me back to my starting point—a call for a moratorium on GM crops in this country, and effective segregation and labelling of all GM foods.
  I thank the Minister for listening to my concerns. There is little doubt that he and my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment, the DETR Minister most concerned with the impact of GMOs on the countryside, could well be the two Ministers who decide whether there is to be a large-scale release of GMOs into the British countryside—a release that we could never call back.
  Why risk that nightmare approach? Why risk too much for a technology as yet unproven? It seems that companies such as Monsanto have to take risks on acquisitions of companies that are currently making low profits, but which have high share prices because of the potential in genetic engineering. If it is true that Monsanto is paying $2.3 billion for 60 per cent. of DeKalb Genetics, even though the company made only $29 million profit in 1997 and $28 million in the first nine months of 1998, perhaps it is more vulnerable than its image in the UK might suggest.
  I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends at MAFF, the DETR and the DTI to balance all the interests—the interests of companies such as Iceland, which has kept faith by offering consumers real choice and whose technical director is at present advising consumer groups in Australia; ethical independent wholesalers that genuinely offer quality labelling to strict vegetarian or Soil Association labelling standards; the Restaurateurs Association, which is concerned about the practical implications of labelling GMOs in restaurants, and about the verification of the accuracy of wholesalers' food labelling.
  I hope that the debate today will strike a chord with people who care about these matters. The genie is not out of the bottle yet; we just about have time. I urge my hon. Friend, through the Green Ministers group and the Ministerial Committee on the Environment, to work with his colleagues at the DETR, the DTI and the Department of Health, and to work in Europe and at the World Trade Organisation to develop policies that will implement the precautionary principle to guarantee food safety, food quality and environmental sustainability. I hope to report back to my constituent in Middleport that I have passed on her message.
  10.7 am
  Mr. Anthony Steen: We have heard a moving and powerful address from the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley). I pay tribute to her for her good fortune in catching the Speaker's eye and initiating the debate. Because she has been so thorough, she has taken more time than she might have wished. Many Conservative Members support her general approach.
  I have a particular interest in the matter. The hon. Lady may remember that I had the good fortune last July to have the last Adjournment debate before the summer recess. That debate was on the same subject. I pay tribute to the Minister for being in his place then and now to deal with such a complex subject.
  My constituency includes the test areas where there was a tremendous fracas last year, when protesters, wrongly, tore up the crop and criminal prosecutions resulted. That shows the strength of feeling among many hundreds, if not thousands, of my constituents in the Dartington-Totnes area about those experiments.
  There is no doubt that the United Kingdom leads the world in genetic engineering. Provided that such research is carried out carefully, we have nothing to fear. The trouble is that GM crop experiments seem to have gone ahead with enormous pace. The speed of developments, rather than the technology itself, worries the public.
  Through GM crops we could create foods with a delayed spoilage time. We could, for example, grow corn in the Sahara and feed millions more people. There is an altruistic vision, not only dangers, associated with GM crops. Although there are understandable fears about the consequences if the technology develops too fast, it could be tremendously important for food production throughout the world and for feeding the hungry.
  I agree with the hon. Lady that certain conclusions reached by the Lords Select Committee were incorrect, but I do not believe that they were the result of the Committee being over-lobbied by Monsanto. The Lords Committee believes that the benefits of GM crops outweigh the risks. That might be true in developing countries where harsh terrain makes it difficult to grow crops. However, in Europe, we already produce far more food than we can eat. Mountains of food paid for by the taxpayer are destroyed. It makes no sense to create more food, for which the taxpayer will pay more, that will subsequently be disposed of. I cannot see the logic of creating more food in Europe when we cannot eat what we produce already.
  The Lords Committee said that a product need not be labelled if it contained below an established threshold of GM material. That is an invitation for manufacturers to buck the system. Those consumers who wish to eat non-genetically modified food will find themselves consuming products that contain traces of genetically modified material. What about the build-up of such material in the body over time if unlabelled genetically modified foods are eaten regularly? For that reason, I suggest that genetically modified food products should carry a warning similar to that found on cigarette cartons, advising the public that that food item contains genetically modified material.
  Last week, I saw a sign displayed prominently in Sainsburys in Victoria street—I hope that I did not misread it—stating that the salmon on sale had been fed

  853
  with genetically modified material. It was interesting to note that the product appeared hardly touched. I believe that the marketplace will respond to such warnings.
  Mr. Andrew Lansley: Did my hon. Friend observe that the House of Lords Committee examined the question whether intact transgenes could be absorbed by human DNA through food and reached the conclusion that those fears were unfounded? Therefore, does my hon. Friend accept that it is more important to look at the characteristics of the product and the impact that they might have on human health rather than concentrating on the technological process by which a food is developed?
  Mr. Steen: As always, my hon. Friend raises a very challenging and interesting point. He might recollect that, for nearly a decade, successive Governments suggested that there was no danger associated with organic phosphorus sheep dip. It was believed that it could not possibly affect human beings. However, they have now discovered evidence to the contrary. At present, there is a scare involving Scottish salmon, which it is feared have a blood disease. It is believed that there is no chance of passing the disease to human beings, but how do we know what the effects will be in 10 or 15 years?
  Mr. Lansley rose—
  Mr. Steen: I will not give way again—not because I do not want to, but because it is unfair to other hon. Members. Furthermore, I probably cannot answer my hon. Friend's question.
  The House is concerned about the drip, drip, drip effect of genetically modified crops creeping into the food chain without people being aware of it, without proper warnings and without the correct tests. We want the Minister to confirm today that the public of this country will not be forced, without their knowledge, to eat genetically modified food. We must not find that, in 20 or 25 years, there is a new disease that could have been prevented and that the Government must answer any cases of negligence that arise. Future generations must not be at risk, mentally or physically. We do not know the answers to many questions, but we should not move forward on the basis of company profits that could affect the health of the nation. We do not know what effects genetically modified crops might have, so we must be cautious rather than sorry.
  10.14 am
  Joan Ruddock: This is my first contribution to a debate on genetically modified food, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) on providing that opportunity. I have a long-standing interest in such matters: I studied plant pathology at Imperial college and did postgraduate research into genetics. I understand scientists' excitement about new discoveries and I support continued scientific endeavour. There is absolutely no doubt that the pursuit of science has made an enormous contribution to human life.
  Every major scientific development—from the steam engine to the heart transplant—has involved both risks and benefits. Theoretically, genetic engineering is no
  854
  different: there are bound to be risks, but surely there must also be benefits. When the benefit is to human health, most people are prepared to take substantial risks. However, as my hon. Friend said, when it comes to genetically modified foods, public attitudes are hostile, with more than 70 per cent. of people opposed to the idea.
  It is easy to assume that, perhaps, that opposition is caused by ignorance. The companies that promote such foods argue that if people understood the issues better, they would happily accept them. Perhaps the hostility comes from recent—although, for most of us, not direct—experience. We all know about listeria, salmonella and bovine spongiform encephalopathy. However, I believe that public concern arises from an innate sense that food is not just another commodity; it is the very sustenance of life. That is neither an ignorant nor a primitive belief—indeed, I believe that it is entirely rational.
  Why, when the organic food market is growing more quickly than telecommunications or computer science, should we be forced to consume genetically modified foods? Are they good for us? The manufacturers' proudest boast is that there is no intrinsic difference; that we cannot tell the difference between GM and other foods. Therefore, I suggest that there is no intrinsic nutritional value in such food. Are genetically modified foods bad for us? Frankly, we do not have a clue. What is the justification for producing such food? We have heard some mention this morning, by way of intervention, of the likely benefits. They include higher crop yields, greater resistance to disease and the potential for good in the developing world.
  I shall refer to the last point. Who, in this rich and well-fed country, would seek to deny better food supplies to those in the developing world? However, I do not believe for a minute that people in Africa are starving because of a lack of genetically modified foods. People in Africa are starving because of civil wars, all kinds of social and economic disruption and because of the failure of food distribution mechanisms. Those are the causes of starvation in Africa, not novel foods or the lack of them.
  There are many things that we can do. Over the years, through cross-breeding and known and proven scientific techniques, we have developed better potential crops and better seed supplies. We can continue to do a whole host of things to assist the developing world. Achievements in terms of better yields and other developments can be attained by combining age-old cross-breeding techniques—which man and nature have used throughout the centuries—with sensible applications of agrochemicals in certain circumstances. But if big business argues that we need to develop genetically modified crops commercially for the sake of competitiveness and if the consumers want a mass market of cheap food, does it really matter? I believe that it does, because if genetically modified crops are grown commercially it will be impossible to isolate them from the wider, surrounding environment. It matters fundamentally, because there is no equivalence between genetically engineered crops and those that have been cross-bred by man and nature over the centuries.
  The process of transferring genes from one species to another does not occur in nature, which is why genetic engineering is unpredictable, uncontrollable and, in my view, totally unnecessary. As Greenpeace has argued, no one knows what the long-term effects of eating genetically engineered food—day after day, year after

  855
  year—will be. Genes that have never been part of the human diet are in GM crops and foods, including genes from viruses and bacteria from those organisms. They may prove to be a severe risk to human health. Furthermore, they can, and probably would, change our environment irreversibly.
  Genetically engineered organisms and plants are living things, so they can multiply and breed in the natural environment. They will go on breeding for generations to come. Herbicide-resistant genes that are transferred into crops, and which seem to be positive and advantageous, could also produce superweeds or superbugs if they spread.
  Dr. Lynne Jones: A moment ago, my hon. Friend said that there was no evidence that genes transferred from one species to another. Now she says that there is a danger that genetically modified DNA—deoxyribonucleic acid—could be transferred from one species to the other. There appears to be some inconsistency there.
  Joan Ruddock: Not at all. If genetic engineering occurs, the crop or the plant has a new genome and the potential for that crop or plant to cross-breed with another plant is present. The genetic engineering would have introduced the different DNA from the different species. Then there could be interbreeding between the same species.
  Mr. Alan Simpson: Does my hon. Friend accept that there is considerable evidence about such transfers? Yesterday I read about research done in Denmark on transfers of herbicide resistance in oil seed rape into adjacent fields, of both crops and weeds. The fact that that is already happening strengthens her cautionary argument considerably.
  Joan Ruddock: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes a very significant point.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North warned of the alarming discrepancies in the House of Lords report. I add two more references to those cited by my hon. Friend. Most frightening is the assumption that safety can be established. Although I agree that labelling is absolutely vital, I cannot accept paragraph 187 on page 49 of the report, which says:
  "Once the regulatory process has ensured safety, the success or failure of the technology must be left to consumer choice".
  There is no way of ensuring safety. It is utterly impossible.
  We should label foods—as genetically modified or not genetically modified—but that does not, and cannot, mean that there is precise safety in taking genetically modified food off the shelf and eating it.
  Dr. Gibson: Does my hon. Friend agree that we cannot be 100 per cent. safe with anything? The words that are used are "negligible risk". When the chief medical officer gave evidence to the BSE inquiry, he used the word "negligible", not the words "extreme non-risk".
  Joan Ruddock: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, but the report uses the words "has ensured safety". The Committee is talking not about "negligible risk", but about "safety".
  856
  In paragraph 186, the Committee says:
  "Genetic modification does not concern a single product or variety but will soon affect the whole spectrum of agriculture".
  That is the truth about what will happen if we have genetically modified foods commercially grown in this country. That is why we cannot proceed on a case-by-case basis. We cannot ensure safety. The only certainty of commercial production of genetically modified foods is the uncontrollable and unpredictable release of artificially constructed gene pools into the wider environment. What does that say about our attitude to sustainable agriculture, to food safety and to public health?
  The consequence of such a direction for our agricultural policy would be denial of choice to the consumer. That direction flies in the face of rational science and the clearly expressed views of the people of this country.
  10.26 am
  Mr. Norman Baker: I am sorry that the debate will run out of time for some hon. Members and I hope that the House will have a chance to return to the subject in due course.
  I agree very much with one of the points made by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley): the whole development in this area is taking place without democratic support or involvement. It is being driven not by consumers, by Members of Parliament or by farmers, but by a small number of multinational companies. They will have profound effects on the food that we eat, the environment in which we live and the way that we farm our land. To me, that is a democratic deficit and I hope that the Government will address it, so far as they can.
  I made that very point to the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food at the Select Committee on Environmental Audit in July last year. He said, "We are not in the driving seat." That was an honest admission, and it was absolutely accurate, but I want to know today how he will try to get the Government into the driving seat.
  I have far more faith in the Minister, and in the Minister for the Environment, than I have in the good folk from Monsanto, Zeneca and other such companies. I want the Minister, not people in America who belong to multinational companies, to take decisions on our behalf—please get in the driving seat. The Government have been well-meaning on this issue, but were slow off the mark in May 1997. I hope that they will take action to remedy that.
  I believe in the precautionary principle. We must be careful to ensure that we do not do anything that cannot be undone. On that basis, it is up to those who wish to change our food and our environment to show that that is safe, or as safe as can be. It is not up to other people—me, pressure groups or any hon. Member—to show that something is unsafe. The onus is on those people to show that what they want to do is safe, but they are not doing that. Instead, they are cynically pushing through genetically modified food—and pushing GM technology on to this country, Europe and the world—without giving anybody the chance to object. They are doing that through deliberately avoiding segregation of supplies, and by trying to influence those who are opinion formers in society, while paying less attention to public opinion. That was shown by the Monsanto internal evidence. Indeed, Monsanto is so popular that, after it conducted its massive

  857
  publicity campaign, its own opinion poll showed that it was more unpopular than it was before that particular process took place.
  Dr. Gibson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Baker: I had better not. The hon. Gentleman has intervened twice and I am conscious that other hon. Members want to speak. I am sorry; I should have liked to allow him to intervene.
  People have significant worries. One is the effect on biodiversity, which is a real worry, not a lunatic concern of fringe groups. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and English Nature—the Government's own advisers—are saying that there is a real problem. The Government have to take that matter seriously.
  The Government appear to have concerns. The Independent on Sunday revealed the risks of genetic foods and tells us that, allegedly, a Government report, commissioned by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions
  "concludes that there are insufficient safeguards to stop the creation of hybrid multi-resistant plants.
  It lists a series of 'gaps' in the UK's regulatory framework, leaving Britain's wildlife at serious risk of damage from genetically modified plants and other intensive farming methods."
  Where is that report, and when is it being published? There should not be commercial planting of GM crops until those issues have been dealt with satisfactorily.
  The Government should commit themselves to a five-year moratorium on the commercial planting of GM crops. That is my party's position, and I am happy to be hosting a meeting in the House shortly about such a five-year freeze, which will involve hon. Members from all parties. The Government must also commit themselves to securing diversity of supply to ensure that people who want GM food can buy it with confidence. They must also ensure proper labelling. It is not sufficient for labelling to show GM material detectible after the processing stage: it must refer to inputs into food. At the moment, 90 per cent. of GM material in food processing does not require labelling, and is only picked up afterwards. That is wrong and misleading for the consumer, and must be dealt with by European Union laws.
  When the biosafety protocol is discussed in a few weeks in Colombia, the Government must deal with three issues. First, on the issue of liability, who will take the blame and who will have to pay compensation if something goes wrong? Will it be the farmer—I am sure the farmer does not want that—the Government, the World Trade Organisation or the companies that are pushing GM food on us? Let us have a clear answer to that. My view is that the companies should be liable, and I hope that the Government will confirm that.
  Secondly, will agricultural commodities, such as maize and soya, be included in the protocol? They are at present, and the Government should confirm that that will continue to be the case. Thirdly, it would be helpful if the Minister of State would tell us which Ministers will represent us in Colombia. Will he confirm that the precautionary principle will apply to the discussions in Colombia and to the Government's position?
  858
  In a parliamentary answer to the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe) on 21 January, the Minister for the Environment listed the research being carried out by the Government. I congratulate them on initiating that research, but it involves fundamental matters such as the environmental impact of GM crops, safety of plant viral inserts, investigation of feral oil seed rape populations, a review of GM bioinsecticides and a review of parasitic nematodes for biological control of invertebrates. The list goes on. That research is continuing, so we do not know what the outcome will be. How can we have commercial planting of such crops and release matter into the environment when we do not know the results of the research? That is bad science.
  Those who argue that GM crops are wonderful and safe, and that we should go ahead with them, should wait. What is the hurry? Let us wait until we are sure. It is irresponsible rashly to go ahead before information on the test results has been published.
  My message to the Government is that they are moving in the right direction, and I have confidence that they are trying to approach this problem sensibly and seriously, but they must get a hold on the debate. The Minister must ensure that he is in the driving seat. The Government should be prepared to take on the World Trade Organisation. The WTO must not be allowed to argue that trade is everything, because there are environmental and animal welfare considerations.
  The Minister referred to the rules of the WTO, but they have not been challenged. Will he undertake to challenge WTO rules to ensure that we have freedom of choice, and to protect the environment and animal welfare? That is what the House and people in the country at large want.
  10.33 am
  Mr. Tony Colman: I shall be extremely brief, to allow someone else to speak. I support my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) on her suggestion of a short-term moratorium on the planting of commercially grown GM crops. That would be welcomed by all sides, including Monsanto and Dupont. I have spoken to those companies, because it is important that Members of Parliament engage with the companies that propose these changes.
  I was honoured to be chosen to lead an Inter-Parliamentary Union delegation to the Food and Agriculture Organisation last December on the outcome of the world food summit. It is important to recognise the opinions of many countries in the group of 77. I back the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock). The almost unanimous view of the summit was that food security had remarkably improved worldwide in the past 30 years. Country after country from the developing world said that they had made major moves forward and were looking for food security—except those countries where there is civil war and other problems apart from those associated with growing crops.
  It is important to knock on the head the idea that rapid change to GM crops is needed to feed the world. It is not. We must recognise the major changes in cross-breeding and the progress made in the work to find more orthodox solutions. There could be a big improvement in food distribution. Up to 80 per cent. of a crop may be lost between the farm gate and the consumer, so work could be done in that area.

  859
  I discussed the way forward with the FAO, which drew my attention to the codex alimentarius that it has undertaken jointly with the World Health Organisation in the past 30 to 40 years to establish a national register and examining board for all foods throughout the world, which is accepted as such. If we are to have a world standard, I strongly urge the Minister not to try to achieve that within the World Trade Organisation, but to work with the WHO and the FAO, which can ensure that all voices in the debate are heard, not just the biggest trading nations of the world.
  Dr. Gibson: Does my hon. Friend agree that nothing will stop Uncle Sam in the drive to produce the foods America wants and to export them across the world? That is the problem. Whatever superstar status and agreements are reached, Uncle Sam will still push those products on to the market. There is no opposition to genetically modified crops or foods in the United States. Would my hon. Friend like to tell us why?
  Mr. Colman: It is because the US Government have authorised these products. That was made clear in my discussions with Monsanto and Dupont, which almost felt hurt that we, on this side of the Atlantic, object to these foods. They believe that the argument was won 20 or 30 years ago. I suggest that this matter should be dealt with by the FAO and the WHO, because they have the appropriate mechanism. It is extremely important that the WTO is not involved, because the American Government have greater clout in that organisation than they do in the more egalitarian organisations, such as the FAO and the WHO.
  10.38 am
  Mr. Alan Clark: I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) for presenting her case in a persuasive and well-rehearsed manner. I am sorry that, owing to the pressure of time, I must proceed directly to my conclusions.
  I warn the hon. Lady that she will not get much change out of the Minister, although we know that his heart is in the right place. He will have to read out a speech written for him by officials. As we know, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is primarily concerned not to defend the interests of the consumer, but to look after vested interests within its purlieu of responsibility. The hon. Lady spoke for the consumer. It is most important for the House of Commons to be vigilant and to defend the interests of the consumer, whether they be financial, economic or, as in this case, health.
  The consumer is under threat from a double squeeze: the multinationals and their domestic equivalent, the superstores that sell food. There is an unholy combination between those two forces to cajole, intimidate or, by financial inducement, persuade consumers that they are perfectly safe, and if they quietly swell the profits of these two bodies they will be all right. Large investment has been put into that objective.
  I shall address myself to the Minister, because I suspect that he privately sympathises with my view. The common agricultural policy should be wound up and the money saved should be devoted to getting organic farming properly and sensibly funded. It is obvious that labeling
  860
  must be introduced by legislation. It is hypocritical to say that the consumer must decide. How can the consumer decide if he does not know what he is consuming? The question of tariffs must be reconsidered. If organic, cleaner, better, more expensive and healthier food is to be undermined by cheap imports, some method has to be devised by the Government to level the playing field between what is possibly poisonous and what is clean.
  10.40 am
  Mr. Tim Yeo: I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) on introducing a timely debate. Both the subject and the thrust of her remarks have struck a chord on both sides of the House. I hope that we shall return to the subject soon, because many hon. Members wished to contribute at greater length than was possible and, indeed, I shall be able to touch on only one or two aspects of this important issue.
  The Opposition recognise that genetically modified crops may have potential benefits, including the capacity to increase productivity in food growing and, possibly, to alleviate some of the environmental damage caused by intensive agriculture. However, more important and more urgent for the public than the potential future benefits are the clear and immediate dangers. Unfortunately, the Government's present policy ignores the actual environmental damage that the over-hasty adoption of the technology of genetic modification will cause. That policy appears to involve considering the health risks from genetically modified crops secretively and it fails to address the need to build up the public's confidence in what they are eating.
  I shall deal first with the environmental anxieties. The United Kingdom differs markedly from the United States of America, where the farming areas and the wildlife areas tend to be separated. Here, in a smaller and more crowded country, farming practices have an immediate and substantial impact on wildlife. That alone makes a more cautious approach to the commercial release of GM crops essential. The evidence of English Nature to the House of Lords Select Committee sets out clearly the threat that GMOs pose to biodiversity and the genetic integrity of native species. If English Nature is to be overruled, the House is entitled to know on what grounds Ministers think they know better.
  Does the Minister agree that the changes in crop management and farming practices that GM crops involve will have a substantial impact on wildlife? Should not the regulatory system examine the cumulative environmental impact of genetically modified crops and not just their effect on an individual basis? Should not the remit of the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment be widened to take fuller account of the effect of genetically modified organisms on biodiversity? Does the Minister accept that inserting genes into native species carries especially high risks and that very careful monitoring is needed of what happens after such organisms are released? Many other questions arise on this issue.
  The Opposition fully support English Nature's call for a moratorium on the commercial release of genetically modified crops in Britain until the results of the current research on the environmental consequences are available. We believe that the European Union approval system for GMOs should be no less demanding than that for

  861
  pesticides. That would mean that even if a GMO was approved in one European Union country, it would still need specific approval from the British authorities before being released here, so that the circumstances particular to this country could be taken into account. I endorse wholeheartedly the concerns expressed on both sides of the House in this debate about the issues of segregation and labelling.
  The health risks may be a little less clear, although for some members of the public they are of the most direct concern. In the past year, the Government have banned people from eating beef on the bone, even though the risk of dying from eating it is now estimated to be less than one in 1 billion. We must assume, therefore, that the Government are confident that the health risks of eating food with genetically modified ingredients are even lower. After all, in the case of beef on the bone, the customer is at least aware when he or she is running the risk. Because of the bewildering refusal of Monsanto and others to separate GM soya from the standard crop, customers do not necessarily know when they are eating food with genetically modified ingredients.
  If the Government are so sure that GM ingredients carry no health risk, why are they covertly using the supermarkets to collect data on customers who buy GM products? Is it so that the Government can examine whether, for example, those customers subsequently contract cancer or give birth to malformed children? Those are only two of the sets of data whose collection was discussed by an official committee a few weeks ago. Are there, in the minds of the Government or their advisers, some risks to human health after all? Are the public now being used by the Government as unknowing guinea pigs in a vast but secret human experiment?
  Dr. Lynne Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Yeo: I am sorry, but I do not have time to do so.
  The Government's approach is no way to build up public confidence; it is the reverse. Rushing ahead with the commercial release of GM crops while so many doubts remain unresolved will not advance the cause of GM technology. One of the mysteries is the Government's real aim. It clearly is not the protection of the environment, because they will not listen to the warning of their own statutory adviser on that subject. Their aim clearly is not the protection of human health, because they are trying to keep their fears secret. Perhaps the Government's aim is the service of those foreign-owned corporate giants whose commercial interests seem to depend so heavily on getting GM crops imposed around the world in the shortest possible time before too many awkward questions about the consequences of that imposition have been asked. We know that one such company, Novartis, was one of the 38 largest Labour party sponsors in 1997. It has been suggested that President Clinton personally lobbied the Prime Minister on behalf of another, Monsanto, although my parliamentary question on the subject remains mysteriously unanswered.
  What is all the rush about? Here is an issue crying out for leadership and principles, not spin doctors and soundbites. But who do we find chairing the relevant
  862
  ministerial committee? None other than the Minister for the Cabinet Office, the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham). Not surprisingly, the mood of confusion among consumers is now changing rapidly to one of anxiety.
  I invite the Minister to recognise that winning public acceptance for GM crops will require more openness from the Government and more clarity about their aims. I invite him to accept that little would be lost and much might be gained by slowing down the process through which he and his ministerial colleagues are taking Britain into hitherto unknown realms. Those realms may one day bring great benefits, but they are best entered after ensuring that the risks involved have been fully understood by everyone who is exposed to them and reduced to an absolute minimum.
  10.49 am
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) on securing this important debate, which is long overdue and welcome. It is the first proper debate on this subject in the past couple of years, notwithstanding the long debate on the last day before the summer recess when only three or four Members were present. That was more on constituency matters and related to seeds and trials.
  The previous speech, which I assume was made with the full authority of the shadow Cabinet, makes it necessary for me to respond to the allegations of the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo). He said that there were clear and immediate dangers, but there is no evidence of that. He said that the process by which the Government consider biotechnology is secret. Since we came to power, we have appointed non-scientific lay advisers to every advisory committee that serves the Government in that respect. It has usually been two people, and they are all encouraged to network with each other and are not used as tokens. The minutes and agendas of those meetings are made public.
  The Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes, the key scientific committee on this issue, was set up in 1988 and has an ethics adviser. Last year, after discussions with me, it held two open meetings—last February and in December—with outsiders such as Greenpeace and the Consumers Association to discuss the issue. Observers and non-members were allowed to speak, and did not only sit mute. The minutes were published, but the hon. Member for South Suffolk says that it is a secret process.
  We have published a list of 59—at the latest count—suppliers of non-GM soya and maize for food producers to contact in America, Canada and Holland. That is an initiative of this Government. A new Cabinet Sub-Committee is examining the whole issue of biotechnology across Government so that decisions are not made jigsaw fashion but from the big picture. There has been no coercion of supermarkets. No attempt has been made, by this Government or any of our officials, to get individual details of customers' food buying. That was never intended or discussed at the individual level.
  I thought that it would be useful to remind myself about labelling, but I did not realise how useful. It is nearly two years since the general election. I well remember the

  863
  decisions that Ministers take that lead to changes. It was probably late May 1997—the press release was on 7 June—when we changed labelling policy. When we came into office, we examined policy areas. We discovered that our officials in Brussels were under instructions from their political masters in the previous Government not to agree to the labelling of GM ingredients in foods. In practice, that would have meant that none of the foods currently on sale would have been covered by the labelling policy that that lot promoted when they were in government. We were again in a 14:1 minority.
  Following discussions, this Government immediately changed the instructions to the British negotiators not only to get in line but to get in the lead on the issue. We put consumer interests first and foremost. No one can deny that, because the labelling regulations that have come through now are totally different from what has operated in the United States of America. The previous Government's labelling policy was, in practice, exactly the same as that which operated in the United States: not to label ingredients separately. That policy has been reversed. There are defects, which have often been raised in House. There are some loopholes to be closed. Additives and flavourings will have to be labelled, which the European Union is addressing. That must be dealt with. I am still in some difficulty on the process of manufacture. Labelling ingredients is one thing, but labelling for manufacturing processes is different because it transcends foods and goes into other products. It is a different regime.
  We have just issued our consultation document on labelling for the catering sector so that it will be covered. I invited some catering sector bigwigs to ask them whether they really wanted GenetiX Snowball queueing up outside their restaurants telling customers that if they eat in them, they will not be told whether ingredients are genetically modified. The answer was, of course, no. We have consulted once already, and we have been consulting briefly over the past four weeks to get agreement before introducing regulations.
  The House of Lords report was mentioned by everyone who spoke. I cannot respond on that. I and my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher) gave evidence to it in October. In the normal course of events, the Government will respond within two months.
  There is no commercial growing of GM crops in this country, and none is planned. When it happens, its introduction will be controlled, not a free-for-all. Farmers, manufacturers and seed merchants will not be allowed to plant acre after acre willy-nilly without controls. It is not possible and it will not happen.
  This Government have doubled aid for organic conversion. From April, there will be new subsidies to persuade people to convert. We have doubled the money
  864
  for organic research. We will not waste that public money by allowing contamination from the uncontrolled introduction of GM crops.
  Mr. Alan Simpson: I congratulate the Minister on toughening labelling regulations. In his current consultations, is he pointing out to the biotech industry and food retailers that under the Single European Act and the Food Safety Act 1990, the responsibilities of due diligence and product liability mean that they had better have full and unlimited public liability insurance against the class actions that will follow from BSE, and, almost certainly, on other matters?
  Mr. Rooker: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who I know has a question on this at tomorrow's Question Time. Civil liability for damage caused by genetically modified organisms is governed by common law developed in the courts. On the basis of common law principles, the firm holding the marketing consent for the GMO crop can be held liable in law for any damages arising from ill effects attributed to that crop. As I made clear in a scrutiny Committee upstairs, the Government support the proposal in the European Commission Green Paper on food law to extend product liability to primary agricultural producers. There could not be a clearer warning to companies that if they have any doubts, they should not apply.
  We are being rigorous with our regulation to the extent that if we and our advisory committees do not agree that a product should be approved, we will say that it has not had approval. Unlike, for instance, the Veterinary Products Committee, we are not constrained by the Medicines Acts in saying which products have not been approved. People hear only about the products that have gone through the system and assume that everything gets approved. That is not true. We will publish the minutes. There is no commercial confidentiality on this. If someone does not get through the system, we will name the company and the product so that people understand that we are not rubber stamping every application willy-nilly. It does not work like that.
  I regret that I have no more time to answer the many positive points made by hon. Members. I hope that I have at least partly answered the disgraceful, outrageous speech made on behalf of the shadow Cabinet.
  Mr. Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you confirm whether you have had a request from the Prime Minister to explain to the House his role in hounding someone out of his job because of his political or religious beliefs?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair. No such request has been received and the Prime Minister is due to answer questions this afternoon, when there may be an opportunity for hon. Members to ask whatsoever they may choose.

  London Fire Service
  11 am
  Dr. Vincent Cable: First, I must thank you for giving me the opportunity to introduce this Adjournment debate on the London fire service, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I introduced a similar debate a year ago and it is appropriate that the House should have an opportunity at least once a year to focus on the problems of that service. It is not a major public service in spending terms when compared with the national health service or education and it accounts for one third of 1 per cent. of all Government spending. However, it is a key service and one in which men and women risk their lives in our interests. Their concerns deserve proper attention.
  I have not introduced the debate simply to create an annual ritual of reviewing the problems of the fire service in London; I have done so because the financial problems and cuts in the service with which we dealt last year have continued unabated. Last year, the debate took place in the context of the closure of two fire stations, Downham and Shooter's Hill, with the loss of 56 jobs. This year, the position is not entirely clear, but it seems likely—even if one is being fairly optimistic—that we will lose five fire engines and another 115 fire jobs as part of a process of cuts and economies in the fire service in London. That is the context and the motive for this debate.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), responded to the debate a year ago and is to do so again today and I acknowledge that there are positive aspects. It is obvious that he has been defending his corner in his Ministry and in Whitehall debates about funding. The standard spending assessments for the past two years—1998–99 and 1999–2000—of 4.7 and 3.9 per cent. respectively are above the rate of inflation, which is a positive outcome. It compares favourably with the previous four years, when the settlements were about half the rate of inflation.
  That torrid period in the mid-1990s created many of the serious problems in the service. The annus horribilis of the London fire service was 1997, when 12 tenders were withdrawn and people like me, with no background in the service, were drawn into the campaign to save our local fire engines. The problems have continued and, although the Government deserve some credit for having granted relatively favourable settlements, the underlying structural problems, notably the overhang of pensions and flexibility in the service, have not been tackled. I have no doubt that they are in the pipeline. The fire service is in continuing difficulty in London because the problems have not been tackled. I hope that the Minister will point the way forward.
  The immediate crisis has come about because the London fire service is totally constrained in several ways. It has limited freedom of manoeuvre and is a single-service operation. First, it is constrained on the pay front. Half its costs are salaries and, although the SSA settlement has been reasonably generous, next year's 3.7per cent. SSA does not begin to compare with the pay settlement, which is 5 to 6 per cent. I do not begrudge the firemen their pay increase—I am sure that they deserve it—but there is no obvious mechanism by which that pay award can be paid for. The assumption is that the money will come from efficiency savings, but in practice those
  866
  mean cuts in the fire service. After years of economies and cuts in overheads, that is primarily where such savings have to be made.
  The second constraint is the pension problem, and I am sure other hon. Members will refer to it. The problem of unfunded pensions exists in several public services, but it is probably most acute in the fire service. Pension obligations are rising at twice the rate of inflation. About 20 per cent. of the fire budget goes in pension obligations and the percentage is rising every year because of the increasing number of fire service pensioners. Firemen are living longer, which is welcome, and the contribution rate is falling because fewer people are on the staff. It is a vicious circle whereby the more the service is cut, the fewer people are left to contribute. It is a downward spiral and it is creating an unsustainable financial position. I understand that the pension obligation will rise towards 30 per cent. of the budget in the next few years. That is a hopeless position and it is causing immediate pressure.
  Reserves are a third constraint. In the past year or so, the fire service has been kept at a respectable level of service because it has been able to dip into its financial reserves. It drew £12 million last year and could probably draw some more this year. Out of the £7 million or so that is left, it could draw £2 million to £3 million more to remain roughly within sight of what the Government auditors consider financially prudent. Clearly, however, that cannot continue, unless the Government intend to hand the service to the London mayor with no reserves, which would be extremely dangerous. For example, an unforeseen increase in pension obligations would leave it illiquid and unable to meet its day-to-day obligations.
  I do not fully understand the final constraint and I hope that the Minister will explain it. It is the way in which the new Government clawback arrangements for the so-called more sensitive form of capping that has been introduced will operate. I understand that the Government have said that they would tolerate a 4.5 per cent. increase in the precepting for local councils in London. I am not entirely clear what would happen if the fire service breached the ceiling. We are in new territory and I am not sure whether, when the Government introduced the new system, they had fully thought through what it might mean for precepting authorities, as opposed to normal, multipurpose councils. The new system has created significant uncertainty and difficulties for the service and I hope that that will be clarified during the debate.
  Those severe constraints are hemming in the service. In the current and the coming financial years, even if the fire service draws down much of its reserves to a level that is verging on financial imprudence, uses the savings from last year—there were small savings because pension obligations were not quite as large as had been budgeted for—and breaches the Government's target for precepting up to perhaps a 7 per cent. increase, it will still have to close five fire tenders down. The situation could be worse. That is my analysis of the situation. What are the alternatives and what else could be done? Could the problems be avoided?
  Mr. Geraint Davies: One of those stations is in New Addington in Croydon. In recent times, we have lost a station in Sanderstead and engines in Warlingham, Beckenham and Woodside. As the hon. Gentleman said, the situation is not sustainable. It is gradually leading to the degradation of the service.

  867
  Does he agree that one way forward would be to ring-fence the pension side of expenditure and have separate funding for the service, so that pension obligations do not undermine the provision of fire engines?
  Dr. Cable: The hon. Gentleman's suggestion is sensible and it is one of several that I intended to propose to the Minister. There are different ways of dealing with the pension problem and the hon. Gentleman correctly identified one. The local colour that he has added to the debate from Croydon is appropriate. I hope that other hon. Members will give from their areas examples showing how the position is causing alarm throughout the capital.
  Before dealing with that point, however, I shall run through the options available to the fire authority to head off the cuts under the present financing arrangements. They are all extremely unpalatable. One option is to run the reserves down to zero and pass on a hot potato to the new London mayor. One can imagine the mayor's problems, faced with a bankrupt fire service and having to trade off its problems against those of the Metropolitan police. That is an unpalatable option, but it needs consideration.
  A second option is to break the bank in terms of capping limits and go up to a 10 or 11 per cent. increase in precepting. That would not involve an enormous cash increase for local councils, but it would be extremely unpopular with them. It would also test to breaking point the Government's belief that a clawback system should be applied to authorities that breach limits, and I suspect that the Government would not be able to let that happen.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: The bill received by local council tax payers in London shows separately the precepted amounts for both the Metropolitan police and the London fire and civil defence authority. Because people value the fire service as they do the police service, the politics of raising money suggest that an increase in precept would be one method that would appeal to the Government, if they were willing to accept it, and be acceptable to the people and to local authorities. People want the fire service and would be willing to pay a relatively small additional sum on a relatively small part of the total council tax bill. It strikes me that that way forward in ensuring that the fire service receives the resources it needs would be the easiest to deliver.
  Dr. Cable: I thank my hon. Friend for that constructive suggestion. However, if the cuts crisis is to be avoided through precepting, the increase would have to be fairly substantial, in the order of 12 per cent., and it would require forbearance on the part of the Government. Perhaps the Minister will offer clarification on that point.
  Drawing the threads together, I ask: where are the cuts leading? At what point do fire services become dangerously overstretched? This year, the fire service management have clearly gone to some trouble to prioritise firefighting equipment, through risk assessment carried out in a professional manner. They will argue that the five fire tenders identified are those whose loss will put the public least at risk, and that all sorts of improvised arrangements of that nature have to be adopted. However, there is a point at which such arrangements become positively dangerous.
  868
  I am no expert, but simple common sense dictates that, in the event of a major emergency or combination of emergencies, the fewer fire tenders and firefighters there are, the greater are the response times and the risk of death. The professional management of the fire service now believe that, if cuts in excess of the five now contemplated are made, we will not be in merely difficult territory; real danger will threaten the public. The Fire Brigades Union, which is more outspoken than the management, already believes that the increase in fire deaths—in 1997–98, the number increased from 67 to somewhere in the 80s—is probably attributable to the fact that fire cover was reduced. I am not sure whether that can be proved, but the figures are not encouraging.
  Mr. John Randall: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is not only the public who would be put at risk by the reduction in services, but fire crews themselves?
  Dr. Cable: That is absolutely right and an important point. Unfortunately, disasters such as the King's Cross fire appear to be needed to remind us all of threats, not only to the public but to fire officers. In addition, although the fire service is right to have refocused its priorities from property to people, risk to property remains an element of concern.
  Let me now outline some of the longer-term problems that the Government will have to address if the overall difficulty is to be alleviated. The first is the pensions problem. I have already sketched the difficulties, and most hon. Members already know the underlying problem. The difficulties started in the post-war period, a relatively easy period in which far more money went into the fire service pension scheme through contributions than was taken out. It is not altogether clear what happened to the surplus, but I suspect that, instead of being spent on the fire service, it leaked out to the Greater London council and was used to permit lower rates around London. We all had an apparently free lunch at the expense of the London fire service's pension provision, but we have now reached the point of having to pay the bill.
  The pensions problem is wholly unsustainable, because contributions are likely to fall further. The Government have begun to address the issue of pension arrangements for new recruits to the London fire service; that is a creditable effort, but it does not deal with the problem of the pensions overhang and it may make the existing problem worse. New recruits may opt out of the pension arrangements and cease to pay their 11 per cent. contribution, which would result in lower overall contributions at a time when pensions outgoings increased because of longevity and redundancies. The problem will get wholly out of control if something is not done.
  What are the options? The hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies) suggests that, within the SSA arrangements, pensions should be isolated from the rest of the budget and, in effect, be reimbursed by central Government. That would take pensions out of the internal financing arrangements of the LFCDA, which is my preferred option. A second option, which builds on the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), is to rely more heavily on precepting and to allow pension costs to be passed on to local authorities without restriction.

  869
  Various methods are available, but it is clear that the Government have not yet proposed a method of dealing with the pension problem. It is one thing to deal with new recruits and prospective pensioners, but the real financial difficulty arising from pensions has not yet been faced. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity of this debate to address those problems.
  My final point relates to the fire service's overall operational flexibility. The fire service management believe that their financial position would be easier if they were able to operate more flexibly. They are governed by a set of legislative regulations that has accumulated over the years. That severely inhibits their freedom of action, for example, in charging big business for fire prevention services, which appears in principle to be a reasonable thing to do. It also inhibits flexibility in other ways: it is a proper part of the Government's approach to social exclusion that the fire service should refocus its efforts on deprived areas, which are where most fires occur, but that sort of operational flexibility is currently inhibited by restrictive legislation. In last year's debate, the Minister said that he was willing to look at that legislation and to introduce a new fire Bill. 1 should be grateful for some information about when that will happen, how it will happen and what mechanism will be used, for that is an important part of the story.
  I suspect that the House is of one mind on the fact that there is a serious short-term problem. I should like to know how the Government propose to deal with it, especially in matters, such as capping limits, where the Government have a responsibility. I should also be grateful if the Minister revealed how the Government intend to address the longer-term problems of pensions and fire service flexibility.
  11.18 am
  Dr. Rudi Vis: I accept much of what the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) says and I shall try not to repeat his remarks, because that would be boring. Instead, I shall ask why the London fire and civil defence authority is affected by impending crisis.
  Mr. Robinson, the chief fire officer and chief executive of the LFCDA, has informed us of the many financial difficulties he faces. Unfortunately, neither the LFCDA's financial figures nor the measures taken to stabilise them add up. The hon. Gentleman is correct to say that we may be here again next year if we allow the LFCDA management to continue to act as they have until now.
  When Mr. Robinson was appointed, he must have accepted the job on the basis and the understanding that he had to run an efficient and safe fire service. I doubt whether he said that, although he would do that, he would not take account of pension arrangements; my guess is that he accepted those responsibilities.
  In a letter sent to hon. Members in December, Mr. Robinson sets out the main problems. The pension scheme is unfunded; when it was started, in 1947, income was high and expenditure low, whereas last year expenditure was £77 million and income was only £16 million—a pound;61 million shortfall.
  When did that start? As the hon. Member for Twickenham said, it started in the 1970s. My dog could understand the problem, if I told him about it. What has
  870
  Mr. Robinson done to change the system from an unfunded scheme to a funded one? Absolutely nothing: neither he nor his predecessors took the necessary management action. So what does he say now? He says that a funded scheme for new firefighters could be a solution only in the long run—but if the process had been started in the 1970s, we would now be well into that long run and the problem would have been avoided.
  The cuts in the fire service began just when expenditure started to exceed income. Since 1979, a lot of equipment has been lost, but the problem has not been solved, merely avoided. That is a management failure. What does Mr. Robinson propose to do? He proposes to make another 50 or 60 people redundant, or more, depending on the circumstances. What will those people do? They will draw pensions from the scheme, thus making the problem worse. That is not a solution—just the opposite.
  Mr. Robinson also intends to make savings in the support areas. In a letter, he stated that 86 per cent. of income was spent on front-line services. However, the same letter stated that the service spent 21.4 per cent. of income on pensions. Subtracting 21.4 per cent. from the 100 per cent. income total leaves a remainder that is too small: it is not possible to spend 86 per cent. of income on fire services. The figures do not add up.
  Mr. Robinson has said that the management structure has been changed. It is hard to imagine, but there used to be five layers of management. Now there are three layers, but that is still far too many. London's fire service has a military structure. Even in television programmes such as "London's Burning", one can see firefighters, grown men and women, touching their forelock to management. My goodness: everyone is afraid. Top managers have bigger cars, bigger offices and more assistants. The fire service has less to do with fires than with management. Priorities are upside down.
  I am a Dutchman by birth, and I maintain that we could learn from the way things are done in the Netherlands. There, some pertinent questions would be asked, and the answers would provide the basis for action. What is the service for? It is a fire service. What does it do? It fights fires; it helps people in flats; it helps to get people out of lifts that do not go up or down; it helps in dealing with road accidents; and all sorts of other things.
  Depending on the relevant regulations, the management should have ensured that there was income to cover the service's activities. In the Netherlands, a structure was built to allow the service there to fight for the necessary income. The LFCDA does things differently. The management structure comes first: only when that is in place does attention turn to fighting fires. That is the wrong way around. The LFCDA is not doing what it should be doing.
  I have read the budget proposals, but they contain not a word about expenditure on civil defence, which is part of the LFCDA's responsibility and would have to be covered in any honest overview. Why have we not been told about civil defence?
  It is a scandal, but it is common now to see a gleaming little car arriving at the scene of a fire. Who gets out? A management person. What does he know about fires? Nothing. He says, "Oh, my goodness, that's a fire." The management person stands there for about 10 minutes and then asks the firefighter in charge when it will all be over. On being told that it might take about two hours,

  871
  the management representative assumes that everything is under control and that he can go home. Why does that happen? The answer is that the management person is paid out of money for front-line services. That element is hidden in the budget, but we must not forget that. To my mind, it is unacceptable.
  Why must firefighters retire at the ridiculously young age required? I know of many who are totally fit, as medical supervision proves. They want to go on working, either on active service or at desk jobs, but there is almost no way for existing firefighters to get into management. The structure is one of "us and them", and the management do not want them.
  The LFCDA has protested that it has consulted all relevant people and groups. Has any firefighter been consulted, or been involved in any way? The answer is no. If I want to meet firefighters, rather than just go to head office, I have to ask it for permission. The situation with the LFCDA management is unbelievable. If my house should catch fire, I would want firefighters to come, not management.
  The financial problems are severe, but the solutions are idiotic. In the literature that he has sent, Mr. Robinson states that overheads will be shared with other emergency services. There has just been a massive change in the police structure in Barnet, but the LFCDA did not get in touch to offer to share the overheads involved in reorganisation, which it could have implemented at the same time. No contact was made.
  Changes to the north circular road mean that Finchley fire station is poorly placed. However, other emergency services have a very much better site near Finchley high road. Has the LFCDA taken up that option? It is considering the matter, and doing so in such a way that one might think that it may be working to that end; yet the budget report has details of cuts that have been made in ancillary services. More than 50 per cent. of personnel in the LFCDA property division—the authority's asset management arm—have been kicked out. Those are the very people who should talk to other emergency services about saving money—proper money, not improper money—but there has been no negotiation at all.
  I believe that the LFCDA management are not capable, and that Mr. Robinson should go. In addition, I contend that its political control must be examined. Every year, three or four of the 32 councillors who represent London's boroughs are caught out. The other 28 councillors are very sympathetic, but what they are thinking is, "Thank God, it's not me this time." The result is that votes are held and cuts are approved in all the areas for which they are proposed. There should be an independent inquiry into the inefficient and irresponsible management of the LFCDA.
  11.28 am
  Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick: I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on securing this Adjournment debate. I have been trying to do the same, but he beat me to the punch in the ballot in November 1997, and he has done it again this time. I also congratulate him on getting here today. Yesterday, he was feeling distinctly unwell, but it is clear that the adrenaline has kicked in to enable him to open the debate so effectively.
  872
  I prepared for this debate by reading the Hansard report of the 1997 debate. That was an important debate, as is today's. I am sure that all hon. Members in the Chamber hope that we will not need a similar important debate next year.
  I was a member of the London fire brigade for 23 years, and I belonged to the Fire Brigades Union, so I have some familiarity with the service and its problems. However, I congratulate the LFCDA on the quality of the briefings that it has sent to the London Members of Parliament. Those briefings helped us to identify the exact nature of the problems that the authority has to face.
  I shall deal with some general issues, before reinforcing the financial concerns—specifically about pensions—raised by the hon. Member for Twickenham. My starting point is different from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Dr. Vis): I believe that the fire service is extremely efficient. It received a glowing report from the Audit Commission in 1995, and last week's report and performance indicators show that the London brigade is operating at 91.5 per cent. efficiency.
  That has happened against a backcloth of reductions since the Greater London council was abolished in 1986. The fire authority then assumed control of 10,000 staff, but the number has fallen to between 7,000 and 7,500 since then. Fire stations have been closed, appliances withdrawn and cuts made in various departments. Pressure has intensified year on year. Now we are threatened with the withdrawal of five more pumps this year.
  All that has produced a consensus of disquiet stretching from the chief fire office, Mr. Robinson, to the councillors elected to the fire authority and the trade unions, the principal of which is the Fire Brigades Union, which represents operational firefighters. Despite the proud record of the London fire brigade, and of the fire service in general, the number of deaths and injuries in London and throughout the country has consistently been too high.
  Most people understand that the politics of fire fit tidily with the Government's social exclusion initiatives, in the sense that the vast majority of people who die from fire are from the most vulnerable groups—the old, the sick, the poor and the disabled. There are distinct parallels between the Government's attempts to deal with social exclusion among the most vulnerable groups and what the service is trying to achieve by being more flexible in its responses. I commend the London fire brigade pilot scheme that is attempting to introduce smoke alarms to the Bangladesh community in Tower Hamlets, the Asian community in Ealing and pensioners in south London. Those are ways to improve precautions and safety in vulnerable communities.
  A general difficulty for the fire service has been that the legislation creating it or allowing it to function has almost always been reactive rather than proactive. Even most recently, legislation has resulted from Hillsborough, Bradford and King's Cross. There is a powerful lobby for a new fire safety Act, and I know that the Under—Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), has been working on that. Such an Act could help brigades, including London's, by making it easier for business to understand and implement fire safety precautions; consequently, it would be easier to monitor and enforce those requirements.

  873
  As the hon. Member for Twickenham said, brigades such as London's have no opportunity to generate income from their expertise in training or fire safety. Such an opportunity would allow them to raise money to address their financial difficulties. The LFCDA is asking not for handouts from the Government, but for the power to help itself.
  The main problem is the pension fund. Some people, including the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), have said that pensions are too generous and expensive. Anyone who has studied the fire service will know that its occupational pension scheme has been an appropriate acknowledgement of the nature of the job and the sacrifices and dangers involved in it.
  However, there is a problem. When the fire service pension scheme was introduced, few people lived to collect their pensions. Contributions from firefighters went to local authority expenditures. Now, however, as a result of the shorter working week, health and safety changes and breathing apparatus, firefighters live to normal life expectancy rates. That is what makes the scheme expensive. There are today more retired firefighters from London than there are serving firefighters. The pressure on the pension scheme is intensifying.
  The Government have considered the problem. In a written parliamentary answer on 31 March 1998, at column 466 of Hansard, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that he sought views on the fire service pension scheme before 31 July 1998. On 6 November 1997, the Under—Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East, said that there could be no quick fix:
  "Any solution must be a long-term solution".—[Official Report, 6 November 1997; Vol. 300, c. 478.]
  However, the problems of the fire service pension scheme have existed for 10 or 15 years. The Tories did nothing, and we are grappling with them now. Even a solution to the problem of expenditure now running at 20 per cent. of the fire authority bill would not sort out the authority's financial difficulties for 20 years. The pressure is immediate, and it needs immediate attention.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer) has tabled an early-day motion showing the clear cross-party support for action on the pressure on London fire brigade. I have outlined to my hon. Friend my misgivings about some words in his motion, but it rightly identifies the pension scheme as the critical aspect.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary on last year's 3.9 per cent. increase in fire service expenditure. However, there was a 5.6 per cent. wage settlement, and, since wages account for 80 per cent. of the budget, that meant more pressure on the budget. London fire brigade's pension bill for this year is £77 million, and contributions are only £16 million. The retail prices index has risen by 60 per cent. since 1986, but the London fire brigade pensions bill has gone up by 284 per cent.
  I commend the chief fire officer, the politicians on the fire authority, the Fire Brigades Union, the other unions and the public for highlighting the problems that cause us
  874
  to debate the problems again today. I level no criticism at individual Ministers, or even at the Home Office. The reality of our predicament is that the fire service budget amounts to less than 0.3 per cent. of public sector expenditure, making it extremely difficult for us to receive the attention that we believe the problems deserve.
  Most fire safety legislation is, as I have said, reactive. I hope that we do not need a disaster, as some people have said, before we can acknowledge deterioration in the service. The warning signs are there—from principal officers and from firefighters on the ground, showing that there is unanimity in the service. None of us wants to be able to say, "I told you so." There are solutions to the crisis facing the fire service, and facing London fire brigade in particular. I hope that the Minister can persuade the Home Office and the Treasury to grasp a difficult nettle.
  11.37 am
  Mr. John Randall: I shall be brief, as many other hon. Members want to speak in an important debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on obtaining the debate and allowing us to air our views. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick), whose knowledge of and passion for the interests of firefighters and fire safety are well known throughout the House. I pay tribute to firefighters throughout London. We all know that they risk their lives daily in our cause.
  In the London borough of Hillingdon, two pumps are threatened. One will be transferred from Hayes to Heathrow, and the other, at Hillingdon fire station, will be lost. There is all-party support in the borough for the retention of those services. I pay tribute to Councillor Anthony Way, who has actively represented the borough on the London fire and civil defence authority—I should point out that I am paying tribute to a Labour councillor. People are alarmed at the potential loss of those pumps.
  It is difficult to understand how anyone can believe that such a decision will not increase the risk to the public. I have lived in the area all my life and the Hillingdon station—previously at Uxbridge—has always had two, if not three, pumps. In those years, the potential risks have increased. We have Heathrow, RAF Northolt, Hillingdon hospital, the rapidly expanding Brunel university, and a large shopping centre at Uxbridge, with another being built. It is difficult to understand how a 50 per cent. reduction at the Hillingdon station can be anything other than detrimental to the safety of my constituents and those of other hon. Members representing the London borough of Hillingdon.
  The problem should have been considered earlier; it is not new. My constituents' views and those of all the hon. Members who are here today mean that the problem must be addressed. We fear that something will have to happen before people realise the problems that we face.
  11.41 am
  Mr. John Cryer: I am not surprised to see the Tory Benches almost empty, given the Conservative Government's record on the London fire service. Since 1986, three stations have closed, with the loss of 63 pumps and 1,200 jobs. During the same period, the number of calls has risen from 144,000 calls in 1986

  875
  to 188,018 in 1996—a massive increase. But the key figure is that, last year, household fire deaths rose from 67 to 89, an increase of about a third.
  The chief fire officer, Brian Robinson, in his report, to which reference has already been made, makes it clear that he does not want any cuts. In section 4, he states that it would be
  "preferable to make no reductions in the number of stations and pumping appliances until they can be considered in the context of the developing approach to protecting the community from fire and its effects."
  One of the developments to which the chief fire officer refers is the Home Office review of fire safety cover, which is currently in progress, and will, I hope, lead to some pilot schemes in the near future with a shift towards a risk-based assessment.
  My local station of Hornchurch has had two fire engines since 1936, since when there has been a huge expansion in roads—the M25, the Al27, the A13 and the Al2, all big roads—which see a lot of accidents, resulting in many calls on Hornchurch station and those around it. There has been an enormous increase in the number of people living in Havering, Hornchurch, Romford and Upminster and an enormous expansion in the number of office blocks, particularly in Hornchurch and Romford.
  In 1997, the number of two-pump calls made to Hornchurch station—this is the key test, because we are talking about cutting 1.5 per cent. of the force there—was 396, compared with last year's figure, which was about 430, a significant increase. Hornchurch will, therefore, be in real difficulty if the second pump disappears this year.
  The total number of calls made to Hornchurch last year was 1,410. That is a great deal more than the official figure, because it includes 450-odd calls from neighbouring grounds. We are therefore talking about a busy station with a high number of two-pump calls.
  That brings me to the Fire Services Act 1947, which does not recognise, for example, road traffic accidents, which are a major cause of calls on a station such as Hornchurch. That legislation was framed when there were many fewer cars—nly a few hundred thousand—on the road, compared with 22 million today, most of which seem to whiz through Havering at one time or another. That has led to an enormous increase in the calls on Hornchurch station, and on Dagenham and Wennington and the Essex brigade, which has not been met by legislation.
  During the past two years, I have discussed the problem many times with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and I know that he is genuinely concerned about it. The fact that the duties of the fire service have changed enormously during the past 50 years should be recognised in legislation.
  My main point today is to ask the Government to call a moratorium on the proposed cuts to the fire service—the five pumps that are under threat. The Home Office fire cover review currently in progress will, it is hoped, result in a risk-based assessment.
  Ms Linda Perham: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his campaign in Hornchurch. Does he agree with other hon. Members that the main problem is the pensions issue, and that, unless that is addressed, the LFCDA, and its successor, the Greater London authority, will continue to face problems, such as that at my station
  876
  at Hainault, which is faced with day crewing? Does he agree that there is much public support in London against the cuts?
  Mr. Cryer: I certainly agree that there is enormous public support for the fire service, and the pension issue is a key problem. It takes up £70-odd million from a budget of about £300 million. Public support for the fire service in my area has been superb. The firefighters have mounted a magnificent campaign. Only last week, on one day alone, I, along with a number of firefighters from Hornchurch, handed in about 11,500 completed public consultation leaflets to the LFCDA offices at Albert embankment, just across the Thames. We also have a petition with 40,000-odd names on it, and I alone have had more than 1,000 letters, so the public support is there. Self-evidently, people clearly do not want to see cuts in the fire service.
  Because of the particular factors affecting the London fire service, I should like the Government to call a moratorium on fire service cuts for the foreseeable future until we have a comprehensive review of the fire service. The chief fire officer makes it clear in his report that he does not want to make the cuts, and we await the Home Office review of fire cover. We also await the new authority and the mayor. The LFCDA has £5 million in reserve in a £6.5 million underspend this financial year, and next financial year it may well have another underspend. Until we have the Home Office report and the mayor and the new authority in situ, directly accountable to the people of London, I should like there to be a moratorium on fire service cuts.
  11.48 am
  Mr. Keith Darvill: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), and I associate myself with the remarks already made by my hon. Friends the Members for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick) and for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer).
  My constituency is served by Hornchurch fire station. I have studied in some detail the review of fire cover in London and have recently visited the Hornchurch station and the Romford station, which in part covers my constituency, where I have had extensive talks with the firefighters and local management. I have also visited the command headquarters on Albert embankment and had talks with senior officers there.
  Since the publication of the review and the chief fire officer's recommendations, I have received many representations from constituents who are concerned not only about the Hornchurch station, but the other appliances at Addington, Hillingdon, Finchley and Heston. I am opposed to the recommendations and, although my constituents are concerned chiefly with Hornchurch, they associate themselves by implication with the other fire stations.
  Of course I appreciate that the reductions in cover are driven primarily by financial factors. During my research, I became all too aware of the problems arising from the funding of the firefighters' pensions and the difficulties that this has imposed on the LFCDA. I shall deal with the financial aspects in a moment.
  My primary reasons for opposing the reduction in the number of fire appliances are strategic cover, the ability to save life, risk-based assessment and various local

  877
  issues. On the subject of strategic fire cover, the review naturally refers to Home Office minimum standards. However, section 4.8 of the review reminds us that they are minimum standards, and no more than that. The standards to which we should aspire in the provision of public services—particularly emergency cover—should not be the minimum.
  Section 4.10 of the review highlights the fact that each local station does not provide fire cover for a particular location. My concern is for the level of strategic cover: if we cut five fire appliances, I fear that in the event of a major incident such as the King's Cross disaster or the bomb on the Isle of Dogs, the London brigade will not be able to respond adequately and maintain reasonable cover for the rest of the metropolitan area. Although in the fullness of time the terrorist threat in London may abate, it is too early to be confident of that.
  Furthermore, I believe that road congestion in London is almost certain to have an adverse effect on attendance times. Projected vehicle ownership statistics and average car journey times in London are surely relevant factors. London roads have been close to gridlock several times. Such occasions will inevitably increase, with adverse effects on emergency services. Sections 4.21 to 4.24 of the review state that in eight areas
  "difficulties are being experienced in meeting recommended response times."
  The loss of five more appliances in London could, indirectly, cause the recommended response times in the areas in question to deteriorate even further.
  Section 4.32 states that, in the chief fire officer's professional judgment, the minimum number of appliances that need to be kept ready to attend fires will be greater than the theoretical minimum needed to provide cover strictly in line with the Home Office's minimum recommended standards.
  I concur with the point made in the review that there are strong arguments for keeping fire stations open and for the number of appliances not to be cut at stations covering areas of local deprivation. The key point is whether the right balance of strategic cover will be provided to maintain sufficient cover to ensure that the brigade remains able to respond effectively to major incidents and can deploy resources quickly if and when required.
  Mrs. Eileen Gordon: Will my hon. Friend join me in praising all the firefighters and members of the public who are fighting the cuts? Does he agree that perhaps the best plan of action would, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer) said, be to impose a moratorium on the cuts until the Greater London authority and mayor are in place? After all, it is they who will decide the future of the fire service in London, and to hand over to them stations that have lost pumps which cannot be replaced would give them a bad start when they come to form an overall picture of fire services in London.
  Mr. Darvill: I agree with my hon. Friend, and I am aware of her work in that campaign.
  I am seriously concerned that a reduction in the number of appliances in London will mean that the LFCDA will not be able to maintain strategic cover to the acceptable standard required by my constituents.
  878
  The ability to save lives is a very serious matter. It is clear that the emergency services now have the ability to save more lives than ever before. One of the reasons for the continued advances in their lifesaving ability is the improvement in paramedic support in ambulances and the involvement of specialist teams of doctors who attend serious incidents, especially road traffic accidents—RTAs.
  I am advised that the attendance of firefighters and appliances at serious RTAs and in other situations where accident victims are trapped is often essential to ensure that those victims are released quickly from their entrapment, thus enabling doctors and paramedics to stabilise their condition and ensure that they are transported speedily to intensive care facilities.
  Although many RTAs happen on highways other than motorways, it should be noted that the appliances to be removed are situated in outer London stations closest to the M25. If the number of fire appliances throughout London is reduced by five, the ability to respond to such situations will be diminished, so the recommendation should not be implemented.
  Another primary reason for opposing the recommendations is risk-based assessment. I note that in section 3.13 of the review, the authority has recommended that the Home Office risk categories place undue emphasis on the value of property, as opposed to prevention of injury and loss of life. The current risk categories do not appear adequately to reflect the complexity of risk in densely populated urban areas.
  Section 5 of the review deals with issues likely to impact on the provision of fire cover in future. I note that a range of matters is currently under active consideration, which is likely to result, possibly within two years, in a new risk-based approach to protecting the community from the effects of fire. In light of all the points set out in section 5, the main thrust of which I agree with, I believe that the recommendations to reduce the number of fire appliances in London should at least be postponed until after the matters under active consideration have been determined.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Fifteen years' of constituency experience leads me to share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the move—perceived and often real—from people—based, densely populated area risk assessment to property—based assessment. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there should be public consultation by the LFCDA—using all its evidence and expertise—on how to assess risk, and that only after the results of that consultation have been subject to scrutiny by bodies such as Parliament should the matter go back to Ministers and the fire authorities so that they can decide on the number of machines and personnel needed to respond to the perceived risk for a given area? That could apply not only in London but elsewhere. Unless we get the assessment of risk right, we shall never be able properly to project what is needed by way of appliances and personnel for 24-hour cover.
  Mr. Darvill: I do not disagree with that. I understand that the Home Office is examining those issues at the moment.
  Any decision implemented now may need to be reversed in a relatively short time, and there could be adverse financial implications if fire appliances are removed and subsequently returned.

  879
  I acknowledge that ground calls, particularly at the Hornchurch station, have declined over the years—there are now 960 a year. Appendix C1 of the review sets out the possible impact on surrounding stations. I have queried that estimated impact, and have written to the chief fire officer, setting out my reasons for doing so.
  It seems to me that insufficient weight is being given to off-ground calls and road traffic accidents. In fact, it appears that little or no account is being taken of RTAs. Greater significance should be attached to the service that the fire brigade renders at the scene of such accidents. In 1996 in the Hornchurch area alone, there were four fatalities, and 51 people were injured. In 1997, there were fortunately no fatalities but 31 people were injured; and up to mid-December last year, there were three fatalities and 31 people injured. Those are the figures for road incidents to which the fire brigade was called, not for road accidents in general. Also, 66 drivers and passengers needed releasing from cars involved in accidents. As I said, these statistics relate to the Hornchurch ground alone, but firefighters in Romford inform me that their experiences are similar.
  I do not envisage any short, medium or long-term reduction in the number of RTAs that the fire service will be required to attend. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch said, Hornchurch is close to the A13, Al27, the A 1 2 and the M25. However, it is not only on motorways and trunk roads that serious RTAs occur. In fact, it appears that they occur on the network of rural and semi-rural roads, mainly in the D fire risk category areas. These accidents occur when the M25, the Al27 and the Al2 are congested and motorists exit the main roads to use country lanes with which they are unfamiliar. These roads are narrow, unlit and much more hazardous. Drivers are unfamiliar with the conditions and, as a consequence, RTAs occur. The fire brigade is frequently called out in those circumstances. London is densely populated and built up, but the outer areas of London are linked with the countryside, and that is where the accidents that I have described take place. The reasons that have been set out so far are surely sufficient for opposing the proposed reductions.
  The situation with the firefighters' pay formula and pension and the reduction in reserves are the main reason why we are in the present position. We should regard firefighters' pensions and pay as contractual obligations of the public. It is no good complaining about pensions or the level of the award. We have entered into employment contracts with those public servants and we must fund them properly.
  I am aware that there are many difficulties, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will refer to some of them in his reply. It is clear that public finances remain tight. Despite that, additional funds have already been directed to the fire service. Council tax precepts will not be able to meet the shortfall. Reserves have been depleted, but our constituents do not want to see reductions in fire cover, especially when they are being asked by the borough councils to pay increased council taxes that will be above the rate of inflation.
  I hope that the Minister will be able to allay my fears about the future of the fire service in London. If we do not solve the problems that we have been discussing this morning, it is as sure as anything is in politics that the LFCDA will be back next year and the year after with more reductions. Eventually, the chief fire officer will not
  880
  be able to recommend further reductions. The percentage of the LFCDA's budget that is devoted to pensions and wages will continue to increase. What will happen then? The Government should grasp the nettle now and demonstrate what they can do to solve another problem which they inherited partly from the Conservative Government. I look forward to my hon. Friend's reply.
  12.2 pm
  Mr. John McDonnell: The genesis of the problem has been thoroughly and more than adequately explained by my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick) and by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable). I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. It is important that we recognise that the problem was identified a long time ago. I say that as the ex-chair of finance of the Greater London council. However, whenever the problem was identified, even in those dark mists of time, there was a lack of co-operation from central Government, and subsequently from individual boroughs, in addressing the problem.
  I commend the stewardship of the London fire and civil defence authority after the GLC. I say as an aside that there were no pension holidays when the GLC was involved. The problem with the GLC's budget was that, in terms of revenue and capital, it was virtually capped by this House. In particular, I commend the stewardship of Councillor Tony Ritchie of the LFCDA after the abolition of the GLC. I have been present at meeting after meeting during which he has explained to borough leaders and Ministers—this happened year in, year out—that the problem was becoming worse year by year. I have listened to cant and hypocrisy from individual borough leaders. They went out on the streets campaigning against firefighting cuts while refusing to support an increase in the precept. Ministers argued against any further increase in support for the LFCDA to tackle funding problems while always promising reviews. That happened year after year without anyone tackling the problem. I do not blame the LFCDA for what has happened.
  I heard what my hon. Friend and comrade the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Dr. Vis) said about management. I do not want to take up his comments. However, I know that at every consultation meeting at which I have been present, with the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall), management have made clear their attitude on finance. We are talking about a financial problem and not about service delivery. The best is being made, with limited resources, of a very bad job.
  There have been various wage increases over the years. I and others have been campaigning since the days when I was with Terry Parry, the general secretary of the Fire Brigades Union—God rest his soul—during the first major dispute. In those days, we had a hard time even securing a decent standard of living for firefighters; some of them were on poverty wages while providing a good service.
  Time after time, Governments have commended firefighters for the wonderful role that they play and then refused properly to remunerate them. That is complete hypocrisy. I commend the FBU on all its negotiations with the GLC as I commend the LFCDA subsequently. They showed a flexible approach in tackling problems jointly with management. They examined the budgets and

  881
  put forward options that involved changing working practices, sometimes to the detriment of their members, in an attempt to save jobs.
  The stewardship of the LFCDA under Councillor Ritchie and his colleagues has been superb in highlighting problems and trying to tackle them without co-operation from central Government and, on most occasions, the boroughs. The firefighters and others have commended the authority on the job that it has done with such limited resources during this period.
  I shall refer to the implications for my patch. The hon. Member for Uxbridge briefly examined what has happened in Hillingdon. In the middle of my constituency is Heathrow. The proposals that we are discussing will remove a pump from Hayes, Hillingdon and Heston. These areas surround the airport, which is one of the biggest potential disaster areas in the country. Air disasters do not usually happen at the airport itself. We last had an air disaster in 1956, when an aeroplane dropped out of the sky at Staines before it could reach the airport. That is the risk area. I am concerned that we are not taking into account the real problems that the LFCDA will face in future.
  Mr. Clive Efford: I intervene as someone who lost a fire station in my constituency last year. Local people are concerned about the enormous amount of development that is taking place around Woolwich and the millennium dome. That development will increase the amount of fire cover that is required to be provided by local fire stations, which will reduce their ability to serve the local community.
  Does my hon. Friend agree that perhaps there is an opportunity for additional resources to be raised under the Greater London Authority Bill, with fire cover advice being provided through the LFCDA, where there is a great deal of expertise? I have in mind Canary wharf and what the LFCDA received for the advice that it gave in that instance. Perhaps we should examine that approach urgently.
  Mr. McDonnell: My hon. Friend makes a valid point which I shall move on to in a moment.
  The thrust of our argument is that for the sake of us all we should stand back for a period and then tackle the problem once and for all, rather than having another round of cuts and decisions put off for another year—followed by another round of cuts next year and the year after. If the Government are about anything, they are about saying, "Let us tackle these problems objectively and seriously to secure a long-term future."
  The situation is sometimes almost Pythonesque. My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford) may think that he has problems, but in my constituency I have the airport, the M25, the M4, the M40 and the A312. The hon. Member for Uxbridge and I share, as it were, Northolt. There are many bizarre proposals for the development of Northolt. In addition to that, I am in the middle of a single regeneration budget area. The massive development that has been proposed is not yet even at the planning stage, but it will go ahead because the money has already been allocated. We have the risk of terminal 5 and even a third runway. At the same time we are
  882
  cutting the very basis for tackling any firefighting problems that might arise as a result of the developments to which I have referred.
  I was at Camden town hall as a local government officer on the night of the King's Cross disaster. I and others were present at a social services committee when the news came of the fire. Our job was to prepare the mortuaries for the dead. I remember all the lessons that we were supposed to learn from King's Cross about investment, resources and training in the long term. No more were we to have short-term measures or cuts. Even then, we were talking about risk assessment. However, the present risk assessments are archaic. They take no account of road traffic accidents.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Mr. Darvill) about the problem of rat running. Cars coming off the M4 and M40 rat-run through my constituency, as they do through Uxbridge. Deaths occur when this happens. Firefighters are called to attend these accidents. My constituency can be at risk because the gridlock in the area is such that we cannot get transport into it.
  I appeal to my hon. Friend the Minister to agree that we should act on all fronts and on all sides. I agree with the proposal for a moratorium. There are three reasons why we want a breathing space in tackling the problem. First, the GLA is coming. That will give us an opportunity over the coming weeks to put new powers in place that will enable us to tackle the problems. We are in a position to give new powers to the new authority, if necessary, to increase charges, and to consider new forms of revenue funding that will stand us in good stead in the long term. Secondly, the review of risk assessments is forthcoming. Why jump the gun before that report is made? Thirdly, we must examine the pensions fund report from central Government that we have been promised. That will tackle the problem once and for all.
  I urge the Government to proceed with a moratorium. If that means a larger precept increase than would normally be allowed for one year, let us do it, or if it means a combination of a special grant and an additional increase in the precept, let us do that, but let us not put our constituents' lives at risk for yet another short-term fix.
  12.10 pm
  Mr. John Greenway: I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on his success in the ballot for this debate. It is a timely opportunity for the House to discuss these matters before the meeting of the London fire and civil defence authority on 18 February. My only criticism of the hon. Gentleman is that all the solutions on which he concentrated would require more expenditure and he made no reference to the alternatives, as I shall, and as, I am sure, the Minister will.
  Before I address the key issue, mostly in the form of questions to the Minister, I pay tribute to the courage and bravery of firefighters not only in London but throughout Britain. They are always there when we need them and they serve us well.
  The key issue that the House and, on 18 February, the London fire and civil defence authority must address is the need to set a budget for the coming year. That will require difficult choices to be made. It may be that the only way in which a budget can be set and council tax precepts kept within Government guidelines will be to

  883
  implement the proposal to withdraw five pumps—about which there has been much discussion this morning—unless the Government relax the capping limit.
  The first issue that I want the Minister to address relates to the LFCDA leaflet on the consultation document. One of the four options that was canvassed was that there would be no cuts at all and, as a result, there would be a 20 per cent. increase in council tax. The sums of money involved are not enormous, but the precept would go up by 20 per cent. The House needs to know what will happen if the consultation result demonstrates that a majority are in favour of paying more than the Government guideline. It is all very well to have consultation, but sometimes the answer may not be palatable to Ministers.
  If the Government insist that the precept guideline must be adhered to, responsible councillors from all parties will have no option but to support the chief fire officer—
  Mr. Efford: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Greenway: I have very little time in which to make my comments, and I did not intervene on any other hon. Member who spoke.
  Responsible councillors will have no option but to accept the chief fire officer's recommendations, provided—this is the big caveat to which hon. Members have referred throughout the debate—that they are satisfied that fire safety standards are not compromised.
  I sat through the debate with a sense of deja vu because there were similar debates when I sat on the Benches where the hon. Members for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick) and for Upminster (Mr. Darvill) now sit. In my constituency, a two-pump station had one of its pumps removed, and there were petitions and expressions of local concern and anxiety.
  I make two points about that to the House. First, the passage of time has revealed that the fire officer's assessment was correct. More important—this is the nub of the problem with the proposals—the cover provided is greater than the Home Office minimum standard, and that is the thrust of what is happening now. There is a limit to how far the policy can go. As long as a gap remains between what is provided in a given area and the Home Office minimum level of provision, there will continue to be opportunities to make such cuts.
  I said that I would discuss alternatives to simply spending more money. The chief fire officer acknowledges that there is scope for greater efficiency and that great strides have been made on that in recent years. In the briefing that he sent to hon. Members, he seems to take pride in the fact that during the past seven years, £20 million per annum has been removed from the budget by efficiency savings, and that, of more than 800 staff reductions during that time, only 8 per cent. involved uniformed staff. That is a creditable performance, and the House needs to give credit where it is due.
  Conservative Members agree that there are new ways of providing services. I listened to what the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Dr. Vis) said about liaison, but it must make sense to pursue greater liaison with other emergency services, and that is happening not only in London but in other parts of the country.
  More can be done to prevent fires, and the private and commercial sector, in particular, has already done that. We need to redeploy resources to modernise delivery of
  884
  the service. We need to find new ways to increase income and attract sponsorship. There may be scope for amending the Greater London Authority Bill—I am delighted to see here my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway), who is piloting the Bill through Committee for the Opposition—to provide the new authority with legal powers in its fire responsibilities. Will the Minister consider whether he agrees with that assessment?
  My fundamental question for the Minister is whether the Home Secretary would accept the advice of the chief fire officer and approve the five pump withdrawals, if that decision is made. Does he agree with that? Has he been advised that the fire standard could be met if the five pumps were withdrawn? What advice has the chief inspector of fire services given on meeting the minimum standard? Has that advice taken account of the increased demand for the fire services to provide emergency cover to road traffic accidents on the M25, which runs through many of the areas that will be affected by the proposed pump withdrawals?
  Has the Home Office done any research on the resource implications of the proposed shift from risk-to-property assessment to risk-to-life assessment, and with what result? What impact will that have on the fire cover standard, which underlies the proposals made by the chief fire officer for London?
  I also want to ask the Minister about resources and efficiency savings. I am surprised that not one of the speakers in the debate referred to the fact that the Government have imposed a 2 per cent. efficiency saving per year for three years, which has of course exacerbated the shortfall of income against revenue currently experienced by the London fire service. Did Ministers know that there had been a 5.6 per cent. pay increase for the fire service when they were setting that 2 per cent. efficiency saving? Did they know that pension costs already accounted for over 20 per cent. of revenue and were getting worse? I agree with much of what has been said about the need to deal with pensions. I hope that we shall have the opportunity to debate that on another occasion.
  Does the Minister agree that it would be sensible to use up to £4.5 million of the London fire service's reserves? Does he accept, however, that that could not be repeated? Does he agree with those who express concern about the need for the new Greater London authority to have some reserves? How will Ministers measure whether the 2 per cent. efficiency increase has been delivered and not merely reflected in cuts and use of reserves? How does the Minister anticipate that the 2 per cent. efficiency savings will be delivered in years two and three?
  I do not want to cross swords with the hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town, but I am concerned that some of the comment in the Fire Brigades Union's latest magazine on the scale of potential cuts as a result of the second and third years of efficiency savings was rather alarmist. Perhaps we can address that.
  We think that the Government are right to continue the previous Government's policy of making the fire service more efficient, as well as more effective, to obtain better value for taxpayers. The Government will need to be flexible, to support fire officers, members of the fire service and hon. Members who have concerns, and review whether the 2 per cent. year-on-year efficiency saving is

  885
  deliverable without compromising public safety. Above all, this debate has shown that the public need to be reassured that any changes will lead to a better fire service and a safer capital city.
  12.21 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Howarth): I join everybody else in congratulating the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on securing his second debate on the fire service in London, which has provided us with a useful opportunity. I understand the importance that all hon. Members who have taken part in the debate attach, on behalf of their constituents, to the quality of the fire service in our capital city. As the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) and several of my hon. Friends have conceded, we have every reason to be proud of our fire service. It is a great privilege for me to work with a service that is highly regarded by the public, and which achieves consistently high standards of performance—often, as many hon. Members have said, in very difficult and hazardous circumstances.
  In the time available, I doubt whether I shall be able to cover all the points that have been raised. I undertake to reflect on Hansard and to write to hon. Members in more detail and at greater length on any points that I do not cover. My comments similarly apply to the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway).
  Last week, the Audit Commission published its timely report on performance indicators for local authorities, which showed that, in 1997–98, the London fire brigade met the national standards for responding to fire calls on 91.5 per cent. of occasions. That is its best performance in the four years that the Audit Commission has been collecting such figures. The figure was slightly below the national average of 96 per cent., but, given the more problematic circumstances of a capital city, several of which have been described, it is a very creditable performance. My hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Dr. Vis) made some very trenchant criticism of the London fire and civil defence authority, and the brigade and its leadership. He should take time to read the report. Perhaps then he would take a slightly different view.
  I should like to say a word about pensions, which have been mentioned quite extensively. We of course recognise the implications of increasing pension expenditure for the overall settlement and for changes to the fire standard spending assessment distribution formula for 1999–2000. Although it has not been said in this debate, it has occasionally been reported as fact that it is not true that we take no account of pensions in the formula. The matter is given weight; we consider it important. We are considering responses to the pensions review in consultation with colleagues, and over coming months plan to publish our proposals for the future of the firefighters pension scheme.
  We are keen to adopt a consultative approach; we shall be consulting all interested bodies as the proposals are developed. I say to hon. Members who have said that there has been very little action, even though the problem has been apparent for many years, that we are moving towards some solution. It may not be ideal or short term,
  886
  but we recognise the need to consult. Points and suggestions made in the debate will certainly be taken into account.
  We published the findings of the review that the previous Government set up. I do not want to be too partisan, because nobody else has been, but it was notable that the previous Government ensured that it was not published before the general election. They left us to publish it. We did so, and are consulting on it. I wanted to make that point because it is important.
  The fire authority for London, like all fire authorities in England and Wales, will of course be subject to the proposed duty of best value, which is set out in the Local Government Bill. That places an explicit duty on authorities to secure continuous improvement of the delivery of their services. The focus is on quality and efficiency. The driving force will be the use of performance indicators, standards and targets, and most important, the use of various ways of consulting the public. The importance of that has emerged in several ways.
  The hon. Member for Ryedale raised the question of efficiency. There is continual scope, not just in London but elsewhere, for greater efficiency in the fire service. I welcome the fact that the leader of the London fire authority, Councillor Ritchie, is a member of the forum that is considering best value for the fire service. So there is scope for best value and greater efficiency in London.
  I should point out, although it is slightly repetitive to do so, that, following the comprehensive spending review in July, we announced that authorities in England would receive an overall increase in the fire service element of the total standard spending of £143.6 million—an average increase of 3.5 per cent. That includes £47.1 million—or 3.6 per cent.—for 1999–2000. Details of the settlement were published on Monday, and will be debated in due course. I am particularly proud that London has done very well over the past two years, as the hon. Member for Twickenham acknowledged.
  I should say a brief word about applications concerning fire cover arrangements—several have been referred to—that the London fire authority may decide to make that would affect the constituents of several hon. Members present. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will grant approval for such applications only if he is satisfied that the proposals have been widely publicised; that representations have been considered by the fire authority and, most important, that Her Majesty's fire service inspectorate advises that national standards for fire cover will be maintained. We take those responsibilities very seriously. Before we agree to any such proposal, we must be convinced that it does not represent a risk to the public.
  This has been a good debate. Unfortunately, time has not allowed me to acknowledge and respond to every point. Although many items that arose under the previous Government still need to be discussed before the fire service is absolutely as we would want it to be, we aim to maintain the mood of co-operation in local government and other interests. Between us, we can start to move on and to modernise an already good fire service, to take us into the next century—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order.

  The Muslim World
  12.30 pm
  Mr. George Galloway: Britain's relations with the Muslim world are unarguably at a difficult and testing juncture, and in this debate I want to probe the Government's mind on the difficulties and tests that face them in relation to the strategically placed, vast and growing world of Islam, with its more than 1,000 million adherents across many continents—including, of course, perhaps 2 million citizens of our own country.
  Inasmuch as my speech, limited as it is to 15 minutes, will be something of a Cook's tour, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will at least heed the general direction of my concerns, some of which are well enough known to him, but not to others.
  I want to start at home, with what I believe will be a major headache for the Government in the weeks to come—the trial of a large number of British nationals in Yemen. They are charged with forming an Islamic extremist terror group with intent on creating mayhem in that poor Arab country, which has already suffered much from the near decade-long crisis in the Gulf. Public opinion in the Arab world is simply dumbfounded at the allegation that, rather like selling coals to Newcastle or sand to Arabia, Great Britain may now be exporting such terrorism to Muslim countries.
  I do not want to add to the difficulties of the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), but I must tell him that I do not like the look of Finsbury's Park's "ayatollah", Mr. Abu Hamza al-Masri—and I do not, of course, mean his hooks for hands or his glass eye. I do not suppose that I am alone in that opinion, but the difference is that I never liked the look of the rag-bag of obscurantists who constituted the so-called "holy warriors" of the Afghan jihad. But of course these elements, who have now razed Afghanistan to stone age ruins, and who have grievously affected the economic, social and political life of neighbouring Pakistan, were conceived, financed, armed, trained and politically supported, not only by the United States of America, but, it is clear only now, by previous British Administrations. So we and our allies played Dr. Frankenstein in the creation of some of the monsters that we now bemoan.
  Of course the individuals on trial in Yemen must be tried fully in accordance with the law in that country. That criterion is an important distinction from the demands being made in some of the commentary on the case. Of course Yemen will be expected to conform to the international norms to which it has signed up, and to the norms of diplomatic practice; but terrorist suspects cannot expect to be dealt with differently in Yemen just because they are British. The irony will not escape the House that the alleged targets of the alleged terrorists included the British embassy, which is now being asked to mount a defence campaign.
  I regret to say that our position is not helped by the fiasco that surrounded the release, after serving a fraction of their sentences, of the two British nurses convicted of the murder of their colleague, Yvonne Gilford, in Saudi Arabia. If my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had asked my advice, I would have said that it was exceedingly unwise to intercede with King Fahd to try to secure the early release of those prisoners. The lucrative
  888
  festival of crude anti-Muslim, anti-Arab racism in which sections of our media wallowed over those two women was entirely predictable and deeply offensive and damaging in itself.
  Of course, we shall now be under considerable pressure to make the same type of intervention in Yemen—and already, with their courtroom outbursts about torture and even sexual abuse, the Yemen Eight are clearly not unmindful of the highly successful script first written on behalf of the Saudi Two. If we do not intervene, there are no prizes for guessing what charge will then be levelled against us; or for predicting that the whole affair will give a further twist to the alienation of so many in the Muslim community in our midst which is caused by the perceived racism, Islamophobia, discrimination and perceived double standards in British policy towards Muslim countries.
  In the past three years, surveys conducted by the Runnymede Trust and other important surveys have amply demonstrated that anti-Muslim racism is a virulent and increasing issue in this country. It is not the province of bovver-booted skinhead lumpen thugs only. Indeed, it has been said that Islamophobia is the last "acceptable" form of racism, suitable for even the dinner tables of Islington and Hampstead.
  Although in this short debate I do not want to over-dwell on the issue that the Minister and I have often debated—the conflict in the Gulf—it clearly cannot be separated from any review of the problems of relationships with the Muslim world.
  Till the day I die, I will never understand what possessed the British Government to participate in the bombardment of an Arab capital city during the holy month of Ramadan. With all the centuries of collected wisdom, not least the once almost unique understanding of the Arab world within the British Foreign Office, how could it be that the devastating effects on Britain's standing in the region were not foreseen?
  Early last year, with other parliamentary colleagues, I inspected the splendid work being done by the British Council in Damascus. By the end of the year, the premises were ruined, torn apart by the rage of the Syrian people at the outrage of the Ramadan attack. In Morocco, in Jordan, in Egypt, in Palestine and in Algeria, our flag burned with the stars and stripes, and was trampled underfoot in demonstrations that numbered, not hundreds of thousands, but millions of angry citizens.
  It is no good pretending to public opinion in this country that we have support in the Arab world for the Anglo-American policy. It is no good for Ministers to state in the United Arab Emirates—where I was just yesterday—that the Government's policy towards Iraq is the same as the UAE's policy, "with slight differences". Well, as President Clinton might say, it depends on what one means by "slight". The UAE is completely against the bombing of Iraq; we are doing the bombing. The UAE is in favour of lifting the sanctions urgently; we are the strongest supporter of that sanctions policy.
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Derek Fatchett)indicated dissent.
  Mr. Galloway: The Minister shakes his head, but I discussed this matter with the leadership of the UAE at the weekend. For the benefit of the House, let me read

  889
  the first and second declarations of the final communiqué of the Arab Foreign Ministers' meeting in Cairo last month. The quote is not a footnote, but declaration 1 and 2, which state:
  "1. The Arab Ministers of Foreign Affairs express their deep objection to employing military force against Iraq which has resulted in many civilian casualties and demand that the use of diplomacy be the means of achieving compliance with UN resolutions …
  2. They express their full support to the Iraqi people in their plight resulting from the sanctions imposed on it and stresses that every international effort must be made to lift these sanctions as soon as possible."
  As my right hon. Friend may know, I have the benefit of watching Arabic television and closely following the Arabic media. I saw the interview with the Egyptian Foreign Minister, Amr Moussa, immediately following his meeting with my right hon. Friend, and he left the audience—I have the videotape—in no doubt of what he had told my right hon. Friend. The truth is—and my right hon. Friend knows it—that in the Muslim street, in the Arabic media, among the intelligentsia and in virtually every Arab capital, Britain's policy to bring about an end to the confrontation with Iraq is utterly rejected.
  There is no use attempting to justify the unjustifiable by peddling outlandish propaganda hoaxes, as some have been doing in closed-door meetings of late. The Foreign Secretary twice told Labour audiences that a boy, now aged 16, had been in prison in Iraq since he was five years old, and that his crime had been to throw a stone at a portrait of the Iraqi president, Saddam Hussein. That is reminiscent of the product of a less sophisticated age, and harks back to the propaganda against "Kaiser Bill and the Hun" in the first world war.
  I have asked the Foreign Secretary, and I ask the Foreign Office again now, publicly, to substantiate that story—to give me the name of the boy, the name of the prison and any other identifying details—and I will personally campaign for his immediate release. I hope that the Foreign Office will provide such substantiation, as it goes to the heart of the veracity of the Government's case.
  I know, of course, that the Minister cannot say that he shares my views on many of these matters, but I shall advance some suggestions which, after due reflection, might appeal to my right hon. Friend rather more.
  First, the Minister knows, and I know, and I know that he knows, that the bombing of the pharmaceuticals plant in Khartoum was a ghastly, terrible mistake. The plant was making not chemical weapons, but vitally needed medicines for one of the poorest countries in the world and one of our oldest Arab and Muslim friends. It was not a legitimate target for a massive hail of cruise missiles.
  That is why the British Foreign Office has remained completely silent about the affair since the day that it happened. Indeed, many in the west have all but banished the memory of that crime from their mind, as though that will make it go away. It will not go away, and remains a cause of deep and abiding resentment in the Muslim world. The Government would do themselves a power of good if they could find a way clearly to dissociate themselves from the attack on Sudan.
  Secondly, the Minister knows that I have had sharp political disagreements with the Government of Saudi Arabia and with their ambassador to the United Kingdom,
  890
  Dr. Ghazi Alghosebi. Nevertheless, I believe that the Government should support the candidature of Dr. Alghosebi for the general secretaryship of UNESCO.
  The ambassador is the candidate of all the Arab League countries and will have widespread support throughout the Muslim world. He is an outstanding intellectual, writer and poet, and is personally highly qualified for the post. If Britain used its vote and its influence in the Commonwealth and elsewhere in support of his candidature, again we would be sending an important and welcome message to the Muslims of the world.
  Thirdly, the Foreign Office should constitute a working party or an ad hoc committee of the kind frequently spawned in relation to our position in Europe. Such a body should consider ways in which we might improve our position—which stands much imperilled—in the Muslim world.
  Recently, I was in Paris, where I visited the Institute du Monde Arabe on the Seine overlooking Notre Dame. For me, it was an Aladdin's cave full of the wonders of the great Arab civilisation, its cultural richness, its food and literature, its films and music. The institute was full of people on a cold, wet Sunday in December. I began to wonder why we do not have an institute of the Arab world in this country, or in our case, an institute of the Muslim world, reflecting our much wider historical relationships.
  Such an institute could, like the French one, be part-funded by the Government, by friendly Muslim Governments, by British business and by individual benefactors. It could play an important role in enhancing the British people's understanding of and respect for the Islamic world, and help to combat the alienation felt by the 2 million Muslims in our country.
  The institute could be a bridge, linking east and west in trade as much as in education, and in culture as much as in politics. I believe that school and university students, foreign visitors and interested citizens, not least those in the ethnic minority populations, would find it a bridge to greater understanding and the avoidance of prejudice.
  We have a longer and deeper history in the east than any other country in the occident. Notwithstanding recent and current events, there is still widespread admiration and affection for the people of this country among the Muslims of the world, but it is trickling away, and no longer slowly. I hate to see the bonds of those centuries burning in enmity. I hope that the Minister will give further consideration to the arguments that 1 have advanced.
  12.44 pm
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Derek Fatchett): My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway) has raised a wide range of issues, to which I shall try to respond. He paints a vivid picture of the middle east. I was in the region last week, and I can tell my hon. Friend that I do not share that picture; nor was it a picture presented to me by those whom I had the opportunity to meet, both leaders and others. Clearly, we all travel differently and come to different conclusions. I do not share my hon. Friend's conclusion.
  I share my hon. Friend's comments about the Saudi ambassador, who is an excellent representative of his country and, as my hon. Friend said, a well known poet and intellectual, who will be a strong candidate for the post of director of UNESCO.

  891
  My hon. Friend spoke of the attractions of establishing a Muslim institute in the United Kingdom. We are already blessed with one or two excellent bodies. Two weeks ago, I had the pleasure of visiting the Centre for Islamic Studies in Oxford, which has a worldwide reputation and attracts many Arab scholars. If we are not too myopic, we will recognise in the United Kingdom what is probably the world's leading institution for Islamic studies.
  Yesterday, I had the pleasure—which may not yet have been brought to my hon. Friend's attention—of launching the exhibition, "Mutualities: Britain and Islam", which will run for the next six months as part of the visiting arts programme, and which brings Islamic art to the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend's suggestion has already been acted on. I can tell the House that he did not give me a copy of his speech in advance, and we therefore did not know that he would make the suggestion, but so influential is my hon. Friend at the Foreign Office that we launched the visiting arts Islamic programme a day before the debate.
  I shall say a few words about Iraq, Yemen and our relations with United Kingdom Muslims and the Islamic world. On Iraq, there was a view, which I always held to be wrong, and which was expressed after Operation Desert Fox, that it would be impossible to create a new international consensus on Iraq, and that it would be impossible to deal with the disarmament issues because sanctions had to be lifted immediately.
  Because of his travels, my hon. Friend may have failed to see the statement issued unanimously from the United Nations Security Council last Saturday, which dealt with all those issues. It shows that the Security Council is back in business, and that there is now a consensus covering the Arab representative on the Security Council, Russia, France, China, the United Kingdom and the United States. That consensus also extends to the Arab League statement. My hon. Friend should read the presidential statement, to which all 15 countries signed up.
  There is a new consensus, and three panels have been established to deal with disarmament and monitoring, humanitarian issues, and outstanding issues relating to Kuwait. The best way that my hon. Friend could take forward the well-being of the people of Iraq would be to ask Saddam Hussein and those around Saddam Hussein in Baghdad to co-operate with the United Nations. That is what the Arab League Foreign Ministers are asking for. The United Nations—not just Britain, not just the United States, but France, China and Russia—are asking for such co-operation. It is a sine qua non of further progress. My hon. Friend would do the people of Iraq a great service if he sought that co-operation from the regime in Baghdad.
  Mr. Galloway: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Fatchett: No, my hon. Friend has had 15 minutes.
  My hon. Friend would also be serving the purpose if he pointed out that the way to remove sanctions, which is now accepted by the Arab League and by the Security Council unanimously, is through Iraq's co-operation. The Arab League statement and the Security Council statement said that the body of law that relates to Iraq
  892
  is from the Security Council resolutions. There must be co-operation. There must be compliance. Sanctions cannot be lifted without that.
  Mr. Galloway: On that—
  Mr. Fatchett: No, no, I cannot give way in a short debate.
  On disarmament, there were those who said that the disarmament phase was finished in Iraq, and that there would be no further role for UNSCOM or for the International Atomic Energy Agency. Again, I suggest that hon. Members read the presidential statement. There is to be a role in the panel for UNSCOM and for the International Atomic Energy Agency.
  I congratulate Jeremy Greenstock and his colleagues in the United Nations, and I pay tribute to all the work that has been done by the Foreign Office. That work has enabled us to build a new consensus, with which we are comfortable and which takes forward the issues of Iraq. We must put the onus on Baghdad: if Baghdad co-operates, there will be light at the end of the tunnel. Baghdad must listen not just to the Security Council but to its neighbours who are saying that co-operation is essential.
  My hon. Friend criticised my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. It is interesting to note that, in all his comments about Iraq, my hon. Friend did not refer to the missing Kuwaiti prisoners of war. He did not refer to Iraq's systematic human rights violations or to the Kurds who were killed, injured and maimed by exposure to chemical weapons. He did not mention how the Shia people of southern Iraq were the victims of torture and suffered death and injury at the hands of Saddam Hussein.
  I shall relate for my hon. Friend a stark personal experience that I had last year. I regularly meet displaced Iraqis and, 12 months ago, I met at the Foreign Office a young Kurd who was the victim of chemical weapons. He told me privately that his health was so bad that he probably had only a short time to live. That was because, during his teenage years, he had been exposed to chemical weapons. That young man may not be alive today. When talking about Iraq, I hope that my hon. Friend will not forget that young man and the many tens of thousands of young men just like him.
  There is a strong moral argument for acting, as we and the international community have sought to do over the years, to disarm Iraq and make it less of a threat to regional security and to its own people. I am confident that we have taken the right decisions and the moral ones. The best possible course of action for us all—whatever we might think about the short-term tactical issues—is to ensure that Iraq is given the green light to co-operate because, without co-operation, there can be no progress.
  My hon. Friend mentioned Yemen and, characteristically, seems to have reached his own conclusions although the legal process has hardly begun. That is not—and cannot be—the position of the British Foreign Office. We will always—in Yemen or in any other circumstances—treat equally all those with British citizenship. We have a consular responsibility, which we will carry out. If my hon. Friend puts down a written parliamentary question on the subject, I shall set out the chronology of events in relation to the five men in Yemen and the action that the Foreign Office has taken. We have

  893
  sought to meet our responsibilities to those five individuals: we have tried to ensure that they have a fair trial and access to lawyers and consular staff. That is the action that we would normally take in similar circumstances.
  While I serve as a Foreign Office Minister, I shall ensure that the consular service of the British Foreign Office works equally for every British citizen, regardless of colour, religion or background. That is what has occurred in this case, and I give a clear commitment that it will continue. We will not make judgments about people's guilt: people deserve a fair trial. We will not make judgments about any British citizens who are involved in a legal process. That is not our task; neither is it our task to represent British citizens in court. However, we must ensure that each and every British citizen has the same rights.
  I take very seriously the issues to which my hon. Friend referred. I am the first Foreign Office Minister to initiate regular meetings with representatives of the United Kingdom Muslim community. I met them yesterday and heard a wide range of Muslim opinion. We meet once every two or three months, and the meetings are developing in an interesting direction. I am delighted that we can meet and that I can hear about the foreign affairs interests of the Muslim community. Yesterday we talked about Kosovo—in which the Muslim community has a real and genuine interest—Yemen and a little about Iraq. However, Kosovo and Yemen were the main issues of discussion during our two-hour meeting.
  I seek openness and something more than that: I want the British Foreign Office to reflect Britain; recruitment to the Foreign Office must reflect a modern Britain. Members of the Muslim faith must have every opportunity of being recruited to the Foreign Office and of progressing their careers within that Department. I look forward to the day when someone of the Muslim faith emerges, on merit, from the staff of the Foreign Office who is capable of representing Britain as an ambassador overseas. We have opened the door to the Muslim community, and we look forward to those changes.
  It is known widely in the middle east that I am determined to avoid giving any credence to the argument that there will be an inevitable clash of civilisations: a
  894
  challenge between Christianity and Islam. I have always regarded that as dangerous and incredibly sloppy thinking, which fails to recognise the great divisions within Christianity and Islam. It is immensely dangerous to believe that Christianity versus Islam must replace the great cold war crusade of capitalism versus communism. We must avoid that trap. That is why, in my discussions in the middle east, I have told leaders that we must open a dialogue about Christian and Islamic values that recognises the interaction between civilisations and is sensitive to each set of beliefs and values.
  We can do much more in that regard. That is one of the reasons why, during our European Union presidency, we called for regular meetings between the EU and the Organisation of the Islamic Conference. Such meetings might be governed by a very formal agenda, but it is one way of bringing together people of different faiths from different backgrounds who may have different agendas. We are keen to advance that process. However, I give a clear commitment to my hon. Friend that, when it comes to the standing and the status of Islam in the world, I shall always be on the side of those who seek to ensure that those beliefs are granted true legitimacy. We simply do not subscribe to the notion that Islam is a force for evil.
  Furthermore, I wholly object to the labelling and stereotyping with regard to Islam that is often the product of lazy journalism. The British media often refer to "Muslim terrorists" but do not apply the same sort of labels to terrorists from other faiths. That sort of labelling must be stopped. We need to look at people in the round, taking account of their values and faiths.
  I am delighted that my hon. Friend has provided this positive opportunity to talk about the activities of the Foreign Office and the way in which it is working with the Muslim world. My hon. Friend did not mention one possible forthcoming event of significance to the Muslim world. I hope that this year Indonesia will become a democracy comprising 200 million people, mostly of the Muslim faith. That will be a tremendous change and advance in the world.
  My hon. Friend always paints a vivid picture—his school of art and his school of rhetoric are very close. Although I often admire his brushwork, I think that his concern with detail is not as good as his broader strokes. I do not recognise the picture that he painted of Britain's relations with the Arab world.

  Elderly (West Sussex)
  12.59 pm
  Mr. Tim Loughton: In West Sussex we know something about the elderly, and we certainly value them. In 1996, 171,000 people out of a total county population of 727,000 were over pensionable age. That is 23.6 per cent.—almost a quarter—against 18.2 per cent. for the country as a whole. It is forecast that by 2016—twenty years on—that gap will have widened and more than 27 per cent. of the population of West Sussex will be of pensionable age against the national average of 21 per cent.
  The constituencies on the coastal strip, which are represented by my hon. Friends who are in the Chamber today, all feature in the top 27 constituencies with the highest number of pensionable age residents. Top is Worthing, West with 42.6 per cent.; ninth is Bognor Regis and Littlehampton with 36.8 per cent.; Chichester is 17th with 33.2 per cent.; and my constituency of Worthing, East and Shoreham is 27th with 32 per cent.—almost a third—of residents of pensionable age.
  Worthing borough has the highest number of pensioners in the entire country, but it is forecast that we will be overtaken by Clacton-on-Sea in 2000. Although the average age of people in Worthing is decreasing, we have twice the number of over-65s, and three times the number of over-85s, compared with the national average. Nationally, the number of over-85s is forecast to double to 2.2 million by 2040. That will impact on us most of all.
  There is net immigration into West Sussex, which we welcome; it is a nice place to live, and also to die. Part of the character of Sussex is represented by its elderly population. None of us in the Chamber would want it any other way, but, contrary to popular myth, not everyone in Sussex—and on the coastal strip, in particular—lives in a castle. There are many areas of deprivation.
  Under the index of local deprivation drawn up for judging single regeneration budget challenge fund criteria, Central ward in Worthing, for example, was ranked among the 10 per cent. of wards in England that are most deprived. Areas of Adur, in my constituency, suffer high unemployment, which leads to poorer pensioners living in rented accommodation. The same is true in parts of Littlehampton, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb).
  The high preponderance of elderly people in our county means that very great demands are placed on the health budget and on social services spending, which is what I want to discuss today. The national health service survey produced by The Times last November revealed that West Sussex has the longest delays for hospital treatment in the whole of England: one patient in seven on the waiting list—14.9 per cent. of that list—waits for more than a year for hospital treatment. Lambeth is next, with 12.7 per cent.
  At the opposite end of the scale, northern authorities such as Sunderland and Northumberland have less than 0.5 per cent. of patients on waiting lists waiting for over a year. There are 30 times more patients waiting over a year on West Sussex waiting lists than on those of the best performing hospitals in England.
  Only West Sussex last year recorded a bigger rise in the number of patients waiting for over a year. The figure increased from 902 to 3,634, which is a very large
  896
  increase. Typically some of the longest lists are for age-related operations, such as hip replacements and cataract operations. Problems are widespread, extending particularly to mental health. There is a dire shortage of acute mental health beds.
  It is no surprise that the largest branch of the Alzheimer's Disease Society is in Worthing. The priority care trust responsible for those services has overspent by £550,000, with two months of the financial year to go, despite having made savings of £450,000 already. For the first time ever, it will not be able to balance its books. Worthing also has the largest branch of the Parkinson's Disease Society, and I pay tribute to the work that it has done.
  West Sussex health authority overall is £5.5 million over budget, despite the best efforts of all its staff. We are desperately trying to reduce the waiting lists, but Worthing and Southlands Hospitals NHS trust, for example, has 90 nurse vacancies and a severe problem with nurse recruitment. A high level of emergency admissions compounds that problem.
  We need special help for special age-related problems, but, despite the extra money last year, our funding remains under capitation. The health authority is the worst funded in the whole of the South Thames region, after the accumulation of years of being funded well below capitation. Now we are threatened with unbearable pressure to reduce waiting lists by the end of March. For example, if Worthing and Southlands Hospitals NHS trust does not reduce its waiting list from 7,500 to a target of 5,000, it will be penalised to the tune of £450 for each patient over that target figure at the end of March. The largest reduction target for any hospital in the country has been given to Worthing and Southlands. It is trying its best, but it will be hard pressed to meet the target.
  In social services, the county council has radically overhauled its policy towards care for the elderly. Shortage of funds has regrettably forced the closure of four residential homes in the county, two of which were in my constituency, but at least the funds raised are being recycled into the social services budget, with significant reinvestment in preventive home care. That will enable more people to be looked after in their own homes, but other schemes cannot be funded because of the shortfall. I pay tribute to the sensitive way in which West Sussex county council social services department has handled those closures, which have been forced upon it.
  An increasing number of elderly people are looking for residential or nursing care in our county. There are 5,000 nursing home beds in West Sussex, which is 0.64 per cent. per head of the population compared with a national average of only 0.3 per cent. Again, the figure is double. The problem is worsening. A man aged 65 has a 9 per cent. probability of requiring residential care for the rest of his life, or a 5 per cent. probability of requiring nursing home care. The figures for a woman aged 65 are 13 and 37 per cent.
  Given that Worthing has almost twice as many women as men over the age of 60, the problem is compounded in our part of the world. It is a particular problem with the increasing number of people who enter care paying for themselves, but who become a demand on local authorities when their capital falls below £16,000. In the past eight months 140 people, no less, have moved from being self-funded to being supported by public funds.

  897
  The cost to the county, so far, has been £700,000, which is a sizeable sum. On present trends, that will increase to £1.6 million in the next year.
  We therefore have problems with bed blocking. Currently, 32 elderly people are waiting for placements in residential and nursing home care, 28 of whom are in hospital at a time when there are virtually no available beds in our hospitals. Social services wants to help to reduce bed blocking, but it is caught in a Catch-22 situation. We need special help for special age-related problems.
  Mr. Howard Flight: Does my hon. Friend agree that, faced with those problems—and although the social services department has an excellent record—it is monstrous that the gerrymandering of the standard spending assessment funding has resulted in a 10.4 per cent. cut in the social security budget this year, notwithstanding a 7.4 per cent. increase in council tax? Does he deplore what has happened? We were given the lowest award in the whole country and the special transitional grant was not phased into the SSA rollover.
  Mr. Loughton: My hon. Friend anticipates the point that I was coming to. We have said that we need special help for special age-related problems, but West Sussex received the lowest Government grant of any shire county in England recently. There was, on the face of it, an increase of 3.8 per cent., against an average of 5.2 per cent., but, as my hon. Friend said, after adjustments for community care funding, nursery voucher abolition and discretionary arrangements, the increase was only 2.2 per cent.
  The social services figure is even worse; it suffered a reduction of £4.7 million after adjusting for last year's special transitional grant, which is not to be rolled forward. That is the 10th-lowest increase of all 150 councils in the country and, again, the lowest of all shire counties.
  The additional £1.7 million for West Sussex announced only two days ago—it is amazing what an imminent Adjournment debate can achieve—is a small improvement, but it comes at the same time as the teachers' pay award and other new responsibilities for local authorities. It is a drop in the ocean in terms of the deficit on social services alone. Incredibly, the number of people in residential care has been excluded from the calculation of funding needs for people in residential care. Therefore, funding does not take account of people moving into residential care in West Sussex from other areas of the country.
  Under Labour's first local government settlement, West Sussex social services had to make savings of £2.5 million, which is almost as much as the total savings for the previous four years put together. It is often assumed that wealthy West Sussex is a soft touch for large increases in charges. However, as the joint review by the Social Services Inspectorate and the Audit Commission observed:
  "Charges already represent a substantial proportion of gross expenditure and the scope for greatly increasing income seems limited."
  So the nearly poor are paying for the really poor. It is little wonder that the recent settlement was condemned in West Sussex, by all parties, as grotesque and devastating.
  898
  Other Government changes have compounded the problem. The abolition of tax relief on private medical insurance in Labour's first Budget has particularly affected Worthing, which has the highest number of pensioners with such policies. That has undoubtedly led to an increase in waiting lists.
  Mr. Nick Gibb: My hon. Friend explains very well the difficulties faced by the elderly in West Sussex. Is he aware that retired people will suffer severely from the array of stealth taxes introduced by the Government? They will pay £95 a year extra because of the reduction in the value of the married couples' allowance, £50 a year more because of extra duties on petrol, and an additional £75 a year because of the abolition of the repayment of dividend tax credits.
  Mr. Andrew Tyrie: Further to the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb), I have received many letters making exactly that point. It is clear that many people in my constituency who are on modest incomes have been hit by the decision to abolish ACT dividend tax credit. The 1997 Budget was disastrous for them. Does my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) have the same experience in his constituency?
  Mr. Loughton: I completely agree with the points made by my two hon. Friends. The abolition of dividend tax credits will affect more than 300,000 people nationally. Many of my constituents are the typical victims of that measure. Those people may have just a few shares. They may, on the face of it, be asset rich in that they own their own home and a few shares from privatisations or building society demutualisations, but they are income poor, and to take away a large chunk of that income exacerbates their poverty. Despite the Paymaster General's assurances that there are alternatives, there are none for those people.
  Honest attempts by poorer pensioners in West Sussex to save in retirement and for their retirement to enable them to stand on their own two feet have, through recent stealth tax changes, been dealt a blow by an intransigent Government.
  Many people in West Sussex may be forgiven for thinking that the Government are Sussexist. I should like to pay tribute to hospital and social services staff across the county for the excellent job they are doing in difficult circumstances. I also pay tribute to our county council staff for their sensitivity in handling these appalling settlements. When West Sussex suffers, our poorer pensioners, in abundance, bear the brunt. I ask the Government to give proper recognition to the very real and growing funding problems that go with having such a high population of pensioners in our county.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. I am sorry, I cannot call the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley). He has not intimated that he wishes to speak.
  Mr. Bottomley: If I have done wrong, I apologise. My impression was that, if one stood up during the debate,

  899
  one had the opportunity to be called, if the Minister and the hon. Member who had secured the debate would allow.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman have the Minister's permission to speak in the debate?
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Hutton): Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  1.14 pm
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) on his initiative. I hope that the Minister and his colleagues will agree to meet a deputation from the organisations that are concerned with the illnesses and circumstances of the elderly. We know that we cannot change the rate support grant settlement for this year, although the extra £1 million is welcome. If, in the years to come, we face the prospect of more and more money being taken away from social services and less and less money being available as increases for the health services, people with Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease and others will be hurt.
  In praise of Government Departments and people in West Sussex, I should like to refer to a letter that I received today from a mentally ill constituent, who says that the voluntary and statutory services have combined to give him a fuller life than he had elsewhere. We should like to receive such tributes more often, but to provide such services requires resources.
  1.15 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Hutton): I congratulate the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) on securing this important debate. I welcome the tribute that he paid to NHS and local authority staff in West Sussex. I am aware that a high proportion of older people live in West Sussex, especially in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and the surrounding area. That has an impact on social care and local health services, and I welcome the opportunity to discuss the way in which our policies and our positive agenda will improve vital services in the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
  Older people make an enormous contribution to our national life, and the Government are determined to ensure that their wishes and needs are taken seriously. We also intend to ensure that older people are valued properly and can play their full part in society as a whole.
  The hon. Gentleman has raised some specific issues, and I shall try to address as many as possible in the time available. He referred to mental health pressures in his constituency, but he conveniently forgot to mention the Government's "Modernising Mental Health Services" strategy document, which we published in December. On top of the initial spending that we have allocated to mental health services in Britain, we are making a further £700 million available to support modern mental health services in England. Within that strategy, we have recognised the need for extra beds in the acute sector, throughout the service into the community and in the high-security forensic services. If the hon. Gentleman has time, he should look at our strategy document, and he may draw some satisfaction from it.
  900
  The hon. Gentleman also referred to nursing shortages. I am sure that he welcomes the excellent news—which the Secretary of State gave at Health questions yesterday—that nurses not currently working in the NHS have shown significant interest in returning to employment within the NHS. That is a positive response to our advertising campaign. Given that response and the nurses' pay award, we are confident that we shall begin to address the problem of nursing shortages in the short and medium term.
  In a thoughtful part of his speech, the hon. Gentleman rightly referred to the charging regime for long-term residential care. That is a fundamentally important issue, and in our White Paper, "Modernising Social Services"— I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has had an opportunity to read it—we said that we were determined to introduce greater consistency in the charging regimes across local authorities. Given that the royal commission on long-term care is currently examining this issue, it would be appropriate to wait until it makes its recommendations, so that we can have a proper debate about charging policies for domiciliary care and charging regimes for residential care.
  I should point out, however, that we inherited the regime that the hon. Gentleman is now criticising and complaining about from the Government he strongly supported. Some of the problems he highlighted did not start on 1 May 1997. We inherited a range of problems with which we are seriously trying to get to grips.
  Mr. Tyrie: The Government are making matters worse.
  Mr. Hutton: No, we are not making them worse. We are trying to get to grips with the problems in the NHS and in social services. By providing record levels of spending, we are ensuring that those two services receive more resources than they ever received during the 18 years when the hon. Gentleman's party had responsibility.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to winter pressures. I am grateful to him for praising NHS staff on their efforts to tackle the acute pressures that the service came under over the winter holiday period. A huge effort was made in West Sussex to ensure that everyone received the necessary treatment and care. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will join me in congratulating the staff again. A huge amount of collaborative work has been done across health and social care to ensure effective service planning, commissioning assessment and delivery of services to the people in West Sussex.
  That effort has paid particular dividends this winter, despite a sharp increase in the levels of illness, especially for older people, which resulted in a huge increase in the number of patients using the NHS. It was better prepared than ever before to cope with those illnesses, and in most places, including across West Sussex—despite what the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham said—most hospitals have coped well with the pressures.
  Mr. Loughton: I am interested in the general points that the Minister is making, but he has not addressed the fact that West Sussex has effectively had a £4.7 million cut in its social services budget and West Sussex health authority has by far the longest waiting lists of any health authority in the country, with one in seven of our people

  901
  waiting for more than a year. That does not sound like a good modernising deal for my constituents in West Sussex.
  Mr. Hutton: I will address the hon. Gentleman's points in the course of my remarks, but I have only just started to try to do so. As he will know, 2,200 schemes are under way nationally. Of those, we have supported 28 schemes in West Sussex, with the help of an additional £1 million from the resources which the Government made available before Christmas. Those schemes include £70,000 for a project in the hon. Gentleman's constituency of Worthing to reduce medical and acute admissions for the elderly; £31,000 for rehabilitation to be provided in residential establishments; and more than £100,000 to fund a medical assessment area, thus preventing admissions to main wards.
  The additional money has helped, but we have not stopped there. From the £50 million contingency fund announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health last month, we have provided another £500,000 to support 15 new schemes in West Sussex, including £75,000 for a joint collaboration with social services for a nursing home discharge scheme in Mid Sussex; £20,000, again in Worthing, for the provision of three non-NHS beds at a local rest home to facilitate early discharge; and £10,000 to provide additional elderly care consultant sessions at the Queen Victoria hospital.
  We have encouraged health authorities to support joint schemes such as those that I have outlined. Indeed, the local health authority has provided support to West Sussex social services by transferring funds through section 28A of the National Health Service Act 1977, which, as the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham will be aware, has long been a key funding mechanism, also used by the previous Administration, to enable health authorities to support the work of social services. Significant resources have been transferred to assist that process.
  This winter we also extended flu vaccinations to all those over 75, rather than confining vaccinations to particularly vulnerable groups. As a result, nationally a third of a million extra doses have been given this year compared with last, and the vaccine remains available. I am sure that many older people in West Sussex have taken advantage of that initiative, and they will have had the opportunity to benefit from the many other initiatives recently announced, including the national lottery new opportunities fund; the renewal of a quarter of accident and emergency departments across the country; and NHS Direct.
  Mr. Tyrie: What about the cuts?
  Mr. Hutton: The hon. Gentleman who seeks to intervene from a sedentary position got into trouble recently because he made inappropriate remarks to other hon. Members.
  Mr. Gibb: I did not say a word and I hope that the Minister will apologise.
  Mr. Hutton: I shall not apologise to the hon. Gentleman. Someone on the Opposition Benches is
  902
  muttering very rudely and inappropriately. It may be worth reminding Conservative Members that Adjournment debates are usually an opportunity for a proper and friendly exchange of views. I am trying to do that and it is a great shame that Conservative Members seem to have lost their manners.
  The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham mentioned the rise in waiting lists and times in his and other constituencies in West Sussex. We are aware of the problems, especially in the orthopaedic service, but those problems did not start on 1 May 1997. I am assured that the hospital to which the hon. Gentleman referred, the Worthing and Southlands NHS trust, is aiming to meet its target for waiting list reductions by the end of March.
  The rise in waiting lists and times in West Sussex were as much a consequence of historical financial pressures as of the increasing need for treatment by patients. We are putting that right by investing more in West Sussex. In 1998–99, we invested an additional £6.3 million, which was the largest real terms increase in the then South Thames region. That is not the picture that the hon. Gentleman presented. From the first stage of our £21 billion extra investment, in 1999–2000 the health authority will receive nearly 4 per cent. real growth in funding of some £16 million.
  Mr. Loughton: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Hutton: No, I will not. We are therefore delivering our promises to the people of West Sussex, both with this additional money and also our firm commitment to reduce waiting lists overall. We have provided extra money and we will deliver on our commitment. Nationally, the waiting lists reduced by 136,000, or nearly 10.5 per cent., between April and November 1998.
  In West Sussex we have set very demanding targets—some of the most demanding in the whole of England. To their credit, the health authority and the local trusts are getting on with it and have been able to reduce the waiting lists by nearly 4,000 since March 1998. I understand that the health authority is aiming to reduce the waiting lists by just under 28 per cent., or nearly 7,000 patients, before the end of the year. That substantial programme of work includes treating a great many more patients, including treatments targeted mainly at older people, such as those for cataracts.
  The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham mentioned problems with cataract surgery. He might be interested to learn that if the figures for the first six months of last year are compared with those for this year, they show that more than 450 more cataract operations have been performed for West Sussex residents. That is a positive and encouraging step.
  I know that the West Sussex health authority is keen to reduce waiting lists even further in the next financial year, especially in targeting in-patients, and is currently discussing that with the south-east regional office of the NHS Executive.
  The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham mentioned the situation of the local authority in West Sussex. The hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) asked whether I would be prepared to meet a delegation. I am always happy to talk to hon. Members about issues to do with social services or the NHS that are my responsibility. If the hon. Member for

  903
  East Worthing and Shoreham and his hon. Friends wish to arrange such a meeting, I would be more than happy to try to accommodate them.
  I shall comment briefly on the pressures on social services in West Sussex. Resources nationally for social services are increasing by 6.1 per cent. next year, significantly above the rate of inflation. We are targeting a large proportion of that increase at improving the services for older people through better planning and delivery of services across the interface between the health service and social services, and in particular through improved rehabilitation services. I accept that the increase in resources for personal social services in West Sussex will be less than many other local authorities will receive. That is a result of changes to the formula used to allocate national resources for both children's and elderly services between local authorities. Those changes were made as a result of detailed independent academic research and have been fully discussed with all our partners in local government. We now have in place a much fairer and more equitable distribution system.
  The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham referred specifically to the problems with institutional care and excluding people in residential care from the standard spending assessment formula. If the SSA calculation reflected the total number of people in institutional care in an area, it would risk giving SSA credit to the wrong authority. Some of the people publicly supported in care in West Sussex are probably not that authority's financial responsibility, because they have been placed in those homes by other boroughs, perhaps from outside Sussex. It is therefore fairer to take no account of the numbers in care, because that does not properly reflect the needs of the population.
  Mr. Tyrie: Before the Minister concludes, can he give some comfort for the future and confirm that the proportionate cuts in West Sussex county council's budget will be reversed, so that we can tell our constituents this weekend that there is some hope that the Government will reconsider the issue?
  Mr. Hutton: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the ink is not yet dry on the local government financial settlement. Further announcements are due on the subject and he may draw some satisfaction from them.
  Unfortunately, we are running out of time for this debate. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham raised other points that I would have liked to address, and I shall correspond with him about them. We want first-class services for the people who use the NHS and we want the best possible social services that we can provide for people in Britain. That is the whole purpose of our modernisation agenda for the NHS and social services and that applies just as much to the hon. Gentleman's constituents in West Sussex as it does to anyone else in the country.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I did not raise the point during the Minister's speech because he was being conciliatory and we wanted to hear what he had to say, but the voices he heard did not come from here. If the problem recurs, you have the ability to refer the matter to the Royal College of Psychiatrists.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair

  Chemical Engineering Education
  1.29 pm
  Dr. Ashok Kumar: I declare an interest in that I am by qualification and profession a chemical engineer. I was a practising engineer before entering the House. I want to highlight the point that the Government's goal of a modern, competitive industrial nation must be underpinned by competent, well-educated chemical engineers. This week's headline in The Engineer says, "UK students reject Engineering"; they are rejecting it in masses.
  I am not alone in recognising the importance of chemical engineering and chemical engineers to our standards of life. The Prime Minister recognised the vital role of chemical engineers in developing and implementing United Kingdom technology in his personal foreward to the recent Institution of Chemical Engineers report "Future Life".
  In the global market, the UK has to compete on many fronts. The old certainties and practices that sustained us in the past cannot be called on in the global context of constant technological innovation and emerging markets. However, the UK still possesses poles of industrial strength and expertise inherited from the days when we were dominant. Nowhere is that more true than in the chemical industry. It was the last of the great staple industries to be developed, with names such as ICI and British Petroleum known across the globe. It is still a powerhouse of innovation, applied science and the development of new products.
  Chemical engineers work not only in the traditional chemical industry, but wherever chemical reactions and processes are part of the manufacturing chain. That includes the water and energy industries, pharmaceuticals, and food and drink. That roll call shows the need for chemical engineers, whose work affects us all. They clothe us, their drugs heal us, they help to feed us and they furnish our homes and offices. They intimately affect all aspects of our living environment. From fertilisers to plastics, the chemical engineering industry has been a leading producer and developer of new materials for daily life. That is reflected in the markets.
  In the UK, the basic chemical engineering industry has a yearly turnover of some £20 billion, making up 1.7 per cent. of our total gross domestic product. If we assess the added value of finished products, that figure can be quintupled. There are also links to process engineering and contracting, which is one of the UK's less-well-known strengths. That is why major multinational contractors such as Kvaerner, Foster Wheeler, Kellogg, Brown and Root and AMEC have UK headquarters, helping the UK and our balance of payments.
  The strategic importance of the UK chemical industry must not be underestimated. The key issue is developing our human potential. Unlike other, older industries, our chemical industry is not a technological cul-de-sac. The constant search for new products, the growth of biosciences, the constant drive to harness natural processes to human benefit, and pioneering work, such as molecular technology, at the frontiers of knowledge, need a flow of dedicated, imaginative, young people who can think laterally, if we are to compete on equal terms with other nations.

  905
  The jobs are there. A recent Department of Trade and Industry study showed that there will be continuing demand for high-quality engineering graduates over the coming decade. Chemical engineering students and graduates are often the people who enter higher education with the best A-level scores. While that is a source of pride, it hides the fact that, for many young people, chemical engineering is culturally unattractive. I believe that that stems from environmental concerns that equate the chemical industry with environmental degradation and pollution, and, mentally, with Dr. Frankenstein's laboratory. Nothing could be more wrong.
  We live with the environmental consequences of our industrial past. As a Teesside Member, I see that every day, but chemical engineers will be at the cutting edge in the fight to clean up our planet. They are the people who will have to devise and apply environmental techniques. That point should be hammered home at an early age. The chemical industry has long fostered good relationships with schools and colleges. It is important that this is built into the national curriculum for science by demonstrating the links between the things that we all want from society, the market and the work of chemical engineers. New courses dealing with food and drink, agriculture, biosciences and advanced manufacturing must be developed. The courses must set practical, rather than rhetorical, questions about the environment, and demand responses that encourage and develop recycling and reprocessing techniques.
  We must also tackle the gender gap in the science classroom. Anecdotally, I am told that the number of young women expressing interest in science courses and allied GCSE paths is very low. Interestingly, the highest proportion of young women graduate engineers are chemical engineers. Gender imbalances are not healthy for our society wherever they occur. We must ensure that broad-based science teaching is as women-friendly as possible.
  The key is to get more youngsters involved in science early. The basic problem is revealed by one simple fact. For every 100 five-year-olds who enter a classroom for the first time, only 20 go on to do an A-level. Of them, only 10 go on to study science and technology in higher or advanced education. The percentage of those going on to study chemical engineering is smaller still.
  Innovations in the classroom and school laboratory must be matched by innovation in the university seminar room. The steady stream of bright new engineers from our universities finds well-paid jobs. Chemical engineers can command average earnings comparable with or better than those of solicitors, chartered accountants and architects. That is countered by lower salaries and expectations among the academic staff who train these high fliers. The recent Bett committee report painted a gloomy picture of the state of chemical engineering in higher education and the salaries enjoyed there. It found that many university staff were underpaid and overworked. Comparable jobs in the private sector were better paid and often more attractive in research terms. The ever-increasing strain of handling routine administration was also taking a toll.
  The logical answer is to ensure that greater esteem is granted to chemical engineering in the university environment. One simple way to do that would be to
  906
  review the salary structure. The holy cow of all staff being paid on a single national scale for lecturers and senior lecturers irrespective of discipline must be queried. It does not stand to up to the presence of a competitive market outside the walls of the college or university. A precedent was set by the fact that the medical professions have accepted special pay scales in teaching institutions for clinical specialisms.
  The growing shortage of chemical engineering lecturers is demonstrated by a study by the Institution of Chemical Engineers, which showed that of a cohort of 1,500 graduates with firsts or upper seconds over the past 13 years from the five leading UK universities with chemical engineering departments, only seven had gone on to take tenured teaching positions in the UK. Bluntly, we must develop better links between the industry and the universities, and, within universities, between chemistry and chemical engineering departments, as advocated by the Royal Society of Chemistry.
  There are good examples of companies such as ICI, Zeneca and Esso sponsoring lecturing positions where salaries are supplemented financially, but the links need to be made at research level. Industry needs more research facilities and should be prepared to pay for them through direct cash sponsorship and by setting up joint research ventures. What research needs to be done, how it is to be conducted and who will pay for it are questions with which both universities and industry must grapple.
  While the quality of chemical engineering research and the people engaged in it have been assessed by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council as being fully competitive when compared with other major engineering disciplines, there are signs that that competitiveness is beginning to flag. The official data prepared by the Government's chief scientist Sir Robert May show that the citations in chemical engineering of United Kingdom research workers are falling behind those of researchers in competitor countries.
  In recent years, a mismatch has begun to emerge between the strength of the current UK chemical engineering research base, and multidisciplinary and inter-disciplinary areas of interest as exemplified by the foresight programme and the "Future Life" document produced by the Institution of Chemical Engineers. That mismatch needs to be rectified if we are to meet the new challenges and changes in our industrial structure, as the chemical industry restructures around high value-added speciality products and increasingly deserts its old heavy petrochemical base.
  Alarmingly, the changes come when the latest Universities and Colleges Admission Service figures show that applications for chemical engineering places are still in decline, with a 10 per cent. drop in the current year. That decline affects all engineering disciplines, but it is a special problem for the chemical engineering profession, as structural changes are occurring in the industries which will require a stream of new graduates.
  We have to make chemical engineering more relevant to young people who are considering their careers. In the House, we debate issues of great importance. Often, they are issues that can be resolved and informed only by the work of engineers: how best to bring degraded land back into beneficial use; what are the real issues and the real levels of risk in the genetic modification of foods, which we discussed earlier; what is the best route for effective

  907
  recycling of wastes and materials; and how to produce the materials of the 21st century. All those are matters that, if properly studied in our universities, would help both to inform policy makers and to train a new generation of scientists and engineers in problem-solving techniques. Also, the industries that participated in those programmes would receive a real boost.
  However, industry also has to realise that participation entails recognising that universities are autonomous bodies with a prime mission to turn out fully rounded and dedicated graduates. That should not deter industry. The needs of industry and the work of higher education are, in the final analysis, totally synergic.
  If the UK chemical industry genuinely wants to increase efficiency and productivity, put clear blue water between themselves and their competitors, and make the quantum leap into the development of the technologies of the coming millennium, it must be prepared to contribute to research, and to constant career enhancement and retraining.
  I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to study closely the decline in the public funds available for biochemical engineering, which is one of the key forward areas of chemical engineering. I recognise that there is no such thing as a free meal. Society and the House must recognise that we need to consider how best to resource the work of higher education in that area of expertise. Industry, too, must recognise that long-term growth cannot come merely from leeching off research work that is financed and conducted by others. It must recognise its obligations to help that process.
  As a Teesside Member of Parliament representing perhaps the one area of the UK where the chemical industry is the cornerstone of the local economy, and as a chemical engineer, I am aware of the absolute dependence of modern society on chemical engineering. It is time to recognise that dependence and to plan for its proper development. Attracting more of the brightest and best from our schools into science and engineering courses is imperative for all of us. While the national curriculum delivers science for every youngster until the age of 16, it has not led to greater participation in science A-levels or higher entry figures to our universities. That is something which the Department for Education and Employment and the Department of Trade and Industry must tackle, directly and quickly.
  My hon. Friend the Minister must recognise that we need to tackle the imbalance of courses in our universities. Some subjects are over-subscribed—some people may feel that they contribute to national renewal—while in others, standards have to be dropped merely to fill the places.
  In conclusion, the work of our chemical engineers is fundamental to the comfort of our daily life, and to the development of an economic and industrial base that will power the nation into a technologically exciting new century. That work is crucial if this nation is to remain in the front rank of industrial countries and to possess an independent economy. The quality of life of our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren demands nothing less. Thank you for allowing this debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Dr. Michael Clark rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. During Adjournment debates, any hon. Member who wants to take part must have the prior permission of the Minister and the promoter of the debate.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. George Mudie): I am happy to allow the hon. Gentleman to speak, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  1.45 pm
  Dr. Michael Clark: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I also thank the Minister. I will only take one minute, as I am encroaching on the hon. Gentleman's time. I congratulate the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar) on securing this debate and on the way in which he has presented it. The hon. Gentleman serves on the Select Committee on Science and Technology. He brings his skill and expertise in chemical engineering into that Committee and is an invaluable member of it. When I worked as a chemical engineer, I did so in his constituency, and I do not need reminding of the importance of chemical engineers, although I welcomed the opportunity to hear the concise way in which the importance of that profession was put before the House.
  I will bear in mind my promise to speak for only one minute. I have made my main points, and I again thank the Minister and the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East for allowing me to do so.
  1.46 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. George Mudie): I thank the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Dr. Clark) for those kind remarks about my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar). He has done the House a service by raising this important issue. Indeed, I believe that this is the first time that chemical as opposed to general engineering has been discussed on the Floor of the House. As my hon. Friend was a chemical engineer before he entered the House, he is uniquely placed to comment on that important sector of the United Kingdom economy. His constituency in Teesside contains the largest concentration of the chemical industry in the UK, which adds to the authority with which he speaks.
  Chemical engineers have an important impact in virtually all areas of life, being found in industries as diverse as oil refining and health care. The contribution that they can make to developing an economically viable, but environmentally more friendly world is clearly set out in the thought-provoking "Future Life" report, which was produced by the Institution of Chemical Engineers, to which my hon. Friend referred.
  "Future Life" identifies a host of challenges that face our society. For instance, it forecasts the design of smokeless cars and the development of biosensors to detect diseases before they become critical. It anticipates the need to recycle "grey" water from baths and washing machines, and to intensify agricultural production to meet the demands of an expanding population. Therefore, chemical engineers are central to improving the quality of our life. Their education and preparation for the world of work are critical to our future prosperity.

  909
  My hon. Friend raised a number of matters with which I shall try to deal in the time available. One was the supply of graduates. It is encouraging to note that the overall trend line for recruitment to chemical engineering courses is positive, with 1,141 students entering university to read the subject in 1997. A recent research study by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research into supply and demand for engineering, science and technology graduates, which is to be published shortly by my Department, indicates that the number of students entering engineering degrees is adequate. The study concluded that, with the possible exception of electronic engineering,
  "the great majority of mismatches between supply and demand for technical graduates are attributable to quality problems rather than any overall shortfall in quantity".
  Those findings are consistent with feedback from employers—including Glaxo Wellcome—who have made it clear that their concern lies primarily with the quality of the science graduates they recruit, not with the quantity available in the labour market. I shall develop that point later.
  Engineering has suffered for too long from a poor image. That problem applies particularly to chemical engineering, as my hon. Friend's reference to Dr. Frankenstein's laboratory so vividly conveys. Therefore, I am delighted by the suggestion that steps be taken to counteract those misconceptions regarding the profession. Although the lead lies with industry, the Government are also playing their part by contributing toward a major long-term campaign co-ordinated by the Engineering Council. That campaign is targeted on presenting a more positive and dynamic image of engineering to children in the early stages of secondary education. Any further initiative by individual professional bodies, such as the Institution of Chemical Engineers, to reinforce that message would be much appreciated and warmly welcomed by the schools sector. I should also welcome early intervention in the schools sector on any occasion by hon. Members who are aware of the industry's problems with recruitment.
  Recent reform of the education system will also encourage more students to enter science in the coming years. All secondary school pupils are now required to take at least one science subject, and 90 per cent. of pupils sitting GCSEs study double science. As part of our reform of the A-level system, the Government will promote a broader curriculum, which will result in more students studying science and technology-based subjects.
  On the issue of entry standards, it is pleasing to see that many people are applying to become chemical engineers and that the A-level standards of entrants are high: more than 45 per cent. of entrants to chemical engineering courses have more than 24 A-level points, which is significantly higher than those of entrants to other undergraduate courses. That means that our graduate chemical engineers should be well placed to hold their own against their foreign counterparts.
  However, if we are to meet the overall needs of industry, we must address skills demand at all levels. I mentioned earlier the issue of quality, as opposed to quantity. Rather than try further to expand the supply of chartered engineers, industry should examine the level of
  910
  skills required, and whether those requirements are better met at incorporated engineer and technician level. The need to provide chemical engineering skills at levels other than that of chartered engineer is illustrated by a recent labour market survey conducted by the National Training Organization for the Chemical Manufacturing and Processing Industry. That survey found that the greatest number of vacancies were for manufacturing professionals, process technicians and process operators.
  Among the engineering professions, chemical engineering is conspicuous for historically having little or no output of incorporated engineers, and it is time that that gap was plugged. The development of an incorporated engineer degree programme, and the introduction of non-accredited courses for chemical engineering and chemical technology would be an effective response to employer demand for skills at that level. Employers might also increase their stock of technicians by broadening their recruitment channels to include those who have completed a higher national diploma or higher national certificate. In response to the growing demand for technician-level skills identified by the skills task force, my Department has recently announced a significant expansion of sub-degree places.
  I am delighted that my hon. Friend has drawn attention to the fact that chemical engineering attracts a higher proportion of women than do other engineering disciplines. As well as celebrating that achievement, should we not be analysing that attraction and promoting the positive features more widely? Female participation rates in chemical engineering courses are roughly double the rates in other engineering disciplines. The proportion peaked at 28 per cent. and is now running at about 25 per cent., although that is still too low.
  My hon. Friend raised the question of course content, and it must be acknowledged that one obstacle to widening the base of chemical engineers has been the tendency of courses to focus too narrowly on traditional industries such as oil, petrochemicals and industrial gas. I shall expect the proposed review of course content to keep pace with economic developments and address the needs of other industries that draw extensively on chemical engineers, such as food and fine chemicals.
  Knowledge alone is not an entry ticket to employment. Feedback from employers clearly indicates that many graduates lack key skills required in the workplace: a common criticism made by employers recruiting graduates in chemistry, industrial chemistry and chemical engineering is that recruits are simply not ready for the world of work. My Department is taking steps to improve their employability by responding to the concern expressed in the Dearing report about the lack of key skills. In coming years, many more graduates will emerge from higher education with competency in the six skill areas most commonly sought by employers: management, communications, team working, problem solving, numeracy and information technology.
  Employers' general complaint about graduates is that they lack first-hand experience of work, and so tend to have unrealistic expectations and little awareness of what is expected of them. In response, my Department is spending £1.5 million on the development of high-quality work experience projects in the period 1998 to 2000. To ensure that the momentum is sustained, my Department

  911
  has supported the establishment of a national centre for work experience run by the National Council for Industry and Higher Education.
  The skills and industrial knowledge of university staff are also an important influence on the quality of graduate supply. They are best kept up to date by improving links with industry. The recently announced higher education reach out fund, or HEROIC, will provide significant impetus, injecting a further £50 million over the next three years. That initiative, which is jointly funded by my Department and the Department of Trade and Industry, aims to improve the employability of graduates, the use of graduate skills made by business, and the transfer of technology and knowledge between higher education and business.
  I note my hon, Friend's suggestion regarding differential salaries for university lecturers, but terms and conditions of employment for all university staff are a matter for employers. The Government await the outcome of the Bett report, which has not yet been officially published. My hon. Friend has suggested what that outcome will be, and I should be interested to hear how he came to know so many of the details. However, university salaries are a matter for employers and any money needed for that purpose will have to be drawn from funds allocated under the comprehensive spending review settlement.
  I am aware of concerns regarding the geographical spread of chemical engineering courses and that the problem may become more acute if a higher percentage
  912
  of students choose to attend their local university. The launch of regional development agencies in April this year will provide an opportunity to safeguard and, I hope, to expand provision that meets local needs. One of the RDAs' first tasks will be to agree a regional economic strategy in conjunction with key stakeholders. In regions such as the north-east, where chemical engineering is critical to the success of key industries, we would expect the regional economic strategy to include an analysis of that sector and to specify steps to tackle any problems.
  I thank my hon. Friend for working hard to raise important matters relating to chemical engineering, which is a vital and important part of our economy. Like other sectors of engineering, chemical engineering lacks in public perception the glamour of other occupations, but the reality is that it is exciting and challenging, and offers participants a fine career. I hope that my hon. Friend's speech today inspires youngsters to enter the industry.
  It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

  CITY OF LONDON (WARD ELECTIONS) BILL (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Tuesday 9 February.

Oral Answers to Questions
  INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

    Tobacco Control
    Mr. Cynog Dafis: What resources will be made available by her Department for organising negotiations to establish an international framework convention on tobacco control. [67502]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. George Foulkes): We are concerned at the ways in which tobacco products are being promoted in developing countries and have offered our support to the World Health Organisation in its work on an international framework which includes a global ban on tobacco advertising. We particularly welcome the strong lead the new director general, Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland, has taken on this issue. I can also confirm that our Department does not fund any activities that support the tobacco industry, but we do help farmers currently dependent on tobacco crops to diversify.
    Mr. Dafis: I thank the Minister for that reply, but does not his Department provide funds for the malaria project—the other priority, along with tobacco, identified by Dr. Brundtland? Is not it absolutely vital that the Department provides resources to enable her campaign against tobacco in the third world to take effect? Does not the Minister agree that it is deplorable that United Kingdom companies, especially British American Tobacco, should target the most vulnerable groups in third-world countries, trading in death and suffering and undermining development at the same time? Is not it important that the Government distance themselves from such organisations and put money into Dr. Brundtland's campaign?
    Mr. Foulkes: I sympathise with what the hon. Gentleman has said. It is too early to know exactly what funding is needed for the campaign, but we stand ready to contribute to it. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that developing countries are being targeted by tobacco companies. That is especially unfortunate, as those countries have limited regulations to deal with tobacco and, because they lack the necessary health structures, are ill-equipped to handle the consequences. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are doing what we can to discourage the targeting of developing countries.
    Dr. Norman A. Godman: Is it not the case that the European Union subsidises tobacco growers to the tune of hundreds of millions of pounds per annum? I know that it is not my hon. Friend's responsibility, but should not the Government strive to reduce that obscene subsidy to the fat tobacco growers in the southern countries of the European Union?
    Mr. Foulkes: I think that my hon. Friend will have seen the Government's White Paper entitled "Smoking Kills", in which he will have read our comments about
    914
    the European Union subsidy for tobacco. The Government do not support it and we have made representations about it. However, although this Department does not have special responsibility for the matter, I shall draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the Minister who has, and I know that they will be taken seriously into account.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the Minister look seriously at the conventions in this country governing what the tobacco companies do voluntarily? During the round-the-world Whitbread yacht race, the boat called Silk Cut, which carried no reference to tobacco on its structure, covered up its name in United Kingdom waters. A simple ban on advertising would not have prevented the company from showing that brand name or the names of other tobacco products. Therefore, before rushing ahead to ban advertising, will he consider carefully whether such a ban would be more effective than the conventions prevailing at present with the tobacco firms?
    Mr. Foulkes: The hon. Gentleman's specific question relates to the United Kingdom, and could be better dealt with by one of my ministerial colleagues. However, the framework will be an international legal instrument circumscribing the global spread of tobacco products. It will include advertising, and it will take account of issues of the type raised by the hon. Gentleman. It is due to come into effect in 2003, but if we and other countries put a little more political will behind it, that could happen a lot earlier, as I would certainly wish.
    Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Is there not a worry that if we stop the subsidy and prevent farmers from growing tobacco, they may move into other, more dangerous crops such as heroin and cannabis?
    Mr. Foulkes: That is certainly not the kind of diversification that I would suggest. I can reassure my hon. Friend that a World bank study has shown that the social and health costs of tobacco are far greater than the economic benefits. When it comes to substitutes, consumers are most likely to divert expenditure to other products, and that creates jobs. Those products are not the kind rightly identified by my hon. Friend as equally as dangerous—if not more so—as tobacco.

    Aid (EU)
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: How much of the United Kingdom's international aid is disbursed on its behalf by the EU. [67503]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): We inherited from the previous Administration a commitment that 30 per cent. of my budget should be channelled through the European Commission and a situation in which EC aid spending is both skewed against the poorest countries and often of poor quality. In December, we published our strategy to improve that performance, and I shall happily send copies to the hon. Gentleman. We are actively seeking support for our strategy in the Commission and the European Parliament and among member states. I welcome the report of the Select Committee on International Development supporting the Government's strategy.
    Mr. Swayne: What progress has the right hon. Lady made in addressing the concerns of charities that feel that

    915
    the budget is skewed towards middle-income countries, leaving a relatively niggardly budget available for the poorest countries? What advantage is to be had from allowing our national priorities to be diluted by expenditure through the European Union?
    Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman may wish to be aware that up until 1992, about 9 per cent. of my Department's budget went to the European Commission. The previous Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), then negotiated a big increase to 30 per cent. I inherited that position, and there is no use bewailing it. What I must do is try to make aid more effective and ensure that it is targeted much more on poor countries. We are working hard to draw the scandal of the current distribution to the attention of non-governmental organisations, the European Parliament, the different parts of the Commission and parliamentarians throughout Europe. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support for our attempts to put right a matter on which the previous Administration should have made greater efforts.
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: To what extent do our European counterparts share my right hon. Friend's view of the need to eliminate debt while also reducing poverty? How highly do they rank those priorities in comparison with her ranking of them?
    Clare Short: The European Commission contributed to the World bank's heavily indebted poor countries debt fund, but it is not a big player in that it has no export credit debt to deal with. On the elimination of poverty, it was agreed during our presidency of the European Union that the international poverty eradication target should become the centrepiece of development efforts. That commitment has also been incorporated in the Lomé mandate for renegotiation. There is room for a lot of improvement. We have a commitment in principle, but there is a long way to go to implementation.
    Mr. John Wilkinson: Have not the strictures of the European Court of Auditors been particularly severe over the misapplication of the European Union aid budget? Would we not do a much better job by the British taxpayer if we had a purely national programme of aid that could be disbursed towards the hungry and the lean rather than the fat and fraudulent?
    Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman is right that the ECA reports have been highly shocking, but the real problems are inefficiency and inability to disburse rather than simply fraud. There are 42 different financial systems at work in the area. That is a disgrace, but it was the previous Administration who made a binding commitment to have a high proportion of our budget spent in that way. I inherited that commitment from the Administration supported by the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Wilkinson indicated dissent.
    Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman says that he did not support that commitment. That is interesting.
    Finally, bilateral programmes are not always best. Countries cannot work in every needy country. We need our bilateral programmes in countries with which we have
    916
    close historical associations and we need efficient multilateral programmes. I agree that there is a lot of room for improvement in the efficiency of the EC system.
    Mr. David Winnick: Is it a condition of such aid that discrimination against Christian communities should be ended, particularly, for example, in the Indian sub-continent? That matter is causing a great deal of concern and I hope that representation is being made to the authorities concerned.
    Clare Short: Absolutely; we all share my hon. Friend's concern about that. We all seek to promote proper respect for human rights in all the countries in which we work. We must be careful about any further step. It is not right to punish the poor of a country for misbehaviour by certain authorities. We cannot just say that we will withdraw aid from a country in which someone is abusing human rights. We must use our influence to have human rights respected. As I said, we share my hon. Friend's concern about attacks on Christians in India.
    Mr. Gary Streeter: I congratulate the Secretary of State on what she is saying about the EU aid budget, but more interesting is what she is doing about it. Why did she not do more when she had the chair of the relevant Council during our EU presidency? Does she now regret that her close colleagues in the socialist group in the European Parliament voted against an opportunity to hold the responsible Commissioners to account? Were those not two golden opportunities to sort the matter out, and has she not missed both of them?
    Clare Short: I am constantly astonished at the hon. Gentleman's complete ignorance after all this time and at his inability to look at the record of his Administration and the record of our presidency, and to read published documents and the Select Committee's report. The hon. Gentleman needs to do more work and to be more serious about his responsibility; then, between us, both sides of the House can do a better job.
    Mr. Streeter: I am delighted that the right hon. Lady has met her vitriol quota for the week. The whole point of the EU is that it does not stand still. She has the opportunity in government to renegotiate the terms on which we contribute to the EU budget. Now that the financial settlement for the next seven years is up for renegotiation, is this not a golden opportunity for her to say that the United Kingdom will withdraw a sum equivalent to our contribution to the EU aid budget until the EU has shown itself capable of running the EU aid programme? Is it not time for the Secretary of State to be decisive? Is she not long on rhetoric and short on action?
    Clare Short: I shall speak slowly and then the hon. Gentleman might learn something. The document I am holding sets out the British Government's policy. It spells out everything that is wrong and how it might be put right. The Select Committee on International Development, chaired in a distinguished way by a Conservative Member, has also just looked in great detail into the matter and made a series of recommendations. Those of us who are serious about this are working with other member states and all parts of the Commission and of the

    917
    European Parliament to obtain change, having inherited a complete mess from the previous Conservative Administration, supported by the hon. Gentleman—who has the cheek to sit there heckling when he does not read and does not understand what he is talking about.
    Mr. Bowen Wells: I thank the Secretary of State for the reception that she has given the International Development Committee's report on the future of the EC development budget. What are the chances of having a single EU Commissioner in charge of overseas development, and of making the aid more efficient and delivering it to where it should go—the poorest of the poor in the third world?
    Clare Short: As the hon. Gentleman knows, because he takes these matters seriously, we are at a time of great opportunity because we have to agree new funding proposals and the allocation between different countries. No one country can determine the outcome. We must engage intelligently with these questions and then build alliances between countries, parliamentarians, and so on. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am working at that determinedly. I know that the Select Committee is, too, and that it is keen to work with development committees in other Parliaments. We also need to involve the NGO community. There is a real possibility of improvements; if we all work together, the chances of securing them—including, I hope, the appointment of a single Commissioner—are good.

    Montserrat
    Mr. Ben Chapman: What progress her Department has made in helping the islanders of Montserrat to recover from the effects of the volcanic eruptions and to be better prepared for disaster in future. [67504]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. George Foulkes): Last month in Montserrat, I signed the country policy plan, agreed jointly with the Government of Montserrat, which commits us to spend £75 million over three years on its development. That is on top of nearly £60 million provided up to the end of the last financial year.
    We have made great progress restoring normality to the 4,000 people remaining in the habitable north and are working to encourage the Government of Montserrat to accept their responsibility to promote development rather than demanding continuous and increasing subsidy from our aid budget.
    Mr. Chapman: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the considerable progress that has been made so far in difficult circumstances. Will he outline the extent to which his discussions with the Government of Montserrat touched on the continuing monitoring of the threat still posed by the volcano? What is his assessment of the impact of all this on tourism, which greatly affects the future of Montserrat?
    Mr. Foulkes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We are funding the Montserrat volcano observatory, with scientists from the British Geological Survey and the university of the West Indies. They carry out regular risk
    918
    assessments, and I am pleased to be able to say that the last one allowed us to reoccupy part of the island, which improves tourism prospects. The next assessment will be undertaken later this month, and I hope that it will prove more promising in respect of the volcano.
    There is growing confidence in Montserrat: one hotel is already being reopened, another new one is being built, and I hope that if the new assessment is positive, the possibility of reopening the W. H. Bramble airport will become a reality. The future of Montserrat will then be much brighter than it has been for many a year.
    Mr. John Bercow: In the light of what the Minister said in his initial answer to the question, why does he think that the Montserrat coroner described the Secretary of State's response to the recent disaster as unimaginative, grudging and tardy?
    Mr. Foulkes: I think that the Montserrat coroner said that because he is ignorant. I met him when I was in Montserrat. The hon. Gentleman will know that the jury accepted that the deaths were caused because the people involved moved into areas that were prohibited. I asked the coroner why he had said that the conditions in the shelters had forced them to do that, and whether he had visited any of the shelters, as I have done—but he had visited none of them. I asked him whether he had spoken to staff from the Department for International Development and the governor, but he had spoken to none of them. If the coroner had done his work properly, we would take more account of his comments.

    Sudan
    Ann Clwyd: If she will make a statement on humanitarian assistance to Sudan. [67505]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): Despite the fact that the Government of Sudan have predicted a bumper harvest this year, we believe that Sudan will need humanitarian assistance again. The civil war, which, as my hon. Friend knows, is taking 80 per cent. of the Government of Sudan's budget, is the cause of the suffering. In the past year, we have worked to achieve a ceasefire and to increase international commitment to seek peace. We are also working to increase the effectiveness of the UN co-ordination of humanitarian programmes and to reduce the leakage of supplies to fighters.
    Ann Clwyd: I am sure that my right hon. Friend agrees that it is an absolute tragedy that up to 2 million people have died in Sudan from famine, disease and fighting. Why is it, then, that only the European Union has imposed an arms embargo, while the UN Security Council imposes no such embargo? Could it be that some of the members of the UN Security Council are supplying arms to Sudan and that some countries are ignoring the fact that arms are reaching Sudan through third countries? Will my right hon. Friend take some action?
    Clare Short: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I honestly think, as she knows, that the point has been reached where the war has gone on for so long and has caused so much suffering that the international community has almost given up on Sudan, given up on

    919
    seeking peace in Sudan and allowed humanitarian aid just to prop up another worsening situation. I think that things are turning somewhat but there is a long way to go. The United Nations special representative is re-engaged and the senior representative of the Secretary-General of the United Nations has visited Sudan recently. The NGOs that are campaigning in New York have also re-engaged.
    I take my hon. Friend's proposals very seriously. I assure her that we are doing all that we can to re-engage serious international opinion in seeking a peace in Sudan. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her support.
    Dr. Jenny Tonge: Does the Secretary of State accept that humanitarian aid should also include simple health measures such as the vaccination of children and primary education? As I learned in Sudan, those things cannot be taken away by the effects of war, however hard the soldiers try.
    Will the right hon. Lady accept also, in agreeing with the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), that we should make more effort to control the activities of arms brokers, who supply not only the two main sides in the civil war but the Arab militia, which terrorises the population of southern Sudan? When will the right hon. Lady do something through the European Union about arms supply?
    Clare Short: On the first question, the hon. Lady knows that we are doing all in our power—I know that she has recently visited Sudan, and I have read her report—to improve the quality of assistance through UNICEF, and other bodies, to children in Sudan. However, it is impossible to run proper development programmes when populations are moving because of fighting. We must maintain the education of children, of course, but what can be achieved is limited because of the consequences of the fighting.
    Secondly, I agree with the hon. Lady about arms in Sudan. The problem is that there is a litter of arms spreading across Africa wherever there is fighting, from all sort of illicit sources. It is a major cause of problems and more and more action is necessary to get rid of these arms. However, given the situation in Sudan, that is very difficult. We need a ceasefire and a commitment to peace. As the hon. Lady knows, we are working on that with her support.
    Mr. Llew Smith: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House what information the Government received from the American Administration that convinced them that the factory that was bombed in Sudan last August by cruise missiles was producing chemical weapons and not pharmaceutical products?
    Clare Short: As my hon. Friend will appreciate, I am not the appropriate Minister to answer his question. Therefore, I have not seen the reports, which I presume exist and to which he is referring. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence made a statement on these matters recently and I shall draw his attention to my hon. Friend's question and ensure that he is sent the appropriate material.
    There is a continuing campaign on the bombing, which is suggesting that all the medical needs of people in Sudan are the consequences of the bombing. I repeat that
    920
    80 per cent. of the budget of the Sudan Government is spent on the war. That is the cause of the suffering, hunger and lack of medical care. It is in the power of the Sudan Government to put that right.
    Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: Can the Secretary of State confirm that as much as two thirds of the £28 million that she gave to Sudan in aid last year has been stolen and goes to feed the fighters and not the suffering people in Sudan? Can she confirm also that what she so glibly refers to as leakage is still continuing? For the right hon. Lady, talk is cheap. We have certainly had our money's worth as she goes round pressing the United Nations and others to take action. Will the right hon. Lady tell the House what action she will take? Will she tell the House what she considers to be an acceptable level of theft from the aid budget? We know that for Labour in Europe it is 5 per cent., but 65 per cent. in Sudan is an obscenity.
    Clare Short: The hon. Members for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) and for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) get the prize for being the rudest Opposition Front-Bench team. The hypocrisy is stunning. We inherited, from the Administration that the hon. Lady supported, a commitment of very high levels of aid contribution to Sudan, no action on peace and massive leakage of food to fighters. We have taken international initiatives on peace and other initiatives that have resulted in much change in the entire United Nations system to try to ensure that food supplies do not leak to fighters. Yet the hon. Lady and her vitriolic friend, the hon. Member for South-West Devon, just stand up, throw around ill-informed abuse and accuse others of being unpleasant.

    International Financial Institutions
    Mr. Jim Dobbin: What progress she is making in enhancing the role of the international financial institutions in development. [67507]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): Since May 1997, we have been working to increase the focus of the World bank, the regional development banks and the International Monetary Fund on human development and poverty eradication. I frequently meet the presidents of those institutions to press that case. We welcome the commitment of the World bank and the African Development bank to the international poverty eradication targets and the IMF review of enhanced structural adjustment programmes which recognised the need to protect spending on health and education.
    Mr. Dobbin: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Latin America has dreadfully high levels of poverty and inequality. What is her Department doing to help to alleviate that?
    Clare Short: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Latin America has the most inequality of any area on the planet. It is a middle—income area with vast natural resources, high levels of education and capacity and desperately high levels of poverty. It has to deal with inequality if the poorest are to be lifted out of poverty. We are a

    921
    shareholder in the Inter—American Development bank, which does more lending in Latin America than even the World bank. On Monday, we had a seminar in London with the president and chief economist of the Inter—American Development bank to discuss those questions and to drive forward an agenda for Latin America that will systemically reduce poverty.
    Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: A multilateral agreement on investment has a vital role to play in raising living standards in the developing world. Why has progress on such an agreement slowed since the Government came to power and what is her Department doing to promote it?
    Clare Short: I am afraid that the progress of the multilateral agreement on investment has not slowed; it has completely collapsed. The French have pulled out and there is now no prospect of that agreement being reached. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that an international investment agreement—particularly one that protects the interests of developing countries and gives them access arrangements so that they can attract more inward investment—is highly desirable and a key target for achieving faster development in the poorest countries. Negotiations now move over the World Trade Organisation and are in an analytical phase.

    Caribbean (Crop Diversification)
    Mr. Barry Sheerman: What action she has taken to encourage crop diversification in the Caribbean. [67508]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. George Foulkes): Together with the European Commission and the Caribbean development bank, we are funding a major programme of agricultural and economic diversification and a banana recovery plan which is essential to ensure that the industry becomes competitive. It is vital that new jobs are created in other sectors, as well as agriculture, and our funds for diversification are encouraging that.
    Mr. Sheerman: My hon. Friend knows only too well that it will take time for many of those islands to diversify out of banana production. Will he redouble his efforts, and ask the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary to do the same, when talking to the Americans and, through them, the World Trade Organisation? Too many American businesses are using the WTO to harm the interests of the Caribbean banana producers.
    Mr. Foulkes: The Prime Minister has heard my hon. Friend's question, and I assure him that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary are very active on that matter. I know that my hon. Friend will be pleased that the compromise reached in Geneva late on 29 January averted the immediate risk of American retaliation against the European Union. We welcome that move to arbitration because it gives the European Union and the United States more time to work towards resolving the dispute without retaliation, which must be in the interests of British industry.

    Debt Relief
    Mrs. Maria Fyfe: What recent discussions she has had about the relief of debt; and if she will make a statement. [67511]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): I have had a number of discussions on debt relief recently, most notably at the annual meeting of the World bank and International Monetary Fund, where I and the Chancellor obtained agreement to a review of the heavily indebted poor countries initiative, and most recently at a meeting with the German Development Minister in Bonn at the end of November. I have also discussed the link between debt relief and poverty reduction with the Synod of the Church of England, and with the two umbrella groups representing British non-governmental organisations. We very much welcome the German initiative on debt, which reinforces our Mauritius mandate by seeking to speed up the implementation of the HIPC initiative, although I remain concerned that debt relief should be more closely linked to poverty reduction programmes. There is a way to go on that.
    Mrs. Fyfe: I thank my right hon. Friend for that very comprehensive answer. Does she agree that the Government's success in getting the IMF and the World bank to review the HIPC process must result in speedier implementation in order to help the poor in poorer countries because, so far, progress has been rather too slow?
    Clare Short: I agree with my hon. Friend. The commitment to a review is very important. We must hold the IMF and the World bank to it, and ensure that it is conducted quickly. As well as speeding up the process, we must ensure that it benefits the poor. The review concerning Uganda, which has just received debt relief, was very disappointing. As a result of the fall in coffee prices, it is as badly off as it was in the first place. The initiative needs modification as well as speeding up.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. John M. Taylor: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 3 February.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further such meetings later today.
    Mr. Taylor: How does the £39 billion extra burden on business in this Parliament square with the enterprise culture? Are the Government signalling right and turning left?
    The Prime Minister: No; I would have thought that turning right applies more to the hon. Gentleman's party.

    923
    The figure that he quotes is not correct. Indeed, under this Government, we have the lowest ever corporation tax and the lowest ever tax regime for small businesses. In addition, under this Government, we are consigning Tory boom and bust to history, where it belongs.
    Mr. John McAllion: Some of us on the Back Benches fear that our karma might be to return in the next life as Scottish Tories. Will my right hon. Friend therefore reassure us that, in this life, this Labour Government will continue, through socialist policies of redistribution, to tackle the massive inequalities in health, in access to decent housing and in wealth, which continue to disfigure and scar our country? Although we all accept that wealth creation is of course essential, may I remind him of the wisdom of the old clause IV, which never let us forget that the only true creators of wealth are the
    "workers by hand or by brain"?
    It is for them that the Labour party was created. It is in their interests that a Labour Government should govern.
    The Prime Minister: Let me tell my hon. Friend what we are doing in this life to promote social justice. One hundred and thirty thousand Scottish families will benefit from the working families tax credit, 183,000 people in Scotland will benefit from the national minimum wage, the new deal for the unemployed has halved youth unemployment since the election and child benefit is up by more than 20 per cent. All those policies, opposed by the Tories, have been introduced by this Labour Government. This Labour Government believe that there is no inconsistency between policies that promote business and enterprise, and the pursuit of a more just society.
    Mr. William Hague: So who does the Prime Minister think should be the next manager of the England football team?
    The Prime Minister: Not the right hon. Gentleman, anyway. I am content to leave that to the Football Association.
    Mr. Hague: We all thought that Glenn Hoddle's comments were outrageous and all joined in saying so, but given what the Prime Minister has just said, does he accept for future reference, and on reflection, that there is a limit to the number of things that politicians should poke their noses into—[Interruption.] There is—and that lecturing football associations on whom they should sack is beyond that limit?
    The Prime Minister: I really cannot believe that the right hon. Gentleman is raising that issue. Of course, by making the comment himself, he has already commented on the issue. I suggest that he look at what I actually said.
    Angela Smith: Can the Prime Minister confirm how many telephone calls have been made to the nurses recruitment hotline since it was set up? I understand that, in the first few hours, there were more than 3,500. Will he pay tribute to Basildon hospital, which, before this initiative, recruited nurses by getting returners to work and paying for their training to get them back into the NHS? However, may I remind him, and ask
    924
    him to ensure that he makes it clear, that new money that goes to the NHS must be put into front-line services and the nurses who serve the country?
    The Prime Minister: As a result of the pay award that has been made to the nurses, the starting pay for a newly qualified nurse will increase by 12 per cent. In addition, 70,000 junior qualified nurses are to get an increase of over 8 per cent. As a result of our changes, next year two out of three nurses will earn more than £20,000 a year. Moreover, the number of people who have phoned the hotline—the number of calls that have been made—is now more than 7,000. It will take us time to rebuild the national health service, but we are on our way to doing it.
    Mr. Paddy Ashdown: The pay rise for nurses is very welcome, but is it not also the case that, on Monday, the Government raided their own funds for modernising the health service to provide nurses with decent pay? Why should better pay for nurses have to mean worse services for patients?
    The Prime Minister: But it does not. The modernisation fund has a specific sum of money within it for pay. That is the part that has been used. The rest of the modernisation fund, which is nine tenths of it—£1 billion—is intact and being used for such things as waiting lists, primary care projects, mental health projects, capital projects, doing up accident and emergency departments, and public health and community services. In addition, an extra sum of money is going into new technology in the health service. So the premise of the right hon. Gentleman's question is wrong.
    Mr. Ashdown: Well, then, the Government's own statement made in July last year was wrong, because that statement, made in July 1998, specifically gives the purposes for the modernisation fund. It includes, as the Prime Minister has suggested, waiting lists, capital investment, education and training for staff, health education, primary care and mental health. It does not include pay. So I ask the Prime Minister once again: why have the Government taken £100 million out of front-line services for patients when the Chancellor has more than 50 times that sum in his Treasury reserves?
    The Prime Minister: I think that that is more than a little churlish. Actually, I forgot to mention, when I gave the figures, that £120 million is going out from the modernisation fund for education and training, in addition to what I have just mentioned. However, in respect of paying nurses more, we happen to believe that giving nurses a better pay rise, attracting more people into the health service, is part of building a better health service. Nurses—such as those to whom I spoke who were getting their training down in Wales yesterday—believe that it is important both that we get modernisation in the health service and that they get the decent pay that they deserve. Under this Government, we are delivering both.
    Shona McIsaac: Does my right hon. Friend welcome the massive support, in last night's vote, for reforming the House of Lords, and especially the words of support by the former Tory Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath)? Apart from showing the Tories in

    925
    tatters on that issue as usual, does it not prove that the Government want to create a second Chamber fit for the 21st century, whereas the current Leader of the Opposition merely harks back to the 18th, possibly the 17th, or the 16th, or whenever his last reincarnation was?
    The Prime Minister: I think it is safe to say that only those on the Front Bench of the Conservative party are arguing the case for hereditary peers. The reasons for the reform are clear and sensible. First, it is wrong in this day and age that, by birth, such people can make laws. Secondly, and equally important, because of hereditary peers, the Conservatives have an in-built permanent majority of three or four to one in one of the two Houses of Parliament. It is plainly right that we should change that situation, which is regressive, backward—looking and unjust.
    Sir Archie Hamilton: Does the Prime Minister accept that, for many people in Northern Ireland, the peace process is all take and no give, as far as Sinn Fein—IRA is concerned? Will he put the release of terrorist prisoners on hold until the mutilations and murders stop and the decommissioning of weapons starts?
    The Prime Minister: Without repeating what I said in the exchanges last week, it is worth pointing out to the right hon. Gentleman that, were we to bring the entire process to an end, the result would not be less violence in Northern Ireland. I repeat what I said previously: punishment beatings and appalling atrocities were also going on during the ceasefire under the previous Government. However, as I have made clear, the best possible way in which we can push the process forward in Northern Ireland is for all aspects of the agreement to be implemented. We have made enormous progress, and I hope that both sides of the House can work to make more.
    Mr. Jim Cunningham: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, throughout the country, under the new deal, youth unemployment has fallen? Is he also aware that, in Coventry, under the Coventry version of the new deal, youth unemployment has fallen by more than 30 per cent? Will he commend the Coventry scheme to the rest of the country? Does he recall that the Opposition voted against the new deal and the windfall tax levy? Should not the Opposition apologise to every young person in the country?
    The Prime Minister: As a result of the new deal, the rate of youth unemployment has very nearly halved since the general election—50,000 young people have gone into jobs, and 200,000 or more are going through the programme. That is a good step for the country on anybody's terms. We know that it was opposed by the Conservative party, and that the Conservatives are still opposed to it. They are wrong. They do not understand that high levels of youth and long-term unemployment are a blight on the country's future.
    Mr. William Hague: The Prime Minister will know that there is huge public concern about the possible health and environmental impact of genetically modified crops. There was a debate on the subject in the House today. Why have the Government
    926
    not accepted the advice of English Nature, which is by law the Government's adviser on those matters, by delaying for at least three years the commercial release of those crops, until more research is done?
    The Prime Minister: We are doing research on that, and a Government committee is examining the matter. We must proceed on the best scientific evidence. The potential of genetically modified crops is very great indeed. It is important that we proceed logically and scientifically, not simply on the basis of prejudice on either side of the debate.
    Mr. Hague: We agree that we must proceed on the basis of scientific evidence, but the Government are overruling advice about the environmental impact from the expert body which, by law, exists to advise them on such matters.
    It has also emerged that there was a meeting at which it was decided to use supermarket loyalty cards to monitor the purchase of genetically modified foods in various parts of the country, and then to monitor the cases of cancer in the corresponding areas. When concerns exist on such a scale, would it not be better to impose a moratorium, and to do so now?
    The Prime Minister: I do not think it would be sensible to impose a moratorium. I am informed that the committee is meeting today. It is important that we proceed on the basis of the scientific evidence. These are big issues, and of course there is public concern about them. The first stage of meeting that public concern is to debate the information. I assume that the right hon. Gentleman is advancing the Opposition's position. It is curious that they should ask for a moratorium geared to a particular number of years, rather than proceeding on the basis of the scientific evidence.
    Mr. Hague: It is not curious that the Opposition are asking for a moratorium—English Nature is asking for one. [Interruption.] It is no good Labour Members sneering about English Nature. That body is paid by the Government to give advice on these matters. The effect of the muddle in Government policy is to increase public concern, not to decrease it. Why do the Government not do the common-sense thing, listen to the advice of their experts and at least put on hold the release of new and unfamiliar seeds until the research is done?
    The Prime Minister: I think that it would increase public concern if we adopted the course of action that the right hon. Gentleman advocates. A Government committee is looking at the issue on the basis of scientific evidence, and I think that that is the best way to proceed. The worst way to proceed would be to raise fears in the public mind before the evidence is put before the people. With the greatest respect—I do not think that this should be a great political issue between the parties—the right hon. Gentleman's course of action is wrong. I think that it is far better and more important to proceed on the basis of scientific evidence.
    As for food safety issues—far be it from me to accuse the right hon. Gentleman of opportunism—I point out that most of the main problems with food safety in this country have resulted from the Conservative Government's legacy.
    Mr. Michael Connarty: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his Government today

    927
    allocated an additional £112 million to guarantee places for 60 per cent. of three-year-olds in pre-school nurseries in Scotland? Will he take the opportunity, when he makes his welcome visit to Scotland on Friday, to remind parents, teachers and educators in Scotland that the Labour party is the only party in Scotland with published policies for Scottish education, and ask them to sit down in a spirit of co-operation and realise the vision that is set out in Labour's excellent document "Targeting Excellence: Modernising Scotland's Schools"?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. The increase of £112 million for pre-school education will allow many more three and four-year-olds to attend nursery school in Scotland. Some 100,000 children in Scotland will receive grant-funded pre-school education in the next school session. We are the only political party in Scotland with proposals that increase the amount of nursery education. There can be no more important start for Scottish children than getting the education that they deserve.
    Mr. Richard Livsey: Will the Prime Minister do everything in his power to assist the 750 employees of Lucas-SEI in Ystradgynlais in my constituency who are about to lose their jobs because of the closure of the manufacturing plant? Does the Prime Minister propose to visit this stricken community, whose people are the salt of the earth? Will he comment on the activities of the chief executive of Lucas Varity, Victor Rice, who stands to benefit by £17 million from the takeover by TRW? Does the Prime Minister not think that that is the unacceptable face of global capitalism at work?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman probably knows, Ministers are in discussion with the company and we will do all that we possibly can. We sympathise very much with anyone who risks losing his or her job as a result of the sale. It is important to see what we can do and, as soon as we are able to give details, we shall do so.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: I welcome the fact that the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the right hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram), is due to meet Families Against Intimidation and Terror to discuss beatings and intimidation in Northern Ireland. I hope that the Prime Minister will agree to meet that group at a later stage. Would it not be a good idea if Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch were involved in monitoring beatings and intimidation in Northern Ireland and reporting on those events? That would put pressure on the paramilitary groups to back down. Amnesty seems to favour this notion; will the Government give it good passage?
    The Prime Minister: The idea advanced by my hon. Friend has also been proposed by the leader of the Ulster Unionist party. It is certainly worth considering, and I look forward to discussing it with the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) later this afternoon.
    Mrs. Caroline Spelman: Why does the Prime Minister believe that it is right to levy the same food tax on a small corner shop as on a Sainsbury's superstore?
    The Prime Minister: I assume that it is a matter of common ground between us that the Food Standards
    928
    Agency should be established and that the cost should not be borne entirely by the taxpayers—although they bear the majority of it at present. The question is whether it is better to do that by a flat-rate or a graduated charge. That is one of the issues that will be considered during the consultation process. We proposed the idea originally because we thought that it would be much simpler and easier to administer than a graduated charge. However, that is one of the things that the consultation paper will address.
    Mr. Brian H. Donohoe: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be aware of Volvo's announcement last week on closing its factory in my constituency, with the loss of 450 jobs. Realising the impact that that will have on my constituency and the surrounding area in Ayrshire, he will be pleased to know of the effect of the intervention of a Minister. May I put on record my thanks for the work that has been undertaken by the Scottish Office?
    My right hon. Friend will also be aware that, in November, I asked him a question about the air traffic control system at Prestwick. What influence has been brought to bear, and what has been done by the Government, since that question was asked?
    The Prime Minister: First, on the issue of Volvo, as my hon. Friend knows, the Scottish Office is having discussions with the company. The potential for job losses obviously exists for reasons that are outside the Government's control, but we will continue to have those discussions.
    In respect of National Air Traffic Services, we are firmly committed to a two-centre strategy. I can assure my hon. Friend that one of those centres will be at Prestwick. That is good news for Scotland, and it will ensure air traffic control facilities in Scotland for a long time. I also understand that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport has written to my hon. Friend, offering to meet him to repeat these assurances.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: Is the Prime Minister aware of the huge suffering being experienced by the people of Gibraltar, who are having great hardship imposed because of an alleged secret deal with the British Government, which, in fairness, the Foreign Office has denied? As he claims to have established a special relationship with the European Union, is there really nothing he can do to protect the Gibraltarians, who are wholly peace-loving people, against illegal, bully-boy tactics by the Spanish Government?
    The Prime Minister: We are in fact working very closely with the Gibraltar authorities. As a result of that, and as the hon. Gentleman has probably read this morning, the Chief Secretary in Gibraltar has made arrangements in order to bring this dispute to an end, on which we very much hope there will be proper progress.
    In relation to Gibraltar more generally, the position of the Government is unchanged. There is no secret deal of any nature at all. We continue to do everything we can to ease the tension between Spain and Gibraltar. The point

    929
    that I always make to anyone from the Spanish authorities is that the best way forward for them in their relations with Gibraltar is to treat those relations with sensitivity.
    Mr. John Home Robertson: I am afraid that this is getting a bit like Scottish questions.
    Has my right hon. Friend noticed that virtually every unit in the armed forces of the United Kingdom has its share of Scots, that it is not unheard of for English, Welsh and Irish personnel to serve in Scottish regiments and that the British armed forces are all the stronger for that?
    That said, has my right hon. Friend read the nauseating words of Colonel Stuart Crawford, the Scottish National party defence spokesman, who describes the Scots Guards as
    "a quasi-mercenary regiment … tainted by their association with England"?
    Will my right hon. Friend condemn the nationalist plan for ethnic dismantling of the armed forces of the United Kingdom?
    The Prime Minister: I think that these are not the first of SNP comments on defence that have dismayed people. Quite apart from wanting to dismantle the whole of the defences of Scotland, get Scotland out of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, abandon the nuclear protection and a whole series of other things, and as well as not being trusted on defence, the SNP is not trusted on tax and jobs, and it is not trusted with running a Scottish Parliament which it wants to use as a ramp for independence. Scotland and England are stronger together.
    Mr. Michael Fallon: Is the Prime Minister aware that, in Kent, North Yorkshire, north London and elsewhere this year, parent will be set against parent, teacher against teacher and governor against governor by his sudden-death grammar school ballots? Is that not simply a class-ridden obsession with structure rather than standards?
    The Prime Minister: No; because under our proposals people are able to vote, whereas under the system that the previous Government had in place the decision was made by the local education authority. Given Conservative Members views on local education authorities, I should have thought that they would be with us on this one.
    Mr. Stephen Hepburn: Is the Prime Minister aware that Swan Hunter shipbuilders on the Tyne have been offered the chance to submit a bid for one of the Royal Navy supply ships that is out for contract? If it is successful, the £130 million contract will provide many thousands of new, highly skilled jobs on the Tyne for many years to come. Is he also aware that, if it is successful, it will be the first time that ships have been built in the Tyne for many years? To satisfy the companies, communities and trade unions that have worked towards obtaining the contract, will he give an assurance that there will be a level playing field?
    The Prime Minister: We are delighted at Swan Hunter's success. It is one of 10 companies that we believe have the technical expertise and capability to build the two new landing ships. It has been passed a copy of the initial draft specification, and has been asked to
    930
    provide indicative prices. I cannot say any more about that at this stage, except that the shipping industry on the Tyne has a tremendous and proud history, and it would be great to think that it also has a proud future.
    Mr. William Ross: Will the Prime Minister confirm that, during the talks process, Sinn Fein told him and the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic that it could not force the IRA to decommission weapons?
    The Prime Minister: No. It is clearly set out in the agreement that decommissioning is part of the agreement, and that Sinn Fein, like every other party, is expected to do what it can to bring about decommissioning. It is bound by that agreement. If I may say respectfully to the hon. Gentleman, it would be foolish of us to agree that Sinn Fein is under no such obligation. It should be under that obligation; it is in the agreement, and we intend to hold Sinn Fein to it.
    Mr. John Healey: My right hon. Friend will recall the meningitis outbreaks across the country over Christmas, and may know that in Rotherham we had seven cases in nine days, including two tragic deaths of students at Wath comprehensive school. Is he aware that three quarters of the cases in Rotherham in the past year have been of meningitis type C, for which there is a vaccine? Given that this local pattern is reflected nationally in the growing proportion of meningitis C cases, will he use his offices to encourage the Secretary of State for Health to take a fresh look at the arguments for and against a national vaccination programme?
    The Prime Minister: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will have heard my hon. Friend's question. I am not able to give my hon. Friend an answer this afternoon, but I shall make inquiries and write to him about the matter.
    Mr. Stephen Dorrell: Does the Prime Minister agree with me that schools should be free, if they so wish, to adopt a policy of selection by interview or examination?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend has set out the Government's position on selection, and I refer the right hon. Gentleman to that. As a result of the Government's policies, there will be greater investment in our schools, which was denied them by the previous Government. Whatever policies are pursued on selection, if there are not enough properly funded, good schools for parents to choose from, children will not get a proper education. The difference between this side and his party is that we believe in an education system for all our children, not just a few.
    Mr. Paul Stinchcombe: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there are some ex-service men in the country who have been wrongly deprived of and denied war pensions for many years? If he does, does he also agree that it would be sensible to give back to the Secretary of State the discretion to award backdated war pensions in appropriate and compelling cases—a discretion that was denied by the previous Government?
    The Prime Minister: I know that my hon. Friend has an Adjournment debate on this subject. I am sure that my

    931
    right hon. Friend will listen carefully to my hon. Friend's claims and representations. We will always consider ways of improving the situation, but we must do so within the Government's overall cost budget. We shall certainly listen to my hon. Friend's representations.
    Mr. Andrew Lansley: When does the Prime Minister expect the rate of growth in the United Kingdom economy to return to 3.5 per cent. per annum or better?
    The Prime Minister: We have set out our growth forecasts for the Government and, as a result of the
    932
    policies that this Government have pursued, we are predicting an increase in growth next year and growth in—[Interruption.] Perhaps Opposition Members could listen to the answers. We are predicting that growth will go over 3 per cent. in two years' time. So the position that the hon. Gentleman outlined is answered. What would be most disastrous, however, is if we were to pursue the policies that he wants pursued, including taking away Bank of England independence, scrapping the new deal for young people, getting rid of the working families tax credit and doubling the national debt. The Labour party will be the party of economic stability, not the boom and bust of the Tories.

Insolvency Act 1986 (Amendment)
3.30 pm
Mr. Richard Page: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Insolvency Act 1986 so as to disqualify from appointment as receiver or liquidator of a company any person or company called in to carry out a financial appraisal of that company.
My comments today will be almost identical to the words used by Baroness Dean, when she spoke on a similar subject in the other place last week. I was pleased to learn that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, in his Mansion House speech, also touched on my concerns. It is nice to know that all minds are thinking in the same direction.
The Bill aims to remove a long-standing problem in our legislation. Under the present law, firms of accountants that are called in by the banks or other lenders to report on companies in difficulties can be, and often are, appointed as administrative receivers if the findings are sufficiently serious. Those firms of accountants are obliged to safeguard the capital of the lenders: they are not concerned about the continuity and survival of the borrowing company. Indeed, all too often, the accountants have a vested interest in putting the companies on which they report into receivership.
As long ago as 1992, 30 per cent. of insolvency practitioners recognised that the issue was a real and not just an apparent conflict of interests. It is like giving a judge and jury £10 for every prisoner whom they set free, but £100 for every prisoner whom they find guilty. No one would think that that was a fair law and no one would say that justice was being done under such rules. The same logic applies to the situation today, in which insolvency practitioners are so often the reporting accountants.
Serious mistakes have been made under the present arrangements. One accounting firm investigating a company to whom a bank had lent money reported that it was in serious difficulties. The accountants recommended that their related firm of insolvency practitioners should be brought in to act as receivers. It took the intervention of the Postern Executive group, a group specialising in business recovery, and a report from a second firm of accountants to persuade the bank that a mistake had been made. In due course, the loan was repaid, the secured and unsecured creditors were paid and hundreds of jobs were saved.
I could cite numerous examples, but I shall give only one more. The owner of a dairy business in Pembrokeshire sought the advice of his bank on the value of his stock. He was visited by a 24-year-old accountant who worked for one of the big five. After a single day on the farm, that expert valued the cheese held in the dairy at half the figure the owner had calculated. The visit cost the owner £3,000. The accountancy firm—surprise, surprise—was appointed to act by the bank as the receiver for the business. As events turned out, the receiver could not milk 200 cows a day or keep them in good health for sale and, when the original owner obtained another valuation for his stock, the bank granted him overdraft facilities of £1 million and he was able to save much of his operation.
934
All those problems flowed from the visit of a young accountant who was inexperienced in farming, but whose firm could have benefited from the dairy business going into receivership. Legal action was unsuccessful, because receivers have a duty of care only to the party that appoints them: the bank. For individuals and companies who face adverse reports, there is, sadly, usually no effective remedy short of legal action. Directors of companies being investigated are all too often presented with winding-up petitions without any opportunity to make representation or any avenue of appeal. That is neither fair nor right. No wonder accountants are often said to exist to kill the wounded and count the dead.
Reputable bodies working in the industry recognise the need for action. For example, the Royal Bank of Scotland has altered its entire approach to companies in difficulties. For it, receivership is the last resort. The results have been dramatic. In 1992, it had an 11 per cent. receivership rate. Four years later, that figure had dropped to only 5 per cent. In 1996, it put only 48 companies into receivership, a fall of 82 per cent. over four years. The more positive approach meant that some 79 companies and almost 5,600 jobs were saved. Even with the companies put into liquidation, the new approach meant that it was possible to sell off many parts as viable concerns.
The key element in the strategy is the bank's decision not to appoint investigating accountants as receivers. It has recognised the conflict of interest that investigating accountants may face and acted to remove it. It prefers to diagnose the problems that borrowing companies face and strengthen their management capability to deal with them. If only all banks would adopt such an approach.
There are wider lessons to be learned for the eight bodies engaged in licensing insolvency practitioners. They should have acted long ago to resolve this issue. My major contention about the potential conflicts of interest that arise when investigating accountants act as administrative receivers was conceded by Lord McIntosh of Haringey speaking for the Government in another place last week. However, I do not accept his repetition of the old argument about the advantages in terms of knowledge that a firm of investigative accountants has about a business when appointed as the administrative receiver. That only perpetuates the existing problem over the conflict of interest.
The promise of legislation to provide for a moratorium on creditors' actions while a company is in difficulties and proposals are formulated is all very well but neither that nor the joint Treasury and Department of Trade and Industry review of the law on company rescue mechanisms promised in last December's competitiveness White Paper offers the remedies that are needed right now, especially as the economy may move into recession.
There have been too many delays in tackling the matter. Those professionally involved, such as the banks, lending institutions and, above all, the companies that have experienced scrutiny by investigating accountants, understand the conflict of interest. The case for independent regulation of those who play both roles, perhaps through an insolvency commissioner, is strong. I prefer effective self-regulation to Government action, but if the eight bodies engaged in insolvency licensing cannot take the necessary steps to end this obvious conflict of interest, the duty to act falls upon Parliament and the Government.

935
I know that the Government are studying changing the Insolvency Act 1986 and that this issue, as we know from the Mansion House speech, is attracting Ministers' attention. That is all to the good and I welcome it, but action is needed now, not in two, three or four years. The Bill reflects important changes of attitude towards that problem outside Whitehall and Westminster. It provides a solution to that long-standing conflict of interest and I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Richard Page, Mr. Andrew Rowe, Mr. Tony Colman, Mr. Andrew Lansley, Mr. Robin Corbett and Mr. Richard Spring.

Insolvency Act 1986 (Amendment)
  INSOLVENCY ACT 1986 (AMENDMENT)
  Mr. Richard Page accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Insolvency Act 1986 so as to disqualify from appointment as receiver or liquidator of a company any person or company called in to carry out a financial appraisal of that company: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 26 February, and to be printed [Bill 40].
Opposition Day
[5TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  Pensions
  Madam Speaker: We now come to the first debate on the Opposition motions. I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister.
  3.40 pm
  Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: I beg to move,
  That this House believes the Government has failed pensioners and thrown away a unique opportunity for reform; deplores their attack on pensioners through the abolition of the ACT dividend tax credit, which will cost pensioners and all future pensioners £5 billion per year; believes the Government has further hurt occupational schemes by increasing the regulatory and cost burden in the pensions Green Paper; rejects the Government's proposals, which will make pension provision more complex and offer no real security for pensioners in the future; and condemns the Government for their extensions of means-testing in the welfare and pensions system, which will undermine the incentive to save.
  Today's debate is an opportunity for us to consider the Government's record after two years of this Parliament to find out whether some of their more grandiose pledges, and perhaps even some of their more sensible pledges, have been met. In opposition, the Labour party said that it would improve the situation for pensioners. We should set out clearly the position that the Labour party inherited when it came into power and decide whether it has improved it.
  The Government inherited funded pension provision totalling about £750 billion—more provision than in the rest of Europe put together. Furthermore, between 1979 and 1996, pensioner incomes rose by more than 60 per cent. In 1979, 46 per cent. of pensioners were in the poorest fifth of the population by income distribution, but, by 1996, that percentage had more than halved and less than 20 per cent. of pensioners were in the poorest fifth. While Conservative Members accepted that there was still more to be done, that was a major contribution— all in all, it is a position which many countries in Europe thoroughly envy, as they wish that they had such a strong and powerful position.
  What have the Government done from the outset to improve the situation or to make a difference that matters to pensioners? Their first act, almost as soon as they came to power, was to strike a blow at pensioners. In their manifesto they said:
  "we will support and strengthen the framework for occupational pensions."
  I will show that they have done entirely the opposite. The abolition of the advance corporation tax dividend tax credit, which they did almost within a month of their arrival in government, is simply a tax which will cost future pensioners more than £5.5 billion a year. It is the equivalent of 4p in the pound on basic rate income tax. In essence, that means that pension funds will have less money to invest, so pensions will be lower unless employers and employees pay more money into their schemes.
  Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe: I do not want to stop the hon. Gentleman' s flow, but he mentioned what

  937
  Labour had inherited and the background to today's debate. Will he stick to the narrow subject of pensions, or will he widen the debate to cover the other ways in which the previous Government affected pensioners' incomes, such as putting value added tax on fuel?
  Mr. Duncan Smith: The hon. Gentleman will have every opportunity to discuss the Government amendment, which intriguingly avoids the main purpose of the debate, which is to discuss what the Government have done to improve pensioner incomes through pension reform. That is the critical issue. The reality is that, as we have seen in the media and through hon. Members in the House, pensioners will on balance be worse off, not better off, as a result of all those changes. The key point is whether pensioners will be better off as a result of the changes made to pensions provision—that is what we are debating.
  Let us return to the withdrawal of ACT dividend tax credit. In doing that, the Government struck a huge blow to pension funds and future pensioners; it is almost impossible to over-emphasise what a blow that was. After that, any pensioner would have been stunned by the blithe statement made by the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury, now the Paymaster General:
  "People should understand that our reforms will benefit pension funds."—[Official Report, 3 July 1997; Vol. 297, c. 507.]
  The Government's own actuaries do not agree with that statement. The Government Actuary's report states:
  "This reduces the amount of dividend income from UK equities by just under 20 per cent. relative to the previous tax position."
  That is a huge blow to anyone whose future retirement income depends on that investment. Even if the Paymaster General cannot add up, she should not assume that others have the same failing.
  At a stroke, the new tax rise rendered final salary schemes far more expensive to maintain and thus less viable. I have spoken to one or two funds and it was interesting to discover the extent to which they have been hit. The Post Office pension fund finds itself down by £15 million a year, the Sainsbury pension scheme is less viable by £10 million a year and the railways pension fund is less viable by £30 million a year, all as a result of the Government's actions.
  Ms Gisela Stuart: As the hon. Gentleman is clearly concerned about the well-being of those in work who provide for their old age, will he comment on what the previous Government did to the state earnings-related pension scheme and on how, over 18 years, they totally undermined its value?
  Mr. Duncan Smith: I am intrigued that the hon. Lady is speaking from her brief from the Whips Office, which tells her to ask that question. What she says is utter rubbish: the reality is that the previous Government have a lot to be proud of in terms of pensions reform and this country's pensions provision is the envy of most of Europe and perhaps of the western world.
  Mr. Michael Jack: May I add to my hon. Friend's list of pension funds that will lose money as a result of the changes the Church of England pension fund, which will lose some £12 million? Is he aware that other
  938
  Churches are taking actuarial advice on the impact on their pension funds? Already, the Church of England anticipates difficulties with meeting commitments from its latest clergy stipend fund.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: My right hon. Friend is right—I shall with alacrity add the Church of England to my list. I omitted to mention many names on the list, because to read them all out would have taken at least 10 minutes. Even local government now faces huge difficulties because of what the Government did. It cannot be understated how hard the changes have hit many pension funds.
  Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. George Turner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Duncan Smith: No, I shall not give way. Labour Members do not like what I am saying—as in "Dads' Army", "They don't like it up 'em," but the facts are that the Government's actions really hurt pensioners and that the Labour party did not tell pensioners the truth at the time of the election.
  The Government Actuary had to be brought in to carry out an out-of-sequence review, such was the mess wrought by the new tax. The review resulted in a prescription designed to restore some balance to the position on contracting out from SERPS, but the Government then proceeded to make matters worse, which shows how mean-minded and spiteful they are. They chose to freeze the salary-related schemes rebate and to reduce the contracted-out money purchase schemes rebate, which meant that they destroyed one viable option for people and made salary-related schemes even less viable than before. Not content with hurting pensioners through the ACT tax dividend credit withdrawal, the Government went and squeezed them further when the Government Actuary gave them an opportunity to do so.
  The Government's first decision on taking power has created chaos and hurt many people. It is important to note that their actions have struck a blow at occupational pension schemes—the very schemes that they said they thought were rather good, which makes their actions not only ironic, but rather stupid.
  Mrs. Angela Browning: My hon. Friend mentioned the public sector, but is he aware that the chief constable of Devon and Cornwall police, who received an appalling local government settlement this year, has to make grave choices because of the need to find additional funds to prop up the shortfall caused by the Government's action on ACT?
  Mr. Duncan Smith: I agree with my hon. Friend. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), she has added to the list of examples of the problems and hurt being inflicted on pensioners as a direct result of the Government's actions.
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: I, too, should like to add to that list. Small borough councils have also been hit hard, and the hardest hit are those in the shire areas.

  939
  They are having to make extraordinary efforts to cope with the stealth tax—the unexploded bomb—that the Labour Government have introduced. Already, local authority pensioners say that they would never have voted Labour if they had known that the Government were going to raid their pension schemes.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: I thank my hon. Friend. That is yet another example for the list. However, I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to restrain themselves slightly on this matter, as otherwise we shall never move on. The point has been made absolutely clearly: pension funds and future pensioners across the country will suffer as a direct result of the mean-mindedness of a Government who never revealed what they intended to do.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Gentleman has made his case powerfully, and it is clear that he feels very strongly about the matter. According to the Opposition motion, we are talking about £5 billion. Does he intend to reverse the change in the law at the next general election? Will he go into that election with such a proposal?
  Mr. Duncan Smith: The hon. Gentleman has been here long enough—
  Mr. Tony McNulty: Yes or no?
  Mr. Duncan Smith: I shall answer that question because I am intrigued by Labour Members. The Government have been in power for two years, but already they are trying to decide whether to vote Conservative at the next election. It is absolutely amazing. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) still does not know how he will vote, yet he is clearly en route to a decision. The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that, when we get back into power, we shall take whatever decisions are needed to rectify the problems facing pensioners. He must wait patiently, for we will make our proposals in time for him to make his decision about how to vote at the next election.
  Throughout their first 18 months in power, the Government have meandered through their pensions review. Month after month, they have promised a Green Paper. They have even put on road shows, which were supposed to be shows on the road to Damascus—although some of them seem to have got lost somewhere on a wet night in Dudley. However, those shows never got anywhere. Despite their great promises, it has become clear that members of the Labour party had done no thinking about pensions reform in opposition and that they are trying to find a solution now that they are in office.
  There was one exception—the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who now sits, honourably, on the Back Benches. What is most interesting about the review process is that the very man asked by the Prime Minister, both before and after the election, to think the unthinkable and to produce a plan for Labour's first term in office was rapidly sidelined. Sadly, he was not put in charge even of the pensions review. Then—thanks to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and, perhaps, even to the present Secretary of State—he was squeezed out.
  940
  The result of that, and of the fact that no real thinking was going on at all, was a Green Paper cobbled together with one eye cocked towards the Treasury's agenda. It looked for a way to get through to the election without too much trouble.
  Mr. Steve Webb: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Duncan Smith: In a minute, as I should like to finish this point.
  The Government's pensions proposals are in a mess. Rather than creating reforms to simplify the provision of pensions, they have made the system progressively more complex and more difficult to understand. That, in turn, will lead to great uncertainty over future pensions. The Times stated:
  "New Labour's new pension system was intended to make life simple for savers … Instead potential savers will be confronted with a mind-bogglingly complex array of options".
  The Daily Mail said:
  "Mr. Darling has come out with a muddled and muddling, half-baked set of proposals".
  However, if the Secretary of State does not like hearing only from the media, he—and the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), who is sitting next to him—might like to hear from Mervyn Kohler of Help the Aged, who said:
  "The Government has let a great opportunity slip through its hands. This pensions review could have made radical changes to a system in dire need of reform; sadly, it does not."
  Mr. Webb: If I have followed the hon. Gentleman's argument correctly, I believe that he said that Labour in opposition should have had a fully worked out pensions policy. Is he now promising that the Conservative party will have such a policy?
  Mr. Duncan Smith: Labour, when in opposition, should have thought long enough to have produced a policy that they could implement on arrival. I think it is fair to say that. When we get ready to take over Government—it will be very soon—we shall have a plan worked out, and we shall present that plan and implement it. That is exactly what previous Conservative Governments have done, and we shall do it again.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Ms Stuart rose—
  Mr. Duncan Smith: No, I shall give way later.
  There are four main problems with the Green Paper. [Interruption.] Labour Members do not like to hear of such things because they are so used to receiving briefs saying, "The Government are wonderful; intervene on this." They will have to hear the truth today.
  There are four main failures in the Green Paper. The Secretary of State will not be surprised to hear that the first is that it massively increases means testing. One of the most significant areas of the Government's pensions proposals is the growth of means tests on pensioner

  941
  incomes. The introduction of the minimum pensions guarantee and the Green Paper's pledge on the guarantee—
  "Over the long term, our aim is that it should rise in line with earnings"
  mean that the Government are rapidly increasing the role of the means test in pensioner incomes.
  The Association of Retired and Persons over 50 claims that:
  "the Government's own estimates suggest that the number of UK pensioners relying on means tested benefits under the Minimum Income Guarantee could rise from 1 in 5 today to 1 in 4 by 2050."
  The Institute for Fiscal Studies, which the Government no longer likes although they used to work with it when they were in opposition, says that the means-tested guarantee "institutionalises means testing".
  The Government's reliance on an increasing means-test element will become a massive disincentive to saving as it claws further and further up the line of those who would wish to save. Frankly, anyone on average earnings might as well not bother; they will find that those who did not bother will receive just as much final retirement income.
  Meanwhile, the Government preside over a falling savings ratio. They inherited a ratio of more than 10 per cent., but by the time that they leave Government, it will be around 7 per cent. We are at a stage of the economic cycle when the ratio would normally be rising, not falling. They already have the problem that it is going in the wrong direction. Their changes will make that problem worse.
  The right hon. Member for Birkenhead has said:
  "It means that if you don't bother to save you will just pick this"
  the minimum guarantee—
  "up in the end anyway. So the Jack the Lads who don't intend saving will benefit."
  That is precisely the point: by increasing the level of the means test, the Government have discouraged saving. They leave everyone saying, "Why should I bother?" People who do not bother will get roughly the same income as those who take the difficult choice, year after year, to save money that they could otherwise have spent.
  Mr. Peter Viggers: Does my hon. Friend agree that someone who has made no provision might even be better off, because he will receive housing benefit and council tax benefit?
  Mr. Duncan Smith: There is no question but that my hon. Friend is right. The point is that anyone on the margins, with below-average income, who tries to save—perhaps putting away 10 per cent. of their income every year—will say, "I am losing that from my yearly spend and the bloke two doors down the road is having a wonderful time, travelling to Virginia and being dumped off the aircraft. One way or another, he is having a wonderful time, and he will receive the same income as I will."
  Ms Stuart rose—
  Kali Mountford rose—
  Dr. George Turner rose—
  Mr. Duncan Smith: No, in a minute.
  942
  The Government have collective amnesia. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has clearly forgotten his 1993 pledge, when he said:
  "I want the next Labour Government to achieve what in 50 years of the welfare state has never been achieved. The end of the means test for elderly people."
  A few years ago, he made that bold pledge, but the reality is exactly the opposite.
  The second fault in the Green Paper is its attitude towards, and its attack on, occupational pensions. I began my speech with a reference to how occupational pensions have been hurt by the Government. The Green Paper states:
  "Occupational pension schemes are the great welfare success story of this country."
  Hear, hear. They were, but, under this Government, they are not.
  The Government's proposals for stakeholder pensions are more than likely to discourage employers from setting up such schemes in the future. There is also a serious danger that some employers will close occupational schemes to new entrants and simply offer access to stakeholder funds instead.
  The National Association of Pension Funds today said:
  "Smaller companies will see it as easier and cheaper for them to encourage employees to move into stakeholder arrangements instead of creating occupational pensions."
  The proposals in the Green Paper will increase the regulatory and cost burden on employers of maintaining salary-related schemes.
  The Green Paper says:
  "Our proposals to create a framework for stakeholder pension schemes are not intended to change the commitment that employers already have to providing occupational pension schemes."
  Yet, the Government's proposals are, frankly, a stake through the heart of salary-related occupational schemes. On the one hand, the Government attacked them through the dividend tax credit, then they dealt them a blow through the rebate, and now they are dealing them a blow in the Green Paper. It is a blow which they will not survive, and for which the Government will stand condemned.
  Kali Mountford: The hon. Gentleman makes much of occupational pension schemes, but why, in 1988, did the Conservative Government encourage people into private pension schemes that were not properly regulated and that failed thousands of pensioners in Britain?
  Mr. Duncan Smith: What a wonderful intervention from the daily notes yet again—as though that were a real surprise. The previous Government set out to deal with the problem and this Government have continued that action. No hon. Member would think such mis-selling acceptable. The hon. Lady should be careful. I am about to come to what will be the biggest mis-selling scam of the lot, which is in the Green Paper. She should keep quiet for a little and listen because the reality is that she will be thoroughly ashamed of her Government who have set out to defraud the electorate.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Duncan Smith: No, not just yet. The hon. Gentleman has had his moment in the sun and that is good enough for him.

  943
  The Government have made much about reducing the need for individuals to seek financial advice, so let us move on to the concept of mis-selling in terms of the Government's proposals. The Green Paper's stakeholder proposal lies at the heart of a serious problem as to whether the public, the consumer, will take the right product.
  The Government will recommend their product. In encouraging future pensioners to join those cost access terms schemes, which could turn out to be neither the best nor the cheapest investment or, critically, no better than the previous arrangement, the Government will rightly stand accused of mis-selling pensions on a grand scale. Unless the Government are prepared to step forward right now and underwrite their value, which I doubt, future Governments will have to suffer because this Government seem to have learnt nothing from what the hon. Lady has just referred to. The mis-selling to which she has just referred will become small beer in comparison with what the Government are likely to set in train—a huge problem, of which others will have to pick up the pieces. That confusion is the mother and father of mis-selling.
  Peter Murray, the chairman of the NAPF, rightly said:
  "This means confusion for the man in the street and when the consumer is confused, it means misselling on a large scale is inevitable."
  The Government will then stand accused, but, more than likely, they will have lost the election. They will be out and someone else will have to pick up the pieces.
  The fourth problem strikes right at the heart of the real divide that exists in Government, and it concerns the Government's culture. The Government's ill-thought-through plans in the Green Paper are likely to lead to greater confusion and result in pensioners finding that they are worse off in due course than if no change had been made at all. Particularly badly hit will be anyone who saves on the margins.
  Whether the new product is called a lifelong individual savings account, and whether "pension" is substituted for "lifelong", at its heart is the real problem. Almost every commentator now believes that LISAs demonstrate how the Government are pursuing two clear and different agendas in two different Departments. The Times of 27 January stated:
  "Two departments are trying to run the show instead of one."
  The scheme was put forward by the Association of Unit Trusts and Investment Funds. I know that the association was working up this scheme for some time before the Government took office, and it approached the Treasury to discuss it. It is only recently that the Treasury has finally decided to go ahead, and I understand that it was the Treasury that set about leaking the details in the past couple of weeks to bounce the Department of Social Security and force its hand on the matter.
  In the middle of all this, we announce our Opposition day debate on pensions, and the Department of Social Security goes into a spin. [Interruption.] I know what the Secretary of State for Social Security is looking for. He is looking for a reference in the document that I have here. It is in fact a rather obscure, vague reference, which says nothing about how the scheme is to operate. We know that it was dropped in by the Treasury; the Secretary of State had no option because the Treasury is running the show.
  944
  Knowing that we were to have this debate on pensions, the Department of Social Security went into a spin. The Secretary of State then went charging across to the Treasury and said, "Quick, I don't want to do this debate if they're going to accuse me of having a hidden policy that the Treasury may produce."
  Mr. John Butterfill: Does my hon. Friend agree that the LISA scheme being proposed by the Government is very similar to the 401K scheme in the United States, which has been shown to damage pension fund provision?
  Mr. Duncan Smith: My hon. Friend is quite right; there are many similarities between the proposed scheme and the 401K. I shall touch on them in a moment if he will bear with me.
  The point is that the two Departments are at odds with each other. To try to avoid the split, the Secretary of State for Social Security has decided to get in on the act—
  Ms Stuart rose—
  Mr. Duncan Smith: The hon. Lady has already had her opportunity but she missed it; she is not going to get a second chance.
  In order to save face, the Secretary of State has persuaded the Treasury to allow his name to appear with that of the Chief Secretary in the written answer. The fact that the policy has been worked up away from the Department of Social Security is a clear sign that the Treasury has long since decided that it will take over pensions from the Department of Social Security.
  We have here a little advance notice of that. I was concerned. I see the Secretary of State sitting there; he clearly assumes that he is going to lead for the Government in this debate and is going to put the Government's case. He is in charge because he is sitting there. However, the Government amendment to the motion is tabled in the name of "The Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Prescott, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer"—we have heard of him—"Mr. Secretary Cook, Mr. Secretary Straw and Mr. Secretary Blunkett". Where is the Secretary of State for Social Security? Clearly, those further along the Front Bench are trying to send him a message that he has not got yet. I am surprised; it is a very unfortunate way of doing things. Perhaps they should have told him direct that it is a case of "Move over, Darling." I would be much kinder to him and tell him to his face.
  The proposals will lead to chaos. The policy worked up by the Association of Unit Trusts and Pension Funds is an interesting one which has some things to recommend it, although there may be problems with it. The problem is not the policy but the framework set up by the Department into which the policy drops and with which it clashes.
  For example, the stakeholder scheme is meant to be cheap and it makes no allowance for advice in order to keep costs down. However, the arrival of that alternative scheme means that anyone who has to make decisions about long-term savings will be confused as to what to do

  945
  and will need advice but will have to pay for it. In fact, the Secretary of State should talk to his Minister of State who, in The Daily Telegraph on Saturday, said quite clearly:
  "I would expect the cost of advice to be met by the individual who uses it."
  There we have it—the hidden cost. Those seeking advice will have to pay; if they do not, they will be mis-sold something that may be of absolutely no use to them.
  The scheme is a pensions vehicle that runs counter to the Green Paper on stakeholder pensions. There is no commonality. The stakeholder pension scheme has at its heart trustees; LISAs do not. What is an ordinary member of the public to make of it? I listened to the Secretary of State on the radio and I heard John Humphrys say that he could not understand a word that the right hon. Gentleman was saying. I admit that I agreed with John Humphrys.
  The financial page of The Times, a newspaper not known for its failure to understand financial issues, wrote:
  "instead potential savers will be confronted with a mindboggling complexity. Anyone on a modest income who has not passed exams as a financial adviser is likely to bury their head in despair."
  Remember, this is the Government who brought us the Green Paper on the stakeholder scheme, telling us that they would cut the cost of advice. That will not happen if the Minister of State gets his way.
  David Dunne, the head of production development at NPL, summed up the matter when, conclusively, he said:
  "I don't see how this can be anything other than a rival to stakeholder pensions but without the trustees. It is certainly confusing. Both will be in effect Government approved bench marked products with low charges and alongside them you will have ISAs … with the customer asking—which is right for me? And that is the point at which advice will be required when one of the features of these proposals had been to get rid of the need for advice and its expense."
  Instead, quietly, the Government will make people pay. That is what the Government do not tell people, although they squeeze them none the less.
  The Government set out with very big words on their return to office. We were told that they would complete the reform of pensions, delivering a simpler and better system than that which now exists. Instead, we have seen from the Government a disastrous conflict. The Chancellor of the Exchequer's megalomania means that, bit by bit, he wants to take over the whole of government and, increasingly, chaos and a disincentive to save are the results of the Government's policies.
  As I have said, the tremendous shift towards a more means-tested system will act as a disincentive to save and will drive more and more people into the means-test trap. It will work against savings for pensions in future. That will be compounded by the ridiculously complex structure that the Government have set up, which will lead to confusion. That confusion will dissuade people from entering the market, especially as they will have to engage advisers at their own expense.
  What is worse is that, because the Government now have a series of savings vehicles that carry the stamp of Government approval, and in the absence of any serious advice, they will find that the public will say, "Were we not mis-sold this? Did the Government not suggest to us that this was the best route for us? Did our companies not
  946
  say to us that there was nothing that they could do because the Government had said, 'This is where they shall go'?" Given the investment platform that existed when the Government took office, the lack of constructive and, most of all, joined-up thinking places in jeopardy the investment pattern.
  There is still nothing from the Government on the remarkably important problem of annuities. The falling value of annuities goes right to the heart of pension provision, but there is complete silence from the Government. Pensioners know that that is the problem for them when it comes to their investment income. We are talking of what will be seen in years to come as the greatest missed opportunity of any Government since the war. They have shirked the tough decisions and they have fiddled. As a result, they have created a pensions regime that will undermine the future retirement incomes of millions of people. It will be for us to make it clear that the alternative is a Government who are prepared to take tough decisions and an Opposition who will knock the present Government out of power, such as the present Opposition.
  4.13 pm
  The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "commends the Government's approach to pensions reform, set out in its Green Paper, Partnership in Pensions; congratulates the Government on its determination to end the scandal of pensions mis-selling and its plans to strengthen the financial regulatory system; commends the Government on its commitment to economic stability and low inflation, which helps pensioners; believes that its reforms to the corporate tax system, which will result in the lowest-ever rate of Corporation Tax, will be in the long-term interests of companies, shareholders and pensioners; and approves of the Government's introduction of the Minimum Pension Guarantee, Winter Fuel Payments, the re-introduction of free eye tests and commitment to concessionary travel for the elderly as part of its strategy to provide security in retirement."
  The final flourish of the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) would have had a little more strength behind it if, in 18 years of power, the Conservative Government had done anything about reforming the pension system. It is remarkable that, in the 35 minutes or so that the hon. Gentleman spoke, he said not one word about the Conservatives' flagship policy for reforming pensions—basic pension plus. He said not one word about it.
  We remember that that policy was launched shortly before the general election. We were told that it would be the blueprint for the future. Yet not one word was said about it by the hon. Gentleman this afternoon. Instead, he said that he would be working out Conservative pension policy at the appropriate time. All I can say is that it is just as well that he will have considerable time in which to work out that alternative. On the basis of what he has said this afternoon, I conclude that he has not a clue about what to do on pension reform.
  The House will recall that basic pension plus would have cost £150 billion for effectively privatising the entire pension system. That money would have been spent on privatisation rather than on pensioners, and, as a result, many pensioners would have had to rely on the very means test that the hon. Gentleman criticised.

  947
  The Conservatives have no policies, so I shall outline the Government's policies and reply to some of the points that the Opposition have made. Our objective is to ensure that as many people as possible who can save do save, and to give them the options to do that.
  Mr. David Rendel: The Secretary of State said that the Conservatives had introduced no pension reforms but perhaps he has forgotten that they reformed the state earnings-related pension scheme. As I understand it, the effect of that reform is that, if somebody's husband died on 5 April next year, she would get an average widow's pension of about £33, but, if he died on 6 April, she would receive an average of only £12.
  Mr. Darling: The previous Government greatly altered the original intention of SERPS and at the time gave no indication that they were about to do so. We propose further reforms to SERPS, which I shall refer to in a moment, that will be of far greater benefit to people on lower incomes.
  I want to emphasise two points that the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green made light of. We inherited not only one but two pensions scandals. The first, obviously, was the mis-selling of pensions, which the hon. Gentleman glibly brushed aside, saying, "Oh, we know about that." Two and a half million people certainly know about that. Ten years ago, we all remember the scandal of Government-sponsored advertisements, which showed a man breaking out of a straitjacket, when the Conservatives tried to tell us that the very act of going private was both spiritually and, of course, materially enriching.
  The truth is that 2.5 million people were mis-sold pensions. When we came into office in May 1997, absolutely nothing had been done to clear up that mess. It took our efforts—principally those of the former Economic Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Mrs. Liddell), who did sterling work—to convince the pensions industry that it had to clear up the mess and restore the public's trust in it. We got absolutely no help from the Conservatives, whose Government had created that problem.
  The second problem that we inherited, which is the root cause of the problems that we face for the future, is that, unless we change our pensions policy as we propose to do, a third of people now working will retire on means-tested benefits. The hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green was complaining about the means test and making much of it. He ignores the fact that, during the 18 years in which the Conservatives were in power, means-tested benefits rose from about 16 per cent. of all benefits to 34 per cent. In other words, for all his rhetoric, the Conservatives more than doubled the application of means-tested benefits.
  The real scandal is that, if we do not change direction, a third of people now working will retire on benefit. We do not consider that acceptable—
  Mr. Butterfill: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Darling: In a moment.
  For that reason, we decided that pensions policy needed to change and put forward our proposals in the Green Paper last year.
  Mr. Butterfill: I am most grateful to the Secretary of State. Of course we are all concerned about those who
  948
  will retire on means-tested benefits, but we are also very concerned—as I hope that he is—about those who have an expectation of a reasonable pension but whose annuity will buy them a low income, given the current low rates of annuities. The Secretary of State proposes LISAs, which will allow people to save and retain their capital. Will he reconsider removing the inhibitions placed on those with personal pensions who must buy an annuity at certain times and at the present appalling rates, which are depressed by his Government's action, and give those people the freedom to make a wider range of investments? They might do better and the Treasury might benefit from inheritance tax in the end.
  Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman will know that a discretion is now exercised concerning when someone must buy an annuity. He will also be aware that the Government give tax relief to people to make pension provision because—there is cross—party consensus on this—it is right to encourage people to do so. We must watch, however, that the tax relief that we provide cannot be used to save for purposes other than pensions. The matter of low annuity rates has been raised on several occasions. Yes, they have fallen, but that is a consequence of lower interest rates and lower inflation. I firmly believe—I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not dissent from this—that one of the best things that any Government can do for pensioners is ensure a stable economic background and low inflation. For people on fixed incomes for 20 or 30 years, low inflation is central to helping them enjoy a decent standard of living. I make no apology for being part of a Government for whom that is a central objective.
  Mr. John Burnett: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Darling: I will in a moment. I am very conscious of the fact that this is a three—hour debate, and I want to deal with the Conservative Opposition's point about the abolition of advance corporation tax and tax credits.
  The central objective behind these abolitions was to help companies' profitability. The House will be aware that, as a result of removing tax credits, we have been able to cut corporation tax to its lowest-ever level. That will help companies' profitability and therefore benefit investors. Some of the biggest investors in this country are pension funds. Increased company profitability benefits pension funds. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) can squawk as much as she wants, but the fact is that, if we leave companies with more money due to a reduced tax burden, they can decide whether to distribute or reinvest the profits.
  It is interesting that no serious commentator is calling on us to reverse this tax change. Most people believe that it was the right one to make. When the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green was tackled on that point by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), the hon. Gentleman could not say what the Conservatives would do. Will his reaction be the same as that to the working families tax credit, which the Conservatives have pledged to reverse, resulting in a tax increase for some of the poorest people of £17 a week? Are we to hear yet another pledge, along with the one to remove the independence of the Bank of England? Corporate Britain would be dismayed if that

  949
  were the stated objective of the Conservative party. The tax changes that we have made will benefit companies and shareholders and therefore pensioners. That is the right thing to do in the long-term economic interests of the country.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: What does the right hon. Gentleman say to representatives of funds that have declared that they are now worse off directly as a result of the Government's policy? They should be given an answer instead of lectures from the right hon. Gentleman about what he thinks they ought to be doing.
  Mr. Darling: I have of course spoken to many pension fund managers and companies. When they are asked whether they would like us to reverse that tax change, they all say no, because they understand that it was the right thing to do in the long term. This Government, unlike the previous one, have always taken the view that we should act in the long-term interests of the country.
  I note in passing that pension funds performed well in 1998; returns averaged about 14 per cent.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: No thanks to this Government.
  Mr. Darling: Pension funds have done so well precisely thanks to the economic environment that we are creating.
  Mr. Quentin Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Darling: No, not just now. Knowing the hon. Gentleman, he will want to speak at great length when he replies on behalf of the Opposition. We look forward to listening to him then.
  I want to set out our approach to pensions reform. We firmly believe that everyone who can save ought to save. We want to give people the flexibility, the choice and the incentives to do so. A one-size-fits-all approach to pensions will not do; everyone has different requirements. There have been huge labour market changes. In the past, many people had access to occupational pension funds, which are extremely good options for those who are lucky enough to be able to take advantage of them. As the House well knows, however, many people do not have that option. Although personal pensions are certainly a good option for some, they are not so, as we know only too well, for low-paid people or even for some moderate earners.
  We believed that, if we were to encourage more people to make provision for themselves, it was necessary to add to occupational and personal pensions, filling a gap. That is why we have introduced the new stakeholder pension scheme. That development was widely welcomed, as was the entire Green Paper, and it remains the case that most people recognise that there is sense in the Government's position.
  We have taken a pragmatic approach, recognising that, for people on a low income, there must be an element of redistribution, and that that is best done by the state. That is why we have introduced the state second pension. We believe that moderate and higher earners are better off in
  950
  funded pensions, but obviously there needed to be further options available to them because, increasingly, people work for smaller firms that do not have access to occupational pensions, and some people move around a lot more than was usual in the past. We have developed the extra options now available in stakeholder pensions for those very people.
  We are ensuring that a range of options—occupational, stakeholder and private pensions—is available to people in this country, so that they have no excuse not to make provision for themselves in retirement, if they can afford to do so. We believe that that is a step-change in attitude on pension provision.
  Mr. Burnett: The Secretary of State has recently talked about incentives, but earlier he said that it was common ground that tax relief should remain for pension provision. Does that mean that he acknowledges that it is common ground that tax relief at the higher rate should remain for pension provision?
  Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman will know that the Government have set out the tax relief available for the stakeholder pension and for other pensions. The Government obviously need to consider that from time to time, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is absolutely necessary to give people proper incentives to save for their retirement. We are determined to give them such incentives.
  The big problem that we faced in this country was that far too many people who could save were not saving, and one problem was that there were not enough options available to them. That is why we introduced stakeholder pensions. I believe that most people think that our approach, building on the developments of the past few decades, is right.
  The basic state pension will remain in place. It will increase in line with prices, as we undertook in our manifesto, and it will still account for a significant proportion of pensioner incomes for a considerable time to come. Yes, we have introduced a new minimum income guarantee, and I do not apologise for a minute for having done so. I believe that there is a basic level of decency on which people should retire—and if that is a difference between the Labour Government and the Tory party, so be it. We want people to do better.
  I do not accept for a minute the glib argument that people would prefer to live on benefit than on a pension for which they have saved during their working life. If people save and build up a pension, they will always be better off than they would be on benefit. If we were to follow the argument used by the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green to its logical conclusion—if we did not provide a minimum pension guarantee and did not uprate that support in line with earnings—those people who were unfortunate enough not to have saved would be left with a lower and lower income. If the hon. Gentleman is really saying that only the threat of destitution will make people save—which was Tory philosophy in 1980—I am afraid that I do not agree with him. I believe that society has certain basic obligations. The scheme that we have introduced is designed to ensure that as many people as possible do not rely on that minimum pension guarantee, but do better than that.

  951
  Let me first consider the position of low earners—people earning about £9,000 a year or less. The problem is that, because SERPS is income related, a person earning about £6,000 a year would receive a pension of about £13 a week. By replacing SERPS with a new state second pension, we have doubled the rate at which a person accrues his pension at the lower end, so that the same person would receive about £46 a week—£33 a week extra. That approach has been welcomed not only by a majority of Members of Parliament, but by the industry, which recognises that people on lower incomes are far better off in a scheme under which they contribute to the state. It is recognised that that is better than trying to force those people into a funded scheme, as the Tories wanted to do, which would be manifestly unsuitable.
  Mr. Quentin Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Darling: In a moment.
  The House will also recall that, for the first time ever, we have brought into the state second pension 2.5 million carers who were excluded from it. Over time, that will give some of them, after a lifetime's caring, about £50 a week. I believe that that change alone is worthy of support, but we have gone further.
  We are ensuring that people on lifetime low earnings will be better off as a result of our reforms. They will be able to accrue a decent pension during their working life, thereby putting an end to the scandal of people working all their life, saving hard all their life and still ending up on benefit. We want to ensure that people who work and save throughout their life retire on a decent income, which they have earned, which they can see building up year after year, and to which they can add.
  Mr. Sutcliffe: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Darling: The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) has been champing at the bit; I shall give way to him and to my hon. Friend in a moment.
  That firm basis—the basic state pension and the state second pension—is the right foundation. I shall deal in a moment with the help that we are giving to moderate and higher earners to ensure that they, too, make adequate provision for themselves.
  Mr. Davies: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Will he try to get into the good habit of giving the House the full picture, not just half the picture? He said that, under the Government's proposals, the rate of accrual for SERPS for those earning less than £9,000 a year will double. Will he add, as it is a fact that he has not yet mentioned, that the rate of accrual for those earning between £9,000 and £18,500 will be halved?
  Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman is wrong about that. I noticed that he said the same thing a few days ago in an interview for a magazine. My hon. Friend the Minister of State has replied to that charge. The hon. Gentleman should read my hon. Friend's response; he will find that he is quite wrong about that.
  Mr. Sutcliffe: My right hon. Friend has identified the key difference between the Government and the
  952
  Opposition on the carers pension and the poorest pensioners. We held a review and consulted all sorts of groups, involving them in plans for the carers pension. Does not the difference lie in the fact that we listen to people, and the Opposition do not?
  Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The Government considered their pension reform long and hard. When I was appointed as Secretary of State, of course I looked at everything that the Department was doing, including pensions. As I said to the House during Question Time, if there was any delay, part of it was caused by me because I wanted to satisfy myself that our approach was absolutely correct.
  I shall deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green on the radio this morning. By sheer good fortune, when the Treasury was working up the scheme to which he referred, I happened to be Chief Secretary to the Treasury, and I also happened to be responsible for that part of the Treasury, so I knew about it and I encouraged the work because I was enthusiastic about it. Then, by another stroke of good fortune, I became Secretary of State for Social Security. To complete that good fortune, I still hold the same views as I held when I was Chief Secretary. I was thus able to bring all the strands together into a coherent, sensible pensions strategy, which I believe people will welcome.
  The ways in which we can help moderate and high earners to improve their pension prospects are relevant to the comments of the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford. We believe that people on moderate earnings, as well as those on higher earnings, are far better off in funded schemes. The advantage of the state second pension, as the Green Paper makes clear, is that, if people go into a funded scheme, they can take the rebates with them, which will give them a good boost for their funded pension.
  Again, that has been widely welcomed by the industry. I find it difficult to understand how Conservative Members can oppose that. I thought that they believed in the partnership between state, private individuals and the insurance sector. We want them to work together. People recognise that our arrangements will enable those on moderate earnings to be far better off than they would otherwise be.
  As I said earlier, we identified the obvious fact that, as labour market conditions change, the pensions options need to be extended. That is why we have introduced stakeholder pension schemes.
  I repeat the point that I made on the radio this morning, because the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green was wrong about it then. It has always been the Government's view that people should seek advice before they make pension arrangements. Buying a pension is far more important than buying a house. It is probably one of the most important decisions that people will take throughout their working life. They would be wise to take advice, as the history of the matter shows. No one should be in any doubt about that.
  The stakeholder pension provides options that did not previously exist.
  The Green Paper makes it clear that we will legislate to provide for trustee-based stakeholder pension schemes. Those schemes will be designed primarily for people who work for small employers who do not have their own

  953
  occupational scheme or for circumstances in which employers or another affinity group come together to provide an umbrella scheme for employees. In other words, it will offer benefits that are similar to those in occupational schemes, something that is not possible at present.
  We have also provided a new option, and the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green made great play of the fact that we had thought it up a mere moment ago. I know for a fact that we did not, because I was a Treasury Minister when it was being worked up. I refer the hon. Gentleman to paragraph 39 on page 55 of the pensions Green Paper—which I am pretty sure that he had never read until he heard me mention it on the radio this morning. [Interruption.] He admits it. That is why he was wrong on this point. Paragraph 39 is quite a long paragraph, which states in pretty stark terms that the Government intended to publish the proposals that have been published this afternoon. I knew that the announcement was coming when I published the Green Paper in December. Therefore, no one should be surprised that the Government are delivering on a promise that they made about six weeks ago.
  The hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill)—who is no longer in the Chamber—said that he thought that the measure is similar to section 401k of the American scheme. That is not quite right. As I understand it, under that section, saving schemes in America can be drawn down at any time. I make it absolutely clear that the new scheme that was announced today will not be in competition with the other stakeholder model partly because it is a pensions vehicle. It is not possible to get tax relief for pensions and then take out the money in advance of a pension. That would clearly be wrong.
  The new scheme addresses a particular need. The Conservatives sometimes claim to be in touch with the City—indeed, it looks as though many Conservative Members have returned there to earn a bob or two before the offices close. Many people, who move from job to job and take a far keener interest in their investments than was the case 20 or 30 years ago, want to be able to invest in unit trusts and open-ended investment companies and so on and build up a fund for their pension, which they can adjust from time to time as fund performance changes. I think that there is everything to be said for encouraging people to do that. As I have said on numerous occasions, it must be right for the Government to ask what is changing in the financial services market, how labour conditions are changing and what we can do to ensure that people have as many options to save as possible.
  Hon. Members will recall that, in my statement of 15 December, I made it clear that the Government are considering the position of the self-employed and whether they should be compelled to save for their pensions. Part of the present problem is that the choice is between occupational pensions, which the self-employed clearly cannot join; and private pensions, which are not suitable for many people. The more options we provide, the easier it will be for us to be blunt with people and say, "Look, if you want a decent income for your retirement, you must save; you can't expect the state to stand behind you."
  954
  That is why I want to ensure that people have options. Some people will save for their pensions through unconventional means—for example, through their businesses or their houses if they are fortunate enough to live in an area of the country where that is possible. Above all, the Government must ensure that people have a range of options. We must increase flexibility to ensure that as many people as possible save. That is our objective: we want people to save more, invest more and to ensure that they can provide for themselves adequately in their retirement.
  That is the Government's strategy, which was set out clearly in the Green Paper, "Partnership in Pensions", which we published last December. Today's consultation document adds to that. It is very clear: we are telling people to do the best that they can for their retirement. We are certain that a one-size-fits-all approach to pensions will not do. We must give people more options than they have at present—between occupational pensions and personal private pensions—which is why we introduced the stakeholder pension. We have responded to changing labour market conditions and to a greater sense of awareness among some investors. We want to provide an additional option that will allow people to accumulate sums for their retirement. That is an essential part of any pensions strategy. I repeat that the Green Paper was widely welcomed upon its publication last year. I readily accept that, if people run around for long enough, and prod people enough, they can get someone to grunt and say that they have an odd complaint, but the Green Paper has been widely welcomed because its proposals are right, pragmatic and workable.
  On top of that, people should remember that the Government are committed to rebuilding trust in pensions overall by strengthening the financial services industry and regulating it. We are also introducing a new annual pensions statement, which will mean that people will know how they stand for their retirement. Again, that initiative has been widely welcomed.
  It is evident from the debate that the Conservatives's attack is completely ill-conceived—their spokesmen give the distinct impression that they have not yet read the Green Paper, even though it was published almost two months ago—and it is abundantly obvious that they have no new ideas of their own. In their defence, however, they plead that they have lots of time to think up some ideas. It looks as though they are committed to repealing the tax changes that we made, which have resulted in the lowest corporation tax for two years. In short, they have absolutely nothing to say on pensions, just as it appears that they have nothing to say about most other matters that concern people.
  We are helping today's pensioners. We are clearing up the mess that we inherited from the previous Government. We are building long-term stability. We have established a stable economic regime, which will benefit pensioners and companies and their shareholders alike. We have a long-term pensions strategy, where a lifetime's work and saving is rewarded with a decent pension. I commend the amendment to the House.
  Mr. Quentin Davies: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I know the Secretary of State sufficiently well to know that he would not set out deliberately to mislead

  955
  the House, but his answer to my intervention was quite inconsistent with page 45 of his own document. I think that—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I do not think that that can be a point of order, if it is a point of debate. There will, no doubt, be an opportunity to make that point in the debate, if the hon. Gentleman succeeds in catching my eye.
  Mr. Davies: It is a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I thought that it might be in the interest of the integrity of the debate if the right hon. Gentleman had an opportunity to catch your eye again to put the record straight.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is not a point of order; it is a point of debate and a point of information. I have no doubt that it can be put on the record in the normal way.
  4.42 pm
  Mr. Steve Webb: I note with interest that the Conservatives chose to debate Labour's policy on pensions. I regret that they did not choose to debate Conservative policy on pensions, because we could all have been home by tea.
  So far as I can see, there is only one Conservative policy on pensions, which is to be against what they used to be in favour of—means-testing. There is plenty of meat in Labour's pension policy, and I shall address it in three aspects: first, the Government's record to date on pensioners; secondly, what is promised for the rest of the Parliament; and, thirdly, the longer term, of which there has been some discussion already.
  The Government have much to be modest about in their record so far. When the Secretary of State made a statement to the House before Christmas, he said:
  "Under the new Labour Government, Britain's pensioners are £140 a year or more better off'.—[Official Report, 15 December 1998; Vol. 322, c. 761.]
  I, with a little help from my friends, describe that as Arthur Daley economics, which shows how long it is since we all watched television regularly.
  That figure of £140 a year does not bear much close scrutiny, because it comprises two elements: £40 from lower fuel bills, and £50 for winter fuel payments for people on income support this year and £50 for them next year. If I am not mistaken, the Secretary of State said "£140 a year", but he has counted the £50 twice. If a constituent said, "I hear that you are getting a £4,000 pay rise," a Member of Parliament would reply, "No, it's going to be only £2,000." If the constituent then said, "Ah yes, but I am counting next year's as well," one might feel a bit aggrieved. It is rather dodgy to include the same figure twice.
  What have the Government achieved so far for pensioners, through the measures that they have taken? The Government's proudest boast is that they have done two things for pensioners. First, they have cut the rate of value added tax on fuel. We supported that, but what is it worth, on average, to pensioners? My hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) tabled a written question asking what the cut in VAT on fuel from 8 to 5 per cent. would save an average pensioner household. The answer came back, 35p a week.
  956
  It gets worse, because the Government cunningly introduced that in August so that it would be reflected in the September retail prices index, which meant that, when pensions went up, they would go up by less than they would otherwise have done. When that factor is taken into account, the written answer says, the average gain to pensioner households from that VAT cut is 20p a week. If pensioners were to save that money for a month, they could buy a lottery ticket, so it is worth having.
  Mr. Sutcliffe: In opposition, we prevented the Conservative Government from putting VAT on fuel up to 17.5 per cent., so the saving is double the amount to which the hon. Gentleman refers.
  Mr. Webb: The Liberal Democrats supported attempts to prevent the Conservatives from putting VAT on fuel up to 17.5 per cent. However, the Labour Government's record should start on the day of the general election, so I am measuring from that point.
  The 20p saving from the reduction in VAT on fuel is welcome but not exactly a king's ransom. What about the winter fuel payments? The Government are spending roughly £200 million on winter fuel payments and there are about 10 million pensioners, so that is £20 a head, or 40p a week. In total, the savings are 20p on VAT on fuel and 40p on winter fuel, which makes 60p a week compared with the Secretary of State's grotesque exaggeration of £140 a year.
  I offer the following comment, to be sympathetic and to help the Government. I genuinely believe that, if they go on exaggerating their achievements, when people come up against reality and realise that it does not measure up, they will be disappointed. Rather than give the Government credit for having provided £20 for winter fuel and for having reduced VAT on fuel, they will say, "You have been going around saying that the saving is £140 a year, yet I am not better off by anything like that amount."
  The Government will raise expectations if they overstate their case by saying that they are spending £20 billion on health and £19 billion on education, when those sums represent three years added together and all the numbers have been counted twice. People will be disappointed, and that will damage the Government. In a spirit of conciliation and friendship, I urge them to give more accurate figures.
  I asked how much it costs to administer the one-off winter fuel payments, and the answer was £12 million. Could that 40p a week not have gone on the pension? I asked how much that would cost to administer, and the answer was nil, so £12 million has been wasted for a few winter headlines.
  This policy is patronising to pensioners. Do the Government think that pensioners cannot be trusted to put by 40p a week for their winter fuel bills, and that they must have it in a one-off payment otherwise they may spend it? This is not a sensible way to proceed.
  Mr. Rendel: Does my hon. Friend agree that winter fuel payments are unlikely to be made at exactly the

  957
  moment when pensioners receive their winter fuel bills? The Government are not even being clever by helping pensioners at the right moment.
  Mr. Webb: My hon. Friend is right. When the Government first introduced this policy, many of the payments arrived well into what one would unambiguously call spring.
  The Secretary of State tried to defend the £140 a year figure last Thursday when we discussed the operating orders, but he realised that he was on a sticky wicket. The right hon. Gentleman said, "What does the hon. Gentleman know? Pensioners do not smoke like a chimney, so we cannot count the effect of tobacco taxes. Pensioners do not drive as much as other people, so we should not count the effect of petrol tax rises. Pensioners tend not to have private medical insurance, so we should not count that." That attitude is utterly patronising to pensioners. Most of the 10 million or so pensioners are fit and able, and contribute fully to society. Many of them, heaven forbid, have cars and drive. The effect on them of the petrol tax rise is very real, and the Secretary of State should not disregard it.
  To arrive at that figure of £140 a year, the Government counted two beneficial items and exaggerated them. They should be set against the tax increases on petrol and tobacco and the abolition of the dividend tax credit, which we debated a few weeks ago. During that debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) challenged the Economic Secretary. He argued that poorish, non-taxpaying pensioners with dividend income will lose on average up to £75 a year. The response he was given was that the Government have introduced an income guarantee for those pensioners. My hon. Friend said, "Yes, but many of them will be disqualified because they have savings." "No, they won't," said the Economic Secretary, "because they won't have that much in capital."
  To discover the truth, I tabled a question to the Department of Social Security—unlike the Treasury, the DSS still answers questions—which said that, out of the 300,000 non-taxpaying pensioners with dividend income, 250,000 would be disqualified from the guarantee because they have savings of more than £8,000. The Economic Secretary was wrong, and gave the House an inaccurate impression, inadvertently I am sure. Large numbers of people will lose out, because they will not be covered by the guarantee. The Government's record so far is modest in the extreme and has been grotesquely overstated.
  What about the future? When my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) challenged the Prime Minister during last week's Prime Minister's questions, the Prime Minister made a fatal mistake. He mistook a Government announcement for reality. He said:
  "In addition to the things… that I mentioned a moment ago"—
  the fuel payments and the VAT cut—
  "from April this year, there will be…concessionary travel."—[Official Report, 27 January 1999; Vol. 324, c. 338.]
  Everyone understood him to mean a national system of concessionary travel for pensioners, as proposed by the Deputy Prime Minister. However, although a scheme has been announced, it will not happen this year. It might happen next year. Pensioners hear such announcements or
  958
  read about them in the newspapers and, bizarrely, they believe them. To give another example, I met a group of pensioners recently and one of them said, "I see in the newspaper that we are going to get free television licences, so I am going to stop buying licence stamps." I had to say in reply, "No, you might get free television licences next year or the year after, but not yet. The Government wanted a few good headlines, but I am afraid that it will not happen for a while."
  The Government love to announce and reannounce things. The 10p tax rate is a classic example—I have lost track of the number of times that has been announced. People believe such announcements.
  Mr. Christopher Leslie: On the point about making announcements that people do not believe, is the hon. Gentleman still standing by his party's pledge to spend £28 billion on increasing the personal income tax allowance from £4,100 to £10,000?
  Mr. Webb: Many pensioners would welcome a significant increase in the personal income tax allowance, because, at the moment, it is barely above the level of income support. That is extraordinarily low for pensioners and should be increased. The hon. Gentleman asked about our long-term goal, over the course of two Parliaments, of raising tax allowances to £10,000. I used to work for the humble Institute for Fiscal Studies, which has received much praise this afternoon. The first thing I did as an employee of that institute was to examine Conservative allegations that the Labour party would spend £28 billion—strangely enough, it was the same figure—which was calculated by adding together everything it had ever said it wanted to do and assuming that everything would be done in one go in one Parliament. That was absurd. The hon. Gentleman's party regarded it as absurd then and his question is an absurd way to approach matters, too.
  The issue of means testing is central. At this point, I wish to introduce the House to my father-in-law. When I see him, he asks me one question.
  Mr. Frank Field: Why are you in the Liberal Democrats?
  Mr. Webb: Apart from that, he asks me what the point was of saving his money when the person next door gets everything for nothing. He suggested that I should find out how much someone would have to save to match the level of means-tested benefits.
  I tabled a question to the Department of Social Security asking what someone would have to have in a pension pot to buy the extra benefits that people on income support receive over and above the basic state pension. They get an extra tenner a week in cash, some £2,000 a year on average in housing benefit, council tax benefit, free dentistry and so on. The answer was that it would cost £41,000 to buy an annuity to match those additional benefits. That means that there is almost no point in people saving £20,000, but if they can save £40,000 they can buy an annuity to provide all the same goodies that someone on income support gets.
  The last thing that I am suggesting is that people on income support are well off, but we want to encourage people to save and the over-reliance on means-tested

  959
  benefits discourages them. I was shocked to learn that the value of the additional benefits was equivalent to a £41,000 pension pot.
  What should the Government have done and what could they do in future? First, they could provide a firm foundation for the basic state pension, not a foundation of sinking sand. By that, I mean that it should rise with age. The poorest pensioners in the land are not the ones entitled to, and getting, income support: they are those who are entitled to income support but are not getting it. The hon. Member for Come Valley (Kali Mountford) nods, because she is aware that the Government are trying to pay income support to more people. I welcome that, but the Government assume in their costing supplied in written answers that 15 per cent. of those entitled to the so-called guarantee will not get it. That means that hundreds of thousands of pensioners will not get a penny from the so-called guarantee. Most of them are over 75 or 80 and would get every penny of the basic state pension for older pensioners. That is why we want a firm foundation for the basic pension. Even a modest rise of £5 for the over-80s and £3 for the over-75s would guarantee putting 40,000 or 50,000 pensioners above the poverty line.
  What can we say of the Government's long-term policies? We need a firmly founded basic pension. The Secretary of State said that, under his policies, adding together the basic pension and the state second pension, we will bring people up to the target minimum of about 20 per cent. of average earnings. That is true in the year in which those people retire, but what happens the next year? We do not know how the state second pension will be indexed but, while the basic pension will be linked to prices, the guarantee will be linked to earnings. They will have achieved their goal in 2050 for one year but the year after retirement, those who have got into this wonderful new Government scheme will be back on means-tested benefits; back on the guarantee; back on the chain gang. That is not something to be proud of. It is crazy to get people just up to the poverty line for a year and then let them slip below it.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: Does not moving to a means-tested system progressively trap people and bind those who would otherwise have been free of it to a process where they might as well not bother to save?
  Mr. Webb: The hon. Gentleman is right in that, if the Government can say, after 50 years of their pensions policies, a quarter of pensioners will still be on means-tested benefits, as we are told by written answers, it is not something to be proud of. Even in 2050, the oldest pensioners will be the poorest, simply because they are women. Unless much changes, women are likely to be poorer than men. The way to get people off means-tested benefits is to tier the basic pension and get the basic pension for older pensioners to subsistence level so that it is worth having in its own right.
  Kali Mountford: Many women, especially carers, have no entitlement and are totally reliant on means-testing. Will not the new system take them off that and give them the opportunity of a pension in their own right?
  Mr. Webb: The hon. Lady is right to say that, under the proposed scheme, people who, for example, care for
  960
  a disabled person for a year will get 90p a week on the pension. They would get about 80p on the basic state pension through credits. By 2050, if they spend their whole lives caring for a disabled person, they will reach old age with a basic state pension based on credits and a state second pension that brings them just to the poverty line for one year only. In the second year, the basic pension will go with prices and we do not know what will happen to the second state pension but the guarantee will go up in line with earnings. They will be back to means-testing. They will not be on a bit of housing benefit but income support. Even if the whole scheme comes in and all the unfunded promises are honoured, such people will end up on income support for every year bar one of their retirement. That is not satisfactory. There may be 10 years to consider their position, but, by the time that they become older pensioners—most women will live to such an age—we want them to have a decent income that does not rely on the means test.
  Mr. Viggers: I have attended pensions seminars with the hon. Gentleman and respect his view. Will he expand on his last point? Would not a carer who worked until 2050 and managed to save more than £8,000 be worse off?
  Mr. Webb: The hon. Gentleman is right. The Government plan to review the capital limits, and I welcome that. I am sure that the review is in response to the question that I tabled long before the Green Paper. I asked what would be the cost of raising the upper threshold of £8,000 to, say, £20,000. It is negligible, about £20 million or £25 million. The Department of Social Security can spend that in the blinking of an eye. The Government should have done that for this April. At the very least, they should undertake it as part of the review. I welcome the noises from the Government on that front, but much more needs to be done.
  Kali Mountford: The Liberal amendment talks of raising expectations, which is what the hon. Gentleman seems to be doing. Can he tell the House how he would fund them?
  Mr. Webb: I would be delighted to. The £5 and £3 figures could be funded in a variety of ways. First, one could cap the overall amount of tax relief. The Secretary of State shied away when my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) asked about higher rate relief. We are not necessarily suggesting restricting it to the standard rate, but if one were to cap at a certain amount for the year in which one was putting in tax reliefs, it would greatly simplify the whole system and would not put a huge amount into the pensions of the highest earners. In other words, one could cap at a generous figure, but money would still be freed up for the oldest pensioners, who are also the poorest.
  Secondly, we support price indexation of the basic pension for the under-75s. Every year, pensions increase in line with prices for a large number of pensioners, but the income—national insurance contributions—more or less increases in line with earnings, which creates extra revenue each year. That would be another way to fund the proposals. There are many ways to fund schemes on that scale. If older, poorer pensioners are a priority, those are the sorts of places that we need to look.

  961
  The Government have grotesquely overstated what they have done so far on pensions. There is more to come and we welcome extra help for the poorest pensioners, but the reliance on the means-tested approach is excessive. We hope that the Government will respond positively and will seriously consider our constructive proposals to tier the basic rate pension not merely for next year, but as a long-term strategy that would target the poorest without the indignity of means-testing and would provide security and dignity in old age.
  5.2 pm
  Mr. Frank Field: Perhaps I should begin with a confession, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because before I came to the Chamber I received a message that my bleeper was awaiting me in the Whips Office. I am a non-possessor of a bleeper, but am soon to be a possessor. This will be the last social security debate in which I participate without one.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will remember the rules when he has the bleeper and will not bring it into the Chamber.
  Mr. Field: I was about to say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that, if you heard a bleeper earlier, it was not mine. Should I become off message during this debate, it will be unintentional, but I will not be able to plead that in future.
  Clearly, there are two parts to our debate today. The hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) made that distinction. The first is our concern about what is happening to existing pensioners and the major future reforms that the Government are attempting. My only difference with the motion and the Government amendment is that they have both been less than generous about what the Government have achieved and what the Secretary of State intends to achieve by the end of this Parliament. The changes that the hon. Gentleman so quickly dismissed, such as value added tax on fuel, the winter fuel payments and the reintroduction of free eye tests as well as the commitment—if not yet the reality—to concessionary travel for pensioners, are very welcome to pensioners I meet in Birkenhead. I confess that those pensioners differ greatly from the hon. Gentleman's description of pensioners in Northavon. Birkenhead pensioners are pretty tough and cynical about what politicians say. They study carefully the difference between rhetoric and reality. I do not know whether that means that they should spend their holidays in the west country and pick up the trait that he described, but I would not concern myself with the worries that he had on that score.
  Labour Members can be proud of the Government's record so far. Clearly, it would not be a record on which we would want to go into an election—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State clearly would not want to do so either. In trying to improve on that record, he will have the support of Labour Back Benchers and a considerable amount of support from other parts of the House.
  I shall touch on the longer-term reforms, which naturally centre on the Government's proposals outlined in the Green Paper. I shall set out my worries about the reforms as they are beginning to take shape.
  962
  The Government say, rightly, that the document is a Green Paper, which shows that they are listening and willing to learn. In addition, it gives hon. Members the chance publicly—there are, thank goodness, many chances privately—to influence the debate.
  My first concern is my major one: having read the Green Paper and listened to Ministers, I do not yet believe that they understand the people to whom they—or, they hope, somebody—will try to sell pensions. We are talking about those who comprise the third poorest group in our society. Life has not given them the opportunities and chances that would have enabled them to have portfolios or financial advisers or to become accustomed to practices with which some, if not all, Members of Parliament are acquainted. They will be asking, what is the Green Paper all about? Given the difficulty that we have with saying in a couple of sentences what it is about, question marks must hang over whether we have got the reform right. If we cannot explain it in terms simple enough to grip those who fall outside current pensions provision and enable them to understand what we are trying to do, it may be that the key objective of simplicity is still beyond our grasp.
  My first worry about the proposals arises from all the talk about different sorts of pensions provision, for I do not believe that that should be our first step on what we hope will be the great journey of pensions reform. Linked to that is the statement made today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, that everyone has different requirements; and the statement he made on the radio this morning, that all of us needed financial advice. I dispute that. We do not need advice about sending children to school; we think that such things should just happen. If we had a simple single pension provision for the first tier, there would be no need for financial advice, for the requirement would be that everyone should be a member of that scheme. The costs would certainly be different, for there would be no costs relating to financial advice; and there would be no reason for people saying that they could not understand why they should be members, so it would be a much easier scheme to enforce.
  Linked to that are the two hands of the Government—the left hand and the right. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is right to say that he is proud to be introducing a minimum pension guarantee to help existing pensioners, but I worry about how that minimum pension guarantee will operate in the long term. I lack my right hon. Friend's confidence that, somehow, people will box that guarantee off in their mind, decide that it does not relate to them, and resolve to go ahead with saving in response to the Government's call to save more. I do not believe that they will ignore the fact that, if they are among the poorest third of members of our society, they might be only slightly, and certainly not much, better off if they save than if they do not. If they listen to today's debate or a recording of it, especially the speech made by the hon. Member for Northavon, they will begin to doubt whether, by saving, they can make themselves much better off.
  We are at a watershed. Increasing numbers of pensioners must be telling their grandchildren their deep regret that they are decent people: that they saved, that they did not fiddle and that they became and remained members of their occupational pension scheme even though it would not make them much better off, only to find that they are substantially worse off than other people who did not save, whether or not they could have done so.

  963
  Without extending compulsion in the way that hon. Members on both sides of the House have argued we should, defending the minimum pension guarantee will become more difficult as the years go by. We are sending a powerful message to people whom we shall not compel, but whom we hope to persuade, or merely entice, to make provision for their pensions—we used to call it bribery when we were in opposition and the House discussed national insurance rebates to encourage people to take out private or stakeholder provision—when we know perfectly well that any financial adviser currently advising a third of the electorate should tell them that the worst thing for their financial health that they could possibly do is save. There is a deep sickness in our society when such a statement is true.
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: The right hon. Gentleman is talking a lot of sense, and many people outside the House will support what he says. Does he accept that people who have saved become increasingly resentful of those who get looked after, even though they have made no provision whatsoever? That resentment will cause some serious problems unless what the right hon. Gentleman says is taken on board.
  Mr. Field: I have heard that the Government will look at the disregards, and we know how cheaply that may be done—the sum mentioned is regularly lost in the accounts. If the accounts were out by only £25 million, the Comptroller and Auditor General would throw his hat in the air for the first time and say that he could sign them without qualifying them.
  Mr. Malcolm Wicks: The other day, a constituent asked me two questions. Her first was, "How can anyone think that I can live on £80 a week?" Her second was, "Why did I bother to save for my pension, when all it has done is prevent me from getting income support?" I think that that is what my right hon. Friend is telling the House. Does he agree that no decent social policy has ever been built on the means test?
  Mr. Howard Flight: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Field: Indeed, and my hon. Friend used to make the same point in opposition. I do not want to disturb or upset his constituent, but all hon. Members will know that people—good neighbours—come to our surgeries to make sure that the frailer and more elderly person who lives next door gets all the help available. However, those good people are not themselves eligible for income support and the passports and discover—they are good enough thank goodness for it—that their neighbour is on a higher income than they are. That is a problem that the Government inherited, and I am sure that no Labour Member would want to defend the situation for much longer.
  The other matters about which I wish to speak stem from the Green Paper. As they stand, the proposals present a real danger to occupational pensions. I was pleased with one of the sentences in the Green Paper, which said that occupational pensions were one of the greatest social security successes this century, if not the greatest. However, the proposal is to encourage employers
  964
  to set up stakeholder schemes. My worry is that employers will decide to do so and close entry into existing occupational schemes for new workers.
  That is beginning to happen anyway. I hope that the Government, in their proper listening mode, will consider the proposals that have been made suggesting that the first tier of all pension provision, including occupational pensions, will be stakeholder provision. The effect would be that occupational schemes would continue to provide, not merely the minimum provision, but so much more as well.
  My next worry about the proposals is that, having heard so much about stakeholder pensions and what they will achieve, we now find that there will be a considerable variety in such provision. I am not concerned that the next scandal will have to do with mis-selling, but that there will be a problem of churning. By that I mean that, once stakeholder pensions are introduced, people who have heard so many good things about what such pensions will achieve will believe that they should be in those schemes rather than in their current schemes. That may be true but, given the age of the people who might make that decision, the likelihood is that it will turn out not to be. Therefore, the problem facing us in the next Parliament will not be one of mis-selling but of churning.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: I do not want to make a point that is parti pris, but does the right hon. Gentleman agree that part of the problem is that, in the Green Paper, the Government set out to introduce a stakeholder pension that is simple to administer and cheap and easy to understand? That is the basic element all the proposals must have if they are to succeed. Now, the Government have come up with the additional idea about paying for advice, and there may be other ideas to come. Does that not run counter to the initial premise, and will it not cause people to wonder whether they are doing the right thing? Is it not possible that, in years to come, people will say, "Why did I take out that investment?"
  Mr. Field: The hon. Gentleman is being slightly unfair to the Government. The Secretary of State made it clear that today's proposals are aimed at people on middle and high incomes. However, there has never been any difficulty in getting such people to save. The real problem is to set up a redistributive scheme that the poor can join. The aim is to ensure that poor people will be free of means-tested assistance—not merely for a year, but for all their lives.
  My final point has to do with annuities. Most hon. Members will understand that the European central bank is committed to a policy that will keep inflation below 2 per cent. That policy means that, for the indefinite future, annuity rates will continue to fall. It is hoped that they will hit bottom at some stage. The result will be that many people who have saved, in the belief that their savings would provide them with an adequate pension in retirement, will be deeply disappointed. I hope that the Government will devote some new thinking to the question of what sort of bond provision should be introduced to offer pensioners an alternative to buying annuities.
  I do not accept that pensioners do not understand their finances. They seem to be a lot better at it than I am at understanding mine. The Secretary of State said that

  965
  annuities are sometimes tax-free vehicles, but he went on to say that a pension probably will turn out to be a more important investment than a home. Yet a home is also bought with some tax-free concessions, and we do not get too exercised about what people should do with those. We do not decide that people must, at a certain date, trade in their homes because they may misbehave with those assets. It is time to make a big jump and to reconsider the way in which people are forced to trade their pension capital for annuities, something that substantially disfavours them for the rest of their lives.
  In my speech, I wanted to make two points. First, I wanted to congratulate the Government on the moves that they have made for existing pensioners. The Government are backed by a huge majority of hon. Members wanting that record to be improved by the next election. My guess is that the Government are pushing at an open door to such an extent that, at the next election, Conservative Members—for opportune reasons if not for good ones—will support further reforms introduced by the Government to improve pensioners' living standards.
  The second element of my contribution has to do with long-term reforms. I am very grateful that the Government have published the Green Paper, and that they want to listen and to learn.
  5.18 pm
  Mr. Peter Viggers: So far, no hon. Member has declared an interest. I am a member of the—rather bad—parliamentary pension scheme. I am fortunate to have some modest provision of my own, and am also the chairman of a pension fund.
  The 1997 Labour election manifesto stated that a Labour Government would
  "lay the foundations for a modern welfare state in pensions and community care."
  That was clearly regarded as very important ground on which to fight the campaign, as the party chose to execute what I consider to be the dirtiest trick in recent electoral history. As The Daily Telegraph reported on 26 April 1997, the previous day, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer had said:
  "it was a known and admitted fact that the Conservative plan is to abolish the state pension".
  The same report stated:
  "Although looking distinctly uncomfortable and visibly irritated, Mr. Blair, flanked by Gordon Brown, the shadow Chancellor, refused to condemn such tactics. Instead he defended the party's decision to attack the Government's plans."
  That was a scurrilous and disgraceful incident in recent politics.
  In fact, the Conservative plan was quite different. The scheme called basic pension plus proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), who at that time represented St. Albans and was Secretary of State for Social Security, was a carefully considered framework for ensuring long-term pension efficiency. However, the Labour tactic certainly worked: canvassing revealed that many elderly pensioners were deeply worried that their pensions were to be scrapped. That was really awful.
  966
  Under current pension provision, those in private sector schemes are well funded and well cared for. UK pension funds contain £800 billion in pension assets, which is equivalent to 77 per cent. of gross domestic product, and is the same as the amount reserved in pension assets for the whole of the rest of Europe. It compares with 7 per cent. of GDP in France and 14 per cent. in Germany.
  However, the benefits are thinly shared. According to a NatWest study, only one in five of the people currently working is heading for comfortable retirement. Half are heading for financial difficulties, and one in three will be essentially dependent on the state. That is based on the definition of an income of £180 a week as comfortable, rather than the £70-plus that is the current pension. The amounts required to fund that level of provision are considerable. If the normal pension multiplier of 16 is applied to the extra £100 a week, or £5,000 a year, some £80,000 is needed to provide £180 a week.
  What principles should we use to approach the problem? I have quoted the noble and formidable Lady Castle before, and I find myself in strong agreement with her once again. In a booklet entitled "We can afford the Welfare State", co-written with Professor Peter Townsend, she set out three basic principles which I should like to endorse. Those principles should have underlined the Government's commitment to pensions. The booklet says:
  "If we want to encourage people to move from welfare to work, we must reduce the area of means-testing, not increase it."
  I agree with that. Secondly, the booklet says:
  "We must resurrect the state basic pension as the foundation of security in old age for everyone."
  There were sound reasons why the Conservatives broke the link between pensions and earnings, but the process has gone too far. We must resurrect the state pension.
  The third principle is unattractive, but unavoidable. The booklet states:
  "It should be compulsory for everyone to contribute to an adequate second pension."
  Mr. Sutcliffe: I should not miss the opportunity to find out whether the policies that the hon. Gentleman is advancing are shared by his colleagues on the Conservative Front Bench. I think not.
  Mr. Viggers: The hon. Gentleman will have to ask my hon. Friends. He might read last Thursday's speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies), who will wind up for the official Opposition. I heard that speech, and thought it so fine that I handwrote a note to my hon. Friend to congratulate him on it. I look forward very much to hearing him again if he happens to catch your eye tonight, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Compulsion is unavoidable, for reasons that have been discussed by several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb). The anomaly is that people who save will be worse off. If there is no compulsion, people will not save. Compulsion is essential.
  The Secretary of State said that he had been involved in pension planning both in his present post and in his previous one at the Treasury. However, many informed journalists believe that a turf war between the Treasury and the Department of Social Security lies at the heart

  967
  of the mess over pensions in which the Government find themselves. In the words of the Prime Minister, the DSS is tasked to
  "deliver significant savings over the longer term"
  from the social security budget. Clearly, the Department is not finding that possible.
  Introducing a minimum pension guarantee—a rebranding of income support—which is indexed to wages will inevitably increase the gap between that guarantee and the state retirement pension. Means testing is being institutionalised. The single person's guarantee of £75 a week, and the couple's guarantee of £116.60, will be available only to those who have savings of less than £8,000. Anyone who has more will not be eligible for the minimum pension guarantee, or for housing benefit of £40 a week and council tax benefit of perhaps £10 a week.
  The hon. Member for Northavon made the same calculation that I made on how much would be required to provide a pension of £50 a week, or £2,500 a year. Applying the pension fund multiplier of 16, some £40,000 would be required. Anyone who cannot save £40,000 need not bother; they would be wasting their time, and their money.
  It is extraordinary that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer declared in 1993:
  "I want the next Labour Government to achieve what in 50 years of the welfare state has never been achieved. The end of the means test for our elderly people."
  What he has achieved is exactly the opposite, and there will be widespread resentment throughout the country as people who saved and provided for their futures realise that others who live in the same road and who made no provision are better off than they are.
  The effect on the taxpayer is also significant. According to answers to my parliamentary questions, means-tested benefits cost an average of 7 per cent. to administer, while universal benefits cost 2.5 per cent. The basic state pension costs only 45p a week to administer, while income support costs £5.45. Means tests bring disadvantages of costs as well as of resentment.
  The Government's other big pensions activity was their raid on pension funds when they abolished the advance corporation tax dividend tax credit. That amounted to £3.9 billion this year, and will amount to £5.4 billion in a full year. It will reduce future benefit by up to 10 per cent. It will also impose further costs—local authorities must fund the extra pension required by their employees, and that has been calculated to mean council tax rising by 12p in some areas.
  Labour's 1997 manifesto pledge to
  "support and strengthen the framework for occupational pensions"
  is not being met. Instead, there is a substantial increase in means testing, and in envy and bitterness. There are greater costs to the taxpayer. The Labour party is failing to fulfil its promise.
  5.27 pm
  Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe: We should start by remembering why we are here. This is an Opposition debate on pensions, so where are the massed ranks of Conservatives who want to tell us how badly they feel? It is good to see sinners repent, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) has reminded me.
  968
  I am happy to follow the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) because I respect his concrete contribution to discussions on pensions.
  Mr. Viggers: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene so early in his speech. I shall tell him why the Conservative Benches are rather depleted: a huge Conservative rally has, most unfortunately, happened to coincide with the debate.
  Mr. Sutcliffe: The mind boggles. What passes for a huge Conservative rally these days? We shall wait with bated breath for that rally to tell us something about Conservative policy, particularly on pensions.
  The debate is about the Opposition trying to embarrass the Government on pensions. However, the only people who should be embarrassed about their pensions policy are members of the Conservative party. It is as though, on 1 May 1997, they drew a line under what had happened before then. They take no responsibility for what the previous Government did.
  I am happy to be able to speak today as I have been unable to do so recently because of the protocol surrounding Parliamentary Private Secretaries. Pensions are vital to the people of the United Kingdom. The debate's focus has been narrowed to the detail of pensions, rather than the big picture. The Secretary of State has rightly pointed out that that big picture is important to Labour.
  As the hon. Member for Northavon reminded us, pensioners need not be patronised. They know what happened under the previous Government. They know who tried to introduce value added tax at 17 per cent. on energy—the Conservative party. They know who broke the link between earnings and pensions—the Conservative party. They know who deserted the health service and created health inequality among pensioners—the Conservative party. Therefore, we will take no lessons today from the Opposition about missed opportunities on pension policy.
  Occupational pensions play an important part in the way forward. The Green Paper sets out opportunities; but the previous Government missed opportunities when the Labour party tabled amendments to the Pensions Act 1995 to improve protection for workers, for member trustees and for pensioner board members to enable them to join occupational pension schemes—all dismissed by the Conservative Government.
  If the Opposition are to learn any lessons, they must tell us why they did not improve the situation for British pensioners, and why British pension provision fell to the lowest level in the EC.
  Miss Julie Kirkbride: The Labour party is now in government. If the hon. Gentleman believes what he is saying so strongly, why do not the Labour Government restore the link with earnings for the basic pension? It is very simple.
  Mr. Sutcliffe: We will cover such issues as we proceed with the debate.
  Because of the nature of today's debate, it is important that we set the scene and judge the Government's pension record. We cannot do that without examining what went before. A group of pensioners visited the House yesterday

  969
  on a trip organised by Age Concern and they said to me, "You're not doing badly for 20 months, given that the other lot had 18 years." I accept that we must be modest and not raise expectations, as the Liberal Democrats say, but pensioners will not be patronised. They know what has happened to their incomes and to the society in which they live, and it is right that the Government should look to the big picture.
  The Government inherited a complete mess on welfare reform and social security. The budget was running out of control and there was no direction. [Interruption.] If one studies social security matters in detail, one knows how the budget is divided up and that pensions account for a big part of that.
  A measure of society is how it treats its older people, how they fit into society and how they feel about themselves. Therefore, all aspects of Government policy should relate to the pension framework. As well as pension provision, we need an improved health service. We have to create an economic environment where pension value remains constant. We must create a situation in which people who have worked hard all their lives have the opportunity for a decent retirement. The Opposition should learn to choose debates on subjects on which people outside share some of their concerns. They do not share their concerns when it comes to developing pension policy.
  I was interested to hear my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead. He knows the work that went into the pension review and how the former Minister of State, Department of Social Security, our hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), listened to people throughout the country on pensions. He listened to voluntary groups, pensioners, and people such as Jack Jones and Barbara Castle—people with a view on pensions—and we have set down a particular route. I know that there are concerns about the long term, but, in the short term, we have been successful in trying to alleviate some of the problems faced by pensioners.
  I made available an extra £21 billion for the winter fuel payment. It is hard for Labour Members to listen to Opposition Members carping about such measures, because we know that they have a real effect on people's lives. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) may mock, but such measures are important to people out there. We must remember that we represent real people. The Chamber is not simply for political point-scoring; it is for governing the country and governing with consent. If we had a poll now to discover in whose hands pensions would be safest, I am sure that people would agree that they would be safest in the Labour party's hands, not the Opposition's.
  Miss Kirkbride: Only because the Government have a built-in majority.
  Mr. Sutcliffe: We have a majority because people trust us on pensions.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot have exchanges from a sedentary position. The hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) knows that, if she wants to intervene, she must do so formally.
  Mr. Sutcliffe: Yes, we accept that we are in government, and we fully accept that it is our
  970
  responsibility now to develop policies on pension and welfare reform. To administer benefits, including pensions, we need an active modern service, and we certainly did not have that under the previous Government.
  I can talk from first-hand experience of the demoralisation among staff in social security departments, many of whom were on temporary contracts and did not know their long-term future, and many of whom had to claim benefits themselves. When people went to social security offices to ask about benefits, including pensions, they were not given advice and support on the appropriate benefit. If they applied for the wrong benefit, the staff were not allowed to tell them what benefit they should go for, and they were asked to leave. That was the result of a straitjacket of Treasury-driven cuts under the Conservative Government. It had nothing to do with principle or developing pension policy. That was the support that the previous Government gave pensioners.
  Pensions are complicated and we need to ensure that pensioners receive their proper entitlement. That is why I am proud that the Labour Government instituted a scheme to ensure that, in nine project areas, pensioners had the opportunity to know their entitlement. We tried to ensure that there was discussion between local authorities and the Government so that claim forms were easy to complete and individuals were advised on their benefit entitlements. That was a positive step to try to ensure that the millions of people who were not claiming the income support to which they were entitled did so.
  The Government, through the minimum income guarantee, are trying to change our approach to pensions. It is right and proper, as has been pointed out, that we should change the culture of pension provision in Britain. Ours is an argument based on principle. Those who can work should have the opportunity to do so, and those who cannot should be looked after. We are telling those who can save and who can provide for the future that they must do so, but most ordinary people with such an opportunity will take it. They will be encouraged by the annual statement from their pension provider, no matter what sector is involved. That annual statement will tell them where they are in terms of their pension provision. That is a massive step towards people acknowledging what they have to do for the future.
  We have heard no mention today from Opposition Members about the poorest pensioners. They never mentioned poverty or the position of carers and people with disability. They should apologise for their lack of compassion to such people, to many of whom society owes a great debt for the hours of support and care that they give.
  We can have a reasoned debate on pensions, and it is right that we should, but that cannot take place in the atmosphere that we have this afternoon of an Opposition day debate. No Opposition Front-Bench spokesman is present, and not even a handful of Conservative Members—
  Dr. George Turner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As a new Member, I am surprised that it is in order that those who have tabled an Opposition motion are not even present on the Front Bench. Is it in order for that to continue?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to realise in his heart of hearts that that

  971
  is not a point of order. It is entirely up to individual Members whether they present themselves in the Chamber or in any Committee of the House.
  Mr. Edward Leigh: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It was not a point of order.
  Mr. Sutcliffe: We do not want the debate to descend too low, but the Opposition's intention is clear.
  It is important that pensioners in my constituency and across the country know where the pensions debate is going. The hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) spoke about the need to restore the link between pensions and earnings and to re-examine pension provision, but we heard nothing from the other Conservatives Members whose party had 18 years in which to put right a problem that we tackled as soon as we came to power.
  We could see the pensions disaster ahead, and we knew that we needed to be honest with people. That is our strength. The Government are committed to honest debate about pension provision and the difficult decisions that people have to face. We acknowledge that there are sections of society that need support and protection. I understand that pensioners just above the income support level are concerned that they have saved whereas others might not have, but I want us to create a society in which, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead says, the community is considered as a whole. The Government have polices to deal with people who might deliberately not save or who might avoid work, but I should prefer there to be a decent standard of living for all and a minimum income level below which people should not fall.
  With the introduction of the national minimum wage, and of better employment conditions through the fairness-at-work proposals, we are creating a society that looks after the individual, a society in which people who can do well are enabled to do so but in which those who fall through the gap, through no fault of their own, are looked after.
  The Green Paper and the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State show the difference between the two main parties. We are committed to listening, seeing what can be done and being straight about what the long-term worries will be instead of just trying to score cheap political points in a half-day Opposition debate.
  5.42 pm
  Mr. Howard Flight: I must first declare an interest as I am the chairman of a company that manages pension funds.
  Getting pension policy right for everyone is crucial for an advanced society like ours. Getting it right means that people can have a decent standard of living in their latter years, but it is also of great economic importance. It is unfair not to recognise as a major achievement of the past 20 years the fact that we built up £800 billion of private sector funding and that some 85 per cent. of people who retired did so with an occupational or personal pension at the age of 65.
  In most of continental Europe, the economies are out of balance because of a lack of private funding; and, because of high add-on employment taxes, 20 million
  972
  people are priced out of work. At the other end of the scale, Japan has the problem of excessive personal saving because of inadequate pension provisioning, in both the private and state sector. That has resulted in individuals saving too much for fear of retiring in poverty. Economically speaking, getting the system and the balance right is extremely important.
  It is rather glib for Labour Members to brush off the importance of the advance corporation tax attack on pension funds. In my personal election address in 1997, I warned my constituents, many of whom were approaching pension age, of the risk of that ACT recovery attack on pension funds, and I believe that it is no accident that my constituency produced one of the largest Conservative majorities in the country. To dress up the proposal to reduce pension fund accumulation by some £5 billion a year and to say that it is justified by tax reform is, frankly, to mislead people. The accumulation of reserves out of which to pay pensions in future is crucial.
  The increased costs of funding have not yet worked their way through the system, but, in the company sector, they will lead to a substantial move away from defined benefit final salary schemes to defined contribution money purchase schemes. No new defined benefit schemes are coming through now, and, from within the industry, I see many companies looking to move to money purchase schemes in order to control their costs. At the end of the day, such schemes will provide smaller pensions for the great majority in the middle.
  I suspect that it will not be popular among those on the Labour Benches if I say that the Government's handling of pension mis-selling has been unwise. I do not deny that there was a huge difficulty, but, as others have said, the main problem has been the success in bringing down inflation over recent years, the fall in gilt yields and the resulting virtual doubling of the cost of annuities. It is fine to say that the annuity one buys will hold its value better, but when one retires at 65, much of the money purchase provisioning ends up buying a great deal less than people reasonably expected 15 years ago, whereas company occupational schemes have improved and their members have benefited at the expense of members of money purchase schemes.
  There has been a major improvement in the standards of financial advice in the United Kingdom in this decade, largely as a result of the Financial Services Act 1986. In a sense, that improvement is being undone and negated by the message being sent by the Government.
  There has historically been pension mis-selling in the state sector. I have had substantial correspondence with women who worked for the state in the 1960s, 1970s and even the 1980s who feel that they were talked into cashing in their pension rights for a capital sum and that the Government's response was simply that advice in a magazine at that time was sufficient. However, that was 20 years ago and standards were different.
  More recently, two or three constituents have written to me about Department of Social Security projected pension arrangements which omitted to include the fact that the state earnings-related pension for widows is to halved with effect from April 2000. They complained that even the DSS did not advise them of the correct situation and they had not made adequate provision.
  Ten years ago, people running occupational pensions schemes frequently behaved badly. They did not give fair transfer values or advise those leaving a company of the

  973
  potential value of their deferred pension, and the transfer payments made were often ludicrously low. I well remember that, particularly people under 30, could not wait to get out of their occupational scheme. They wanted their own portable pension scheme and, even though circumstances and the lack of sound advice at the time have caused problems for many, the personal pension movement of the past 15 years has been a major benefit for many. Hundreds of thousands of people have pensions beyond the state provisioning, which they would have otherwise not have had.
  It might be utopian, but I believe that it would be wonderful if there were cross-party agreement on this subject. It does not help if the system keeps changing all the time. People need a straightforward framework that they know and can trust. Although the Government say that they took many soundings before publishing the Green Paper, I, and most of the people whom I know in the industry, believe that there is a certain quick-fix approach to it. It focuses on a particular aspect that I admit needed focusing on, but the Government have not thought about the knock-on effects or other relevant aspects.
  I do not know whether LISA was dreamed up by the Treasury with the knowledge of the Department of Social Security. However, it appears that it is not in tandem with the main thrust of the proposals contained in the Green Paper.
  It has correctly been made clear that the Government have focused on the major issue of what should be the decent minimum income in old age, and on the fact that, over the next 50 years, much more than at present, people are heading to be dependent upon income support. If anything, the number of people earning less than £20,000 a year without funded pensions is growing, not reducing.
  My criticism of the Government's proposals is that the thinking behind them amounts substantially to determining the cheapest and slightly quick-fix way of addressing the problem. As has been said, there is the major problem of disincentive to work and save. In particular, it is felt by some that they will do better by not participating in the scheme.
  The second big issue involves the self-employed, who represent a huge area of lack of personal provisioning. Indeed, there is no incentive for the self-employed. They cannot become members of the revised scheme and they have little incentive to participate in a LISA.
  The final objection, which has not yet been brought out, is that there are major threats to the bottom half of the middle of society. There is a great risk that many companies will embrace the new stakeholder schemes and that collective personal pension schemes will have to be given up. For many who belong to occupational schemes where the company contributes, there is a dangerous incentive to use a stakeholder scheme and not to contribute to other than top-hat schemes.
  Given that everything is moving towards more and more money purchase, we must address the issue of whether to buy annuities, and the requirement to buy them at 75. There are many schemes for the self-employed which involve buying an annuity upon retirement. As we have heard, many people are now being forced to buy an annuity at potentially the wrong time. We need to have new rules and a reconsideration of the draw-down
  974
  arrangements. As others have argued, we need more imaginative ways to deploy pension assets once the pension is to be drawn.
  In short, I suggest that the Green Paper has not addressed the large and important territory of related issues. Instead, it has focused on the narrow issue of how to deal with the employed part of lower-income earners. LISA is not really an answer to the self-employed pension problem, which is lack of provision. I fear that the Government have presented rather drawing-room-like proposals that will not be understood by the man in the street. They are too complicated and there is urgent need for major simplification of the pension world which, as a result of the Revenue's obsession with avoidance, has become a labyrinth and triffid of complicated tax rules that no one understands.
  There is a need for much greater reform and a much closer look at pensions. It would be wonderful if there could be cross-party agreement. Many good things have come up, but I trust that the Government will note that there have been quite a few criticisms from the pension fund industry. I hope that the Government mean what they say in terms of the document being a Green Paper and that they will take account of the many comments that are being made and have regard to the areas that will need to be addressed.
  5.54 pm
  Miss Geraldine Smith: My constituency has a higher-than-average proportion of pensioners included in the population. This is so because many retired people, having lived and worked all their lives in industrial towns and cities, like the prospect of living out their retirement in a seaside location that is in close proximity to the lake district.
  The available of all types of housing at relatively low prices provides them with an incentive to take the plunge and move into the area. The net result is, as I have previously stated, that the area has a disproportionate number of elderly people. That being the case, I am sure that the debate will be followed with a great deal of interest by many of my constituents.
  As the large concentration of pensioners within my constituency contains sizeable elements of all social groups, it has provided me with the opportunity to see at first hand over many years the stark contrast between the quality of life enjoyed by those pensioners who have retired with a decent occupational or personal pension, and the misery and despair suffered by those condemned to exist on the basic state pension. While many of the better-off have rightly been able to enjoy the freedom that retirement has given them, for the poorest pensioners the golden years of retirement have turned into an eternal nightmare.
  There is little doubt that the previous Tory Government's decision to break the link between earnings and pensions considerably swelled the ranks of pensioners living in poverty. The progressive devaluation of the basic state pension has dragged many hard-up pensioners into the welfare benefit system. That progressive slide into poverty, which has afflicted so many elderly people, has completely devastated their lives.
  Many pensioners are confused about, or entirely unaware of, the benefits to which they are entitled. That is in no small way thanks to the insidious suggestions

  975
  constantly propagated by Opposition Members that anyone who receives a state benefit is a scrounger. Many impoverished pensioners who are aware of their entitlement to income support are too proud to apply for it. I therefore welcome the Government's decision to introduce guaranteed minimum levels for pensioners. I welcome also the Government's long-term commitment to increase guaranteed minimum levels in line with earnings, thereby ensuring that even the poorest pensioners share in the growing prosperity of our nation.
  Clearly defined minimum income levels will provide a focal point for many pensioners who are unsure of their entitlements and will prove to be of great assistance to the Government in their efforts to ensure that all pensioners receive the income to which they are entitled. I welcome also other measures that the Government have taken, such as assistance with fuel bills, concessionary travel and free eye tests. Above all, I believe that the extra £21 billion investment in the national health service and the improvement in service standards that it will bring will be welcomed by people throughout the country, with the exception, perhaps, of some of those who sit on the Opposition Benches.
  Radical proposals for the future of pensions are contained within the Green Paper. The first question that we must ask ourselves is whether the system really needs such reforms or whether we can tweak it to make it more responsive to the needs of our people. Within the current system, we have the basic state pension, which covers nearly all employees and the self-employed. We also have secondary pensions in the form of state earnings-related pension schemes, occupational schemes and personal schemes, which are compulsory for most employees. However, only the personal pension option is open to the self-employed, albeit on a voluntary basis. There are also numerous private schemes available to those who wish, or are able, to make additional pension provision above and beyond the compulsory pension level.
  The system as it stands fails to provide adequate security in old age for many. It fails entirely those who earn less than the lower earnings limit of £3,300 a year. They are not even entitled to the basic state pension, let alone any form of secondary pension. They are therefore totally dependent on welfare benefits in old age. Other low earners who earn between £3,300 and £9,000 are also poorly served by the current system. The high administration costs and charges of private funded schemes make them an unattractive proposition for such people. Unless they are fortunate enough to belong to an occupational pension scheme, they will have to rely on state provision and will be left behind as the nation grows richer.
  Even those in the middle income bracket are not adequately catered for by the current system. The ever-increasing flexibility required by the modern labour market and the growth of small and medium companies is leading to a downturn in occupational pension provision, and many people are left only with the options of SERPS, which is declining in value, or high-cost private schemes. The self-employed are probably worst served. A large proportion of them are on low to middle incomes. Their only option is a high-cost personal scheme to top up their basic state pension.
  976
  All in all, it is apparent that the current system is failing a huge number of people for a variety of reasons. It is equally apparent that radical reform is essential. The Government's plans for a low-cost, high-return stakeholder pension will provide a bridge between the state and private provision.
  The granting of pension credits to carers, something that has already been mentioned, is an imaginative idea that at long last gives recognition and comfort to that often-forgotten legion who play such an important role. The assistance provided for low and middle earners to attain a decent second pension will also be welcomed by millions.
  I am not at all surprised that the Conservative motion totally opposes the measures that the Government have already introduced and those proposed in the Green Paper. The concept of the fairer, socially just and inclusive society that the Government are determined to build, and of which these measures are an integral part, is just as abhorrent to Tory Members as was the concept of a welfare state to their predecessors before its introduction just after the war.
  6.2 pm
  Miss Julie Kirkbride: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Miss Smith), who made a somewhat emotional appeal on behalf of pensioners and their incomes. I am sure that her pensioner constituents will take great interest in what representations she makes to her Government to restore the link between the basic state pension and earnings, because she clearly implied they should do so. I look forward to her doing that.
  The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) made a similarly emotional appeal on behalf of pensioners and sought completely to rewrite history by suggesting that the previous Conservative Government did nothing about pensions. Labour Members often like to rewrite what happened under the previous Government, so I take this opportunity to remind the hon. Gentleman of that Government's enormous success. Some £800 billion is now invested in the private pensions industry and occupational pensions. Many of our citizens can look forward to their pension and their retirement with a great sense of certainty and security.
  I remind Labour Members that that is a massive achievement because, when we introduced proposals for more private pension provision, they ran scare stories similar to the one that they ran about our reform of the basic state pension just before the last election. They said that we were trying to privatise pensions and abolish state pensions and that that was a terrible idea. Yet that was one of the greatest success stories of the previous Conservative Government.
  Let us look to the future. In the United Kingdom, we can look forward to the national economy's balance sheet being such to enable us to afford pension provision. I readily agree that we might need to do more for poorer pensioners, but that balance sheet has been greatly helped by what happened during 18 years of Conservative Government. When we compare ourselves with our European Union counterparts, we realise that they will have great difficulty in being able to afford to meet the

  977
  demands of their growing aging population and the many people who will look to the state to pay their earnings-related pension contributions.
  Mr. Field: The hon. Lady is telling us about the achievements of the previous Conservative Government, which clearly do not relate to occupational pensions, which have been developing for the whole of the century. The previous Government's initiative was personal pensions. Will she tell the House how many people are drawing personal pensions and by what amount?
  Miss Kirkbride: I do not have that information to hand. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman, having been a Minister, knows the figures much better than I do. I am trying to draw attention to the fact—with which I am sure he will agree—that the great impetus given to providing for oneself, whether by occupational or personal pension, has been an enormous success from which we shall all benefit, because it will be possible to afford the pensions of the growing elderly population of which we shall be a part in future. It is important that Labour Members recognise how important that impetus has been—they would clearly like to forget about it.
  We take exception to what happened when Labour got into power. The Chancellor introduced changes to advance corporation tax which have greatly diminished the value of pensions not only for future but existing pensioners, who will find that their pensions will increase at a lower rate because their pension funds will not be as valuable as they would otherwise have been. Labour Members say that they made those changes because they enabled them to reduce the level of corporation tax. We welcome that reduction, but its success in affecting the amount that industry invests has yet to be shown, and there has been a massive reduction in the amount of corporate investment. That change has yet to bear any fruit. We still insist that it was an unwise move that will affect us all.
  The changes to ACT have a bearing on the problem of poorer pensioners. They, by definition, do not pay income tax, and they are now placed in the wicked position of being unable to reclaim the tax on their dividend contributions. It is an absolute disgrace that a party whose Members have, in their most recent speeches, made an emotional appeal on behalf of pensioners does not to allow the poorest pensioners to claim back their tax, while others, including myself and, perhaps, my colleagues, are able to do so.
  Dr. George Turner: Will the hon. Lady advise the House which tax people are or are not getting back and when it was paid?
  Miss Kirkbride: I refer to the tax that has already been paid by a company through corporation tax, which is a tax on profits, and is then returned to the individual. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is so ignorant that he does not understand that, but I am happy to explain exactly to what poorer pensioners are entitled.
  As the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) pointed out in what was an excellent contribution, as always, 300,000 pensioners are in that position and 250,000 of
  978
  them will not be eligible for the minimum pension guarantee because they have too many savings. The minimum pension guarantee, which is typical of the Government's hype about their policies, affects very few people because the vast majority of those to whom it will apply already receive that money in one form or another, such as through income support. They are not that bothered whether the money is called a minimum pension guarantee or income support, but they need to know that it is on its way. The Government create policies and pretend that they have a huge impact when they clearly do not.
  I reaffirm the points that have been made by several hon. Members about the difficulties of the Government's proposals to create an incentive to save. The operation of the state second pension alongside the basic state pension will mean that very poor people will be eligible for the minimum pension guarantee. As I understand it—the proposals are complicated—those who are earning between £3,000 and £9,000 a year will be eligible for the state second pension and will end up receiving pretty much the same amount as the minimum pension guarantee, which the Government propose will be 20 per cent. of real earnings. All those people will get the same, irrespective of their contribution.
  Due to the Government's commitments, what will happen to those who will be earning £10,000 a year—just above the point at which they would be eligible for a state second pension? They will be encouraged to take out a stakeholder pension, yet they will be earning very little—less than £200 a week. They are very poorly paid once tax is deducted, yet they will have to save through a stakeholder pension—or any other vehicle that the Government suggest in their various weird and wonderful schemes, which we do not particularly understand.
  Such people would have to earn, say, £41,000 a year to make up for state benefits. Indeed, they would need extra income because, if they are not eligible for income support, they are not eligible for passported benefits either. Therefore, such people will have to save a great deal of money if they are to be comfortable in their retirement. It is difficult to see how people on an income of about £10,000 can do what the Government, and we all, hope that they will do. The major and fundamental problem with the Government's proposal is that they are turning their face away from compulsion.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) knows much more about occupational pensions than I do, but I know that there are great fears that the system that the Government are introducing will undermine the occupational pension sector. That trend has already started, and it will get worse. There is a massive incentive for employers to introduce stakeholder pensions, to which the Government have not said that companies should contribute.
  Mr. Leigh: My hon. Friend is making a good point about employers. A point has occurred to me about employees, which I am not sure that the Government have answered. There will be a rebate of national insurance contributions for those entering a stakeholder pension of 9.2 per cent., starting at £9,000 a year, falling to 4.6 per cent. Surely that will be a further incentive to take

  979
  out a stakeholder pension rather than stay in an occupational pension scheme. Perhaps my hon. Friend has the answer.
  Miss Kirkbride: I would not be so bold as to offer an answer on the Government's proposals. I am sure that the Minister will be happy to answer my hon. Friend's relevant point.
  The stakeholder pension will affect the very people whom the Government want to help. When looking at their balance sheets and considering how expensive it would be to maintain occupational pensions, employers will be encouraged to offer stakeholder pensions because there is no requirement on them to contribute to those pensions. As a result, very many people will find themselves in a worse position.
  Due to the discrepancy in earnings power in a company, there might be another effect, which would be worse for Labour Members to contemplate. Lower-paid employees, including part-time employees, will be offered stakeholder pensions, but the cream at the top of the company will have pensions to which the company will contribute. Many high earners will expect a significant pensions contribution from their employer as part of their benefits package. Labour Members ought to consider whether they are setting up an apartheid regime in the pension system. [Interruption.] Labour Members scoff, but I am afraid that they are doing their constituents no service by not recognising the difficulties that could occur as a result of the Government's proposal. As time is a little short, I shall conclude on that point.
  6.14 pm
  Kali Mountford: I had been in the House for a mere few weeks when we had a pensions debate, in which many Opposition Members concentrated on pension funds. Since many of them are pension fund managers, that was not surprising. I am, however, a little surprised that they have continued to confine the debate so narrowly and have not moved on in their thinking. I am also surprised to find that their attachment to private pension schemes has not altered, in spite of our experience of them. Someone asked earlier who is benefiting from private pension schemes. That is a conundrum; none of us knows. Nobody is yet receiving a pension or benefiting from such schemes, which have been operating for only 10 years, although a number of my constituents are having a great many problems as a result of mis-selling.
  A very large company of financial advisers in my constituency told me of its problems due to pension mis-selling: it has to put the matter right—and quite right too. Why should pensioners bear the brunt of the problem? I admire the way in which the company is going about that task in training financial advisers. That should have happened in the first place. Conservative Members can offer no lessons in that regard.
  The other thing that really upsets me about these debates is the concentration on a group of people who at least have the capacity to contribute to pension schemes—whether occupational, private or otherwise. The genuinely poorest people are those who are entitled to income support but do not claim it. I have made that point before, and make no apology for repeating it. The hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) thinks that we become emotional about those matters, but that is not surprising.
  980
  She may argue that pensioners are made poor when, in receipt of private pensions, they encounter problems with anomalies in the system, but they are not the genuinely poorest people.
  The Government have rightly introduced the minimum pension guarantee because we need to find a way in which to address the problem of the poorest pensioners. The genuinely poorest pensioners cannot wait until tomorrow for a new scheme. They have no opportunity to make any new contributions to a scheme. It is therefore right that we find a way in which to address that poverty. Connected to that task—I have said this to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and make no apology for repeating it—is the conundrum of the poverty trap. Being a listening Government, I think that they would want to avoid that. I will not accept from Conservative Members that the poverty trap became apparent just today. We inherited that problem, and must find a solution to it.
  The problem of passported benefits, which is not confined to pensions, affects people who live just above the poverty line. It is right that the Government should consider the disregard. The Conservative party took away the benefit tapering system, so it is a little absurd for Opposition Members to tell us that they are concerned about the poverty trap. They did little about it in government. Indeed, they took away at least one of the supports that dealt with the problem.
  Of course some pensioners who have saved for their old age feel resentful when they find that their neighbours, who through no fault of their own were unable to save, receive income support and the benefits that accrue from it. But, that is no reason not to introduce a minimum pension guarantee. Let us remind ourselves what that means. It means an increase three times higher than could have been expected and a guaranteed income.
  Mr. Rendel: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Kali Mountford: I am sorry, but time is preciously short. I am upset that I am having to speak so fast in the first place.
  We must listen to people if we are to improve benefit take-up. Let us take cognizance of the fact that 28 pilot schemes are finding out what older people themselves think should be the answer. Why do people not rush to fill in their benefit claim forms? What are the possible solutions? How can a community pull together to support older people?
  In this debate, we have heard details of the other measures in the support package, such as those relating to eye tests and health care. They are worth mentioning. However, we need to find a way to ensure that pensioners access the whole range of benefits and services available to them, and we must do something about the stigma attached to benefits such as income support, so that pensioners are willing to accept those benefits. Members of the Opposition are trying to denigrate the Government for having made a vital move in that direction; but the Government should be congratulated.
  The second state pension is a masterstroke. I cannot understand why Opposition Members object to it. As those Members seem to have difficulty understanding the concept, I commend to them page 41 of the Green Paper, "Partnership in Pensions", which contains a graph which specifically shows how much easier it will be for

  981
  pensioners in future to have their guaranteed pension as of right. That takes away all the stigma and the problem of take-up that we have had for many years. When, at Prime Minister's Question Time this afternoon, I heard the word "redistribution", I thought about that graph, because it specifically shows how money will be redistributed to the poorest pensioners, who need it most.
  The hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) made much of what he believes will be the problem of the future. We have a listening Government, and the hon. Gentleman has made his point well. I am sure that the Government do not want the poverty trap to continue. I believe that there are solutions to that problem, and I am sure that the Government will study them, but that is no reason not to have the second state pension. That option would open up a range of pensions to people who have previously been completely excluded—such people are so rarely mentioned by some hon. Members. They include women who are divorced, carers and people who are on low pay—perhaps in part-time jobs—or who have been in and out of work over a period.
  The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) mentioned self-employed people, as though those people's needs were not addressed in the Green Paper. That simply is not true. Their needs are addressed by the second state pension or by the stakeholder pension. It is not true that a self-employed person cannot get a stakeholder pension. I refer hon. Members to page 50 of the Green Paper, where an example of such a pension is given. It seems to me that Conservative Members have come to the House, rather belatedly, to rally around pensions instead of rallying around their hon. Friends at their Tory rally. They have not even read the document, such is their commitment to pensions.
  Mr. Eric Pickles: Hon. Members are probably having more fun at the rally.
  Kali Mountford: It seems that the hon. Member for Grundy wants to make an intervention from a sedentary position, but I shall resist comment, as time is short.
  On pensioners, the Government inherited a downward spiral, and that spiral had to be arrested. The way to do that was by considering today's poorest pensioners. It is right to remove taxation anomalies from the system. It is right to provide a wide range of services for pensioners today. It is right to study the changes in demography and accept that, in future, there will be fewer people in employment as a proportion of the population, and that we must find a way to fund pensions for tomorrow.
  When they were in government, Conservative Members accepted that we would run into that problem. It surprises me that, when an ideal solution is presented to them, they cannot see what is under their nose.
  6.24 pm
  Mr. Edward Leigh: Despite the Government's good intentions, we now have a very confusing mixture of public and private provision in pensions—a mixture of personal pensions, occupational pensions, the basic state pension, the second pension and the stakeholder pension. I believe that there will be real confusion among people about how best to plan for retirement.
  982
  We should continue, on a cross-party basis, to seek solutions that have been tried abroad—although not necessarily by South American economies, which might be less developed than our own, or by city-state economies such as Singapore, which may have altogether fewer problems of an aging population.
  In the five minutes that I am allowed, I shall cite the example of Australia. Australia is a highly developed economy, very similar to ours. Interestingly, it went through much the same stages as did our economy between 1900 and 1983. In 1900, it had the highest per capita gross domestic product in the world. By 1980, it had fallen to 14th place, and it had adopted many of the Keynesian solutions of nationalisation and of subsidies to manufacturers that our Governments had adopted.
  Such was the state of the Australian economy, especially regarding pensions, that the then Treasurer, Paul Keating, announced that something had to be done radically to reform pensions. He said:
  "We must let Australians know, truthfully, honestly, earnestly, just what sort of international hole Australia is in. If this Government cannot get a sensible economic policy, then Australia is basically done for. We will end up just being a third-rate economy. Then you are gone; you are a banana republic."
  The left-of-centre Labour Government of Australia—I am making this speech because I hope that the Government are considering what is happening in Australia—decided something very radical indeed, far more radical than the measures that the Government are introducing. They went down the route that was suggested to them by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), but they went further. In 1986, under Mr. Paul Keating, they devised an innovative retirement system, based primarily on mandatory private savings in plans called superannuation funds.
  All workers in Australia—this was done in consultation with trade unions—were required to put 3 per cent. of their earnings into those mandatory private funds. That figure will increase to 9 per cent. by 2002, when the system will be fully implemented. In 2002, all workers in Australia will be required to set aside 9 per cent. of their income in a superannuation fund of their choice; that is the underlying principle. A series of options will be open to them. The market will be highly regulated, to ensure that there is no mis-selling, but the worker is required to put the money into a fund of his choice.
  I believe that compulsion is essential. I do not believe that one can have a voluntary system at the same time as a high safety net. We all want a high safety net; that is the reason for the minimum income guarantee. We do not want to allow pensioners to fall into poverty. It may not be their fault that they have not built up an adequate pension—take the example of a woman who has been divorced, who has worked hard all her life bringing up her family.
  We want a high safety net, but if one has a high safety net—I know that that is why the Government are taking this route—and a voluntary system of contributions, inevitably, as my hon. Friend said, one ends up with a tremendous disincentive to save. Therefore, one must have a compulsory scheme, such as the one that the Australians have developed.
  Mr. Field: Will the hon. Gentleman cast his mind back to the day, a couple of months ago, when I introduced a Bill to require compulsory stakeholder savings? The one hon. Member who stood up to oppose it was himself.
  Mr. Leigh: The right hon. Gentleman knows full well why I did that. I was trying to tease out his hon. Friends to support his Bill, and hardly anyone came along. He well knows that. The right hon. Gentleman was going around—he had a complete headache—saying, "Please do not force a Division, because no one in the Government will support me." So let us not have any of that. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well what we were doing then. However, I salute him. He was right to try to remind the Government of what they should try to achieve.
  The Australian system has achieved more income for retirees. In future, average-waged workers should be able to retire with two or three times the income that they would have had under the original Government-run scheme. The new system has also resulted in increased national savings. The overall savings rate could climb by more than 3 per cent. of gross domestic product.
  If that scheme in Australia is so good, and if it was introduced by a left-of-centre Government, why have not we heard more from our Government as to why they are not introducing it here? Why have they rejected the plans suggested by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead?
  There is one difficulty with such a scheme—the Australian Government are moving down the road of means-testing to pay for it. Is it possible to introduce such a radical reform without an element of means-testing? The Government must think seriously about that.
  I ask both sides of the House to co-operate in radical reform to try to prise our nation out of a culture of dependency and to increase responsibility, and to do so by means of a compulsory savings system, gradually brought in with a measure of bipartisan support. That is increasingly being tried around the world. It works, it is successful and it is the road that we should go down.
  6.30 pm
  Mr. Quentin Davies: I must deal with one important matter before I say anything else. The Government's proposals involve doubling the rate of accrual for entitlement to state second pension over the rate of accrual that applies under the SERPS system, from 20 to 40 per cent. of eligible earnings. In response to an intervention from me this afternoon, the Secretary of State denied that, on the subsequent band of earnings, from £9,000 to £18,500, the rate of accrual would be halved.
  I refer the House to page 45 of the Green Paper, which I have read several times. Paragraph 3 states:
  "The rate on the band of earnings £9,000 to £18,500 a year would be 10 per cent."—
  as opposed to 20 per cent. at the present time, so that has been halved.
  As I said earlier, I am sure that the Secretary of State did not intend wilfully to deceive the House, but he was close to doing so, if I may say so.
  Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman is one of the most good-natured Members of the House. It would be unfortunate if he suggested that I did anything other than answer what I understood him to say, which was that people earning between £9,000 and £18,500 would have half the rate of accruals. The point that I was making, which is common ground between us, is that, on the portion of those people's income before £9,000, they, too, get the double rate. Of course it is tapered out to £18,500.
  984
  It would be nonsense to have a double accrual rate all the way up the scale. The table on page 41 of the Green Paper makes that clear.
  I want to make it clear that I responded to what I understood the hon. Gentleman to say, both today and in the article in the recent pensions magazine. There is common ground between us. There is double the rate of accrual up to £9,000, then it is tapered out to £18,500 in an entirely sensible way.
  Mr. Davies: Of course I accept the good faith of the right hon. Gentleman in his last remarks. Hansard will bear out the point that I made in the intervention, that, when the Government make announcements to the House, it is right that they should present both sides of any equation—they should give the good news but not conceal the bad news. I said that it was not enough to say that the rate of accrual below £9,000 would be doubled, and to leave out the material fact that the rate of accrual from £9,000 to £18,500 would be halved.
  Dr. George Turner rose—
  Mr. Davies: No, I cannot give way, as our time is limited. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. As the House knows, I rather like giving way in such debates, and I wish that there were more time. Last Thursday, we were not running up against a time limit, but we are today.
  I want to say something about some of the contributions to this interesting debate. I apologise in advance for the fact that I do not have time to deal with all of them—interesting contributions were made by members of all three parties. I single out my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) and thank her for a spirited and effective defence of the previous Government, which has the advantage that I do not have to say anything on that subject myself, as she said it so well for me.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), who knows a great deal about the subject, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight), presented a calculation that should make us all think carefully. If somebody saves £40,000 for a pension, he loses the whole amount. He does nothing other than generate a level of income equivalent to the means-tested benefits that he would have received if he had had no money or pension over and above the basic state pension. That is the dead-weight cost of saving.
  Unfortunately, I think that my hon. Friend miscalculated that—he was too generous to the Government. It is important to realise that the means-tested benefits are indexed to the index of prices, and prospectively the minimum income guarantee even indexed to earnings. If one takes an annuity rate that is indexed to prices, one comes up at present with an annuity rate of just over 5 per cent., or under 5 per cent. if widows' benefits are offered.
  On that basis, to generate an income of £4,000 in retirement, the sum of £80,000 would be required. It would be pathetic to imagine someone on a modest income setting aside £1,000 a year for 40 years, after expenses. With a total reasonable investment gain of about 3 per cent. compound, he might end up with £80,000, and it would all be a waste of effort—he would be cheated by the new Labour Government.

  985
  My hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs pointed out a crucial aspect of the present scene—the decline of the traditional salary-related, defined benefits scheme. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) spoke tellingly of the Australian experience.
  The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) spoke extremely well, as he always does in these debates. He, too, expressed his fears about the future of occupational pensions in the light of the Government's proposals, and made some telling points on means-testing.
  The hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) effectively devastated the Government's propaganda about the £140 a year additional earnings to pensioners as a result of their measures. He brought it down to a few pence a week. The House should be grateful to him for that cogent analysis.
  It was obvious from the beginning of the debate that the Secretary of State was embarrassed about the subject. He did not come to the House full of pride, trying to sell the Government's proposals. He began with a complete red herring—the basic pension plus. He tried to put the argument back historically to the position several years ago. If he had any pride in the Government's own record or proposals, he presumably would have found an opportunity over the past six weeks to debate those proposals, but we had to wait for the Conservative Opposition to table the motion in order to get a debate on the Government's record.
  That record is disgraceful. There is no other word for it. The Government were elected on a manifesto that contained three pension pledges—first, to preserve SERPS; secondly, to set up a citizenship pension for carers and the disabled; and thirdly, to set up a stakeholder pension.
  The first promise has been explicitly broken in the Green Paper. SERPS is to go. The second promise has been covertly buried. We have heard no more about citizenship pensions. Nothing in the document offers carers or the disabled anything better than the means-tested—[Interruption.] Oh yes, I have read it. If the Minister of State wishes, we can have a debate on that, and I will demonstrate that those people are no better off under the Government's proposals than they would have been under the current means-tested arrangements.
  As to stakeholder pensions, what a monumental shambles. For 15 months, the right hon. Member for Birkenhead and the right hon. Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) worked away on some scheme that was then rejected, and they were both sacked for their pains. So we did not get the original Green Paper when we were promised it last summer. Then, for six months, the Secretary of State and his team worked away on something else. We had the usual press spin and press leaks. We were told that they were working on compulsion and on something for the self-employed. Nothing emerged for the self-employed, and nothing emerged on compulsion.
  It is clear that the Government had been vacillating and dithering about compulsion right up to the 11th hour, 59th minute and 59th second. Page 105 of the
  986
  document—this will show that I have read it, although of course the Government will wish that I had not—refers to
  "compulsory funded pensions for those earning over £9,000 a year".
  They changed the policy even after the document had been sent to the printers. It does not get much more shambolic than that—especially in view of the fact that the Government had 18 months to think about it.
  The fact is that the Government's proposals are a complete and utter mess. What is more, the Treasury believes that they are a mess because it produced its own document this afternoon. Is the timing significant? I think it is, because the Opposition's debate was scheduled for this afternoon. The Treasury document is another shambles. In 11 years in the House of Commons, I have never seen a Government produce a document like this. They did not even send it to the printer—I suppose because they were afraid that they might have to change it at the last minute. This piece of rubbish was produced on a do-it-yourself brochure-making machine in some office somewhere. The document falls apart in your hands if you read it two or three times—which is more times than anyone would want to read this particular rubbish.
  The document is rubbish because it does absolutely nothing to increase the total pension provision in this country. In fact, it has the potential to damage profoundly some very good pension schemes. Employers will have to wind up their group personal pension schemes and replace them with stakeholder schemes because the document says that the group pension will not qualify as a stakeholder pension. The vast majority of group personal pensions involve employer contributions, but there is no obligation for employers to contribute to stakeholder pensions. Therefore, employers may wind up schemes involving employer contributions and replace them with Government stakeholder pensions, which require no contributions on their part. People will be much worse off.
  The Government have not considered the administrative burden for employers. How are those who employ one, two or three people supposed to cope with the administrative burden associated with establishing the schemes? The Government have not dealt with the issue of people who move jobs. Who will look after their interests? Who will send the annual report to those who have moved? Perhaps that will be done by the employer several times removed from the current one. None of those things has been thought through.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) said this afternoon, we now have a plethora of proposals, including not only stakeholder pensions, group personal pensions and existing personal pensions but the Treasury's LISA proposals. It is obvious that everyone will have to seek advice about whether and at what point they should opt out of the new state second pension and what to opt into or whether—this is the vital point upon which the House should focus—they should save at all. Each time they introduce a new means-testing proposal, the Government make the situation worse. There has been one such proposal a month since the autumn, when I found myself on the Front Bench.
  Every time that means-testing is extended, the Government raise the income threshold below which it is not sensible for people to save because they will simply deprive themselves of thousands of pounds of means-tested benefits. Even when the return begins to be

  987
  positive, it will be pathetically low. People would be better off spending the money and enjoying it rather than saving, at great sacrifice, for absolutely nothing or at slightly higher levels for a derisory and miserable sum in retirement. The fact is that the Government must focus on reality. The reality is that, if you go on means-testing in the way you are, you will do irreparable damage to saving in this country and you will put yourself in a position—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Gentleman must use the correct parliamentary language.
  Mr. Davies: I am using the word "you" in the impersonal sense. If you prefer, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I could use the third person impersonal and say "one". However, I find it more natural to use "you" in the impersonal sense.
  Means-testing will irreparably damage savings. The majority of people on or below average incomes—I think that average earnings are £15,000 to £18,000—will have to consider carefully whether they should save in those circumstances. If the Government desire people to save, they will have only two choices: the first technique is compulsion, which they have rightly rejected—and we reject also—and the second is to bamboozle those on modest earnings to save modest amounts. That is the exercise in which the Government have engaged so disgracefully this afternoon—and that is an exercise that we reject.
  6.45 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Stephen Timms): The whole House will have enjoyed this speech by the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies). It was a bravura performance delivered with the verve and gusto that we associate with the hon. Gentleman and that we all enjoy—but that might also be described kindly as displaying a light grasp of the details of the Government's proposals.
  I first became aware of the hon. Gentleman's light grasp of the details when he and I were interviewed separately on Radio Newcastle about the problems with the NIRS2 computer system, which have affected many pensioners around the country. Many hon. Members will not have had the opportunity to hear the interview that the hon. Gentleman gave, but it certainly merits a wider audience. The contract for the computer system was signed by the previous Government in 1995, with a view to the system being up and running by February 1997. Therefore, I was intrigued to hear the hon. Gentleman tell the presenter on Radio Newcastle on 10 December last year:
  "Oh, no, no, no … this contract was signed in the autumn of this year, more than a year after the last election."
  The presenter gently pointed out to the hon. Gentleman that it was the Conservatives who had brought in the contractor, to which he responded:
  "This is quite absurd. If the Government are saying this then they really, absolutely plumbed the depths … This is the most sensational view—this is the most extraordinary dereliction of responsibility on their part".
  The presenter made one more half-hearted attempt to point out the facts, to which the hon. Gentleman replied:
  "No, no, no, no, no."
  988
  The correct answer was "Yes"—but that in no way detracted from our enjoyment of the hon. Gentleman's spirited contribution on that occasion, or on this.
  It is also true that the hon. Gentleman's cavalier disregard for the Government's actual proposals in no way detracted from our enjoyment of the hon. Gentleman's swashbuckling denunciation of them this afternoon. However, it is important to refer to what is really in the Green Paper. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the clear statement on page 42 of that document regarding carers. The position of carers is greatly enhanced by our proposal regarding the state second pension. Our proposals pose no threat to group personal pensions and nothing undermines them. A proper collectively run scheme may be more attractive to many people, but nothing in our proposals undermines what is currently possible under personal pension arrangements.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: The Minister started his speech by having a little fun about the NIRS2 computer system. Perhaps he would like to explain to pensioners why, back in September, the Secretary of State said that the problems would be sorted out in two weeks, why nothing else was heard from him until January, and why, last week, the Minister said that it will be many months before the difficulties are resolved. Regardless of how the problems occurred, should he not have done people a favour and eased their worries by telling them what was going on?
  Mr. Timms: We have been absolutely frank about what has been happening throughout this process. We have been picking up the pieces and sorting out the problems that we inherited from the previous Government. I wish to comment about another issue that was picked up frequently in the debate.
  Mr. Leigh: This Government keep blaming the previous Government. Has the Minister read the National Audit Office report, published in May 1997, which says that the procurement was "well managed"—they are its words. It also says that the shortlisting process was well managed to produce three credible bidders. The problems have originated since this Government were elected.
  Mr. Timms: No, no. [Interruption.] I have read the report. The fact is that the system of commission had to be operational by February 1997, but parts of it are becoming operational only now. We have had to sort out the mess.
  I want to comment on an issue that a number of hon. Members have mentioned, and of which the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford makes much—means-testing. The state second pension will be a 100 per cent. contributory scheme. The whole point of what we are proposing is to ensure that—unlike the position that we inherited from the previous Government, where people could work and pay contributions throughout their working lives and still retire directly on to means-tested income support—the state second pension means that everybody in such a position retires with a pension above the minimum income guarantee level, which will itself be uprated over time, in line with earnings.
  This is an imaginative, effective and affordable programme, which is why it has been so widely welcomed in the pensions industry and elsewhere. There is, of course, a pension policy that would generate

  989
  means-testing on a massive scale—basic pension plus. I was intrigued that the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) tentatively expressed some support for that policy, but we do not know whether it is still the official policy of the Conservative party. We have not been informed of that this afternoon, and it would be helpful if we could be told.
  If the Opposition are arguing that the least well-off should not share in rising prosperity, and that the minimum income guarantee should not be uprated over time in line with earnings, let them say so. That is not the view of Labour Members, nor is it the view among pensioners.
  We have had an interesting debate and a number of thoughtful contributions were made. The hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) made some interesting points on the future of the basic state pension, and I am grateful to him for drawing attention to the review of saving limits for the minimum income guarantee. I agree that that is the right thing to do. Winter fuel payments have been popular among pensioners and I certainly support them, as do the great majority of people.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) made a thoughtful and constructive speech. He told us that it would be his last off-message speech; I am not sure what he meant by that. I want to comment on a couple of points that he made. He will agree that the effect of our proposals will be to reduce the number of people who would end up on means-tested benefit when they retire and so reduce the problem, which he highlighted, of people feeling that it is not worth saving.
  I agree with my right hon. Friend that we need to strengthen the arrangements for occupational pensions and the Green Paper, and the subsequent consultative paper, contain important proposals to achieve that. On the question of churn, which he raised, the Financial Services Authority is aware of the problem and will be introducing proposals to address it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) did the House a great service by reminding hon. Members of the record of the previous Government. He also elicited a helpful explanation of why so few Conservative Members were present during the debate. Apparently they were at a Conservative party rally. For quite a long time, there were more Liberal Democrat Members than Conservative Back Benchers in the Chamber, even though the Conservatives initiated the debate. Indeed, at one time, no Conservative Front Bencher was present.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Miss Smith) made some telling points about the position of many pensioners. She was absolutely right to welcome the proposed link with earnings for the minimum income guarantee and right to spotlight the problem facing self-employed people, which stakeholder pensions address.
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford) for highlighting the work that is being done in the pilot schemes to encourage people to take up the minimum income guarantee and to draw attention to the benefits of stakeholder pensions for the self-employed.
  990
  Let me conclude by summarising our proposals. The position we have inherited is that we are heading for a situation where, in 50 years, one in three people retiring will go straight on to income support. Today's pensioners are too often without security. As a result of the pensions mis-selling scandal presided over by the previous Government, people do not trust the system and too few people who could afford a funded pension do not have one.
  Mr. Quentin Davies: A few moments ago, the Minister said that it was not true, as I had contended, that group personal pensions would not qualify as stakeholder pensions. I refer him to page 53 of his document and paragraph 29, which states:
  "Existing personal pensions will not therefore be able to describe themselves as stakeholder pension schemes."
  That appears clearly in the document. If there is confusion, it is the fault of the Minister's document.
  Mr. Timms: No. What the document says is absolutely right. Of course group personal pensions will not qualify as stakeholder pensions; they are personal pensions—they are different. I repeat the point that I have made to the hon. Gentleman: nothing in the document will make it any more difficult to provide a group personal pension than it is today.
  Our proposals in the Green Paper are based on the principle that those who can afford to save should do so, but that those who cannot afford to save should also be able to look forward to security in retirement. It rests on three key proposals: the minimum income guarantee, the state second pension and a new system of funded stakeholder pension schemes.
  The first element is the minimum income guarantee: £75 per week for a single pensioner from April, which will be available to all those who meet the conditions for entitlement to income support. It will be increased every year, and our long-term aim is that it should rise in line with earnings so that even the least-well-off pensioners will be able to share the benefits of rising national prosperity. It is fundamental to those proposals that the benefits should be enjoyed by the many and not just the few.
  We announced in the Green Paper that we will consider how we can relax the savings limit and consider the possibility of introducing an income disregard. We want to encourage saving and ensure that there is not a penalty against pensioners for saving. We will introduce measures to achieve that.
  Looking forward, under the policies that we inherited, we would have been heading for a position where many people would retire on to a pension that would leave them—
  Miss Kirkbride: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Timms: I cannot. Time is running short and I apologise to the hon. Lady.
  People who have worked and paid contributions throughout their working lives would go straight on to income support. That would be the case for people earning less than £15,000 a year even if they had been in the state earnings-related pension scheme throughout their working lives. How can we instead ensure that people who have

  991
  paid and contributed throughout their working lives can be assured of a retirement income above the minimum income guarantee level, outside means testing?
  We want to reduce dependence on means-tested benefit in retirement. That is the objective we have set ourselves, and I believe that the whole House will share it. Some people have suggested that the way to achieve that is to restore the link between the basic state pension and earnings rather than prices. That would be an immensely expensive measure, but a large group of people—those earning, throughout their lives, between the lower earnings level and about £6,000 per year—would retire directly on to income support, unless they had made their own provision. Despite the huge expense, it would not achieve what we want.
  What about increasing compulsion? The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) talked about that. At the moment, there is a significant degree of compulsion, and people are required to contribute 4.6 per cent. of their pay into SERPS or a contracted-out scheme. If we doubled that figure to 9 per cent., people earning less than £9,000 a year would still retire on to the minimum income guarantee level.
  Restoring the earnings link would not work. Increasing compulsion would not work. We need what might be called a third way—the state second pension to replace SERPS. That is what we have proposed, and it will achieve the objective that we have set. The first two pillars of our proposal are the minimum income guarantee and the state second pension. The third pillar—the key pillar—is stakeholder pension schemes, which will be secure, low cost and flexible.
  We also want to encourage the development of occupational schemes which, as has been said a number of times in the debate, are one of the great welfare success stories of this century. We want to encourage people to join an occupational scheme, if they are able to do so, and to boost confidence in good schemes through a quality in pensions accreditation programme.
  We want to achieve regulatory simplification and, in a parallel exercise to the Green Paper, we have issued a consultation document on our proposals. In a very simple, powerful innovation, we have proposed that every pension scheme member should receive a combined pension forecast every year which tells them exactly where they stand.
  Our proposals represent a redrawing of the contract for pensions between the state, the private sector and the individual. Those who can save for their retirement have the responsibility to do so, and the state must provide effective security for those who cannot. That is the principle on which our reforms are built and I take pride in commending them to the House.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 185, Noes 327.

  Division No. 54]

  [7 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Baker, Norman

  Allan, Richard

  Baldry, Tony

  Amess, David

  Ballard, Jackie

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Beggs, Roy

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Bercow, John

  992

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Blunt, Crispin

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Boswell, Tim

  Jenkin, Bemard

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Brady, Graham

  Keetch, Paul

  Brake, Tom

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Key, Robert

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Bumett, John

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Burns, Simon

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Burstow, Paul

  Lansley, Andrew

  Butterfill, John

  Leigh, Edward

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Letwin, Oliver

  Cash, William

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Lidington, David

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Chidgey, David

  Livsey, Richard

  Chope, Christopher

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Clappison, James

  Loughton, Tim

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Collins, Tim

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Colvin, Michael

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Cotter, Brian

  Malins, Humfrey

  Cran, James

  Maples, John

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Mates, Michael

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Donaldson, Jeffrey

  Moss, Malcolm

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Duncan, Alan

  Norman, Archie

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Oaten, Mark

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Öpik, Lembit

  Evans, Nigel

  Ottaway, Richard

  Faber, David

  Page, Richard

  Fabricant, Michael

  Paice, James

  Fallon, Michael

  Paterson, Owen

  Feam, Ronnie

  Pickles, Eric

  Flight, Howard

  Prior, David

  Forsythe, Clifford

  Randall, John

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Rendel, David

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Robathan, Andrew

  Fraser, Christopher

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Gale, Roger

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Garnier, Edward

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Gibb, Nick

  Ruffley, David

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Sanders, Adrian

  Gorrie, Donald

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Gray, James

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Greenway, John

  Shepherd, Richard

  Grieve, Dominic

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Soames, Nicholas

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Hammond, Philip

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Hancock, Mike

  Spring, Richard

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Harvey, Nick

  Steen, Anthony

  Hawkins, Nick

  Streeter, Gary

  Heald, Oliver

  Stunell, Andrew

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Swayne, Desmond

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Syms, Robert

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Horam, John

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Hunter, Andrew

  Thompson, William

  993

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Townend, John

  Whittingdale, John

  Tredinnick, David

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Trend, Michael

  Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

  Trimble, Rt Hon David

  Wilkinson, John

  Tyler, Paul

  Willetts, David

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Willis, Phil

  Viggers, Peter

  Wilshire, David

  Walter, Robert

  Yeo, Tim

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Wardle, Charles

  Waterson, Nigel

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Webb, Steve

  Sir David Madel and

  Wells, Bowen

  Mr. Stephen Day.

  NOES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Clelland, David

  Ainger, Nick

  Clwyd, Ann

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Allen, Graham

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Cohen, Harry

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Coleman, Iain

  Ashton, Joe

  Colman, Tony

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Connarty, Michael

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Cooper, Yvette

  Austin, John

  Corbett, Robin

  Barnes, Harry

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Barron, Kevin

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cousins, Jim

  Beard, Nigel

  Cranston, Ross

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Cummings, John

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Benton, Joe

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Berry, Roger

  Dalyell, Tam

  Best, Harold

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Blair, Rt Hon Tony

  Darvill, Keith

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Boateng, Paul

  Dawson, Hilton

  Borrow, David

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Denham, John

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Dobbin, Jim

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Doran, Frank

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Drew, David

  Browne, Desmond

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Burden, Richard

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Burgon, Colin

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Efford, Clive

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Caborn, Richard

  Etherington, Bill

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Canavan, Dennis

  Fitzsimons, Loma

  Caplin, Ivor

  Flint, Caroline

  Casale, Roger

  Flynn, Paul

  Cawsey, Ian

  Follett, Barbara

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Church, Ms Judith

  Foulkes, George

  Clapham, Michael

  Fyfe, Maria

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Galloway, George

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Gardiner, Barry

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  994

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Macdonald, Calum

  Godsiff, Roger

  McDonnell, John

  Goggins, Paul

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  McIsaac, Shona

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McNulty, Tony

  Grocott, Bruce

  MacShane, Denis

  Grogan, John

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Gunnell, John

  McWalter, Tony

  Hain, Peter

  McWilliam, John

  Hanson, David

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Mallaber, Judy

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Healey, John

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Heppell, John

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Hesford, Stephen

  Martlew, Eric

  Hill, Keith

  Maxton, John

  Hinchliffe, David

  Meale, Alan

  Hoey, Kate

  Merron, Gillian

  Home Robertson, John

  Michael, Alun

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Hope, Phil

  Milburn, Alan

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Miller, Andrew

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Morley, Elliot

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Mountford, Kali

  Hurst, Alan

  Mudie, George

  Hutton, John

  Mullin, Chris

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Illsley, Eric

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Jamieson, David

  Norris, Dan

  Jenkins, Brian

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Pearson, Ian

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Pendry, Tom

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Pike, Peter L

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Plaskitt, James

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Pound, Stephen

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Kemp, Fraser

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Khabra, Piara S

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Kidney, David

  Purchase, Ken

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Quinn, Lawrie

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Radice, Giles

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Rammell, Bill

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Rapson, Syd

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Raynsford, Nick

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Laxton, Bob

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Lepper, David

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Leslie, Christopher

  Rooker, Jeff

  Levitt, Tom

  Rooney, Terry

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Linton, Martin

  Rowlands, Ted

  Livingstone, Ken

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Lock, David

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Love, Andrew

  Salter, Martin

  McAllion, John

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Sawford, Phil

  McCabe, Steve

  Shaw, Jonathan

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Sheerman, Barry

  995

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Timms, Stephen

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Singh, Marsha

  Touhig, Don

  Skinner, Dennis

  Trickett, Jon

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Vaz, Keith

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Snape, Peter

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Soley, Clive

  Wareing, Robert N

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Watts, David

  Spellar, John

  Welsh, Andrew

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  White, Brian

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Stevenson, George

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Stott, Roger

  Wills, Michael

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Winnick, David

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Stringer, Graham

  Wise, Audrey

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Worthington, Tony

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Wray, James

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Mr. Greg Pope and

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mr. Clive Betts.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments) and agreed to.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House commends the Government's approach to pensions reform, set out in its Green Paper, Partnership in Pensions; congratulates the Government on its determination to end the scandal of pensions mis-selling and its plans to strengthen the financial regulatory system; commends the Government on its commitment to economic stability and low inflation, which helps pensioners; believes that its reforms to the corporate tax system, which will result in the lowest-ever rate of Corporation Tax, will be in the long-term interests of companies, shareholders and pensioners; and approves of the Government's introduction of the Minimum Pension Guarantee, Winter Fuel Payments, the re-introduction of free eye tests and commitment to concessionary travel for the elderly as part of its strategy to provide security in retirement.

  Planning
  [Relevant documents: Tenth Report from the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee, Session 1997–98, on Housing (HC 495-I) and the Government's Response thereto (Cm 4080).]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): I advise the House that Madam Speaker has selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister.
  7.13 pm
  Mr. Simon Burns: I beg to move,
  That this House regrets decisions by the Government to allow large-scale development in the countryside; deplores the fact that the Government has failed to publish revised planning guidance, despite its promise to do so 12 months ago, which has led to further erosion of the green belt and greenfield sites; expresses concern at the confusion that will be caused by the role given to the regional development agencies in planning issues; and urges the Government to enhance the protection of the countryside, while encouraging urban regeneration, by ensuring an increasing share of new housing is built on brownfield sites.
  I make no apologies for the fact that this will be the fourth debate in a little over a year in which the House has had the opportunity to discuss planning issues, primarily the on-going destruction of the green belt, the erosion of green-field sites and the threat to our countryside. Our alarm, shared by millions of people, is at the fact that the Government refuse to act to stop the constant erosion of the green belt and green-field sites and the continued concreting over of land which, once lost, can never be recovered. That is environmental vandalism of the worst kind, and the Government seem to be paralysed into doing nothing about it.
  Under this Government, the pattern has become all too familiar. The Secretary of State approves the concreting over of vast tracts of green-field land and building on vast tracts of green belt. He orders county councils to plan for more new homes, overrules his inspectors if they disagree with him and uses the courts to back up his bully-boy tactics. In the light of the Government's behaviour and record, I question whether they understand what the green belt is and why it was put in place.
  Mr. Barry Sheerman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Burns: No, I wish to make a little more progress. If the hon. Gentleman still wishes to intervene later, I will consider it.
  For the benefit of the Minister, I should briefly explain that modern green-belt policy was established in the 1950s and is enshrined in planning policy guidance note 2. The fundamental aim of the green-belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. I remind Ministers that the key quality of the green belt is its permanence, and that that should be altered only in exceptional circumstances.
  Mr. John Gummer: Has my hon. Friend noticed that, in the case of Stevenage, the Government have allowed the building of more than 10,000 homes on the green belt and then pretended that they have protected the green belt by extending it somewhere else where it does not provide protection

  997
  against urban sprawl? That is sleight of hand such has never been seen before, but this Government seem to have become adept at it.
  Mr. Burns: With my right hon. Friend's distinguished record as Secretary of State for the Environment, one would expect him to be able to see through at a moment's glance the flimsy and veiled excuses that the Government use. I assure him that, later in my speech, Stevenage will not escape my notice—nor will West Sussex, Newcastle and Sutton Coldfield.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford)rose—
  Mr. Sheerman rose—
  Mr. Burns: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), because I promised to do so.
  Mr. Sheerman: May I jog the hon. Gentleman's memory? Those of us who have been in the House some time remember the destruction of the planning procedures under the previous Government. We knew that every appeal that was turned down by local councillors would be allowed by the previous Government, because they believed that market forces should rule and, every time, green-belt land was built on. The destruction of our countryside happened under the previous Administration.
  Mr. Burns: I bitterly regret giving way to the hon. Gentleman, because of the utter claptrap that he has just given the House. I remind him that it was under the Conservative Government that we doubled the size of the green belt, leaving it almost the size of the Principality of Wales.
  Mr. Raynsford: As the hon. Gentleman mentioned Stevenage in response to an intervention by the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), would he care to confirm that, in 1994, when that right hon. Gentleman was Secretary of State for the Environment, 23 hectares of green-belt land in Stevenage were released for housing with the knowledge and approval of the previous Government?
  Hon. Members: Oh!
  Mr. Gummer rose—
  Mr. Burns: I do not wish to get involved in an internal brawl, but I shall give way to my right hon. Friend.
  Mr. Gummer: I wonder whether my hon. Friend would remind the Minister, who has had the chance to refresh his memory on the point, that not only was all the release of land in Stevenage under this Government backed by the Labour council there—so was every release of land in
  998
  Stevenage in the past 20 years. The Minister has had 20 civil servants to find his one point, but I remember the issue clearly because the council was so bad.
  Mr. Burns: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for that point and I shall put the Minister's mind at rest by confirming that I shall return to the subject of Stevenage later.
  Ministers do not seem to understand the issue and that is one of the main reasons for the way in which they have behaved in the past 20 months.
  The Minister for the Environment displayed his ignorance of planning policy guidance note 2 when he said:
  "The purpose of the green belt is to provide an area surrounding cities for recreation in open countryside, but as populations grow, as towns change in size, and as new towns are built, it is perfectly reasonable to intervene in the green belt if the overall impact is to increase its size."—[Official Report, 29 July 1998; Vol. 317, c. 437.]
  I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman is not here, but I must explain to Ministers that it is not perfectly reasonable to intervene in the green belt—on the contrary, what is happening up and down the country is totally wrong.
  Mr. Oliver Heald: Does my hon. Friend agree that we are talking not about Stevenage but about the land next to it, between Stevenage, Hitchin and Letchworth in my constituency? The Government will create a sprawling conurbation in north Hertfordshire that the people do not want and have campaigned against. It is a disgrace. To talk about 23 hectares as though it is 800 is a laugh.
  Mr. Burns: My hon. Friend makes his point tellingly. He probably knows that his concerns are shared not only by Conservatives in his county but by Labour councillors.
  The Minister for the Environment should consider his Department's PPG2 and learn that the purposes of the green belt are to prevent urban sprawl, to prevent towns from coalescing, to protect historic towns and to encourage urban regeneration. When we were in government, we lived up to that policy. The green belt doubled in size in our time and we left in place a designated green-belt area the size of Wales.
  What have this Government done? They have certainly lived up to the Deputy Prime Minister's proud boast, which may have been a Freudian slip, when he said:
  "The green belt is a Labour achievement—and we intend to build upon it."
  He and his party have certainly lived up to that boast.
  The Deputy Prime Minister has given the go-ahead for 10,000 new homes on green-belt land near Stevenage. In the face of opposition from the Conservatives, a Liberal Democrat-Labour pact dragooned the proposal through Hertfordshire county council, despite the opposition of the Labour leader on North Hertfordshire district council, who said:
  "We feel very let down."
  Is anyone surprised? He continued:
  "The Government claims to be committed to protecting the environment and regeneration of urban areas and now we have them supporting plans to rape 2,000 acres of greenbelt."

  999
  That is a damning indictment of new Labour actions by a new Labour council leader.
  Barbara Follett rose—
  Mr. Burns: The Secretary of State approved 2,500 more homes in the green belt outside Newcastle, despite there being 4,000 empty homes in one part of the city alone. That decision was greeted by the off-message hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) with the reflection that it would accelerate the decline of inner-city areas such as his constituency.
  Barbara Follett: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. As he mentioned my constituency several times, it is the least that he could do. If the Conservative party is so keen on preserving the green belt, why did the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), in one of his last decisions as Secretary of State for the Environment, release 50 acres of metropolitan green-belt land in Surrey and another 428 hectares to Manchester airport?
  Mr. Burns: Oh dear. Good try, must do better. The hon. Lady has her crib sheet, but I am afraid that, in cases such as Manchester airport, there are very exceptional circumstances. What we decry is the fact that the Government have brushed aside very exceptional circumstances. It is now almost the norm that anyone who wants to build on green-belt land, can. [Interruption.] If the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning listens, he will hear more examples of what has gone on in the past 20 months under this Government in respect of the desecration of the green belt and green-field sites.
  Mr. Gummer: Will my hon. Friend tell the hon. Member for Stevenage (Barbara Follett) that airports can hardly be built on brown-field sites in the middle of a city? If she fought for her constituency, no homes would be built in the green belt; they would be built on brown-field sites.
  Mr. Burns: I am sure that the hon. Member for Stevenage (Barbara Follett) heard those comments.
  The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central said that the decision in Newcastle would accelerate the decline of inner-city areas such as his constituency.
  Mr. Jim Cousins: The master plan that implements the 2,400 houses in the green belt is now before the Minister. I have great hopes that he will put some brakes on approval of the master plan to allow some checks and balances to be introduced so that the release of land will not compromise the regeneration of the inner city, which is my policy and that of my Government.
  Mr. Burns: I am interested by that, even if it is slightly off message. No doubt the Minister heard that plea. When the hon. Gentleman at first criticised the decision by saying that it would accelerate the problems of inner-city areas such as his, he rightly, as a good constituency Member, went on to say that he would fight the proposal to the best of his abilities. I respect him for that. I suspect that the controllers in Millbank will not be thrilled but as
  1000
  a constituency Member he is right to fight Government proposals to do something on green-belt land that could accelerate the problems of the inner city in Newcastle.
  It is owing to the direct intervention of the Deputy Prime Minister in West Sussex that the total number of houses that it has to build by 2011 has been increased from 37,900 to 58,700. Despite the right hon. Gentleman's lofty statement,
  "planning will remain clearly under local control",
  to achieve the target, in defiance of the local authority, he overruled his own inspector and the decision ended up in the courts. True to form, he managed to upset, among others, the Labour leader on West Sussex county council, who declared:
  "This is the starkest possible illustration that the Government has no intention of trying to provide a greater share of … new homes on brownfield sites rather than on greenfield sites in the countryside."
  Similarly, the west midlands has not escaped the Deputy Prime Minister's attention. Up to his usual tricks, he once again overruled his Department's independent planning inspector to allow 150 acres of green-belt farmland in Sutton Coldfield to be used for development. Interestingly, the land was owned by Labour-controlled Birmingham city council.
  It would be unfair to accuse Environment Ministers of not always taking a close interest in the green belt. That would be a travesty because we all know of the keen interest of the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) through his assiduous lobbying of Environment Ministers and officials to promote two major schemes in green belt in Barnet—140 miles from his constituency—when he was Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Secretary of State.
  Criticism of the Secretary of State's actions has not been restricted to Labour councillors whose areas have been adversely affected by his environmentally damaging decisions. The Labour-controlled Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs has been equally scathing. In its 10th report on housing last year, it described the answers that one Minister gave as, "vacuous and disingenuous". The whole report was a thinly veiled attack on the dithering inaction that characterises the Government's attitudes to housing provision and the green-belt and brown-field sites policy. The Select Committee described the proposals in the White Paper "Planning for the Communities of the Future" as, "well-intentioned, but vague" and concluded,
  "we do not believe that they will be adequate to achieve their aims".
  I suspect that time will prove the Committee's analysis to be spot on.
  The challenge to the Government on whether they will halt their environmental vandalism will come with the 4.4 million new households that are projected to be needed by 2016, although there are strong rumours that the DETR will revise that figure upwards to 5 million houses before Easter. The House would be grateful if the Minister could confirm in his reply whether there is any truth in those rumours, or at least clarify his position.
  We have always maintained that as much of that house building as possible should be on brown-field sites. In our manifesto for the last general election, we called for a target of 60 per cent. brown-field site building. In February 1998, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition proposed that the figure should be revised upwards to 66 per cent.

  1001
  Interestingly, the Government reversed their position in the Secretary of State's statement in February 1998, when the right hon. Gentleman increased—
  The Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning (Mr. Richard Caborn): Rubbish.
  Mr. Burns: It is a statement of fact that the Secretary of State revised his figures upwards from 50 per cent. to 60 per cent. in February 1998. Ironically, only a year before, his own junior Minister, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), had told Planning Week that a target of 60 per cent. would be "a recipe for disaster". I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman is here. Perhaps he can enlighten us on how he has managed to square his views with his boss's change of heart. I suspect that if there is one right hon. Gentleman who does not take kindly to having his policies described by one of his junior Ministers as "a recipe for disaster" it is the Deputy Prime Minister.
  Achieving the 60 per cent. target needs an urgent revision of PPG3 because that guidance will set out the details of the policy and the sequential approach to housing sites. The revision was announced in February 1998, but one year on, virtually nothing has happened. No consultation draft PPG3 has appeared. The Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning promised it to my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) in time for his public examination, which will take place next week.
  Mr. Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend might like to know that the examination in public for East Anglia began yesterday. I will be giving evidence to it next Tuesday. On 22 October, the Minister promised me,
  "I will ensure that he"—
  meaning me—
  "has the revised PPG3 in his hands".—[Official Report, 22 October 1998; Vol. 317, c. 1447.]
  That simply has not happened. How can certainty, which the Minister says is important, be achieved at such a regional examination without the essential guidance?
  Mr. Burns: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but I have some sad news for him. He will not have the consultation draft in time for his public examination. Officials at DETR said only late last week, following a telephone inquiry, that the draft that the Minister promised my hon. Friend in time for his examination is likely to appear in about a month's time.
  As the Minister knows, it usually takes 12 months from publication of a consultation draft to the production of the final draft. It is likely that the revised PPG3 will not appear this millennium. The delay will have a significant impact. Housing starts are running at around 150,000 houses a year. The delay in PPG3 means that it is difficult to apply the new approach to planning permissions and development plans. The effective delay of the 60 per cent. target by a year will mean 15,000 extra dwellings on green-field sites. At a typical density figure of 25 dwellings to the hectare, that will mean that an extra 600 hectares per year will be lost to housing development.
  1002
  The dithering and delays on PPG3 are a damning indictment of this Government and their approach in the past 20 months. As they dither, more building takes place on green-field sites. Their response has been too little too late. As the Select Committee points out, the Government's 60 per cent. target is weakened by phasing it in over 10 years. While they dither, local authorities and regional planning conferences are expected to apply the old figures to their plans. The Minister's hollow words about "bottom-up planning" have been exposed as a sham by the constant interference of the Secretary of State in local decisions.
  Tonight, I hope that the Minister will tell the House when the draft version of PPG3 is to be produced, when the final version will be produced and why it is taking so long for the Government to revise their guidance.
  Finally, on the role of regional development agencies in the planning process, interestingly the DETR's figures show that, out of a total of 103 members on the eight boards, nearly one in three are Labour placemen, with 32 members having Labour party connections, eight having Liberal Democrat connections and six having Conservative connections. It certainly seems like jobs for the boys. Notwithstanding that, it would be interesting to learn more about the role of the RDAs in planning. The legislation is extraordinarily confusing about precisely what they will do. Will they simply muddy the water by interfering in the normal process, thus bringing a system that is already bursting at the seams into greater difficulties? Will they be able to influence Ministers in any way to prevent erosion of the green belt and green-field sites? Or will they be a white elephant with no real role to play in planning, simply causing confusion, trouble and conflict between the regional planning conferences and the local authorities?
  I said that, in the past 20 months the green belt had been attacked and green-field sites had been destroyed owing to the dithering and, sometimes, the direct intervention of Ministers, who pay lip service to environmental protection but do nothing to stop the destruction of the green belt. As the Council for the Protection of Rural England stated, in addition to all the damage caused so far, large tracts of green-field land in Hampshire and Devon are under threat of building as a result of Government pressure for more housing. In Yorkshire, Humberside and the north-east, there are plans to release green-belt land and green-field sites for development. In Staffordshire and around Bristol, there are plans to release green belt for development. New statistics show that there has been no increase in the amount of housing built on recycled land.
  Enough is enough. It is time that the Government did something rather than mouthing pious platitudes as our countryside is turned into a concrete jungle.
  7.39 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "welcomes the Government's continued commitment to protecting the countryside, including green belts, and promoting sustainable regeneration in towns and cities; recognises that the Government's decentralised and integrated policy approach, as stated in Planning for Communities of the Future, Modernising the Planning System and A New Deal for Transport, is helping to achieve more

  1003
  sustainable and equitable patterns of urban and rural development; welcomes the Government's commitment strictly to control development in the open countryside and to increase the proportion of new housing on previously—developed land in urban areas, smaller towns and villages from 40 per cent in the mid—1980s to 60 per cent; recognises the need to replace the previous predict and provide approach to the issue of household growth with a more flexible decentralised system, involving realistic regional targets for the building of new homes on recycled land, tighter controls on urban sprawl, new regional and housing planning guidance to ensure the adoption of sustainable solutions to housing development and more rigorous and detailed assessment of land availability; and believes that the Government's inter-linked policies for urban regeneration and protection of the countryside will enhance the quality of life for people in both rural and urban areas."
  I particularly welcome this debate as a further opportunity to set out the Government's achievements in planning for the communities of the future. After 18 years of Tory drift and indecision, characterised first by laissez-faire, during which any development on green fields or green belt was regarded as not only acceptable but desirable by the bigots of the right, and latterly by a death-bed repentance—years in which the countryside and the green belt were sacrificed again and again by Ministers in the former Government who are now masquerading as their defenders—this Government are moving ahead purposefully with their policies of sustainable development and with a modernised planning framework. Over the past 20 months, we have made considerable progress on developing a coherent policy that reconciles the need to provide sufficient land for housing with protecting the countryside from unsuitable development.
  Before I set out the Governments' policy and achievements, let us reflect briefly on our inheritance. We inherited from the previous Government a record that entirely belies their rhetoric this evening. Not only did the previous Government preside over a housing crisis, with the worst levels of homelessness and house repossessions in any years since the war, but they allowed extensive development all over the countryside. During the decade 1985 to 1995, they achieved on average only 42 per cent. of new development on recycled or brown-field sites. They were also profligate with the green belt, releasing on appeal more than 500 hectares for development in their last year in office alone, and presiding over the redesignation of a further 700 hectares in that same year.
  The hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) said that, in exceptional circumstances, the release of land in the green belt might be acceptable, but let us look at the Tory record and see how exceptional the circumstances were in the Conservatives' last year in office. In July 1996, the then Secretary of State agreed the release of 23 hectares of green belt in Caddington near Luton against the recommendation of the inspector, who had recommended refusal of planning permission. In March 1997, he approved the release of 50 hectares of land at Mizens farm, Woking for a development relating to a motor car which featured in the disastrous election campaign of the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major): the wheels fell off both the car and the campaign. Two months earlier, in January 1997, 428 hectares were approved at Manchester airport.
  Those decisions were made by the Secretary of State on appeal, but in that same period he was also aware of, and presided over, the following additional redesignations of green belt: in Dartford, 250 hectares approved for
  1004
  development; in south Staffordshire, 148 hectares; in Cannock Chase, 71 hectares; and in Solihull, 260 hectares. The total amount of green belt approved for development use in the last year of the Tory Government was more than 1,200 hectares. That is their record, so it is utterly hypocritical of them to pretend now that their record on that issue is anything other than shameful.
  Mr. Crispin Blunt: I was elected in April 1997 in a constituency that falls almost entirely within the green belt. I want to see Government action, not hear Government rhetoric. I shall be just as critical as the Minister of the previous Government's record, but I want action from the Labour Government. All we have heard so far is rhetoric and all we have seen is the massive extension of building on the green belt.
  Mr. Raynsford: So far, all we have heard is a brief correction of the record, so as to cure the selective amnesia of Conservative Members who prefer to forget the Conservative Government's record. However, I shall go on to set out in detail the Government's proposals to provide a proper framework for planning that reconciles the pressures on the green belt and green-field land with our need to provide housing.
  Mr. James Gray: Speaking of selective amnesia, does the Minister recall the date 23 January 1997, when he told Planning Week that there was "absolutely no doubt" that the only realistic way to meet the housing figure was to develop new towns and settlements? Does he recall telling Planning Week that? Does he stand by that statement, or does he now regret having made it?
  Mr. Raynsford: No, I do not. I recognise that there is a role for several different vehicles in ensuring that we meet housing needs. New settlements are potentially one of those vehicles and I make no apology for that. We attempt to address the issues realistically and sensibly, whereas the Opposition spout rhetoric that is totally at variance with the Conservatives' actions in office.
  Mrs. Linda Gilroy: That rhetoric is indeed synthetic. Is my hon. Friend aware that our hon. Friend the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning was recently involved in the commencement of the clearing of Seaton barracks, which is one of the many Ministry of Defence properties that we have been trying to put to use? The previous Government's record was absolutely abysmal; had they taken planning issues seriously, they would have taken the issue of former MOD sites far more seriously than they did.
  Mr. Raynsford: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend, who has highlighted one of the positive steps that the Labour Government are taking to ensure that opportunities are grasped to bring into use currently unused sites in urban areas and brown-field land, instead of building on green-field sites.
  Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Raynsford: I am having some difficulty meeting the objective set by the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt). I shall give way to the hon. Lady, but then I must make progress.
  Mrs. Gorman: I thank the Minister for giving way. Would he dispute the fact that, within central London, approximately 6 square miles of brown-field land has been identified? Most of the sites lie within the areas of Labour-controlled councils, which have refused to allow development, despite the fact that some of the land has been left lying since the second world war?
  Mr. Raynsford: I do not dispute the fact that there is a substantial number of brown-field sites in London, as there are in other urban areas. It is precisely to get such sites into use that we are taking the steps that I shall set out tonight.
  The Labour Government also inherited a consultation paper "Household growth—Where shall we live?", which illustrated the death-bed repentance which I mentioned earlier. It tentatively posed the question whether to raise the target for building new housing on previously developed land from 50 to 60 per cent., but set out no detailed proposals, let alone a well-thought-out way to achieve that. Since May 1997, we have set about filling that vacuum: first, by confirming the 60 per cent. target for new houses on recycled brown-field sites; and, secondly, by producing a comprehensive approach to developing our towns and cities and reducing the number of green-field sites that will be needed for development.
  Mr. Burns: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Raynsford: No, I must make some progress. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear with me as I do so.
  The Government set out our position in last February's policy statement "Planning for the Communities of the Future". We proposed to move away from the previous Administration's predict and provide approach to a new approach based on the principles of plan, monitor, and manage. We recommended devolving decision making by relying more heavily on joint regional planning conference/Government office assessments of housing requirements to ensure greater local accountability and local responsibility for deciding final figures and monitoring the outcome. We also announced our intention to revise Government planning policy guidance for housing—planning policy guidance note 3—on which a consultation draft is to be published shortly. That guidance will provide sharper and more rigorous definitions of previously used land and urban capacity, explain how the new land recycling targets are to work and explain how a sequential approach and phasing of local authority land release will work.
  Last year, the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee gave further attention to the issue. After a thorough review, the Committee concluded that we were going in the right direction. However, I know that there are still people who need to be convinced. All those who have looked carefully at the way in which the future housing requirement projections are made have come to the same conclusion as the Committee: that the methodology is basically sound and there is no better
  1006
  framework immediately available. However, that does not prevent the flat-earthers on the Opposition Benches from raucously denouncing the figures, even though—as their selective amnesia has obviously caused them to forget—the figures were produced in the lifetime of the previous Conservative Government and published by that Government.
  We want to maximise the use of previously developed land. To realise that aim, we have adopted a national target of 60 per cent. of all additional housing being built on previously developed land.
  Mr. Burns: Given the fact that Government policy has changed to having a 60 per cent. target, does the Minister still stand by his pre-election statement to a magazine that to move from a 50 per cent. target to a 60 per cent. target would be a "recipe for disaster"?
  Mr. Raynsford: The response that I gave, which I am happy to defend, was that plucking a figure out of thin air, as the previous Government did, was a recipe for disaster. One cannot plan by that means, although the Opposition have a lot of experience of it. They have plucked from the air figures of 60 per cent., then 75 per cent., and the Leader of the Opposition has produced a figure of 66 per cent. No one knows the basis for any of those numbers because no serious research or analysis has been conducted. The problem with the Opposition is that they can come up with only rhetoric, not substance. If the electorate are to have confidence in the political process, it is fundamental that targets set by Government are soundly based on a proper understanding of what is feasible and attainable. That is this Government's approach.
  That is our baseline position—if it is possible to do better we will, but first we must establish what is feasible. We have put in place the national land use database, which will provide the first countrywide assessment of what previously developed land is currently vacant and available. Given the Opposition's comments, is it not extraordinary that, when the Labour party came into office, there was no way of knowing where the recyclable land was or how much brown-field land was available? There were no records: the Conservatives had been in government for 18 years and had taken no practical steps to implement a proper policy for brown-field development.
  Mr. David Drew: Will my hon. Friend confirm that not only were no national data collected under the Conservative Government, but local authorities had never been asked whether they had vacant land that could be recycled?
  Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend has a lot of experience in this matter and he makes an extremely valid point.
  The national land use database will be published this spring. For the first time, the database will give local authorities information from which to derive their own regional and local targets. With that information, we will expect the regional planning conferences to produce challenging, but realistic, targets for their regions.
  The Government are systematically putting the mechanisms in place. The urban task force, headed by Lord Rogers, is exploring how best we can bring vacant

  1007
  or under-used urban brown-field sites back into use. The task force has already presented its interim findings and will report fully later this summer. It will undoubtedly provide much helpful guidance, for developers and local authorities alike, on how to make the optimum use of opportunities for recycling urban land and buildings.
  We believe that higher densities for housing developments may be appropriate in suitable locations, such as near urban centres with good transport links. However, they must be designed to a high standard and provide a good-quality environment. We are not advocating insensitive "town cramming". We are not suggesting building on open spaces and playing fields in urban areas, or at very high densities, but we are suggesting making better use of land. Those who support reducing the impact of the countryside should support that approach.
  Above all, the challenge is how to make towns and cities places where people will want and choose to live—a theme that will run through our forthcoming White Paper on urban matters. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister set the tone by calling last year for an urban renaissance. That will need positive and proactive planning at the local level, with more imagination and vision. Focusing development back into our towns and cities will require much more creative thinking about "place making". Design will be a critical element. In many cases, it will mean the gradual remodelling of existing communities, but there will also be opportunities for larger projects, such as urban villages, of which the millennium village in my constituency of Greenwich and Woolwich will be a flagship example.
  I also welcome the opportunity today to reiterate the Government's policy on the green belt. The green belt is an essential and very important tool of planning policy, and one to which the Government remain totally committed. The strong presumption against inappropriate development in the green belt also remains. Such development would be permissible only where very special circumstances justifying development outweighed the harm to the green belt.
  However, we must also demolish a few myths about the green belt. The green belt is not being reduced. Since May 1997, approximately 30,000 hectares have been earmarked for addition to the green belt. That is an area three times the size of Bristol. The green belt now covers more than 12 per cent. of England.
  Mr. Dominic Grieve: I understand that the Minister is extending the green belt. New rural land is being taken out to add to the green belt, while land that was to have been used only in exceptional circumstances is being swallowed up. Is that not a bit pointless?
  Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman is a little impatient. If he will bear with me, he will hear a number of remarks on those specific matters. I accept that they are difficult issues, and that they must be tackled honestly and realistically, not in a facile manner.
  I have emphasised that the green belt is not being reduced. I also wish to stress that green belt does not mean green field. Green-field land is any undeveloped land. Not all green belt is free from development: often the development was there before the green belt was defined. Development proposals in the green belt frequently
  1008
  involve the redevelopment of previously used sites. It is established policy to try to ensure that such redevelopment yields environmental improvements, compared with the development that it replaces.
  Equally, "green belt" is not a landscape designation. It does not imply an area of outstanding natural beauty. All kinds and qualities of land, including derelict sites, may be in the green belt. Most green belt is ordinary agricultural land. Less than 5 per cent. of green belt overlaps with statutory national landscape or wildlife designations.
  Green belt is not a national designation: it is primarily a local designation. Decisions about the setting and altering of boundaries, or about permitting development, rest primarily with local authorities. However, the Government attach considerable importance to green belts, where they have been established. That is why we have national planning policy guidance, indicating the weight that we attach to their continued protection.
  Mr. Lansley: Given the importance that the Minister ascribes to the green belt, and given his explanation of its purpose, will he communicate with Labour-controlled Cambridge city council, which proposes to swallow up green-belt land in the south of the city? Part of the land affected is in my constituency, and the council justifies its proposal by saying that the landscape would be enhanced.
  Mr. Raynsford: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I shall come to precisely that point. The issue is interesting and difficult. There is substantial economic growth in Cambridge, where green-belt designated land surrounds the area tightly. That poses special problems, with which I shall deal in a moment.
  Let us set out what green belts should be. Green belts should fulfil the objectives and purposes of PPG2: to prevent urban sprawl; to stop towns merging with one another; to safeguard the countryside against encroachment; to preserve the setting of historic towns and to encourage urban regeneration. As far as possible, green belts should, among other things, benefit the urban population by providing accessible open countryside and outdoor recreation facilities that enhance the quality of life. They will be effective in achieving those aims only if they are consistent with principles of sustainable development. Whether or not that was a guiding principle when any particular green belt was designated, it is certainly our guiding principle now.
  Sustainable development means striking an appropriate balance between social, economic, environmental and natural resource considerations, and it has regard to the needs of future generations as well as the present one. Sustainability is not just about reducing car use, although some superficial commentators think that it is. The impact—positive or negative—of a development on the environment of an area must be taken into account, as must the question whether it will improve the quality of life for the wider community.
  Sustainable development is about positive planning, but green belts are often used merely negatively, simply to prevent development. Some green-belt boundaries are too tight, and are then nibbled away piecemeal by departures from development plans. The Select Committee on Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs recognised that problem by stressing the need for the protection of the

  1009
  inner boundary of the green belt to prevent urban sprawl. However, it did not say how it believed that was to be reconciled with its other recommendation that
  "the great majority of … new homes on greenfield sites should be built as extensions to existing urban areas".
  There is no doubt that there is an inherent conflict here, and that difficult conundrums must be faced and resolved. Green belts are meant to safeguard the countryside from encroachment, but new development may leapfrog the green belt, encroaching into deeper countryside and establishing travel patterns which involve more and longer journeys, putting further pressure on the environment. That is simply not sustainable planning.
  PPG2 makes it clear that alteration of green belts should be contemplated only where alternatives in the urban areas contained by or beyond the green belt have been fully considered. While urban brown-field land suitable for redevelopment remains, we would not expect local authorities to release sites in the green belt.
  Our policy document "Planning for the Communities of the Future" identified the possibility that the green belt might, in exceptional circumstances, offer a more sustainable location for necessary new development than sites outside the green belt. That is why we accepted, for example, the decision by Hertfordshire county council to take land to the west of Stevenage out of the green belt. That decision offered the most sustainable solution for the location of new development in the county. No one can doubt that it was a hard decision, just as no one can fail to appreciate the concerns of those who greeted it with dismay. It is clear that over-adherence to green-belt boundaries may lead to unsustainable outcomes, and, in the county council's judgment, a mass of indiscriminate development over a much larger area of rural Hertfordshire would have been unsustainable.
  The Government are fully committed to the countryside. Indeed, more Labour Members than Conservative Members represent rural areas. Our concern must, however, be not just with enjoyment of the countryside for its own sake, but for those who live and work there. The Government are to produce a White Paper for rural England later this year. Rural England is changing, and we must respond to that change. The White Paper will set out the longer-term future for the English countryside and consider how policies on the economy, health, education, crime, agriculture, the environment and housing will support a sustainable countryside and rural communities in the future. It will consider how the prosperity and competitiveness of the rural economy can be strengthened, how development and regeneration policies can help areas in need, and how we can make sure that all people who live in rural areas have opportunities to participate fully in society.
  The White Paper will be produced jointly by my Department and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and it will involve a wide range of other Departments and agencies. We plan to issue soon a discussion document that will set out key themes and invite comments, and we will talk to a range of interested people and organisations. We will look closely at how the urban and rural White Papers can complement each other to build a clear and comprehensive strategy for the future.
  The Government have a coherent planning policy programme for urban and rural areas alike, and we are putting in place mechanisms to deliver it. Our
  1010
  commitment to the countryside and the green belts remains as strong as ever. The Conservative motion is a shallow, hypocritical and opportunistic ploy to divert attention away from the previous Government's abject failure to set in place clear, firm policies for sustainable development and the protection of the countryside. Their record then makes nonsense of Conservative rhetoric today, and the motion should be consigned, as they were in 1997, to the dustbin of history.
  8.3 pm
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: There are good reasons for tonight's debate. At present rates of development, one fifth of England will be urban by 2050, with a green-field area the size of Bristol being built on every year. However, so far, most of what we have heard tonight has been a party political battle. It would help us to remember that the Conservative Government set the 4.4 million predict-and-provide target. Equally, the Labour Government have so far failed to get us out of it. That is why we have suggested that the Conservative motion might merely be amended to refer to the party's record as part of the problem. The Minister has more accurately represented some of the real difficulties that the Government face than did anything that we heard from the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns).
  The figure of 4.4 million new homes by 2016 was the product of a Conservative Government who allowed huge green-field and out-of-town developments to take place, often after overturning local council objections. Too late, that Government recognised the problem. The Minister neglected to mention that the proportion of development on brown-field sites was rising towards the end of the Conservative Administration, but they were shutting the stable door long after the horse had bolted. Many developments, particularly out-of-town stores around the country, are all too physical evidence of that.
  The Deputy Prime Minister vowed this time last year to break the mould of predict and provide. Those were fine words, but action has been slower in coming. It has certainly been slower than everyone wants, and slower than it should have been. Reports suggest that the Government are considering an increase to the original new homes figure.
  In The Guardian on 14 January, Lord Rogers, who chairs Labour's urban task force, suggested that the 4.4 million could rise to 5 million based on new population projections that show higher-than-expected increases in the south and in East Anglia. Other newspaper reports have suggested much the same. The Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning went on record in an interview for Country Life in June 1998 to confirm that he—and, presumably, his Department—believes that the current estimates for required new housing are too low. He said:
  "The figure of five million is entirely speculative but it will be in excess of 4.4 million."
  Yet, in his statement on 23 February 1998, the Deputy Prime Minister promised to abandon predict and provide, and to protect our green fields, saying:
  "It is our firm policy to protect our countryside and revitalise our towns and cities".—[Official Report, 23 February 1998; Vol. 307, c. 22.]
  The Liberal Democrats welcomed the emphasis placed by the Deputy Prime Minister on the need for an urban renaissance for the benefit of both town and country, and

  1011
  on a higher target for housing on previously developed land. We welcome the move away from predict and provide, a move for which we have long campaigned. However, the Government seem still to be confused about whether they really mean what they said.
  Mr. Grieve: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with two things? First, times have changed. Over the past decade, perceptions of what is acceptable development have altered, on a European basis. Secondly, the Government have come up with the notion of sustainable development as the centre of their policy, and the figures advanced for the amount of housing required do not fall within the category of sustainable.
  Mr. Taylor: It was not the Labour Government who invented the term sustainable development, but they have certainly said that they will implement the idea. I welcome that. There are questions about the figures, and I have raised my own concern. There are even bigger questions of whether policies are in place to achieve sustainable development, about where development goes and about how it evolves.
  The debate on "Planning for the Communities of the Future" took place almost a year ago. So far, however, the Government's strong rhetoric has not been matched by strong action. The real failure contained in Labour's amendment to the motion is their failure to recognise that action has not been taken. As Tony Burton, assistant director of the Council for the Protection of Rural England, said in The Times at the end of January:
  "We are living in a policy vacuum. While Prescott talks about urban renaissance and the best use of recycled land, green fields are being built on."
  No new planning policy guidances have been issued. We are told that the new draft PPG on housing will be published soon, but it has not been produced yet and it has taken too long. Without scrapping existing planning guidelines and starting over, little can change. Meanwhile, applications are still dealt with on the old predictand-provide basis and on old structure plans based on premises in place under the previous Government. Those plans will remain in place for many years to come unless the Government come up with a fast scheme to revise them.
  How far have Ministers succeeded in preparing regional planning guidance that will allow local authorities to review their development plans quickly? Labour is still passing the buck. The Government claim to be decentralising planning control, but they are continuing with business as usual. In Hampshire, the Government pressed the authorities involved in the Hampshire structure plan to increase planned housing provision for 2001 to 2011 from 44,000 to 56,000, in line with regional planning guidance. That is an old decision, based on old policy.
  The Deputy Prime Minister himself has forced Devon to accept house-building targets that will reduce large areas of the county to urban sprawl. Countryside near Broad Clyst, the National Trust village near Exeter, and in South Hams, between Dartmoor and the sea, will be desecrated by thousands of new homes.
  The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions issued a statement on 1 April 1998 outlining the implications of the White Paper, "Planning for the
  1012
  Communities of the Future", for the development plans and regional planning guidance currently under review. The statement on transitional arrangements straightforwardly, and rightly, admits that the full implications of the White Paper cannot be felt until RPG and structure and local plans have been reviewed around the country. None of the good words can possibly turn into action for years to come.
  Without the right planning rules and financial incentives, the good words may make little difference in the long run. There is a need to move forward. If the Government believe all that they have said about protecting the countryside, and that their new approach will make a real difference, it is time that they put in place mechanisms to allow councils to take decisions on the new basis instead of on the policies for which the Government have rightly criticised their predecessor.
  The White Paper also contained a statement on green-belt land, with which it is difficult to disagree. It said:
  "There might exceptionally be benefits in releasing for development indifferent Green Belt Land, if that means protecting better quality land elsewhere".
  The Minister highlighted the dilemmas there, and he was right to do so.
  However, the principle of green belt is that, once allocated, it provides protection on which people can rely. If new green-belt land is allocated, that is a bonus, but we are not talking about a mathematical equation. It is not all right to add land here at the expense of land developed elsewhere. The green belt is intended to provide genuine protection for the countryside around developed areas, preventing urban sprawl, not to be altered at will.
  If the Government genuinely believe that much green belt was wrongly allocated in the first place, it is far better to review the matter as a whole and consider it independently, by means of a commission, an inquiry or whatever, than to take ad hoc decisions, tearing up protection and justifying that by additions elsewhere.
  We have seen that happen in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, where the unitary development plan proposes the development of 2,500 executive houses and a business park on 480 hectares. Earlier, reference was made to the 2.5 square miles of green belt west of Stevenage in Hertfordshire which was released last year for 10,000 houses. The Minister is right to criticise the previous Government's record on release of green belt. Clearly, the previous Government was at least as culpable and arguably rather more so. Nevertheless, that is the biggest single release of green-belt land ever and does not appear to match up to Labour's rhetoric.
  Nothing can be guaranteed altogether, and these are difficult issues, but development should be exceptional, certainly not large scale and commonplace, as it was under the previous Government and still is now.
  In June 1998, the Deputy Prime Minister said that the Government's policy has added an additional 30,000 hectares of land to the United Kingdom's green belt. Adding new land to the green belt is easy. Any Minister can do that simply with a stroke of a pen. It is resisting its future development that is the issue, and, on that, the Government are failing in their own terms.
  Green-field and green-belt sites are still being developed as before, local councils are still being encouraged to build more homes than they think

  1013
  they need, and Labour is still umming and ahhing about whether the figure of 4.4 million new homes stays, increases or is dropped altogether.
  The Liberal Democrats believe that there is a straightforward package of measures that the Government should adopt to stop unnecessary development in the countryside and revitalise our towns and cities. The two go hand in hand and the Minister was right to say so.
  The revision of PPG3 could and should have been completed earlier. That would have provided a clear sign in national planning guidance of the change in approach, and would have immediate effect by now. The Government are in favour of that change, and that is welcome, but it is still unpublished, even in draft, and the final version is probably 12 months away.
  We advocated a stop to controversial major new development plans and approvals until the new PPG3 is published. That would ensure that the Government's plan, monitor and manage strategy became a reality within months, not years, but it has not happened.
  In the White Paper "Planning for the Communities of the Future", the proposed new regional planning system leaves the DETR to produce the projections and the regional planning conferences to produce the guidance, but the Secretary of State has the final say as to whether the figures are acceptable. We are not really moving from predict and provide; the Government are simply disguising their own role. That allows the Government to pass the buck under the guise of regional decision making, but to have the final say if they do not agree with the plans—a factor that will rest heavily on the shoulders of those given that responsibility at regional level.
  In the same document, the Government aim to raise the proportion of new homes built on previously developed land from 50 to 60 per cent., but state that a national target may not be meaningful at regional or local levels. Perhaps so, but how will the Government co-ordinate the regional targets in order to ensure that they all add up to the desired 60 per cent. nationally, or is it a target for which the Government will not accept responsibility, arguing that, unfortunately, decisions were taken at a local level that they did not want, but they did not intervene because they were decentralist?
  Changing planning policy is part of the way to achieve that, but we need to recognise that financial and social pressures are also involved. The Minister asked for the Liberal Democrats' suggestions. I agree with what the Government are arguing for, but I am pointing out that they have not done it and, until they do so, they cannot deliver. Changing planning policy is only part of the solution, and I want to deal with a couple of fundamental points before I finish. At the moment, it is far cheaper and less risky, and so more profitable, to develop green-field sites.
  That financial imperative is probably as big as any planning ones. Developers will repeatedly put in applications until local opposition is worn away, in the hope that they will eventually make the profits. The profits are big enough to allow them to do so. Therefore, we need to introduce a levy on the windfall profits made on green-field development, levelling the financial playing field between development on green-field and brown-field sites. That would reduce the financial
  1014
  advantages of developing green-field sites, and raise funds that should be earmarked for local environmental improvements and the decontamination of brown-field sites, helping with the costs of developing them.
  Mr. Gray: Liberal Democrats are always on about levies on green-field sites for green-field development. Does he agree that, if such a measure were in place, all that would happen would be that those houses which are built on green-field sites would be more expensive—larger, middle-class, executive-style homes? Developers would not care in the least about a green-field levy. It would be an incentive to build on the green-field sites that the hon. Gentleman seeks to protect.
  Mr. Taylor: I do not see that the fact that it would be more expensive for a developer would be an incentive to build on those sites. Those funds would be used to reduce the costs of building on brown-field sites, equalling out the playing field that is currently weighted towards the green-field sites.
  In addition, building on green-field sites is positively encouraged at present, and re-development discouraged, because no value added tax is charged on new development, whereas the refurbishment of empty homes and offices carries the full rate. That urgently needs changing. Re-balancing VAT to provide an equal VAT cost on re-development of derelict buildings and green fields, bringing one down and putting the other up, at no net cost to the Exchequer, could dramatically change the financial picture, yet there are no new economic instruments from the Government. I am glad to say that Lord Rogers urban task force has, in its interim report, recommended them.
  I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will come forward with proposals in the Budget. I am sorry if I sound a little negative, but, so far, the Chancellor has been extremely slow in coming forward with any environmentally friendly and sustainable changes to taxation policy. In fact, recently, he won a grey ribbon award for his bad record on the environment, so I am not optimistic. If they do come, we will welcome them, and they will help to achieve the 60 per cent. target—which is unrealistic without them—and move us towards the 75 per cent. target that the Government round table on sustainable development, and the Lord Rogers task force, suggested.
  We must also address the fact that many people want to leave urban areas because the policy in cities and towns is going wrong. Tackling the problems of a derelict environment, high crime levels and poor schools is fundamental if we are to persuade people to stay in our cities. We should bear in mind that Britain is unusual in seeing large numbers move out of the inner urban areas. In much of the rest of Europe, cities are popular places in which to live because of planning and the lack of dereliction.
  I should have liked to have mentioned the problem of second homes, but I have run out of time. I would say to the Minister: get rid of the council tax discount; look at introducing planning controls, which already exist for offices and should exist for the conversion of family homes into second and holiday homes and, finally, look at the 800,000 empty properties in Britain before planning to build unnecessarily on green-field sites.
  8.19 pm
  Mr. Keith Vaz: The hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) demonstrates what the Liberal Democrats are so good at—facing in two directions at the same time, supporting the country and the town—but his saving grace is that he does it always with a smile.
  I welcome the debate. It is a pity that it has been such a long time since the Conservative party last initiated a debate on planning. I cannot remember, when the Labour party was in opposition and the Conservative party was in government, a passionate devotion to planning in the green belt, but I am glad that we are having the debate. This is the 12th planning debate—Adjournment and otherwise—that I have attended. Under the previous Government, it was usually through an Adjournment procedure that we got to discuss planning.
  I am delighted that we have at the Dispatch Box two Ministers who have a grip on the subject, who understand the problems of the planning system and who are so passionately committed to the green belt. I welcome the work that they have done over the past 18 months, and I know that they will continue to produce thoughtful and appropriate policies that will meet the needs of local communities.
  I am not surprised that the former Secretary of State for the Environment, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), has run away. He came to make a little statement and then left. That is what he did to the planning system and the green belt—he made a few statements, did a few photo calls and then abandoned the system. This was the man who introduced PPG6 and PPG13 during his term in office, two policies that also faced in different directions at the same time. They were criticised by the present vice-chairman of the Conservative party, the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman), in his capacity as the chairman of Asda. I do not know what he is going to say tonight, but I hope that he will repeat some of the criticisms that he had when the Conservative party were in government.
  Of course Labour is passionately committed to the green belt and the countryside. It is a very strong commitment, which is why so many Labour Members are present to speak in the debate. The previous Government neglected the green belt and ignored any ideas that could have supported it or our cities.
  It is sheer hypocrisy for the shadow spokesman to condemn this Government for what they have done. The Minister was quite right to read out a list of crimes committed by the previous Government against the green belt. It is a list of which the Conservative party should be ashamed. It is hypocritical for Conservatives to pretend that they support the green belt. We know that they have to pretend because most of them are now in marginal seats, and the Liberal Democrats are close to capturing many of those seats. We understand why they say those things—no doubt their local newspapers are also covering the debate—but we have an absolute commitment, reasserted by the Minister, by which we will stand.
  I have only a few minutes in which to speak because I know that many colleagues want to contribute to the debate, but I must mention the importance of modernising our planning system and perhaps put a couple of points to the Minister so that he is aware that we support what he has done in respect of planning, but hope that he will take the modernisation procedures forward.
  1016
  It is important that we examine all the PPGs that have been issued so far. One of the criticisms that I have of the planning system is that there is no firm body of planning law. Those who advise councils and others when applications are made have no consistency. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell, who said that the Government should be criticised for not publishing more PPGs. We have had too many PPGs, and the process needs to be streamlined. We need to examine those that have been passed so far and see whether they are consistent. A number of those issued under the previous Government were not, which is why we have the problems that we have.
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman. I think that he missed my point. We need to update PPGs, not add to their number.
  Mr. Vaz: If that is what the hon. Gentleman said, I apologise. He is absolutely right. We need to update our PPGs, and that is why I have previously suggested the creation of an advisory committee to advise Ministers and the Government on the inconsistencies in our planning system, especially the PPGs, so that, before they are issued, they can be made consistent with the planning law that goes before them.
  The only people who seem to be able to understand the complicated nature of planning law are the planning silks, and we all know how well they do out of the planning system. Why should it be that the only people who benefit from the planning system are the lawyers? I say that as a former lawyer, although not a planning lawyer. The fact that the system is complicated makes matters much worse.
  There needs to be consistency and firmness in the system but also flexibility. It is important that developers also know what the present planning system is. Part of the work that the Government have done has been to convince big developers such as the retailers of the importance of developing within city centres. Some of the big supermarkets such as Asda, Tesco, Sainsbury and Safeway understand that, when we say that they have to pass a sequential test, we mean it. We are not going to do what the Conservative Secretary of State did, which was to say that he supported a sequential test but then not follow through. Those developers are told that they ought to develop within city centres and within existing communities. To be fair to them, many have come up with innovative schemes to ensure that there is development within city centres.
  When I go home at night, I pass the development on the Finchley road, which has been led by Sainsbury. It has been beneficial because it has brought businesses into the local community, and it is a pleasure to shop in areas of that kind. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) has left the Chamber, but what Boots has done for the centre of Harrow encourages people to come there. That means that we do not have to have development outside.
  We want people to move into our city and town centres, not to move out of them. I see that the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), a former Environment Minister, is sitting on the Front Bench. Under the previous Government's policy, it was sad that our town centres were abandoned rather than celebrated. We need investment in our town and city centres so that they are safe places in which to live and work.

  1017
  Anyone passing Marble Arch and the Edgware road late at night will see exactly the kind of vibrant, inner-city area that we want to see developed. The shops are open quite late into the night; people walk around quite safely; and, although not all the cafes are open in January, the area has the atmosphere of which continental cities are so proud.
  Delay is still inherent in the planning system. I know that it was inherited—[Interruption.] It is no good the shadow Minister nodding; it was under the Conservative Government that the backlog developed. Their failure to appoint inspectors and to get planning inquiries moving caused the backlog and delay. We need more inspectors and a more efficient planning inspectorate so that, when applications are turned down, there can be a much quicker resolution of the problem.
  I do not know whether any of the Conservative Members present speaks for Hampshire, but, in Mitchell Deva, a community has been under threat for the past five or six years because no one will make a decision as to whether houses can be built in the local area. That causes enormous distress and concern to local people, so let us try to get rid of the delays inherent in the system.
  Secondly, the planning system is still very costly, and the only people who can use it are the developers who have a great deal of money. We need to bring the cost down. Some inquiries, such as that into the fifth terminal at Heathrow, go on for years. Despite the enormous cost of the T5 inquiry, we all know what is going to happen in the end. Clearly, local people need to be able to put their case. Perhaps they could be funded through the planning system so that they can get the kind of barristers that some of the big developers use, but let us see an end to those large and long-winded public inquiries.
  I welcome the planning role for the regional development agencies. The Minister is right—the regional conferences will enable many of the problems to be dealt with at the regional and local level. That is the way to operate. Instead of having Whitehall dictate what should happen in our regions, local people should work together.
  Finally, I commend the work of the urban task force. The Government were right to put someone as eminent as Lord Rogers into the chair of the urban task force. He is one of the foremost architects of this century. He is committed to ensuring that we celebrate our towns and cities. The task force is going to our major towns and cities to take evidence and to listen to the good practice of local Labour councils. That is because all Labour councils have done good work. That having been done, the task force will produce a report that will enable us to have a good urban policy—that is something that we should support.
  I look forward to receiving the task force's report because the key to protecting our green belt is to ensure that development occurs on brown-field sites in the cities. It is no longer a question of the bankrupt contest between town and city. The way to resolve these problems is to ensure that we examine ways in which our urban renaissance can be developed so that there will not be development outside urban areas. That is the best way to plan for prosperity and to plan for our people.
  8.31 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Soames: I am grateful to be able to speak tonight solely about West Sussex and to invite the Minister, after what I thought was a deplorable performance from the Government Dispatch Box on such a serious matter, to deal sensibly and seriously with the points that I shall make. I shall speak in the context of the motion tabled by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and other right hon. and hon. Friends. I shall focus my remarks on the grave anxieties that are rightly and understandably felt by those who live in my constituency of Mid-Sussex and in West Sussex more generally.
  As the Minister may or may not know, West Sussex has some of the most beautiful and romantic landscape in Britain. However, under present Government policy, not one green field is safe in the area. Every settlement feels that it is under pressure. In East Grinstead, Haywards Heath and Burgess Hill, local people are extremely anxious about the Government's monstrous decisions. This is a wholly unacceptable and thoroughly bad state of affairs. It happens also to be environmentally unsustainable.
  I shall remind the House of exactly what has happened in West Sussex. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), who so carefully and sensibly set out the case.
  Mr. Bob Blizzard: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Soames: No, I will not.
  There is no disagreement in West Sussex, as the Minister knows, that there will have to be development. Mid-Sussex is at the heart of a prosperous, growing and ambitious county. All parties in West Sussex agreed on a structure plan, which was approved by one of Her Majesty's inspectors at an examination in public in May 1997. It was a well-researched, well-documented and careful piece of work by the county, the district and the parish councils. It related to the overall environmental and economic situation in West Sussex.
  The Deputy Prime Minister, in what was a monstrous decision, overturned his inspector's report in December 1997. The right hon. Gentleman has imposed, in addition to the 37,800 houses which the county council had agreed to build, 13,000 houses on the county.
  Mr. Blizzard: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Soames: No, I will not give way.
  The Deputy Prime Minister has ordered West Sussex to ignore his inspector's assessment, and by central Government bully-boy tactics, he has chosen to exceed the environmentally safe capacity of West Sussex. The truth is—the Government have deliberately ignored it—that the infrastructure in Mid-Sussex especially, and in West Sussex more widely, cannot cope with such a level of development.
  The new houses will put impossible pressure on schools and social services that are already hard pressed. This will follow on from West Sussex having suffered an appalling local government settlement this year. Equally, there will be impossible pressure on hospitals and roads. Already in

  1019
  Mid-Sussex I have almost every week a request to visit schools and other facilities where life is made impossible by the burden of traffic and the growth of it around schools, for example, where there are seriously dangerous situations developing.
  Central government—even the previous Conservative Government—have not put enough money into roads in West Sussex. The present Government have not only failed to put enough money into roads, they have cut the programme altogether. That flies in the face of other Government policies. I shall quote an answer that was given to me by the Economic Secretary to the Treasury. My question was to be answered on 25 January but the hon. Lady was unable to provide an answer on that day for reasons that I understand. She had to have three extra days to answer it. I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer
  "what steps he has taken to encourage an environmentally sustainable economy in Britain."
  The Economic Secretary replied:
  "The Government's approach to sustainable development is based on four broad objectives",
  the fourth of which was the
  "effective protection of the environment and prudent use of natural resources."—[Official Report, 28 January 1999; Vol. 324, c. 349–50.]
  If the Minister thinks that the Government are providing effective protection of natural resources and the environment in West Sussex, he is gravely mistaken.
  Within the context of the motion, I shall say a word or two about the green belt and its impact. This was the only part of the Minister's speech in which he said something of interest. Much of Surrey and other home counties is designated as metropolitan green belt. The effect of this is to restrict the outward growth of London and to constrain severely the expansion of many of the settlements within the green belt—for example Redhill and Dorking.
  Protecting the green belt can and has pushed development pressures into other areas, especially those just beyond the green belt—for example, the northern part of West Sussex where my seat is located, and, among others, Horsham, Crawley and Mid-Sussex. Green fields in those areas, without the protection of green-belt status, accordingly and inevitably come under greater threat from development. The Government are reluctant to extend green belts beyond those areas already designated.
  In West Sussex the structure plan policy—that of the structure plan that has not been overturned by the Deputy Prime Ministeraims to protect strongly and forcefully the remaining strategic gaps that are crucial between settlements—for example between Crawley and East Grinstead, Crawley and Horsham and Haywards Heath and Burgess Hill. At present, the Government do not think that such local designations—strategic gaps—should protect land as strongly as national designation such as the green belt and areas of outstanding natural beauty.
  I urge the Government to take seriously the request to enable greater protection to be afforded for counties such as West Sussex in the situation that I have described, and to enable greater protection by placing on a par with green belts strategic gaps and other similar local designations. That is vital if the Government are serious about trying to protect the character of areas where pressure for development is at its strongest.
  1020
  Paragraph 236 of the excellent report of the Select Committee on Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs states:
  "Environmental protection and sustainable development should be put at the centre of policies on the location of housing."
  To my intense sadness and regret, the Government have not done that. No doubt, the previous Government were also seriously at fault. As the Minister rightly said, planning is an extremely difficult matter. However, in terms of the protection of the countryside, West Sussex has suffered what amounts to environmental vandalism. I want the Government to reconsider the consequences of their actions because their steps are, and will continue to be, hugely damaging to the environment.
  If the Government persist with what amounts to a gross betrayal of the West Sussex countryside, we must ensure that more is done to improve the design and layout of new developments. I very much agree with one or two points made by the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) about the reform of the planning system. I want much tighter designation of architecture, design and layout.
  I am delighted that, in June last year, members of the Select Committee visited the Duchy of Cornwall's remarkably interesting project at Poundbury in Dorset. They also visited the millennium village in the Minister's constituency, which is another fine example of new ideas. I hope that the Government will pay attention to the lessons of Poundbury. West Sussex county council officials paid a visit there in November and came away very impressed, as I had been on an earlier trip.
  No one is suggesting that all new developments should look like Poundbury—of course they should not—but we need to take on board that what was dismissed as an irrelevance by the know-all practitioners has now been accepted as best practice in the layout and design of new settlements. We must learn that the requirements of environmental quality, layout, architecture and harmony must be much more strictly fulfilled if we are to accept the horrific level of planning that is suggested. Best practice should include thoughtful and sensible principles on planning and architecture. Poundbury has achieved a remarkable success and I hope that the Government and planners will be much tougher on builders about those principles.
  I urge the Government to reconsider their actions in West Sussex. Of course there has to be development, but the Deputy Prime Minister's decision to overturn the inspector's report was monstrous and has led to great unhappiness and concern in my constituency.
  8.41 pm
  Mr. Cohn Pickthall: Almost all of my constituency is in the green belt, and that has prevented Greater Manchester from physically merging with Merseyside. That fact alone is sufficient to make me daily bless the vision of those in the post-war Labour Government who made the green belt a reality.
  In speaking about my green belt, I speak also about the green belt covered by the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow), which shares the same characteristics and problems. This will be an "on the one hand, but on the other" contribution to the debate because I believe that neither a totally defensive nor a totally 0invasive policy on the green belt is acceptable.

  1021
  First, it is important to point out that the green belt is not homogenous. It varies in its geological and agricultural characteristics and very much so in its proximity to, or remoteness from, urban settlements. In my part of the world, the green belt is mostly flat peat land and reclaimed marsh. It is mostly AI agricultural land and most of the industry is horticulture and the production of field vegetables of an extremely high quality.
  Despite the variety in green-belt characteristics across the country and the different levels of pressures on the green belt in, for example, the south-east around Greater London compared with Lancashire, the underlying purpose of that land is the same. As PPG2 says, that purpose is
  "to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas and to prevent towns merging; to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns and to assist in urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land."
  It is worth reminding ourselves of those objectives, as it is worth reminding ourselves of the first sentence under "Designation" in PPG2, which says:
  "The essential characteristic of Green Belts is their permanence."
  Within the parameters of what development is allowed in the green belt, land usage is a different matter, and I shall return to that point in a moment.
  I want to place on record my deep appreciation for the stout defence of the principles and objectives of the green belt put up by West Lancashire district council and, in particular, the stubborn resistance of the chairman of planning, Bob Pendleton, to the despoliation of the green belt. However, those like myself who have had the good luck to live and work surrounded by the green belt—in my case, for over 30 years—are badly placed to object in principle to the natural desire of those in Liverpool and Manchester to move into the areas that we so much enjoy.
  One of the things that worries me about Opposition Members' total concentration on housing and planning in the green belt—I understand their anxieties—is that behind it lies the substratum opinion, "We have got into the green belt, thank you very much; we are all right. Pull up the drawbridge. We do not want anybody else in here with us if we can possibly help it."
  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has very properly and crucially yoked, by violence, the preservation of the green belt and green areas generally with the need to upgrade and improve our urban environment. I urge the Government to pursue that relationship relentlessly, and I am sure that they will.
  There is more capacity for developing brown-field sites and for living above shops; there are more redundant Ministry of Defence and Department of the Environment, Transport and Regions sites, as well old hospital and old asylum sites to be developed; there is a vast amount of unused Railtrack land. Planning and taxation obstacles to such development possibilities can be adjusted to speed up such acceptable development, while as much development of the green belt as possible is slowed down. My right hon. Friend has proposed a target of 60 per cent.—that has been much debated, so I need not go into it. I believe that that can be achieved, and improved on.
  1022
  I said at the outset that there are huge differences in land characteristics and usage between green belts. I want to flag up some of the problems faced by my constituents. The survival of economic activity in the rural areas of West Lancashire depends on an intricate and delicate web of interdependence in the horticultural and field vegetable industries. In order to challenge, or to integrate with, the power of major retailers, which I am glad to see are represented in the Chamber, growers must adapt their buildings and become more efficient in transporting their produce. Farmers must adapt their buildings to meet animal welfare needs, among other pressures. Restrictions in green-belt regulations make that process exceedingly difficult and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) said, extremely protracted. It is absurd that local growers and hauliers are often unable simply to park their vehicles on or close to their land because hard-standing counts as building development. Several small growers in my constituency have closed down precisely because of that.
  Changing buildings directly to meet the demands of supermarket buyers can also prove so protracted and difficult that contracts are lost. Many local authorities, particularly mine, have been stung by the fiddling of planning permission for so-called agricultural dwellings to the point that they are reluctant to grant any such permission. Absurdly, that has led to them making judgments on the commercial viability of projects—something that local councils are not fitted to do. Constituents of mine are trying to diversify from pig farming—who would not if they had the choice—by buying a redundant plant nursery and bringing it back to life. That nursery is in the green belt and has no dwelling attached to it. The project could well fall through due to obstacles to planning permission in such circumstances.
  On the other hand, some of the activities allowed in the green belt are proving to be a different problem. Sprawling golf courses, for which permission is granted because they are part of what is considered acceptable use, sports centres and a proposed crematorium and graveyard in West Lancashire are all as bad an intrusion into agricultural green belt as small factories or extended horticultural units, and certainly as bad as housing development. A proposal to convert a redundant commercial unit in a tiny hamlet into a smithy was turned down because it was deemed not to be agriculture related.
  Most problems with residential caravan sites, the creation of new farm roads and alternative use of redundant farm buildings will be common to all green belts, but problems that might be especially acute in horticultural areas require particularly sensitive handling, which is not always enhanced by green-belt regulation. That handling is of course best understood and undertaken locally. I am enthusiastic about the role to be played in this process by regional development agencies. I do not share the fears and cynicism of the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns). I very much hope to see elected regional government in the next Parliament which has an overview of such matters.
  I am aware that there is a contradiction in what I have said. I have learnt to contradict myself very quickly; it saves my wife the trouble. I have argued the defensive case, which would be strongly in support of the integrity of the green belt, and, at the same time, I am arguing for

  1023
  more local flexibility—not in terms of the extent of the green belt, but the land usage within it and permissions for that.
  Local authorities are much more likely to be able to judge the genuineness of the need or the demand for development, especially in relation to local commercial need as well as housing. Specifically, local authorities are most likely to be able to make sensible judgments about infill in "washed over" villages and hamlets. Remarkably, in Lancashire, surveys of parish need for new homes often produce the information that there is no need, but that never prevents the owners of a large garden or spare plot from conjuring up amazing arguments to prove the need for, or the reasonableness of, what they are doing. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East said, it is the people with the money who can command the planning silks, who always seem to get their way in the end.
  How do we square the contradictory pressures that all hon. Members who represent green-belt areas experience? Whatever else it did not do, the Opposition's chronic over-egging of the case for preservation of the green belt in recent months, which might well have buried the case for its conservation, has brought into the public domain the Government's more detailed ideas about green-belt policy and countryside policy as a whole. Many of us have returned to the Labour party policy document produced before the general election, "A Working Countryside", for which my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh (Dr. Strang) has not had sufficient credit.
  For my constituency's green belt, the devil is always in the detail. Given the natural reluctance of a council to get embroiled in lengthy and expensive appeals and wrangling with landowners' barristers, it is easier for the council to say no, full stop. In many cases planning applications are passed to and fro between district and county councils.
  Some time ago, I suggested to my local council that one way forward might be to self-impose an absolute limit on the amount of green belt that it would allow even to be considered for suitable development. I envisaged a tiny proportion, perhaps 0.1 per cent., but that would still representing a significant amount of possibilities. That would allow the identification of relatively degraded land, and of unsightly, unused farm buildings, as well as the identification of key small sites for the parking of produce merchants' vehicles, for the erection of small appropriate commercial units and so on.
  As things stand, the pressures on industrial and commercial land in Skelmersdale—a new town well inside the green belt—are now such that, this year, the council is planning to release a large tract of land on the edge of the town, formerly designated to come into the planning ambit in six years' time. A more flexible overall policy might have enabled us to avoid that. Although it is good that Skelmersdale is at last starting to grow after years of being trodden on by the previous Government, it is regrettable that it can do so only by spreading into attractive open countryside in what is still the green belt, with the development of an industrial estate.
  I am pleased that my right hon. Friends the Ministers are taking green-belt issues seriously and responding to the concerns that my hon. Friends have been expressing for a considerable time. I look forward to the work of
  1024
  the new RDA for the north-west. I and my north-west colleagues have already had fruitful and encouraging contacts on those issues with Lord Thomas of Macclesfield, the chairman designate.
  I commend to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary the massive amount of work done by my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Bradley) in the countryside, and the work done by the Back-Bench rural affairs group, which I trust will inform the debate on the forthcoming rural White Paper. It would be a pity if the Government started re-inventing a wheel that we have already done a good amount of work to fashion.
  8.54 pm
  Mr. James Gray: It is an honour to be called to speak in the debate, not least because I was privileged to serve on the Select Committee on Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs, whose 10th report on housing has been so much discussed and praised this evening. It is also an honour to serve behind the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), who regrettably is not in her place but whose robust views on the subject were clearly laid out in the report, and whose robust views on most subjects go to great lengths to embarrass her own Government. I am always proud to serve behind her, and I am sure that she will be pleased to hear that.
  I should tell the Minister for London and Construction that it was not I who described him in that disgraceful way in the Select Committee report. As I was the only Conservative Member serving on the Committee at that time, he must deduce that it was someone from his own side who came to that disgraceful conclusion. On that person's behalf, I apologise for it, although, if one listened to the Minister's speech this evening, one might gain some insight into why that conclusion was reached.
  I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall). I shall have a little to say about the north-west and the north-east of England later in my brief remarks. I know that several hon. Members want to take part in the debate, so I shall try to restrict myself to one specific point about my constituency and two or three general points.
  With regard to my constituency, North Wiltshire is threatened by the ever-westward expansion of Swindon. For example, it has recently been decided that 5,000 houses are likely to be built in what is known as the front garden of Swindon, which is in the constituency of the hon. Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown). If that is allowed, it will be a touchstone of the Government's attitude to building. There will be an inexorable growth towards my villages of Lydiard Millicent, Purton and Wootton Bassett, which are terrified that Swindon will encroach upon them and engulf them.
  The Secretary of State will no doubt read the report of this debate tomorrow. His attitude the growth of Swindon will be taken as a touchstone in our view of the entire matter when the Opposition—I fear that it will be the Opposition who call it—call the next debate, which will be the fourth that we have called on the subject since we came into opposition.
  Ms Julia Drown: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will offer some constructive comments about how we can move forward. Does he agree that one

  1025
  possible way forward is to examine the density of housing that we should build on brown-field land, and to regenerate our towns, as the Government have outlined?
  Mr. Gray: I agree with the hon. Lady. I know that, around Swindon, there are many brown-field sites. I hope that the Secretary of State's strengthening of the rural buffer zone that protects my constituency from Swindon may force developers into the centre of Swindon to develop precisely the kind of sites that the hon. Lady describes.
  On a more general point, the Secretary of State seems to be like a rabbit. It may be hard to imagine him as a rabbit, frozen in the headlights of an on-coming Land Rover driven by the developers, but his inaction over the past 12 months suggests that. He simply does not know what to do about the 4.4 million households that we are told that the nation will need between now and 2016. I believe that the latest projections from civil servants may be as high as 5 million households, rather than 4.4 million, as we had all hoped.
  As I speak from the Back Benches, and therefore speak with no authority of my party or anyone else, I shall suggest a few ideas to the Secretary of State for dealing with the problem of all those households.
  Politicians of all parties go to great lengths to say how much they support the family, how strongly we believe in the family and how we must keep families together, although, in party political debates, we often argue that the Labour party seems less committed to families than we are. None the less, most politicians of most parties go to great lengths to support the nuclear family, and argue that, through taxation and other measures, we must keep the family together.
  However, the vast bulk of those 4.4 million households are not nuclear families. We need more and more houses, not because the population is expanding, not because we are all having babies, but because more and more families are breaking up. Most of the 4.4 million homes needed will be for single-parent families. I hold nothing against single-parent families. Nevertheless, it is true that we are talking, not about a growth in the population, but about significant social changes in that population.
  Perhaps the nation might like to consider the proposition that, if we restricted the availability of housing, that might encourage more families to stay together, or more youngsters to stay at home for a longer time, or more families to look after the elderly after they have finished living in their own houses.
  Barbara Follett: Is it not true that the growth in the number of households is caused by longevity? More people are living longer and they are living alone.
  Mr. Gray: That is true; longevity is one of many reasons. However, the growth in the number of single-parent families is a key factor—divorce is causing a rise in the number of households. Even if the hon. Lady is right, my point is that, in the old days, families tended to keep their old folk with them. Allowing an ever-aging population to live alone in large houses is not necessarily the best way of using our diminishing housing stock. We should not build on green-field sites in order to leave
  1026
  old ladies in the family home where they have always lived—although I respect the fact that they may wish to continue to live there.
  The second fundamental issue involves a self-fulfilling prophecy. In areas such as North Wiltshire or Swindon, successful businesses create employment and attract many people to the locality. The businesses then expand—for example, Honda recently announced the creation of an extra 5,000 jobs in Swindon—and someone says, "Gosh, look at all those jobs; we must have more houses to accommodate the employees". Consequently, more businesses locate to the area.
  In the meantime, there are 800,000 empty houses in Britain. Some 100,000 of them are in the public sector—they are the responsibility of local authorities, housing associations and other public sector bodies. We are not using 100,000 public sector houses. If asked why that is so, most people would say that it is because the houses are not in the right places. That is correct: those empty houses are not in Swindon. The people who fill the 5,000 jobs with Honda will not live in any of those 800,000 houses because we have no empties in North Wiltshire. I think I am correct in saying—the hon. Member for South Swindon will correct me if I am not—that there are few empties in Swindon. Those empty houses are in the north-east and the north-west—as the hon. Member for West Lancashire pointed out.
  Mr. Drew: The hon. Gentleman is talking about the need for an effective regional policy. When he was adviser to the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), what suggestions did he make with regard to such a policy?
  Mr. Gray: The hon. Gentleman may dress it up as effective regional policy, but my point has nothing to do with a top-down regional policy or RDAs saying, "Here is what you guys down there must do." I am talking about restricting the availability of housing in areas such as mine. That will force businesses to locate in the north-east and the north-west of England and people will go to live in those areas and occupy the empty houses. That is a straightforward market-driven approach to solving the problem—it has nothing to do with RDAs, regional policies and all of those things that the Labour party loves.
  It is an economic self-fulfilling prophecy that, because the south-west and south-east of England are prosperous, they must be allowed to become even more prosperous and we must allow more and more people to live in those areas. We tell ourselves that, as a nation, we have a duty to provide houses for people where they want them and at prices that they can afford. I suggest that, if we chose to restrict the availability of housing in the south-east and the south-west—as well as in other popular areas—businesses would perhaps locate to where housing is available; where there are empties and brown-field sites.
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: In Cambridge, an over-provision of jobs and an under-provision of homes leads to the development of unsustainable policies. People live outside my constituency and drive to work because public transport is poor. That causes huge traffic congestion and air pollution in the city. and that is much less attractive than having more homes that we need in the city.
  Mr. Gray: The hon. Lady is absolutely right: that is a very good point. It reminds me that the Minister failed to

  1027
  answer the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) about development around Cambridge. Perhaps the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning might like to address that issue in his winding-up speech.
  Ms Drown rose—
  Mr. Gray: I am concerned that, if I take many more interventions, I may overstay my welcome.
  My third general point was also touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames). We take a curious approach to town planning in this nation. We presume that everyone wants to live on the outskirts of town—the outskirts of Cambridge, for example, as the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) has suggested—and in cul-de-sacs, which, for some reason we all love. We also presume that everyone wants to live in two or three-bedroom semi-detached houses with two bathrooms and preferably two garages, but a large number of those 4.4 million households are single-parent families that might well prefer to live in the centre of town and in more densely populated areas, for example in the centre of Swindon, near the railway station, buses and shops.
  The presumption that we all want to live in suburban England, down a cul-de-sac, has been challenged most noticeably—as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex correctly said—by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales in his ground-breaking development in Poundbury, which the Select Committee so much enjoyed visiting. That is a truly sustainable development: he has shops, houses and factories, all within walking distance of each other.
  That is what town planning ought to be about. It should not necessarily be about huge, useless cul-de-sacs where people need a car to get to the shops, to school or to work. Poundbury gives us some messages and the report goes some length towards saying that we ought to consider carefully some of the lessons to be learned from it.
  I hope that it does not take another 12 months for the Secretary of State to make some useful moves forward. As in so many other policy areas, he keeps telling us what he will do, he keeps setting up new bodies and he appoints yet another noble Lord to write a report about something, perhaps a working party or a committee.
  I very much hope that it does not take the right hon. Gentleman another 12 months to drop some of that useless rhetoric and start living up to what he has been saying all this time. He should start helping out the people of Devon and the people of Swindon, who are so threatened, as well as the people in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex and the people of Stevenage. All those people are so threatened by the development that the Secretary of State is allowing to happen.
  I call on the Secretary of State to drop the empty rhetoric, drop the committees and drop the working parties and get stuck into turning down some of these disgraceful applications.
  9.7 pm
  Mr. Bob Blizzard: I am pleased that the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) is keen on the dispersal of industrial development and prosperity from the wealthier areas to the less prosperous parts of the country, such as my constituency, but I am not convinced that his methods would necessarily work.
  1028
  At the end of his speech, the hon. Gentleman spoke about rhetoric. The rhetoric that we heard at the beginning of the debate only confirmed my belief that what happened after May 1997 was that the Conservatives woke up. When they had surveyed the wreckage, they realised that virtually all that they had left were their shire heartlands. They thought that they would work on the principle of consolidating what they had and therefore tried to present their party as the party of rural England, and they could only say England.
  The Conservatives neglected to notice that there are 175 rural and semi-rural Labour Members of Parliament, which is more than the number of Conservative Members. Since May 1997, our Government have been presented in a series of attacks as the destroyers of the green belt and the despoilers of the countryside. The Conservatives have thrown in a bit about beef on the bone and a bit about fox hunting and have tried to present that as the end of rural life as we know it. That has left the ordinary people who live in the rural areas very cold. Nearly two years on, we can see that those attacks are completely without foundation and that there is no truth in what they allege about the Government.
  Those attacks seem to be based on the proposition that the green belt has to be some absolute and that the best way to protect the countryside is to freeze it in time: "Thou shalt not ever build in the countryside." Thus, a hollow argument that is no use at all to those involved in the serious business of trying to plan at local level has developed. I want to show how that highly simplistic approach is pointless and not in the best interests of the countryside and rural people.
  I share what I am sure is the view of most hon. Members who are in the Chamber—that it is important to protect the countryside and green belt—but I want to show that real situations are far more complicated than the Opposition have described, by presenting a few examples from my constituency. We all want a sustainable countryside. To achieve that, we must sustain village life. People in my constituency who have lived in villages all their lives tell me that they want some homes in their villages so that their grown-up children can remain there instead of having to move away. There must be some scope for well-thought-out growth in villages to accommodate those people.
  Everyone wants to keep village schools, which tie rural communities together. If young people have to move out of villages to towns to find somewhere to live, there will be no children to fill the village schools and they will have to close. It is the same with shops and other services.
  Village life needs transport, and the Government are giving many villages a lifeline for the first time. The county of Suffolk, which contains my constituency, has had well over £1 million, and many villages have a bus service for the first time.
  If we want a sustainable countryside, we must sustain farming as an industry. Our farmers are challenged by world movements, reform of the common agricultural policy and many other changes. We agree that farmers will have to diversify into other commercial activities, but to do so they may need planning permission, and all too often planning applications are given a blanket refusal. Farmers and country landowners have told me that they want flexibility in the planning system to enable them to continue farming and to operate commercially in the countryside.

  1029
  We also need to sustain a rural economy and ensure that there is work in the countryside for the people who live there, so that they do not all pile into the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell). A classic example in my constituency a few years ago was a proposal to turn an old country hall into a brewery. Thankfully, St. Peter's brewery is now a successful, small company—people may have seen its beer in the supermarkets. It had a tremendous planning battle. It was thought that there would be noise, disturbance, smell and light, but in fact it is a good example of a rural enterprise. We need to encourage such ventures, and not require people to overcome so many obstacles.
  My constituency is a mixture of urban and rural areas, so we must think of the quality of life in our towns and not just in the countryside. Even with a bottom-up approach, as favoured by the Government, and with brown-field development taking priority, there will have to be some expansion. If we allocate only the minimum amount of land, we get the cramped estates of the past that offer poor living conditions without facilities for the people who live in them. They have only the obligatory little rectangle of grass with a swing in the corner to satisfy planning conditions.
  In the recent round of allocations in the local plan, my authority decided that it wanted quality. We allocated more land than was necessary, so the developer was able to acquire and hand over to the public new, large parks and new playing fields. With a little imagination in the planning process, green space is protected for the people.
  Government policy on playing fields and open spaces is very strong. Only a few weeks ago, new guidance was issued ensuring that all applications to convert an open space or playing field have to be called in. I know how strict that policy is, because in Bungay in my constituency, the community wants part of a site for a doctor's surgery to serve a vital need. The site is not used as a playing field. People would have liked that planning decision to be made locally, but there has had to be an inquiry. I give that example to show the Government's commitment to protecting open space, and to make a plea for flexibility when doctors' surgeries are at stake.
  Some developments are essential, but it is rather unpleasant to live next door to them. For example, we need a sewage disposal plant in my constituency to ensure the bathing quality of our coastal areas, but who wants to live next to a sewage works? Surely the best place for a sewage works is in the countryside, but that counts as development. People who are against all development in the countryside say that such plants cannot be built there, but where do we put them? Anglian Water want to put a plant right next to a village.
  All the people in the village of Corton are, rightly, up in arms at the thought of having a sewage works on their doorstep. The place for a sewage works is further out in the countryside where it can be landscaped. In fact, sewage works in the countryside protect it, because nobody would seek to build housing estates in the area.
  In East Anglia, the same thing happens with turkey farms. Bernard Matthews has to raise turkeys before he can employ people to turn the turkeys into food. The company adds huge value to the East Anglian economy,
  1030
  but every time it wants to erect large sheds for the turkeys—they are not battery turkeys, because they can run around—it faces huge opposition because of the smell. However, those sheds are very important for the local economy, so some development in the countryside must be allowed.
  We should use brown-field sites first, for both housing and industry. In Lowestoft, the main town in my constituency, there are acres of waterfront land where factories have closed and nothing is happening there. It is important that we regenerate such areas and locate industry there, instead of taking up green fields outside the town for new factories and businesses. However, some external support must be provided to enable development of those brown-field sites. I am pleased that English Partnerships has shown some interest in my area, but it will take a lot of support from Government to achieve regeneration of such areas.
  I am pleased that the Rogers task force is compiling a register of sites because, if we are to address the question of the dispersal of industrial activity and prosperity, we must have an oversight of each region or sub-region. If we do not develop brown-field sites in a town that needs development and at the same time allow green-field development in another town some 20 or 30 miles away that has no brown-field sites, we will not use up all the brown-field sites. We must consider that approach to the planning system to ensure that, within a sub-region, all brown-field sites are used up before new green-field sites. That is only a crude way of expressing the issue, but it is one idea for a dispersal mechanism. If we can achieve that, we will have a planning system that stimulates regeneration, instead of standing in its way, and that protects the countryside, in a way that has not been achieved before.
  9.17 pm
  Mr. Archie Norman: I am delighted to speak tonight on an issue that threatens to herald one of the great environmental disasters of the 21st century unless we address the matter early. We are examining changes that are irreversible and it is for that reason that they pose such a great threat. The speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames), who is no longer in his place, illustrated vividly the terrible tragedy that potentially faces West and Mid-Sussex, parts of the countryside that are a national treasure and irreplaceable. His point was not only that we risk losing the countryside, but that, today, communities in that countryside are living under the threat of development. That is a way of setting community against community. The decisions to be made could be regretted by generations to come.
  Conservative Members, especially those new to the House, like myself, fully recognise that what we are saying today reflects a change in thinking that is not unique to this side of the House. It is a consequence of the learning that has taken place from the erosion of the countryside in the past two decades. The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) raised the question of supermarket development, and I stress that I am not here tonight to speak for the supermarket retailing industry. However, as the hon. Gentleman raised the issue, I would point out that it is important to recognise that the supermarket industry has, for the most part, welcomed the tightening of planning restrictions, which is good for the industry and for the community.

  1031
  More important, the hon. Member for Leicester, East noted that, as a consequence of that tightening up, market forces have ensured that people in the retailing industry have turned their minds with ingenuity and creativity to solutions using brown-field and town-centre sites. That would not have arisen without the tightening-up under the previous Government. The same analogy should be applied to housing, where tightening up restrictions on green-field sites—not only green belt—will result in the same ingenuity in architecture and development.
  Mr. Drew: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman. I would not put words into his mouth, but is he saying on behalf of the companies with which he is associated that they no longer intend to pursue their existing planning permissions outside town centres?
  Mr. Norman: I explained that I am not here to speak for the supermarket industry, my interest in which is well known. It would not be appropriate to use the time of the House to pursue that when other hon. Members want to speak.
  I want to discuss countryside issues, especially in my constituency, which is a spa town in a part of the country already facing saturation development. There is extreme congestion pressure and pressure on infrastructure such as schools and hospitals. We must recognise that other Government policies, such as the restriction on new road building and the cancellation of the A21 dualling project, have increased the pressure from congestion. Those policies fly in the face of encouraging new housing development, notably the building of 125,000 new homes in Kent.
  In his opening remarks, the Minister claimed that the projections for the requirement to build some 4 million new houses are incapable of challenge. We all know that that is not the case. Good evidence on projections was submitted by Professor Glen Bramley to the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee. He said:
  "Nevertheless, the household projections have attracted increasing attention and a range of critical comment, some at least of which cannot be lightly dismissed."
  No Conservative Member pretends that we do not need to build new houses; we recognise that we do. It is a question of the extent and nature of the new housing developments required.
  The assumptions of the new projections are open to question. We must recognise that straight-line projections based on demand such as this are first based on the assumption that we have to meet the demand as it appears; supply has to meet demand without any change in life style being sought, as mentioned my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray). We are approaching the point where that form of development is no longer sustainable. Life styles, modes of living, development and architecture will have to adapt accordingly.
  Dr. Stephen Ladyman: The hon. Gentleman is a fellow Kent Member. Given what he has said, what did he think when, in 1996, the Tory Government forcibly increased the house-building target in Kent over what Kent county council had wanted?
  Mr. Norman: I have already explained that this is today; we are talking about the future and the threat to the countryside now. We fully recognise that some past judgments might not be made in the same situation today.
  1032
  It is important to recognise that the projections are high risk. They assume the continuity of today's life style. Important assumptions about migration and immigration are made. The requirements of immigrants are particularly important to the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman). They also assume a continuity of vacancy rates, which run at 4 per cent., as my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire said. A reduction of vacancy rates, compelled partly by market forces, to, say, 2 per cent., would result in 471,000 new homes being taken up, or about 10 per cent. of the total requirement. That shows that the projection is far from sacrosanct.
  When the Secretary of State approved 2,500 new homes on green belt in Newcastle, there were already 4,000 empty homes in the Newcastle town centre area. Instead of giving permission for green-belt development, we must apply pressure to encourage architects and developers to find ingenious solutions in town centres. We would thereby solve half of the problem without sacrificing the countryside.
  We must recognise the fragility of the projections. They are not certain. No one can predict with any degree of certainty what will be required in 2016. That is why green-belt and green-field developments should come last, not first. We should not give permission for new settlements in the countryside now. If they are required, they should follow on in a decade or so.
  My hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire also put forward a powerful argument for the nature of the new houses required. The projections do not show that we need hundreds of pastiche, new family houses in the countryside. In fact, 80 per cent. of the new household requirement is for single-person households. As Labour Members said, those include elderly people. Some of the dwellings will perhaps be for single-parent families and some will be for single people and students. Single-person households do not require houses in the countryside or on the edge of towns in green fields. Ideally, they require housing within the existing community. A greater density of housing and a re-configuration of the accommodation will be required in those communities. That is contrary to the effect of the Government's policy on new green-field development. Our best chance is not to give permission now and release land for green-field development, but to oblige developers and architects to find solutions in town centres.
  Finally, the cost of green-field developments to the community and the public purse in the long run has an enormous multiplier effect, which is not necessarily the case with developments in towns. What was once a village called Paddock Wood in my constituency is now the major development centre in Tunbridge Wells. Migration into Paddock Wood is not from Tunbridge Wells and the surrounding community and does not consist of single person households. The development is for families moving from London and the Medway towns to Tunbridge Wells and the Kent countryside. The impact is not merely the loss of income-generating families to the Medway towns and the metropolitan conurbation, or the decline in school rolls in the city centre. We will have to build new schools and roads in Paddock Wood and the surrounding area, which will be a cost to the public purse. Green-field development is not merely environmentally destructive: it is a great deal more expensive and it is inappropriate to the requirements of single-person households in the Government's projections.

  1033
  The Government claim to have moved to a decentralised approach to planning and housing requirements. In so far as that is the intention, it is welcome, but it has not happened. The London and south-east regional planning conference, Serplan, covers an area from Oxford to Folkestone. That is not local or decentralised. Regional is not local or democratic. There is no effective accountability and it is not likely to work.
  In conclusion, I urge the Government to hear the plea of all those who are deeply concerned for their communities and the countryside. We recognise that thinking has developed and changed on the issue and we call upon the Government to move with the times so that their actions match the rhetoric. This evening, we have heard heart-felt pleas from Conservative Members and a great deal of eloquence, and not merely from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex.We must recognise the risk of permanent destruction of the countryside. We must also recognise that developments proposed for the countryside will not meet future needs and that rethinking is urgently required.
  9.29 pm
  Barbara Follett: I welcome the opportunity to speak in this important debate, to set the record straight on the reasons for the development to the west of Stevenage, and to outline what Hertfordshire county council intends to do to implement its structure plan in a responsible and sustainable fashion.
  First, I have to repeat what has already been said: the 4.4 million target figure was a Conservative target figure and Hertfordshire county council was told that it had to provide the space for 65,000 houses by 2016. From 1994, Hertfordshire struggled to do that and it eventually found space for 54,000 houses on brown-field sites in towns and villages, but the problem of space for the remaining 11,000 houses proved intractable.
  There was a proposal to build between Royston and Aston, which lie to the east of Stevenage, but that would have merged the two, to their detriment. There were also proposals that we should fill in Fairlands park, which is a recreation park in the centre of Stevenage, and use those few recreation sites we have in an already overcrowded town to provide brown-field sites. Anyone who knows the cost to the social fabric and the other consequences of overcrowding will realise that those were not sustainable options.
  Finally, Hertfordshire county council decided reluctantly that it would have to build 1,000 houses in Hemel Hempstead and 10,000 to the west of Stevenage, close to the railway line and the A l(M). Those two developments would take up 800 hectares of green belt. To prevent the concreting over of England and the merging of Hitchin and Luton, Hertfordshire decided to put 5,400 new hectares into the green belt. That is a net gain of 4,600 hectares to the Hertfordshire green belt, which now totals 86,000 hectares. I do not know why Opposition Members think that that is irrelevant.
  Mr. Heald: The point is that Hertfordshire had a consultants' report that said that every single one of the 65,000 houses could be provided within the envelopes of towns. Then, Labour-controlled Stevenage borough
  1034
  council offered to take 10,000 houses. That offer was grasped. Does the hon. Lady agree that, when considering the green belt, it is important to recognise that the land between Hitchin and Luton that is to be designated as green belt is prime agricultural land that is protected anyway?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker(Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that he should not make a speech during an intervention.
  Barbara Follett: I shall respond to the hon. Gentleman's point. The reason why Labour-controlled Stevenage council was not keen to have the houses built within the envelopes of towns was that they would be built mainly within the envelope of Stevenage, which is already overcrowded, and on the recreation park that I mentioned.
  We hear a lot about 10,000 houses being built to the west of Stevenage. Phase 1, which should be complete by 2011, accounts for only 3,600 houses, and there is the potential for a further 1,400 houses to be built after 2011. There is no certainty that the other 5,000 will be built, but they will be built only if they are needed. I shall outline what Hertfordshire county council wants to do with the development west of Stevenage.
  Hertfordshire has a proud history. It is where the first garden cities were developed by Ebenezer Howard—Letchworth in 1903 and Welwyn Garden City in 1919. Through the development west of Stevenage, Hertfordshire wants to build another garden city. Under the garden city 2000 project, the council has conducted a lengthy consultation with local people, especially those who are against the development. Last weekend, at the John Henry Newman school in my constituency, 330 people met for two days to draw the outline plan for the development and to discuss what it could and should contain. I welcome that initiative by Hertfordshire county council, which is exactly what the Government want to encourage, as it involves local people in local plans at an extremely local level. We are putting in place measures to preserve the environment and to ensure that the countryside and the town merge.
  I know that Conservatives are as concerned as I am about the erosion of the green belt. I have a great deal of respect for the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) and I know that his views are sincere. I shall work with him to do as much as possible to make the new garden city development a good one.
  However, we know that the problem is serious. It is predicted that, overall, there will be 23 per cent. more households in Britain by 2016. There will be 29 per cent. more households in the eastern region, where my constituency is situated, and 29 per cent. more in the south-west.
  Mr. Blunt: Does the hon. Lady accept that those projections are amenable to change by social and fiscal policies?
  Barbara Follett: I do, and I know that the auditor's figures show that the projections can vary by as much as plus or minus 3 per cent. The projections are difficult and not particularly reliable, and, at some stage, we must consider how they can be reformed. However, we have to

  1035
  work with the figures that we have. I would welcome a more sensible and measured debate about this very emotional and difficult problem. I deplore the mindless and hectoring fashion in which certain Conservative Members—notably the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns)—introduced the debate. His manner demeaned his office and degraded his argument. I had hoped for better.
  9.37 pm
  Mr. David Curry: It is a pleasure on this guest appearance to see that the Government are fielding such a distinguished team. The Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning apparently has a new role as First Minister for England, while the Minister for London and Construction is a putative but bashful candidate for mayor of London. Such luminaries do not often share the Front Bench to reply to a debate. I have been looking up, in the Evening Standard, all the non-endorsements for the Minister for London and Construction in the campaign that has not yet started on his behalf.
  I regret that the Deputy Prime Minister is not present, but I know that he will be extremely familiar with the inner city, because he flies over it so frequently—no doubt on his way to a spot of wealth creation.
  Dr. Ladyman: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Curry: No, not for the moment, although I will later.
  The House agrees that, if we are to save the green belt and do our best to ensure that development in the countryside is minimised, we must be serious about developing the inner city. The two go together; they are not options.
  If we are to recapture the city and reuse the land, we must do it without starting from the basis of illusion. There is a belief that, if one improves schools and transport in the inner city and makes sure that the streets are safe, people automatically will want to live there. Some will, and doing that much will make it easier for people to live there. However, a strong aspirational element is also at work, as the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) pointed out: people want to move out of such areas because they consider that that will better their condition and, perhaps, their status. That has happened throughout our history, and politicians must be careful before they decide that there is a point at which that process must be brought to an end.
  The city must be made to work. A long time ago, I read a book by Jane Jacobs called "The Death and Life of the Great American City". It is one of the great formative books on planning. Her central thesis was that the city had gone wrong because we had started dividing it up into different functions. As a result, we lost much of the cohesion—the informal supervision of people—that obtained in the middle of a city. We had been required to police and manage the city because we had denied the community the ability to police and manage the city itself. If we can get back to some of those concepts in our development, we will save ourselves a great deal of trouble. It is an expensive business, and it would be foolish to pretend that it could be done easily or on
  1036
  the cheap. Lots of land in cities is contaminated, having had gasworks on it. The Minister for London and Construction represents Greenwich, and he will know better than most the history of munitions and chemicals and the sheer amount of work required to put land right.
  We must make sure that we have the right players, playing the right game. The players are the Government, through their regional proposals and their planning rules; the new development agencies which are about to come into existence; the local authorities; housing associations and voluntary groups; and the private sector.
  I agreed with much of what was said by the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor). The figure of 4.4 million hovers over our debate like a dark and threatening cloud. However, that figure reflects what is happening in our society—longevity, divorce, people who have never married. I would love to be able to wish the figure away and to think that it is fundamentally wrong, but all the history suggests that it may be too modest rather than too great. We may be lucky to get away with that figure.
  That is an example of how aspirations run up against the needs of the wider community. The devolution of decisions to the regions will not help matters. That does not alter the problem; it merely alters the number of people who can take decisions. The danger is that we are passing the parcel. The places where people want to live and the places where the used land exists do not coincide with all the happy convenience that the Government would wish.
  I used to go around the country to find people saying, "Let them live in Liverpool." There was an enormous enthusiasm for living in Liverpool among people who knew that they would never be asked to do so. It is amazing that Liverpool has not been repopulated at colossal speed, given the enthusiasm of people to send others to live there. The hon. Member for West Lancashire has pointed out, however, that some people may actually want to move away from Merseyside, an area that is depopulating.
  We must recognise the real problem. The achievement of individual aspiration sometimes comes up against the interest of the community. The whole planning problem is about how we get those two things into sensible equilibrium. The community itself often wants sensitive economic development: people in the area around Cambridge would not want not to have the economic success that has happened there, but it has brought its problems. Planning is about reconciliation, compromise and equilibrium.
  At the same time, people have palpable concerns. When people set up home in a new environment, it is natural that they become defensive about it. My hon. Friends the Members for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames), for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) and for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) have talked about the sheer sense of permanent uncertainty that surrounds people, and about the sheer length of time it takes before decisions are taken. There is also a sense of despoilation of the very environments to which people move, and the resulting choking of services. Often, the environment that is being quit is not improved, and the environment to which people move is also degraded. That is the worst of both worlds.

  1037
  The Government can do some things to accelerate the process of making inner cities more developable and livable, an idea that lies at the heart of their argument. We do not have to wait for Lord Rogers to decide.
  First, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire said, there is the value added tax on house repairs. There is 17.5 per cent. VAT on 800,000 empty homes in England and Wales, but zero VAT on building on green-field sites. Not all those homes are where people want them to be, but they should be coupled with sensible social housing policies in areas such as the north-east. Frankly, there is a persuasive case for stopping building new social housing in Newcastle, given the empties there.
  Secondly, housing associations are major players in the city centres and their permitted purposes could be changed to encourage them into regeneration. They should get out of social security, and into economic development, building more houses for the marketplace and for selling. They are in business, they are successful and they bring in private sector funding. They are capable of developing economic regeneration in the cities.
  Thirdly, we should see an accelerated programme of housing transfers, perhaps to community trusts. Transfers do not have to go to the private sector or to housing associations. That notion was regarded as scandalous when the previous Government introduced it, but people in Liverpool, Manchester and other places are falling over themselves to have houses transferred because they know that there is no ghost of a chance of the Exchequer providing the public funds that would put those houses in order.
  What about allowing local authorities to keep a proportion of the business rate for specific economic regeneration programmes, provided—[Interruption.] I say this knowing that the Government have just said that they do not intend to return it for at least 10 years, because local government has been let off the chain and decanted into its gilded cage by the Government. How about a little bit of business rate for economic regeneration programmes, provided that they are in partnership and provided that they lever in private finance, at least on a one-to-one basis? Then they could keep that bit of extra business rate. When the Government talk about local government's community role, they will be giving it some of the means to deliver that.
  How about going further and allowing local authorities to levy a small supplementary rate, with the agreement of business, subject to a ballot, to use for economic regeneration—for surveillance cameras and street improvements?[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House must come to order. The right hon. Gentleman is addressing the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "We are enjoying it."' Well, perhaps hon. Members will enjoy the speech in silence.
  Mr. Curry: I would hate to have been greeted entirely in silence. I do not mind terribly from which side of House the silence and which side the noise comes.
  This is a Government who are supposed to be liberating local government. I am trying to give them one or two hints on how they might manage that. So far, it is all rhetoric and little action, as the hon. Member for
  1038
  Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), who is the Government Whip on the Local Government Bill, will be able to testify.
  The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) was right when he talked about planning delays. They are enormous. It can take more than a year for an inquiry to get under way, even after a call-in. That freezes development comprehensively. The Government have had nearly two years to start getting that right and it is about time that they did so.
  If the Government are serious about regeneration—another matter that is also very much part of the DETR's patch—and about local government playing a central role in that, they should revise the local government finance system and its indicators, so that they are less a reflection of the static side of a community and look forward to the dynamic that a community is supposed to be undertaking. At the moment, that is not the case, and local authorities find it difficult, when they really wish to be ambitious—few of them do wish to be ambitious—to carry that through into practice.
  The Government need to ensure that education action zones and other such initiatives are co-ordinated with the regeneration programmes so that the right hand knows what the left hand can do. If the Department for Education and Employment can be elbowed, kicking and screaming, into the regional office structure, that would do a lot of good.
  The regional development agencies will be in charge of medium-term planning and the regional planning will be on the longer term. Those need to work together. Getting the local authorities and the development agencies on the same side, pushing in the same direction, will not be an easy task. They will have to have a focus. If they try to spread their efforts everywhere, they will do nothing but irritate over a wide area. If they are sensible, they can be effective; but they will have to make difficult choices to do that.
  The Government spend much time telling us of their aspirations. They spend a great deal of time setting up one group and another group. Meanwhile, we have hesitation, fragmentation and the total absence of joined-up thinking. Here are some simple measures that the Government could undertake rapidly that would put substance on their aspirations. The Opposition have the aspirations, but for the moment the Government have nothing but empty rhetoric on a subject crucial to masses of British people.
  9.49 pm
  The Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning (Mr. Richard Caborn): The contribution of the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) was spoiled at the end. It has been good to listen to him. I do not know how the Opposition passed the hat around this afternoon to determine who would reply to the debate. I hope that what the right hon. Gentleman said will begin to be reflected in Conservative policy. When he was talking about taxation, the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) went white, because he could see it costing his old business a few bob. When we read Hansard tomorrow, we shall be able to contrast the opening contribution from the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), who said that he was initiating the fourth debate on behalf of the Conservatives, with the winding-up speech, and we shall see quite a difference.

  1039
  To put the record straight, the motion is ill-informed because the regional development agencies will not be involved in land use planning. I am surprised that the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon mentioned that. Those agencies are not involved in land use or transport planning; they will be left in the democratic process and will be done through the regional planning guidance.
  I shall deal first with the 60 per cent. target in respect of previously developed land. I must tell the Liberal Democrats that we have been systematically examining land use, transport and spatial planning to make sure that, when we publish our proposals, which we will do on PPG 11, PPG12 and PPG3, they will all dovetail and that is exactly what the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) was asking for. I assure him that the consultation process, which has been wide and in depth, will ensure, once and for all, that we get it right. We are dealing with some very difficult problems. The Opposition have been playing gesture politics, whereas we are genuinely trying to tackle the structural problems that we inherited from the previous Administration.
  Let us go back a few years and consider the arguments deployed by people such as Lord Tebbit, who told people to get on their bikes, come to the south-east and get a job. Well, people did that in the 1970s and 1980s, and there is now tremendous overheating—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) went on the rabbit run—or was it the chicken run?—from Crawley. No doubt, he has added to the housing demand there.
  We will meet our 60 per cent. target, and we will do so by having, for the first time ever, a land use database. Yes, we will be reflecting on what Lord Rogers is doing in the task force; yes, we will be introducing new regional planning proposals; and yes, we will have land use change statistics. When all that is done, we will not only meet the 60 per cent. target, but go further and make sure that each region has the ability to make sure that happens.
  The only way we shall end predict and provide is by putting proper planning practice into operation. We will make sure, through the regional development agencies, that we address the under-utilisation of the economies in many parts of the United Kingdom, and England in particular. Unfortunately, another legacy of the previous Administration is that no English region outside London is performing, in wealth creation terms, to the average of the European regions in respect of gross domestic product per capita. Cornwall in the south-west is down to 69 per cent. of the EU average; Merseyside is down to 72 per cent.; and the whole of the north-east is down to 80 per cent. That economic deficit is the Conservative legacy that we are trying to tackle. It was in part the result of the type of policy pursued by Lord Tebbit when he encouraged people to get on their bikes. We will be following through in terms of those planning guidance documents—
  Mr. Lansley: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Caborn: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman because I gave him a promise when I spoke previously on these matters.
  Mr. Lansley: The Minister is on exactly the right point, and I am grateful to him. He is repeating his speech of 22 October, but not the point where he promised that he
  1040
  would provide a draft of PPG3 by the time our examination in public was taking place in East Anglia. That examination is occcurring now and the hon. Gentleman has not kept his promise. Where is his draft PPG3? How can the sequential approach be applied to regional planning guidance in the absence of the Government's illustration of what it means?
  Mr. Caborn: I can give the hon. Gentleman an answer and offer him an apology that I did not get out a draft PPG3 before the examination in public in the eastern region. The hon. Gentleman has made about the best contribution this evening from the Opposition Benches. That shows the shallowness of the Opposition's arguments. I accept that we have not brought out PPG3. However, I am sure that, when it does come out, the hon. Gentleman will recognise that it dovetails into an area that we have been examining extremely seriously—introducing regional planning guidance that will integrate transport, land use and spatial planning.
  The process has proved a little more difficult than I envisaged a few months ago. However, we will get it right. We will ensure that we do not have the mistakes that we had in the past, which were made by previous Administrations. I hope that, in the next few weeks, we shall bring out planning policy guidance notes 11, 12 and 13. As for PPG3, I think that we will be responding positively by giving tools to local authorities to ensure that the sequential test, as embodied in PPG6, is in PPG3 as well. There will be a comprehensive review of that planning, as we promised in "Modernising Planning". We shall also consider how we can factor in the spatial planning perspective that comes from the European Union.
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: If the Minister takes the view that the 60 per cent. target for brown-field sites cannot be given over to each individual authority, which it surely cannot, what mechanism will the Government use to ensure that, overall, that target is reached?
  Mr. Caborn: As I have said, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister gave that commitment, and we are genuinely working towards it. When we came into office, we were amazed, given the previous Conservative Government's rhetoric on brown-field sites, that there was no land use databank to tell us what brown-field sites we had in the United Kingdom. The lack of hard statistical data on which to base any decisions was amazing. Those data were not in the Department. We have had to go systematically through the information that is available and we shall bring that in. We hope that the database will be available to us by the end of March. That will be a starting point. We are thankful to local authorities that have enabled us, through English Partnerships, to make this progress.
  The Opposition's motion amounts to hypocrisy. I can tell the House that 50 per cent. of all out-of-town space developed since 1950 was built in only five years—1985 to 1990. I shall finish by setting out the record of the Conservative Administration. During every one of the last years of the decade that the Conservative party was in power, there was a net loss to the green belt. I shall set out the figures in reverse order as is done in Miss World competitions. No. 4, 1989–90, an overall 35 hectares were lost. Who was responsible for that? The answer is the

  1041
  right hon. Chris Patten. No. 3, 1990–92, 100 hectares were lost. Who was responsible? The answer is the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine). No. 2, 1992–97—[Interruption.] The Opposition can have it whether they like it or not. During 1992–97, 170 hectares of green belt were lost. Who was responsible for that? The answer is the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). No.—
  Mr. James Arbuthnot rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 164, Noes 320.

  Division No. 55]

  [9.59 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Allan, Richard

  Fallon, Michael

  Amess, David

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Flight, Howard

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Baker, Norman

  Fraser, Christopher

  Baldry, Tony

  Gale, Roger

  Ballard, Jackie

  Garnier, Edward

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Gibb, Nick

  Bercow, John

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Blunt, Crispin

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Boswell, Tim

  Gorrie, Donald

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Gray, James

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Green, Damian

  Brady, Graham

  Greenway, John

  Brake, Tom

  Grieve, Dominic

  Brazier, Julian

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Hammond, Philip

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Burnett, John

  Heald, Oliver

  Burns, Simon

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Cash, William

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Horam, John

  Chidgey, David

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Chope, Christopher

  Hunter, Andrew

  Clappison, James

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Keetch, Paul

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

  Collins, Tim

  Key, Robert

  Colvin, Michael

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Cran, James

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Lansley, Andrew

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Leigh, Edward

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Letwin, Oliver

  Day, Stephen

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Donaldson, Jeffrey

  Lidington, David

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Duncan, Alan

  Livsey, Richard

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Loughton, Tim

  Evans, Nigel

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Faber, David

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  1042

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Soames, Nicholas

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Spring, Richard

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Steen, Anthony

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Stunell, Andrew

  Malins, Humfrey

  Swayne, Desmond

  Maples, John

  Syms, Robert

  Mates, Michael

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Moss, Malcolm

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Townend, John

  Norman, Archie

  Tredinnick, David

  Oaten, Mark

  Trend, Michael

  Öpik, Lembit

  Tyler, Paul

  Ottaway, Richard

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Page, Richard

  Viggers, Peter

  Paice, James

  Walter, Robert

  Paterson, Owen

  Wardle, Charles

  Pickles, Eric

  Waterson, Nigel

  Prior, David

  Webb, Steve

  Randall, John

  Wells, Bowen

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Rendel, David

  Whittingdale, John

  Robathan, Andrew

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Wilkinson, John

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Willetts, David

  Ruffley, David

  Willis, Phil

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Wilshire, David

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Yeo, Tim

  Sanders, Adrian

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Shepherd, Richard

  Sir David Madel and

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Mrs. Caroline Spelman.

  NOES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Ainger, Nick

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Allen, Graham

  Canavan, Dennis

  Ashton, Joe

  Caplin, Ivor

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Casale, Roger

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Cawsey, Ian

  Austin, John

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Barnes, Harry

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Barron, Kevin

  Clapham, Michael

  Bayley, Hugh

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Beard, Nigel

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Clwyd, Ann

  Benton, Joe

  Coaker, Vernon

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Berry, Roger

  Cohen, Harry

  Best, Harold

  Coleman, Iain

  Betts, Clive

  Colman, Tony

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Connarty, Michael

  Blizzard, Bob

  Corbett, Robin

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Borrow, David

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Cousins, Jim

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Cranston, Ross

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Cummings, John

  Browne, Desmond

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Burden, Richard

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Burgon, Colin

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Darvill, Keith

  Caborn, Richard

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  1043

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hassle)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Denham, John

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Dobbin, Jim

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Doran, Frank

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Dowd, Jim

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Drew, David

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Kemp, Fraser

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Khabra, Piara S

  Efford, Clive

  Kidney, David

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Ennis, Jeff

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Etherington, Bill

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Flint, Caroline

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Flynn, Paul

  Laxton, Bob

  Follett, Barbara

  Lepper, David

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Levitt, Tom

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Foulkes, George

  Linton, Martin

  Fyfe, Maria

  Livingstone, Ken

  Galloway, George

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Lock, David

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Love, Andrew

  Gerrard, Neil

  McAllion, John

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  McCabe, Steve

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Godsiff, Roger

  Macdonald, Calum

  Goggins, Paul

  McDonnell, John

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Grocott, Bruce

  McNulty, Tony

  Grogan, John

  MacShane, Denis

  Gunnell, John

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Hain, Peter

  McWalter, Tony

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  McWilliam, John

  Hanson, David

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Herman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Mallaber, Judy

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Healey, John

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Heppell, John

  Marshal-Andrews, Robert

  Hesford, Stephen

  Martlew, Eric

  Hill, Keith

  Meale, Alan

  Hinchliffe, David

  Merron, Gillian

  Hoey, Kate

  Michael, Alun

  Home Robertson, John

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Milburn, Alan

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Miller, Andrew

  Hope, Phil

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Morley, Elliot

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Mountford, Kali

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Mudie, George

  Hurst, Alan

  Mullin, Chris

  Hutton, John

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)

  Illsley, Eric

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Norris, Dan

  Jamieson, David

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Jenkins, Brian

  O'Hara, Eddie

  1044

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Snape, Peter

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Soley, Clive

  Pearson, Ian

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Pendry, Tom

  Spellar, John

  Pickthall, Colin

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Pike, Peter L

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Plaskitt, James

  Stevenson, George

  Pollard, Kerry

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Pond, Chris

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Pope, Greg

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Pound, Stephen

  Stott, Roger

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Stringer, Graham

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Purchase, Ken

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Radice, Giles

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Rammell, Bill

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Rapson, Syd

  Timms, Stephen

  Raynsford, Nick

  Tipping, Paddy

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Touhig, Don

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Trickett, Jon

  Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'hon SE)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Rooney, Terry

  Vaz, Keith

  Ross, Emie (Dundee W)

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Rowlands, Ted

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Watts, David

  Salter, Martin

  Welsh, Andrew

  Savidge, Malcolm

  White, Brain

  Sawford, Phil

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Sheerman, Barry

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Wills, Michael

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Wise, Audrey

  Singh, Marsha

  Woolas, Phil

  Skinner, Dennis

  Worthington, Tony

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Wray, James

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Jane Kennedy and

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Mr. David Clelland.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):—
  The House divided: Ayes 318, Noes 160.

  Division No. 56]

  [10.14 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Beard, Nigel

  Ainger, Nick

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Allen, Graham

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Ashton, Joe

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Benton, Joe

  Austin, John

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Barnes, Harry

  Berry, Roger

  Barron, Kevin

  Best, Harold

  Bayley, Hugh

  Betts, Clive

  1045

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Efford, Clive

  Blizzard, Bob

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Ennis, Jeff

  Borrow, David

  Etherington, Bill

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Flint, Caroline

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Flynn, Paul

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Follett, Barbara

  Browne, Desmond

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Burden, Richard

  Foulkes, George

  Burgon, Colin

  Fyfe, Maria

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Galloway, George

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Gardiner, Barry

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Canavan, Dennis

  Godsiff, Roger

  Cann, Jamie

  Goggins, Paul

  Caplin, Ivor

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Casale, Roger

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Cawsey, Ian

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Grocott, Bruce

  Clapham, Michael

  Grogan, John

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Gunnell, John

  Hain, Peter

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Hanson, David

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Healey, John

  Clwyd, Ann

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Heppell, John

  Cohen, Harry

  Hesfort, Stephen

  Coleman, Iain

  Hill, Keith

  Colman, Tony

  Hinchliffe, David

  Connarty, Michael

  Hoey, Kate

  Corbett, Robin

  Home Robertson, John

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Hope, Phil

  Cousins, Jim

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cranston, Ross

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cummings, John

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Hurst, Alan

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Hutton, John

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Iddon, Dr Brain

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Illsley, Eric

  Darvill, Keith

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Jamieson, David

  Jenkins, Brian

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Denham, John

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Dobbin, Jim

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Doran, Frank

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Dowd, Jim

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Drew, David

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Kemp, Fraser

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Khabra, Piara S

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Kidney, David

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  1046

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Radice, Giles

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Rammell, Bill

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Rapson, Syd

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Raynsford, Nick

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Laxton, Bob

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Lepper, David

  Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Levitt, Tom

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Linton, Martin

  Rooney, Terry

  Livingstone, Ken

  Ross, Emie (Dundee W)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Lock, David

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  Love, Andrew

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  McAllion, John

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McCabe, Steve

  Sawford, Phil

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Macdonald, Calum

  Sheerman, Barry

  McDonnell, John

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  McIsaac, Shona

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Singh, Marsha

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Skinner, Dennis

  McNulty, Tony

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  MacShane, Denis

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  McWalter, Tony

  McWilliam, John

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Snape, Peter

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Soley, Clive

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Spellar, John

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Martlew, Eric

  Stevenson, George

  Meale, Alan

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Merron, Gillian

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Michael, Alun

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Stott, Roger

  Milburn, Alan

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Miller, Andrew

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Moffatt, Laura

  Stringer, Graham

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Morley, Elliot

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Mountford, Kali

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Mudie, George

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Mullin, Chris

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Timms, Stephen

  Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Touhig, Don

  Norris, Dan

  Trickett, Jon

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Pearson, Ian

  Vaz, Keith

  Pickthall, Colin

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Pike, Peter L

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Plaskitt, James

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Pollard, Kerry

  Wareing, Robert N

  Pond, Chris

  Watts, David

  Pope, Greg

  Welsh, Andrew

  Pound, Stephen

  White, Brian

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Wills, Michael

  Purchase, Ken

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  1047

  Wise Audrey

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Woolas, Phil

  Worthington, Tony

  Mr. David Clelland and

  Wray, James

  Wyatt, Derek

  Jane Kennedy.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Green, Damian

  Allan, Richard

  Greenway, John

  Amess, David

  Grieve, Dominic

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Hammond, Philip

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Heald, Oliver

  Baker, Norman

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Baldry, Tony

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Ballard, Jackie

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Horam, John

  Bercow, John

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Blunt, Crispin

  Hughes, Simon (Southward N)

  Boswell, Tim

  Hunter, Andrew

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Brady, Graham

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Brake, Tom

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Brazier, Julian

  Keetch, Paul

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Key, Robert

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Burnett, John

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Burns, Simon

  Lansley, Andrew

  Cash, William

  Leigh, Edward

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Letwin, Oliver

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Chidgey, David

  Lidington, David

  Chope, Christopher

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Clappison, James

  Livsey, Richard

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Loughton, Tim

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Collins, Tim

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Colvin, Michael

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Cran, James

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Maples, John

  Day, Stephen

  Mates, Michael

  Donaldson, Jeffrey

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Duncan, Alan

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Moss, Malcolm

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Evans, Nigel

  Norman, Archie

  Faber, David

  Oaten, Mark

  Fabricant, Michael

  Öpik, Lembit

  Fallon, Michael

  Ottaway, Richard

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Paice, James

  Flight, Howard

  Paterson, Owen

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Pickles, Eric

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Prior, David

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Randall, John

  Fraser, Christopher

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Gale, Roger

  Rendel, David

  Garnier, Edward

  Robathan, Andrew

  Gibb, Nick

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Ruffley, David

  Gorrie, Donald

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Gray, James

  St Aubyn, Nick

  1048

  Sanders, Adrian

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Viggers, Peter

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Walter, Robert

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Wardle, Charles

  Soames, Nicholas

  Waterson, Nigel

  Spring, Richard

  Webb, Steve

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Wells, Bowen

  Steen, Anthony

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Stunell, Andrew

  Whittingdale, John

  Swayne, Desmond

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Syms, Robert

  Wilkinson, John

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Willetts, David

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Willis, Phil

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Wilshire, David

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Yeo, Tim

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Townend, John

  Tredinnick, David

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Trend, Michael

  Sir David Madel and

  Tyler, Paul

  Mrs. Caroline Spelman.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House welcomes the Government's continued commitment to protecting the countryside, including green belts, and promoting sustainable regeneration in towns and cities; recognises that the Government's decentralised and integrated policy approach, as stated in Planning for Communities of the Future, Modernising the Planning System and A New Deal for Transport, is helping to achieve more sustainable and equitable patterns of urban and rural development; welcomes the Government's commitment strictly to control development in the open countryside and to increase the proportion of new housing on previously—developed land in urban areas, smaller towns and villages from 40 per cent in the mid-1980s to 60 per cent; recognises the need to replace the previous predict and provide approach to the issue of household growth with a more flexible decentralised system, involving realistic regional targets for the building of new homes on recycled land, tighter controls on urban sprawl, new regional and housing planning guidance to ensure the adoption of sustainable solutions to housing development and more rigorous and detailed assessment of land availability; and believes that the Government's inter-linked policies for urban regeneration and protection of the countryside will enhance the quality of life for people in both rural and urban areas.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
  That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 11th January, be approved.
  That the draft European Communities (Immunities and Privileges of the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 11th January, be approved.—[Mr. Hanson.]
  Question agreed to.

PETITION

  Hospitalfield, Arbroath
  10.25 pm
  Mr. Andrew Welsh: I am presenting this petition on behalf of the Hospitalfield area residents committee and the residents of the Hospitalfield housing estate in Arbroath, who wish to protest against the environmental problems with which they have been confronted over many years and seek action from the Government to investigate, cure and solve those problems. The petition is signed by members of the Hospitalfield area residents committee—Mr. and Mrs. Wright, Mr. and Mrs. Dear, Mr. Bill Kerr and Mrs. Meldrum—and has the backing of 688 members of the wider local community.
  The petition reads:
  The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Scotland

  (1) to take whatever steps may be necessary to stop this pollution from continuing, and

  (2) to ensure that an investigation takes place into how this situation came about and into why it has been allowed to continue for more than two and a half years.

  And the Petitioners remain, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Education Services (Somerset)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hanson.]
  10.26 pm
  Mr. David Heath: I am extremely pleased to have the opportunity to address the House on the important issue of education services in Somerset and their funding. I confess to a sense of deja vu, in two respects. I seem to have secured a number of Adjournment debates on the subject during the brief time that I have been a Member of this place. My first Adjournment debate—on 12 June 1997, in which I made my second speech in the Chamber—was on exactly the same subject.
  I make no apology for that, because, sadly, the points that I made then are still as relevant today. Although I may sometimes be a little bored of making the same points—the Minister may be bored of hearing them, from me and others—that is nothing against the annual anguish of councillors, governors, teachers and parents, who wrestle with budgets that simply do not work.
  If I wanted evidence of that, I should have only to read the letters that have been sent again by schools up and down my constituency, from Huish Episcopi school; Milborne Port county primary; Sexey's school, which is a grant-maintained school making the same point; Nunney county first; Countess Gytha school in Queen Camel. A letter has also come from Berkley parish council, and all those letters make the same point: the present funding arrangements for Somerset do not work.
  I also feel a sense of deja vu because we had a near-identical debate only two weeks ago in the Chamber, initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb). It was an excellent debate, with very much the same cast of characters: the same Minister and the same hon. Members on this side of the Chamber. The west country mafia was spread around both sides of the House—
  Mr. Bob Russell: And not a Tory in sight.
  Mr. Heath: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct.
  My modest request to the Minister is that her civil servants provide her with a slightly different brief this evening, not simply one with South Gloucestershire crossed out and Somerset put in.
  What is the problem? It is simply that the revenue support system does not come close to providing sufficient to enable Somerset county council to provide school services at the level that I, and the Minister, would want. That is not unique to Somerset; it appears to be the case for almost all authorities in the rural south-west. That is a significant problem.
  Mr. Adrian Sanders: I gave my hon. Friend notice that I should like to intervene.
  Is not that problem compounded by areas, such as my constituency, that have rising numbers of pupils which are not reflected in the standard spending assessment totals? That is obviously a problem in Somerset, as it is in South

  1051
  Gloucestershire, and the sums of money that come from the Government lag behind the expenditure of the schools concerned.
  Mr. Heath: I am grateful to my honourable and elegant Friend for that intervention. He is absolutely right, and the point was amplified by my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon in the recent debate.
  The Department for Education and Employment admits that Somerset is hard done by. I had a meeting with the Secretary of State, who freely admitted that, when in opposition, he used to quote the Somerset factor in evidence. The sparsity factor and the other factors used to derive the formula work to the disadvantage of a small number of authorities spread around the country, particularly in the south-west of England.
  I have a letter to one of my constituents from Mr. Niall Forde, a civil servant in the Department, who says:
  "Ministers recognise that historically there has been a very real difficulty for Somerset, because of under-funding over many years."
  This is not a recent phenomenon: it has gone on year after year. It was a problem when I became leader of the county council in 1985, and it has been a problem ever since.
  What has been Somerset's response to that problem over the years? It has provided more money from local resources. It has massively topped up the amount that the Government provide for education from other resources available to it. That has averaged £10 million a year over and above the standard spending assessment, which is £40 million from local funds in the past four years. I do not take the SSA as an adequate measure of what should be spent, but nevertheless it is what the Government officially say should be spent on education. That £40 million has not come out of thin air: it has come from the budgets for highways, social services and other essential services provided by the county council.
  I fully accept that the Government's generosity has increased this year. They have recognised that there is a problem with overall education funding, and they have sought to respond. Indeed, there is an increase in the education SSA for Somerset of £10.6 million for next year, and that is very welcome. On the face of it, that should be very good news, but—and it is a big but—sadly, that increase merely brings the SSA up to fractionally more than the real expenditure this year. That is the constant funding trap in which authorities that spend massively over their SSA year on year find themselves.
  The total expenditure increase for the authority is £15.5 million. If the authority spends that much, it will increase its council tax by 6.4 per cent. We are told that the Government's view is that the increase should be 4.5 per cent., so immediately there is a discrepancy between the two.
  It would be wrong for me to expect the Minister to be an expert in this area, but she should know that the county council has other commitments apart from education. It has non-service commitments—£6 million comes out of the extra money for items such as landfill tax and land drainage. If the Minister saw the water levels in Somerset at the moment, she would realise how important land drainage is in that area. We have a serious problem.
  What is wrong with the system as it stands? The area cost adjustment is often referred to as the tax on the west, although it could just as easily be described as the tax on
  1052
  the north or the tax on the midlands. It is the tax on those areas that are not in the south-east and do not have the benefit of the adjustment.
  The Government's view has always been that they would like to change the area cost adjustment, but they cannot get unanimity among local authorities. Of course they will not get unanimity among local authorities. I was a leading member of the Association of County Councils for years, and I could not get unanimity in the association, because those who represented Sussex, Hampshire and the other authorities that benefited from the area cost adjustment were not going meekly to say that they would give it up. The fact is that it is wrong and is based on a wrong methodology, and it must be removed. It is worth £2.2 million to Somerset in terms of its education expenditure.
  There are other factors in the education formula, such as pupil weighting, which is worth £3 million in Somerset, and additional educational needs, which is worth £5.7 million. So £8.7 million is missing from the Somerset education budget simply because of the perverse effect of the methodology used for those formulae.
  The problem is that Ministers say that they cannot obtain unanimity, but they will never do so on such matters because losers will not happily accept that they should be losers. It is central Government's job to decide what is equitable and the present situation is patently not equitable. Other factors also have an effect. For example, in a rural county such as Somerset with many small village schools, the unit costs of providing the same level of education are inevitably higher.
  Jackie Ballard: Is my hon. Friend aware that the chairman of governors at Cheddon Fitzpaine primary school in my constituency resigned this week? It is a very successful school and she has been the chair of governors for 10 years, but she resigned because of the twin pressures of budget difficulties continuing year after year and the extra innovations that the Government have loaded on to schools. The school will find it difficult to find anyone to replace her and many areas have a shortage of people willing to become governors.
  Mr. Heath: My hon. Friend is right. I know the lady in question and I know the value of her service to that school. My wife is a governor of a small rural school and my children attend such schools. They face difficulties because people are fed up of wrestling with budgets time after time.
  The effect of more pupils in Somerset has already been mentioned, but this year it will cost an extra £1.5 million simply to accommodate the extra pupils on the rolls. Also, every 1 per cent. of the teachers' pay awards that is not budgeted for in the Government's figures costs Somerset another £800,000 to £900,000. The county council is, of course, able to operate expediencies. It can continue to spend in excess of its SSA on education, as it has for the past 10 years. However, it may face capping, whether it is crude and universal or secretive and targeted. Whichever it is, it still exists.
  The county council also faces the problems caused by increasing the council tax—an increase that many in rural areas cannot afford. Then there is the effect on other services. I have mentioned social services and I worry greatly that Somerset spends below its SSA on

  1053
  social services. That is an essential part of the council's work, but it reduces spending on it to meet the needs of the education budget. The council also faces the lack of real improvement in standards in schools, which the Minister would love to see. Of course, the non-school services are also constantly being squeezed.
  The Government's actions, including the introduction of a three-year stability programme, should ameliorate the situation. However, if they dip the present formula in aspic and use it for the next three years, they will do counties such as Somerset no favours because all that will do is maintain an unfair position. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon in his recent Adjournment debate, the Minister suggested that the additional funds might provide a valuable mechanism for rectifying some of the faults in the system. However, although Somerset is very pleased about the result of its bid to the standards fund, that extra funding has to be matched. If an authority has not got the spare cash to match that funding, it has to take it out of the already allocated schools budget. The authority is in a cleft stick, because it can only improve one area to the detriment of another.
  The money for the reduction of class sizes is also good news and I welcome it. The Government are doing a tremendous job, but if class sizes are reduced at the bottom end of schools by improving the funding of primary schools, any cuts in services must be concentrated on the middle and secondary schools, which also cannot afford any reductions.
  I hope that it is common ground between the Minister and myself that the quality of education in Somerset is extremely good. I hope that she also recognises that the local authority has shown its commitment year after year to making education its priority. It displays a high degree of efficiency and effectiveness in its administration and delegates a high proportion of its spending to its schools. The fact remains that the SSA per pupil is well below the national average. Compared to some of the London authorities, it is £1,000 per pupil lower. I cannot accept that for my children or my constituents' children. I cannot accept that they are second-class pupils because they happen to live in Somerset and to benefit from its countryside. The Government must demonstrate their commitment to extending what they are saying and doing in education overall to every part of the country. At present, the formula prevents that.
  I am sick and tired of bringing this case to Government each year. I did it as leader of the council, as chairman of education, for the county council and now I do it as a Member of Parliament. It is the same case year after year because it is the same problem year after year. I do not want the chairs of governors, governing bodies, head teachers and parents to go through the same ritual year after year of writing letters and applying pressure to the Department for Education and Employment when the fact is that the formula is wrong and needs changing. I invite the Minister to put what pressure she can on the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to ensure that, next year, Somerset has the funding that it deserves to run its schools as they should be run.
  10.40 pm
  The Minister for School Standards (Ms Estelle Morris): I congratulate the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) on securing this debate. It is a little like deja vu because the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) had a similar debate a week ago. I will try not to be too repetitive but I hope that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome understands that the explanation that I gave his colleague is very much the one that I will give him, but I will tailor it to suit Somerset.
  The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome described this as a south-west problem, but it is not. I hear about the problem that we inherited on how standard spending assessments are worked out wherever I go. In the west midlands, where my constituency lies, people from Staffordshire and Derbyshire speak with the same feeling as people from Somerset. In my travels, I have not yet met anyone who said how generously they are funded by SSA and called for the longed-for review. I suspect that I am in for a spate of Adjournment debates over the next few weeks as hon. Members rightly secure debates on their education settlements. I look forward to the first Member who joins us in claiming that a review of SSAs is long overdue but says that his or her area receives too much. That is the difficulty.
  I am delighted to be able to respond to one of the points raised by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome. I congratulate those in Somerset and his constituency on the standards of education. They achieve above the national level: 51 per cent. of Somerset pupils obtain five or more GCSEs at grades A to C. Key stage 2 tests show 67 per cent. of pupils achieving better than the national average. The same is true at each key stage. Such achievement is not brought about without much hard work, I extend my thanks and congratulations. I extend them also to local authorities in Somerset that have made the difficult decision to spend more than their education SSA because, as a constituency Member, I know the consequences for other services. I am happy to oblige the hon. Gentleman on both points.
  I disagree with the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome on one matter. I understand his frustration in all the different guises of his relationship with Somerset, as parent, governor, councillor and Member of Parliament. I understand his frustration with repeating the same argument in different forums year after year but this is our second year of being answerable for that. It was a different Government with different priorities that answered previous queries. I understand his frustration but I am answerable only for our actions over the past 18 months.
  I want to put the matter in the context of the increased funding that there has been. I am sorry that a chair of governors decided to resign because we need good quality people in such positions. In thanking that person for their years of service, I wonder whether a review of that decision might be appropriate. Year after year, governing bodies have had to struggle with reduced budgets. It is ironic that, in the first year that we are getting really expanded budgets, high—calibre chairs of governors should choose to resign. I make that point to the constituent of the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard). Such people know the national context in which we are operating, with a doubling of capital funding between now and 2002 and an average £10 billion increase over the next three years in money going to local authorities.

  1055
  That money was already going to come through next year, and the hon. Gentleman was kind enough to acknowledge that. Whereas, nationally, SSAs will increase by 5.7 per cent., the SSA for his area will increase by 6.5 per cent. I realise that the extra is to account for increased numbers, even if they were counted 18 months ago, so I do not pretend that it is an effort to remedy the SSA.
  I was also pleased that the hon. Gentleman acknowledged that, where we have the power to bring more money into schools without changing the SSA, we have done so. He cannot claim as much sorrow as his hon. Friend the Member for Northavon, whose authority is bottom of the table. Sadly, that is not a position on which any hon. Members would pride themselves. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome represents an area that is certainly in the bottom half as regards SSA. I think that 29 local authorities have SSAs that make them worse off and have more cause to complain than the hon. Gentleman, but I am not trying to justify that, to make light of the load or to say that he ought to feel better.
  This year, we have managed to increase the standards fund to Somerset by about 70 per cent. above our increase in funding last year. The Government's authority receives the national average when it comes to allocation of standards funding. Although I certainly accept the argument that it is receiving less SSA than he and his constituents have a right to expect, I assure him that, where we have been able to act within the formula, we have not treated Somerset less favourably than other local authorities. I hope that his constituents and the chairs of governors, who rightly worry about that, realise and acknowledge that fact. Somerset received £378,000 so that it could begin to implement class size policy early. Of course, that is not matched money—it is 100 per cent. from the standards fund.
  There will be other initiatives. The hon. Gentleman is concerned about a school in his constituency that has a class of 38. I am considering a petition, which he presented to the House, and I will be in a position to reply to his constituents shortly. I understand that it is not a key stage 1 class, otherwise it would be dealt with. I hope that he will accept that the 20,000 classroom assistants, who will be funded through the standards fund, will be the sort of resource that will allow the adult-to-pupil ratio in that key stage 2 class to be better by the time of the next election.
  The nub of the issue is SSAs. I will not this year, or any year, defend what I believe to be an inequitable distribution of resource. The hon. Gentleman may have been quoting me exactly when he said that, if we waited around for unanimity, we would never get anywhere. If that was a quote from my reply to the hon. Member for Northavon, I am grateful for the opportunity to restate it. I fear that, if we stand around waiting for unanimity, we will never get anywhere. I would certainly not want to wait that long and I know that we have to act before we achieve unanimity.
  I also acknowledge that the transition from being favourably funded to being equally funded is difficult. The hon. Gentleman and I may comment on the fact that authorities do not volunteer that they are too favourably treated by the SSA. However, the reality is that not one local authority or school feels that it is overfunded.
  Mr. David Heath: The hon. Lady is right. No one will volunteer that, which is why it is so important to take the
  1056
  opportunity of rising budgets within her Department to make that transition. If it does not happen now, it will never happen. That is what worries me about the fact that we appear to be stuck with those SSAs for the two or three-year period that has been suggested. If that is the case, there is no relief for people in Somerset and in similar authorities who are stuck with the poor spending patterns that they inherited from councils that are long forgotten.
  Ms Morris: I accept that, and the hon. Gentleman has a valid point. I do not envisage that increased education budgets will stop in three years. We are part of a Government who are committed to expenditure on education and that commitment is not for the short-term, just for the length of this comprehensive spending review settlement. We have always said that we shall seek to increase education budgets year on year, and we shall be judged on that commitment. I accept that it is far easier to make the transition in times of increasing budgets—I dare say that it would be almost impossible at times of decreasing budgets—so I agree that we must seize the opportunity to do so while we have a Government who are committed to securing what resources they can from the Treasury and putting the money into education.
  Somerset has not only been underfunded this year—the problem with its SSA is historic and has gone on for years—but the hon. Gentleman must realise that the huge change necessary must be seen in the context of all SSAs. Somerset's is not the only SSA that was up for review. Had changes to the education SSA been made alongside changes to the children's services SSA in the social services budget, the statistics show that certain authorities—London authorities, which suffer a fair degree of poverty—would have been clobbered twice. Although my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are driven by our desire to get a fairer system of funding, neither of us, nor any of our colleagues at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, could justify pushing that agenda this year, given all the other changes taking place.
  Mr. Heath: Will the Minister give way?
  Ms Morris: Yes, but I suspect that it will have to be the last time.
  Mr. Heath: I am listening carefully and I am grateful to the Minister for what she has said. I hope that she will not consider it a cheap point, but it is one that parents will inevitably make, because their children are going through the system now. We have waited for years and the sense of impatience is causing desperation in many of our schools, which is why we want quick results. I do not expect her to be able to wave a magic wand, but I do expect the process to start and that is what I am asking her to ensure.
  Ms Morris: The hon. Gentleman is right, but the process has started and it will continue. As he will know, we have held extensive talks with local authorities over the past six to 12 months and we are hopeful that the change will be brought about. Only relatively recently did we realise that we could not secure that change and arrive at a reasonable state of affairs for all local authorities with which we felt at ease. However, we have asked local

  1057
  authorities to continue to talk, not with a view to obtaining unanimity, but with a flexibility that will allow everyone to reach the point at which we can justify changes to each other.
  The London authorities argue not that it is right that they are better funded than others, but that they would find it difficult to cope with reduced funding—not that they are entitled to be better funded, but that they are entitled to be funded at the level at which they are currently funded. The good news is that there is an acceptance that the conversation must continue. The issue crosses party boundaries and splits along parochial lines, and my hope is that those parochial lines will converge over the next two to three years.
  The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there will be no change made to SSAs for another three years but, at the end of those three years, I shall be disappointed if, with our local authority partners, we have not managed to secure a fairer way of allocating resources from central Government to local authorities. I do not underestimate how difficult that task will be, but I have a clearer understanding of the difficulties ahead than I had 12 months ago.
  1058
  My final point goes to parents in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. He can take the message back that I have heard what their Member of Parliament has to say; I accept that, historically, they have not been fairly funded and that they have a right to secure from any Government a promise that all children be treated, not equally, but as individuals of equal worth who have a right to a similar standard of education and to the resources necessary to achieve that. We shall continue to work on the formula in the hope of securing a better one soon.
  Meanwhile, we are delighted to have been able to secure for the hon. Gentleman's constituents an increase in funding that is probably the largest increase that Somerset has received for a considerable time and an increase in standards funding that will benefit students in his constituency. That is our notion of partnership. We can contribute to the hard work that teachers, pupils and parents in Somerset are already doing to drive our common agenda and to make sure that all children receive a standard of education of which they and we can be proud.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to Eleven o'clock.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Departmental Papers (Access for Visually Impaired)
  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans she has for departmental(a) White and (b) Green Papers to be made available on floppy disk format in a form which facilitates access for the visually impaired. [67849]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office on 27 January 1999,Official Report, column 296.

  Pigs
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will publish a table in the Official Report to show for each month in 1998 the (a) profit and (b) loss in respect of (i) each weaner pig produced and (ii) each finished bacon pig from the Government Agricultural College Pig Unit or as much of such information as is readily available. [67779]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Government College Pig Unit operates a birth to bacon system and the financial records are accurate only for finished bacon pigs. Financial records are not maintained for weaner pig production.

  Monthly figures are very variable in a 100-sow unit because numbers sold in a month can vary markedly and meal deliveries can also distort the picture.

  Quarterly figures give a clearer picture and are provided for gross margin/bacon pig and net margin/bacon pig.

  Table to show profit/loss per bacon pig—1998

  £

  Quarter

  Gross margin1/pig

  Profit/loss/pig

  January-March 1998

  8.57

  -8.43

  April-June 1998

  16.34

  -0.66

  July-September 1998

  -11.96

  -28.96

  October-December 1998

  -13.19

  -30.19

  1 Gross margin is net output less variable costs e.g. feed, vet bill, replacement costs.

  Assumed fixed costs of £17 per pig are used to calculate profit/loss per pig. This is typical of pig units. Fixed costs for the college herd are difficult to isolate from teaching costs. Fixed costs include labour, buildings, water, electricity etc.

  For 1998 overall, the College Pig Unit recorded a gross margin of -£1.01 and a loss of £18.01 per pig.

  Health Technology Assessment
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list the research and development by 608
  (a) her Department and (b) the NHS, indicating separately that on health technology assessment each year since 1992. [68209]

  Mr. McFall
  The research expenditure of the Department of Health and Social Services (Northern Ireland) in the period 1992–93 to 1997–98 was as shown in the table. Expenditure on health technology assessment could be identified only at disproportionate cost. In 1996–97, total Health and Personal Social Services expenditure on research was estimated to be approximately £12 million. Totals for other years, and separate identification of expenditure on health technology assessment for 1996–97, cannot be produced except at disproportionate expense.

  Research expenditure by Department of Health and Social Services (Northern Ireland)

  Year

  £ million

  1992–93

  1.62

  1993–94

  1.83

  1994–95

  1.50

  1995–96

  2.25

  1996–97

  1.30

  1997–98

  2.10

  Departmental Responsibilities
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what responsibilities which her Department had prior to the Comprehensive Spending Review are to be(a) discontinued by her Department, (b) transferred to another department, (c) transferred to an executive agency and (d) added to her Department over the period 1998–99 to 2001–02. [68409]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Comprehensive Spending Review did not lead directly to any of the Secretary of State's responsibilities being discontinued, transferred or added over the period 1998–99 to 2001–02. Under devolution, many of the functions currently the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will transfer to the Northern Ireland Assembly.

  Departmental Legislation
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what additional legislation, not currently before Parliament, was assumed in the production of her Department's spending allocation for 1999–2000 to 2001–02 in the Comprehensive Spending Review. [68425]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  There is a long-standing convention that legislative proposals for each year are not announced before the Queen's Speech at the start of the relevant Session.

  Criminal Records Office Forms
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the rules governing the use of the CRO form by the RUC; what protection exists for
  609
  vulnerable witnesses against its misuse; and how many CRO forms were completed by how many individuals in the last year for which figures are available. [67435]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 2 February 1999]: The RUC use a number of different forms associated with the Criminal Records Office (CRO). Unfortunately it is not clear to which of these my hon. Friend refers and it is not therefore possible to answer his question. If he would care to write giving further details I will ensure he receives a full response, a copy of which will be placed in the library.

WALES

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the percentage of(a) five-year-olds, (b) six-year-olds and (c) seven-year-olds educated in class sizes of 30 or less (i) currently and (ii) in May 1997. [68612]

  Mr. Hain
  The January 1998 annual Schools' Census showed the following percentages of pupils in Wales were being educated in classes of 30 or less.

  Year

  Usual age of pupils

  Percentage

  Reception

  5

  74.3

  Year 1

  6

  66.4

  Year 2

  7

  62.5

  Other key stage 1 classes of mixed year groups

  —

  74.9

  Comparable information is not available for earlier years.

  At January 1998, there were 30,734 pupils in key stage 1 classes of over 30 pupils. On the basis of grant approvals for local authorities to employ additional teachers from September 1998, it is estimated that 23,525 fewer pupils are being educated in classes of this size than would have been the case without grant. The 1999 schools' Census will give the actual position.

  In future this will become the responsibility of the National Assembly.

  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will estimate(a) how many schools in Wales have requested additional funding in order to reduce infant class sizes to under 30 pupils in the last 12 months and (b) the number of such requests that were successful. [68730]

  Mr. Hain
  Local education authorities bid for 413 schools to receive funding for infant class size reduction in 1998–99. Bids for 302 schools were successful. LEAs have bid for 570 schools to receive Infant Class Size Reduction Grant in 1999–2000. Bids are currently being assessed and LEAs will be advised of the successful schools in March.

  In future this will become the responsibility of the National Assembly.

  Education Action Zones
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many education action zones have been set up in Wales. [68611]

  Mr. Hain
  None.

  In future this will become the responsibility of the National Assembly.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to introduce education action zones in Wales. [68610]

  Mr. Hain
  We have made it clear that any decision on the introduction of Education Action Zones in Wales will be taken only after full and extensive consultation.

  In future this will become the responsibility of the National Assembly.

  North Wales Child Abuse Inquiry
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects the report of the North Wales Child Abuse Inquiry to be published. [68841]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will arrange for publication of the Tribunal's report when it has been completed: this is not yet the case.

  Local Government Expenditure
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on local government revenue spending and grant support in 1999–2000. [69460]

  Mr. Michael
  I met the Welsh Local Government Association on 15 December and Welsh police authorities on 4 January to discuss the proposed settlement that I announced in December. I have given very careful consideration to their comments on it and to the many comments that I have received from hon. Members and others.

  I have decided that, net of specific grants, total standard spending (TSS) for 1999–2000 will be £2,986.6 million and net aggregate external finance will be £2,570.2 million. These final figures represent increases on 1998–99 of 5.1 per cent. and 4.8 per cent. respectively.

  Both figures are £0.2 million higher than the provisional amounts I announced on 9 December, because of a small increase in funding to match grants for education, support and training. The extra amount within net TSS for education is also increased, to £70.2 million.

  In response to concerns expressed to me during the consultation period, I have decided to alter the formula for calculating the capital charges element of standard spending assessments (SSAs). The effect of the change is to increase SSAs for police authorities by £1.8 million. Details of final SSAs for councils and police authorities are shown in the table.

  It also takes account of other minor changes between provisional and final SSAs caused by data changes.

  The House will have the opportunity to debate my decisions when it considers the Local Government Finance Report (Wales) 1999–2000 on 11 February.
  611
  The breakdown of net TSS is:

  £ million

  SSAs for county and county borough councils

  2,804.7

  SSAs for police authorities

  180.1

  Payments to bodies specified under section 76 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988

  1.8

  Total standard spending net of specific grants

  2,986.6

  Net aggregate external finance for 1999–2000 will consist of revenue support grant (RSG) of £1,892.0 million, council tax reduction scheme grant (damping grant) of £22.2 million and redistributed non-domestic rates of £656.0 million.

  The details of the council tax damping scheme remain as I announced in December. The total amount of damping grant and the damping grant entitlement for each council have changed because of changes between provisional and final SSAs. The entitlement for each council is shown in the table at the end of the answer.

  The settlement represents a significant real-terms increase for local government, and delivers the Government's priorities for education, social services and other key local services. Within the increase in net TSS, there is £70.2 million extra for education which will cover the cost of the review body's recent recommendations on teachers' pay.

  I am not announcing capping criteria in advance for 1999–2000. I expect councils and police authorities to budget prudently. Capping powers remain available to me if any authority makes an excessive increase in its council tax.

  Finally, the arrangements for council tax benefit subsidy limitation remain as set out in my answer of 14 December 1995, Official Report, column 390. Guideline figures
  "are consistent with an average increase of 7.2 per cent. in council tax which, in broad terms, equates to a budget increase of 5.9 per cent. over this year for each council, subject to allowing each council to spend the increase in its SSA in full;
  on council tax above the guideline figure, subsidy would be withdrawn at the rate of 50 per cent."

  The guideline figure for each council is shown in the table.

  £ million

  Council/police authority

  SSA for 1999—2000

  Entitlement to damping grant1

  Guideline figure2

  Isle of Anglesey

  68.0

  —

  70.2

  Gwynedd

  118.9

  —

  126.8

  Conwy

  104.9

  —

  104.9

  Denbighshire

  91.6

  —

  97.1

  Flintshire

  135.0

  —

  140.7

  Wrexham

  112.6

  —

  118.4

  Powys

  131.2

  —

  134.1

  Ceredigion

  70.3

  0.1

  75.8

  Pembrokeshire

  114.6

  —

  116.9

  Carmarthenshire

  169.0

  —

  177.9

  Swansea

  214.3

  0.2

  226.7

  Neath Port Talbot

  133.6

  3.1

  148.4

  Bridgend

  123.5

  0.0

  131.0

  The Vale of Glamorgan

  110.0

  —

  112.0

  612

  £ million

  Council/police authority

  SSA for 1999–2000

  Entitlement to damping grant1

  Guideline figure2

  Rhondda, Cynon, Taff

  230.3

  9.1

  254.0

  Merthyr Tydfil

  59.0

  3.8

  67.1

  Caerphilly

  164.0

  0.1

  172.8

  Blaenau Gwent

  70.3

  5.8

  79.4

  Torfaen

  89.9

  —

  92.1

  Monmouthshire

  75.4

  —

  75.4

  Newport

  130.6

  —

  134.2

  Cardiff

  287.8

  —

  299.0

  All county and county borough councils: total

  2,804.7

  22.2

  Not applicable

  Dyfed-Powys

  25.8

  —

  —

  Gwent

  34.8

  —

  —

  North Wales

  37.6

  —

  —

  South Wales

  81.9

  —

  —

  All police authorities: total

  180.1

  Not applicable

  Not applicable

  1Damping grant is paid to councils only

  2Guideline figures have been set for councils only for 1999–2000.

  The National Assembly will be able to extend the arrangements for council tax benefit subsidy limitation to police authorities for 2000–01.

  In future this will be the responsibility of the National Assembly.

  Social Exclusion Unit
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about the operation of the Social Exclusion Unit in Wales. [69036]

  Mr. Hain
  The remit of the Social Exclusion Unit covers England only. However, its members and officials from the Welsh Office keep in regular contact to ensure that best practice and good ideas are shared. From time to time, the Unit also draws on expertise from Wales or visits projects in the Principality.

  I am a member of the Ministerial Network which guides the work of the Unit. This ensures that Wales has a voice at an early stage in the development of policy with an impact beyond England and that Welsh experience and innovations can be considered as part of the wider process of policy formulation.

  The Secretary of State has ensured that policies to combat social exclusion are given renewed priority in the Welsh Office and in future this will become the responsibility of the National Assembly.

  North West Wales NHS Trust
  Mrs. Betty Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many of(a) the applicants and (b) those interviewed for the Chairmanship of the North West Wales NHS Trust were (i) male and (ii) female. [69034]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  Eight people applied for the Chair of the North West Wales NHS Trust, all male. Three were shortlisted and interviewed for the Chair appointment.

  In future this will become the responsibility of the National Assembly.

  Health Authority Funding
  Mrs. Betty Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much was distributed to each health authority and NHS trust in Wales in each of the last three years. [69035]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The Department provided funding to health authorities to purchase health care as set out in the following table. NHS trusts receive most of their funding from their local health authority with additional amounts from other health bodies under contracts to provide health care. A table showing the total income of NHS trusts is also provided.

  £ million

  Health authorities

  1995–961

  Clwyd

  269.954

  Dyfed

  240.122

  Gwent

  292.284

  Gwynedd

  167.592

  Mid Glamorgan

  374.718

  Powys

  92.384

  South Glamorgan

  305.089

  West Glamorgan

  246.401

  £ million

  Health authorities

  1996–972

  1997–98

  Bro Taf

  547.699

  552.929

  Dyfed Powys

  350.832

  362.580

  Gwent

  380.139

  393.071

  Morgannwg

  375.359

  376.415

  North Wales

  465.655

  487.461

  1 District health authority and family health services authority income

  2 On 1 April 1996 the eight DHAs and eight FHSAs merged to form five health authorities

  £ million

  NHS trust

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Bridgend & District NHS Trust

  69.062

  84.179

  89.648

  Cardiff Community NHS Trust

  58.194

  59.998

  62.647

  Carmarthen & District NHS Trust

  40.503

  41.688

  43.911

  Ceredigion & Mid Wales NHS Trust

  24.056

  25.679

  25.961

  Clwydian Community Care NHS Trust

  65.521

  66.532

  68.910

  Derwen NHS Trust

  22.964

  24.405

  —

  East Glamorgan NHS Trust

  50.903

  51.516

  53.416

  Glan Clwyd NHS Trust

  62.492

  68.483

  70.027

  Glan Hafren NHS Trust

  95.989

  73.612

  74.022

  Glan y Mor NHS Trust

  —

  73.612

  74.022

  Gwent Community NHS Trust

  60.289

  61.103

  62.080

  Gwynedd Community NHS Trust

  50.116

  52.768

  53.908

  Gwynedd Hospitals NHS Trust

  61.204

  65.455

  66.420

  Llandough Hospital NHS Trust

  59.690

  64.400

  66.940

  Llanelli Dinefwr NHS Trust

  31.774

  33.515

  33.985

  Mid Glamorgan Ambulance NHS Trust

  8.627

  9.307

  9.974

  Morriston Hospital NHS Trust

  73.724

  77.993

  85.089

  Nevill Hall NHS Trust

  43.435

  46.735

  47.988

  North Glamorgan NHS Trust

  —

  61.703

  62.802

  North Wales Ambulance NHS Trust

  13.028

  13.787

  14.207

  Pembrokeshire NHS Trust

  43.154

  44.853

  —

  Pembrokeshire/Derwen NHS Trust

  —

  —

  69.073

  Powys Healthcare NHS Trust

  43.248

  44.920

  44.544

  Rhondda Healthcare NHS Trust

  31.910

  32.839

  34.954

  South East Wales Ambulance NHS Trust

  18.140

  18.374

  18.941

  Swansea NHS Trust

  59.342

  63.946

  68.507

  614

  £ million

  NHS trust

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  University Dental Hospital NHS Trust

  8.492

  8.984

  9.184

  University Hospital of Wales NHS Trust

  166.848

  187.587

  189.136

  Velindre Hospital NHS Trust

  13.826

  17.310

  18.536

  West Wales Ambulance NHS Trust

  10.989

  12.308

  12.880

  Wrexham Maelor NHS Trust

  57.714

  61.091

  63.815

  Note:

  A dash denotes that the trust was not operational in the year.

  Source:

  Audited annual accounts of health authorities, family health services authorities and NHS trusts 1995–96 to 1997–98

  In future this will become the responsibility of the National Assembly.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Electronic Warfare
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 25 January 1999,Official Report, column 75, on electronic warfare, if he will take lead responsibility for electronic warfare attacks on (a) the banking system, (b) utilities, (c) telecommunications, (d) air traffic control, (e) areas currently the responsibility of the Ministry of Defence and (f) areas currently within the responsibility of the Cabinet Office. [68312]

  Mr. Straw
  Following my answer on 25 January 1999,Official Report, column 79, there is to be no change of responsibilities between Departments. I believe that it is better to build upon the relationships and responsibilities that Departments already have with the relevant parts of the private sector. I see no good reason to change this.

  My taking the lead responsibility within Government for the measures proposed serves to put onto a more formal footing the liaison over the security arrangements necessary to protect our vital national assets.

  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 25 January 1999,Official Report, column 75, on electronic warfare, if his answer was the statement referred to by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Warley (Mr. Spellar), on 4 November 1998, Official Report, column 992. [68347]

  Mr. Straw
  Yes.

  Police Recruitment
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total number of(a) initial inquiries, (b) applications and (c) successful applications, for new police force recruitment, in each police force, in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [68950]

  Mr. Boateng
  Information is not held centrally on the number of initial recruitment inquiries made to police forces. Information on the number of applications and the number of new recruits to police forces is shown in the tables.
  615

  Applications made to police forces in England and Wales

  Forces

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Avon and Somerset

  2,186.00

  —

  621.00

  Bedfordshire

  427.00

  21.00

  284.00

  Cambridgeshire

  416.00

  1,099.00

  473.00

  Cheshire

  1,339.00

  829.00

  829.00

  City of London

  780.00

  446.00

  638.00

  Cleveland

  291.00

  1,393.00

  —

  Cumbria

  354.00

  1,053.00

  389.00

  Derbyshire

  1,384.00

  807.00

  612.00

  Devon and Cornwall

  1,596.00

  1,064.00

  1,000.00

  Dorset

  279.00

  377.00

  665.00

  Durham

  1,149.00

  1,343.00

  848.00

  Dyfed-Powys

  405.00

  573.00

  861.00

  Essex

  1,756.00

  1,241.00

  304.00

  Gloucestershire

  405.00

  322.00

  1,013.00

  Greater Manchester

  3,049.00

  2,366.00

  2,614.00

  Gwent

  1,081.00

  932.00

  308.00

  Hampshire

  2,431.00

  1,797.00

  929.00

  Hertfordshire

  836.00

  659.00

  314.00

  Humberside

  315.00

  194.00

  219.00

  Kent

  984.00

  1,016.00

  261.00

  Lancashire

  1,254.00

  1,765.00

  1,307.00

  Leicestershire

  1,636.00

  962.00

  711.00

  Lincolnshire

  379.00

  1,236.00

  1,077.00

  Merseyside

  0.00

  41.00

  3,064.00

  Metropolitan Police

  10,556.00

  3,941.00

  4,633.00

  Norfolk

  398.00

  603.00

  408.00

  Northamptonshire

  469.00

  469.00

  432.00

  Northumbria

  1,706.00

  1,486.00

  2,044.00

  North Wales

  489.00

  316.00

  638.00

  North Yorkshire

  360.00

  434.00

  607.00

  Nottinghamshire

  1,166.00

  927.00

  867.00

  South Wales

  3,669.00

  2,208.00

  1,654.00

  South Yorkshire

  982.00

  1,180.00

  786.00

  Staffordshire

  530.00

  620.00

  1,260.00

  Suffolk

  1,067.00

  1,576.00

  834.00

  Surrey

  581.00

  543.00

  731.00

  Sussex

  1,791.00

  442.00

  2,108.00

  Thames Valley

  837.00

  1,556.00

  1,889.00

  Warwickshire

  0.00

  201.00

  695.00

  West Mercia

  —

  600.00

  867.00

  West Midlands

  3,111.00

  2,212.00

  3,272.00

  West Yorkshire

  1,465.00

  1,660.00

  975.00

  Wiltshire

  —

  264.00

  293.00

  England and Wales Total

  53,909.00

  42,774.00

  44.334.00

  New recruits to police forces in England and Wales

  Forces

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Avon and Somerset

  120.00

  141.00

  105.00

  Bedfordshire

  66.00

  12.00

  46.00

  Cambridgeshire

  45.00

  96.00

  58.00

  Cheshire

  115.00

  103.00

  87.00

  City of London

  49.00

  42.00

  29.00

  Cleveland

  25.00

  80.00

  56.00

  Cumbria

  0.00

  74.00

  46.00

  Derbyshire

  52.00

  77.00

  61.00

  Devon and Cornwall

  120.00

  94.00

  172.00

  Dorset

  18.00

  60.00

  75.00

  Durham

  80.00

  106.00

  105.00

  Dyfed-Powys

  36.00

  45.00

  33.00

  Essex

  92.00

  185.00

  108.00

  Gloucestershire

  28.00

  60.00

  27.00

  Greater Manchester

  290.00

  345.00

  436.00

  Gwent

  81.00

  68.00

  31.00

  Hampshire

  194.00

  235.00

  182.00

  Hertfordshire

  76.00

  126.00

  63.00

  Humberside

  98.00

  72.00

  70.00

  Kent

  128.00

  268.00

  118.00

  Lancashire

  121.00

  182.00

  111.00

  Leicestershire

  173.00

  135.00

  115.00

  616

  New recruits to police forces in England and Wales

  Forces

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Lincolnshire

  19.00

  109.00

  36.00

  Merseyside

  30.00

  57.00

  160.00

  Metropolitan Police

  1,212.00

  670.00

  1,164.00

  Norfolk

  77.00

  95.00

  55.00

  Northamptonshire

  41.00

  65.00

  52.00

  Northumbria

  258.00

  177.00

  227.00

  North Wales

  0.00

  0.00

  63.00

  North Yorkshire

  67.00

  63.00

  65.00

  Nottinghamshire

  91.00

  89.00

  0.00

  South Wales

  246.00

  152.00

  170.00

  South Yorkshire

  166.00

  200.00

  135.00

  Staffordshire

  65.00

  99.00

  220.00

  Suffolk

  7.00

  100.00

  69.00

  Surrey

  47.00

  55.00

  112.00

  Sussex

  318.00

  158.00

  136.00

  Thames Valley

  26.00

  183.00

  258.00

  Warwickshire

  0.00

  0.00

  54.00

  West Mercia

  50.00

  110.00

  62.00

  West Midlands

  507.00

  388.00

  445.00

  West Yorkshire

  283.00

  267.00

  182.00

  Wiltshire

  68.00

  20.00

  60.00

  England and Wales Total

  5,585.00

  5,663.00

  5,859.00

  Prisons Inspectorate (Reports)
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the dates his Department received each report from Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons and the date each report was published since May 1997; how many reports are currently being considered by his Department prior to publication; and when they were received by his Department. [68955]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Since 1 May 1997, 71 reports have been received from Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons. To date, 60 reports have been published. The remaining 11 reports will be published in due course, in line with the agreed protocol. The detailed information is set out in the table.

  Publication of reports by HM chief Inspector of Prisons

  Establishment

  Date inspection report received by the Secretary of State

  Date report publishsed

  Buckley Hall

  6 May 1997

  3 October 1997

  Littlehey

  6 May 1997

  30 October 1997

  Blantyre House

  2 June 1997

  14 October 1997

  Feltham

  2 June 1997

  23 September 1997

  Full Sutton

  2 June 1997

  22 August 1997

  Swaleside

  2 June 1997

  21 August 1997

  Lincoln

  23 June 1997

  16 October 1997

  Exeter

  21 July 1997

  23 October 1997

  Cardiff

  29 July 1997

  23 October 1997

  Dorchester

  29 July 1997

  23 October 1997

  Aldington

  29 July 1997

  6 November 1997

  Northallerton

  11 August 1997

  30 October 1997

  Castington

  11 August 1997

  6 November 1997

  Bull wood Hall

  11 August 1997

  11 December 1997

  Morton Hall

  13 August 1997

  16 October 1997

  Pentonville

  14 August 1997

  4 December 1997

  Hewell Grange

  27 August 1997

  6 November 1997

  Brockhill

  27 August 1997

  18 February 1998

  Haverigg

  28 August 1997

  13 November 1997

  Garth

  15 September 1997

  11 December 1997

  Acklington

  16 October 1997

  11 December 1997

  Kingston

  24 October 1997

  3 March 1998

  Wealstun

  28 October 1997

  2 December 1997

  Grendon/Spring Hill

  24 November 1997

  12 February 1998

  Erlestoke

  3 December 1997

  4 March 1998

  617

  Publication of reports by HM Chief Inspector of Prisons

  Establishment

  Date inspection report received by the Secretary of State

  Date report published

  Swinfen Hall

  3 December 1997

  11 March 1998

  Canterbury

  5 December 1997

  13 February 1998

  Lewes

  9 December 1997

  1 April 1998

  Stoke Heath

  9 December 1997

  25 February 1998

  Cookham Wood

  7 January 1998

  19 March 1998

  Dartmoor

  12 January 1998

  20 March 1998

  Wakefield

  28 January 1998

  30 April 1998

  Glen Parva

  28 January 1998

  11 March 1998

  Manchester

  5 February 1998

  7 April 1998

  Frankland

  10 February 1998

  15 May 1998

  Holloway

  18 February 1998

  3 June 1998

  Blundeston

  27 February 1998

  22 May 1998

  Featherstone

  24 March 1998

  1 May 1998

  Shrewsbury

  21 April 1998

  1 July 1998

  Winchester

  21 April 1998

  24 June 1998

  Gloucester

  11 May 1998

  17 June 1998

  Wellingborough

  11 May 1998

  18 June 1998

  The Mount

  11 May 1998

  18 June 1998

  The Verne

  2 June 1998

  8 July 1998

  Long Lartin

  5 June 1998

  17 August 1998

  Werrington

  7 July 1998

  23 September 1998

  Bedford

  8 July 1998

  9 September 1998

  Everthorpe

  3 August 1998

  13 October 1998

  Belmarsh

  5 August 1998

  8 October 1998

  Aylesbury

  13 August 1998

  28 October 1998

  Eastwood Park

  14 August 1998

  29 September 1998

  Highpoint

  14 August 1998

  29 September 1998

  Sudbury

  19 August 1998

  16 October 1998

  Nottingham

  20 August 1998

  2 December 1998

  Woodhill

  1 September 1998

  2 October 1998

  Haslar

  14 September 1998

  11 December 1998

  North Sea Camp

  30 September 1998

  8 January 1999

  Norwich

  1 October 1998

  16 December 1998

  Thorn Cross

  19 October 1998

  12 January 1999

  Birmingham

  19 October 1998

  13 January 1999

  Leicester

  2 December 1998

  —

  Kirkham

  8 December 1998

  —

  The Wolds

  11 December 1998

  —

  Blakenhurst

  14 December 1998

  —

  Albany

  17 December 1998

  —

  Askham Grange

  17 December 1998

  —

  Feltham

  18 December 1998

  —

  Chelmsford

  21 December 1998

  —

  Doncaster

  4 January 1999

  —

  Elmley

  15 January 1999

  —

  Weare

  26 January 1999

  —

  Premier Prison, Doncaster
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will investigate the procedures used at Doncaster Coroner's Court in relation to the completed inquests into the suicides of prisoners held in the Premier Prison in Doncaster in 1997. [68580]

  Mr. George Howarth
  We have no plans to do so. Any dissatisfaction with the exercise of the coroner's discretion is a matter for the courts. Complaints about the conduct of the coroner or the administration of the court may be referred to the Home Office.

  Town Centres (Safety)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to bring forward proposals on safety in town centres. [68783]

  Mr. Boateng
  Our proposals on community safety in towns and elsewhere are contained in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, which lays a duty on the local 618
  authority and police in every area, in partnership with a wide range of other bodies, to carry out a full audit of the levels and patterns of crime and disorder in that area. Based upon the findings of the audit and after consultation with the community about them, police and council must then formulate and implement a strategy for the reduction of crime and disorder. Where the audit identifies crime or disorder problems in town centres as a major concern, we would expect the strategy to address them.

  Immigration Offences
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidelines he has issued on access of persons detained at police stations for immigration offences to hon. Members. [68797]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Home Office has not issued guidelines on access to Members of Parliament by persons detained under Immigration Act powers and held at police stations. Such detainees may be allowed to contact a Member of Parliament, or anyone else and to receive a visit from a Member of Parliament, or anyone else, at the discretion of the police custody officer.

  Home Office booklets have been issued providing "Information for Members of Parliament about immigration and nationality enquiries" and "Guidelines on the handling of representations by Members of Parliament in immigration cases". These booklets seek to help Members of Parliament decide whether or not to make representations in immigration cases and to decide whether those representations should be directed to Home Office Ministers or direct to the Immigration and Nationality Department.

  Police Authority Funding
  Mr. Salter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the final funding allocations for police authorities in England and Wales will be in 1999–2000. [69600]

  Mr. Straw
  Allocations for each police authority are set out in the table. The table also shows allocations approved by Parliament for 1998–99.

  £ million

  Police authority

  1998–1999 allocation1

  1999–2000 allocation1

  English Shire forces

  Avon & Somerset

  164.3

  168.4

  Bedfordshire

  60.9

  61.4

  Cambridgeshire

  71.9

  74.8

  Cheshire

  104.7

  109.0

  Cleveland

  80.4

  81.7

  Cumbria

  59.0

  60.1

  Derbyshire

  97.7

  102.1

  Devon & Cornwall

  167.4

  174.3

  Dorset

  67.8

  70.1

  Durham

  78.1

  81.3

  Essex

  158.4

  163.0

  Gloucestershire

  61.5

  62.4

  Hampshire

  189.1

  194.5

  Hertfordshire

  94.1

  100.0

  Humberside

  110.6

  113.0

  Kent

  178.9

  183.1

  Lancashire

  174.9

  178.2

  Leicestershire

  99.1

  102.3

  Lincolnshire

  60.7

  63.4

  619

  £ million

  Police authority

  1998–1999 allocation1

  1999–2000 allocation1

  Norfolk

  80.9

  83.4

  North Yorkshire

  75.6

  77.6

  Northamptonshire

  62.8

  65.3

  Nottinghamshire

  123.0

  126.3

  Staffordshire

  111.1

  113.0

  Suffolk

  66.0

  68.6

  Surrey

  84.2

  91.9

  Sussex

  162.6

  166.4

  Thames Valley

  219.3

  224.6

  Warwickshire

  51.1

  52.2

  West Mercia

  110.0

  113.0

  Wiltshire

  63.4

  64.9

  English Metropolitan forces

  Greater Manchester

  364.8

  375.7

  Merseyside

  233.3

  236.3

  Northumbria

  205.4

  213.0

  South Yorkshire

  165.4

  171.3

  West Midlands

  371.9

  380.6

  West Yorkshire

  279.5

  286.3

  London forces

  Metropolitan Police2

  1,715.3

  1,743.9

  City of London3

  57.1

  55.4

  English total

  6,682.6

  6,852.8

  Welsh forces

  Dyfed-Powys

  51.1

  51.7

  Gwent

  67.3

  69.7

  North Wales

  73.2

  75.5

  South Wales

  161.3

  163.8

  Welsh total

  353.0

  360.8

  Total

  7,035.5

  7,213.6

  1 Rounded to the nearest £100,000. The Allocation is the sum of: Police Grant, Transitional Grant, Police SSA, Capital Finance SSA, SSA Reduction Grant and Central Support Protection Grant.

  2 Figure for the Metropolitan Police does not include funding allocated to the Receiver under the Environmental, Protective and Cultural Services SSA for school crossing patrols, Magistrates' Courts and the Probation Service. It does include its Special Payment.

  3 Figure for the City includes Police SSA, Grant and SSA Reduction Grant, but excludes other SSAs (e.g. Capital Financing) and Central Support Protection Grant. These are allocated to the Common Council of the City of London as a whole in respect of all its functions.

  Security Service Files
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has received the report of the Advisory Council on Public Records on their review of the criteria used by the Security Service in deciding whether to retain files on grounds of historical interest. [69601]

  Mr. Straw
  On 29 July 1998,Official Report, columns 251–54, I announced to the House that, with the approval of the Lord Chancellor, I had invited the Advisory Council on Public Records to review the criteria which the Security Service employs to select files for permanent preservation on grounds of historical interest. The Chairman of the Council, the Master of the Rolls, accepted the invitation and submitted the Council's report to me on 21 December.
  620
  The Council's Report concludes with the following recommendations:

  1. The following criteria should be added to those which currently guide the selection of files of historical interest:

  i. Organisations and individuals on which security action was required but which were not of great significance nationally or internationally at the time when the action took place.

  Selection should be carried out to show the geographical, national and social range of individuals and organisations with which the Service had dealings. Full details of this criterion to be developed within the operational selection policy.

  ii. Events with which the Service had an active involvement but which were neither newsworthy at the time nor historically significant if considered in isolation.

  Selection should be carried out in order to reflect both developments in the Service's own activities and policies and the social, economic and political context within which the Service operated. Full details of this criterion to be developed within the operational selection policy

  iii. A sample taken from all files on individuals on whom, after initial investigation, no security action was taken and from the files on individuals not selected under other criteria.

  At a minimum this should be a sample of one out of 100 of such files. The details of the sampling method should he considered as part of the development of an operational selection policy. The taking of a sample is dependent on the preservation of all means of reference.

  iv. All policy and subject files, other than those of an ephemeral nature.

  v. All registers and other means of reference to policy files and to files on subjects, organisations and individuals.

  2. The Security Service should work with the Public Record Office to develop an operational selection policy based on the criteria as amended, for completion in 2000–01.

  Having consulted the Director General of the Security Service, I have decided to accept that Council's recommendations in full. Additionally, and in response to an observation elsewhere in the report, officials of the Public Record Office with the necessary security clearance will, in future, be invited to examine files which have been earmarked for destruction following review by the Security Service. This will provide a useful measure of external scrutiny of the selection process.

  I am most grateful to the Advisory Council for undertaking this valuable review, and for its helpful and constructive recommendations. I am placing a copy of the Report in the Library.

  European Elections
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what educational publicity campaign he plans, at what cost, to inform electors of the proportional voting system to be used to elect United Kingdom members of the European Parliament in June. [69033]

  Mr. George Howarth
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Mr. Williams) on 18 January 1999,Official Report, column 327.

  School Crossing Patrols
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many school crossing patrol positions there are in England and Wales; and how many vacancies there are. [68814]
  621
  Mr. Boateng
  I understand from the Local Government Management Board that in 1996, the most recent year for which a figure is available, there were 18,786 school crossing patrol wardens in England and Wales. Information on the number of vacancies is not collected centrally.

  Prisons (Charter Marks)
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the criteria used in assessments of prisons in England and Wales for the awarding of a Charter Mark; and if he will make a statement. [68952]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  I have been asked to reply.

  The criteria used in assessment of prisons in England and Wales for the award of a Charter Mark are the same as are used in assessing all other public sector applications. For the 1998 assessment process these criteria were:

  Performance standards

  Information and openness

  Consultation and choice

  Courtesy and helpfulness

  Putting things right

  Value for money

  User satisfaction

  Improvements in service quality

  Planned improvements and innovations.

  For all applicants the assessment process includes checking with sponsoring Departments, regulatory bodies, statutory user groups and other relevant bodies to ensure that any shortcomings or service failures are known and taken into account. The particular circumstances, including statutory obligations, of each applicant are also taken into account.

  Applicants are required to submit a written application supported with evidence. The written application is assessed independently by two different assessors followed by a visit from one or more assessors who review the service on site, examine any additional evidence and meet a cross-section of users. For a prison, users would include the prisoners themselves, Prison Visitors and relatives of prisoners.

  The decision to award a Charter Mark is made by an independent panel of judges.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many times he or his junior Ministers, or predecessors in the post, have paid official visits to(a) the Czech Republic, (b) Poland, (c) Hungary, (d) Slovenia, (e) Estonia and (f) Cyprus since May 1997; and what was the purpose of each visit. [67700]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 27 January 1999]: Since May 1997 DTI Ministers have made the following visits to Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic.
  622

  Ministerial visit

  Purpose of visit

  December 1997

  Hungary

  Trade Promotion

  Czech Republic

  Trade Promotion

  Poland

  Trade Promotion

  January 1998

  Czech Republic

  Trade Policy

  Hungary

  Trade Promotion

  September 1998

  Poland

  Address a Seminar on Entrepreneurship and meeting with the Polish Minister for the Economy

  There have been no visits to Slovenia, Estonia or Cyprus.

  BAT Industries and Rothmans International
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement about the regulatory procedures which must now be followed in respect of the proposed merger between BAT Industries and Rothmans International. [67949]

  Dr. Howells
  It will be necessary to determine whether this proposed merger falls for consideration by the European Commission under the EC Merger Regulation, or by the UK authorities under the Fair Trading Act 1973. If it falls to the EC Merger Regulation it is for the parties to notify the European Commission. The UK plays a formal role in the Commission's assessment process. If it falls to the UK authorities my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry would decide whether or not to refer it to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in the light of the advice of the Director General of Fair Trading. Each case is considered on its own merits.

  Export Licences (Records)
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for how long a British company or agency which has supplied military, security or police equipment which has been exempted from export licence requirements is required to maintain records of such transfers. [68303]

  Dr. Howells
  Export of controlled military and paramilitary goods is subject to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994, made under the provisions of the Import, Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act 1939. The 1939 Act does not bind the Crown. In addition, a number of international organisations have had immunity from export prohibitions conferred upon them by means of Orders in Council made under the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges) Act 1968. The Government and those immune international organisations are under no legal obligation to maintain records of their exports.

  No other agencies or companies are exempt from the provisions of the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994.

  Electro-shock Batons
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if he will list the companies granted export licences for the export of electro-shock batons to(a) Egypt, (b) Botswana and (c) Saudi Arabia; [68230]

  (2) which British company brokered the trans-shipment of electro-shock batons to Saudi Arabia under the trans-shipment licence granted by his Department in 1993. [68194]

  Dr. Howells
  I refer my hon. Friend to the letter to her, dated 16 July 1998, from my noble Friend Lord Clinton-Davis. A copy of this letter was placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many visits his officials have made to British Aerospace to check that electro-shock batons were not transferred to Saudi Arabia as part of the Al Yamamah deal. [68331]

  Mr. George Robertson
  I have been asked to reply.

  Officials from both the Department of Trade and Industry and the Ministry of Defence contacted BAe Royal Ordnance following allegations made in a Channel 4 "Dispatches" programme, screened on 11 January 1995. The Company has gone on record to deny the allegations made in the programme.

  PVC Toys
  Mr. Salter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to implement the recommendations of the European Commission's Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment in respect of the sale of soft PVC toys. [68917]

  Dr. Howells
  The independent Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment (SCTEE) was asked by the European Commission to provide an opinion on the use of phthalate plasticisers in soft PVC toys, including tethers. The SCTEE made a number of recommendations and observations. These include concerns about the possible use of one phthalate (DEHP) in toys intended to be mouthed by children and a recommendation on a safe migration level for DINP. The SCTEE's assessment of the toxicity of phthalates is consistent with the views of the EU Scientific Committee for Food.

  Tests of PVC toys and tethers have been commissioned by DTI, based on the SCTEE's recommendations. These indicate that DEHP is no longer used in PVC toys and to date no toys have been found on the UK market which release DINP in levels above those recommended by the SCTEE. A programme of testing to monitor phthalates release levels is continuing.

  Export Licences (Alvis)
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the visits his officials have undertaken to audit open individual export licences held by Alvis since 1988. [68787]

  Dr. Howells
  Since 1988, ECO Compliance Officers have made 6 routine compliance visits in total to Alvis Logistics Ltd. and Alvis Vehicles Ltd.
  624
  Alvis Logistics Ltd. were visited on 24 July 1996; 29 April and 16 December 1997.

  Alvis Vehicles Ltd. were visited on 24 July 1996; 29 April and 16 December 1997.

  Electronic Equipment
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to encourage recycling of electronic equipment. [68626]

  Dr. Howells
  Electrical and electronic equipment is one of the sectors targeted in the Government's Producer Responsibility initiative. Through this initiative, the Department of Trade and Industry has encouraged industry-led action to increase re-use and recycling of electrical and electronic equipment. Recently, the Department issued a guide to the re-use of unwanted computer equipment.

  The Government are currently developing a new waste strategy, and has made clear that they are committed to achieving substantial increases in recycling. In this context, the Government are currently assessing options for developing the markets for recycled materials and products.

  Director General of Research Councils (Hewlett-Packard)
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the arrangements by which the Director General of Research Councils will avoid conflicts of interest while on secondment from Hewlett-Packard. [69352]

  Mr. Byers
  The DGRC, Dr. John Taylor, will continue to be paid by Hewlett-Packard while on secondment from Hewlett-Packard to the DTI. For the duration of this appointment, the DTI will reimburse Hewlett-Packard at a rate within the relevant Senior Civil Service pay band for his post.

  In addition, Dr. Taylor will stand aside from discussions or decisions having any specific effect on Hewlett-Packard for the duration of his appointment. In practice, since the Department is not involved in decisions on individual science projects in accordance with the Haldane principle, and since Research Councils funding goes to universities and scientific institutes rather than firms, no material difficulties are foreseen.

  Should, unusually, funding be granted directly from the Research Councils to Hewlett-Packard, I will report this to Parliament and give details of the circumstances.

  Vibration White Finger
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many people in the north-west Region are claiming compensation for suffering from vibration white finger. [69172]

  Mr. Battle
  The total number of Vibration White Finger claims received by IRISC, the Department's claim handlers, from people in the north-west region is 1,247.

  Arms Exports
  Ms Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on his Department's policy on the EU code of conduct on arms exports. [68929]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  I have been asked to reply.

  We are committed to the implementation of the provisions of the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Line of Route (Summer Opening)
  Mrs. Gordon
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), representing the House of Commons Commission, if he will make a statement on opening the Line of Route during the summer adjournment. [69171]

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, if he will make a statement on proposals to open the Palace of Westminster to visitors on Saturdays, Sundays and during periodic adjournments; and what plans there are to charge such visitors. [68598]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  The Commission has approved in principle the re-opening of the Line of Route during the Summer Recess. The need to comply with EU procedures in letting contracts makes it impossible, however, to achieve the re-opening earlier than the summer of 2000.

  On the advice of the Administration Committee, the Finance and Services Committee will look at the viability of a project prepared by a firm of outside consultants on how the Line of Route re-opening is to be managed. It will report its conclusions to the House of Commons Commission.

  In respect of the specific matter of charging visitors who wish to use the Line of Route, the Commission has taken the view that this is a matter which the House itself should decide. A motion will be put before the House in due course.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Motor Scooters
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the speed limit that applies to drivers of 49cc motor scooters. [67666]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  There is no specific speed limit for 49cc motor scooters, which are classed as motor cycles. The road speed limits, either set nationally or locally by traffic authorities, therefore apply. Motorcycles of under 50cc are not permitted on motorways.

  Local Authority Databases
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if a local authority is permitted to merge databases containing 626
  personal data which were originally collected for diverse functions, on the grounds that such a merger would improve the economy, efficiency or effectiveness of that authority; and if he will make a statement. [68049]

  Mr. Raynsford
  In discharging their functions, local authorities must make such arrangements as necessary to secure economy, efficiency and effectiveness. Where these arrangements involve the merging of databases containing personal data the Data Protection Act must be complied with. In November 1997 the Audit Commission published a Code of Data Matching Practice for local authorities, and the Data Protection Registrar has indicated that she expects them to comply with the Code's provisions.

  Drink Driving
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions in how many cases a driver, found to be over the legal limit for alcohol, has caused the death of another person in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [68308]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The numbers of accidents which involved a driver who was over the legal limit for alcohol and in which one or more people killed were not themselves drivers above the legal limit were: 170 in 1994, 200 in 1995 and 190 in 1996.

  These are estimates rounded to the nearest ten and are given for the last three years for which figures are available.

  HGVs (Channel Crossings)
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the average daily number of Heavy Goods Vehicles arriving in Kent from(a) continental ports and (b) the Channel Tunnel. [68304]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The average daily number of powered goods vehicles, i.e. excluding unaccompanied trailers, arriving in Kent is 1,800 from continental ports and 800 through the Channel Tunnel.

  Trunk Roads (Herefordshire)
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has held with Herefordshire Council on improvements to trunk roads in Hereford. [68232]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Highways Agency and the Government Office for the West Midlands are discussing with Herefordshire Council measures to ease traffic congestion in Hereford. These measures include both those on the A49 trunk road and those on the local road network being promoted by the local authority through the Hereford package. A meeting was held on 21 December to establish priorities and set a realistic timetable for improvements to the A49 and complementary measures on the local road network.

  Belmont Roundabout
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the
  627
  Highways Agency will present for public consideration schemes to improve the junction of the A49 and A465 at the Belmont Roundabout. [68233]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Mr. Lawrie Haynes, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Paul Keetch, dated 3 February 1999:
  The Transport Minister, Glenda Jackson has asked me to reply to your recent question about when the Highways Agency will present for public consideration schemes to improve the junction of the A49 and A465 at the Belmont Roundabout.
  Representatives of the Agency have already held preliminary discussions with officers of Herefordshire Council about ways to take forward a package of measures to ease traffic congestion on the A49 trunk road in Hereford, and will continue to work with them to identify solutions to complement their local road network.
  The Council is bringing forward changes to their traffic management arrangements within Hereford and these will impact on the A49. The Agency will take these into account before bringing forward measures to improve the A49 trunk road through Hereford, including improvements to the A49/A465 junction.
  We currently expect to consult all interested parties, including members of the public, early next year. We will improve on this timetable if possible. I will keep you informed of progress.

  Public Expenditure Statistical Analysis
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will (i) account for the difference between outturn departmental spending in Table A1 of the Comprehensive Spending Review and outturn departmental spending in Table 1.2 of the 1998–99 Public Expenditure Statistical Analysis for his Department excluding local government and regional policy for(a) 1993–94, (b) 1994–95, (c) 1995–96 and (d) 1996–97 and (ii) provide forecast figures for departmental spending for his Department excluding local government and regional policy for (1) 1997–98, (2) 1998–99, (3) 1999–2000, (4) 2000–01 and (5) 2001–02 on a comparable basis to Table 1.2 of the 1998–99 Public Expenditure Statistical Analysis. [68381]

  Dr. Reid
  Information in the 1998–99 Public Expenditure Statistical Analysis was provided on the basis of the existing financial control framework. The comprehensive spending review introduced new departmental expenditure limits which (i) included elements previously outside the control total and (ii) excluded elements previously within the control total. For this Department the new elements included within its departmental expenditure limit were provision for the Capital Receipts Initiative and bus fuel duty rebate. The elements excluded from this Department's departmental expenditure limit were provision for Housing Revenue Account Subsidy and National Air Traffic Services Ltd.

  The Department's detailed spending plans for 1998–99 and, estimated outturn for 1997–98, are published in the Departmental Annual Report 1998 (Cm 3906). The Department's detailed spending plans for 1999–2000, 2000–01 and 2001–02 will be included in the Departmental Annual Report 1999 due to be published in late March.

  Departmental Responsibilities
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what responsibilities which his Department had prior to the Comprehensive Spending Review are to be(a) discontinued by his Department, (b) transferred to another department, (c) transferred to an executive agency and (d) added to his Department over the period 1998–99 to 2001–02. [68405]

  Dr. Reid
  The only significant planned changes in the Department's responsibilities are in respect of the Rent Officer Service Agency, to be established in October 1999, and, subject to legislation, the transfer of certain responsibilities for railways to the Strategic Rail Authority.

  Departmental Legislation
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what additional legislation, not currently before Parliament, was assumed in the production of his Department's spending allocation for 1999–2000 to 2001–02 in the Comprehensive Spending Review. [68421]

  Dr. Reid
  There is a long-standing convention that legislative proposals for each year are not announced before the Queen's Speech at the start of the relevant Session.

  Houses in Multiple Occupation
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals his Department has to further regulate houses in multiple occupation. [68842]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We expect to issue a consultation paper on proposals for licensing of houses in multiple occupation in the early part of this year.

  Genetically Modified Food
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what plans he has made to ensure that an up-to-date register of all genetically modified food test sites is available to the relevant local authority; [68615]

  (2) what plans he has to provide statutory consultee status to local authorities before genetically modified food test sites are authorised; [68616]

  (3) what action his Department has taken in response to objections from residents near to genetically modified food test sites; [68617]

  (4) if he will introduce measures to give residents within 800 metres of a genetically modified food test site the right to object to authorisation of the site. [68618]

  Mr. Meacher
  My Department maintains a statutory register of prescribed information concerning applications for consent to release genetically modified organisms. The full register is maintained at the Department's London Office in Victoria Street. Registers are also maintained at Regional Offices of the Environment Agency and the Health and Safety Executive's Office in Edinburgh.
  629
  Copies of items on the register are provided by post on request. Information on release sites and their locations is also available on the Department's Internet Website.

  All applicants for consent to release genetically modified organisms must place an advertisement giving the prescribed information in a newspaper circulating the area of the proposed release site. Any one, including nearby residents and local authorities, may raise an objection by writing to the Secretary of State. All objections received are considered before a decision is made on whether or not to grant consent; where appropriate, the views of the statutory Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment are sought.

  There are no plans to give local authorities or nearby residents statutory consultation status.

  Genetically Modified Crops
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will report on his consideration of a moratorium on commercial licences for genetically modified crops. [68619]

  Mr. Meacher
  A number of organisations have called for a moratorium on the commercial growing of genetically modified crops. There are at present no genetically modified crops which have received all the necessary approvals to be grown commercially in Britain. The announcement I made on 21 October 1998 to the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Communities set out a programme of managed development of herbicide tolerant genetically modified crops with additional safeguards to ensure full protection of the environment. The situation will be kept under review.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 17 December 1998,Official Report, column 629, when he expects the paper on the possible wider implications of genetically modified crops to be made publicly available. [68776]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 2 February 1999]: I expect this discussion paper which was prepared by the Secretariat to the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE) to be made available via ACRE's page on my Department's website as soon as possible.

  Council Tax Benefit
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list those(a) local authorities, (b) local authority organisations, (c) local authority interest groups and (d) other organisations which have made representations in support of proposals to limit the payment of council tax benefit subsidy in 1999–2000. [68634]

  Ms Armstrong
  We have not received any representations supporting our proposals to limit the payment of council tax benefit subsidy in 1999–2000.

  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list those(a) local authorities, (b) local authority associations,
  630
  (c) local authority interest groups and (d) other organisations which have made representations (i) opposing and (ii) seeking postponement of proposals to limit the payment of council tax benefit subsidy in 1999–2000. [68633]

  Ms Armstrong
  I have today placed in the library a list of those(a) local authorities, (b) local authority organisations, (c) local authority interest groups and (d) other organisations which have made representations (i) opposing or (ii) seeking postponement of the proposals to limit the payment of council tax benefit subsidy in 1999–2000.

  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the aggregate amount of council tax subsidy to be withdrawn from local authorities in each of the years(a) 1999–2000, (b) 2000–01 and (c) 2001–02 as a consequence of the proposal to limit council tax benefit subsidy; and what plans he has to return the withdrawn sums to local authorities in aggregate. [68632]

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the annual amount of council tax benefits subsidy to be withdrawn from local councils in the next financial year. [68733]

  Ms Armstrong
  Only local authorities exceeding the guideline will have to make a contribution to the costs of council tax benefit. We have not made any estimate of this. It is up to local authorities to decide what council tax to set and they will have to consider the impact of the Council Tax Benefit Subsidy Limitation scheme when making these decisions.

  Airports
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) when he intends to publish the White Paper on aviation and airport policy; [68341]

  (2) what steps he is taking to ensure that there is sufficient airport capacity to meet forecast air traffic growth in the South East up to and beyond 2015; and if he will make a statement; [68333]

  (3) if he plans to publish a White Paper on aviation and airport policy during the current Parliament. [69027]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 1 February 1999]: In our White Paper "A New Deal for Transport" we set out a number of key policy principles relating to airports. We also announced that we will prepare a new statement of UK airports policy, and a large amount of preparatory work is now under way. We are considering the precise scope and timing of the policy statement, and how to undertake the necessary preparatory work relating to South East England, and will make a further announcement in due course.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the findings of the 1993 Study of Runway Capacity to Serve the South East. [68334]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 1 February 1999]: The study of Runway Capacity to Serve the South East was prepared at the behest of the previous Government. In preparing a

  631
  new UK airports policy statement, we shall wish to take a fresh look at the issue, in the light of the principles we have set out in the "New Deal for Transport" White Paper.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact of the timetable for planning for new airport capacity in the South East on the competitiveness of the region. [68335]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 1 February 1999]: The Government recognise the importance of airport capacity for competitiveness in the South East. The impact of the timetable for planning new airports capacity will therefore be an important factor informing the precise scope and timing of the new UK airports policy statement.

  Global Warming
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the effect of global warming on sea levels. [68695]

  Mr. Meale
  The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in its 1995 assessment, reported that global mean sea level has risen 10–25cm over the last 100 years, and that it is likely that this rise has been largely due to the concurrent increase in global temperature over the same time period.

  The Panel's projections for the future, for a wide range of emission scenarios, are that global mean sea level will rise by 15–95cm by the year 2100. Research funded by my Department at the Hadley Centre suggests that, for a "business as usual scenario", global mean sea level will rise by about 50cm by the year 2100.

  Estimates of sea level rise for regions of the UK were prepared for the UK Climate Impacts Programme and published in 1998, for various climate change scenarios which take account of expected land movements. Similar allowances to the changes now estimated have been used since 1989 for the construction or improvement of sea defences.

  Eurostar Services
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what information he has received from the Eurostar consortium regarding the viability of direct Eurostar services from West Coast Main Line stations north of Watford to mainland Europe; [68847]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the possible use of public subsidy to support direct Eurostar services from the West Coast Main Line to mainland Europe; [68848]

  (3) what plans he has to invite other service providers to submit proposals for direct Eurostar services from the West Coast Main Line to mainland Europe. [68849]

  Dr. Reid
  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister received a report from Inter-Capital and Regional Rail Ltd. (ICRR), the consortium appointed by London and Continental Railways to manage and operate Eurostar, on 13 November 1998 entitled "Review of Regional Eurostar Services". On 28 January 1999,Official Report, column 340, he announced the commissioning of a thorough and independent review. In addition to
  632
  consideration of a broad range of key elements, this review will address itself in particular to the study completed by ICRR and to the alternative proposals put forward by the Virgin Group. He has asked for a report to be presented to Government as soon as practicable.

  Disabled Parking
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will make it his policy to make it an offence to park in disabled parking boxes without authorisation; [69051]

  (2) what recent representations he has received in favour of making unauthorised parking in disabled parking boxes a criminal offence. [69052]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  It is already an offence under Section 47 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to park a vehicle which is not displaying an Orange Badge in an on-street designated disabled persons' parking bay.

  The Orange Badge Scheme does not, however, apply to off-street car parks, whether local authority or privately owned, and enforcement of those disabled persons' parking bays is a matter for the operator concerned. In the case of local authority off-street car parks, their off-street parking place orders normally make it either an offence for someone not displaying a valid Orange Badge to park in a disabled persons' parking bay or make it subject to the payment of an "excess charge". In private car parks, we understand it is possible in law for the owners to agree with the local authority that a parking place order be made in respect of that car park. Conditions of use can then be enforced as if it were a local authority car park, with penalties or excess charges levied on offenders.

  Pipework Materials
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what monitoring he is conducting of the Water Industry Specifications Committee's emerging standard for plastic pipes; [68116]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the percentage of sewers which are made from thin wall plastics; [68118]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the susceptibility of each of the principal sewerage drainage pipe materials to damage by rodents. [68121]

  Mr. Meale
  The development of Water Industry Specifications, choice of pipework materials, durability and susceptibility to damage is a matter for the water and sewerage undertakers. The Department does not collect information on materials used by the water industry.

  Rats
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what measures he proposes to ensure that rats do not escape into properties from sewers. [68117]

  Mr. Meale
  Sewerage undertakers have ongoing programmes to control and reduce the number of rats in public sewers. These include baiting, which is usually targeted only in those areas where there is evidence of
  633
  rats so as to avoid unnecessary waste of funds. In following up one of the recommendations of the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee Report on Sewage Treatment and Disposal, my officials are initiating discussions between the Local Government Association and Water UK to establish what further action may be needed, who should carry it out and whether local authorities need greater powers. The water industry is also conducting research into the most effective ways of controlling rats in sewers.

  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will incorporate a rodent damage test for drainage pipes in the review of Part H of the Building Regulations. [68119]

  Mr. Raynsford
  In considering whether the advice on preventing rodent damage needs to be strengthened, the review of Part H will consider all relevant issues.

  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of recent trends in the level of rat infestations of homes and businesses. [68120]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The DETR's 1996 English House Condition Survey collected data on the incidence or rodents and the types of treatments that are being used to treat any infestation. Results should be published later this year.

  Drinking Water (Contamination)
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what arrangements are in place to monitor the contamination of drinking water supplies by leaking sewers and drains; and what has been the results of such monitoring in each of the last three years. [68122]

  Mr. Meale
  Water companies are required to notify the Drinking Water Inspectorate of any event or incident which affects or threatens to affect drinking water quality. In 1998, 1997 and 1996 water companies reported 7, 4 and 7 occasions respectively when a leaking sewer threatened drinking water quality and precautionary measures were taken to protect consumers, but on all of these occasions there was no evidence that public health was affected.

  Water companies are required to monitor routinely drinking water quality at consumers' taps for faecal coliforms, the main indicator of microbiological contamination. If faecal coliforms are detected water companies take immediate action to protect consumers and rectify the cause. The table shows the results for the last three years for which data is available and includes detections where companies found that the consumers' taps were contaminated.

  Year

  Number of samples from consumers taps

  Number (%) of samples in which faecal coliforms detected

  1995

  156,306

  111(0.07)

  1996

  157,342

  97(0.06)

  1997

  157,252

  97(0.06)

  Air Services (Punctuality)
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to monitor the punctuality of scheduled air services in the same way as rail services are currently monitored. [68533]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Civil Aviation Authority has published monthly and annual punctuality statistics for scheduled and charter passenger services from principal airports since January 1998. Reports are published monthly on the CAA's website (www.caa.co.uk) and a press notice outlining trends in delays is issued quarterly.

  Highways Agency Projects
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list Highways Agency projects in 1998, including the 1998 national travel survey, which made use of (a) automatic traffic counters, (b) roadside interviews, (c) manual classified counts and (d) additional surveys undertaken outside the normal hours of 7 am to 7 pm on weekdays. [67710]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The following is a table based on the information which is readily available, of the Highways Agency's projects for which surveys were undertaken in 1998. The table uses the types of surveys defined in the question but the headings describing the types of survey have been abbreviated to(a) ATCs, (b) RSIs and (c) MCCs.

  There were no additional surveys undertaken in connection with Highways Agency projects outside the normal hours of 7am to 7pm Monday to Friday.

  Project

  ATCs

  RSIs

  MCCs

  A428 Caxton Common to Hardwick

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  A14 Route Management Strategy

  Yes

  Salisbury Transport Study

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  A2/A282 Dartford Traffic Surveys

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Bristol Severnside Study

  Yes

  A596 Wigton Bypass before/after

  Yes

  Yes

  A5 Fazeley before/after

  Yes

  Yes

  A1M Washford-Dishforth

  Yes

  M621/M1 Link before/after

  Yes

  M65 Blackburn Southern Bypass

  Yes

  M1/A1 Link (Loftbouse/Branham) before/after

  Yes

  A564 Derby Southern Bypass

  Yes

  A1033 Hendon Road Improvement

  Yes

  Yes

  M62 J8 and J8–9 widening

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  A56 Manchester Sub-Regional Highway Model

  Yes

  Yes

  A140 Newton Flotman

  Yes

  Yes

  A13 Wennington-Mar Dyke before/after

  Yes

  A11 Roudham Heath-Attleborough

  Yes

  A12 Hatfield Peveral-Witham Link Road

  Yes

  The National Travel Survey is undertaken by DETR and consists of household interviews only. As part of DETR's continuous collection of traffic data, the following surveys were undertaken during 1998:
  Continuous automatic traffic counters at 134 sites;
  Approximately 6,000 manual classified counts between 7am and 7pm weekdays;
  Manual classified counts (16 or 24 hour) at approximately one third of the 523 sites on screen lines and cordons across London; and
  Twenty four hour manual classified counts at 50 sites four times per year within London

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Aid (EU)
  Mr. David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the provision of value for money in the EU aid budget. [67509]

  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the cost-effectiveness of the EU development aid programme. [67521]

  Clare Short
  We have inherited from the previous administration a commitment that 30 per cent. of my budget is channelled through the EC and a situation where EC aid spending is skewed against the poorest countries and is often of poor quality. In December we published our strategy to improve EC performance.

  We are actively seeking support for this strategy in the Commission, the European Parliament and among Member States. I welcome the report of the Development Select Committee supporting the Government's strategy.

  Development Education
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps she is taking to promote awareness of development issues among young people. [67512]

  Mr. Foulkes
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have visited many schools and colleges on each of our visits to towns and cities throughout the UK and found great enthusiasm for development issues. Expanding the coverage of these issues in the school curriculum is our top priority and we are pursuing this with other Departments and agencies in relation to each part of the United Kingdom.

  Sudan
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what medical aid projects the Government are currently supporting in Sudan. [67515]

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will provide pharmaceutical products as aid to Sudan. [67516]

  Clare Short
  Our humanitarian response to the crisis in Sudan last year, which amounted to £37 million, included an allocation of £5.5 million for health care to the most vulnerable groups. The Government of Sudan, by its own admission, is spending 80 per cent. of the national budget on the civil war. The major priority for improving life for the people of Sudan is an end to the war.

  Education (Girls)
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development in what ways her Department is supporting the education of girls in poorer countries; and if she will make a statement. [67517]

  Clare Short
  As we make clear in the Development White Paper, we are strongly committed to the key international targets of Universal Primary Education by 636
  2015 and gender equity in primary and secondary education by 2005. We are working in the international system to try to increase the commitment to meeting this target and prioritising these targets in all our programmes. For example, we have recently committed over £200 million to basic education in a number of countries including Ghana, India, Zambia, Malawi, Kenya, South Africa, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and our largest ever single education commitment of £67 million for Uganda.

  We are also working co-operatively with the World Bank, UNICEF, and the Rockefeller Foundation, to develop practical strategies which will encourage the enrolment of girls in school in countries with very low enrolment rates.

  Debt Relief
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent discussions she has had with voluntary organisations in relation to the reduction of the debt burden on developing countries. [67518]

  Clare Short
  In December, I met the directors of the voluntary organisations which comprise the British Overseas Aid Group (BOAG)—ActionAid, Oxfam, the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development (CAFOD), Christian Aid and Save the Children Fund. Also in December, I met BOND—which represents the smaller NGOs. They agreed with the need to develop and strengthen the link between debt relief and poverty reduction and welcomed the fact that we are pressing for this issue to be considered during the forthcoming comprehensive review of the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Debt Initiative, and for civil society in developing countries to be involved in the review.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with the new German Government about debt relief and poverty reduction. [67528]

  Clare Short
  I met the German Development Minister in Bonn in November last year. The discussions covered poverty reduction, debt relief and a number of other development issues. I was pleased to find a new convergence of UK and German views on development policies. In December, officials from my Department and the Treasury followed up in discussions with their German counterparts proposals for taking forward the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative (HIPC).

  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with ministers of the German Government concerning an initiative on debt relief for developing countries at the European Council meeting in Cologne. [67530]

  Clare Short
  I met the German Development Minister and her officials in Bonn in November last year. The discussions covered poverty reduction, debt relief and a number of other development issues. We shall continue to work closely with the German government during their Presidency of the European Union and of the G8 on their proposals for debt relief, which are similar to those in our own Mauritius Mandate.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps she is taking to reduce the debts of the poorest countries. [67531]
  637
  Clare Short
  The Chancellor and I are working to see international agreement to speed up the implementation of the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) debt initiative so that all eligible countries will be on track for debt relief by 2000. We are pressing for this and other key issues, including the level of debt relief and the link to poverty reduction, to be examined during the comprehensive review of the HIPC initiative which is to report by July this year. Over the past two years, the Department for International Development (DFID) has cancelled some £30 million of bilateral aid debts and provided some £36 million to help the African Development Bank meet its share of the cost of implementing the HIPC debt initiative. We are also providing around £100 million to help a number of developing countries meet their debt service payments to international financial institutions. In addition, DFID is providing technical assistance in debt management to poor countries and funding research on the key issues of debt sustainability and internal debt. In the run-up to the Cologne Summit, we are working closely with the German government, whose proposals for debt relief are similar to those in our own Mauritius Mandate.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has to support the recent initiative of the German Chancellor on debt relief for developing nations. [68098]

  Clare Short
  We welcome the recent German proposals for debt relief. In many of their elements, they reinforce the Mauritius Mandate, launched by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in September 1997. It is encouraging to see that the German proposals call for the cancellation of aid loans to Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) but we should like to see them extending aid debt relief to more countries.

  My greatest concern remains that debt relief should be linked to poverty reduction. This aspiration was contained in Chancellor Schroeder's proposals. We have pressed that the IMF/World Bank review of HIPC should give more emphasis to the link between debt relief and poverty reduction.

  Kosovo and Montenegro
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress is being made to support the continuing humanitarian relief effort in(a) Kosovo and (b) Montenegro. [67519]

  Clare Short
  The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) estimates that there were 200,000 persons displaced within Kosovo as at 22 January.

  We are working closely with international organisations, led by UNHCR, to ensure that the humanitarian needs of those affected by the conflict in Kosovo are met. During 1999, UNHCR-led convoys have provided food and other items to more than 40,000 people throughout Kosovo. These supplies were provided through UNHCR, World Food Programme, Mercy Corps International, Catholic Relief Services, Children's Aid Direct, Doctors of the World, World Vision and Oxfam.

  It has been reported that refugees have begun entering Montenegro once more in the light of deteriorating security in Kosovo. UNHCR are financing an operation
  638
  to register refugees from Kosovo who will be provided with an identity card to confirm that they are entitled to assistance.

  The World Health Organisation is co-ordinating regular visits by medical teams, which are currently providing mental outreach services and organising education and hygiene programmes for those living in collective centres.

  Intermediate Technology
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what initiatives her Department is taking to support intermediate technology. [67522]

  Clare Short
  We believe the poor need access to technology appropriate for the development of sustainable livelihoods. As part of our effort we are funding a three-year programme with the Intermediate Technology Development Group to develop policy and technologies within eight key engineering sectors which span domestic and small-scale industrial applications.

  Medical Services (Children)
  Mr. Lock
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on her Department's support for medical services for children in(a) countries suffering emergencies from natural causes and (b) war zones. [67523]

  Clare Short
  The provision of medical assistance for children caught up in emergencies is considered alongside other needs as an integral part of our humanitarian assistance provided in response to crises caused by conflicts and natural disasters. We channel support through United Nations agencies, the Red Cross and non-governmental organisations; looking first to agencies that are well established in the country and have the local knowledge and expertise to deliver assistance most effectively. Children affected by armed conflict have special needs for protection, and we strongly support the efforts of the Special representative of the United Nations Secretary-General on children in armed conflict, and UNICEF, to promote the safety and welfare of children in war zones.

  Commonwealth Development Corporation
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer concerning the future tax position of the Commonwealth Development Corporation. [67524]

  Clare Short
  We are working with HM Treasury and the Inland Revenue to produce a tax solution that will encourage investment in the poorest countries through the CDC public-private partnership. Parliament will have the opportunity to scrutinise our proposals.

  The Commonwealth Development Corporation needs to be tax efficient if it is to be able to achieve its goal of investing in developing countries using private capital raised within the context of a competitive private investment market dominated by offshore funds. In order to compete directly with offshore funds for private capital for investment in its area, CDC would need to provide a similar financial return. A material UK tax charge within CDC would make this less achievable.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent representations she has received on aid to Zimbabwe. [67525]

  Clare Short
  Since 1 December, I have answered 10 Parliamentary Questions and replied to letters from hon. Members on both sides of the House. We have also been engaging in a consultation process within Zimbabwe on our country strategy.

  Great Lakes Region
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the crisis in the great lakes region of Africa. [67526]

  Clare Short
  We are deeply disturbed about the impact of the ongoing conflicts in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and the consequences for the people throughout the Great Lakes region. The involvement of so many other countries in the continuing conflict in the DRC and the risks of escalation are very serious. We are ready to provide humanitarian assistance where this is possible. But a ceasefire is needed urgently. Britain is supporting efforts by President Chiluba and other regional leaders to secure this ceasefire and to find a political solution which will protect the sovereignty of the DRC, ensure the rights and protection of all Congolese and address the security concerns of neighbouring countries.

  An important part of the solution will be progress on reconciliation in Rwanda. Rwanda needs international support to help it achieve peace and reconciliation and I have agreed to provide £30 million in three annual grants to help. The rationale and objectives for our support to Rwanda are set out in my letter dated 26 January to you as the Chair of the All-Party Group on Rwanda. A copy of my letter has been placed in the Library of the House.

  In Burundi, the Arusha peace process continues to make progress. The decision by regional Governments to lift the economic sanctions imposed on Burundi reflects the progress being made and is a positive step forward.

  In the longer term there is a need to address the root causes of the conflict; re-unite the region; and promote development for long-term stability. We support the convening of an International Conference on Security and Co-operation under UN/OAU auspices to this end.

  Tanzania
  Mrs. Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she had about development when she visited Tanzania in 1998. [67527]

  Clare Short
  During my visit in August last year, I met with the President, ministers, politicians, officials and private sector, civil society and donor representatives and outlined Britain's new development policy. I visited various programmes and urged action to tackle corruption and speedy reform of the health and education sectors, where we have a major involvement and which are vital to improve the quality of basic services and to achieve our shared goal of poverty eradication.

  St. Helena
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has to visit the island of St. Helena to discuss the provision of air links and improved sea links. [67529]

  Clare Short
  I have no plans to visit St. Helena. Last year my Department and the St. Helena Government agreed the terms of a preliminary desk study into the technical viability of improving access, including possible air access, to St. Helena.

  Angola
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement about the current humanitarian assistance to Angola. [67510]

  Clare Short
  The recent fighting in Angola has resulted in a significant increase in the numbers of internally displaced people. The United Nations is co-ordinating efforts to meet these needs. We will help where there is adequate access and safety for agencies to operate. Since the first UN Humanitarian Appeal for Angola in 1993 we have committed some £41 million bilateral emergency assistance to Angola.

  Clean Water Supply
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the impact of her Department's policies on accessibility and clean water supply in developing countries. [67514]

  Clare Short
  Access to clear, safe, water is a major focus for our programme as it is crucial to health, agriculture and freeing women and girls' time for education and production. We are giving increased focus to water and sanitation in our work. Worldwide 1½ billion people benefited from improved water supply during the UN Decade for water but 1 billion still lack access to clean water and 3 billion to sanitation. It is estimated that by 2025 1 in 3 people will be living in countries subject to chronic water scarcity unless water resources are used more efficiently.

  Multilateral Agreement for Investment
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the current status of negotiations concerning the impact on developing countries of the planned Multilateral Agreement for Investment. [67506]

  Clare Short
  The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) announced on 3 December that negotiations on the proposed Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) had ended.

  Discussions are continuing in the World Trade Organisation on the links between trade and investment, including the case for possible new multilateral rules on investment. These discussions are still at an analytical stage. My Department is working with the WTO Secretariat and United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) to help ensure developing countries have the support necessary to participate actively in the discussions.

  Southern Sudan
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement about the cessation of funding from her Department to the non-governmental organisation Merlin working in Southern Sudan. [69029]

  Clare Short
  We funded the NGO Merlin for a 6 month programme of humanitarian assistance in Southern Sudan last August. This project ended on 31 January. As needs were much reduced, an extension of this project is not required.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has to assist with the construction of secure roads and bridges in Southern Sudan. [69032]

  Clare Short
  Help to improve the infrastructure necessary to deliver food, including road and bridge repairs, is included in the UN World Food Programme's transport and delivery costs. We have paid the full costs associated with the provision of our food aid.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has to assist with vaccination of children against measles and polio in Southern Sudan. [69031]

  Clare Short
  Our humanitarian assistance last year included an allocation of £125,000 towards the WHO Global Polio Eradication Programme.

  The 1999 UN Consolidated Appeal covers the treatment of polio and measles. We are currently evaluating the Appeal document.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has for the continuation of humanitarian aid to Southern Sudan; and if she will make a statement. [69028]

  Clare Short
  We received the UN 1999 Consolidated Appeal for Sudan on 28 January and we are considering it carefully. We will make a statement as soon as possible.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement regarding funding by her Department of simple fishing equipment in Southern Sudan. [69030]

  Clare Short
  The provision of fishing equipment is included in the 1999 UN Consolidated Appeal. We are currently evaluating the Appeal document. I will write to the hon. Lady about difficulties over efforts to provide fishing equipment in the past.

  Non-governmental Organisations
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) if she will list the 10 UK based non-governmental organisations which received the greatest amounts of money from her Department in the year 1997–98; [68085]

  (2) what percentage of her Department's budget was paid to United Kingdom non-governmental organisations in 1997–98. [68068]
  642
  Clare Short
  The Department for International Development expenditure through UK NGOs was £172,336 million in 1997–98. This was 16.5 per cent. of the total Bilateral Programme or 8.4 per cent. of the total DFID programme for 1997–98.

  I attach a list of the 10 NGOs who received the greatest amounts of money in 1997–98.

  DFID expenditure through UK NGOs 1997–98

  £000

  1. British Red Cross Society

  23,351

  2. Voluntary Services Overseas

  20,274

  3. Save the Children Fund

  18,037

  4. CARE International UK

  12,348

  5. OXFAM

  10,498

  6. Christian Aid

  8,488

  7. International Planned Parenthood Federation

  6,017

  8. London School of Hygiene

  4,287

  9. Medical Research Council

  3,702

  10. Marie Stopes International

  3,103

  Note:

  Organisations registered as a charity with the Charity Commission in England or the Inland Revenue in Scotland, excluding the British Council which is a public body.

PRIME MINISTER

  Life Peers
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the total number of life peers that have been created since 1 May 1997, indicating the number that subsequently took the(a) Conservative Whip, (b) Labour Whip, (c) Liberal Whip, (d) other party whips and (e) sit on the Cross Benches in the House of Lords. [65029]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 11 January 1999]: The information is as follows:

  Life peers created since 1 May 1997

  Number

  Labour

  163

  Conservative

  31

  Liberal Democrat

  17

  Cross Bench

  26

  Law Lords

  4

  Other

  6

  Total

  3127

  1 Includes Baroness Lester, now deceased

  2 Excludes Law Lords who are listed separately

  3 Includes the Dissolution List

  Overseas Publications
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list those articles he has written for foreign newspapers since becoming Prime Minister. [66375]

  The Prime Minister
  I have written for many overseas publications. Usually an article is circulated by my office, or the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, to overseas posts who then place the article in a newspaper in their country. We do not have a comprehensive list of these articles.
  643
  In addition, I have written a small number of articles on specific issues for foreign newspapers and journals. These include over the last year:

  Stern (Germany): Europe

  Welt Am Sonntag (Germany): Europe

  DNES (Czech Republic): The Third Way

  Wall Street Journal (USA): The Euro

  The Sowetan: South Africa.

  Joint Consultative Committee
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister if papers considered by the JCC are prepared by civil servants. [67475]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 25 January 1999]: The papers tabled by the Government are prepared by civil servants and approved by Ministers, as is routine for Government business.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Prime Minister how many ministerial visits have been made to each South American and Caribbean country by each Government Minister since 1 May 1997. [67332]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 27 January 1999]: A fully updated list of Ministers who have undertaken individual official visits to Latin American and Caribbean countries over the 20 months since 1 May 1997 is listed below.

  The purpose of these visits was to strengthen our bilateral relations, promote British interests and play our leading role in international affairs.

  The rules on travel for Ministers are the same as those that applied under the previous Administration.

  To ensure comprehensive coverage, a trawl has been undertaken across diplomatic posts in the regions. I regret that some of these visits were not included in earlier answers.

  Argentina

  Lord Clinton-Davis

  Tony Banks MP

  Baroness Blackstone

  Tony Lloyd MP

  The Rt Hon. John Prescott MP

  Glenda Jackson CBE MP

  The Rt Hon. Michael Meacher MP

  Belize

  Tony Lloyd MP

  Brazil

  Barbara Roche MP

  Tony Lloyd MP

  Baroness Blackstone

  The Rt Hon. Peter Mandelson MP

  Lord Clinton-Davis

  Elliot Morley MP

  George Foulkes MP

  Nick Raynsford MP

  The Rt Hon John Morris QC MP

  Chile

  Lord Clinton-Davis

  Tony Lloyd MP

  644
  Colombia

  Tony Lloyd MP (x2)

  George Foulkes MP

  The Rt Hon Nick Brown MP

  Brian Wilson MP

  Costa Rica

  Tony Banks MP

  Tony Lloyd MP

  Lord McIntosh

  Ecuador

  The Rt Hon Nick Brown MP

  Tony Lloyd MP

  El Salvador

  Tony Lloyd MP

  Guatemala

  Tony Lloyd MP

  Mexico

  The Rt Hon John Morris QC MP

  Tony Lloyd MP (x2)

  Panama

  The Rt Hon Robin Cook MP

  Paraguay

  Tony Banks MP

  Peru

  Tony Lloyd MP

  Uruguay

  Tony Lloyd MP

  Venezuela

  Tony Lloyd MP

  Caribbean Countries

  Antigua and Barbuda

  The Rt Hon Robin Cook MP

  George Foulkes MP

  Bahamas

  The Rt Hon Robin Cook MP

  Baroness Symons

  George Foulkes MP

  Barbados

  The Rt Hon Clare Short MP

  George Foulkes MP

  The Rt Hon Frank Dobson MP

  The Rt Hon John Morris QC MP

  Cuba

  Baroness Symons

  Brian Wilson MP

  Grenada

  George Foulkes MP

  Guyana

  The Rt Hon Clare Short MP

  Jamaica

  Baroness Symons

  The Rt Hon Michael Meacher MP

  Trinidad and Tobago

  Baroness Symons

  Tony Banks MP

  The Rt Hon the Lord Irvine of Lairg

  St Lucia

  The Rt Hon Jack Cunningham MP.

  645
  All visits were in accordance with the rules set out in the Ministerial Code.

  Maxwell Pensions
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Prime Minister what briefings he has received from civil servants or Ministers on the former Paymaster General, the hon Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson), and Maxwell pensions. [67320]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 27 January 1999]: Whether or not such briefings have been provided, it is established practice under successive administrations not to disclose details of confidential discussions between Ministers or advice received from civil servants.

  Genetically Modified Food
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) what discussions he has had with President Clinton about genetically modified food; [68433]

  Title

  Author

  Date commissioned

  Estimted publication date

  UK Accession to the EEC Volume 1

  Professor Alan Milward

  1993

  1999

  UK Accession to the EEC Volume 2

  Professor Alan Milward

  1997

  2006

  Falklands Campaign

  Professor Lawrence Freedman

  1997

  2002

  North Sea Oil and Gas

  Professor Alexander Kemp

  1999

  2004

  External Economic Policy since the World War volume 2

  Professor Leslie Pressnell

  1974

  2000

  Defence Organisation since the War

  Professor Donald Cameron Watt

  1974

  2000

  SOE in Europe

  Professor W. Mackenzie (edited and introduced by M. R. D. Foot)

  1998

  1999

  SOE in the Low Countries

  Professor M. R. D. Foot

  1987

  1999

  SOE in Italy

  Christopher Woods

  1989

  2000

  SOE in Greece

  Professor Richard Clogg

  1984

  2000

  The cost of preparing official histories is borne mainly by the Cabinet Office with royalties payable by the publisher offsetting the costs. It is not possible without disproportionate cost to itemise the cost of all the individual histories.

  Iraq
  Mr. Trend
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 14 January 1999,Official Report, column 266, to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), what was the basis for his statement that the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) had argued that action against Saddam Hussein should be taken only if he were removed from power. [68721]

  The Prime Minister
  In public statements following Operation Desert Fox the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) said that the removal of Saddam Hussein from office should become "a clear policy objective".

  Oman
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to visit Oman. [68786]

  The Prime Minister
  There are no plans at present. However, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), hopes to make a visit in the near future.
  646
  (2) what representations he has received from industry about genetically modified food. [68432]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) on 3 November 1998,Official Report, columns 471–72.

  Official Histories
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Prime Minister how many Government-sponsored official histories are currently in preparation; when each was commissioned; who are the authors; what are the estimated dates of completion; and what is the estimated cost in each case. [68213]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 1 February 1999]: The original programme of official histories, commissioned by the War Cabinet and covering military and civil histories of the second world war, was extended in 1966 by the then Prime Minister to include selected periods of episodes of peacetime history. The following are currently in preparation:

  Yemen
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister what recent communications he has received from the President of Yemen; and if he will make a statement. [68846]

  The Prime Minister
  I have received no communication from the President of Yemen since November 1997. I have, however, asked my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to keep me fully apprised of developments in Yemen. We were delighted to hear the news yesterday that Mr. and Mrs. Rosser and the other Dutch captives have been released safe and well after their kidnap ordeal which began on 17 January. I have asked to be kept informed of our assiduous efforts to provide proper consular services for the eight UK nationals recently detained in Yemen on alleged terrorist charges.

  India
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to visit India; and if he will make a statement on bilateral relations. [68784]

  The Prime Minister
  I have no current plans to visit India. However, we have regular and bilateral dialogue on a wide variety of issues of mutual interest and my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury is currently making a visit to India.

  Non-government Bodies
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the appointments to non-government bodies he has made since 1 January. [68785]

  The Prime Minister
  The right hon. the Baroness Williams of Crosby and the right hon. the Lord Mayhew of Twysden took up appointments as members of the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments with effect from 1 January. Lord Gillmore of Thamesfield was appointed Chairman of the Committee with effect from 1 February.

  Acheson Report
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) which of his Ministers is co-ordinating the Government response to the Acheson report; [68938]

  (2) if the Acheson report will be submitted to the Social Exclusion Unit. [68939]

  The Prime Minister
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health is co-ordinating work across Government to reduce health inequalities. This includes follow-up of the report of the independent inquiry into health inequalities, led by Sir Donald Acheson which he commissioned. A range of initiatives by other Departments, including aspects of the Social Exclusion Unit's strategy for neighbourhood renewal, is already helping to give effect to a number of Sir Donald's recommendations. The Government's response to the Acheson Inquiry's report will be included in a White Paper on the Government's new health strategy and will be published shortly.

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 3 February. [68570]

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I had meetings with Ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House I will have further such meetings later today.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Radio Authority
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) if he will list the members of the Radio Authority; who appoints them; what is their period of appointment; and what are the terms of reference of the authority; [67679]

  (2) if he will list the members of the Radio Authority from ethnic minorities. [67683]

  Janet Anderson
  The Radio Authority was established under the Broadcasting Act 1990 to licence and regulate independent radio services in the UK. The Authority is responsible for interpreting its statutory duties under the Broadcasting Acts 1990 and 1996, and is independent of Government.
  648
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State appoints members of the Radio Authority. It is not the Department's current policy to reveal details of an individual's ethnic origin, but only to collect information for monitoring purposes. The present Radio Authority Members, with their period of appointment are as follows:

  Members

  Period of appointment

  Sir Peter Gibbings (Chairman)

  1 January 1995 to 31 December 1999

  Mr. Michael Moriarty (Deputy Chairman)

  18 January 1996 to 17 January 2000

  Ms Sheila Hewitt

  1 December 1998 to 30 November 2003

  Mr. Andrew Reid

  16 August 1994 to 15 August 1999

  Mr. Michael Reupke

  18 May 1994 to 17 May 1999

  Mr. Fergal Sharkey

  1 December 1998 to 30 November 2003

  Lady Sheil

  16 August 1994 to 15 August 1999

  Mrs. Helen Tennant

  1 December 1995 to 30 November 2000

  Mr. David Witherow

  1 January 1998 to 30 November 2003

  Tourism (North-west)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what is the projected annual revenue from tourism in the north-west in each of the next three years. [68475]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 1 February 1999]: While we do not make detailed predictions of what future earnings from tourism may be for any region of the UK, an increase on the 1997 total revenue of £1,490 million is expected. One of the aims of our new strategy, to be published on 26 February 1999, will be to ensure that tourism delivers the greatest possible benefits both to local communities and the economy as a whole.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment he has made of the benefits which result in the north-west from Government funding to the North West Tourist Board; and what checks are made to see whether value for money is achieved. [68474]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 1 February 1999]: The North West Tourist Board receives Government funding through the English Tourist Board (ETB) which is responsible for ensuring that it is spent effectively delivering the programmes agreed. Clear measurement of performance and delivery is required.

  As we announced on 14 December 1998, as well as establishing a new national strategic body for tourism in England, we shall be directing more resources for the support of tourism in the English regions.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to bring in grants to create new jobs and attractions in the tourist industry in the north-west. [68477]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 1 February 1999]: My Department has no plans to introduce any new grants. However, tourism in the north-west has benefited, both directly and indirectly, from National Lottery funding (nearly £450 million in total has gone to the region) and from support under the European Regional Development Fund.

DEFENCE

  Sully Hospital (Land Decontamination)
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate the value of his Department's land adjacent to Sully Hospital in the Vale of Glamorgan after the site has been decontaminated. [67863]

  Mr. Spellar
  I do not consider it appropriate to place a value on this site before it is brought to the market in late spring this year. The value of the site is best determined by the market, in full possession of the site details.

  Military Bases (Children)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with senior officers of the Armed Services on their responsibilities in ensuring the welfare and protection of young children living with families on military bases; and if he will make a statement. [68047]

  Mr. Spellar
  No specific discussion have been held between Ministers and Senior Officers on their responsibilities in ensuring the welfare and protection of young children living on military bases. The Ministry of Defence does, however, takes very seriously its responsibilities of duty of care towards its personnel and their dependants. Commanding Officers are made well aware of their duty towards the welfare of all personnel and their dependants, through instructions issued through the chain of Command.

  In the United Kingdom, the Ministry of Defence does not have statutory responsibility in matters of child welfare and protection. This responsibility falls to the relevant local authority. Under the Children Act 1989, it is the statutory duty of the local authority, to investigate cases where it believes a child is suffering, or is likely to suffer, harm. Service authorities are, however, required to notify the local Director of Social Services off any cases of abuse of which they become aware and any further action is to be taken in collaboration with the other agencies involved.

  Overseas, the Ministry of Defence acts as a de facto local authority and replicates those statutory responsibilities falling to local authorities in the United Kingdom. All statutory health care and social services are provided for, and on behalf of, the Department under contract by the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association—Forces Help, which employs appropriately qualified social work staff. The SSAFA-FH social work service works in close co-operation with military authorities, Service police, medical and health professionals in accordance with Defence Council Instructions and The Armed Forces (Protection of Children of Service Families) Regulations 1996.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many children living in military-based accommodation have been the subject of reports by senior officers as to their welfare and protection in each of the last three years. [67987]

  Mr. Spellar
  Information of the nature requested is not held centrally by my Department. Within the United Kingdom, statutory responsibility in matters of welfare and protection of children of Service families rests with local authorities.
  650
  Overseas, where the Ministry of Defence assumes the responsibilities of a local authority, the following numbers of children were placed on Child Protection Registers for the years 1996, 1997 and 1998:

  Year

  Number

  1996

  51

  1997

  46

  1998

  58

  Numbers of children overseas, subject to child protection inquiries, or the subject of concern, but whose names were not placed on the Child Protection Register, for the years 1996, 1997 and 1998 are as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1996

  41

  1997

  76

  1998

  82

  Exports (Saudi Arabia)
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the(a) military, (b) security and (c) police equipment exported to Saudi Arabia by British Aerospace as prime contractor for the Al-Yamamah agreement, that was exempt from export licence requirement. [68200

  Mr. George Robertson
  Al-Yamamah is a Government to Government programme for the supply of Tornado and Hawk aircraft, Minehunters, associated infrastructure and armaments, and support equipment, including spares. All supplies under this programme are exempt from export licensing.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many electro-shock batons were transferred via the United Kingdom to Saudi Arabia as part of the Al-Yamamah deal. [68221]

  Mr. George Robertson
  No electronic shock batons have been supplied under the Al-Yamamah programme.

  Trident (Successor)
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he plans to make a decision on a successor system to Trident. [68837]

  Mr. George Robertson
  No decision on any successor system to Trident will be needed for several years. Any decision on a successor to Trident would be taken in the light of progress towards the Government's goal of verifiable global nuclear disarmament.

  Captured Weapons
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's policy relating to the retention or disposal of captured military weapons and equipment. [68212]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 1 February 1999]: Decisions on how to deal with captured military weapons and equipment would be taken in the light of circumstances at the time. Disposal of such material by scrapping or sale for further use is subject to the same

  651
  stringent political and security constraints as apply to the disposal of surplus military equipment from our own inventory.

  Sudan
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what response Her Majesty's Government gave to the letter of the Sudanese Minister of Foreign Affairs of 27 October 1998 asking for clarification of his comments made on 23 October, to the effect that Her Majesty's Government had independent evidence that the Al Shifa factory in Khartoum was making chemical or biological weapons before the United States air strike. [68860]

  Mr. George Robertson
  [holding answer 2 February 1999]: Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials have discussed with Sudanese counterparts the points raised in Dr. Mustafa Osman Ismail's letter on a number of occasions. As we have said on several occasions, the United States told us at the time of its action last August that it had based its decision to act on compelling evidence.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the mission statement for the Kosovo extraction force based in Macedonia. [68802]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The exact mission statement of the NATO-led Extraction force, operation "Joint Guarantor" is classified. However, I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on 18 January 1999,Official Report, column 578, to the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson).

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library the report from the British contingent in the Kosovo Verification Mission on the circumstances of the recent killings. [68758]

  Mr. George Robertson
  In December 1998, the British contingent of verifiers became the first to be fully integrated into the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) Kosovo Verification Mission and does not, therefore, produce separate reports. Reports by the Kosovo Verification Mission, including those covering the Racak killings, are not releasable beyond the OSCE and it is therefore not possible to place a copy in the Library.

  The circumstances of the Racak killings were, however, covered in a statement made by the Chairman of the Permanent Council of the OSCE on 18 January, and I am arranging to place a copy in the Library of the House.

  Operational Costs
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what are the estimated costs of(a) Operation Deliberate Forge, (b) Operation Radome and (c) Operation Kingower; how the costs will be apportioned between (i) named international bodies and (ii) named countries; and if the costs to the United Kingdom will be met from his Department's budget or from the Government's contingency funds; [68254]
  652
  (2) what is the cost to date of the NATO extraction force in Macedonia; and how the cost is divided between the participating states. [68253]

  Mr. George Robertson
  Operation Kingower is the name given to the United Kingdom planning for support of any action that may be undertaken in Kosovo. It incorporates a range of operations including Operation Radome, which is the UK contribution to the NATO Kosovo Air Verification Mission, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe Kosovo Verification Mission and the NATO Kosovo Extraction Force. Operation Deliberate Forge is the UK contribution to NATO air operations over Bosnia.

  We calculate that the extra costs to Defence Votes of the activities covered by Operation Kingower will amount to some £7 million in the current financial year; the costs of Operation Deliberate Forge in same period are likely to amount to some £10 million. These operations are funded on a national basis. Their costs were included in the overall forecast of costs for unprogrammed overseas operations in the current financial year for which the Secretary of State has sought a contribution from the Reserve.

  Multi-launch Rocket System
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the multi-launch rocket system future phase one rocket (FFOR); and if he will list the project milestones. [68756]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Future Phase One Rocket project has been re-titled the Guided Multiple-Launched Rocket System programme. The United Kingdom is participating in a five-nation collaborative Engineering and Manufacturing Development contract, which was placed by the United States Government in November 1998. On current plans, this collaborative programme will start initial production in 2004, with initial deliveries to the UK in 2006. The system is expected to enter UK service in 2010.

  Project Horizon
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what assessments he has made of building a new national warship following a decision to withdraw from Project Horizon; [68515]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the cost of withdrawing from Project Horizon. [68514]

  Mr. George Robertson
  We have made no decision to withdraw from Project Horizon. I am urgently addressing the way forward with our French and Italian partners.

  A preliminary assessment has indicated that, as an alternative to Project Horizon, a national warship option, together with the continued collaborative development of the PAAMS anti-air missile system, could provide the Royal Navy with the capability it needs, in an affordable and effective manner.

  Iraq
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which nations participate in the patrolling of the northern
  653
  and southern no-fly zones in Iraq; what has been the total cost of the operations to date; and how the cost is apportioned between each nation. [68249]

  Mr. George Robertson
  Both British and United States aircraft currently patrol the No-Fly Zones. Since patrolling of the northern and southern No-Fly-Zones began (in 1991 and 1992 respectively), the extra costs of UK participation amount to some £70 million. It is not possible to confirm costs for the US contribution.

  Gulf Forces
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the cost each year since 1991 of the deployment of British Forces to the Gulf. [68250]

  Mr. George Robertson
  I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Bosnia and Herzegovina
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the total cost of the SFOR de-mining programme in Bosnia and Herzegovina. [68252]

  Mr. George Robertson
  SFOR does not have a "de-mining programme" and does not undertake de-mining in Bosnia and Herzegovina other than in support of its own operations. Under the General Framework Agreement for Peace (the Dayton Accords) the responsibility for mine clearance lies with the Entity Armed Forces. SFOR's involvement is limited to monitoring their progress and to the provision of mine awareness training.

  Albania
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when NATO's standing Mediterranean force, Stanavformed, visited the Albanian port of Durres; and what was the purpose of the visit. [68803]

  Mr. George Robertson
  Elements of Standing Naval Force Mediterranean visited Dunes, Albania from 8 to 10 July 1998. The visit was a demonstration of co-operation within Partnership for Peace with Albania.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if NATO's partnership for peace activities in Albania and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia have been(a) fulfilled, (b) extended and (c) expanded. [68760]

  Mr. George Robertson
  NATO/Partnership for Peace (PfP) activities in Albania and Macedonia have expanded in line with NATO's wider efforts to stabilise Albania, Macedonia and regional security. The development of PfP Exercise Co-operative Best Effort 98 in Macedonia and PIP Exercise Co-operative Assembly 98 in Albania are two examples; as is the recent extension of the mandate and staff numbers of the NATO/PfP Co-ordination Cell in Albania. As part of an expanded series of expert team visits to both countries, the United Kingdom has contributed to a PfP logistics seminar in Macedonia and an Explosive Ordnance Disposal Training Team to Albania.

  Operation Desert Fox
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was(a) the total cost and (b) the average daily cost to the United Kingdom of Operation Desert Fox. [68248]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The extra cost to the United Kingdom of Operation Desert Fox was £3 million. UK participation in the operation lasted for three days, giving an average daily cost of some £1 million.

  Nerve Gas Attacks (Japan)
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 17 December 1998,Official Report, colunm 651, regarding nerve gas attacks, if the chemical and biological defence sector will undertake to analyse and assess the results of the Japanese long-term follow-up programme once they are published. [67628]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Government will undertake an analysis and assessment of the data once these are published.

  Disposal Sales Agency
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the private companies that ship Disposal Sales Agency equipment overseas. [68199]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Disposal Sales Agency does not employ private companies to ship equipment abroad. All sales are based on the "as and where lying" principle, which puts the responsibility on the buyer for collection from the location of disposal.

  Private companies may subsequently export the equipment under licence but, in doing so, make their own arrangements for shipping.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the Disposal Sales Agency uses MOD airfields to export goods. [68193]

  Mr. Spellar
  No. The DSA offer surplus military equipment to the home and overseas market on an "as and where lying" basis and the responsibility for collection from MOD premises is with the buyer.

  Propellants
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence from whom tenders for propellant for(a) Seawolf, (b) Sea Skua, (c) Starstreak, (d) ASRAAM, (e) Rapier and (f) MR Trigat have been invited. [68079]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 1 February 1999]: Except in the case of Sea Skua, supply of propellant for the missile systems listed is the responsibility of the relevant prime contractors. For Sea Skua, the MOD has contracted directly with Royal Ordnance Summerfield for refurbishment of the rocket motors.

  Chapelcross and Calderhall Reactors
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the forecast operational life of the reactors at Chapelcross and Calderhall. [68835]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 28 January 1999,Official Report, columns 328-29.

  Short Range Air Defence Systems
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on Future Short and Very Short Range Air Defence Systems; and if he will list the project milestones. [68511]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Future Very Short and Short Range Air Defence Missile System is intended to succeed the Rapier and High Velocity Missile systems. Feasibility Studies have been carried out under an 8 nation Memorandum of Understanding, for which UK is the pilot nation. On current plans, future studies will be conducted prior to approval of the Assessment phase, which will be sought in 2001. Approval for the Demonstration and Production phase is planned for 2006.

  Air Missilės
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the beyond visual range air-to-air missile; and if he will list the project milestones. [68504]

  Mr. Spellar
  We are currently evaluating proposals from Matra BAe Dynamics, on behalf of a European consortium consisting of DASA LFK, Alenia, Saab and CASA, and from Raytheon Systems Ltd., to meet our requirement for a Beyond Visual Range Air-to-Air Missile for Eurofighter.

  We hope to announce the award of a contract to the successful bidder later this year. In advance of this decision it is not possible to give any useful information on the likely project milestones.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the conventionally armed stand off missile; and if he will list the project milestones. [68502]

  Mr. Spellar
  The RAF have a requirement for a highly effective stand off weapon to attack high value fixed targets while minimising the risk of aircraft losses and civilian casualties. Following an international competition involving seven companies, a development and production contract was awarded in February 1997 to Matra BAe (UK) Ltd for their Storm Shadow missile. It is intended to be fitted on Tornado GR4, Harrier GR7 and Eurofighter. The major programme milestone is to finalise development and commence production in the spring/summer of 2001.

  Anti-tank Guided Weapon System
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the Medium Range Third-Generation Anti-Tank Guided Weapon System; and if he will list the project milestones. [68506]

  Mr. Spellar
  Medium Range TRIGAT is a collaborative programme with France, Germany, Belgium, and the Netherlands to meet our Medium Range Anti-Tank Guided Weapon System requirement. It is in the later stages of development and we are currently considering whether to participate in the production phase.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Thames Barrier
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what estimate he has made of the date by which the Thames Barrier will no longer fulfil its primary function; and if he will make a statement. [68053]

  Mr. Morley
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Thames Barrier is a robust and flexible installation with a design based on rates of sea level rise predicted in the 1970s which were higher than those currently anticipated. It provides London with a high level of protection from tidal flooding and with normal care and maintenance should continue to do so until at least the latter part of the next century. Even then, although the barrier may need to be closed more frequently it will continue to fulfil its primary function.

  The Environment Agency is currently considering the wider long-term flood defence needs of London in consultation with interested parties.

  Magistrates Courts
  Mr. Marshall-Andrews
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what action has been taken by(a) his Department and (b) HM Magistrates Courts Service Inspectorate from January 1996 to date in respect of reported incidents of fraud or gross mismanagement in relation to payments by or funding of magistrates' courts committees. [68720]

  Mr. Hoon
  Two incidents have arisen since 1 January 1996. The first was investigated by the Department's Internal Audit Division but was resolved without the Department having to take action. The second has not yet been resolved. There have been exchanges between the Department, the Inspectorate, the Magistrates Courts Committee and the paying authority and advice has been given and recommendations made. What further action is needed will depend on decisions by the Magistrates Courts Committee and the paying authority in the light of legal advice they have taken.

  Mr. Marshall-Andrews
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the incidents of fraud or gross mismanagement that have been brought to the attention of the Lord Chancellor's Department or Her Majesty's Magistrates Courts Service Inspectorate relating to payments by and funding of magistrates courts committees from 1 January 1996 to date. [68719]

  Mr. Hoon
  Since 1 January 1996, there have been two incidents relating to payments by and funding of Magistrates Courts Committees which have been brought to the attention of the Lord Chancellor's Department or Her Majesty's Magistrates Courts Service Inspectorate. In the first case there was no loss to public funds and there were no proceedings for fraud. In the second case, both the Magistrates Courts Committee and the paying authority have taken legal advice and the matter has yet to be resolved.
  657
  Mr. Marshall-Andrews
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what steps he proposes to take to reform the system of financial and administrative accountability of magistrates courts committees; and what steps he plans to take to implement the recommendations of the Magistrates Courts Service Inspectorate Thematic Review of May 1998. [68752]

  Mr. Hoon
  We have issued guidance on the content of Magistrates Courts Committee published annual reports which are the principal means by which committees account to their paying authorities, to the Lord Chancellor and to the public. We will take forward the recommendations of the MCSI' s thematic review in consultation with the Inspectorate themselves, the Central Council of Magistrates Courts Committees and the Local Government Association.

SCOTLAND

  Waiting Lists
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the(a) surgical waiting list figures and (b) specialist outpatient consultation figures for Scotland for (i) March 1997, (ii) September 1997, (iii) March 1998 and (iv) September 1998. [66886]

  Mr. Galbraith
  [holding answer 25 January 1999]: Information on the number of patients on the inpatient/day case waiting list for surgical specialties, on the dates requested, is given in Table 1.

  Information on waiting lists is collected centrally only for hospital inpatients and day cases. Data are available on first outpatient referrals and the length of time that patients waited for their first outpatient appointment. The percentage of patients who received a first outpatient appointment within 9 weeks and 18 weeks following a General Medical Practitioner/General Dental Practitioner referral, for the quarters requested, is provided in Table 2.

  From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Table 1

  NHS in Scotland: Inpatient and day case waiting list

  Date

  Number on waiting list for surgical specialties1

  Total Number on waiting list

  31 March 1997

  68,562

  84,649

  30 September 1997

  69,213

  84,981

  31 March 1998

  71,797

  89,525

  30 September 1998

  67,620

  84,931

  1 Surgical Specialties comprises general surgery (excluding vascular), vascular surgery, accident and emergency, anaesthetics, cardiothoracic surgery, cardiac surgery, thoracic surgery, ear nose and throat (ENT), neurosurgery, ophthalmology, orthopaedics, plastic surgery and surgical paediatrics.

  Source:

  Form SMR3, ISD Scotland.
  658

  Table 2

  NHS in Scotland: Percentage of patients who received a first outpatient appointment within 9 weeks and within 18 weeks of referral1

  Date

  Percentage seen within 9 weeks

  Percentage seen within 18 weeks

  31 March 1997

  70.7

  91.2

  30 September 1997

  66.5

  91.7

  31 March 1998

  68.3

  90.2

  30 September 19981

  64.6

  89.8

  1 Provisional

  Source:

  Form SMRO/SMR01, ISD Scotland

  Skye Bridge
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 18 January 1998,Official Report, column 358, on the Skye Bridge Toll Order, if a copy of the Assignation Statement was made available for inspection with the Order from 26 June to 7 August 1992. [67968]

  Mr. Macdonald
  No. Paragraph 14A(3) of Schedule 1 to the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 only requires the Assignation Statement to be made available with the draft Order. This was done from 1 November to 13 December 1991.

  From 1 July 1999 this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Scottish Natural Heritage
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects Scottish Natural Heritage to bring forward detailed proposals to widen access to the countryside in Scotland. [68051]

  Mr. Macdonald
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland asked Scottish Natural Heritage to advise him on whether changes in legislation were required to provide greater opportunity for people to enjoy the countryside. Scottish Natural Heritage published its advice early this year and we announced our response on 2 February 1999.

  From 1 July 1999 this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Departmental Responsibilities
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what responsibilities which his Department had prior to the Comprehensive Spending Review are to be(a) discontinued by his Department, (b) transferred to another department, (c) transferred to an executive agency and (d) added to his Department over the period 1998–99 to 2001–02. [68397]

  Mr. Dewar
  Almost all of the current responsibilities of The Scottish Office and its agencies and associated departments will, from 1 July 1999, be the responsibility of Scottish Ministers following devolution. Scottish Ministers will also assume responsibilities which currently fall to other Government Departments.

  Departmental Legislation
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what additional legislation, not currently before Parliament, was assumed in the production of his Department's spending allocation for 1999–2000 to 2001–02 in the Comprehensive Spending Review. [68413]

  Mr. Dewar
  There is a long-standing convention that legislative proposals for each year are not announced before the Queen's Speech at the start of the relevant Session.

  From 1 July 1999 most Scottish legislation will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Housing Repairs
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much was spent by the councils of(a) Edinburgh, (b) Glasgow, (c) Aberdeen and (d) Dundee on assistance to private sector housing repairs, indicating separately (i) replacement of lead water pipes and (ii) adaptations to help people with disabilities in each of the past 10 years. [68536]

  Mr. Macdonald
  Total expenditure on private sector grants in the most recent 10 years for which information is available is as follows. Grant expenditure on replacing lead pipes and adaptations for disabled people is not recorded separately.

  Private sector repair grants: 1988 to 1997

  Amount of Grant paid (£000)

  Year

  Aberdeen

  Dundee

  Edinburgh

  Glasgow

  1988

  787

  934

  31,138

  19,886

  1989

  751

  658

  15,209

  30,197

  1990

  824

  1,022

  26,476

  18,691

  1991

  1,365

  1,115

  10,289

  13,932

  1992

  1,121

  1,175

  19,138

  13,723

  1993

  510

  1,075

  10,868

  10,587

  1994

  307

  1,137

  6,140

  11,105

  1995

  599

  1,957

  12,169

  1,019

  1996

  976

  1,531

  3,274

  2,396

  1997

  382

  1,335

  1,149

  2,763

  Housing (Disabled People)
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has to ensure that enough ground floor dwellings remain in public sector housing to enable houses adapted for occupation by people with disabilities to be provided to those who need them. [68534]

  Mr. Macdonald
  A range of policies is in place with the aim of ensuring adequate housing provision in the future for people with disabilities.

  All new housing funded by Scottish Homes will have to be built to barrier free standards that are contained within the Agency's new housing design guidance. We have also proposed amendments to the building regulations for all new dwellings which will address issues such as access, the provision of a downstairs WC, corridor and door widths, turning circles, sockets and switches.

  There are a number of safeguards within the right-to-buy provisions to enable local authorities to retain houses required for specific purposes. Under Section 61(4) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987, the right to
  660
  buy does not apply to groups of houses provided with facilities designed or adapted for the needs of elderly or disabled people. These properties are generally known as sheltered housing.

  Section 69 of the Act allows public sector landlords to apply to the Secretary of State for permission to refuse to sell individual houses with features suitable for occupation by persons of pensionable age. Such houses must have facilities which are substantially different to those of an ordinary house.

  From 1 July 1999 this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Domestic Water Supply
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has(a) to give the latest EU directive allowing less lead in domestic water supplies legal effect and (b) to provide funding to those councils which are already trying to operate within the new directive. [68535]

  Mr. Macdonald
  The UK is required to transpose the standards set in the new EU drinking water directive into national law by 25 December 2000. Any new burden on local authorities arising from the directive will be discussed within the Expenditure Committee of the Working Party on Local Government Finance.

  From 1 July 1999 this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  A9 (Improvement Scheme)
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the estimated cost of the proposed A9 improvement scheme, Helmsdale to the Ord of Caithness. [68993]

  Mr. Macdonald
  £11.4 million excluding Value Added Tax.

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will place in the Library a copy of the Government's preferred engineering scheme for the A9, Helmsdale to the Ord of Caithness, currently under assessment as part of the Trunk Road Review. [68991]

  Mr. Macdonald
  I have today arranged for a copy of the plan and profile of the preferred route to be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the status of the(a) Brora bypass, (b) Portgower-Green Park and (c) Craickaig-Culgower proposed A9 improvement schemes. [68992]

  Mr. Macdonald
  The Brora bypass, Portgower to Green Park and Crackaig to Culgower schemes were progressed to outline feasibility stage in the early 1990s. However in 1995 the Government announced the A9 Dornoch to Scrabster Route Action Plan (RAP). The objectives of this plan were to consider (i) road safety, (ii) consistent journey times, (iii) improved overtaking opportunities, and (iv) traffic calming through the communities. The 3 schemes are being assessed against this criteria. Improvement schemes identified in the RAP will be implemented subject to competing priorities on the trunk road network and the availability of appropriate levels of funding.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Local Deprivation Indicators
  Mr. Rammell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment which measures of local deprivation his Department and its agencies use in considering allocation of funds to local projects. [66718]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  This Department's policies are central to local activity in addressing social exclusion and in stimulating the regeneration of deprived communities. As well as our mainstream funding of education and employment initiatives, the Department leads on a number of local area-based initiatives which aim to raise educational standards, improve skills and employability and encourage lifelong learning. This Department is keen to ensure that disadvantaged communities benefit, and therefore includes measures of deprivation when selecting areas in which initiatives will operate. As well as using a variety of data sources, including the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions' Index of Deprivation, the Department also recognises that the identification of pockets of deprivation in otherwise non-deprived areas needs local knowledge.

  The range of indices used for each initiative varies depending on the policy objectives, as the following examples illustrate.
  (i) Assessment of Education Action Zones draws on indicators of deprivation at school level, such as eligibility for free school meals.
  (ii) The second round of New Start partnerships which are focused on areas which show relatively high levels of disengagement from learning by young people. Government Offices also used information available to them on levels of deprivation to select the project areas.
  (iii) The selection of Employment Zones used indices based on the level of long-term unemployment (12 months and over, and 18 months and over) and the local employment rate.

  The selection of successful bids for running most pilots or area-based initiatives is also based on the quality of plans and feasibility of proposals. A final criterion for selecting pilot areas is an assessment of what is already happening in the area to avoid partnerships being overburdened by the bureaucracy involved in participating in different initiatives. This Department is very supportive of the DETR's work in improving the co-ordination of area-based initiatives so that communities can benefit from a coherent approach to regeneration in their area.

  New Deal
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many persons aged 18 to 24 years have started the New Deal since its inception; [66964]

  (2) how many persons aged 18 to 24 years have (a) been invited to join the New Deal and (b) failed to keep their appointments following such an invitation; [66965]

  (3) how many persons aged 18 to 24 years who started the New Deal subsequently (a) dropped out and (b) failed to complete the arrangements for any other reasons; [66966]
  662
  (4) how many entrants to the New Deal have completed the arrangements and been placed in (a) subsidised employment, (b) training, (c) the environmental task force and (d) the voluntary sector; [66967]

  (5) how many offenders who are subject to supervision by the Probation Service have (a) commenced the New Deal and (b) completed the arrangements. [66968]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its Chief Executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Leigh Lewis to Mr. James Clappison, dated 1 February 1999:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has asked me to reply direct to your questions regarding the progress of New Deal for young people aged 18 to 24. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  The latest Government Statistical Service (GSS) figures to the end of November 1998 and provisional Management Information to the end of December 1998 showed that over 213,320 young people had started the New Deal for 18 to 24 year olds. This includes those invited to join New Deal but who ceased to claim Jobseeker's Allowance before their first New Deal interview. Of the total, 13,660 had entered the Employment option; 27,070 and entered Full-Time Education and Training; 7,130 had joined the Environment Task Force; and 7,660 had joined the Voluntary Sector option. Based on the Government Statistical Service figures, of the young people who had left New Deal by the end of November, 40,660 had moved into unsubsidised jobs; 10,050 had left to claim other benefits, 7,450 had left Jobseeker's Allowance to other known destinations and 22,760 to unknown destinations.
  You have also requested details on ex-offenders as a specific group of people. I should explain that offenders, ex-offenders and those on probation do not have to declare their status to the Employment Service except when requesting early entry onto an employment programme, including New Deal. The latest GSS figures to the end of November 1998 show that 3,505 young people in these categories had requested early entry to New Deal. At present we do not separately monitor this group of entrants by outcome.
  Of the 203,100 young people who had started New Deal by the end of November 14,170 signed off Jobseeker's Allowance before attending their initial appointment.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Alan Keen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when his Department expects training and enterprise councils to be able to invite bids for adult training in the financial year 1999–2000. [68723]

  Mr. Mudie
  The planning round for work based learning for adults is under way now. The Secretary of State wrote to all TEC Chairs on 18 January 1999 to give details of national budgets and targets for TEC managed programmes.

  Standards and Effectiveness Unit
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many staff are currently employed in the Standards and Effectiveness Unit in his Department; and what is the budgeted cost of the Unit for 1998–99. [68934]
  663
  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 2 February 1999]: As at 30 December 1998, the total number of people employed in the Standards and Effectiveness Unit was 143. The complement is drawn mainly from existing Civil Servants together with some 14 members of staff who have recent experience of the wider world of education such as headteachers, researchers and inspectors.

  The total budgeted cost of the Unit for this financial year is £4.8m.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will ensure that the funding per pupil in grant maintained schools for 1999–2000 is increased in line with inflation; and if he will make a statement. [68866]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 2 February 1999]: Grant-maintained schools' recurrent funding per pupil for 1999–2000 will be protected at its 1998–99 level in cash terms. Where a grant-maintained school's budget for 1999–2000, as calculated through its local education authority's Fair Funding allocation formula, is greater than its protected level of funding, calculated from its 1998–99 funding per pupil, it will receive that higher amount.

  The policy of protection against undue turbulence continues a process of managing the transition of grant-maintained schools' budget arrangements into alignment with those for other schools begun by the previous Government, which set in hand a phased removal of the cash protection applied to the central element of annual maintenance grant.

  Teacher Training Agency
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he proposes to undertake a review of the Teacher Training Agency. [69145]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  In accordance with the Government's policy of conducting quinquennial reviews of all non-departmental public bodies, the Department is launching today, in conjunction with the Welsh Office, a review of the Teacher Training Agency. Following Cabinet Office guidelines, the first stage of the review will take the form of a "prior options" study with the following terms of reference:

  to review the Teacher Training Agency's functions, and the likely future need for those functions;

  To consider the powers, remit, constitutional status, membership and activities of the Teacher Training Agency;

  to consider whether, on efficiency grounds, some or all of the functions of the Teacher Training Agency can be carried out within an alternative organisational framework including by another public, private or voluntary sector body or otherwise within government;

  to review the efficiency and effectiveness of the Teacher Training Agency in carrying out its functions.

  We have asked that the review should have particular regard to:
  the establishment next year of the General Teaching Councils for England and for Wales and of the National College for School Leadership; and
  the major agenda for modernisation of the teaching profession set out in the recent Green Papers for England and for Wales on which the government is currently consulting.
  664
  We should welcome comments on those matters to be covered by the review from all those with an interest in the Teacher Training Agency's work. Comments, which may be made public unless respondents specifically request otherwise, should be sent by Friday 12 March 1999 to:

  Graham Holley

  Teachers Group

  Department for Education and Employment

  Sanctuary Buildings

  Great Smith Street

  Westminster

  London SW1P 3BT.

  We have asked that this first stage of the review should be completed by 30 April 1999. The findings will be published and made available to Parliament.

  Teachers
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list, for each of the last three years, the percentage of full-time and part-time teaching staff in(a) schools and (b) further education colleges without a first degree. [68731]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Teachers in maintained nursery, primary, secondary and special schools in England, without a first degree or equivalent are as follows:

  Percentage

  Full-time

  Part-time

  31 March 1995

  40

  51

  31 March 1996

  38

  49

  31 March 19971

  36

  47

  1 1997 data are provisional

  Teaching staff in further education colleges in England, without a first degree or equivalent are as follows:

  Percentage

  Full-time

  Part-time

  1994–95

  25

  21

  1995–96

  26

  23

  1996–97

  26

  24

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list, for each of the last three years, the percentage of full-time and part-time teaching staff in(a) schools and (b) further education colleges with a postgraduate certificate in education. [68732]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Teachers in maintained nursery, primary, secondary and special schools, in England, with a postgraduate certificate in education (PGCE) for schools are as follows:

  Percentage

  31 March 1995

  31 March 1996

  31 March 19971

  Full-time

  30

  32

  33

  Part-time

  25

  26

  28

  1 1997 data are provisonal

  665
  Teaching staff in further education colleges in England, with a PGCE (for schools or FE) are as follows:

  Percentage

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Full-time

  17

  18

  19

  Part-time

  6

  6

  7

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list, for each of the last three years, the percentage of full-time and part-time teaching staff in(a) schools and (b) further education colleges with no teaching qualifications. [68754]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Teachers in maintained nursery, primary, secondary and special schools, in England, who do not have Qualified Teacher Status are as follows:

  Percentage

  31 March 1995

  31 March 1996

  31 March 19971

  Full-time

  1

  1

  1

  Part-time

  3

  4

  4

  Teaching staff in further education colleges in England, without a teaching qualification2 are as follows:

  Percentage

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Full-time

  9

  9

  9

  Part-time

  15

  14

  14

  1 1997 data are provisional

  2 There is no equivalent to qualified teacher status for FE. The teaching qualifications include postgraduate certificate of education, degrees with qualified teacher status, certificates of education and other vocational teaching qualifications.

  Employment Service
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many staff in the Employment Service have been employed for less than(a) three months, (b) six months, (c) one year and (d) two years. [68940]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its Chief Executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Richard Foster to Mr. Terry Rooney, dated 2 February 1999:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has asked Leigh Lewis to reply direct to your question regarding the number of staff in the Employment Service who have been employed for less than (a) three months, (b) six months, (c) one year and (d) two years. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to Mr. Lewis as Chief Executive of the Agency. I am replying in his absence.
  The information given in the table below is the latest available (as at 31 December 1998) and includes both permanent and temporary staff.
  666

  Number

  Total number of staff

  35,994

  of whom:

  employed less than three months

  2,969

  employed three but less than six months

  1,948

  employed six but less than 12 months

  1,452

  employed 12 but less than 24 months

  2,639

  I hope this is helpful.

HEALTH

  Drugs Prescriptions
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what was the average proportion of non-generic drug prescriptions in 1997–98 in(a) prescribing practices and (b) dispensing practices; [68445]

  (2) what were the average comparative costs of drugs per patient in 1997–98 in (a) prescribing practices and (b) dispensing practices; [68444]

  (3) what was the cost to the NHS in 1997–98 of drugs (a) prescribed by doctors and (b) dispensed by doctors; [68442]

  (4) what was the average cost of non-generic drugs in 1997–98 in (a) NHS hospitals, (b) pharmacies and (c) dispensing practices. [68449]

  Mr. Denham
  The available information is shown in the table.

  Drugs prescribed in general practice1 in England and dispensed in the community, 1997–982

  Prescribing Practices3

  Dispensing practices4

  Average net ingredient cost5 per patient6

  £78

  £118

  Average net ingredient cost per non generic item prescribed7

  £11.42

  £10.49

  Percentage of prescribed items which were non generic7

  34 per cent.

  74 per cent.

  Total net ingredient cost

  £3,791 million

  £387 million

  1 Information for items prescribed and dispensed in National Health Service hospitals is not available.

  2 The prescription information was obtained from the Prescribing Analyses and Cost (PACT) system and is based on a full analysis of all prescriptions written by general practitioners and Practice Nurses in England which are dispensed in England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man. All figures exclude dressings and appliances.

  3 Drugs prescribed by prescribing practices which are dispensed by community pharmacists.

  4 Includes drugs prescribed by dispensing practices which are dispensed by community pharmacists.

  5 The net ingredient cost is the basic cost of a drug. This cost does not take account of discounts, dispensing costs, fees or prescription charge income.

  6 The number of patients is derived from patient lists and includes temporary patients. The patient list size is based on information submitted by practices to the Prescription Pricing Authority. List size as at March 1998 has been used. Figures for average net ingredient cost per patient have been rounded to the nearest £.

  7 In PACT, prescription items can be prescribed generically, and recorded as a generic, but dispensed and reimbursed as a proprietary because a generic does not exist. The percentage of non generic drugs prescribed in the reply does not include these items.

  667
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what was the total NHS expenditure on drugs in 1997–98; [68441]

  (2) what was the total (a) expenditure and (b) allocation for drugs in (i) the NHS and (ii) each health authority in 1997–98. [68451]

  Mr. Denham
  In 1997–98 total National Health Service expenditure on drugs was £5,195 million. Drugs prescribed by Family Health Services (FHS) practitioners account for £4,107 million of the total, and those prescribed by hospital and community health service (HCHS) providers account for £1,088 million.

  The total allocation for FHS drugs (which includes an amount retained centrally) in 1997–98 was £4,123 million. The table shows health authority allocations and expenditure for FHS drugs.

  HCHS allocations do not specify an amount for drugs. HCHS expenditure on drugs occurs mainly in NHS trusts and cannot be attributed accurately to health authorities.

  FHS allocation and expenditure for drugs by health authority, 1997–98

  £000

  Health authority

  Allocation 1

  Expenditure 2

  Avon

  72,863

  70,898

  Barking and Havering

  29,596

  29,994

  Barnet

  24,611

  25,517

  Barnsley

  21,800

  22,365

  Bedfordshire

  42,072

  42,582

  Berkshire

  56,145

  56,871

  Birmingham

  85,921

  86,071

  Bradford

  39,235

  39,364

  Brent and Harrow

  35,012

  35,757

  Bromley

  22,748

  23,336

  Buckinghamshire

  47,904

  47,633

  Bury and Rochdale

  33,583

  34,711

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  49,029

  50,171

  Cambridge and Huntingdon

  31,682

  33,419

  Camden and Islington

  26,444

  26,442

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  46,136

  47,567

  County Durham

  55,412

  54,583

  Coventry

  25,169

  25,343

  Croydon

  23,416

  23,270

  Doncaster

  29,608

  29,991

  Dorset

  63,075

  62,823

  Dudley

  24,667

  25,402

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  50,425

  50,817

  East and North Hertfordshire

  38,530

  39,906

  East Kent

  53,012

  55,032

  East Lancashire

  47,234

  49,032

  East London and City

  46,236

  47,351

  East Norfolk

  55,020

  55,750

  East Riding

  48,568

  50,232

  East Surrey

  32,672

  33,132

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove

  65,991

  67,956

  Enfield and Haringey

  34,227

  36,014

  Gateshead and South Tyneside

  32,304

  31,649

  Gloucestershire

  44,565

  46,448

  Greenwich and Bexley

  32,811

  32,785

  Herefordshire

  12,745

  12,686

  Hillingdon

  17,857

  18,005

  Isle of Wight

  12,488

  12,813

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  23,622

  23,398

  Kingston and Richmond

  24,081

  24,036

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  54,492

  54,025

  Leeds

  62,028

  63,887

  Leicestershire

  71,977

  74,334

  Lincolnshire

  56,806

  58,541

  Liverpool

  44,574

  46,192

  Manchester

  42,076

  44,669

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  44,988

  45,307

  Morecambe Bay

  29,677

  29,970

  668

  FHS allocation and expenditure for drugs by health authority, 1997–98

  £000

  Health authority

  Allocation 1

  Expenditure 2

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  40,889

  40,223

  North and East Devon

  40,287

  40,116

  North and Mid Hampshire

  37,452

  38,289

  North Cheshire

  26,898

  27,885

  North Cumbria

  26,605

  27,238

  North Derbyshire

  30,722

  30,189

  North Essex

  68,922

  70,824

  North Nottinghamshire

  32,658

  33,527

  North Staffordshire

  38,760

  38,988

  North West Anglia

  33,275

  34,352

  North West Lancashire

  44,073

  44,947

  North Yorkshire

  57,949

  57,756

  Northamptonshire

  45,322

  46,049

  Northumberland

  27,498

  27,582

  Nottingham

  47,582

  48,419

  Oxfordshire

  41,685

  41,368

  Portsmouth and South-East Hampshire

  42,524

  43,609

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  32,678

  32,945

  Rotherham

  21,119

  21,978

  Salford and Trafford

  42,771

  44,071

  Sandwell

  24,524

  24,655

  Sefton

  26,508

  26,933

  Sheffield

  43,836

  43,605

  Shropshire

  35,403

  36,900

  Solihull

  18,114

  17,441

  Somerset

  39,109

  39,251

  South and West Devon

  53,144

  53,626

  South Cheshire

  57,370

  59,522

  Southern Derbyshire

  46,086

  46,406

  South Essex

  53,674

  55,234

  South Humber

  27,403

  27,784

  South Lancashire

  26,282

  27,208

  South Staffordshire

  43,844

  45,543

  Southampton and South-West Hampshire

  43,285

  44,973

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  34,184

  35,527

  Stockport

  26,145

  27,170

  Suffolk

  55,761

  58,078

  Sunderland

  27,077

  27,036

  Tees

  50,773

  51,773

  Wakefield

  27,863

  27,968

  Walsall

  22,107

  22,020

  Warwickshire

  41,751

  42,416

  West Hertfordshire

  39,083

  38,620

  West Kent

  77,214

  78,451

  West Pennine

  38,095

  39,341

  West Surrey

  49,217

  50,034

  West Sussex

  61,163

  62,300

  Wigan and Bolton

  49,533

  51,142

  Wiltshire

  44,693

  45,921

  Wirral

  32,852

  33,632

  Wolverhampton

  21,178

  21,602

  Worcestershire

  40,426

  40,921

  Source:

  1EL(96)107

  2 PPA PACT Data

  Note:

  Figures relate to prescriptions dispensed in 1997–98, which were paid for in a different period (approx. June 1997 to May 1998)

  Herbal Medicines
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to change the regulations on the sale and use of herbal medicines. [67854]

  Ms Jowell
  Ministers have asked the Medicines Control Agency, in the light of the expansion in the range of herbal remedies on the market in recent years, to consider whether there is a need to update the lists of specified potent or toxic herbs which are subject to restrictions on sale and supply. The lists of herbs, which are set out in the Schedule to the Medicines (Retail Sale
  669
  or Supply of Herbal Remedies) Order 1977, have not been reviewed since they were first established. If the Agency identifies a need to amend the lists, the proposals will be subject to public consultation.

  Departmental Responsibilities
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what responsibilities which his Department had prior to the Comprehensive Spending Review are to be(a) discontinued by his Department, (b) transferred to another department, (c) transferred to an executive agency and (d) added to his Department over the period 1998–99 to 2001–02. [68406]

  Mr. Denham
  Following the comprehensive spending review, there are two areas where the Department will be transferring responsibility. First, support for local authorities which accommodate adult asylum seekers and asylum-seeking families will be funded through the Home Office. Secondly, the London rough sleepers Initiative which has to date been funded by the Department, will become the responsibility of the London rough sleepers unit, an agency which will report to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.

  Departmental Legislation
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what additional legislation, not currently before Parliament, was assumed in the production of his Department's spending allocation for 1999–2000 to 2001–02 in the Comprehensive Spending Review. [68422]

  Mr. Denham
  There is a long-standing convention that legislative proposals for each year are not announced before the Queen's Speech at the start of the relevant Session.

  PVC Toys
  Mr. Salter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the recommendations of the European Commission's Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment in respect of harmful chemicals in soft PVC toys. [68916]

  Dr. Howells
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave him today to PQ number 68917, Official Report, column 623.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Independent Adjudication Officers
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what level of qualifications and experience is required for those undertaking the role of independent adjudication officers in social security cases; what medical training or guidance they receive with regard to their duties; and if he will make a statement. [67370]

  Angela Eagle
  The administration of the Benefits Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Peter Mathison. He will write to my hon. Friend.
  670
  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. David Hinchliffe, dated 2 February 1999:
  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Question asking what level of qualifications and experience is required for those undertaking the role of independent adjudication officers in social security cases, what medical training or guidance they receive with regard to their duties, and if he will make a statement.
  The relevant experience of Benefits Agency staff appointed to be Adjudication Officers (AOs) is taken into account in deciding the level of duties undertaken. AOs considering Disability Living Allowance (DLA), Attendance Allowance claims and questions in relation to claims for Industrial Injury Disablement Benefits are of an executive grade. The minimum qualifications for direct entry into this grade are five '0' levels/GCSEs and two A levels.
  Prior to commencing their duties all AOs receive a full adjudication training programme as well as periodic refresher training as and when appropriate, for example when changes in legislation occur. In addition to training, both general and specific adjudication guidance is provided in the Adjudication Officer's Guide issued by Central Adjudication Services.
  Non medical adjudication officers have access to Medical Services as a source of advice when considering adjudication decisions on claims to disability benefits including Incapacity Benefit (IB). This advice may take the form of specific advice on a particular query, or a full medical report following examination of the claimant. For the All Work Test on IB the medical report forms part of the evidence of AO uses in reaching their decision.
  Guidance is also available to AOs dealing with DLA in the form of the Disability Handbook which provides information on the likely effects on a variety of medical conditions. The Handbook has been written by medical staff of the Department of Social Security with advice from the DLA Advisory Board and contributions from many organisations representing people with disabilities. Decisions on entitlement to DLA are not medical decisions although AOs may consult Medical Services doctors for advice when considering more complex cases. Medical services doctors, who are all experienced medical practitioners, receive special training for this role.
  Some adjudication decisions, in claims for Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit and Severe Disablement Allowance, are made by Adjudicating Medical Authorities (AMAs). These individuals are fully qualified medical practitioners with wide experience of general medicine. In addition the AMA will undergo specific training to enable them to undertake this specialised form of assessment. The Chief Medical Advisor to the Department of Social Security formally appoints the AMA on successful completion of this training and the length of the appointment is dependent on the doctor maintaining the quality and professional standards laid down for them. In addition to their formal training AMAs are issued with Handbooks, for each of the above benefits, which acts as an aide memoire to the doctor and which cover all aspects of this work.
  Under the Government's Decision Making and Appeals (DMA) provisions medical examinations will remain the same. However for IIDB and SDA instead of making a decision under DMA the AMA will instead offer advice in the form of a doctor's report. The Decision maker will be guided by the Doctor's Report in reaching their decision on any entitlement to benefit.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Benefits Overpayments
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how he intends to deal with the backlog of debt owed to the Benefits Agency due to overpayment of benefits; and if he will detail his plans for the write-off of old debts. [67758]

  Angela Eagle
  Administration of the Benefits Agency and recovery of overpayments is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, Peter Mathison. He will write to my right hon. Friend.
  671
  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Frank Field, dated 2 February 1999:
  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how we intend to deal with the backlog of debt owed to the Benefits Agency (BA) due to overpayment of benefits; and if I will detail our plans for the write-off of old debt.
  We are determined to tackle the management of debt recovery in a structured, effective way. To support this, BA introduced a new debt strategy early in 1998.
  An Accounts Receivable Controller (ARC) in April 98, with responsibility for the whole process of debt, including control, management, and recovery. As a result BA has a more co-ordinated and cohesive organisation to deal with debt issues.
  A new Debt Accounting and Management system to account for and assist in the prompt identification and actioning of debt is also currently being developed. It will provide an automated, cost-effective capability to obtain control of debt, and improved Debt management information to enable detailed root cause analysis of debt. The result will be to minimise the causes of debt and maximise recoveries.
  The number of overpayment cases awaiting calculation is now under control and is expected to fall to a number equivalent to one month's intake of work by March 1999. A package of administrative easements agreed with Treasury have played a significant part in assisting BA reduce stocks of arrears of outstanding overpayments whilst ensuring recovery was actively pursued where possible.
  There is no longer a need to write-off old recoverable debts under the easements package, although debts may be written off under the criteria laid out in current instructions; these are

  debts over £25 less than £100 abandoned 6 years after last effective recovery;

  debts between £100 and £300, abandoned after 10 years;

  debts over £300 abandoned after 20 years;

  debts under £25

  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Vaccine Damage Payments
  Mr. Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to announce the outcome of the review of compensation for vaccine damaged children. [68239]

  Mr. Bayley
  Consideration is still being given to this complex and sensitive issue and an announcement will be made in due course.

  Severely Disabled Children
  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what factors underlie the postponement until April 2001 of the extension of the higher rate mobility component of the disability living allowance to three and four-year-old severely disabled children who have difficulties walking. [68698]

  Mr. Bayley
  The proposed extension will require legislation. If approved by Parliament, the new provision will come into operation at the same time as other benefit changes for disabled people are made as part of a co-ordinated package to help the most severely disabled people. These changes would help ensure that resources are better targeted at those who most need help.

  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what financial assistance is available to severely disabled under-fives to enable them to attend playgroups and other pre-school provision. [68696]
  672
  Mr. Bayley
  There is a wide range of financial assistance available which contributes towards the extra costs faced by families with severely disabled children under five. No attempt is made to specify how families should spend the benefits which include:Within Income Support, income based Jobseeker's Allowance, Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit, groups identified as likely to have extra expenses receive help through the disability premium structure.
  The new Disability Income Guarantee will provide extra help in these premiums for families with disabled children getting the highest rate of the care component of Disability Living Allowance.
  We are also proposing to extend the higher rate mobility component of Disability Living Allowance (currently £35.85 a week) to severely disabled 3–4 year olds with a mobility problem.

  In addition, some assistance may be available from the Local Authority.

  London Organised Fraud Investigation Team
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the report produced by Cheryl Weaver into the London Organised Fraud Investigation Team. [68564]

  Mr. Timms
  None. Cheryl Weaver was attached to the London Organised Fraud Investigation Team as a temporary secondee to gain a personal understanding of its role and function.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the current situation of the employees of the London Organised Fraud Investigation Team. [68565]

  Mr. Timms
  The current situation of employees of the London Organised Fraud Investigation Team (LOFIT) is a matter for the Association of London Government (ALG) as the body responsible for the management of LOFIT and for Westminster City Council as the formal employer of the staff.

  Pensions (Minimum Income Guarantee)
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the number of pensioners who(a) will be eligible for the new pension income guarantee and (b) will claim the guarantee. [68821]

  Mr. Timms
  We estimate that around 1.5 million pensioners will be receiving the Minimum Income Guarantee at April 1999. Estimates of the numbers of pensioners who will be eligible for, but not claiming, the Minimum Income Guarantee, and estimates of the numbers who will make a claim are currently being revised following the discovery of an error in the published take-up estimates. We expect to be publishing revised estimates in the Spring.

  Kenneth Gilbert
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the appeal by Kenneth Gilbert of Brixham in relation to his disability care allowance will be heard; and if he will ensure the hearing takes place before a disability appeals tribunal. [68798]
  673
  Angela Eagle
  The administration of Disability Living Allowance is a matter for Peter Mathison, Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with further details.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Anthony Steen, dated 2 February 1999:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking when the appeal by Kenneth Gilbert of Brixham in relation to his disability care allowance will be heard; and if he will ensure the hearing takes place before a disability appeals tribunal.
  It may be helpful if I explain that there are 4 tiers to the Disability Living Allowance (DLA) adjudication process; new claim, first tier review, second tier review, and appeal to a Disability Appeal Tribunal.
  Mr. Gilbert submitted a DLA claim on 21 February 1995 and was awarded the higher rate of the mobility component from and including 7 February 1995.
  On 29 February 1996, Mr. Gilbert requested a review and asked for care needs to be considered. He was awarded the lowest rate of the care component from and including 1 March 1996. His entitlement to the mobility component was unaffected.
  On 29 October 1998, Mr. Gilbert asked for a review of his entitlement to the care component. He completed a claim pack with details of his current care needs but on 9 December 1998 an adjudication officer (AO) was unable to find grounds to review the previous decision. The decision was notified to Mr. Gilbert on 23 December 1998 with details about his right of review within 3 months.
  I should explain that if a review is requested more than 3 months after the previous decision was notified, the decision may only be reviewed if specific criteria are satisfied. For example, the previous decision must have been made in ignorance of a material fact, or based on a mistake as to a material fact, or there must have been a relevant change of circumstances.
  On 13 January 1999, a request for an appeal to a Disability Appeal Tribunal against the decision dated 9 December 1998 was received from Mr. Gilbert. The team leader of the operational section responsible for Mr. Gilbert's claim telephoned him on 28 January and explained that the correct next stage in the adjudication process was a review and that this would include a full explanation of the reasons for the decision. Mr. Gilbert said he was happy about this and had merely been confused about the procedures when he requested an appeal. The team leader explained that if Mr. Gilbert was dissatisfied with the outcome of the review decision, he would then have the right to request an appeal to a Tribunal within 3 months of the notification date.
  On 28 January a different AO considered all the evidence, including further clarification of his care needs given by Mr. Gilbert during his telephone conversation with the operational team leader. A review decision, upholding the previous decision, was completed on 28 January and was issued to Mr. Gilbert on 1 February 1999. The decision carries the right of appeal to a Disability Appeal Tribunal.

  Numbers of families with children receiving income support by family type, family size and age of each child as at August 1998

  Thousand

  Number of:

  Number of children aged

  Families

  Children

  Under 12 months

  1 to 2 years

  3 to 4 years

  5 to 10 years

  11 to 15 years

  16 to 18 years

  All Families

  All Children

  1,248

  2,379

  126

  293

  295

  883

  624

  159

  With 1 child

  552

  552

  53

  106

  74

  149

  128

  41

  With 2 children

  406

  812

  37

  94

  110

  315

  204

  52

  With 3 children

  189

  566

  20

  55

  64

  238

  157

  34

  With 4 or more

  101

  450

  16

  39

  47

  182

  135

  32

  674
  If Mr. Gilbert does request an appeal against the decision of 28 January, the Independent Tribunal Service (ITS) will be responsible for the administration of the appeal hearing and for inviting Mr. Gilbert to attend. The ITS is wholly independent of the Benefits Agency.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  BASIS Southern Command
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many arrests have been made each month by BASIS Southern Command since its establishment to date. [68930]

  (2) how many of the investigating team of BASIS Southern Command were restricted to work in their office and unable to pursue investigations in the field from September 1998 to date; and if he will make a statement. [68931]

  Mr. Timms
  Questions on Benefit Agency operational matters are the responsibility of the Chief Executive, Peter Mathison. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. lain Duncan Smith, dated 2 February 1999:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to respond to your recent Parliamentary Questions asking, how many arrests have been made each month by Benefits Agency Security Investigation Service (BASIS) Southern Command since its establishment to date, and how many of the investigating team of BASIS Southern Command were restricted to work in their office and unable to pursue investigations in the field from September 1998 to date.
  In the period April to December 1998 BASIS investigations resulted in 667 arrests. BASIS investigators do not have powers of arrest and therefore these arrests were effected by the police. Of these, 350 arrests related to investigations conducted by the Southern Unit teams and a monthly breakdown of these is shown on the attached table.
  No BASIS team has been restricted to work in their office other than where this has been necessary to complete the detailed court preparation work following an intensive investigation.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Income Support
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the number of families with children in receipt of income support distinguishing between(a) one-parent and (b) two-parent families broken down by families with (i) one child, (ii) two children, (iii) three children and (iv) four or more children; and within each group if he will list the number of children aged (1) under 12 months, (2) one to two years, (3) three to four years, (4) five to 10 years, (5) 11 to 15 years and (6) 16 to 18 years. [67793]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is in the table.
  675

  Numbers of families with children receiving income support by family type, family size and age of each child as at August 1998

  Thousand

  Number of:

  Number of children aged

  Families

  Children

  Under 12 months

  1 to 2 years

  3 to 4 years

  5 to 10 years

  11 to 15 years

  16 to 18 years

  Couples

  All Children

  200

  445

  17

  41

  41

  148

  144

  54

  With 1 child

  69

  69

  4

  8

  4

  12

  25

  16

  With 2 children

  63

  127

  5

  12

  13

  41

  41

  15

  With 3 children

  38

  113

  4

  10

  11

  43

  36

  10

  With 4 or more

  30

  137

  4

  11

  14

  53

  43

  13

  Single Parents

  All Children

  1,048

  1,934

  109

  252

  254

  735

  480

  105

  With 1 child

  483

  483

  49

  98

  70

  137

  103

  26

  With 2 children

  343

  685

  32

  81

  97

  274

  164

  37

  With 3 children

  151

  453

  16

  44

  53

  195

  121

  24

  With 4 or more

  71

  313

  11

  28

  33

  129

  92

  19

  Notes:

  1. Numbers are rounded to the nearest thousand.

  2. Figures are based on a 5 per cent. sample and as such are subject to a degree of sampling error.

  Source:

  Income Support Statistics Quarterly Enquiry August 1998.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the number of families with children in receipt of family credit distinguishing between one-parent and two-parent

  Number of families with children in receipt of family credit

  Thousand

  Number of:

  Number of children aged

  Families

  Children

  Under 12 months

  1–2 years

  3–4 years

  5–10 years

  11–15 years

  16–18 years

  All families

  All children

  782.5

  1,576.9

  74.3

  169.4

  178.1

  587.6

  450.8

  116.7

  With 1 child

  296.7

  296.7

  23.4

  48.8

  33.9

  81.9

  78.2

  30.5

  With 2 children

  278.2

  556.3

  24.9

  57.9

  66.8

  207.2

  158.5

  41.0

  With 3 children

  136.0

  408.1

  15.2

  36.8

  45.2

  169.2

  117.2

  24.6

  With 4 or more

  71.6

  315.8

  10.9

  25.9

  32.1

  129.3

  96.9

  20.7

  Couples

  All children

  393.1

  926.5

  59.2

  119.4

  116.6

  337.5

  236.2

  57.6

  With 1 child

  97.2

  97.2

  15.8

  24.2

  10.1

  16.4

  22.3

  8.4

  With 2 children

  144.7

  289.4

  20.1

  42.1

  43.8

  99.5

  66.0

  17.9

  With 3 children

  92.4

  277.3

  13.3

  29.9

  34.9

  114.1

  70.3

  14.7

  With 4 or more

  58.7

  262.6

  10.0

  23.2

  27.7

  107.5

  77.5

  16.6

  Lone Parents

  All children

  389.4

  650.3

  15.1

  50.0

  61.5

  250.1

  214.7

  59.1

  With 1 child

  199.4

  199.4

  7.6

  24.6

  23.8

  65.5

  55.8

  22.1

  With 2 children

  133.4

  266.9

  4.8

  15.8

  23.0

  107.8

  92.5

  23.0

  With 3 children

  43.6

  130.9

  1.8

  6.9

  10.3

  55.0

  47.0

  9.8

  With 4 or more

  12.9

  53.2

  9.0

  2.7

  4.3

  21.8

  19.4

  4.1

  Notes:

  1. Numbers are rounded to the nearest hundred

  2. Figures are based on a 5 per cent. sample and as such are subject to a degree of sampling error

  Source:

  Family Credit Statistics Quarterly Enquiry August 1998

TREASURY

  Local Authority Capital Receipts
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list his latest estimates and forecast expenditure
  676
  families between families with (a) one child, (b) two children, (c) three children and (d) four or more children and between children aged (i) under 12 months, (ii) one to two years, (iii) three to four years, (iv) five to 10 years, (v) 11 to 15 years and (vi) 16 to 18 years. [67794]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is in the table.

  in cash terms for the capital receipts initiative for (i) 1997–98, (ii) 1998–99, (iii) 1999–2000, (iv) 2000–01 and (v) 2001–02. [68384]

  Dr. Reid
  I have been asked to reply.
  677
  The following capital allocations have been made to local authorities in England under the capital receipts initiative:

  £

  1997–98

  174,270,000

  1998–99

  569,359,000

  1999–2000

  570,169,000

  The total resources for housing capital allocations in 2000–01 and 2001–02, which show substantial increases on the 1999–2000 figure and deliver the remainder of the additional £5 billion for investment in housing that we are making available during the current Parliament, were announced last summer following the Comprehensive Spending Review. Decisions have yet to be made about the distribution of these resources between different programmes. We have recently consulted on a proposal to combine capital receipts initiative and other housing capital support (apart from that for disabled facilities grants) into a single funding regime from 2000–01 onwards. The outcome of this consultation exercise will be announced shortly.

  Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action the Government are taking to speed up the implementation of the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative. [67520]

  Ms Hewitt
  At the Annual Meetings of the IMF and World Bank in October 1998 the Chancellor secured agreement on his proposals for a comprehensive review of the HIPC initiative in 1999, and is currently pressing for the review to address, among other things, the timing of debt relief given under the initiative.

  The decision was also taken to allow IMF post conflict assistance programmes to count towards a country's track record under the HIPC initiative. This could bring decision points (and therefore debt relief) forward by up to twelve months for certain countries such as Rwanda.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the progress of the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative. [67513]

  Ms Hewitt
  31 out of 40 countries originally identified by the IMF/World Bank as being eligible for inclusion into the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) initiative have begun the process of securing a sustainable exit to their debt burden. Two countries have reached the end of the process. A further seven countries have reached Decision Point.

  The IMF/World Bank are to carry out a comprehensive review of the HIPC initiative this year.

  Pension Investment
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he proposes to publish the consultation document on pension investment mentioned in the Pensions Green Paper (Cm. 4179). [69527]

  Mr. Milburn
  The Government have today published a consultation document, "Helping to deliver stakeholder pensions: flexibility in pension investment". Copies are 678
  available in the Vote Office and in the Library of the House. This takes forward the remit in the Green Paper "A new contract for welfare: partnership in pension", Cm 4179, chapter 7, paragraph 39. This contribution to the Government's pension reform strategy opens up potential for greater transparency in the pensions market which should in turn improve labour market flexibility and contribute to the strategy for improving productivity discussed in the Pre Budget Report, Cm 4076.

  The financial instrument proposed in the document will be suitable for any kind of defined contribution pension: personal, occupational and, in time, stakeholder. It is not a pension in its own right. It will hold units in pooled investment schemes, making it possible for scheme members to move easily and at low cost between different kinds of pension, for example on a change of employment or a move into self employment.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Iraq
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the number of Scud missiles held by Iraq. [68750]

  Mr. George Robertson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The UN Special Commission on Iraq believes it has accounted for all but two of Iraq's 819 Soviet origin SCUDs and all declared launch vehicles. However, owing to the indigenous production of components and uncertainties attending the verification of the destruction of complete missiles, it is possible that Iraq has concealed a small number of 650km range SCUD type missiles. It is also possible that components were removed from missiles that were unilaterally destroyed.

  Turkey (Death Penalty)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations via the British Embassy in Ankara to the Turkish Government to request that the death penalty will not be used against the suspect accused of murdering Edgar Fernandes. [68169]

  Mr. Fatchett
  It is for the Maltese Government to make representations to the Turkish Government to request the death penalty is not used against the suspect. The UK, along with our EU partners, opposes the use of the death penalty, and calls upon all States to abolish it.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the meeting between Baroness Symons and the Turkish Ambassador on 7 January 1999 in respect of the Edgar Fernandes case; what was the result of that meeting; and what action his Department has taken since then. [68170]

  Mr. Fatchett
  My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State had a private meeting with the Turkish Ambassador on 7 January 1999 at which they discussed a variety of bilateral issues. Our staff in Ankara and Valletta remain in touch with the Turkish and Maltese Governments respectively about the extradition of Mr. Mohammed Abdul Monem Abbas Aly.

  Entertainment Budgets
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the entertainment budgets for each of his Department's posts abroad in the last financial year. [68171]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Overseas posts' budgets, including entertainment budgets, are devolved to each post. No central record is kept of detailed budget allocations for each post, and they could only be provided at excessive cost. However, central records are kept of posts expenditure, and the figures for 1997–98 are set out below.

  Post

  Spend 1997–98

  Abidjan

  12,575

  Abu Dhabi

  30,398

  Abuja

  5,920

  Accra

  24,015

  Addis Ababa

  16,239

  Alexandria

  9,845

  Algiers

  5,972

  Almaty

  9,917

  Amman

  38,907

  Amsterdam

  13,655

  Anguilla

  11,187

  Ankara

  33,882

  Antananarivo

  2,375

  Ashgabat

  15,311

  Asuncion

  5,726

  Athens

  73,370

  Atlanta

  56,803

  Auckland

  31,784

  Aus Africa: Rmo

  1135

  Bahrain

  13,249

  Baku

  2,704

  Bandar Seri Begawan

  15,475

  Bangkok

  59,262

  Banjul

  5,354

  Barcelona (Inc. Andorra)

  24,902

  Beirut

  16,285

  Belgrade

  35,446

  Belmopan

  6,536

  Berlin

  77,693

  Berne

  70,812

  Bilbao

  3,706

  Bogota (Inc. Medellin)

  15,947

  Bombay

  30,388

  Bonn

  132,293

  Bordeaux

  28,988

  Boston

  43,673

  Brasilia

  49,634

  Bratislava

  12,336

  Bridgetown

  45,025

  Brisbane

  39,013

  Brussels

  2394,845

  Brussels Jmo

  408

  Bucharest

  19,988

  Budapest

  35,710

  Buenos Aires

  78,205

  Cairo

  69,343

  Calcutta

  13,637

  Canberra

  59,207

  Cape Town

  15,418

  Caracas

  28,265

  Casablanca

  15,040

  Castries

  11,551

  Chicago

  41,899

  Cleveland

  14,792

  Colombo (Inc. Maldives)

  26,599

  Conakry (Bhc Freetown)

  246

  Copenhagen (Inc. Torshavn)

  37,389

  Dakar (Inc. Conakry)

  15,422

  680

  Post

  Spend 1997–98

  Damascus

  19,916

  Dar Es Salaam

  18,810

  Dhaka

  26,918

  Doha

  21,844

  Dubai

  67,820

  Dublin

  40,379

  Durban

  5,512

  Dusseldorf

  19,213

  Ekaterinburg

  15,849

  Frankfurt

  33,477

  Freetown

  3,238

  Gaborone

  5,162

  Geneva Cg

  3218,055

  Georgetown

  8,598

  Gibraltar

  41,087

  Grand Cayman

  1,589

  Grand Turk

  4,866

  Guangzhou

  17,204

  Guatemala City

  8,097

  Hamburg

  54,777

  Hanoi

  22,445

  Harare

  22,839

  Havana

  27,426

  Helsinki

  48,769

  Ho Chi Minh City

  25,380

  Hong Kong Btc

  90,105

  Honiara

  342

  Houston

  65,068

  Islamabad

  59,998

  Istanbul

  33,140

  Jakarta

  65,308

  Jedda

  67,547

  Jerusalem

  12,557

  Johannesburg

  36,787

  Kabul

  146

  Kampala

  18,387

  Karachi

  14,475

  Kathmandu

  10,228

  Khartoum

  13,224

  Kiev

  24,655

  Kigali

  4,380

  Kingston

  24,732

  Kingstown

  7,491

  Kinshasa

  9,222

  Kuala Lumpur

  69,053

  Kuwait

  28,793

  La Paz

  9,967

  Lagos (Inc. Cotonou)

  48,987

  Lille

  28,710

  Lilongwe (Inc. Blantyre)

  14,526

  Lima

  31,047

  Lisbon

  74,361

  Ljubljana

  13,462

  Los Angeles

  24,369

  Luanda

  20,448

  Lusaka

  24,986

  Luxembourg

  15,170

  Lyon

  38,213

  Madras

  16,691

  Madrid

  130,255

  Managua

  13,432

  Manila

  28,010

  Maputo

  9,953

  Marseilles

  37,093

  Maseru

  3,987

  Mbabane

  4,766

  Melbourne

  50,336

  Mexico City

  44,683

  Milan

  31,621

  Minsk

  4,459

  Montevideo

  13,920

  Montreal

  36,387

  Moscow

  151,364

  Munich

  44,061

  681

  Post

  Spend 1997–98

  Muscat

  42,543

  Nairobi

  43,896

  Naples

  23,650

  Nassau

  11,063

  New Delhi

  155,005

  New York Cg

  4259,174

  Nicosia

  76,269

  Nuku'Alofa

  1,168

  Osaka

  121,138

  Oslo

  42,416

  Ottawa

  60,570

  Palma

  10,904

  Panama City

  9,903

  Peking

  83,780

  Perth

  33,026

  Phnom Penh

  4,972

  Plymouth

  4,542

  Port Louis

  9,217

  Port Moresby

  7,960

  Port of Spain

  12,781

  Prague

  34,363

  Pretoria

  35,716

  Quito

  8,886

  Rabat

  13,378

  Rangoon

  7,394

  Reykjavik

  9,096

  Riga

  14,705

  Rio De Janeiro

  19,386

  Riyadh

  84,815

  Rome

  100,644

  San Francisco

  67,800

  San Jose

  3,779

  San Salvador

  10,383

  Sana'A

  32,949

  Santiago

  57,206

  Santo Domingo

  3,492

  Sao Paulo

  81,278

  Sarajevo

  19,218

  Seattle

  16,709

  Seoul

  95,443

  Shanghai

  32,469

  Singapore

  55,607

  Skopje

  3,498

  Sofia

  14,788

  St. George's

  7,920

  St. John's

  14,618

  St. Petersburg

  35,726

  Stanley

  3,500

  Stockholm

  34,201

  Strasbourg-Council of Europe

  14,810

  Suva

  15,488

  Sydney

  95,523

  Taipei Btco

  32,416

  Tallinn

  2,411

  Tashkent

  8,321

  Tbilisi

  12,330

  Tegucigalpa

  4,057

  Tehran

  12,629

  Tel Aviv

  47,444

  The Hague

  73,533

  Tirana

  2,962

  Tokyo

  670,142

  Toronto

  42,038

  Tortola

  6,629

  Tripoli

  9,469

  Tunis

  13,131

  Ulaanbaatar

  7,099

  Valletta

  13,837

  Vancouver

  36,718

  Victoria

  6,025

  Vienna

  87,978

  Vila

  8,211

  Vilnius

  8,843

  Warsaw

  69,614

  682

  Post

  Spend 1997–98

  Washington

  254,762

  Wellington

  49,362

  Windhoek

  8,143

  Yaounde

  9,969

  Yerevan

  4,864

  Zagreb

  14,533

  Zurich

  11,918

  Total

  8,271,861

  1 Charge for entertainment at an overseas post (signed off by NAO)

  2 Includes UKMIS and UKREP

  3 Including UKMIS and IKDIS Geneva

  4 Including UKMIS and BIS New York

  Missing Arms Consignment (South Africa)
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the South African authorities concerning a cargo of military equipment flown from RAF Manston in May 1998 destined for South Africa which failed to arrive; and if he will make a statement. [68235]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Neither I nor others in the Foreign Office have had discussions with the South African authorities on this matter. Customs and Excise, who are responsible for investigating breaches of export control restrictions, are aware of these allegations.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) when an official from the British High Commission last visited the town of Famagusta; and if he will make a statement; [68310]

  (2) what recent discussions he has held and with whom, on the possibility of the return of the town of Famagusta to the Republic of Cyprus; and if he will make a statement. [68309]

  Ms Quin
  We remain active in support of UN efforts in search of a political settlement in Cyprus. The details of any settlement would have to have the agreement of both communities. The question of Varosha/Famagusta would be included in that.

  Members of the High Commission in Nicosia visit Famagusta from time to time as part of their contacts with the Turkish Cypriot Community.

  East Timor
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will provide details of the end-use monitoring undertaken by his Department into the use of Alvis armoured vehicles in Indonesia and East Timor since 1988. [68789]

  Mr. Fatchett
  No formal mechanisms exist at present for monitoring the end use that has been made of British defence equipment once it has been exported.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement regarding the deployment of British Saladin and Saracen armoured vehicles in East Timor by the Indonesian security forces since 1988. [68788]
  683
  Mr. Fatchett
  Saladin and Saracen armoured vehicles were exported to Indonesia in the 1960s. No formal mechanisms exist for monitoring the use of British defence equipment once it has been exported. We have made clear to the Indonesian authorities that British supplied equipment should not be used against civilians to prevent the exercise of their rights of free expression, assembly and association, or in violation of other international human rights standards.

  NATO Enlargement
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what modifications to the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty will be required following the accession of new NATO member states. [68740]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  No amendments to the CFE Treaty are required before the accession of new members to NATO. But our aim is that the process of adapting the Treaty, under way since 1996, will result in an agreement which better reflects the realities of today's European security environment, by moving the Treaty from a structure based on the Cold War military alliances to one based on national limits.

  Arms Exports
  Ms Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to change the criteria for applications for licences for the export of conventional arms; and if he will make a statement, with specific reference to his procedure for consultation. [68928]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  There are no plans to make any substantive changes to the criteria. The Government are considering, however, whether it would be necessary or desirable to consolidate the arms export licensing criteria announced on 28 July 1997,Official Report, columns 26–29, and those in the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports.

  Diplomatic Posts (Eastern Mediterranean)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) how many personnel currently employed at the British High Commission in Nicosia have previously worked at the British Embassy in(a) Ankara and (b) Athens; and if he will make a statement on the inter-change of staff between the High Commission in Nicosia and the embassy at (i) Ankara and (ii) Athens; [68959]

  (2) if he will make a statement on proposed changes in personnel employed at the British High Commission in Cyprus; and to which embassies or high commissions the existing personnel are being transferred; [68961]

  (3) how many persons are employed at the United Kingdom High Commission office in Nicosia; how many of these are (a) Greek Cypriots and (b) Turkish Cypriots; and if he will make a statement. [68960]

  Ms Quin
  There are 25 UK based staff at the British High Commission in Nicosia. Two speak fluent Greek, one speaks fluent Turkish. One has served previously in 684
  Athens; another has served in Ankara. Of those leaving this year most will return to London; one will transfer to Athens.

  Including part-time employees, there are 39 locally-engaged staff (the majority Greek Cypriot) in the High Commission office in Nicosia and 12 staff (the majority Turkish Cypriot) at separate premises in north Nicosia.

  International Terrorism
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those countries which his Department considers to sponsor terrorism. [68744]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We do not have a list of countries which sponsor terrorism. This Government condemn state sponsorship of terrorism and monitors closely any evidence of such activities. Where there is evidence, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office makes the governments in question aware of our concerns as and when they arise.

  Salman Rushdie
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those organisations which have maintained their fatwa on Salman Rushdie. [68748]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The fatwa against Salman Rushdie was decreed by the late Ayatollah Khomenei, not by any organisation or group of organisations. Ayatollah Khomenei died in 1989. A number of groups, Iranian and non-Iranian, have made statements about the fatwa over the years; many of them are of obscure status. The Iranian government have made clear their position, that they have no intention of taking any action against Salman Rushdie, nor will they encourage or assist anybody else to do so. We welcome these assurances.

  Middle East
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what efforts he has made to ensure transparency in the use of EU aid to the Palestinian Authority. [68714]

  Clare Short
  I have been asked to reply.

  We, other EU member states and the European Commission, continue to press the Palestinian Authority to consolidate its accounts and manage its finances in a transparent and accountable manner. We welcome the recent production of a five year Development Plan by the Palestinian Authority and the availability of more information on their budgetary process.

  The EC only rarely provides direct financial assistance to the PA. Where it does so, special mechanisms are set up to ensure that the funds are properly spent.

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of EU aid to the Palestinian Authority; and if he will place a copy of the reports on the effectiveness of the aid in the Library. [68713]

  Clare Short
  I have been asked to reply.
  685
  The European Union, including individual member states, has made a major contribution to supporting the Middle East Peace Process by providing 54 per cent. ($1.7 billion) of total development assistance to the Palestinians since 1993. This includes over 650 mecu provided directly by the European Commission to the Palestinian Authority.

  To enable member states to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of EC aid, we have pressed for an evaluation of the EC's last five-year programme of assistance for the Palestinians, which ended in December 1998. We understand that this evaluation is soon to be finalised, and expect the findings to be formally presented by the Commission shortly. As soon as they are available, we will place a copy in the Library.

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of progress made by the Palestinian Authority in combating terrorism. [68711]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We commend Palestinian efforts to clamp down on terrorism and their compliance so far with the security commitments signed up to in the Wye River Memorandum. Measures taken by the Palestinian Authority include the arrest of terrorist suspects, collection of illegal weapons, anti-incitement laws and provision of security plans to the Israelis. Meetings of the bilateral and trilateral committees on security issues continue to take place. We are glad to be able to assist the Palestinians in their efforts through major EU programmes of counter-terrorism assistance and security assistance. But there is still room for improvement and we urge continued co-operation between the parties to implement Wye.

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Iranian Government not to provide support to organisations whose objectives are to destabilise the Chairman of the Palestinian Authority. [68767]

  Mr. Fatchett
  During the EU/Iran talks of 18 December 1998 in Vienna, we and our EU partners discussed the Middle East peace process with the Iranian representatives. We urged them not to obstruct the peace process. The Iranians said that they were not against peace, but it must be a just and justifiable peace. Iran welcomed the continued EU involvement in the Middle East peace process. We and our EU partners will continue to raise this issue with our Iranian interlocutors.

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the percentage of Palestinians in(a) the West Bank and (b) Gaza living under the governance of the Palestinian Authority. [68765]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We assess that approximately 97.5 per cent. of Palestinians in the West Bank, and 100 per cent. in Gaza, live under the governance of the Palestinian Authority.

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of progress towards democracy in areas under the control of the Palestinian Authority. [68751]
  686
  Mr. Fatchett
  Since its establishment in May 1994 the Palestinian Authority has taken its first steps towards democracy and in January 1996 held free elections. The elections led to the establishment of the Palestinian Legislative Council. We continue to support the process of institution-building in the Palestinian Authority both bilaterally and through EU programmes.

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations with Syria. [68747]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Our relations with Syria are good. I visited Syria in December 1998 and met President Asad and Foreign Minister Shara'a, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I have been glad to receive Mr. Shara'a here on his visit to London today.

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the preconditions placed on the normalisation of relations with Syria following Lockerbie, indicating which preconditions have been met and which have yet to be met. [68768]

  Mr. Fatchett
  There has at no stage been any consideration of attaching such conditions on the positive development of our relations with Syria.

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet the Foreign Minister of Syria. [68746]

  Mr. Fatchett
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I will meet the Foreign Minister of Syria today during his visit to London.

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the number of Syrian troops in Lebanon. [68749]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We believe that under the terms of the Treaty of Friendship, Co-operation and Co-ordination signed by the Lebanese and Syrian Governments in May 1991, there are approximately 22,000 Syrian troops in Lebanon.

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the(a) financial, (b) military and (c) strategic assistance given by Iran to (i) Hamas and (ii) Hezbollah. [68742]

  Mr. Fatchett
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) on 1 December 1998,Official Report, column 158.

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans(a) he and (b) ministers in his Department have to visit Israel. [68766]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Neither I nor my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has any plans to visit Israel at the present time.

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representation he has made to the Palestinian Authority about the early release of Sheikh Ahmad Yassin, leader of Hamas. [68712]
  687
  Mr. Fatchett
  We have not made any representations to the Palestinian Authority about the release of Sheikh Ahmad Yassin, leader of Hamas.

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received about Iranian efforts to procure weapons of mass destruction. [68717]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We continue to encourage Iran to respect all the international treaties it has signed relating to nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, and to comply fully with its obligations under them.

  With our European partners, we have urged Iran to negotiate an additional safeguards protocol with the IAEA which would significantly enhance the organisation's ability to detect activities not permitted under the NPT.

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the acquisition of long-range ballistic missiles by Iran; and if he will make a statement concerning their effect on the stability of the Middle East. [68716]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We remain extremely concerned by Iran's flight test of its Shahab-3 ballistic missile in July of last year. The acquisition of this system, with an approximate range of 1300km, threatens the stability of the whole of the Middle East. We assess that though the Shahab-3 is at a relatively advanced stage of its development, Iran will not be able to deploy the system in the immediate future. Whilst we understand Iran's legitimate security concerns, we have repeatedly urged the Iranian authorities to refrain from developing ballistic missiles. It is in nobody's interest for an arms race to develop in this already volatile region.

  The UK, as a founder member of the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), works with its partners to halt the proliferation of ballistic missile programmes of concern. The MTCR has done much to deny, among others, the Iranian ballistic missile programme, key technologies and equipment.

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he has taken to ascertain the whereabouts of Israeli airman Ron Arad. [68745]

  Mr. Fatchett
  I take every opportunity to raise the issue of Ron Arad with anyone who may be able to provide information on his whereabouts. We also raise the cases of other missing servicemen.

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he has taken to monitor Palestinian compliance with the agreement entered into at the Wye River Plantation. [68710]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We are in close contact with both sides and also with the US which plays a key role in monitoring compliance with the Wye Memorandum. Our Missions in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem also carefully monitor the level of compliance on the ground. Both the US and the Israelis declared themselves satisfied with Palestinian compliance with their commitments under Wye prior to the first redeployment on 20 November. Since then we continue to believe the Palestinians have made good progress.
  688
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make Iranian recognition of Israel a precondition for the restoration of ambassadorial links with Iran. [68743]

  Mr. Fatchett
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and the Iranian Foreign Minister, as part of the New York agreement on 24 September 1998, agreed to exchange Ambassadors. We remain committed to all elements of that agreement.

  Sudan (Religious Freedom)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations his Department has made to the Government of Sudan regarding the rights of Christians to religious freedom, over the last 18 months. [68639]

  Mr. Fatchett
  FCO officials have regularly raised these important issues with the Government of Sudan and will continue to do so.

  Pakistan (Christian Community)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations his Department has made to the Government of Pakistan regarding the application of Sharia Law and its impact upon the Christian minority. [68640]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We continue to ensure that the Pakistan authorities remain aware of our concerns on human rights and religious minorities. We are following closely the progress of the Shariah Bill which has yet to pass Pakistan's Senate. We are aware of the concerns expressed by minorities and human rights groups about the possible effects of the Bill.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what independent international investigation was conducted into the killings in Kosovo at Gornje Obrinje and what were the results; and if an investigation into killings at Racak has been commenced. [68804]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  An EU forensic team from Finland was admitted to Kosovo in December last year to conduct examinations of Gornje Obrinje and other massacre sites. They have not yet been able to complete their work at Gornje Obrinje but hope to do so in the spring. The same team have been conducting autopsies on those killed at Racak and will report to the FRY authorities, the OSCE and the EU when their examinations are complete.

  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has encouraged the Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in her continuing efforts to investigate these and other incidents and to bring those responsible to justice.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the legal basis for the possible use of military force in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. [68759]
  689
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The legal basis for any military action against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia would need to be considered in the light of the circumstances at the time. Any military action by British forces would have to be lawful under international law.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Slaughterhouse Inspections (Assaults)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many of his(a) Department's and (b) Agencies officials have been assaulted in the course of slaughterhouse inspections in each of the last five years; how many prosecutions followed the assaults; and what action his Department is taking to minimise the number of assaults. [63379]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 15 January 1999]: The number of Departmental, mainly State Veterinary Service officials who have been subjected to intimidation at slaughterhouses is as follows:

  1993–94: 0

  1994–95: 7

  1995–96: 0

  1996–97: 1

  1997–98: 0.

  No prosecutions followed these incidents.

  The Meat Hygiene Service (MHS), which was established on 1 April 1995, does not have information available on a year by year basis.

  However, in response to evidence that MHS operational staff were being subjected to violence and/or intimidation, a survey was sent out to all 1,540 MHS operational staff in January 1998. It sought information on all incidents which inspectors had been involved with throughout their entire careers, not just since the launch of the MHS.

  759 responses were received. 1 in 4 operational staff indicated that they had been subject to some form of violence and/or intimidation at some point. However, the most common instances related to verbal abuse/threats and not physical assault or obstruction. 17 MHS staff had been subjected to physical assault at some point.

  Reported cases of physical assault are investigated with a view to prosecution under the Criminal Justice Act 1988. Obstruction of MHS staff in the performance of their duties is an offence under the Food Safety Act 1990. All reported cases are thoroughly investigated by MAFF Investigations Officers and prosecutions taken where it can be shown that MHS staff have been hampered from carrying out their meat inspection duties.

  To date, 5 successful prosecutions have been taken.

  British Retail Consortium
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met representatives of the British Retail Consortium; and if he will make a statement. [67773]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 26 January 1999]: The Minister last met with the British Retail Consortium on 3 November 1998. At this meeting, the major retailers
  690
  gave important assurances about the pigmeat they sell, not least that all their own label fresh pork, ham sausages and pork pies will come from stall and tether and MBM free production systems. They also gave an undertaking not to market as British, processed products produced from imported meat.

  More generally, the retailers are making efforts to ensure that their sourcing practices meet or exceed consumer expectations in areas such as quality, traceability and local supply, and concern for animal welfare and the environment.

  Mink Farming
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food at how many mink factory farms the killing of mink was witnessed by Ministry officials over the past three months; how long officials were in attendance at each mink factory farm; and what methods were used to carry out the killing, broken down by county in each case. [68148]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 27 January 1999]: All licensed mink farms were inspected during the killing period. The actual killing operation was observed on six farms in Cornwall, Dorset, Hampshire, Northumberland, Lancashire and Yorkshire. The following killing methods were used: carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and pentabarbitone injection.
  Background Note
  Welfare inspections of fur farms (in practice licensed mink farms) are made twice a year, once at the time of killing (November). Although the actual killing operation will not be observed in all cases, the veterinary officer carrying out the inspection is charged with ensuring that those responsible are aware of, and follow the requirements of, the welfare legislation. No central records are kept of the duration of visits but at a minimum they would take at least an hour.

  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many mink and fox fur factory farms there are by county in England and Wales. [68146]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 27 January 1999]: There are currently the following number of mink farms in England:

  County

  Number of licensed mink farms

  Cornwall

  1

  Dorset

  1

  Hampshire

  1

  Isle of Wight

  1

  Lancashire

  5

  Northumberland

  1

  South Yorkshire

  1

  Staffordshire

  1

  West Yorkshire

  1

  Total

  13

  There are no licensed mink farms in Wales.

  There is no requirement to register fox fur farms. However, I am not aware of any in England or Wales.

  Non-modified Organisms
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will require food manufacturers who support the use of non-modified organisms to make
  691
  public the systems they use to ensure that their commitments to non-modified organisms can be verified. [68620]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 1 February 1999]: EC Regulation 1139/98, which establishes the legal requirements for labelling foods containing GM soya and maize, and sets a precedent for the labelling of all GM foods, recognises that any food labelled as not containing GM soya or maize must be verifiable by scientific or other means. Enforcement of this requirement is a matter for Local Authorities.

  Levy Scheme
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions were held with the major supermarkets about the principle of a flat rate levy for the Food Standards Agency before publication of the consultation paper, "Proposals for a Levy Scheme". [68973]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 2 February 1999]: No such discussions were held.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the total cost of the proposed levy to fund the Food Standards Agency on(a) the charitable, (b) the voluntary and (c) other not-for-profit sectors. [68974]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 2 February 1999]: The data are not available to make estimates of the number of food premises falling in these categories. The purpose of the public consultation exercise is to invite views on the proposals, including those from the sectors affected.

  Genetically Modified Crops
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what provisions(a) exist and (b) are planned to require companies producing animal feeds to label products as containing ingredients produced as a result of genetic modification. [68773]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 2 February 1999]: Current EU and UK legislation on animal feeding stuffs does not require the presence of genetically modified material to be labelled. It is anticipated that this issue will be addressed by a proposed regulation which the Commission is expected to submit formally to Council later this year.
  Labelling of genetically modified (GM) animal feed
  Background Note
  Viable GM feed materials—ie., those capable of replication—are regulated under Council Directive 90/220 on the Deliberate Release of GMOs. Following a 1997 amendment to this Directive, any viable GM materials subsequently issued with a marketing consent are required to be labelled, although these provisions are non-specific. Because this amendment was not retrospective, the Monsanto soya and Ciba-Geigy (now Novartis) maize already authorised are not subject to these requirements for feed use. However, this is largely academic, as the vast majority of feed materials are processed by-products (ie., non-viable).
  There is at present no product legislation regulating the authorisation of non-viable animal feed materials. These are likely to be covered in a forthcoming Commission proposal for a Council Regulation on
  692
  Novel Feeds, which we expect to be formally submitted to Council later this year. This will to some extent parallel the existing Novel Foods Regulation, and regulate not only GM materials but also other novel feeds. We anticipate that the proposed labelling requirements will be consistent with the Commission's global approach (ie., does contain/does not contain).
  In the absence of crop segregation and comprehensive legislative requirements, it is not possible to know the extent to which GM material is being used in animal feed in the UK. However, given the widespread use of materials derived from soya and maize, the probability is that some is present, although most likely in processed form (eg., maize gluten feed). Moreover, there could also be by-products from GM crops, such as cotton seed, which have been grown in the USA but for which marketing consent has not been sought in Europe under 90.220.
  With regard to the effects of processing on GM material, it is known that this disrupts DNA. In the case of the Ciba-Geigy (now Novartis) maize, tests were conducted on maize gluten feed which indicated that the antibiotic resistance gene plus its replicator could not have survived processing. Further work on the effects of processing for a number of crops is being undertaken.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will place in the Library the results of the Government-commissioned toxicology tests carried out on Monsanto's genetically modified(a) cotton and (b) corn crops. [68775]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 2 February 1999]: The Government do not commission research into an individual company's crops but can require additional work to be undertaken by all companies themselves when this is considered to be necessary. All toxicology data submitted for safety evaluation is required to have been produced to Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) standards. Under GLP, all studies must follow written standard procedures and all laboratory records and samples must be archived. All UK GLP certified laboratories are subject to independent inspections by Department of Health inspectors in accordance with EC requirements. Laboratories in the USA are subject to GLP inspections by the US authorities.

  All data considered by the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment, except that considered to be commercially sensitive, are published on the DETR Public Register. In addition, the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes strongly encourages companies seeking food safety assessment to deposit a copy of their submissions with the British Library.

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to ensure that consumers can purchase animal produce which does not originate from animals fed genetically modified feed. [68777]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 2 February 1999]: All genetically modified (GM) animal feed is rigorously assessed to ensure that the safety of consumers is not compromised by its use. However the Government recognise the desire of some consumers to be able to purchase products that have not been produced in this way. We therefore welcome the EC Commissions intention to draft a regulation on the labelling of GM Feed which will enable this wish to be satisfied. This is expected to be presented to the Council for agreement later this year. In the meantime, organic food producers and some others are already offering products which meet the needs of consumers who do not wish to purchase food produced using this feed.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwell.

Single European Currency
Lord Renton of Mount Harry Lord Renton of Mount Harry asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will issue a White Paper on the advantages and disadvantages of the United Kingdom joining the Single European Currency.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government have set out clearly their position on membership of the single currency. There is no constitutional bar to UK membership of the single currency. If the single currency is successful, and if the economic case for joining is clear and unambiguous, we believe that the UK should be part of it. We have set out five economic tests to help us make that decision.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer, which I have to say I find depressingly unilluminating. Is it true that a national changeover plan is to be published in February detailing the 40-month period—the timetable—between calling a referendum and the final transition to the euro as the single legal currency in the UK? Further, can the Minister tell us how you can have a changeover plan when the Government do not say clearly what is their final objective? Surely it is time for the Government to stop equivocating and tell us.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord finds my Answer unilluminating. It has been the same answer for nearly 18 months now, so he has been in the dark for a very long time. That cannot be my fault. The changeover plan which will be published soon—and I do not say in February—will not deal with organisational issues concerned with the referendum.
Lord Peston: My Lords—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords—
Lord Marsh: My Lords—
Noble Lords: This side!
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I believe it really is the turn of the noble Lord, Lord Marsh.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, a very fair point was made that the arguments should be displayed more actively to
1488
the public in general. Given the fact that the Government have already, on their own admission, spent £7.4 million extolling the virtues and advantages of entry, would it not be fairer—it would certainly be cheaper—if the Government were to subcontract the disadvantages to an outside and more objective body? I am authorised to say that Business for Sterling would do it as a public duty.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite wrong. No money has been spent on extolling the virtues, but money has quite properly been spent to ensure that British business is prepared for the existence of the euro, whether or not we are members of the single currency. That is a public duty.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that, great though the abilities and capabilities of the present Government may be, to produce on this subject a White Paper that states fairly and objectively both the case for and the case against—that is to say, the advantages and disadvantages—is something which is quite beyond their ability to accomplish?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, my Lords; I do not accept that. It is not beyond the ability of the Government to accomplish it. However, to publish such a White Paper now would be premature as so many of the factors to be taken into consideration when we do make the final decision and when we do make a recommendation to Parliament and to the people are not known.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, will the Government stop suggesting that the only question is whether the economic case for joining has been made out? Whatever this Government do, say or think, is it not the case that virtually every other member government of the European Union accepts that the euro is a step towards political union? Therefore, should not the British people be told that?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government have never said that the economic case is the only case. We have acknowledged that there are constitutional issues involved, but we have said that there are no overriding objections on constitutional grounds. However, having said that, clearly the economic case is of very great importance.
Lord Peston: My Lords, did my noble friend use the expression, "We shall join if the case is clear and unequivocal"? As regards those of us who believe that the case is clear, unequivocal and overwhelming, is it the Government's view that we simply do not understand these economic and financial matters?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I respect my noble friend's view and I have always respected it. That respect is not posited on a claim that he misunderstands the issues. He takes the view that it is a

1489
question of "when". We take the view that it is a question of "if'.
Baroness Ludford: My Lords, does the Minister accept that opinion in the City is increasingly concerned that if we do not join soon, the City may lose out, as the Lord Mayor of London said the other day? What is the Minister's response to that?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I read what the noble Lord, Lord Levene, said and I respect his views. I accept that he expresses a commonly held view in the City. We shall take his views seriously.
Lord Grenfell: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister welcome the news that in January the euro accounted for half of all funds raised by borrowers in the international capital markets compared with 40 per cent. who borrowed dollars? Does not this promising start to the euro suggest that Her Majesty's Government should declare their intention sooner rather than later?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I reported the facts which my noble friend has repeated in my wind-up speech in the debate on the subject last month. Of course it is an important factor in the consideration which the Government are giving to this issue.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the European single currency will have not only short-term effects on our economy but also long-term effects? In view of the fact that there is to be a referendum financed by taxpayers' money, will the Minister give a categoric assurance that the advantages of a single currency will be set out as well as the disadvantages so as not to create any bias on one side or the other?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord is right that British membership of the single currency has long-term effects as well as short-term effects. As regards expenditure on a referendum, clearly the Government have a duty to put their view to the electorate but the noble Lord will have seen the recommendations of the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Neill, which we are considering.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, the Government have laid down five economic criteria for the UK joining a single currency and have also stated that they see no overriding constitutional objection to that. Will they now lay down the political and constitutional criteria they consider necessary for the UK to join, given the fact that—as my noble friend said—most member governments see the single currency as leading to the political unification of Europe? Perhaps the Minister will give us his views on the political advantages and disadvantages of that outcome.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord rightly sets out the first part of the Government's policies on the single currency. He then invites us to comment on the views of other governments on the long-term future of Europe. That is a matter for other governments and not for this Government. I have no intention on behalf of this Government of second guessing other governments in Europe.

Television and Radio: Regulatory Bodies
2.46 p.m.
Lord Christopher Lord Christopher asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether it is now timely to consider combining the regulatory bodies for television and radio to avoid overlap or inconsistency.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, on the immediate Question raised, we think that the present division between television and radio regulation generally works well. However, there is a wider issue. The Government's consultation paper Regulating Communications sought views on the future regulation of the information age and the convergence of broadcasting and telecommunications. The responses, which will be published with our conclusions, generally support our view that we should not leap in but change regulatory structures as and when markets develop and the public are affected.
Lord Christopher: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer but it seems to me he has not addressed the undoubted complications which now exist for both the industrial and commercial worlds as well as for individual citizens as regards broadcasting with the proliferation in the number of stations. There have been two recent cases where fines have been imposed, one large and one small. Would it not be sensible for the Minister to address the possibility of issuing a Green Paper so that we may consider all of the questions which arise in this area?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the regulatory structure set up by the Broadcasting Act 1990 separated television regulation from radio regulation. Since that time radio at any rate has had substantial commercial success with a considerable increase in the number of commercial radio stations. I am not aware of the difficulties to which my noble friend refers. As to the question of a Green Paper. I have already mentioned the broader Green Paper which we published. My noble friend will know of our response last July to the report of the Culture Select Committee in another place.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, is the Minister prepared to consider—as is the case with the Canadian Broadcasting Commission—one regulatory body for public service broadcasting and independent broadcasting? This would mean subsuming the governors of the BBC—who have often proved inadequate—within the ITC. It would also mean

1491
abolishing the Broadcasting Standards Commission—which has proved an unfortunate body—and setting up a broadcasting ombudsman. I know that the noble Lord likes radical solutions. What is his view on that?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, without accepting the noble Lord's strictures on the governors of the BBC or indeed his interpretation of what has happened since the Broadcasting Act was passed in 1990, yes, the possibility of a single regulator for all public service broadcasting is one of the options that we have to take very seriously. We also have to take into consideration the noble Lord's point that there are two kinds of regulation: one on content and the other on access and competition. They do not necessarily fit well together. So there are counter-arguments to those put forward by the noble Lord.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I declare an interest as the first chairman of the Radio Authority, which was set up after the passing of the 1990 Act. Whether we have a single regulatory body for television and radio is one question and one which has some interesting implications. However, does the Minister agree that it would be sensible to have one overarching regulatory authority governing the BBC and its public service broadcasting, independent television and independent radio? That is a different question but it is one which follows on from the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that seems to be the same question the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, asked. My answer is the same. Clearly, that is one of the options we must take seriously.
Lord McNally: My Lords, I declare an interest as president of the trade association covering manufacturers in television and radio. There is a convergence of technologies in broadcasting. Is the Minister confident that the machinery of government—in the department, in the DTI and the Home Office—is competent to oversee this convergence of technologies and the regulation that is needed to go with it?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as the noble Lord will see when we publish the results of the consultation on our Green Paper, the Government tend to the view that we should take an evolutionary approach to regulation. In other words, we should not be tempted by technological changes to make changes in regulatory structures which might well be premature. The time when it will be essential to make changes to regulatory structures is when, for example, digital television and radio become widespread and the general public is affected by them.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, can the noble Lord inform the House whether, when they uphold complaints, the regulatory bodies have any powers to impose sanctions; and if not, why not?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord is referring, I imagine, to complaints
1492
on the content of television and radio. The disapproval of the regulatory bodies is a very powerful sanction. I did not understand the noble and learned Lord to be arguing in favour of pre-broadcasting prohibitions.

House Sparrows
2.53 p.m.
Lord Hardy of Wath Lord Hardy of Wath asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will respond to the rapid reduction in the number of house sparrows, especially in London, and whether the cause has been identified.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the Government are aware of reports of the national decline in numbers of certain species of birds, including the house sparrow. While changes in agricultural practices are implicated as causing declines in house sparrow numbers in farmland areas, there is no evidence of significant declines in urban areas. However, the Government are monitoring the situation and will take what action they can to reverse this trend.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Is not the Department of the Environment basing its assumptions on the last full census which was in 1991–92, rather a long time ago? Does my noble friend accept that her comments about agricultural and agri-chemical practices may be entirely relevant, for the decline is now very general indeed? It seems appropriate for my noble friend to suggest that the department should be associated with urgent research if that is necessary. Is my noble friend aware that for many years canaries were taken down mines to serve as health and safety indicators? The disappearance from the conurbations of such a common species as the house sparrow may have implications which we ought to consider seriously.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, my noble friend is correct to say that there is little quantitative information on the numbers of house sparrows in London. A paper by Oliver in 1997 found no change in the number in inner London in the areas in which the species was present. However, as my noble friend said, a decline has been reported. The most recent report from the British Trust for Ornithology refers to surveys, including one in the spring of 1995, showing a gradual decline of about 1 per cent. a year.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, would the noble Baroness the Minister care to come to visit me roughly 14 miles north-east of York, where she will see quite a lot of house sparrows? Does she not agree that it is encouraging that there are still some left in some parts of the country?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I would be delighted to accept the noble Lady's invitation to visit and to see the position in that part of the country. The noble Lady may be interested to know that one of

1493
the problems with detecting the numbers of sparrows in a particular area is that sparrows may be subject to predation by magpies, squirrels or sparrowhawks. That can have an effect locally. I am informed that that predatory threat can cause small birds to skulk and become less visible.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, I am glad the Minister is aware that grey squirrels have been seen to take not only the eggs out of the nests of small birds but also the chicks. That has been verified by the Forestry Commission. In the light of what she said about reversing the decline, if indeed there is one, will she say what she would come forward with to control grey squirrels in order to arrest the decline in inner London?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the noble Lord is very vocal in his support for dealing, in a final solution sort of way, with the problem of grey squirrels. He is also aware that many people in the country do not wish to see that. The Government are keen on the work being done at Sheffield University to control the population expansion through birth control for grey squirrels. Perhaps that would be the answer.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the time has come positively to reward farmers and landowners for managing their land in a positive way for environmental purposes? Can she say what the result of consultation has been on the need to protect wildlife sites? Is there any hope of an early government decision on that?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the Government will treat the need for a decision as a matter of urgency. It is extremely important that we do all we can to encourage that kind of diversity. For that reason, through the Comprehensive Spending Review, we found £6 million more for English Nature, of which £2.6 million is to protect habitat and for work on biodiversity.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, larks are due to die out in four years' time. Does the Minister agree that one of the reasons for the reduction in the numbers of game birds and other dicky birds is the unrestricted protection of raptors? Raptors have to be kept under control.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 protects all wild birds and fulfils the UK's obligations under the EC wild birds directive. The provisions of the Act provide a powerful framework for the conservation of wild birds, their eggs, nests and habitats. It does not permit the control of birds of prey.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I was challenged by one of my noble friends to bring the European Union into this Question—and, of course, I always rise to challenges. Is not the over-use of artificial chemicals, fertilisers and insecticides and the rooting out of hedgerows, as a result of intensive farming due to
1494
the common agricultural policy—which, as everybody agrees, is absurd—a contributory factor to the loss not only of sparrows but of other birds and wildlife?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the noble Lord identifies clearly and accurately one of the factors causing concern. There are a variety of factors. I am sure that my noble friend would wish to support the UK Government in drawing to the attention of the Commission and ensuring that it takes action against, for example, the French Government for their failure to implement UK policy in regard to the large number of migratory birds which are killed.

Nurses: Removal from Professional Register
3.1 p.m.
Baroness Ludford Baroness Ludford asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether nurses sacked for gross misconduct in the NHS should be free to seek employment elsewhere in the health service.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, any nurse dismissed for gross misconduct should be referred by the previous National Health Service employer to the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting (UKCC) to decide whether he or she should be removed from the professional register. The UKCC can impose an interim suspension from the register, pending a full hearing. While nurses who remain on the professional register are entitled to seek alternative employment, we expect all NHS employers to check thoroughly the employment records of prospective recruits. It would be highly unusual for a nurse sacked for gross misconduct to be offered employment with another NHS employer.
Baroness Ludford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, is it not unacceptable that the present situation allows nurses such as those sacked from Beech House and St. Pancras Hospital for hitting and giving cold baths to elderly and confused patients to slip through the net? Is this not merely the latest in a series of inquiries calling for effective government action? Is the Minister prepared to consider either greater powers for the UKCC—for instance, the civil standard of proof—or the mandatory transfer of employment records to a new employer, which does not presently happen? Will the Minister examine either of those more effective solutions?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right to draw to the attention of the House the very serious failures in care that occurred in those circumstances. Equally, she is right to draw attention to the difficulties that can arise when the proof available to a regulatory body such as the UKCC in terms of removal from the register is not up to the standard demanded under the current regulations in relation to criminal case standards of evidence. I understand that

1495
the UKCC's original advice was that there was not enough evidence to proceed with a case against those nurses. The council is now reviewing its advice in the light of the report that has since been published.
There are great difficulties in imposing restrictions on the ability to earn a livelihood of those who remain on a professional register. However, the noble Baroness rightly identifies areas in which we must make sure that professional regulation is married up with protection of the public. I am sure that during our debates on the health Bill we shall explore some of these issues.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, put shortly, does the Minister agree that this is not a matter for Government at all? What is proposed?—establishing a register of sacked nurses, with details of their serious misconduct? It is an incredible idea.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the protection of the public is absolutely an area in which the Government should take responsibility. We must be responsible for ensuring that NHS employers exercise due diligence in reviewing those whom they appoint. There is a difficult area, referred to by the noble Baroness, where there are concerns serious enough to reflect on patient safety but not such as to deliver removal from the professional register. A revised system, agreed with the BMA, the postgraduate deans and regional directors of public health, of "grey alerts" has been in operation for public protection in regard to doctors and dentists. We are currently considering whether such a system could be extended to nursing and professions allied to medicine. As I said earlier, there is a balance to be struck between the rights of employees and protection of the public. We must get that balance right.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that one way forward may be to give the health services ombudsman a right of appeal against such decisions, as in these cases they have clearly been unsatisfactory?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, my noble friend refers to the decisions of the regulatory bodies. Concern has been expressed in a number of areas as to how regulatory bodies function. A report into the workings of the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act is due to be published. It should shed some interesting light on some of the areas about which concern was expressed.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, in view of the Minister's very clear replies in relation to the UKCC, will she venture a view as to whether it was appropriate for the UKCC to engage as a consultant a chief nurse at Ashworth Hospital who was then under investigation by the Fallon Inquiry?
Baroness Hayman: No, my Lords, I shall not venture a view on that. When we discussed the Fallon Inquiry report in this House, I said that in each case where NHS employees were criticised in the report that criticism was drawn to the attention of their current employers, who will consider what action, if any, needs to be taken
1496
in the light of the inquiry's comments. Where those criticised in the report have left the National Health Service but work as independent consultants in the health and social services sector, it must properly be for the organisation contracting the services to consider their suitability in the light of information that is publicly available.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, when a nurse is sacked for gross misconduct, is that fact reported to the UKCC, enabling it to advise a potential future employer when that employer checks with the UKCC on the nurse's pin number—which I understand should always be done?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, when any nurse is sacked for gross misconduct, that fact is referred to the UKCC so that it can then take advice—and, as in this case, legal advice—as to whether to proceed against that member and remove his or her name from the register. I am not certain as to whether that fact is on the record that is passed to an employer checking on registration. I shall find out and write to the noble Lord.

Business of the House: Debate this Day
3.8 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of Baroness Gardner of Parkes set down for today shall be limited to six hours.—(Baroness Jay of Paddington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Lord Roll of Ipsden be appointed to serve as a member of the committee.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

The National Health Service
3.10 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes rose to call attention to the state of the National Health Service, and to move for Papers.
The noble Baroness said: It is a privilege for me to have the opportunity today to introduce this debate on the National Health Service. The number of speakers indicates clearly the importance of the NHS to every individual living in this country. I thank those who are contributing today and know that the speeches will be wide-ranging.
Throughout my whole working life I was a NHS dentist in general practice, in London, for 35 years and I was fortunate to serve on many health bodies. I care very deeply about the NHS and have seen it become a political football far too often over the years. What is the greatest problem facing the NHS today? There are many major problems, including staffing, skill mixes, pay, working conditions, pressures, verbal and physical attacks on staff, the high cost of new special drugs—I am sure your Lordships are aware of the current debate on the cost of combination therapy for Aids, Beta Interferon for multiple sclerosis and, of course, Viagra. My answer, in a way, includes all of them. I say that the greatest problem in the NHS today is that of unrealistically high expectations.
The present Government bear a heavy responsibility for raising public and NHS staff expectations to a point that can never be realised. Before the May 1997 general election I was Chairman of the Royal Free NHS Trust, and in that capacity I was one of the leaders of a marvellous team delivering high quality, low cost treatment in that outstandingly successful hospital. I attended many meetings of NHS groups outside the hospital and most of those present were convince that all they needed was a Labour Government to have money poured into the health service and all their NHS problems would be solved, almost overnight.
Those expectations have certainly not been realised. It is now 20 months since the Government took office, and the NHS problems continue. We now have waiting lists for waiting lists. There can never be enough money to keep up with the exciting new treatment discoveries, new technologies, and the new and very expensive drugs. All of these are of great benefit to patients, but can only be available within budget boundaries. Modern drug therapy could overwhelm the health budget. We delude ourselves if we imagine that every new treatment can be afforded for every patient who could benefit from it. Choices have always had to be made. Postcode prescribing is unjust and universally deplored.
I have seen too many re-organisations of the NHS. Each one has been disruptive, but each one has had some success. It is time now for new ideas. The new primary care groups (PCGs), to be introduced on the 1st April, are supposedly just a continuation of fund holding in a different guise, I dislike the element of compulsion in the new PCGs. Fundholding was a voluntary matter; GPs could choose not to participate. Sixty per cent. are fund holders and their patients have benefitted from this. GPs will now have no choice. PCGs will be compulsory for all GPs from 1st April. A great deal of extra bureaucracy will be added and the cost of this change is estimated at £150 million.
The transfer of responsibility to primary care groups seems to be a parallel to the transfer to the Bank of England of the setting of bank interest rates; it is a transfer of duty to a body remote from Government; so, if things go wrong the new body takes the blame, not the Government. NHS staff are faced with taking on ever more responsibility.
In the White Papers—and we have had many of them—little mention if made of pharmacists, dentists, opticians, occupational and physio therapists, radiologists, nuclear physicists—the list goes on and on—midwives, health visitors and volunteers, whose input into the health service is quite remarkable. Here I would note the too often overlooked hospice movement, and the many voluntary organisations and charities. It is impossible to complete the list, but I give thanks to all who have contributed to the health service over the past 50 years and all who continue to do so. This is a time limited debate so I must be brief, many of your Lordships have indicated to me that they have specialised interests and knowledge and will speak on those subjects for which I am grateful.
In the 1948 original NHS leaflet it was made clear that full dental services could not be offered because of the shortage of dentists. Fifty years on, the Observer headline on 24th January says it all:
"Kids teeth decay as NHS dentistry dies".
The Acheson Report, Inequalities in Health, points out that the growing gap in dental health of the more deprived children has risen from 17 per cent. in 1983 to 70 per cent. in 1993. Paragraph 22.2 is unequivocal:
"We recommend the fluoridation of the water supply".
I support that recommendation. I leave other dental comments to my professional colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, who will be speaking later in the debate.
The present Secretary of State comes over well on the media and I am impressed by the support that he gives to the National Health Service. I believe he genuinely cares, but he spends too much time playing politics. Many viewers—and certainly I am one of them—think that it is time he made a 1999 resolution to stop talking about what he "inherited" and carry some of the load himself. In his second year in the job, what was a credible line is wearing very thin.
When I was still a trust chairman I received a letter from the Department of Health—on smart notepaper and headed "Secretary of State"—enclosing a copy of a letter from a constituent of the Secretary of State. It was sent to him as an MP at the House of Commons, not to the Department of Health. The letter was virtually asking for his intervention to have a constituent patient moved up the waiting list.
Attached was a copy of the reply that the Secretary of State had sent to the constituent, in his capacity as Secretary of State, stating:
"I was extremely concerned to read that you were obliged to start your wait for treatment again when you were transferred".
This reply was sent before the letter to me asking what the situation was. The reply was not accurate, and to pre-judge such an issue seemed to me to be very wrong. No doubt I did not endear myself to the Secretary of State in replying that clinical need and not political pressure was the basis of treatment in our hospital. It was not surprising that I was not re-appointed as chairman when my term of office expired the following November. The Government oppose a two-tier system. So do I. The Government should tell this to every MP who writes asking for priority for his constituents.
Because a Labour government introduced the NHS in 1948, Labour has always—I believe unjustifiably—claimed "ownership" of the NHS, and it seems that the public are more willing to accept charges from a Labour government. My reaction to a Labour government and the NHS was the thought that "perhaps they will look at funding in a different way". I am sorry that they seem to have landed on the Lottery: the "new opportunities" fund does not seem to me to be the right way, any more than raiding the "modernisation fund" to meet the nurses pay award.
Today prescription charges are £5.80 per item. The first NHS charges were introduced by a Labour government in 1949 to discourage overuse of the health service. Prescriptions cost one shilling, I believe, for any number of items. Other charges for dental and optical services came soon after, and very necessary they were. Some patients, toothless for years, had as many as forty sets of false teeth made at public expense—and never managed to use any of them.
The previous Conservative government would have been attacked if they had reviewed the whole issue of charging in the NHS, and my views differ from official conservative policy. Conservative spokesmen have said that they would not introduce patient charges—I would. The usual protection for children and certain vulnerable groups would continue to apply, but the introduction of some charges would provide a great deal of necessary extra funding for the NHS. I am not talking about the old chestnut of hotel charges for hospital stays; that has been considered many times over the years and has always been rejected on a number of grounds—not least that at a time when a patient needs hospitalisation there are great anxieties already, and the burden of worry about meeting costs should not be added.
In-patient treatment, and most hospital out-patient treatment, should remain free. There are, however, a number of people, particularly in London, who misuse the accident and emergency services for their own convenience. I believe the charges that should definitely be reviewed are for visits to or by a GP and for prescriptions. The press have floated the idea of £5 per GP visit which does not seem unreasonable with the appropriate exempt categories that I have mentioned. I have asked many Questions in this House about prescription charges. Answers reveal that 85 per cent of prescriptions are exempt from charges. This is far too high at a time when prescribing costs are constantly rising. Many people who receive free prescriptions from the age of 60 can well afford to pay a prescription charge and the new guaranteed income for pensioners that the Government quoted yesterday in your Lordships' House should allow for this.
I have never had private health insurance so the Government's abolition of tax relief for pensioners with private health insurance does not affect me personally, but it is both mean-minded and short sighted. Those with limited means are being forced to bring all their health problems back to the NHS, and add to the overall burden. The rich are unaffected. Middle-class pensioners have had a double hit with the abolition of tax relief on health insurance premiums and adverse changes in the tax on their dividends. The Government
1500
like to tell us that the Conservative years damaged the NHS and in particular they cite the internal market. In the Commons debate on rationing a Labour MP made the vintage Labour remark "hospital versus hospital and doctor versus doctor". A very dramatic soundbite, but not supported by reality. It is not a scenario that I recognise at all.
The internal market, as the Government constantly call it, was a way whereby those in the NHS and the public developed an understanding of what was cost-effective, what was not, and how hospital procedures were priced in different hospitals. It was important to identify these differences and the reasons for them and to work on from there to obtain the best value for the NHS. With the introduction of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence the Government appear to be following the same path. I welcome the increased recognition of clinical audit. Many of the supposedly new ideas that the Government are about to introduce are simply follow-ons from the Conservative government's health policies with new names attached to them. Warning bells ring about the possible loss of clinical freedom under the NICE proposals. The document A First Class Service—Quality in the NHS states that appraisals will be "before" introduction into the NHS and that,
"clear authoritative guidance on clinical and cost effectiveness",
will be offered to front line clinicians. Surely, this means that the introduction of any new treatments or drugs will be by a slower process. The words "cost-effectiveness" are repeated too many times. My fear is that this will be a levelling down rather than a levelling up. The degree of central control presently being exercised is made clear from the fact that 242 health circulars were issued by the department in 1998. It is nonsense for the Government to talk about less bureaucracy when they are spewing out a multiplicity of central directives.
Another alarming aspect of the health service is the dramatically increasing budget that health bodies have to set aside to meet the costs of litigation in the health service. Clinical audit and better practice may help but it will certainly not stop this escalation. Recent press warnings are that Britain may become the most litigious country in the world. Do the Government have any plans to reduce litigation costs in the National Health Service? I uphold a patient's right to claim for medical negligence but I find the amounts being paid out as damages by courts today frightening. Will the Government look carefully to see whether there is anything they can do, while protecting the rights of the individual, to limit the cost of payments to meet claims presently being made by NHS patients?
Many tests and many medical treatments are now carried out, not because the patient needs it but for defensive medical reasons. On arrival at hospital a patient may have 100 or more routine tests. Some have no diagnostic relevance and have become outdated. Will a decision by NICE that certain tests are no longer advised as being appropriate act as a defence in a legal case brought against a hospital or practitioner? There would be a considerable saving of time and money if numbers of pointless tests could be discontinued. At the very least will the Government draw up guidelines as to

1501
settling some legal cases at an earlier point before the legal taxi-meter bills run up and up? In this country compensation is paid out as a lump sum. In some countries the compensation is paid on an annual basis for the care of the patient. A change to this type of system for NHS payments is certainly worth detailed examination.
On Monday the Secretary of State made his pitch for new nurses to enter training and for others to return to the NHS. It is time that government departments started talking to one another. How will nurses, doctors and other health professionals with young families be able to return to the NHS, as the Department of Health would like, when on April 1st the Department of Trade and Industry will place so many mothers, and perhaps fathers too, in a position where they cannot possibly afford to keep the "au pair". Au pairs (foreign students living with a family) enable a parent to take on some work. Many in the NHS rely on this support. When this situation is changed it may be that more will leave rather than return to the health service. We hear of low morale in the health service, and certainly public sector pay is well below the private sector even after the pay awards announced this week. Nevertheless, there is great satisfaction in working to help others, and those who work in and with the NHS are genuinely dedicated, as individuals and in teams, to the improvement of patient care.
The Government have a large majority. They should be brave enough to make the changes necessary to provide adequate funding to ensure a strong base for the National Health Service in the 21st century by the charges that I have proposed, by a separate health tax, or by moving to an entirely new basis for funding health care such as the successful Australian system. This debate today is exactly a year after an identical one. We are still waiting for real improvement and the White Papers do not have the answers. It is time for a radical re-think. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.27 p.m.
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, like other noble Lords who are to speak in this debate, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, for giving us another opportunity to debate a subject that is so dear to the hearts of many of us. The NHS is certainly very dear to me. I literally owe my life to it through swift diagnosis and intervention. I was employed by it for 12 years and have had the closest possible connections with it in my role as a campaigner for carers and currently as chair of the New Opportunities Fund to which the noble Baroness referred.
I find it difficult to recognise the NHS that I know and love so well from the somewhat negative and even alarmist picture with which the noble Baroness presented us. The phrase "the state of the NHS" is open to many different interpretations and misinterpretations. I hope that today we shall avoid the two main misinterpretations: first, that the NHS is only about hospitals; and, secondly, that it is about sickness when its primary purpose is about keeping the nation healthy. Only a tiny proportion of NHS care is about hospitals,
1502
although it is true that they have always taken up a disproportionate amount of money and certainly are the headline-grabbers. The result of this is what I refer to as the iceberg syndrome: we concentrate on the bit that sticks out at the top—the hospitals—while we ignore the seven-eighths submerged beneath.
For most people their experience of the NHS is about their family doctor, the school nurse, the health visitor who calls when the children are small and the district nurse who dresses an elderly relative's leg after an injury. Even when people go into hospital their experience will be limited because of the huge progress that has been made in shortening the length of stay. In 1951 the average length of stay in hospital was 45 days; now it is less than seven days because of the dramatic increase in day surgery and other forms of swifter treatment. There are those who would say that this progress is unwelcome because people are discharged too quickly. While it is certainly true that successful discharge is dependent on follow-up services, ask any patient whether he welcomes the opportunity to go home earlier rather than later and the answer will not be in doubt.
Most people's experience of healthcare is at the primary care level and here huge changes are under way, as the noble Baroness reminded us. Unlike the noble Baroness, I believe that those changes will produce enormous benefits. Local doctors and nurses are the ones who know about local health needs. They see patients regularly, and for the first time in the history of the NHS they will be making decisions which will ensure that their patients receive the best possible care and treatment. The establishment of primary care groups will cut the number of bodies commissioning local healthcare from about 4,000 to 500, cutting the waste and bureaucracy of the internal market and the two-tier fundholding system. That will mean better plans linking hospitals, GPs and community nurses, enabling them to work together to manage local pressures and to make the best use of local resources.
Moreover, there will be strong emphasis on links with local authorities, especially social services departments, an area where lack of communication between departments has caused much distress and confusion in the past. One feature of primary care groups which will please patients' representatives is the inclusion of a place for lay members and non-executive directors on the managing group. In many area good systems for ensuring that those lay members can communicate with local pressure groups are already emerging and will ensure that the PCGs are fully in touch with the real concerns of the population.
We should also remember that healthcare must include community care. I do not subscribe to the view that community care has failed. On the contrary, many aspects of community care have been a resounding success, enabling people to live independently or with their families with the support of packages of care provided in new and innovative ways by health local authorities and the voluntary sector. Improvements are of course necessary but many of those are now under way thanks to the radical reforms of social services and mental health services proposed by the Government. For

1503
the first time in a lifetime spent working in either health or social services in this country, I begin to see real evidence that the so-called Berlin Wall between health and social services is being broken down. The unseemly competition to offload responsibility to another service in the interest of meeting budgetary targets is changing. The use of pooled budgets and the establishment of local health improvement programmes means that local services are focusing above all on the needs of the local population.
That brings me to my second theme. The NHS is not, or should not be, about sickness but about health. It is about maintaining our population in the healthiest possible state by taking the broadest possible view of what constitutes health. No health service, however well funded, can achieve that except by ensuring that each individual takes as much responsibility as he is able for his own health. I believe that we should be rightly proud of the huge strides which have been made in recent years in involving patients in their own healthcare. We now understand that engaging the patient and, where appropriate his or her family, in the patient's healthcare is the most desirable, not to mention the most cost-effective, way of dispensing treatment. There are, I am sad to say, still those who think that patients knowing too much about their illness or looking up alternative forms of care on the Internet is not to be welcomed. It may certainly make patients less acquiescent and more demanding, but it also makes them more responsible, more aware of their own part in their treatment, and, above all, it acknowledges the fact which too many professionals are prone to forget: that the patient and often his family are the key players in any healthcare system. Most healthcare is not administered by doctors and nurses or even pharmacists or dentists but by one's own family.
The progress which has been made on the public health agenda in terms of healthier living programmes, healthier schools programmes and healthier workplaces will therefore have a huge influence on the health of our nation. Far from making people more demanding of an overstretched system, as the gloom and doom scenario would lead us to believe, it will make us more responsible for our own health and that of our families. Information is the key to that. If people are well informed, they will take responsibility for themselves. That is the way in which we shall deal with rising expectations. I believe that rising expectations of the health service are a matter for rejoicing not sorrow.
The success of NHS Direct, which was reported to us yesterday, is proof enough of that. It is good news indeed that the service is to be extended so that 60 per cent. of the country will be covered by the end of year.
I wish to draw attention to one other welcome development. I refer to the establishment of a network of healthy living centres throughout the United Kingdom through funding through the New Opportunities Fund, of which I am chair. Perhaps I may remind the noble Baroness that the use of lottery funding for the purposes of new initiatives in health education and environment was widely publicised before the last election, has been the subject of extensive consultation since and enjoys huge public support.
1504
Healthy living centres will promote good health in the widest context. They will help people of all ages to improve their well-being, both physical and mental, and thereby improve their quality of life. They will present health positively. And while there is no blueprint for a healthy living centre, it will probably include screening services, food co-operatives, activity programmes, stress management, parenting classes and employment training and skill schemes. The sum of £300 million is available for the initiative and we opened our application line for business last week. I am sorry that I do not have my cheque book on me today, but I am sure that many noble Lords will ask me about the initiative.
One important feature of that and other New Opportunities Fund initiatives is their focus on reaching the most disadvantaged people in our society. For too long the link between poverty and health has been ignored. Indeed, the previous government denied its existence. The Government have grasped that nettle courageously and vigorously. Healthy living centres are one of the most important ways in which we acknowledge that we need to counter inequalities and reach out to people who experience poor health and earlier death as a direct result of social exclusion. So we shall be targeting areas of deprivation, including rural areas, and particular ethnic communities and of course linking with other vital initiatives such as health action zones.
In summary, notwithstanding the undoubted problems which exist, and no doubt will be dwelt on at length by other noble Lords, my perspective on the NHS is optimistic. I believe that we have every reason to hope and believe that the next 50 years will create an even prouder record than the first 50 years; and that the result of the changes currently under way will not only be a healthier NHS but a healthier nation.
3.37 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, for her wide-ranging introduction. I did not agree with all she said; neither did I agree with everything said by the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley. There are many views on the subject. I think that by the quality of the speakers, the debate is likely to give us a wide range of views on a wide range of topics. Not withstanding the fact that I have been a user or a patient of all the community and primary healthcare services to which the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, referred, I shall concentrate on shortages of hospital beds and nurses. I do so because I spent some time as a non-executive director on an NHS trust in the early days of those trusts.
Bed shortages in NHS trusts came to prominence last month—not for the first time—during what was publicly stated not to be a flu epidemic. It demonstrated what many people had always feared; namely, a lack of any slack in the system which has been caused by the run down in numbers of hospital beds since the NHS reforms of the hospital system. A health professional stated at the time that since hospitals are working increasingly to full capacity all the year round one does not need much of an upturn in demand to create real problems.

1505
The difficulties of the normal winter situation, plus a flu outbreak of the same severity as in 1996–97, was most serious, as one might expect, in respect of intensive care beds. News items around 7th January reported many healthcare professionals expressing serious concern. I quote:
"Intensive care in this country is in crisis at the moment. The problem with intensive care beds was predicted but unfortunately too little was done in time."
That is to say, the right investment was not available early enough to satisfy the lead time to set up more intensive care beds.
"It is impossible to keep the full complement of 50 nurses needed to run a seven-bed unit."
That was from a manager in one of the major provincial hospitals.
"It is not unusual for a London patient to travel to Manchester."
That was from an officer of the emergency bed service.
A longer term context was given by one official who said that while the UK had pioneered the whole concept of permanent intensive care beds the UK now spent less on them than any other developed country except Greece.
The problem of bed shortages was clearly exercising the Secretary of State as long ago as last September when he set up an inquiry into provision of beds which is due to report in "the spring". Early results show, apparently, that there are not enough NHS hospital beds. Now there is a surprise! Can the Minister reassure us that this report is on course for completion and that it will be published?
The Secretary of State has also declared,
"Our extra investment will ensure that we can respond rapidly when we have the final report".
I do not often venture into financial fields, but it does appear—even to me—that that extra money is in danger of being spent many times! Nor can we be certain that the various factors other than pressures for efficiency on hospital trusts can be dealt with so easily.
I shall turn to what I believe is the most significant—a shortage of nurses—in a moment, but meanwhile there are a couple of others which may be harder in some ways to deal with. First, there is the unfortunate prominence given by this Government—as by their predecessors—to the PFI initiative as a way of financing investment in hospitals and their facilities. Without going into a lot of detail it is widely claimed that this approach will result in a further reduction in the number of hospital beds.
Meanwhile, on the demand side, there is a new phenomenon, to which the Chair of the General Practitioners Committee of the BMA has drawn attention; namely, the self-reference of flu sufferers to hospital when they could sensibly dose themselves with hot drinks, paracetamol and a couple of days in bed. This is rather like the phenomenon of increased demand for doctors' visits, which in the opinion of the professionals are often unnecessary.
1506
Finally, there are the many problems under the heading of bed-blocking caused by the divide between social services and the NHS. I could give a dissertation on that subject, but I shall save it perhaps for the Second Reading of the forthcoming Bill.
My conclusion is that shortage of beds will not be so easy to eradicate, at least in the short term, even though I am fully aware of the arguments around new forms of treatment and the changing role of GPs.
A major cause of bed shortages is, of course, a shortage of staff, which ensures that beds which are theoretically available for the care of patients are in fact closed.
"I can't remember a time in the last few years when it has been so difficult right across the country. The Government has given us more money but in some parts of the country we just can't recruit the staff".
Those were the words of the Chief Executive of the NHS Confederation. The current 8,000 shortfall of nurses in NHS hospitals, made worse by the shortage of therapists, is ascribed by observers, and by the nurses themselves, to a number of causes: low pay; staging of awards; poor working conditions; a lack of newly qualified nurses to take the place of those who resign or retire; and the over-emphasis in the new training programmes on a graduate calibre of nurse which can discourage less intellectual would-be nurses. And ahead there is the prospect of about one-quarter of existing nurses retiring over the next two years or so, reflecting the dangerous imbalance in the age structure of the nursing profession.
Again the Government have made a start, via the recent wage settlement, in solving some of the pay issues, though they are putting some of that extra £21 billion to work here as well. And it is a bit much to blame "previous governments", as the Secretary of State so often does, for staging pay rises when this Government did the very same thing last year. Then the line was that service staff recruitment and retention in the public sector remained good and that, while there might be some specific shortages, these were not necessarily wage related. Hence the staging in the name of budgetary prudence. In the event, government expenditure undershot estimates so the staging, which in the NHS certainly worsened the staffing situation, was unnecessary.
Of course, the problem for the Government next year will be to sustain their new approach. Stop-start in the annual pay round will not help to retain staff. Have the Government calculated the ongoing cost of the settlement for the next five years or so? Will the commissioning budgets be adjusted to meet the cost of labour in the NHS?
Another welcome initiative by the Secretary of State is the increase in the number of training places that has been announced, although it must be noted that last year there were more places than trainees to fill them. The trouble for the Government is that they made major, popular, and correct, promises to the people about improving the NHS after the locust years of Tory administrations. So far it is difficult to see any improvement; indeed, in some respects things have continued to get worse. Now we need to be reassured that the Government have acted in a carefully considered and cost-effective way in their current wages

1507
packet for NHS staff. I certainly saw no analysis of the effect on staffing of the high percentage rise given to the most junior nurses. I do not object to that approach; indeed, there may well be a strong case, quite independent of the matters I have been considering in this speech, for re-structuring nurses' pay. But can the Minister give me any figures for the increase in the number of NHS hospital nurses which they expect will result from this pay settlement? And can she tell us what consideration the Government have given to the shortage of both hospital and primary care doctors which some analysts are now predicting?
The Government, as I said, have some promises to live up to. More important, they have the health of the nation in their care. Some of their thinking in their first year of office was hopeful and there is an important Bill on its way to this House. But it is by the quality of decision-taking, and the actions that result, that governments are known. This debate will, I am sure, demonstrate that there are many in this House both able and willing to submit these to close scrutiny, among them Members on these Benches.
3.47 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, for instigating the debate. The interest in your Lordships' House so often mirrors the interest of the public at large. That is illustrated today by the number of your Lordships wishing to speak.
Over the years, I have served on a community health council, the Yorkshire Regional Health Authority and the North Yorkshire Family Health Service Authority. During that time, every few years there seemed to be a reorganisation. No sooner had people become organised and in a working routine than there was a general post, jobs changed and people became unsettled.
Hospitals seem to be working with no slack in the system. The shortage of nursing staff means that sometimes young, inexperienced nurses are having to take too much responsibility. With so many nurses coming from abroad and working for short periods while they travel around Europe and the world, there is a lack of continuity. Although, with high technology and medical advancement, one needs well trained, highly educated nurses, there is also a need for less academic but dedicated practical nurses. I believe that doing away with the two-year trained state enrolled nurses was unwise. Many of those practical nurses worked well and complemented the fully trained three-year general nurses. Now the less academic people are lost to the NHS and work in supermarkets and shops and as secretaries. In their place are nursing assistants who are dressed up in uniforms and whom patients take for trained nurses although they have little training. Using agency nurses and bringing nurses from abroad is expensive.
It is not just pay that has exacerbated the shortage of nurses: it is the expense of accommodation in cities; violence in A&E departments, which has increased due to drinking and drugs; and abuse from patients. Nurses need to be valued. Large hospitals are busy places and
1508
need extremely good management. The NHS needs stability and patients need confidence that they will receive the best treatment. I spent time recently with some people who had undergone major surgery and their praise of the National Health Service was immense.
Having had my life saved by blood transfusions, perhaps I can ask the Minister to say whether she is confident that the blood transfusion service is thriving. It has to be vigilant in relation to the problems of HIV and hepatitis. It has to ensure that there is an adequate supply of blood.
I should like to raise a few points following my Starred Question on meningitis last Thursday. Although it is such a serious condition, there is still not enough known about it. One in 10 cases results in death; one out of seven survivors is permanently disabled. Anyone can contract meningitis but those at greatest risk are the under-fives—especially those under one—16 to 25 year olds and the over-55s. It is often not known by the general public that older people can be at risk.
The noble Earl, Lord Dudley, asked a question on Thursday about identifying possible contacts with carriers. As meningitis is a notifiable condition, is there a follow-up with contacts? Could they be detected by taking a swab from the back of the nose or throat? Also could more be done on prevention?
The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, asked about parents recognising the symptoms. A few weeks ago parents twice took a baby to a hospital in the north of England and were sent home. On their third visit the child was admitted, only to die in intensive care. In such cases there should not be a cover-up of those responsible. To wait until a rash appears may be too late; septicaemia may already have developed.
A few days after asking the Question I was telephoned by a doctor from south Lincolnshire. He was concerned that because there was no 24-hour paediatric cover in the hospital at Grantham the maternity unit had closed. Should children contract meningitis, they would have to travel long distances for treatment. One of the doctor's own children had contracted meningitis in the past; he knows that every second counts.
Does the Minister agree that there should be a monitoring system for the whole of England run by the Department of Health so that sick patients need only travel safe distances to obtain treatment. If doctors feel the risk is too great for patients, there should be a safety net to oversee health authorities. Can the Minister say whether the National Institute for Clinical Excellence—NICE—will do that?
I am president of a spinal injury association which deals with some of the most disabled people in society—many paralysed from the neck down. We are a self-help group and know only too well the specialist help our members need. We welcome the creation of NICE. We hope that it will offer opportunities for achieving high standards of quality across the NHS. We hope that services will be provided with the user perspective in mind. We believe that NICE should establish national protocols and care paths in speciality areas from acute care to rehabilitation; publish measures of its success; and disseminate its findings to the wider

1509
public, organisations and patient-user groups. The audit and monitoring of specialist provision throughout the country is extremely important.
I conclude by bringing to your Lordships a difficult section of society who need help from the NHS; these people fall between two stools. I refer to adolescent health. Adolescents do not fit into paediatrics nor are they catered for satisfactorily in adult facilities. There are no adolescent educational programmes for professionals such as nurses, social workers and health promotion officers in Britain. Many adolescent young girls with health problems are residing in prisons. Also, the terrible problems relating to drug and alcohol abuse in that difficult age group are getting worse.
On the whole the NHS does a wonderful job in difficult circumstances, such as in relation to the spread of infections resistant to antibiotics, the relentless flow of patients with high expectations and the growing elderly population who need and deserve better care. Health and social services need to co-operate and co-ordinate. The National Health Service should always be at the top of any government's agenda; it is the most important commodity we have.
3.56 p.m.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, one could make many criticisms of government Ministers on the way in which they are handling the health service. But those Ministers would perhaps not be such an easy target if they had not attacked the Conservative government so ferociously and not claimed repeatedly that voting Labour would magically end all the problems in the health service. Instead, they should attempt to understand the difficulties that will always exist in the biggest multi-service business in Europe. They would then not be so vulnerable.
We must accept that, whoever is in charge of the health service, we can never satisfy every patient. We cannot all be treated by the doctor of our choice wherever we want because the problems are too great. All we can do, wherever we sit in this House, is the best we can and try to understand the difficulties faced by those who are confronted by the problems.
Many noble Lords are anxious to speak tonight so I shall touch on one part of the health service only; that is, eye care. My husband was an optometrist. He died 13 years ago and I hasten to say that I have no financial interest in any business connected with optics. However, I have a strong interest in good eye care for our people.
Your Lordships may not be aware of the present and growing fashion for "piano cosmetic contact lenses"—the street name is "party lenses". Those interested in acting, advertising or merely in creating a sensation are going in for party lenses in a big way. They can turn one's eyes bright blue, green or perhaps even spotted. One can obtain a contact lens imprinted with a union jack, a bicycle, a bed, a belly-dancer or whatever takes one's fancy. Linford Christie wore a puma on his for an advertising stunt and no doubt it will not be long before a millennium logo appears (though please God, not the Dome!).
1510
Because the lenses have no optical correction, they are not covered by medical restrictions as are normal contact lenses. They can therefore be sold anywhere—in garages, on market stalls or in joke shops. They can be sold by people who have no knowledge and who can give no advice about their use. "Does that matter?" I hear you say. Yes, it does. There is a great deal of evidence, both here and abroad, which indicates that those lenses pose serious risks to wearers. I am not talking about the tiny risk of contracting BSE from eating beef-on-the bone. I understand that one is 10,000 times more likely to be struck by lightning than to get BSE from eating beef-on-the bone, but the Government have legislated against it.
I am talking about a real risk. In such lenses there are toxic dyes and paints. The designs are painted on and then the lenses are slapped on what are arguably the most delicate and sensitive parts of the body. Surely, it is wrong that they can be sold freely, without any clinical guidelines, by totally untrained retailers.
When trained optometrists fit lenses the patient does not only have his eyesight corrected, but he is also shown exactly how to clean, handle and wear those tiny bits of plastic. The law ensures it. Nobody tells wearers of party lenses anything, although they carry serious risk of infection, and I am told that they can threaten one's sight.
The optometric profession and the lens manufacturers have warned the Department of Health repeatedly of the dangers. Of course, they have. What would you expect? Would you not think that the department would, with such evidence available, instantly have rushed to impose restrictions on them. Not a bit of it. Nothing at all has happened. It is perfectly fair to say, "Why not?".
The second point that I wish to make is that today optometrists play an important part in treating certain eye conditions with drugs, much more so than they used to. More and more universities are offering optometric courses and training in ocular treatments and how they can be administered. However, some of the drugs needed can be obtained only through a GP or a hospital. GPs readily admit that they are not as highly trained in eye conditions as optometrists. How could they be? Doctors train for seven years to treat the whole of the immensely complicated machine that is the human body. During those seven years they have one week in which to train in the complications of the eye—one week out of seven years.
Optometrists train for at least four years purely on the eyes, and nothing else except the eyes. However, when a patient of an optometrist needs certain medication, the optometrist has to send that patient to a GP or an hospital eye department to get the prescription. It would be a useful saving of a doctor's time and it would reduce pressure on hospital eye departments—it would also save the patient time and trouble, which is worth considering—if an optometrist could give the prescription that, after all, he had prescribed. I do not believe that the BMA, or anyone else, would object. It is a perfectly reasonable suggestion that would save time for hospitals and GPs.

1511
Therefore, I offer the Minister, in my friendly, helpful way, not one, but two suggestions for small changes in the law, which together could produce big benefits to the health service and might even save it some money.
4.4 p.m.
Lord Winston: My Lords, I should first declare an interest as a practising academic at Imperial College, as a consultant in West London, as research and development director for the Hammersmith Hospitals NHS Trust and as a member of the council for the Imperial Cancer Research Fund.
Listening to the debate so far, I wondered whether a mere man would get a word in sideways. I suppose I have been following the ladies for most of my professional career, so it is only reasonable that I should speak at this point.
We are grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, for introducing her Motion. However, I am puzzled by the criticisms that she produces. While I feel that political speeches are not as appropriate in the House of Lords as in another place, I believe that there are some basic points on which I need to set the record straight.
The noble Baroness spoke about waiting lists for waiting lists. The truth is that waiting lists for waiting lists started under the previous government because of the inevitable rationing that occurred at funding authorities. In my own service I saw the cruelty of that and the inequality that it produced. We were able to treat some patients from one area and not from another because of the stipulations of particular waiting lists within waiting lists—even before patients could get on a waiting list!
The noble Baroness talked of the depressing lack of new ideas. I have not heard many new ideas from the other side of the Chamber yet, but perhaps 20 months of opposition is not quite long enough. The wealth of new ideas that the Government have brought in to the health service are beginning to bite and we are beginning to see them as of great advantage. The noble Baroness spoke as if we had transferred responsibility away from government. That did not happen under this Government; that happened a long time ago. Rationing was blamed on the purchasers in the old internal market system. The praise for the care given by nurses seems to be somewhat faint, given the terrible time that nurses had for so many years with inadequate funding, with the huge amount of paperwork necessitated by the internal market and by a career structure that devalued nursing at the bedside and devalued clinical access to patients.
Let us be positive and make one thing clear. The truth is that it is not possible to turn round a major supertanker—the largest industry in Europe—in 20 months. It will take a great deal longer. However, there are signs that the turnaround is taking place. In this short speech I want to try to hold the Government to account for a few areas in which I am particularly interested and I hope that the noble Baroness, in her summing up, will address one or two concerns that I have. I believe them to be far-reaching and important ideas that the Government undoubtedly have in changing the way that healthcare is delivered in the British Isles.
1512
As a specialist physician, I am concerned by the strong emphasis on primary care. Of course, nobody for a moment denies the importance of primary care. It is the front line of medicine, it is where patients first come and it is where the first sifting, the first triage occurs and where the public has the most contact. However, the truth is that the NHS, like any healthcare system anywhere in the world, must be delivered, maintained and improved by specialist input. When we are very ill, specialist input is most important to us.
All the speeches so far have, effectively, pointed out in different ways the importance of that specialist input. I have no doubt that more and more speakers will add to that. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, talked about her own experiences and they are typical of so many of your Lordships' experiences in terms of specialist input.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, made a crucial point about hospital beds. That is another area in which there is a great need to ensure that we get the balance right between what happens outside hospitals and what happens inside them.
One problem that we must face—one does not want to apportion blame to any government, whether Tory, Labour or whatever the party may be in the future—is that the specialist services in the health service are now threatened in all sorts of ways as they have never been before. That should be a matter of great concern to this House and, indeed, the Government. The nature of the internal market, for example, left a great deal of fragmentation in the health service. When I started as a specialist, I could treat patients irrespective of whether they came from Carlisle, Cardiff or Truro. That did not matter because we had an NHS budget. We were able to develop expertise in dealing with particular conditions. That could then act as a paradigm, a model, for development in that area within the whole health service. That is no longer possible. If we are not careful, I am concerned that instead of abolishing the internal market, we might, in effect, exchange it for another kind of market. I hope that the Minister will take some time to address that issue.
It is very important, for all sorts of reasons, that patients requiring specialist care have access to such care at the best level. That has always been a great tradition of the NHS. Indeed, it is one of the reasons why clinical research in this country frequently—usually—outstrips that of the Americans. In the past, the Americans have often been greatly envious of the sort of work that we have been able to do.
We are also facing a failure of specialist training as never before. The Calman reforms added to that. Trying to get into line with Europe in terms of medical training has meant a reduction in specialist training in this country. We are perilously close to training consultants who are of inadequate experience and who possibly are inadequate in terms of their medical backgrounds. That is a potential disaster for the health service.
The lack of concentration of specialist expertise has meant a failure as never before in our ability to find an adequate research basis—that is, a collection of patients with particular conditions to use as a model. Patients

1513
often end up receiving mistaken treatment because they are not receiving the best specialist advice. On average, I receive two letters a day from patients who say that they do not understand the working of the health service. I have with me a letter from a lady in Middleton, near Manchester, who has had an appalling history. I shall not recite it to your Lordships, but that lady lost a child and has probably had inappropriate surgery. She is now damaged and wants to come to us, on an NHS basis, but that is impossible under the current structure.
In the last couple of minutes allotted to me for this speech, I should like to address the related question of research and development in the health service. I announced earlier that I am a research director, so I am somewhat parti pris and have a definite interest in this. I am concerned that the current exercise on evaluating research and development in the health service should be conducted along the best lines. It has been stated that we shall concentrate on certain issues within the health service: cancer; heart disease; mental health; ageing; primary care; prevention; and public health. Those are excellent areas for research, but I am concerned that we do not lose sight of the important need also to build in a major component of basic research in the hospitals that are geared to carry out research and development.
I hope that the Government will agree that, for example, although the research and development may be unevenly spread across the country, there are very good reasons why that position should not change too hastily and why it should continue to follow the general HEFCE model. I am sure that the way to get the best value for money is not to destabilise cities such as London, which appear on paper to be over-funded, but which actually provide the greater part of the development that is needed.
It would be unwise to remove the NHS research and development assessments from HEFCE assessments. More encouragement must be given to universities and we must recognise their importance to the NHS. In my own trust at the moment, for example, we want to employ an obstetrician who ought to be an academic. However, the NHS will have to supply that post. There must also be a recognition of the length of time—
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, perhaps I may point out to the noble Lord that he has reached the end of his time. We must keep to the time-limits this afternoon.
Lord Winston: My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to make my final sentences. There must also be a recognition of the time that will be needed to develop such matters into issues of public health importance. I hope that in future civil servants will at least visit some of the trusts which are conducting the research and development exercise because, so far, that has been signally lacking.
4.15 p.m.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, I echo the thanks expressed to my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes for introducing this debate. I should like to deal
1514
with the question of morale within the NHS which seems to be at a rather low ebb. The Government's habit of attacking NHS managers is bad for morale. Soundbites such as "Heads will roll" simply induce despondency. That is not the way to manage a hard-pressed workforce.
Another example was the Secretary of State for Health telling senior managers that they were not to have private insurance for private health care. In fact, in the old days, it was common practice to admit senior managers to a separate room off one of the wards. They were treated like private patients because they were well known in the hospital and it was felt unreasonable to put them on the ward. As those senior managers are paid up to £100,000 per year, they thought that perhaps they should take out private insurance and pay for their care as they were being treated as private patients. That was a very civilised thing to do. The Secretary of State for Health's attack on them on that score, telling them not to have private insurance, hassled them quite unnecessarily.
That reminds me of the story of a lady Member of Parliament—I shall not tell your Lordships to which party she belonged—who went into a hospital not 100 miles from here. She was put into a separate side ward, off the main ward. Within a few minutes, she was out again, telling the sister, "I must be out there with my people, with the working people." She was put out on the ward. She had not been on the ward more than 15 minutes when the people rose up in revolt and said to the ward sister, "You put that woman back in that room or else we're all leaving."
Unfortunately, the Government find themselves in a bit of a mess because, as has been pointed out, they falsely raised the public's expectations that all problems would be solved. They also untruthfully alleged that the Conservative government had tried to privatise the NHS, which certainly is not true; that they had cut resources to the NHS, which is not true; and that they had cut more beds than the previous Labour government. They made many other completely untrue allegations. As Ann Widdecombe said yesterday on Radio 4, we have had 18 years of Labour lies about the NHS and now they are coming home to roost. Now the public and NHS employees realise that they have been misled.
The Government have made much of the pay award. But the consultants are very angry that the Government have rejected one of the most important recommendations which recognised the increased workload and intensity of the work of consultants. As the chairman of the BMA's consultants committee commented:
"Senior hospital doctors will feel a deep sense of betrayal. We are working at breakneck pace, month in month out. The pressures on senior hospital doctors are immense. The Government has snubbed the review body and refused to play fair with the consultants on whom it depends to meet its waiting list targets and keep pace with rising patient need. Consultants will feel bitterly disappointed and will be highly sceptical of the Government's good faith in the future".
Medical staffing is another source of poor morale. We have had fewer consultant appointments in the past year in some specialties and that is giving rise to great

1515
concern. My question to the Minister is this: will the Government use some of the extra money—£22 billion which, apparently, they are going to put into the service—to create more consultant posts which are desperately needed? I should declare an interest. I have spent many years training potential consultants in the knowledge that there would be a reasonable number of consultant jobs for which they could apply.
In some specialties there are too few trainees and in others far too many. As the noble Lord, Lord Winston, pointed out in November last year—the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists also did so recently—the worst problem lies in obstetrics. There are already over 100 fully trained junior staff waiting for consultants' posts which just will not materialise. At the end of this year there will be 200 fully trained obstetricians with no jobs to go to. They will be out of a job. They are in their mid or late 30s or early 40s. They have spent 20 years in training to be obstetricians and now they come to the stage where they are out of a job. That is a gross waste of public money and very demoralising for the profession and the public.
I am very much aware that no one should be guaranteed a job just because they have trained for 20 years. But the NHS is a monopoly employer and there is nowhere else for trainees to go. The NHS has a duty to maintain a reasonable relationship between the number we train and the number we need. I am told that the Department of Health has decided to try to correct that problem by training fewer people. It plans to do that by withdrawing £5.8 million which is currently being used to train junior staff in obstetrics. It plans to take the money away from obstetrics altogether and use it for something else. Why on earth cannot the money be used to create more consultant posts? We need 200 extra obstetricians in the next four years, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Winston, will agree. That will cost £14 million each year. Can the Minister give some hope to those trainees? Can the Government reconsider their decision and start creating far more consultant posts now?
There is another reason for acting as I suggest. The quality of the service is deteriorating because the number of consultants in obstetrics is decreasing. Of all the medical legal cases, 60 per cent. involve obstetrics. So we have a major problem on our hands. The bills in the law courts will rise and rise.
Many patients are demoralised. Thousands have been denied some operations for ever. They will not have the operations at all. It is not a question of rationing or keeping them waiting. They are operations for such things as varicose veins and the removal of sebaceous cysts and lipomas. The Minister said on 7th December that such operations are cosmetic. The patients do not agree. The condition for which they seek an operation is certainly hidden by clothing. The Government have refused to instruct NHS trusts to allow the operations to be done. I believe that this is the first Government to deny these treatments to the public. I wonder whether they realise that poor people cannot afford the £1,000 which is necessary for some operations. Is that not what the Labour Party used to describe as a government grinding their heel into the faces of the poor? I am sure
1516
that the Government would not like that description applied to them. Therefore, I wonder whether they will reconsider their decision and allow the people who cannot afford these operations to have them done on the NHS. The Government have a duty to restore NHS morale which has been so damaged in this past year.
4.24 p.m.
Lord Warner: My Lords, I, too, welcome the opportunity provided by the noble Baroness for us to debate the improving situation in the NHS. We should all be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McColl, for his interesting suggestion that we could actually improve the discharge rate from hospital beds by admitting far more politicians to the public wards.
This is the first time that I have spoken in this House on health matters. I do so from a background of over 20 years with the Ministry of Health and the Department of Health and Social Security, or the Department of Stealth and Total Obscurity, as it was formerly known. As a former chairman of a health authority in East London I have seen at first hand the lack of relevance of an internal market to the health needs of people living in areas of great social deprivation.
The previous government's emphasis on better management in the NHS was right. Unfortunately, it became tangled up with their obsession for market mechanisms. The internal market was introduced in a haphazard way without regard to whether there were competent commissioners of health care, the transaction costs and any real understanding of the fundamental inconsistency of having both GP fundholders and health authorities as commissioners of care. No one disagrees with finding out the costs of procedures, as the noble Baroness mentioned. No one disagrees with comparing performance and having rigorous peer review. But to implement these efficiency mechanisms one does not have to introduce an internal market. The result has been that we have had an administratively expensive botched job in which the internal market has driven down the morale of many health professionals and from which the NHS has not yet fully recovered despite the extra money that the Government are pumping into the service.
In the area of nursing the problem has been exacerbated by the reduction of over 20 per cent. in nurse training places between 1992 and 1994–95. That was not the behaviour of this Government, but decisions taken some years ago from which we are still suffering. The previous government's approach to the NHS led to the fragmentation rather than the integration of care that patients need.
I accept that GP fund holding produced improved health care and quicker access to hospital in many middle class areas with relatively healthy populations. My own family has benefited from our excellent fund holding group practice. But I used to contrast my own experience as a patient of a fund holding doctor with the many people I saw in East London. There were few fund holders there accessing the extra resources that went with fund holding. The primary care services there were underfunded and overloaded with the resulting unavoidable, but inappropriate use of hospital services.

1517
In poor inner city areas where the majority of family doctors work in one or two-person partnerships, GP fund holding was a total irrelevance.
I was once unwise enough to tell a former health Minister that in the previous year I had seen a 100 per cent. increase in fund holding in East London—a rise from 1 per cent. to 2 per cent. I discovered at that point that the Minister had little sense of humour, as I believe many of us discovered as he ran the Conservative campaign at the last election.
I disagree with the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Winston that the Government were giving too much attention to primary care. I am very pleased that the Government have developed a sensible and practical way of enhancing primary care. They inherited a very difficult situation with 50 per cent. of the population in GP fund holding practices and 50 per cent. not. An impasse had been reached. I suggest that the new—nearly 500—primary care groups represent a huge step forward in responding to local health care needs on a co-operative, rather than a competitive professional basis, without doctors scrabbling for patients.
The new groups have been formed through local discussion between GPs, nurses, health authorities and local authorities. For the most part, local people have settled the local boundaries for these groups. I am particularly pleased to see local services involved with primary care groups. As they move from shadow form to becoming fully operational, I would suggest that the primary care groups will return the NHS to its underlying principles, with local frontline professionals working co-operatively to plan and meet the health care needs of local communities.
I heard the shadow Health Secretary speaking on the Today programme yesterday morning: it gave me a bit of a fright. She was suggesting that this Government should show humility about the NHS. I would suggest from my own experience that the shadow Front Bench should actually show humility for some of the actions that have been taken in the past.
One of the most attractive features of this Government's change of direction in health policy has been their willingness to pay attention to unfashionable issues. Of course reducing waiting lists is important and new drug therapies and surgical procedures are exciting. It is very easy for these to grab all the attention and all the new resources, but for many people in our society remedying health inequalities—better public health, mental health services and the funding of long-term care—is more important than the latest surgical wizardry or free Viagra. Rebalancing the health agenda, as the Government are doing, is an important contribution to social justice and a more cohesive society.
I am particularly pleased at the greater attention being given to mental health services. The previous government deserved much credit for the community care reforms that they introduced, and I was very pleased to be associated with pushing them forward in their early days when I was a director of social services. But in the Cinderella area of mental health the
1518
accelerated move to community care was too often well intentioned but flawed and under-funded. Discharging people into the community from the large impersonal psychiatric institutions has brought enormous benefits to many people and made us a more civilised society. But, as the Government have recognised, the network of community support and supervision was sometimes inadequate. Too often essential drug regimes were not maintained and in some areas, especially in the inner cities, there is inadequate access to hospital beds for people in crisis and needing medium-term care. The new strategy and the extra £700 million announced in December will go a good way towards rectifying the deficiencies in mental health services, providing it is implemented with energy and commitment.
I see from the BMA briefing that I have received for this debate that they want a public debate about rationing. I hope we can interpret this as meaning that leaders of the medical profession want to discuss more widely how we can tackle issues of ineffective medical practice such as unnecessary medical prescribing and the reduction of procedures found to be inappropriate. I would suggest that if many more of the inappropriate treatments were more rigorously rationed by the medical profession we would actually free up resources for more productive uses. Personally, I welcome this kind of public debate about rationing, especially if more leaders of the medical profession are willing to speak out consistently in public in favour of the policies that they often espouse in private, particularly in areas like having a great concentration of highly specialist services in smaller numbers of units, even if some local hospital units have to close. It will be interesting to see medical leaders speaking out vigorously in favour of that kind of approach.
In conclusion, perhaps I could mention that I have discovered in the latest edition of Social Trends that on average men can look forward to 59 years without some kind of disabling condition. I can assure my noble friend the Minister that the age for women is 62, so she has a long time to go! As I approach that milestone I am deeply relieved that we now have a Government who are willing to make a £21 billion investment in the NHS, to abandon the ill-conceived internal market, rebuild our hospitals, start paying decent salaries to nurses and invest in new technology and new approaches like NHS direct. These are the important issues, I would suggest, and not over-hyped media stories about the totally unsurprising fact that more people get sick in winter and make extra demands on hospitals, for which in any case the Government had made extra provision.
4.34 p.m.
Lord Chadlington: My Lords, I should first declare an interest. Between 1991 and 1995 I was a non-executive member of the NHS Advisory Board, actively involved in a number of NHS initiatives. My professional interest in communications should also be declared, as I am concerned in public relations and advertising. Today I shall raise a number of issues concerning the management of the reputation of the National Health Service.

1519
In the commercial world the proactive management of a company's reputation is now recognised as a central task for the board of directors. It brings real benefit to both workforce and customers. The reputation of a manufacturing company is largely determined by consistently making products of quality which meet the expectation of customers. Occasionally—just occasionally—these . products fail, but success is constantly reinforced by corporate and product advertising and other communications methods. That is how, in the simplest terms, brand values are established. It is how confidence in a brand is built. It also leads directly to a strong and viable client-service relationship and, importantly, it indicates how customer expectation can be managed. Therefore it is absolutely central to the success of any organisation, internally and externally.
The public's view of the NHS brand is almost always based on personal experience of, or contact with, someone who has had first-hand experience, normally a friend or a family member. It follows therefore that the reputation of the entire NHS is carried on the shoulders of each individual nurse, every GP, ambulance driver and hospital porter. If that personal experience is favourable, then your view of the NHS tends to be favourable. The one million or so people, therefore, who work for the NHS are its ambassadors. They are the best or the worst advertisement at that all-important point of contact with the NHS: the patient. Low morale, resentment and poor management all lead to an undermining of this brand reputation, as the ambassadors no longer feel able or confident enough to promote the service they provide.
During the time that I worked closely with the NHS—and I can see no reason why this should have changed radically—the vast majority of those who actually used NHS services, as opposed to those who just criticised them, regarded favourably the service and treatment they received. In any commercial organisation this success would be regarded as a strong, and probably a very strong, base on which to build—a real opportunity to tell the good news, to accentuate the positive and to build the brand value. But in the NHS, too often that opportunity suddenly in a moment evaporates. A full-page photograph in a tabloid newspaper of an elderly patient on a trolley in a hospital corridor torpedoes all the accumulated goodwill and the central patient-service relationship is again threatened.
Furthermore, satisfied patients begin actually to question their own experiences. They begin to think that maybe they were the exception and that they were lucky to have had the treatment they regarded so highly. Even those working in the National Health Service begin to ask whether their efforts are the exception rather than the rule. Are they not more likely to believe the words they read and the pictures they see in the newspapers rather than what their bosses, or indeed politicians, tell them?
Of course—this cannot be over-emphasised—one patient on a trolley is one too many. So, too, are those who do not get the drugs they need or who are left for years on waiting lists. We must do all we can to invest in the NHS, improve it and cherish it. But we should also trumpet its day-by-day successes. Some are modest,
1520
some local and some breathtakingly brilliant. That is the commercial lesson: good news, particularly local good news, changes views.
In the corporate world we build brands and reputations through communicating success and achievement, building a reservoir of goodwill upon which one can draw when things inevitably go wrong—the commercial equivalent of the trolley in the corridor. But if this sustained promotion of success is not pursued, bad news can bring an organisation to its lowest ebb. That is precisely what happens in the NHS. Its "goodwill bank" becomes so sorely depleted that there is not enough to carry it through such crises unscathed.
Large multinationals know that promoting achievement, particularly with photographs in the media and on television, creates a favourable environment to deal with issues and problems. The NHS is constrained, some would argue wrongly, from following this model and promoting its success on a national scale. But surely we should still be putting much more energy into publicising the achievements of the NHS day by day. Every day, literally millions and millions of contacts are made by the people of Britain with NHS employees. There are comparatively few complaints and comparatively few moans; but lots of good experiences. A quality service. Yes, it could be better. So could every commercial organisation that I have worked for in the past 35 years.
I have one final point to make. Every time a commercial management publicly fights for the rights of its company, sometimes against unjust or unbalanced press comment, the employees rally behind it and fight, too. They want a management which fights on their behalf, publicly and with vigour. I suspect that those million or so working in the NHS would also feel the same way.
4.41 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I join with other speakers in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, for providing us with the opportunity today to debate this important subject. I live in west Surrey. Our health authority, the West Surrey Health Authority, has the distinction of serving one of the healthiest areas in the country. It is not only healthy, it is also one of the wealthiest—and, as we all know, the two factors are not unrelated. Those with high incomes tend to be better housed, better educated and benefit from lower levels of unemployment than others. Because we are healthy and wealthy, the NHS, quite rightly, judges our needs to be lower than those of authorities of similar size which serve poorer, more deprived areas.
However—and here is the rub—being healthy and wealthy does not actually reduce the demand for healthcare services. On the contrary, it is a well-established fact that healthcare has what we economists call a positive income elasticity of demand: that is to say, that as incomes go up, so people want more of it. Expectations about the quality of care provided are high in west Surrey. The middle classes are

1521
health conscious, they make good use of the screening services provided and they visit their doctors readily if they are worried. That is good from a health point of view and is one reason why we come high up those health league tables, but it is disastrous from a funding point of view.
The statistics say it all. In 1997–98 our health authority had an income of £227 million, while expenditure was £246 million. "Misery," as Mr. Micawber would say. We ran a deficit of £20 million. Inevitably there were successive rounds of cuts. The chief executive resigned and the new chief executive has been conducting a wide consultation exercise on priorities, urging us all to fill in forms with what we think are the most important things. He has been searching desperately for further areas of economy. But even in this coming year with higher levels of income—thanks to the generosity of the new Government—we still face a deficit of £5 million and need, over the next three years, to find further savings of £14 million to pay back previous debts.
I tell this story because I think that it demonstrates well the dilemma facing the NHS today. Detailed studies on where we have gone wrong and where expenditure has overshot show that with the exception of mental health (which perhaps reflects the degree of stress associated with making all that wealth in west Surrey), expenditure is not excessive. The problem is one of demand. We just cannot stop people from going to the doctor. Although NHS Direct has shown that there are perhaps ways of screening that demand, which could make use of resources rather more efficiently, for the moment, there seems very little that we can do about it.
Looking at the situation from a national point of view, this suggests that increasing amounts of money in the system may help, at least temporarily, to relieve the problem. But as the nation grows more prosperous, so we shall demand more and higher quality healthcare services generally. Whether we like it or not, we have to face up to the fact that spending more money as a proportion of GDP on healthcare is a likely future trend—and, if we want to retain a publicly funded service this means more government expenditure on the NHS—and that some form of rationing of services is here to stay.
In many ways it is amazing how much we do manage to squeeze out of the system with the NHS. When I lived in the United States—where health spending is now a massive 13 per cent. of national income—I took great pride in telling my American friends that the National Health Service gives everyone, overall—both rich and poor—a better quality of service for less than half the cost. In this country we currently spend 6.9 per cent. of GDP on health. If one looks at the statistics, it will be seen that that figure shot up by 1 per cent. in the early 1990s when we introduced the disastrous internal market experiment. Nevertheless, we still spend less than most of our EU partners. Germany is now spending over 10 per cent. of its GDP on health, while France is spending over 8 per cent. Among the more advanced countries, only Denmark manages to get away with as little as we do in the United Kingdom.
1522
What does Denmark do that we do not? Next to Luxembourg it is by the far the wealthiest country in Europe in terms of GDP per capita. I believe that the answer is that what Denmark achieves much better than we and many countries do is "joined up thinking" in relation to health—that is to say, health, housing, jobs and education are seen as interlinked. It uses the GP service, as we do, as a screening service but makes much wider use of paramedics. It also puts a lot more emphasis on health education and promoting healthy lifestyles.
From these Benches we applaud the Government's shift away from the wasteful fragmentation of the internal market in health to a more co-operative style of management. We welcome in particular the emphasis now being given to primary care and the degree to which GPs will now act as surrogate consumers, driving the system. As my noble friend Lady Thomas made clear, we also welcome moves to bring together the health and social services. But we are not yet convinced, if I may say so, that enough "joined up thinking" is going on in Government circles.
Waiting lists, for example, may have come down, but between March 1997 and September 1998 the number waiting for out-patient appointments has, according to the Department of Health's own statistics, increased from 248,000 to 437,000—an astonishing increase in pre-waiting list waiters of 76 per cent. Similarly, although waiting list numbers are down, waiting times are up. In west Surrey, we have nearly 1,500 patients who have been waiting for more than a year for their operations. That number is up considerably compared with last year's figures. If I may say so, there is still too much attention being paid to one set of statistics and not enough to the overall quality of care.
Above all, it seems to me that the Government are still thinking too much in terms of a national sickness service and not a national health service. Yes, I welcome very much the initiative to set up the healthy living centres described by the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley. But they are not yet in being. In too many different areas—for example smoking, diet, pollution, housing and exercise—the Government seem to have gone soft on the targets that were set by the previous government and which the present Government promoted in their White Paper Our Healthier Nation.
We all know that a healthier nation has healthier lifestyles. As the west Surrey experience illustrates, that will not alleviate the pressures on the health service but it may in the long run enable us to find some mechanism for containing some of the costs, as the Danes have done. I look forward to the day when a debate in this Chamber on the National Health Service is genuinely one about health and not one about crisis management.
4.50 p.m.
Lord Butterfield: My Lords, I join those who have expressed gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, for initiating this debate. I wish to make a few general opening remarks about the Health Bill. I am impressed with the enormous range of measures which the present Government are intent on introducing. I am

1523
interested in and share the concern that the noble Lord, Lord Winston, expressed about the fears he has that specialist services may become submerged in relation to community and primary care work. However, he need not worry too much about that as I believe the Royal Colleges will take an interest if consultants are left standing on the shore.
It is clear to me that the Government have a huge agenda. An enormous number of people will have to be drawn in to help the 500 primary care trusts. I am not alone in thinking the agenda is enormous. The NHS confederation has stated that it is a huge agenda which is supported by NHS organisations but will require an NHS cultural revolution. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Chadlington, mentioned that in his speech this afternoon, which I admired greatly. We must all realise that we need to support each other and that we must try to make the most of the good aspects of the health service. We should frown on the man who makes some nasty snide remark in the newspapers about either the performance of the previous government or the present Government in this regard. I have been involved in the health service since the beginning. All the people in the health service I have met have always wanted to do something good. They may have been misguided here or there, but let us for goodness sake put our oars in the water and pull together for the sake of the health service as a whole. It really should not be a party political issue.
In preparing for this debate I have not spent as much time as I should have done on the subject of dentistry. Many years ago I was keen that more research should be carried out into dentistry in this country. That matter was investigated and I was pleased when academics supported the idea of carrying out more research in this country into dentistry. Dentistry does not feature in the Health Bill. I encourage the Minister to make a little note perhaps on the bottom of a piece of paper and preferably in red to the effect that we must help dentistry. Information I have received from the British Dental Council indicates that there is an enormous amount of work to be done. Many people are concerned that they cannot obtain dental treatment on the NHS. However, there are difficulties in attracting young people into dentistry. I hope that we can do our best for dentistry because it is so important to health generally. If one's mouth and teeth are in good order, one has a chance of being healthy. If they are in poor order, one does not stand a chance of being healthy.
I suggest that we pay a little attention to the famous parable of the dying peasant farmer. He calls his boys around his deathbed and tells them that there is a treasure on the farm. He tells them to go out and find it. However, he does not tell them where the treasure is before he dies. As we all know, the boys worked hard on the farm. They tilled the soil and their crops were incredibly good. Only then did they realise that that was the treasure their father had talked about. To my mind that is generally true of the NHS.
I note that the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, is present. She will doubtless be concerned that the Health Bill does not adequately incorporate the nurses' point of view as regards the primary care trusts. We must wait for the wave of nurses' interest in administration to
1524
break into the health service. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Rea, is also present. He was in general practice before he came to this House. He brings many good messages to us about what is going on in general practice. I hope he will not mind if I reflect on the good aspects of the health service and consider the work that was done in Thamesmead by a colleague of mine who had a clinic there. He was raised to a professorship, if that is an appropriate way of expressing it. My colleague, Peter Higgins, set up an exemplary pilot NHS project for the students at Guy's. I am aggravated that people do not realise there are pioneers in the health service who have done wonderful things.
My colleague told me that the first important thing he did at that clinic was to form an alliance with a lady psychiatrist. They agreed that if he looked after the neurotics in the practice she would take care of the schizophrenics and the manic depressives. My colleague told me that he learnt how to manage the neurotics and it was a great relief to him that he did not have to take care of the completely disorganised thinking of the schizophrenics who needed so much care and attention. He asked consultants to come to the clinic. He set up training schemes for social workers. There has been a dreadful gap as regards people making a connection between social work and medicine. However, Peter Higgins managed to train social workers in his outpatients clinic in Thamesmead. He discovered that the student social workers could offer support to patients while he dealt with the next problem that faced him. He also had nurses working and training in the clinic. He had a strong philosophy of openness. He talked about transparency in medical services before that word was coined. He was keen that patients should feel they could ask questions openly. That is all written up in a 1982 edition of the British Medical Journal. I have reread that document and I am delighted to see how much he achieved.
I wish to mention another series of people digging away in the soil of the NHS; namely, those concerned with health promotion. I became involved with the Health Promotion Research Trust. I got into terrible hot water because people could not understand why the money that we distributed came from budgets for tobacco advertising, not from the tobacco industry itself. Certain people in the industry used to boast that they supported the Health Promotion Research Trust. I maintained they did so because we were carrying out good work. However, many people said that we were receiving money from a bad and evil source.
I wish to refer to both good and bad news that has emerged from ongoing research. First, I shall mention the bad news. It appears that the nation as a whole is becoming more and more obese. Therefore there will be more and more cases of diabetes and rheumatism for the NHS to treat. I have graphs which indicate that we are all gaining weight. That was revealed in a survey involving 10,000 people. The good news is that people who eat salads and fresh vegetables all year round have much better health records and much less cardiovascular disease and cancer than those who do not. So when

1525
noble Lords go off to their markets or supermarkets, they should stop first at the healthy foods and buy some fresh vegetables and fruit.
I thank your Lordships for listening to my speech. I want you to know that I have every expectation that the health service will fulfil all the feelings that the people in America, when I was a medical student during the war, had about it. The forward thinking ones used to say, "You are on to a very good thing".
5 p.m.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, for once again giving me an opportunity to ask the Government to recognise the plight of many National Health Service patients and their families. The patients all suffer from illnesses which have what are known as ill-defined symptoms. They have been variously diagnosed as suffering from ME/chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia, multiple chemical sensitivity, sick building syndrome, and of course the two in which I am particularly interested, OP poisoning and Gulf War illnesses. That is not a comprehensive list. The National Health Service has not served them well, though there are a few notable and heartening exceptions, of which I am one.
I have a certain amount of sympathy with the doctors practising in the National Health Service. Because of the polysymptomatic nature of these illnesses and the traditional specialist divisions in the NHS, they fall into no particular specialism. With the exception of ME, which has a well-documented history covering nearly 50 years, these are all relatively new illnesses. Their origins are, more often than not, attributed by mainstream medical and scientific researchers to psychogenic rather than chemical or biological causes. This attribution is frequently regarded as insulting by those individuals suffering from a range of symptoms which often prevent them from working or functioning socially on a day-to-day basis. The medical practitioners responsible for their treatment often scorn them when they do not respond to drugs or cognitive behavioural therapy—the standard treatment offered to this group of patients. They blame the patients rather than the treatment for the failure of the patients to recover. All too frequently patients are sectioned under the Mental Health Act or, if they are children, they are placed on the at risk register, made wards of court and are forced to accept psychiatric treatment. You do not need much imagination to visualise the damage this does to patients and their families.
Most patients have some idea of the origins and cause of their illness but their doctors refuse to listen. Sufferers' organisations have been formed in an attempt to obtain recognition of, and research and treatment for, these illnesses. Their members have developed a very special expertise in counselling, informing themselves of research results which point to possible causes and finding their own treatments for their illnesses. In my work with these groups I have observed that their illnesses have many common features.
1526
Noble Lords may be aware that the practice of medicine is very vulnerable to fashion. I recall that, during my childhood, it was fashionable to have one's tonsils removed as they were thought to be a nuisance and to serve no useful purpose. Before that I understand appendectomies were all the rage. There were also fashions for the nomenclature of diseases. Between the two world wars, that all too distressing disease, multiple sclerosis, was called the "idle man's disease". Psychologists are now in fashion. They are able to attribute all the subjective bodily symptoms to psychological causes. I recognise that emotional stress can cause somatisation. We all know that fear causes our hearts to beat faster and may, for example, make us feel sick. However, can the researchers be so sure that the neuro-psychological symptoms displayed by patients with these new illnesses are not caused by chemical or biological factors? After all, drugs, which are chemicals, are prescribed deliberately to alter the chemistry of the brain.
It is now known that the human olfactory system, for nearly a century thought to be defunct, does, like our tonsils, have a major part to play in our physical and psychological well-being. Research has shown that chemicals which are inhaled have a direct route into the limbic system of the brain through the olfactory bulb. The limbic system controls many of the bodily functions for which this group of patients reports malfunctions. The blood/brain barrier was, until recently, thought to be inviolate. We now know that, under conditions of physical or mental stress, the barrier may rupture, allowing chemical and biological toxins to penetrate all regions of the brain. On the whole the body is exquisitely designed to be able to deal with toxic assaults, but we do not all come off the same computer controlled production line. Some of us have design faults which make us more vulnerable to chemical and biological exposures.
Those who say that these illnesses are "all in the head" may not be so wrong. Those who say they are "all in the mind" may have to eat their words. Could it be that the symptoms of those suffering from ME/chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia, sick building syndrome, multiple chemical sensitivity, OP poisoning, Gulf War illnesses and maybe schizophrenia and other mental illnesses have much in common and that it is only the original trigger which is the differentiating factor?
I have come to the conclusion that there are a number of reasons why this area of research is so poorly funded. Most of them revolve around money. The past 50 years have seen thousands of new chemicals and chemical compounds used in industry, agriculture and in our gardens and homes. No toxicity data, or minimal data, are available for 66 per cent. of pesticides, 64 per cent. of drugs, 84 per cent. of cosmetic ingredients, 81 per cent. of food additives and 88 to 90 per cent. of the chemicals used in commerce. Very little is known about the synergistic or potentiating effects of combinations of chemicals. Little, too, is known about vulnerable populations. All we do know is that reporting of these kinds of illnesses is increasing. If chemicals were to be

1527
implicated as the cause of so much ill-health, the repercussions on the chemical and pharmaceutical industries and on employment would be enormous.
Another likely reason for the lack of research is that those individuals and bodies who are responsible for recommending research proposals and for funding are either the same as, or are very closely allied to, those who have been responsible for the manufacture, safety and licensing matters in the past. It is a common, and very human, failing to be reluctant to admit that you have made a mistake. It must be particularly difficult for scientists who are held in such high esteem by the rest of the population. Is it not much easier and, I would suggest, perfectly natural to fall back onto the psychologists, who appear to be able to provide very logical explanations?
There are many independent researchers, working on shoestring budgets, who have found physical abnormalities in these patients. In the light of the failure of mainstream science and medicine properly to investigate possible organic causes for this group of illnesses, perhaps I may ask the Minister two questions. Would she and her colleagues in another place be prepared to fund an international conference of a cross-section of independent researchers in this field to discover whether there is any common ground between them? If there is, would she consider joint departmental funding of research proposals based on this common ground? I am certain that in the long run this would save the NHS a great deal of money.
Politicians are primarily the guardians of their nation's security and the well-being of its citizens. I would suggest that this is a problem which may require political intervention. Do we really value the health of our national bank balance and chemical industry above the health of our nation's citizens, particularly our children?
5.9 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I am not sure whether it was by accident or design, but the debate introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, for which I thank her, has enabled us to take a preliminary canter round the Health Bill which will shortly occupy much of your Lordships' time. I hope that that Bill will lead to a better National Health Service, containing as it does proposals for the NICE and the attributes of a CHIMP. It will naturally be enhanced by the critical attention that your Lordships always give to such Bills. In this debate I wish to step back further and examine the way in which the National Health Service is coping, and will cope in future, with our most intractable problem, that of social inequalities in health.
The health of any nation is more important than the health of its health service. The two are not synonymous. In the developed world, the United States, which spends the highest proportion of GDP on health, has the worst health statistics; while Greece, which among European Union countries, spends the least on health, has an expectation of life which is near the top of the range. In the United Kingdom, which spends only 6.9 per cent. of its GDP on health, as the noble
1528
Baroness, Lady Sharp, has just pointed out, our health statistics are in the middle of the range. They include some rather bad areas. I refer in particular to heart disease and breast cancer—and on a less serious, but nevertheless socially serious, level, teenage pregnancies are very much in the news. Some noble Lords may have heard Professor John Guillebaud's controversial suggestion of contraceptive implants. It is a solution that is not acceptable to most opinion, at least judging by the knee-jerk responses so far.
In a most welcome change, this Government have fully recognised the importance of health inequalities in contributing to our relatively poor health statistics. If all our people were as fit as those who are reasonably well-off and well educated (those who live around Guildford, it appears) our health record would be the envy of the world. A top priority must be to improve the health of the less well-off and less well educated.
With commendable speed, soon after the election, the Government asked Sir Donald Acheson, the former Chief Medical Officer, a very respected epidemiologist, to review the evidence on inequalities in health. His report was published two months ago. Like the report of his predecessor, Sir Douglas Black, but now able to cite much more scientific evidence, the report emphasises that health inequalities have wide social and economic causes which concern almost all government departments.
But the National Health Service plays an important role in dealing with the consequences of those inequalities. As Frank Dobson has said, very directly—one might say frankly—poor people are sicker people. They die earlier and, more important to the National Health Service, they are more subject to many chronic ailments, both mental and physical, which imply additional costs for the NHS. Poor people see their GP more often than those from professional backgrounds. However, the quality of the consultation that they receive may be less thorough because of the greater time pressure on GPs in deprived districts. There are other reasons that make for a lower quality of consultation as well. Poor people attend hospital casualty departments more often, as was pointed out by my noble friend Lord Warner, and have more emergency admissions. There is some evidence that they do not have more planned in-patient admissions and operations, taking their greater burden of chronic illness into account. That is particularly true in the case of coronary heart disease.
In his Recommendation No. 37, Sir Donald Acheson states:
"We recommend that providing equitable access to effective care in relation to need should be a governing principle of all policies in the NHS. Priority should be given to the achievement of equity in the planning, implementation and delivery of services at every level of the NHS".
He goes on to make specific suggestions, one of which is,
"extending the remit of the National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) to include equity of access to effective health care".

1529
I believe that the Government are aware of these problems, but it will clearly not be possible, as my noble friend Lord Winston pointed out, to turn matters round in one Parliament. That will certainly not be enough time.
However, a start has been made, with the decision, for instance, to implement the first wave of health action zones in 11 deprived parts of the country. That concept is close to the recommendation of Sir Douglas Black in his 1980 report, which suggested the setting up of,
"a special health and development programme in a small number of selected areas".
He went on to suggest that a proportion of the funding should be reserved for evaluative research and statistical and information units. In replying, will my noble friend give the House a progress report on the HAZ initiative? It was always intended that there should be pilot schemes and that their experience would be built on more widely. To do that effectively, evaluation needs to be built in from the start, as Sir Douglas Black suggested 20 years ago—a process that was notably absent during the introduction of the 1990 health reforms by the previous government. I hope that my noble friend will assure the House that this necessary evaluation is taking place.
Apart from the health action zones, there are relatively deprived people in all parts of the country, including pockets in the midst of quite affluent areas. I hope that the existence of HAZ schemes will not exclude attention to their needs too.
One of the most worrying problems presently facing the National Health Service is the difficulty of recruiting and retaining GPs and nurses, particularly in inner-city areas. Some progress was made in London by the London Implementation Zone (LIZ) initiative of the previous government. But there is still a long way to go. Many inner-city GPs are approaching retirement, when the situation will become more acute. A paper in this week's BMJ illustrates the problem graphically. It examines the age structure and distribution of GPs who were trained in the Indian sub-continent and who came to work in Britain in the 1960s when there was a shortage of UK-trained doctors choosing to work in the less attractive areas of the country. The paper, by Taylor and Esmail, indicates how over the next 10 years some deprived areas will lose up to 25 per cent. of their GPs through the retirement of south Asian doctors, while more affluent areas, not having a high proportion of overseas doctors, will experience the loss of very few and will more easily replace them. The problem is made more serious by the fact that these are the very areas that should receive extra resources in view of their worse health problems. I am not sure that the Government are doing enough lateral thinking on ways and means of attracting young and idealistic doctors and nurses, who still exist and want to work in those areas where they are most needed.
My noble friend often says that money is only part of the answer. That is true. Purpose-built or imaginatively adapted buildings, good and affordable housing, better schools for the offspring of health workers and good
1530
support services all need to be part of the package. They would make working in the inner city a challenging opportunity rather than a depressing and demoralising experience from which most professionals want to escape.
The recent public sector pay settlement has been relatively generous, particularly to newly qualified nurses. However, there is still a long way to go before the general level of nursing pay becomes high enough in relation to other occupations of similar status. Will the Government state that over a period of years they intend to rectify this position, to bring nursing salaries more into line with those of other professions? Would that not be the best way of reassuring nurses that the Government recognise that their role is central to the National Health Service?
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, I wonder whether nurse training—not only in relation to state enrolled nurses but Project 2000 based and degree courses—is sufficiently hands on. Nurse training has traditionally depended on a high proportion of apprenticeship experience, with block releases for theoretical teaching. Are the Government satisfied with the current arrangements for nurse training? I declare an interest, as one of my daughters is now in her second year of training at Bart's.
5.20 p.m.
Baroness Fookes: My Lords, those of us who have come here from another place may well remember the late Sir Michael McNair-Wilson. He was a Member of Parliament who thought his career was coming to an abrupt end because he suffered kidney failure. With great courage and ingenuity, he contrived to keep going, partly by using the time when he was chained to a dialysis machine to deal with constituency correspondence, prepare speeches and the like. Like so many others before and after, he had to wait for a transplant, but he eventually had one. That brought its own difficulties, but he secured a much better quality of life for some years. It was always very instructive—and, indeed, very moving—to talk to him about what it meant to be a patient in those circumstances. It made me very sensitive to the needs of those who require a transplant—whether of kidneys or other organs—and to this day I carry a kidney donor card. I hope that many others also carry cards.
The transplantation service faces a serious situation. In 1997 the Royal College of Surgeons felt moved to set up its own working party to look into the difficulties. It issued a report a few days ago, in late January. Its chairman, Professor Sir Peter Morris, was obviously extremely anxious about the situation. He referred to the service being on, what he called, a knife-edge—not, I thought, the happiest phrase for a surgeon to use. He pointed to two great difficulties: first, the shortage of organs; secondly—and just as worrying—a shortage of surgeons with a specialty in transplantation at their fingertips. As I listened to my noble friend Lord McColl, it struck me that here was an extraordinary irony: apparently there are too many obstetricians and too few transplant surgeons.

1531
The report set out a number of recommendations, chief of which was an idea for a national transplant service which would have some overview and strategic planning in this area. The service would seek, among other things, to increase the number of donors through a national campaign—it wants virtually to double the number to 10 million—and to bring forward more transplant surgeons by extra training, research fellowships and any other means. That is all admirable stuff. But the report contained an idea which worried me somewhat. It referred to the need for "rationalisation of units". In plain English, that means it is necessary to shut a few units. I would not be able to comment on what this might mean nationally—or even whether or not it is wise—but I know about the position in the west country, where I represented a constituency in Plymouth for some years. In the west country there are two renal units—one at Derriford Hospital in Plymouth and another at Bristol. The report of the Royal College of Surgeons suggests that one unit should be closed. I wish to make a strong plea tonight that both units should remain open.
Strangely, the unit in Plymouth—about which I know rather more because I am the president of the Friends of the Kidney Unit, as they call it in Plymouth—meets the criteria set out by the Royal College of Surgeons: that there should be four surgeons carrying out at least 50 transplants a year and serving a population of some 2 million. Plymouth can provide all of that.
It is an excellent unit within an excellent hospital. When I toured the unit a few months ago and began to get an inkling of what might happen, I was very struck by the quality of those running it and by the very real feel that the patients had for what was being done for them. The unit is in a very up-to-date, go-ahead hospital, which already has a most successful cardiac unit. In the old days patients had to go from Plymouth to London or Bristol; now they are treated on the spot. I would hate to see something which is already working well dissolved and disappear. It is hard enough to make things work well without getting rid of them.
Let me make another important point. I am not sure whether the working party fully appreciated the dispersed nature of the population and the geographical spread of the area currently served by Plymouth. The area runs from the Scilly Isles, through the long leg of Cornwall and Devon and beyond. In terms of travelling time, it is extremely difficult for both patients and families and friends who want to visit them. That alone makes the need for the renal unit to stay at Plymouth absolutely vital. It is not all that easy if you are living in the Plymouth area, but just imagine what it must be like when you are sick to come over from the Scilly Isles, or from north Cornwall or through the Devon lanes for hospital treatment, and then having to go back again and again for check-ups.
It is absolutely essential that the unit remains open. I have great faith in it. I am not sure who will make the final decision but, in so far as it relates to the Department of Health, I hope the department will take on board what I have said. Now that it is known, I can tell the Minister that tremendous feeling is working up
1532
in the west country about this. It adds a very real element of anxiety and worry to those already in a very difficult position. I hope that any decision will be made as quickly as possible and that it will be the right one, not only for the city of Plymouth but for the whole of the west country.
5.27 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, do your Lordships remember Five Boys chocolate? On the wrapper were five pictures of a boy in various stages of anticipation and delight. It came to mind yesterday when I went back to the Chesterfield and North Derbyshire Royal Hospital for the opening by the Prince of Wales of the new cancer care suite, for which they had raised more than £260,000 by sheer hard work. Everyone looked pleased, but some newly qualified nurses looked delighted—like the boy on the chocolate wrapper—at their 12 per cent. pay rise. Others, who had served many years on the wards and in the sluice rooms, were less impressed by their 4.7 per cent., which some said would not be enough to prevent the continued haemorrhage of experienced nurses from the profession: nor would it attract those who had left to return. Senior nurses, with many years of experience, told me that there was still no real incentive for nurses to move up to the higher grades, and that once you were at your grade ceiling there was still little chance to progress except by moving into management, education or research. So although they were truly grateful for the pay settlement announced on Monday, they felt that it alleviated the agony without fully solving the problem.
The nurses and administrators looked forward to the promised radical review of NHS pay and gradings and hoped to see a real simplification of the system which has reigned unchallenged and unchanged for nearly half a century, with separate scales for everyone, and grades running from A to I. There was enthusiastic support for an integrated system for all healthcare professionals—with perhaps three strands covering medical, nursing and PAMs; with far fewer alphabetical grade divisions; and a sweeping away of the "add-ons" for training courses and the like, which lead to complications, bureaucracy and discontent.
Similarly, they were profoundly unimpressed by rumours of "performance related" increments which they felt in their profession could only be divisive, selfish, unquantifiable and unworkable, and I had to agree. I have seen what a dog's breakfast such schemes have brought in universities and all such vocations—"when service sweat for duty, not for meed".
So, three cheers for promises fulfilled and cash duly awarded, but nurses still have a long way to go. Next time your Lordships re-read Dickens's Oliver Twist consider chapter 2, where Oliver aged 9, in the workhouse, half-starved on one small bowl of gruel, bravely goes back to the man at the cauldron with the words,
"Please, sir, I want some more".
So do nurses. Pay is the single most important way in which the morale of NHS nurses can be raised.

1533
But there are other issues which the NHS and the Government can and must address. Perhaps I may address just four of them. First, with family-friendly employment policies. The RCN reports that 85 per cent. of nurses responding to an ICM poll last February said family-friendly policies would encourage them to stay in nursing. The implications of Bristol Employment Tribunal's ruling in the case of in Alison Hale and Christine Clunie v. Wiltshire Healthcare NHS Trust are quite clear: nurses are becoming ever more ready to stand up for their human rights as women, wives, mothers and carers. Three cheers for that. Yet when I have inquired of the Department of Health about the progress of pilot schemes evaluating the Swedish scheme called Timecare, I have not been reassured. One official said that there had been complications with the software; another said that currently the report was being considered by Ministers, and we all know what that means. That was last October, the month when it was planned to publish the results. May I ask my noble friend when we can expect them, please? One thing is certain: if and when the report appears, it will bear none of the distinguishing stigmata of being a rushed job.
Second, let us salute the success of the Government's encouragement of specialist nurses. These are not "failed doctors" or "mini-GPs" but nurses who have undertaken advanced training in areas take gerontology or cancer care without in any way sacrificing their central basic nursing skills. They are nurses with additional knowledge and skills whose first concern is still patient care. Will noble Lords pardon a personal instance that makes the point? When I was receiving chemotherapy in hospital last spring a specialist haematology nurse was assigned to keep an eye on me. Her name was Carolyn. One morning she set up on my drip stand a bag containing brilliant royal blue liquid and attached me to it. Modestly averting her eyes, she said "When that finds its own way out it will be a bright emerald green. "Dont worry" she said I only mention it because the fact is more evident and more alarming to gentlemen than to ladies". That is a small example of patient-centred, specialist, expert nursing care. There must be more of it, and soon. We welcome what has come but how much more and how soon will it come?
Third, let us rejoice with exceeding great joy at the success of NHS Direct. It was a huge delight to listen yesterday to the Statement read out by my noble friend. But let us not forget the implications of that success. Increased use of NHS Direct will lead to a nurse being the first point of contact between the patient and the NHS, not the GP. Not only will some patients and some GPs resent this and require careful reassurance, but there will also be resource and funding implications which will require control and monitoring. Even though these nurses will be paid at F or G grades, is my noble friend quite sure that enough can be recruited? It is estimated that in the Yorkshire district alone 50 nurses will need to be employed to do nothing else. I hope that my noble friend can reassure us on those points.
Fourth, a word on the vital matter of nurse education. Melanie Phillips wrote recently in the Sunday Times:
1534
"Women are turning away from nursing in large measure because it has changed. Its leaders decided it had to gain higher status by becoming more professionalised. So during the 1980s nurse training was taken away from the hospitals and turned into an academic subject taught in universities. As a result, it has driven away people who would make excellent nurses but have no academic bent. Conversely, why should people who are degree material choose such a low-paid job?"
How much truth is there in that view? Not much I think but some. That is a very difficult problem at the centre of nurse training. She goes on to state that those student nurses studied courses such as matters as sociology, politics, psychology and, management, and gender studies. I would have thought that in an accident and emergency unit on a Friday night a course in gender studies would be of rather less use than a course in unarmed combat. No my Lords. My dream is of an integrated, modular course which will involve all nursing students, and allowing some to drop out and start work with a diploma at approximately the old SEN stage while others go on to a degree and postgraduate degrees. Why should a nurse not have a Ph.D? Perhaps the UKCC review will consider this before September.
My daughter, a health visitor, tells me that when she was a nurse on a busy ward a group of student nurses came, instructed to observe what went on. The ward sister was explaining when the buzzer went—as it always does—and she asked one of the students if she could take Mrs. Jones to the loo please. The student said, "No", said the student, "I have already observed that procedure". "Well" said the sister coldly, "if ever you become a nurse you will observe it a lot more. Now, please, take Mrs. Jones to the toilet". Nursing is still, and always will be, about caring for patients. Nurses must be valued for doing that.
5.36 p.m.
Baroness McFarlane of Llandaff: My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, for giving us an opportunity to hold a wide-ranging debate on the National Health Service. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Morris, for championing nursing in his usual wonderful and human way. We identify with so much of what he said. I focus on the state of nursing education. When we entered the House together I told the noble Lord that I was so glad to see that he preceded me in the order of speakers because he would pave the way. His response was, "Yes—like John the Baptist". I rather fancy that in his speech he may have been calling for repentance, but I am not sure.
In focusing on nursing education I declare an interest. I was the first professor of nursing in an English university. Therefore, I witnessed the early developments of nursing within the higher education sector. I believe that I must accept consequent responsibility for some developments since then. In the light of what I believe to be the positive contribution made by higher education to the quality of nursing care, I should like to examine some of the misconceptions and myths that have been voiced about nursing education. At the moment nursing education is subject to a good deal of "scapegoating" and almost every ill in the profession is blamed on the new system of nursing education. I refer to such matters as the shortage of nurses. It is

1535
asserted that potentially caring young people are deterred from entering nursing because it is perceived as being too academic and that caring people do not want to have their heads filled with knowledge. What price doctors? It is asserted that the products of the courses are not clinically competent and have lost the sense of identity with the health service that they once had when they were hospital-based students.
We should do well to consider why Project 2000 was instituted. It was initiated by the late Dame Catherine Hall when she was chairman of the UKCC. She had a profound appreciation of the needs of the health service and the place of nursing within it. The committee attempted to look forward to the education required by nurses for practice in the year 2000. A number of project papers—I believe eight—were prepared, and there was the widest consultation, with over 1,000 responses analysed. The report, Project 2000: A new preparation for Practice, was a careful analysis of the kind of practitioner of nursing who would be needed in the new millennium, the range of skills that nurses would need, and the knowledge basis to be safe practitioners of those skills. It took into account the range of situations in which nurses would find themselves. We do well to remind ourselves of those objectives since Project 2000 is often vilified—it was so vilified in the article quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Morris—as a flight into academia for status seeking nurses. It was not. The project was an attempt to seek a better basis for practice.
Some cardinal principles were laid down. Student nurses should not be exploited as cheap labour, as they had been in the past, with work allocated to them which had nothing to do with their education. They should be learners of nursing. The reforms should take into account the changes in medical science and the consequent differences in the nursing role. The programme should provide an introduction to nursing in a variety of settings. No longer would a nurse have to return to the beginning of a course to train for a new register; and therefore their deployment in the National Health Service could be more flexible. At that time there was evidence from school leavers that they wished to have the right of access to higher education along with their school-leaving colleagues. The hospital-based school was seen as a deterrent to the recruitment of school leavers. The hospital based schools did not have the stimulation of a multi-disciplinary learning environment that a university had.
The committee recommended that there should be one level of trained nurse. Many people lament the passing of the enrolled nurse. However, because of the shortage of registered nurses, enrolled nurses were asked to undertake skills and tasks beyond their knowledge and competence. The same is happening now. Nursing auxiliaries are being asked to undertake tasks far beyond their knowledge and competence.
Research showed that in the hospital based programmes—it was indicated in some of the research with which I was occupied in the 1960s on the quality of nursing care—many nurses used rigid, procedurally-based approaches and were incapable of
1536
adjusting their practice to the individual needs of the patient. Those are some of the many reasons that Project 2000 was recommended.
The Project 2000 report recommended links with higher education for diploma level courses. In fact the vogue at the time was to give far wider access to higher education; hence the whole lock, stock and barrel went into higher education for diploma courses and degree programmes. It may surprise some to know that the minimum entry requirement into nurse education has remained unchanged with the introduction of Project 2000. I can read a long list. It requires five GCSEs (Grade C or over); NVQ/SVQ level 3; GNVQ advanced: NVQ/SVQ level 2, plus one GCSE (Grade C or over); or GNVQ intermediate plus one GCSE (Grade C or over). There is no evidence to suggest that large numbers of young people are being denied access to training because of entry requirements. Nursing education now has wide entry requirements. Let us look at the figures. Twenty six per cent. come without traditional entry requirements. The average age is 27. Accessing nursing education through vocational courses is increasingly popular; and that is educationally desirable.
The proportion of practice to theory originally recommended was 60 per cent. practice to 40 per cent. theory. The figure has now become 50:50, so there has been a slight addition of theory to the course. At present 90 per cent. of nurses enter through diploma courses, and 10 per cent. through degree programmes. I think that there is in some places a perception that everyone is becoming a graduate. That is not the present truth.
I believe that it is now time to review Project 2000. The four government health departments have commissioned a review of the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act which is expected to report in June this year. The UKCC has commissioned a review of pre-registration education and training. That is due to report in September. I plead that we wait for those reports and reviews, and link them carefully to the skill mix required not only in nursing but medicine and other health professions. For instance, the Campbell report has profound implications for the skill mix needed in nursing. We need "joined up" thinking in planning for the health service and a way of keeping that under review.
I believe that clinical competence is the most important factor in nursing education. We need strategies. Many suggested strategies, such as joint appointments, point in that direction.
5.47 p.m.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes for introducing the debate. However, I must declare an interest as I am Honorary Colonel of 306 Field Hospital Territorial Army, a Commissioner at the Royal Hospital Chelsea and a Special Trustee at the Chelsea and Westminster Hospital.
In today's debate we have been invited to comment on the state of the National Health Service. I wish to draw to your Lordships' attention that in the future the

1537
state of the National Health Service will be affected by the dependence on it of the Defence Medical Services Secondary Care Agency. However, before commenting on that, I should like to record that a vast debt of gratitude is owed to the doctors, nurses, clinicians and all supporting staff and employees at those hospitals. They are dedicated to their profession and loyal to the system, and compared with other countries it is a truly wonderful and remarkable service.
I was going to focus on National Health Service funding, nurses' pay and waiting lists, but time does not allow me to do so if I am to deal in a broad manner with the Defence Medical Services. However, I should like to say how disappointed I am that part of the capital investment fund is to be used to fund the nurses' pay award. That will inevitably reduce investment in mental health care, modernisation of hospitals and technology, more education and training for NHS staff, reducing hospital waiting lists and providing information technology for GPs. I believe that even with the pay rise on 1st April nurses' pay is still too low. Their pay should be increased further and their conditions of service improved if we are to recruit new nurses, retain nurses and attract nurses back to the National Health Service. But funds to rectify this should come from another source and not from investment capital. Should not more nurses' living accommodation be made available and should there not be a residence to place of duty allowance? Why should not interest free mortgages be offered to those working in the nursing profession?
I now come to the Defence Medical Services, whose secondary care system deals with Service personnel on admission to hospital. Some years ago there were a number of military hospitals in this country and overseas which the Armed Forces used. Currently, Armed Forces personnel are already cared for at Frimley, Derryford and Peterborough NHS hospitals. From 1st July this year, they will also be cared for at Northallerton, when Catterick Military Hospital reduces its capability and more or less becomes a medical reception station.
It is essential that the National Health Service and the Defence Medical Services complement each other's efforts and make best use of the vital national resource that defence medical personnel possess. Greater consultation with the National Health Service at the highest level is required and it will be very necessary to take steps with the National Health Service to ensure that military standards and ethos are maintained for military people working among civilians in NHS hospitals. The National Health Service must be asked to agree that these military detachments are allowed to have time to carry out their military skills, adventure training and sport in order to retain the necessary Army team spirit in addition to their clinical duties.
The military hospital, known as the Royal Hospital Haslar, near Gosport, is going to close and its place taken by another Armed Forces unit in a National Health Service hospital, but not before a centre for defence medicine has been established and is up and running satisfactorily. This centre for defence medicine will be the focal point to provide a professional lead, a centre for training and a centre for excellence for research. It
1538
should be closely integrated with an NHS hospital, preferably a teaching hospital. Expressions of interest from NHS trusts around the country will be sought, looking for new ideas on how and where the centres should be formed.
In many areas the relationships between the NHS and the Defence Medical Services are good, but this is not the case in every area and there is a serious gap in the higher level of the strategic area. It is very much hoped that the NHS will give very careful consideration to selecting two NHS candidates for the two top-level board appointments. Their roles would be giving an NHS perspective on the decisions of Defence Medical Services; seeking ministerial approval for interdepartmental initiatives; and targeting the right expertise within the NHS to address specific questions.
The issues on which their advice would be essential include the options for a future Centre for Defence Medicine; guidelines for negotiating National Health Service contracts for secondary care; and the co-ordination of recruitment and retention. The overall intention is to ensure that the National Health Service and the Defence Medical Services work closely together at all levels, making most effective use of the vital national resource that the Defence Medical Services represent.
We demand of our Armed Forces that they should fight for our freedom and liberty and many of them face danger on a daily basis. The least their country can do for them is to ensure that they have the very best medical services to use should any of them become wounded at any time. Will the Minister ask those at the Department of Health and the National Health Service to address these matters in a speedy manner and with the due diligence that is required?
5.54 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords. I wish to record my appreciation of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, who put forward constructive proposals for closer integration between the Defence Medical Services and the National Health Service. I also appreciated the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, who made what she described unashamedly as a political speech. It was all the better for that. There is nothing dishonourable about being a politician. As the House will be aware, I believe that all progress comes from an assertion followed by dissent, producing the eventual synthesis for a new argument. I thought that her speech was altogether good.
She will understand that during the earlier stages of the previous Conservative administration I suffered from a severe bout of depression—and I am by nature an optimist. The Conservative government presumed with the utmost folly to try to commercialise the whole internal workings of the National Health Service. That was a mistake and they know that it was. Therefore, I was most pleased by one of the first actions taken by my new Government in May 1997. That was the setting up by the Minister of State at the Department of Health, my right honourable friend Miss Tessa Jowell, of a committee to investigate inequalities in health. The

1539
report was referred to by my noble friend Lord Rea, whose lengthy speech on the matter relieves me of the necessity to do so.
It is obvious to all but the purblind that there are inequalities in health. It was a matter of intellectual conviction on the part of my right honourable friend the Minister of State immediately to initiate a study in detail. It was eventually run by Sir Donald Acheson, but unfortunately reported during the Summer Recess last year and did not receive the public attention that it deserved.
One of the favourite diktats of the former government, or its then leader, was that there is no such thing as society; that people were responsible for their own ill or good fortune. That government denied specifically—I have so many quotations that I will not bother your Lordships with them—that, for example, unemployment and poverty had anything to do with health. They said that it was no concern of society and it was all down to the individual.
One thing Sir Donald Acheson's report makes abundantly clear is that unemployment, poverty and homelessness, which are the lot of at least one tenth of our society, lie at the heart of much of the ill health which the nation as a whole suffers. I commend Sir Donald's report on that very issue. He proves conclusively by the production of detailed tables—to which, because of the limitation of time, I cannot refer—exactly the opposite.
It is a matter of common sense that people who are homeless, living in poor homes, or who have no personal domestic serenity connected to the place in which they live, will be subjected to stresses which have a most profound effect not only upon mental health but also on physical health. Sir Donald gives so many examples that the evidence is conclusive.
I was pleased to note that my Government are building on that. They have not only initiated inquiries, but also taken active steps to eliminate some—not all by any means—of the ridiculous administrative apparatus that was erected to maintain this fiction of some kind of internal market in hell, and they are doing that resolutely. The "Government" includes, I am happy to say, not only the political chiefs of the Ministry of Health, but also the dedicated civil servants that serve them and who sustain them fully and, above all, the nurses, the doctors, the specialists, the ancillaries, the administrators and all those who sustain the health service on the ground.
It does not say much for our ability to perceive gross injustice and to do something about it for society in the United Kingdom to tolerate the degree of violent assaults that are made by patients and others upon not only the medical profession but also the nurses that serve in the hospitals. It is rare for any hospital in the United Kingdom to be free for one day of violence inflicted upon its servants, and we should be thoroughly ashamed of that.
It may have occurred to your Lordships that one way in which we can reduce the costs associated with the National Health Service, and which inevitably lie at its roots, is by helping in whatever way we can to reduce
1540
the demands made upon it. One way in which we can do that is by bringing down unemployment, alleviating poverty and attaining a more agreeable and relaxed atmosphere between those who have a lot and those who have too little. Something that can be tackled sooner rather than later is an attitude that is exhibited in some sections of government, giving those with money, wealth and power most of the rights while thrusting the duties on the poorer and less well off sections of the community. I trust that that will be corrected.
The other thing the Government can do is study the extent to which the Treasury exercises what it would call "effective control" over expenditure in the National Health Service. Can the Minister say whether it endeavours to control it globally by fixing a ceiling or whether it confines its controls to certain parts of the health service? In that case, it is not only a question of enforcing those self-imposed limitations on expenditure that were laid down by the previous government—that is tough enough—it also means the adoption and encouragement of economic policies that will lead to less unemployment and to a redistribution of income. Those are matters to which I can legitimately call my party's attention.
I speak from long experience in my party and have the utmost affection for it. I criticise it with great reluctance. However, I warn that my anxieties are widely shared within the movement to which I have the honour to belong. But I am confident of one thing: that the Secretary of State for Health and his team—both bureaucrats and his political allies—have their endeavours firmly on a path that I fully and honourably support.
6.6 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, ill health results from many factors. My concern today is with the health services of people living in rural areas and the effect that they have, as things are currently organised, both on those who suffer and on the NHS itself. I shall therefore confine my remarks particularly to those in rural areas and to our growing elderly population.
Recent research and conference reports from the County Councils Network has thrown up some alarming statistics proving that the rural areas are disadvantaged in terms of social provision. It costs more money and more time to provide home-based care away from the urban area. For example, Manchester and Westminster, with lower costs and higher government funding through the SSA, are able to provide four hours of home care per 1,000 elderly inhabitants for every one hour afforded by Lincolnshire. This means that elderly patients convalescing from operations or other hospital-based treatment, instead of going home to home care, often have to stay in hospital until they are competent once again to look after themselves. Similarly, those living in rural areas often have great difficulty getting to a doctor, let alone to hospital appointments. Can the Minister give any figures of hospital visits per 1,000 elderly of the rural population compared with the urban?

1541
Not only is there a transport difficulty in rural areas, but they also carry a heavier loading of older people. For instance, in England 15.8 per cent. are over 65; in Devon the figure is 21 per cent.; in Norfolk, 19.4 per cent.; and in Lincolnshire, 18.6 per cent. But 91 per cent of rural parishes have no day care facilities for the elderly; 83 per cent. have no GP, which means they also have no practice nurse; 75 per cent. have no daily bus service; and 42 per cent. have no village shop. When things get too much for the elderly in these rural communities it is very often the NHS which has to pick up the pieces.
The County Councils Network reports also cover the position of children in the rural environment and the most damning statistics concern children at risk. In inner London the average yearly expenditure on a child at risk is £27,900; in Cumbria, the average is £12,330. In London help can be got to the child, or the child to the help, so much faster and more easily than in Cumbria. Moreover, children at risk are often children of mothers at risk. Has the Minister any figures of the relative burden placed on the NHS by that type of need?
The problems do not end there. Two weeks ago the Samaritans reported that there have been over 1,000 suicides in the past three years among small farmers driven to despair by the crisis in farming. How many of them would be here today had the support—medical and personal—been more closely available? And how much extra has the NHS had to spend on those left behind—on doctors' consultations, sleeping pills and anti-depressants?
Let us not forget the impact upon the NHS of the unsuccessful suicide. In 1992 Shropshire published figures showing that in the previous year 43 people in the county committed suicide, 27 of them from the rural areas. At the same time, in those same rural areas, in the first four months of 1992 paramedics had attended 220 attempted suicides. Will the Minister, in due course—not tonight—supply more up-to-date figures for each of the shire counties compared with the national average?
Such problems are made worse by the spread of GPs across the country. We heard last week of the coming crisis in the inner cities as those doctors who arrived, mostly from Asia, 30 years ago start to retire. A BMA spokesman confirmed that the salaries in inner city areas are often much lower than those in more affluent suburbs, making it difficult to attract replacements for those hard-working GPs. However, he stated that earnings in rural areas are also below the average. There is already a GP shortage in some of the more remote places.
There are also problems caused by the sheer variability of service provision in individual hospitals and between health authorities. An old person living in one neighbourhood, suffering a stroke in the night, may be taken to one hospital which perhaps does not have a specialist unit and will be offered twice-a-week day care services. He or she will survive, but will be more disabled than his or her counterpart in a similar
1542
neighbourhood who is taken to a different hospital which has a stroke unit and daily phsyiotherapy while the patient is in hospital.
Variability seems to be the watchword. There is variability in social service provision, about which other noble Lords have spoken, and variability in transport facilities, access to GPs, day care and shops. Above all, there is variability in the results of the Government's sharing out of the national cake among the various authorities charged with delivering those services.
Inner London receives £338 per resident for a person over the age of 65; Dorset receives £175. Inner London's allowance for residential care is calculated on £632 for every resident over the age of 65 while North Yorkshire's allowance is only £277. Those figures mean that fewer old people in rural areas receive the equivalent help in hours or minutes than their counterparts in urban areas. In turn, that must mean that the NHS carries a larger part of the burden which may be unnecessary and unjustified.
So what should the Government do to make sure that good healthcare is available for all regardless of where one lives? I urge the Minister to consider greater flexibility, acknowledging that different measures will be needed in differing locations. Savings can be made, as the Royal College of Nursing points out. The college states that there is now a substantial and expanding body of evidence which proves that employing registered nurses is both cost effective and improves the quality of care.
The development of primary care is the key to the development of a cost-effective NHS, reducing costly and unnecessary admissions to acute services. North Hampshire Lodden Community NHS Trust has shown how £9,000 could be saved on the care of just three children through providing community children's nursing teams to care for them in their own homes instead of in hospitals.
Better use of NHS staff is essential. The BMA's recommendations point out that many doctors wish to work part-time. With 50 per cent. of new medical graduates being women, such flexibility should be encouraged. The new graduates will supply fewer full-time working hours than their predecessors.
Providing good quality healthcare is a matter of across-the-board and across-department working to make it a great success. I believe that greater flexibility in approach and greater local freedom in making those decisions are crucial to achieving those aims. I join with others in thanking my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes for instigating this timely debate and I look forward to hearing the Minister's response.
6.14 p.m.
Lord Laming: My Lords, I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, for initiating this important debate. My starting point is that the National Health Service is one of the treasures of post-war Britain. By being equally accessible to all, solely on the basis of clinical assessment, it is a tangible expression of social inclusion and a commitment to an integrated society. Despite having to deal with many

1543
unpredictable demands and unforeseen challenges, the service has survived and adapted for over 50 years. That is a great credit to the million or so staff in the service. I feel sure that Members of this House will want to wish the NHS well for the next 50 years and beyond.
As time is pressing, I shall make just three points. First, too often the National Health Service is spoken of as though it were a national hospital service. Yet, as has been said, the vast majority of healthcare is delivered in the community; perhaps as much as 90 per cent. of healthcare is not delivered in hospitals, but delivered where people live. Furthermore, although we can celebrate the great increase in the number of people living to an advanced age, including people with learning difficulties and those with profound physical difficulties, the number of beds for geriatric and long-stay patients in the health service has been dramatically reduced. In addition, the average length of stay in hospital has been reduced to the shortest period on record—generally only a few days.
All of that is to be welcomed, provided that proper regard is given to the needs of primary care and to the community-based domiciliary services. Those services must be properly staffed, financed and supported. In the past, it was often the case that hospitals appeared to be inward-looking and acted as though they were self-contained units. Nowadays, it is possible to meet the needs of patients and their carers only if hospitals operate as genuine partners in care in the community. That requires an entirely different approach by hospital-based staff. I would be interested to hear how the Government are tackling that issue.
Secondly, it follows that hospital-based staff should no longer confine their interests solely to treating the illness. It is essential that they consider, not only the whole person, but also the unique social circumstances of each person. To achieve that, all staff must play their part in a multi-disciplinary team.
In particular, I would like to mention the important work of hospital social workers, who very often are the link with the family and act as the advocate for the patient. Patients who need special help when discharged from hospital should be identified no later than at the time of admission so that the necessary arrangements can be put in place. If that is not part of the initial treatment plan, undue delays will occur that are often followed by frustration and recrimination. For patients who need special help on discharge, it is essential that the treatment plan includes effective rehabilitation. Without effective rehabilitation there is a real danger of a speedy return to hospital or, worse, an inappropriate admission to long-stay care.
We must recognise that the organisation of efficient care in the community, involving a number of different agencies, requires a much more sophisticated management system than care in a hospital. Most of all, it depends on staff of all disciplines being willing to work across organisational boundaries, and with volunteers and carers.
1544
In this country, we owe a debt of gratitude to the increasing number of carers. I want to pay a very warm tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, who, more than anyone else, has helped us to understand better the contribution made by carers in society.
Finally, I am sure that it is well understood that the essential team-work, to which I have referred, and to which, I am sure, everyone attaches great importance, will not happen solely because it is encouraged in government circulars and guidance, important though they are. I suggest that one of the most effective ways of achieving the goal of genuine multi-disciplinary working is by creating new opportunities for multi-disciplinary training. It is by learning together that staff learn to value each other's skills and responsibilities and, furthermore, to develop confidence in working as part of an integrated team. At present, a great deal of professional training is both specific and compartmental. I should be interested to hear whether the Government have any plans on how to promote new opportunities for joint learning. It is by that route that staff will form trusting relationships.
As we look to the next 50 years and tackle the challenges of planning and delivering effective community-based healthcare, I hope that more ways can be found to help those rugged individuals, who still exist, to become comfortable and genuine team players.
6.20 p.m.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, I should like to focus on NHS care for patients with kidney disease. I declare an interest as president of the National Kidney Federation, a charity run by kidney patients, for kidney patients. The NKF represents and promotes the interests of the major part of the UK's 30,000 patients with renal failure.
The raw fact is that end-stage renal failure is fatal unless a patient receives regular dialysis. Transplantation can offer a permanent solution, but the number of patients on the waiting list for a kidney transplant is for ever growing. For those patients, as well as for those for whom a transplant is not a possibility, dialysis is the only form of treatment which can keep them alive.
The number of patients who need dialysis is also growing. Research supported by the NKF suggests an increase of between 10 and 15 per cent. annually. The Government have acknowledged the need for action to increase access to renal care, raise standards and reduce geographical variations in renal services. With that in mind, the NKF has set out four areas of action to tackle those shortcomings.
First, overall treatment levels in the UK are lower than in most western countries. In a recent survey, 12 per cent. of kidney specialists stated that they had refused treatment to patients because of limited resources. That shameful situation was recognised by the Government and must be addressed. In the UK, 87 patients per million are accepted for dialysis in a year. The take-on rate per year in Germany is 163 patients per million. The contrast is pretty stark. The Renal Association recommends a minimum take-on of 100 patients per million per year in the caucasian population

1545
in the UK. Among the Afro-Caribbean and Asian populations, this should be closer to 320 patients per million. In addition, treatment rates across the UK vary considerably. In Oxford, for instance, latest figures show that only 44 patients per million per annum are accepted for dialysis.
On the question of finance, is the Minister aware that the NHS spends £70 million per year on laxatives and only £25 million per year on kidney transplants? Dialysis and transplantation are life-savers. Tough choices need to be made about where limited resources are spent if the Government are determined to improve NHS renal care.
The second area for action that the NKF has identified is the early introduction of a national renal service framework. These frameworks act as a guide to help health authorities spend their budgets in the most effective way. I am aware of work taking place in the department on a framework for renal services, but once again progress is slow. Can the Minister reassure the House that there will be early publication of a national service framework for renal services?
The third area of action on which the NKF is campaigning is to improve NHS dialysis facilities and the quality of treatment that patients receive. One of the outstanding developments in renal services over the past 15 years has been the construction and operation of new, fully equipped, satellite dialysis units. Those units are provided in a partnership between the NHS and the private sector. They have grown up in areas where the NHS alone has been unable to provide adequate services. But until the Government publish the conclusions of their review of the use of private finance in the NHS, there is a question mark over their future.
The Government have previously expressed a policy not to allow commercial companies to provide clinical services within PFI contracts. Although this policy might be appropriate for large-scale hospital projects, I believe that it is important for the Government to allow some flexibility for renal services which are, after all, small, specialised and local. Wherever there has been such a partnership the services are provided under stringent NHS contracts; all care is provided by NHS consultants; referrals to the unit are undertaken by the NHS according to strict clinical priority; and clinical responsibility for nursing staff rests with the NHS consultant. The NHS remains firmly in control of clinical decisions but patients do receive their care in modern facilities with state-of-the-art dialysis equipment.
I would urge Ministers to look sympathetically at the role of the private sector in NHS renal care. If, as a result of decisions that the Government are about to take, those projects are no longer viable for the private sector, the NHS will lose future opportunities for thriving and innovative partnerships.
The final area of action identified by the National Kidney Federation is the establishment of an independent transplant commission to increase transplant rates in the UK. As I indicated in my opening remarks, a transplant is the best treatment option; and in
1546
the UK we have some distance to go before we can match the transplant rates of other European countries. The role of the transplant commission would be to review the current organ procurement system and break down barriers to organ donation. I commend the Minister for her efforts to increase the National Organ Donor Register and I ask her to consider carefully the merits of such a commission.
6.26 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I would not normally speak in a debate on the National Health Service. Apart from being an occasional grateful recipient, I do not really know much about it. However, the Motion is sufficiently wide—I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, for that—for me to be able to contribute some thoughts on management and the National Health Service.
My only management qualification is in building up a business over some 30 years. When I was young I worked in a textile factory in Yorkshire. It was there that I learnt my first management lesson. When the chairman came round he asked questions in his blunt Yorkshire way. He had only one question for me: "Young man", he said—I liked that—"do you add cost or do you add value?" What a pity that he did not put that question to those who introduced the market system into the National Health Service. It is now apparent that carrying that out required huge added costs with little added value. My noble friend Lord Warner called it an unnecessarily expensive system.
Indeed, that system made things worse because an internal market can work only on numbers, so it gives greater importance to that which can be easily measured, such as operations per hour or blankets per hundred patients; but at the same time it fails to measure that which is important, such as the quality of the care or the effectiveness of the treatment. The internal market measures the wrong things—and the Government are absolutely right to get rid of that "ridiculous apparatus", as my noble friend Lord Bruce called it.
Internal markets were fashionable with managements in the 1980s. I advise the noble Lord, Lord Chadlington, that branding is in danger of becoming the management fashion of the 1990s. Fashion in management comes and goes nearly as quickly as it does in the clothing business. That is why many of us looked on in amazement as those fashionable ideas were applied late to the National Health Service just as they were going out of fashion because of the size and the nature of the National Health Service. So just as the previous government were introducing internal markets business was realising how wasteful it was and moving towards alliances, co-operation and partnerships to reduce costs. That is why I welcome the Minister's announcement that health authorities, primary care trusts and local authorities will be able to work in partnership and transfer funds between themselves. That was "walls being broken down", as my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley put it. As the National Health Service was introducing strict discipline and "Do as you are told", business was recognising the importance of the needs and aspirations of employees and moving towards

1547
empowerment and training to improve people's performance. That is why the Government are absolutely right to concentrate on introducing best practice. As my right honourable friend Mr. Frank Dobson said,
"Hospitals will be comparing, not competing".
My noble friend the Minister may be interested to learn that, according to the current edition of the Harvard Business Review, the latest management fad is called, "The Human Moment". That has everything to do with human contact. I am sure that the Minister is already well aware of its importance because she will understand that it is important to find out from people what they want from their health service. Surely it is the task of any management to prioritise and allocate and, in the case of the National Health Service, to provide services based on the evidence in a humane and open way. We all know that the Government cannot provide everything for everybody.
That is why talk of rationing is nonsense. Like any good manager, the Government have decided on their priorities and chosen to give priority to nurses' pay, NHS Direct, on-line appointments, primary care groups, promoting clinical excellence, and learning how all these measure up to people's expectations, which the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, criticised. This is not following a management fashion, it is dealing with the realities of the National Health Service as any competent management should do.
Many noble Lords have pointed out that the fundamental purpose of the National Health Service is keeping our nation healthy. Sir Donald Acheson's report to Mr. Frank Dobson dealt with that fundamental. He pointed out that poor families suffer more from ill health. As my noble friend Lord Rea told us, the poor suffer more from lung disease, cancer and coronary problems. Sir Donald Acheson was right to remind us that this is because they cannot afford proper heating, clothing, shelter, food, or to live a healthy lifestyle. The noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, made that point as did my noble friend Lord Bruce. But I have to say to my noble friend that I believe that the Government are responding to that in a fundamental way by helping the poor out of poverty with Welfare to Work, the minimum wage and the Working Families Tax Credit. I suspect that that may have more impact on the nation's health than any management system.
6.33 p.m.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, may not be an expert, but I believe he made a very interesting contribution. Perhaps he is looking for a job in Richmond House. It is almost exactly one year, less one day, since the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, called the attention of the House to the National Health Service and its 50th anniversary. My noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes made a notable contribution. I thank her for introducing the debate, and I apologise for being unable to be here for some of the earlier speeches, including hers. I cannot claim to have been working within the NHS, but I was in my dental surgery. I had over 20 years' experience working for the general dental
1548
service before moving into the private sector where it is possible to achieve higher standards by having more time.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is an expert, but, despite his enthusiasm for the NHS, he did not mention dentistry. Nor did his noble friend the Leader of the House when she wound up the debate. This is now fairly routine. Unless my noble friend Lady Gardner or I specifically raise the subject, there is never a word about the dental service, with 19,800 NHS general dental practitioners looking after 29 million registered children and adults. Unfortunately, this is becoming routine for the Labour Government. There were a lot of promises before the election, but very little action occurred afterwards.
There are 29,055 dentists registered in the United Kingdom of whom only 500 are purely private practitioners. But the private figure will almost certainly increase owing to the lack of investment by successive governments. Dentists do not leave the NHS for ideological reasons; they leave because they find it harder to provide an acceptable quality of care and spend the appropriate amount of time with each patient under the present NHS fee structure and still maintain a viable practice.
Despite stringent pressures on professional ability where dentists can be sued for malpractice if they miss some minor gum problem, fail to ensure adequate cross-infection control or overlook a small cavity, the fee for a routine dental examination is only 80 pence more today than it was in 1991. Practice expenses, which include staff wages, premises, materials and laboratory costs, have escalated and must be paid before the dentist receives anything as personal income. Unlike doctors, dentists in high street practice receive no help from the NHS towards staff or premises costs nor for the capital costs of equipment. It can cost more than £25,000 to equip a single practice to modern standards. This inevitably involves a large bank loan.
The Minister will remind me of the government initiative "Investing in Dentistry" where funds are available for setting up practices in areas where access to NHS dentistry is a problem. Sadly, it is inadequate and only of short-term help.
The Government pledged £19 million, but up to date only £7 million of funding has been allocated despite over £20 million worth of bids by health authorities. About one in four have not had any bids approved and the profession is concerned that the funding will not now be received before the end of the financial year. Other figures of gross expenditure show that in the 1997–98 financial year the Government spent £56.5 million less on dentistry than had been budgeted. I should be grateful if the Minister could comment on that and the fact that the British Dental Association has estimated that about £50 million will be needed each year for the next three years to improve access to NHS dentistry around the country. Can the Minister confirm that further funding for the "Investing in Dentistry" programme will be allocated next year and the process of grant application speeded up and made less bureaucratic? In addition, there is still a shortage of

1549
NHS dentists and while "Investing in Dentistry" provides capital grants for new NHS practices, it does not address the problem of recruiting dentists to work in NHS practices.
The Minister may know of a recent British Dental Association survey of young dentists which shows that more of tomorrow's dentists are likely to work in private practice or for a company like Boots or other corporate bodies. The survey found that 88 per cent. of all young dentists are confident about the future of private dentistry compared to 16 per cent. who are confident about the future of NHS dentistry. Seven out of 10 would like to have the option to become salaried employees of company chains.
The survey found that a clear majority of salaried dentists are confident about their economic future but those working in the community dental service are not. In general practice there is little confidence in the NHS but a great deal in the future of private practice. My noble friend Lord Butterfield stressed the same point.
Last year's Green Paper Our Healthier Nation recognised that oral health is an important part of general health. Inequalities still exist and, once established, persist throughout life. As my noble friend Lady Gardner explained and the Acheson report, Inequalities in Health suggested, extending water fluoridation and improving access to NHS dentistry would address this problem.
For nine months my profession has waited for the Government to publish their strategy on NHS dentistry. Until they do, inequalities in oral health and the problems of access to NHS dentistry will not improve. The dental profession has shown that it can deliver improvements in dental health. Enormous gains have been made, but more resources are needed to make further improvements. An investment now will lead to savings in the long term.
I should like to return briefly to the recent ruling by the General Dental Council on the use of general anaesthesia in dental surgeries and again ask the noble Minister two important questions. Would she not agree with me that there is a moral obligation on the part of the Government to find a way to recompense those dentists who took up the government initiative to undertake further training in anaesthesia, which also involved the purchasing of new equipment, and have now, overnight, been prevented from using their special skills and have suffered considerable financial deprivation?
Secondly, can she tell me what is happening to all the patients who were previously treated with general anaesthesia in dental surgeries? About 250,000 patients were treated in the NHS last year at an average cost of about £50. Because of the GDC ruling, they are all now being transferred to the hospital service, where the average cost is over £1,000. This must have an effect on waiting lists and budgets. Can the Minister say whether this is influencing current waiting figures and whether the Government are happy with this change in treatment pattern?
1550
Finally, I know that the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, would have wished to remind the Government of the benefits of non-conventional medicine, but he is unable to be here. Despite the hundreds of millions of pounds spent on the NHS and similar amounts spent on the development of different drugs, we have not actually become any more healthy. One in two of all adults takes a synthetic drug of some kind every day. Seventy-five per cent. of all visits to a general practitioner involve the prescription of a synthetic drug and something like 16 million adults take synthetic drugs on a regular basis. At any one time almost one-third of the nation has a long-standing illness. The incidence of heart disease, cancer and respiratory diseases is increasing and we are becoming more aware of diseases like Alzheimer's and osteoporosis, which are having a massive effect on the health budget.
The benefits of alternative and complementary medicines have been recognised by the public. There is an increasing demand for these treatments in the private sector and calls for wider availability through the NHS. The Minister recognised this in an Answer to the noble Earl on the 27th January but denied that there had been any cuts in the funding of complementary medicine by health authorities. I hope that she will continue to respect the need for the individual to have freedom of choice when seeking treatment and that she will encourage the new primary care groups similarly to respect this choice.
In conclusion, I am sure that the dental profession will be grateful for yesterday's award of a further 3.5 per cent. Most will have forgotten that, for technical reasons, this will be reduced to 2.6 per cent., which sadly will not be sufficient to prevent the move into the private sector, but perhaps that is the Government's hidden agenda.
6.42 p.m.
Baroness Emerton: My Lords, I too would like to join with other noble Lords in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, for introducing this debate today. I declare an interest in that I am chairman of a healthcare trust, I am a nurse of 45 years' standing and I was a past chairman of the UKCC when Project 2000 was introduced. I am also a lay member of the General Medical Council.
The NHS, as we have heard this afternoon, has throughout the last 50 years been facing constant battles to match demand for the range of services required against supply, whether that be shortages in finance or workforce or outdated buildings. Today we also see that the Government have set out a range of policies in an attempt to meet these competing demands, not least in their policy document First Class Service, which emphasises the need to develop even higher quality services.
We have also heard this afternoon about the establishment of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). There will also be an effective monitoring of progress through CHIMP, and a new national survey of patient and user experience. The establishment of clinical governance at local level

1551
within the NHS marks a disciplined approach to delivery of care within quality protocols and the management and monitoring of these. For the first time, NHS trusts will be required to sign a statement that the clinical care is of a satisfactory standard. This will be the responsibility of the chief executive officer, as the accountable officer. The success of this important step forward will be dependent on a range of factors which contribute to the establishment of a sound clinical governance programme locally, which is effective in delivering a high quality of care in diagnosis and treatment, having identified best practice and having set in place monitoring systems to measure effective implementation.
Within the overall aims set out in the First Class Service document, emphasis is placed on the local delivery of high quality healthcare through clinical governance, underpinned by modernised, professional self-regulation and extended lifelong learning. At the heart of clinical governance is the requirement for individual practitioners to be involved in local professional self-regulation. Professional self-regulation is a privilege, not a right. The professional accepts several obligations which distinguish him or her from other groups of workers. The regulatory bodies admit to their registers only those who are fit to practise and fulfil the obligations of a professional. For self-regulation to work, it is clearly dependent on good self-regulation by practitioners themselves, and they need to see that standards are adhered to and poor performance is dealt with in an appropriate manner. The regulatory bodies have a long history, and the professions of medicine, nursing, midwifery and health visiting are proud of their self-regulatory bodies.
One of the greatest concerns of the professions today is the uncertainty of the future for these bodies within the new health Bill published last week which proposes new powers for the Secretary of State with regard to the professional regulatory bodies. The parliamentary process of achieving legislation for the regulatory bodies has always followed the normal parliamentary process. There is great concern among professionals, especially doctors, nurses, midwives and health visitors, that this might be short-circuited and that effective consultation within the professions will not be allowed. Could the noble Baroness reassure professionals that any proposed changes to the self-regulating bodies and to self-regulation will be given proper consultation and the use of affirmative procedures for parliamentary scrutiny? Could she also confirm that primary legislation will be required to repeal, for example, the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act 1997, which might lead to abolishing the council?
One of the other essential ingredients to successful clinical governance at local level in delivering a high quality service to patients is to ensure that practice is based on best practice which is evidence-based. This can only be assured by a sound knowledge base and essential skills of each professional as a result of education in the form of lifelong learning.
Today there is considerable ongoing discussion relating to the education of nurses, as has already been referred to. The Secretary of State in a recent Statement
1552
announced that there must be a reform in nurse education. The UKCC, as we have also heard, has established a commission to look into the current education of nurses, and the commission is due to report later this year.
There is no doubt that the process of nurse education needs to be re-visited, but the introduction of Project 2000 has provided the means through higher education programmes to equip nurses, midwives and health visitors with the theoretical base required for nursing, midwifery and health visiting in a very fast-changing clinical scenario. This was set out eloquently by my noble friend Lady McFarlane. Could the Minister agree to take account of this when the Government are seeking to deliver changes? There needs to be a closer correlation between theory and practice—but please let us not throw out the baby with the bathwater.
It took 45 years from the time of the first report, when Wood recommended changes in nurse education, to follow up through the Platt Report, the Briggs Report and the Royal Commission, which was followed by the introduction of the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act in 1997. Finally, we have now emerged with Project 2000.
Clinical governance is also dependent upon the right number of professionals in the right place at the right time to effect a high quality of care.
Recruitment and retention of staff are key to achieving this and the Government are addressing the recruitment of nurses, midwives and health visitors by the commencement of the recruitment campaign this week. Hopefully, this will pay dividends as well as cover the pay awards which have also been referred to this afternoon. The retention of nurses, midwives and health visitors, however, requires much energy into developing career pathways. Within the clinical governance, nurses, midwives and health visitors—but particularly nurses and midwives—must take a leading role with responsibility and accountability. Nurses require equal status with the clinical director and business manager. Nurses need to have that power restored to them in the organisational structure if clinical governance is to succeed.
Much can be done at local level to address employment practices in terms of hours of working, creche arrangements and family-friendly policies. However, resourcing development programmes in an already overstretched budget presents a problem. I ask the Minister to take resourcing of continuing education within the lifelong learning process in a multi-professional context—which has already been mentioned as being so important—as an essential part of the programme to aid retention. Doctors, dentists and other health professionals also suffer from the problems of recruitment and retention. Therefore, it would be extremely helpful to bring them together in these educational programmes.
The title of this debate,
"To call attention to the state of the National Health Service",
is one of great public interest, as well as to Members of this House and the Government. At the end of the day, everyone's interest is in the health service delivery being

1553
of high quality. I believe that the introduction of clinical governance at local level will go a long way towards achieving that aim, provided the issues around self-regulation, lifelong learning programmes and recruitment and retention of health professionals are addressed as a matter of urgency.
6.51 p.m.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I should also like to thank my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes for initiating this wide ranging debate which has attracted so much informed and interesting comment from all sources. I should like to begin by making an even-handed observation. I believe it is a fact that the decline in bed places since the inception of the National Health Service has been virtually a straight line over the years. The previous government were virtually continually taunted for 18 years on this point. If the trend continues under the present Administration—as I am sure it will—that at least, on this specific point, is a charge of which they will not be guilty.
Following the speeches of the noble Baronesses, Lady McFarlane and Lady Emerton, I speak on Project 2000 with some diffidence. As we know, Project 2000 was a move by the previous government very much on the initiative of the nursing profession. It was to ensure a much higher degree of academic training than in the past, and nurses now emerge from their training at diploma or degree level. The intention was that they would be fit not only for nursing but also for administrative and management jobs; and that, in their clinical work, they would be technically trained to deal with the ever-increasing technology associated with patient care in all aspects—to take only one example, the operation of high tech equipment in accident and emergency units.
The intentions lying behind that initiative were and are wholly admirable. But the effect of the academic element of the training "off site" at colleges and universities has been to take away from hospital wards a large number of what, under the old system, would have been trainee nurses and state enrolled nurses, about whom I shall say more later. There are a number of reasons why the problem is exacerbated. The shorter hospital stay means that there is a greater demand for expert nursing while the patient is in. Thanks to modern treatment, low dependency cases are frequently transferred to GP and community health services, leaving hospitals with an increasing proportion of critically ill patients whose survival rate is welcomingly much higher than it was in the past; but these critically ill patients frequently remain in the wards where, formerly, they would have been transferred to an intensive treatment unit. All this places greater physical, emotional and intellectual demands on today's nurses.
So the reality is that there are far too few nursing staff left, to use a current buzz phrase, "to make the beds". It is here that the NHS is feeling the loss of the state enrolled nurse. This was the large body of nurses to which the noble Baronesses referred who may not have had the time, inclination or ability to be fully qualified state registered nurses but who had a thoroughly sound
1554
basic nursing training. They formed the backbone of the hospital clinical staff. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and the noble Lord, Lord Rea, both referred to this and the noble Lord, Lord Morris, made the interesting suggestion that training could perhaps be stopped half way through to give a limited qualification.
I understand that the bias of Project 2000 training has shifted from 60 per cent. clinical/40 per cent. academic to being approximately even between the two. Clinical experience is provided by placements of student nurses in hospitals. All too often, one hears stories of hard-pressed ward staff not being in a position, through no fault of their own, to give student nurses proper instructions. Of course, the end-sufferer is the patient.
Nurses emerge from their training in many cases with inadequate clinical experience. Certainly some nursing agencies—and here I speak as a former director of one of them—report that there is a significant proportion of nurses who they have difficulty in placing in hospitals on that account. It is true that many graduates make good administrators at junior level with the prospect of going on to higher things within the health service; but it also, let us face it, equips them to take jobs outside the health profession. This is all to be .welcomed, but it does not solve the problem of the wards.
So what is the remedy? I was very pleased to hear the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, refer to a committee which has been set up to review the progress of Project 2000. There are no easy solutions. In particular, the relationship between academic and clinical has yet to be fully resolved. From his public utterances, I know that the Secretary of State is fully aware of the subject. However, perhaps I may make one or two suggestions. First—and I hope that this is not genderist—girls are increasingly out-performing boys in GCSEs and A-levels, especially in maths and science, thereby providing increasing competition for jobs in the marketplace. In itself, that could lead to a further shortage of nursing recruits among young women. Therefore, I suggest that the Government ought to do all that they can to encourage males to enter the nursing profession.
Secondly, there is basic difference between doctor and nurse training in that whereas medical students are taught by practising clinicians, nurse training is, for the most part, given by those who are either not nurses or those who have left clinical practice. My suggestion is that funds should be made available for greater exchange between nurse teaching academic staff and clinical nurses, to the great benefit of both. That would go some way towards rectifying the perceived deficiency in the clinical education of nurses. In passing, part of such funding could come from clawing back grants to students from overseas on Project 2000, who give nothing back to the health service when they disappear home without doing any post-academic clinical work.

1555
My other suggestion is to encourage longer teaching contracts between the NHS purchasing consortia and the universities. This should make it possible to deliver a more structured and effective Project 2000 education, to turn out nurses equipped to face the health challenges of the next century.
Finally, I should like to say something about nurses' pay. The increased pay for nurses is, of course, wholly to be welcomed. But much of the money for that pay is likely to come from so-called "efficiency savings". I ask the Minister to be aware that, if this means cutting back clinical care budgets, it will only exacerbate the central problem which nurses face—that they are over worked and over stressed. I am not alone in my conviction that British nurses are the finest in the world. We must do everything to foster this precious resource.
6.59 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, at the outset of my few remarks I pay tribute to all those who work in the National Health Service, both the professional and the non-professional staff. The NHS has been a magnificent achievement. It has survived the test of time and I believe that that constituted the essence of most of the speeches that we have heard over the past four hours. The health service continues to provide a splendid service, as some of us have reason to know through personal experience as patients.
There has been a range of questions and criticisms this afternoon, as well as praise. I listened with considerable concern to the noble Lord, Lord McColl, who identified the fact that unless new consultant posts are created over the next two years about 200 obstetricians will be without permanent posts in the NHS. I have heard the noble Lord, Lord McColl, identify that problem before. Should there not be a relationship between the numbers under training and the numbers needed'? There is no suggestion that the Government are responsible for this state of affairs but I very much hope that the Government can look into the position to see who ought to be responsible for correcting the situation.
I also listened with great interest to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, who focused attention on the difficulties of delivering health services to people living in rural areas. That is a problem which confronts us in Wales. I shall listen carefully to the Minister's response to the suggestions that were made.
Looking to the future, it seems to me that the single most important challenge facing the NHS is that of rising expectations and advances in medical science. The implications of those twin forces constitute the challenge. Your Lordships will recall that the House visited this theme on 9th December last. I have reread the debate and it seems to me that everyone welcomed the progress that has been made in medical science. The advances are inevitable and desirable but reservations have been voiced in this House and elsewhere that the progress in medical science is ahead of the growth in public funds available for the health service. I believe that point was made this afternoon in particular by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford. I believe there
1556
is a real issue here which cannot be ignored. In fairness, the Minister would say that it has not been ignored by this Government. I noted her speech of 9th December in which she pointed out that, since they came to office, the Government plan,
"to spend an extra £18 billion on the NHS in England over the next three years on top of the £2.25 billion that has already been invested,"—[Official Report, 9/12/98; col. 1010.]
In that speech the Minister emphasised that the investment was "targeted on change" to ensure that the NHS provides,
"cost and clinically-effective interventions".
Cost effectiveness has been on the agenda since at least 1956. I welcome very much the acceptance of the need to demonstrate clinically effective intervention. I should have thought most people would agree that it must be right to look carefully at the effectiveness of expenditure. I would find it helpful if at the end of the debate my noble friend the Minister would indicate when the Government expect benefits to come through from the Institute for Clinical Excellence.
Of course there are other important and encouraging developments taking shape under this Government which point the way to great advances. They include the development of healthy living centres which will, over time, promote good health in our communities and in the longer term reduce demand for health services. My noble friend Lady Pitkeathley dealt admirably with the potential of the healthy living centres. I wholeheartedly support the steps being taken by the Government to tackle inequalities in healthcare. My noble friends Lord Rea and Lord Bruce of Donington emphasised that point.
I now turn to the final point I wish to raise in this debate, and that is the position in Wales after the inauguration of the national assembly in four months' time. The assembly will take over responsibility for the health service. I believe that this will represent the most important change in the NHS in Wales since its founding. Many people in Wales believe that they are now repossessing the NHS which was given to us by Aneurin Bevan. I believe that there will be pressure in the Welsh assembly to address the inequalities in healthcare which still exist within groups and communities in Wales. I believe that the assembly will be a more radical body than the Welsh Office has ever been.
I have been reading the excellent report entitled Devolution and Health, commissioned by the Nuffield Trust. It explores the possible implications for the UK National Health Service and for the health services in Scotland, Wales and England that may flow from devolution to Scotland and Wales. The authors suggest that there is little evidence that Scotland and Wales will develop radically different models of care from those in England, at least in the short term. However, they then say that there is scope for considerable variation in responding to the health agenda. I thought of that point when the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, made her contribution. It seems to me that this is the kind of area where one could expect the assembly to develop different, and possibly radically different, programmes for the delivery of care. The authors also point out that

1557
health gain policies should be easier to implement because the small scale in Wales and Scotland makes it easier to work across departmental boundaries. They also envisage that there will be a strong desire in Cardiff and in Edinburgh to form direct links with international bodies such as the WHO and the European Union.
When my noble friend the Minister replies to the debate it would be helpful if she could explain what role will be held post-devolution for the Department of Health in London as a UK health department. For example, what responsibility will it have for research and development in this field? That point was raised by my noble friend Lord Winston. I believe that to be an appropriate question to address to the Minister as this debate may be the last major debate on the NHS in your Lordships' House before the health service is repossessed in Wales and in Scotland by the new assembly men and women.
7.8 p.m.
Lord Ironside: My Lords, my thanks go to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, for initiating this debate. The noble Baroness said that we do not hear enough about radiologists. I shall partly put that right by touching on radiology and radiotherapists. But, first, I must declare an interest as my wife is founder president of RAGE, Radiotherapy Action Group Exposure, whose members, numbering hundreds in the United Kingdom, have suffered disastrous and disabling injuries following radiotherapy treatment for breast cancer.
Having submitted a claim for compensation to the Secretary of State for Health, RAGE collaborated with the Royal College of Radiologists which printed and published the RAGE response to the Department of Health independent audit report, which was commissioned by Sir Kenneth Calman, the former Chief Medical Officer. But what I think is disturbing is to read in the Royal College of Radiologists' latest clinical oncology journal about the complex and detailed High Court proceedings involving some 130 plaintiffs suffering alleged injuries from radiotherapy treatment for breast cancer, which are the subject of a legally aided multi-party action on which more than £2.3 million has already been spent. The injuries, as shown in the audit report, are real, but as negligence was not proved the plaintiffs get nothing. I think £2.3 million would have made a very nice compensation package for the injured plaintiffs, but the only beneficiaries seem to be the lawyers. Many people are wondering whether there has been any public benefit or whether the proceedings were merely a waste of public funds.
The authors' message to oncologists is, "Keep doses low and don't injure." I am not sure whether this is an invitation to practise defensive medicine, but the journal authors suggest that it could be. The safety of the patient remains very much in the hands of the radiotherapist, while operating staff are protected by the ionising radiation regulations. Training is in the hands of the Royal College of Radiologists, which also sets standards, but I think red lights have been flashing constantly ever since Roentgen discovered X-rays a hundred years ago. The recent quality assurance
1558
management weaknesses in mammography services, which were exposed in November 1997 at Exeter, are the latest example of danger signals flashing. Exposure can injure and when radioactivity is beamed and vectored wrongly there is trouble ahead. There is absolutely no margin for error.
"Quality assurance" is a forbidding term to a doctor. After the introduction of the QART standards in 1991, following studies at the Bristol Oncology Centre, which has ISO 9002 approval, and at the Manchester Christie Hospital, can the noble Baroness say whether all the 53 UK radiotherapy treatment centres have been certified to the QART standard? Can she say who is accredited to carry out these assessments and how often approval has to be renewed? I assume that it is once a year.
Following the Exeter incidents, I find it strange that the Government said in 1997 that the NHS mammography facilities were not required to have ISO 9002 approval. I think it should be mandatory, as in the US where every facility has to comply with the US Mammography Quality Standards Act 1992. I hesitate to draw an analogy between the miners' claim for pneumatic drill injuries and RAGE' s claim for radiotherapy injuries. But when the Government say they have a moral obligation to compensate the miners surely they should have a moral obligation too to compensate RAGE members injured through no fault of their own by radiotherapy treatment.
Safe treatment services remain a top priority, so I wonder whether the randomised standards in the radiotherapy, or START, trial is going in the right direction when it is designed to justify, I understand, the high dose-fewer fractions treatment regime to step up productivity, which the audit report suggests contributed to the causes of injury. Surely we are looking for the optimum safe dosage regime which will not injure. I should like to ask the noble Baroness what stage the randomised START trial has reached. Has it, in fact, started, if that is the right word? And how many centres have been found to take part? When is it due to complete?
Returning to the breast screening programme, equipment installed eight to 10 years ago on the recommendation of Professor Forrest has reached the end of its working life and is due for replacement. There is a case for the Department of Health to follow up vigorously the next generation advances in digital imaging, together with the advanced display techniques being promoted by DERA at Farnborough from its diversification bank of defence technology, which offers the substantially improved resolution that radiotherapists are looking for to detect the tiny non-evasive calcifications in the breast. Results can be transmitted speedily by tape. I have written to DERA about this. Can the noble Baroness say what plans her department has for getting a nationally co-ordinated programme into place instead of leaving hospitals to follow their own procurement routes using the NHS purchasing guide in Publication No. 32 so that we do not end up with a fragmented network of different devices.
I have touched on only a very small sector of NHS affairs, but I believe that management and quality assurance are assuming a much more prominent position

1559
in underpinning clinical judgment. If litigation is growing, it is because of the greater role that management and quality assurance have to play in medicine. These are the areas of contention that can arise. The fact that the independent audit report found that there were as many protocols for breast cancer treatment as there are radiotherapy treatment centres in the UK is a cause for concern. As Professor Sikora, of the Expert Advisory Group on Cancer, has said, "They can't all be right." But I am glad to see that the audit has now ensured that each radiotherapy centre has a written protocol to keep practice in step with changing techniques and delivery in step with prescription.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Sawyer: My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate and I add my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, for initiating it. I worked in the National Health Service for many years and I continue to have great admiration for those who work in the service today. I also have great respect and genuine admiration for the enthusiasm and hard work of this Government in trying to improve the service after many years of dreadful neglect. The pay awards announced this week are a measure of the Government's commitment.

Making improvements to the National Health Service is a mammoth task. The National Health Service is the largest employer in Europe. It employs more than 1 million staff and more than two-thirds of its budget goes on staff wages. Without substantial increases in revenue from taxes, it is difficult to pay fair wages and to keep up with rising costs from the demographic and technical changes taking place in the health service and in the wider community. That is why even the most dedicated politicians and managers find it difficult to make the National Health Service work. Given the dedication and professionalism of the current politicians, managers and staff, it is with some humility that one attempts to offer advice or suggest possible ways forward that do not involve tax increases. But it is necessary to try because increases in taxation and additional money cannot always be the solution to public service problems.
When Nye Bevan built the National Health Service in 1948 he had to build it top down. He brought together all the services—the hospitals, the community services, the general practitioners and others—and built a service that was organised and managed from the top. That has changed over the first 50 years and some serious and successful initiatives have been taken to bring the service closer to the patient. But I doubt whether those changes have been comprehensive enough.
I believe that the really big change that is still required is the cultural revolution to make the service absolutely dedicated to empowering patients—to make it bottom up instead of top down. Somehow we have to stand the service on its head. We have to make the patient king. We have to supply the information and advice that will increasingly allow patients to make decisions about their own health.
1560
That is not easy to explain in the short time that is available. But it is not a call for, or an endorsement of, a shopping list of modernising improvements, as has been set out in speeches on how to equip the NHS for the millennium, how to provide more money and more resources and how to do things better. It is more than that. I would call it a paradigm shift in the way we think about the National Health Service and how healthcare is delivered.
That shift would start with a consideration of the health and well-being of all people, not merely those who are sick and who need the National Health Service. In so doing, we should put preventive healthcare and medicine at the heart, not the periphery, of health policy. That is easy to say, but very difficult to do.
Then, we should focus carefully on those in the population who require healthcare. We should think of ways of empowering them. That would involve patients being given information about the full range of options available to treat their condition. Information would be provided about the use of drugs or, alternatively, the availability of complementary and natural medicines and treatments such as acupuncture and homeopathy. The aim of such an approach would be to enable the values, aims and goals of the service to be driven by patients, not politicians, managers, doctors and staff, important though they are.
The recent report by Mr. Greg Dyke on the Patient's Charter goes some way towards at least considering these changes. I hope that my noble friend can assure me that careful consideration will be given to his recommendations. In particular, his recommendation for a value statement that would set out the guiding principles underpinning the service is very important. It would help to focus the minds of those who work in the service on exactly what they are trying to achieve and have the effect of empowering patients. His recommendations for a strong local element in the Patient's Charter for process and service standards would also drive down the delivery of services to patients at a local level. The recommendations on disease-specific user guides would also help patients to consider the options available and would enable them to be active rather than passive in their choice of treatment and care. The recommendations on improved communications, particularly IT, are essential if we are to give patients open access to the information they need to make advised choices and decisions regarding their treatment.
In his report, Greg Dyke frequently refers to the importance of staff. He understands that it is crucial to win the hearts and minds of staff if there is to be change. National Health Service staff deserve fair pay, and many have a strong commitment to the service. But, in addition, staff need a strong sense of involvement and direction, and most of all a sense of being valued by the population. Involvement, direction and value can come from good leadership on the part of managers and politicians. Learning and development opportunities for staff must be placed at the centre of the NHS rather than on the fringes. Managers must concentrate on the fundamentals: patient empowerment, patient care and staff motivation.

1561
Running the National Health Service is a tough job. I wish to emphasise how much I respect the enthusiasm, vigour and professionalism with which the present Government are tackling those duties. However, we need new ways of thinking. We need radical solutions to the various problems. I hope that some thought will be given to the points I have made.
7.24 p.m.
Lord Pender: My Lords, we are all grateful to my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes for initiating this debate. In these brief remarks, I wish to focus on one aspect of this broad subject. I ask your Lordships to turn your minds to those who live in a silent world—the deaf, and in particular deaf children. I should declare an interest as vice-president of the Royal School for Deaf Children.
If you are deaf and other people cannot communicate effectively with you—and you are with them—how do you develop your self-confidence; your skills in sharing in interaction and control; and your feelings of being valued? How do you develop positive relationships and effective learning and communication? How do you develop positive mental health?
Most children who are deaf are successful. About 90 per cent. of deaf children are successfully placed and make sound achievements in ordinary schools, including those in small classes and resource centres linked to ordinary classes. That success is aided by the skills and knowledge of teachers of the deaf. However, there is a minority group of deaf children who are failed by learning environments which damage them. They are failed by inappropriate assessment and advice, inadequate resources and a lack of opportunity to identify with other deaf children. They need to communicate and relate with other deaf children on equal terms and to succeed in competition with other deaf children. They need teachers and other adults who can communicate effectively with them, who understand their needs and can structure learning activities and experiences to provide success.
For deaf children who are damaged by inadequate or inappropriate provision, the Department of Health is developing improved services, such as the Pathfinder psychiatric services for deaf children and adolescents based at Springfield Hospital in Tooting. Sadly, that children's service has to seek charitable funding to enable it to develop long overdue facilities for severely emotionally and behaviourally disturbed deaf children. Should not all funding for such a facility—a national provision—come from the Department of Health and not rely on charitable funds?
How can we identify, prevent and reduce the degree and incidence of mental health and behaviour disorders among deaf children—particularly when many difficulties may be preventable? We have early identification, informed assessment and adequate resources to enable the development of effective and successful communication. If this provision were
1562
supported by highly trained and specialist professionals, it would reduce the incidence of mental health and behaviour problems for children who are deaf.
So why have schools such as the Royal School for Deaf Children in Margate and its Westgate College for deaf people—like the other non-maintained charitable schools for the deaf—seen a steady increase in the numbers of pupils referred to them who have some form of emotional or behavioral difficulty? Too often, this minority group of vulnerable pupils have been placed in integrated or inclusive educational environments where they have become more isolated—unable to communicate and interact equally and effectively, unable to assess learning. Why do we wait until they are failed by systems which are supposed to support them? With all the available technology and reassessment, why are children still being wrongly referred? It is because health, education and social services are not working jointly to promote the best interests of every child.
I wish to ask the Minister—who carries her heavy workload with such grace—what the Secretary of State for Health is doing to ensure that his department collaborates with the Department for Education and Employment to ensure that medical and educational specialists are properly trained and resourced and that they collaborate to identify and assist those deaf children who are at risk of mental health problems? Will the Secretary of State collaborate with his colleague, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, to ensure that local education and health authorities are properly resourced to ensure positive enabling provisions to meet the needs of deaf children and to include placements in schools for the deaf as a positive and preventive measure to enhance their mental health and learning opportunities? Will the Secretary of State work with his colleague, the Secretary for Education and Employment, and continue to monitor this important issue to ensure continued improvements in provision for this minority group? If the Secretaries of State improve provision for this group, they may help to reduce the longer-term costs of lives wasted and long-term demands on the health and education budgets.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, for introducing the debate. I must also comment on her remarkable stamina. Everyone else in the House has left the Chamber at least once—I have been out twice—but when we came back in the noble Baroness was still in her place. She wants to listen to everyone, and has given us all an opportunity of discussing this important issue.
However, I was somewhat puzzled when she derided my right honourable friend in another place, Frank Dobson, for wanting to debate and discuss his inheritance. She said, "Get on with the job". But you cannot really get on with the job of solving today's problems without having due regard to the history of this matter. The noble Baroness sits next to a colleague who, in his speech, said that the trend was downwards over the period—not only since 1st May but before.

1563
Sadly, he felt that it will continue to go downwards. I share the view of many others that we have the prospect of reaching the bottom and turning back.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I meant to say that the trend was downwards solely on account of clinical improvements, not through any quality of service.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Thank you. I accept that point.
I shall begin by talking not only about the period before 1st May and the period of the health service, but about the history of the National Health Service, why it was so necessary and why it was not universally applauded when it came in.
If Members of this House look at my face, they will see that I have a scar on my cheekbone. That came when I was attacked on Tyneside at the age of 11 or 12. I was taken immediately to a doctor's surgery, where the doctor put clips in. I am the oldest of five children. My dad was not only on the dole but on the means test, and had 37 shillings a week to keep the seven of us. My mother then had to begin to pay off that doctor's bill; she paid it off at tuppence a week. At the end of the period there was great relief. Later, when I spoke to her about the matter, she said, "I was terrified that I would not be able to pay". The working class put aside their rent and insurance money to make sure that they were not in debt. Clothes, food and other things could go, but they knew what their responsibilities were.
When I was a child on Tyneside, in my class half the boys had their heads covered in what was called Gentian Violet—scabs. When I fell down and injured my knee or elbow, scabs formed very quickly. I later found out that this was a result of malnutrition and poor health. People on Tyneside and elsewhere suffered the indignity of the situation.
During the war I had my guts shot out by machine gun fire. I received the best medical treatment available. I can remember my mother sending me to the man who made false teeth and giving him thruppence a week to pay for them. She bought her glasses at Woolworths.
I very much respect the profession of the noble Baroness but, when I had my teeth out, I was not taken to the dentist but to the dental school, where I queued up with other boys so that those training as dentists could practise on me.
The noble Baroness and others can forget about the 50 years of the health service and concentrate on the current problems, but others, like myself, remember how it was and why we needed the health service.
I admire my right honourable friend Frank Dobson because he has admitted that there are great problems and great issues to be resolved. He has not run away; he has pledged to put them right. But they are not all of his or this Government's making. I have a very good friend who took early retirement as a nurse. The other day I told her that I was going to take part in this debate and
1564
asked her to tell me of her memories of the health service of not many years ago. I asked her the genesis of the problem of nurse shortages. She said this:
"Many experienced nurses were made redundant during the change to purchaser/provider split and in the first year afterwards. This was because management was trying to push down costs in order to compete with other health authorities for contracts.
This was particularly so in the large cities where there were more than one provider. The quickest way to save money is on the largest slice of the cake—the nursing budget. Many managers were tempted to drive down the grades by having ward sisters at grade F instead of G etc. This meant that the most experienced nurses left. The NHS lost those with the greatest experience, who knew how to work the system, who were confident in their own abilities, were able to deal with medical staff, could do three things at once with their eyes shut and teach the junior nurses these skills and of course were coincidentally the ones who were also best able to argue with the new managers!"
The letter contains a lot more, but time will beat me if I continue. In the face of that history, it is no good complaining at the inadequacies of what the Government and the Minister and his team are trying to do.
Reference has been made to the size of the National Health Service. It is not just a business; it is an enormous business. Inevitably there will be good people, bad people, fair people, reasonable people and unreasonable people.
When we look at the health service we have to be fair about comparisons with my childhood and with the history of the health service. I now go to a group practice in Loughton to see my doctor, Dr. Anwar Khan, a marvellous man. Over the past few years, whatever my problem has been—sciatica, thrombosis, arthritis and prostate—I and my family have been dealt with by that marvellous group practice. When I or my family need reference to Barts, Whips Cross or St. Margarets at Epping, the treatment is there. We may not get it on the day that we want—we may have to wait a week—but it is there. We also have to be fair on this issue.
I conclude by noting the manner in which the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, has sought to make the problems political and the solutions political. I do not blame her. In that she was aided and abetted by her noble friend Lord McColl of Dulwich who repeated remarks made by his shadow ministerial colleague Ann Widdecombe. She said that the NHS had suffered 18 years of Labour lies. I make the noble Lord a firm offer which I hope he will not refuse: stop telling lies about us and we shall stop telling the truth about you.
7.40 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Graham. This evening we have had an extremely wide-ranging and absorbing debate. I join with other noble Lords in expressing gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, for instituting this debate. I do not envy the Minister in her task of winding up.
Strong feelings have been expressed about the problems in the National Health Service that the Government need to address. However, your Lordships have rightly not made this debate simply an attack on the Government's record. It has been much more

1565
thoughtful than that. The noble Baroness, Lady Knight, made a very strong point about the impact of relentless criticism on the NHS. I inform the noble Baroness that despite her speech I shall stick to my old-fashioned glasses.
I did not recognise the benign internal market that the noble Baroness described in her opening speech. I preferred the description of the impact of the internal market given by the noble Lord, Lord Warner.
There are aspects of government policy that we on these Benches particularly welcome: the priority and further resources given to mental health; the new approach to public health which recognises health inequalities, which I believe the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, put clearly in context; the more effective framework for health improvement and preventive medicine with the setting up of health action zones and healthy living centres; the new emphasis on information to both the public and professionals; and the new quality agenda, in terms of both outcomes and clinical practice, which is now being reflected by the GMC under Sir Donald Irvine. We shall be debating the contents of the NHS Bill next week. But there are many elements to be welcomed, not least the abolition of the two-tier GP system.
Tonight I want to examine the three key issues of rationing, resources and recruitment, the new three Rs of the health service. I could go wider but time does not permit. That does not diminish the importance of a number of areas, such as dentistry, complementary medicine, the problems highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Pender, relating to deaf children, and all of the commissioning issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Winston.
The fact is, however, that opinion polls reveal that people believe that, despite all the efforts of the Government, there has been very little improvement in the health service since they came to power. I believe that rationing, resources and recruitment are the reasons for that.
I shall deal first with resources. Whatever the provenance of the waiting list—we have had some reflections upon it—as pointed out by my noble friend Baroness Sharp, it has almost doubled. I refer to those on the list who are waiting for more than three months for an appointment with a consultant. The number of those waiting longer than a year for treatment has doubled. As to beds, there was a major reduction in the 1980s. There are now only about 100,000 acute beds in this country. For a Western country that figure is of a very low order. There is no spare capacity. In some trusts occupancy is 95 per cent. There is also a shortage of intensive care and high dependency beds. We appear to have one of the lowest number per head in Europe.
The private finance initiative will make matters worse. It is clear from recent Answers to Parliamentary Questions I have received that the new developments may mean significantly fewer beds because of the need to cover the costs of private financing. A strategic review of beds is now taking place, but those PFI developments are going ahead in the meantime. An
1566
alternative to the private finance initiative is public funding, which we on these Benches believe is cheaper in both the short and long term. It is time the Government woke up to the fact that PFI represents poor value for money.
I turn now to the comprehensive spending review. We are aware that in their first two years of office the Government, with their eyes open, have, with some minor exceptions, effectively stuck to the former government's spending plans for the National Health Service. As a result spending will be only about £1 to £1.4 billion per annum more in the last year of this Government compared with the Conservative government's spending plans. The settlements announced earlier this week must be met from those additional resources. I am sure that many noble Lords will have received a briefing from the NHS Confederation which shows that despite the increase in resources because of additional commitments the result will be fewer resources for the NHS in the coming years.
Yet all the talk of an extra £21 billion for the health service has raised expectations enormously. It raises questions about what the expenditure policy for the NHS should be. Can we stay ahead of inflation in funding the health service? Should we introduce charges? The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, raised this issue. This has been a favourite issue ever since the formation of the National Health Service. The noble Baroness was against hotel accommodation charges in particular but was in favour of other kinds of charges. I am highly sceptical about charges.
However, it is not necessarily a question of cash in all cases. We spend only 6.9 per cent. of GDP on health versus the European average of 7.7 per cent. Thanks to our health service workers, that represents extremely good value for money. But what is the Government's long-term funding policy? Is it believed that the needs of patients can continue to be met out of general taxation? What are the implications of using the private sector to ease the peaks of the health service? We know that private beds are being used in the crisis this winter. What are the Government doing in this respect? If we do not increase capacity in the health service that will become a permanent feature. I have no desire to see an expansion of the private sector funded by the National Health Service.
I turn to recruitment. We know now that 12,000 to 13,000 extra nurses are required in the health service. We have seen photographs in the national press showing new recruits from overseas arriving at, for example, Kingston Hospital. Massive use is made of agency nurses. The number has doubled over the past 10 years. Taking into account the cost of overtime by bank nurses, about £600 million a year is being spent. We are still unable to staff beds, even if they were available. Last year the Government phased nurses' pay, which effectively meant that the award was less than the rate of inflation. We acknowledge that the new settlement helps to tackle the issue of new recruits, but it does very little for retention at the higher grades. Other important aspects apart from pay are working conditions in hospitals. This matter was highlighted by a recent

1567
tribunal case. Family friendly, flexible rota systems are extremely important in retaining nurses in the health service.
A number of noble Lords have referred to violence in the NHS. This matter was touched on particularly by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and the noble Lord, Lord Bruce. This is an extremely important area. The Government have given their support to the campaign by the Royal College of Nursing to stamp out violence and to the setting of targets by hospital trusts, but undoubtedly more needs to be done at trust level to improve security for both staff and patients. They must also join community safety partnerships to make that a reality.
Another question that is increasingly raised, not least by the Secretary of State—I commend him for it—is the training received by nurses and whether it is over-academic in nature. A number of noble Lords referred to Project 2000. Did this go too far in stressing the academic aspects of training? We are aware that the UKCC review will be published in September. Many of us want to see the reintroduction of a stronger practical element of nurse training but without tipping the balance too far the other way. Although many of the comments of the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, were well taken, the making of beds has long gone from the nursing profession.
As regards the way wards are managed currently, although much of its tone was old-fashioned, Goodbye Miss Nightingale by the Social Market Foundation highlighted some of the issues about patient care and ward management.
The noble Lord, Lord Winston, and my noble friend Lady Thomas referred to doctor shortages. We have a massive shortage of doctors coming down the track as a result of the Calman training reforms and the New Deal. As the noble Lord, Lord Winston, rightly pointed out, we need more consultant posts. The speech of the noble Lord, Lord McColl, concentrating on the lack of obstetricians and the need for more consultant posts, was extremely potent. Those factors will be further exacerbated by the working time directive which in due course will reduce to 48 the working hours of junior doctors.
On previous occasions we have had some debate in this House on the rationing issue. It is not acceptable simply for the Government to deny that rationing exists, to reassure us that there are enough resources in the health service, and then without further ado to impose rationing by diktat. We need a public debate. We need mechanisms, such as a standing conference as in Holland, which will allow us to have a proper debate. As the noble Lord, Lord Sawyer, indicated, it ties in with the Patient's Charter. Many proposals in the Patient's Charter—setting priorities, perhaps at regional level, but having a statement of values at national level—need examination. It is those issues that we need to examine. Every health professional admits that there is some form of rationing at every level in the National Health Service.
We on these Benches do not lay claim to all the answers but we believe that we are asking some of the right questions. The Government need to enter the debate
1568
before direction of the National Health Service becomes incoherent. There are strong public expectations of the Government. I hope that they are not disappointed by any failure to address some of those issues.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, he mentioned a large number of beds which were closed in the 1980s. Despite the propaganda to the contrary, does he accept that every year since 1964 7,000 beds have been taken out of service irrespective of which government were in power?
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that question. I have no doubt that he is correct. However, it is my understanding that the process of reduction in acute beds accelerated during the 1980s.
7.52 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, alongside other noble Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Gardner on her excellent Motion. I am sure all noble Lords who have spoken recognise my noble friend's long experience of the National Health Service and her profound understanding of it. Her speech today bore eloquent witness to that experience and understanding and has allowed the House an opportunity to range over a broad and particularly interesting set of health-related issues. It has been a very good debate.
If there is one sobering theme which has permeated our debate today, whether in the perceptive comments of my noble friend Lady Byford about rural areas, the remarks about kidney patients by my noble friend Lord Norrie, the powerful contribution on dentistry by my noble friend Lord Colwyn, or the observations on hospital beds by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, it is surely the inexorable and ever-accelerating rise in the demand for healthcare. Those demands are a function of three simultaneous phenomena which have persisted ever since the founding of the NHS in 1948: a growing elderly population; the cost of new technology and medication; and, as a number of noble Lords pointed out, the expectations which inevitably accompany those two factors. Governments of whichever party have to acknowledge those pressures. It is a one-way bet that demand will continue to rise.
Stewardship of the NHS at a political level is about deciding on an appropriate measure of resources for the health service and ensuring that those resources are efficiently directed. I should like briefly to bring together a number of the strands running through today's debate by highlighting some aspects of the present Government's approach to these difficult issues and at the same time ask some questions about them.
Last November Frank Dobson said in another place that the health service could look forward to the winter with confidence. In the event, as we are all aware, the winter has been marked by some particularly intense pressure on acute services within the NHS resulting in some considerable distress for many patients and causing the staff and facilities in some hospitals to be stretched almost to breaking point. I think that there are several reasons why an outbreak of flu which fell a long

1569
way short of an epidemic should have resulted in that situation. One reason, about which the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, spoke so well, is the shortage of nurses. The shortage of nurses is unquestionably the most pressing problem currently facing the NHS. The remarks of my noble friend, Lord Bridgeman, on nursing recruitment seemed to me cogent and very much to the point. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, mentioned abuse delivered to nurses. I think it is true to say that verbal abuse to nurses is far worse and more prevalent than physical abuse, although both occur. I am glad that the Government have recognised the importance of the nursing issue. Although I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton, there is still a great deal of work to do, in particular in some trusts as regards career development and flexible hours of working, if the retention rate for nurses is to be improved and if former nurses are to be enticed back from retirement to the NHS.
When last month we debated the winter crisis, I put it to the Minister that another significant factor underlying these pressures was political in origin; namely, the Government's almost obsessive emphasis on cutting waiting lists. Were it not for that obsession, many hospitals would have been nothing like as full as they were when the emergency cases hit them. The Minister called that proposition a canard. I humbly suggest to the noble Baroness that she re-examines it because her answer is directly contradicted by many sources throughout the country. The BMA and the British Medical Journal, among others, have confirmed the point. Quite simply, had it not been for the imperative of reducing waiting lists that the Secretary of State imposed, there would have been more beds available and fewer trolley cases this winter.
The irony is that setting targets for NHS trusts to meet which are expressed purely in terms of numbers, and accompanying those targets with threats of dire penalties in the event of failure, is an invitation to managers to override strict clinical need and to deal instead with the cases that are quick and easy, and usually less serious. That unfortunately is what has been happening. People in need are being bypassed in favour of others whose need is less serious.
It is the time a patient has to wait, and the seriousness of their need, which counts, not the total number of people in the UK who happen to be waiting at any given moment. The Minister said recently that waiting times as well as waiting list numbers are coming down. I challenge the noble Baroness on that assertion. The number of people waiting over 12 months for treatment has doubled since the last election. But what is hidden even in that statistic is a factor referred to by, I think, two noble Lords: that is, the rise in those waiting to be seen by a consultant even before they get on to the waiting list for treatment. Between March 1997 and September last year the number of people waiting more than 13 weeks to see a specialist rose from 247,000 to 437,000. That is the flip side of the recent drop in the number of people waiting for treatment. The two issues are linked. But a rise in unseen referral patients is more serious because the referrals will include urgent cases
1570
which have not even been assessed or prioritised. The Government's so-called "early pledge" on reducing waiting list numbers is not just a nonsense, well intentioned though it once may have been, but actually damaging to patients.
Waiting lists are, of course, a barometer of patient demand. However, as I have tried to show, they are only a very crude indicator of patient need; and if one is looking for unmet patient need, look no further than the non-availability of certain drug treatments. Last week, I attended a presentation given by CancerBACUP, which highlighted the example of Taxol, a drug used to treat ovarian cancer. In many health authorities Taxol is simply not available on grounds of cost. If patients want it they have to pay for it themselves. Beta Interferon, which is used to treat multiple sclerosis, is also unavailable in many health authorities. The same applies to Statins, a class of modern drugs which treat heart attacks. The modern drug treatments for schizophrenia are regarded by many health authorities as too expensive to be made generally available. Instead, patients are prescribed drugs developed in the 1950s such as Haldol, which has crippling side effects. Those are only a few examples.
The Minister need not look anxious because in citing these examples I am not making any party political point. But as she will know, the unfair part about all this is that whether or not you receive the treatment you need depends on where in the country you live. What is wanted, and what I think people expect of the political representatives, is an open debate about priorities and affordability. It is an issue which we must confront head on and involve all concerned, including patients, in the process.
What we cannot have is any kind of obfuscation. The Government's answer to the problem that I have just outlined is the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, which is soon to be up and running. The Minister was kind enough to give me a copy of today's press release on NICE, which I see is headed "NICE proposals launched today". I do not believe that was meant to point up a comparison with yesterday's proposals on NHS Direct.
NICE will provide guidelines to GPs and clinicians about the most effective kinds of treatment and in doing so will rely on the principles of evidence-based medicine. There are high hopes for NICE, and indeed it has the ring about it of good common sense. Perhaps I may quote two or three passages from the publication.
"NICE will command the respect of doctors, nurses and other clinical professionals and provide authoritative guidance on what treatments work best for patients. Its evidence-based guidelines will be used right across the country, so NICE will help end the unacceptable geographical variations in care that have grown up in recent years. By identifying which new developments will most improve patient care, it will help spread good value new treatments more quickly across the NHS".
I genuinely hope that the promise of the press release is borne out, but there is an increasing body of opinion which is not so sanguine. The White Paper states that NICE will promote treatments which have demonstrated "clinical and cost-effectiveness". The rub is in that phrase. I would like to ask the Minister, what is cost-effectiveness? If a drug relieves pain, or prolongs

1571
life for a few months, or enhances someone's sense of well-being, how do you measure its value? And how do you get the evidence to measure it if NICE has decreed that it should not be available precisely because the evidence is lacking?
All too often, you can demonstrate cost-effectiveness only with hindsight after a treatment has been put into practice. The classic example of that is combination therapy for AIDS patients. The Government's test of "clinical and cost-effectiveness" looks set to be a double lock from which two consequences are likely to flow. The first is that many clinically effective drugs will be unavailable, but this time their availability will not be localised, it will be nation-wide. The second is that clinical trials of new drugs will no longer take place in the UK. British patients will become the last to benefit from new drug treatments and not, as they have been recently, among the first.
A recent survey conducted by NOP Health Care found that nearly 60 per cent. of GPs do not believe that their patients always receive the best treatment available regardless of cost. Many of them said that their local health authorities had stated that they could not afford it or had issued guidelines not to provide it. Mr. Dobson's public reassurance that,
"the money will always be there to guarantee that patients get the medicine they need when they need it",
is disingenuous at best. There is a real issue about the affordability of certain treatments when the Government, for the first time, are imposing cash limited drug budgets on GPs. Affordability was the real issue in the recent guidance on Viagra, but the guidance was framed on the basis of a specious clinical rationale, GPs being told that they could prescribe or not on the basis of distinctions drawn by the Secretary of State between different clinical conditions.
Perhaps I may pick up a point made by my noble friend Lady Gardner. NICE must not become a vehicle for obfuscating difficult decisions or when a GP withholds a certain treatment, concealing from the patient that the decision may not be a wholly clinical one. I should welcome the Minister's comments on what I have said because, examined under the skin, NICE begins to carry the warning signs of exactly the syndrome I have highlighted on the management of waiting lists; namely, interference in the clinical process by government.
That is a theme I shall pick up in various ways when we come to debate the Health Bill next week. For now, at the end of a rich and satisfying debate, it only remains to listen to what the Minister has to say.
8.6 p.m.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, it has indeed been a rich and interesting debate, as the noble Earl said. I, too, congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, on introducing it and on making five hours go very quickly. My only reservation occurred when one noble Lord described it as a preliminary canter for our debate next week on the Health Bill. I believe that stamina of Grand National proportions will be needed.
1572
Furthermore, the debate has presented me with the huge task of trying to respond appropriately to such wide-ranging topics. We have heard from nurses, dentists, doctors and people who have served for many years as chairs and non-executive members of health authorities and other bodies. We have heard from some well-known and effective patient champions and we heard, appropriately, from patients, as my noble friend Lord Sawyer reminded us. We were reminded of the importance of having patients at the heart of the National Health Service.
It has been a wide-ranging debate. We moved from fluoridation to party lenses, which was my discovery of the day. We examined the Defence Medical Services and heard some potent and powerful messages about individual groups of patients. We heard about people with renal disease, of the needs of deaf children and about those suffering from the effects of organophosphates. We debated the general themes of resources, rationing, nursing and joint working. There was even a moment in the debate when, having heard my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington talk about the synthesis which occurs after argument and counter-argument, I thought that he had discovered the third way. I suspect that he might shout at me if I say that, so I shall not pursue that line of argument. We even heard some management speak during the debate.
It has been interesting and I suppose that this is my human moment to echo my noble friend's contribution. The National Health Service is an institution of whose genesis we were powerfully reminded by my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton. It binds people together in the most extraordinary ways. From all sides of the House we heard contributions from people who are united in their commitment and passion for the National Health Service. It made me think in terms of the "human moment" and "management speak" of my own stretch objective as a Minister to make a wind-up speech in a debate with 34 contributors that is both coherent and comprehensive. I have not yet got there, but I am hoping that by the end of my ministerial career I shall be somewhere near.
I should like to say two things in beginning my wind-up speech. First, I echo the comments of my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies—it was repeated in different ways in many contributions—regarding the tribute we all want to pay to those who work in the health service in all their different capacities. The comments of the noble Lord, Lord Chadlington, were fascinating. His contribution was perhaps coming from a different perspective and was particularly interesting.
It is interesting to consider the representation of this winter and the actuality for many people who worked in the service and perceived it. While I do not for a moment suggest that everything was perfect, that some patients did not have an extremely difficult time and that the service was not under stress, in some places the most inspiring joint working was being carried out. People under pressure were responding effectively to that pressure and providing high quality care a great deal of the time.

1573
If there is a morale issue in the health service, I suggest that it does not lie in some of the party political banter as to whose fault it was or where problems occurred, but in a representation of dwelling on the failures rather than on the successes. I was interested therefore in what the noble Lord, Lord Chadlington, said and agree that it is important that we celebrate the success of things like NHS Direct. That is going to be enormously important; and it is already enormously popular with those who use it. It will help us with some of the real conundrums about increasing demands and, as in any system, limited resources and the need to allocate those resources as effectively as we can.
It is important therefore to recognise the successes. I say to those noble Lords who suggested that some of the fault in the current situation—whatever that may be—lies in something that I certainly did not recognise as coming out of the Labour Party manifesto; that is, that it contained some kind of magic promise that a Labour government would transform all the problems that exist in the health service and put everything right overnight. There are long-standing difficulties and problems which will take time to improve and put right. But a point echoed by my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley is that it would be absolutely wrong to have low expectations of the National Health Service. We will not get the best out of people working in the service; we will not get the best out of public support for the service and resources in the service by having low expectations. It is right that we have high expectations. We must try to live up to them—sometimes it will be difficult and sometimes we shall stumble on the way. But that is not a reason for downgrading those expectations.
Perhaps I can also get out of the way some of the ideological issues. A recurrent theme throughout the debate related to the effects and imposition of the internal market on the health service. I was working in the health service at the same time as the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes. Though we disagree fundamentally on many political issues and in our analysis of how the health service should be run, it was another illustration of how it brings people closer together that we managed amicably and successfully to work together as chairs of neighbouring trusts in north London.
I believe that the language and the structures of the market were deeply inappropriate to what was and is an extremely cost-effective public service. Our best hope of cost-effectiveness and value for money from the health service is in encouraging the collaboration and co-operation which goes with the grain of what people in the service want to do and what those receiving the service expect from a publicly funded, publicly available service. It is that which will encourage the sharing of good practice and the learning from experience that, again, is a way of maximising the considerable investment that we make in the health service.
Another point which came out of tonight's debate—it was made by my noble friends Lord Warner and Lady Pitkeathley and the noble Lords, Lord Laming and Lord Butterfield; so it came from all sides of the House—was the importance of joint working in different parts of the
1574
health service. That was illustrated during the pressures faced this winter; that is, how important it is to have the secondary sector, primary healthcare and, most importantly, social services working together so that they can provide the sort of service for patients that goes across institutional boundaries and responds most appropriately to needs.
Another point that was made very clearly by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, was that when we come to the fundamentals of tackling inequalities in health, in addressing not simply how we provide a sickness service but also how we encourage and foster good health in the population, it is essential that we work across departmental and government boundaries; that we recognise that the contribution to the health of the population of this country comes not just from the Department of Health; and that it is the sorts of initiative that come out of, for example, Sure Start, the New Deal, the education and welfare reforms, the minimum wage and action on smoking that in the long term will have enormous benefits in terms of the health of the population.
It is important too to concentrate on education. It is a difficult phenomenon but one that is well known in public service that to those who have shall be given and that those who know how to use public services get the most out of them. We must tackle that phenomenon and be solid in our determination to improve the health of the least well off disproportionately faster than the health of everybody else. That means that we must ensure that health action zones and health improvement programmes are structures for taking that focus to those who get least out of the system as a whole, who are most socially excluded and most likely to suffer ill health, and give them the highest importance.
I turn now to some of the specific points made in the debate. Some interesting questions were raised as to the availability of beds in the acute sector. I take the point made by my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley that we are not only talking about the hospital service, but we must look also across the community and into social services as well. In reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, I can say that the bed survey is under way and will be reporting in the spring.
The noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, was right to point out that if we look at the graph of the declension of bed numbers over the years, it has been steadily falling. I do not think that we should assume from that that at some point no beds at all will be provided in the health service, which is what happens if you continue the logical progression. Given the pressure that there has been, particularly on general medical beds, it is absolutely appropriate that at this point we ask whether we have adequate provision. It is enormously important that we look, not only at acute hospitals, but also at intermediate care, at care offered in nursing homes, across the whole range, and at the care offered at home. Often a higher quality of service can be offered to a patient by a rapid-response team going into the patient's home, avoiding the need for hospital admission. That is important.

1575
However, we have seen an issue concerning ICU beds this winter which has been worrying. We have managed to provide some extra beds through additional investment in "winter pressures" money, but we are looking carefully at whether we need more and we are reviewing the availability nationwide.
Another winter issue that arose, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, referred, was that of the availability of blood through the National Blood Service. Stocks were very short, as they traditionally are over the Christmas period. One of the successes that I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Chadlington, will be pleased to celebrate is that the advertising campaign that was launched in January was very successful. A great number of new donors have come forward in response to that campaign. Stocks of blood are now up to a much better level.
Perhaps I can share with your Lordships' House that I wrote to every MP suggesting that they should give blood. Much to the amazement of the department, nearly 90 MPs did give blood in their own localities. That was a great success and I believe that the local publicity encouraged other people. I have persuaded Black Rod to allow us to have a blood donation session in your Lordships' House. If I may say so, the upper age range for blood donation is now 70 years of age. I hope we can publicise this initiative and receive contributions, whether blue or red, from your Lordships' House.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, also referred to the meningitis outbreak that occurred this winter, as in every winter. Its incidence tends to mirror that of flu. We certainly recognise the importance of paediatric intensive care being available wherever it is needed. As I said earlier, we do not necessarily need a paediatric intensive care unit in every hospital, but we must make sure that the retrieval services are in place to ensure that a child can be transported very quickly.
I also recognise the point that the noble Baroness made about medicine and services for adolescents, which in the past has been somewhat neglected.
The plea of the noble Lord, Lord Pender, was that we should work co-operatively with the Department for Education and Employment on the needs for deaf children. It is particularly important that education and health come together for that group.
Several other specific points were raised. The noble Lord, Lord Norrie, referred to kidney patients. He is absolutely right to point out the current pressures on renal replacement therapy services, hospital haemo-dialysis, in particular, and the increased demand for treatment. We hope to make progress in reducing regional variations, to offer guidance in the coming months about regional services to health authorities and to improve the commissioning of those services. Both the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, who, as I was pleased to see, carries her donor card with her, raised the issue of organ donation. We are trying to increase the numbers who carry cards, who talk to their relatives on the subject and who put themselves on the register. We are specifically looking at the need to have a campaign among the Asian communities where the need is greater in terms of renal
1576
disease but where the knowledge and commitment to organ donation is less well developed. I have to take the noble Baroness's remark about Plymouth seriously, having left my appendix there about 40 years ago while on holiday in Cornwall. I shall certainly look into that issue.
My noble friend Lord Laming referred to the need for joint learning. That is an important area. I had some experience of how a school of nursing and a medical school on the same campus, using some of the same facilities—whether schools, laboratories or libraries—can encourage partnership working, which is important for the future.
I cannot avoid saying something about dentistry because the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, would never forgive me if I did not. On the issue of fluoridation, we are determined to break the impasse where, despite the majority of the public supporting it, there has been no new scheme since 1985. The public health White Paper will take us further on that.
The noble Lord referred to the uptake of the money available for the "investing in dentistry" schemes. That uptake has been limited so far. That is not because the Department of Health has not made the money available. The department has funded every proposal that met the criteria, but it is dependent on the local health authorities putting forward proposals.
The noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, also raised the issue about general anaesthesia and the possible transfer to the secondary sector. At the moment we have seen no evidence of that, but we shall monitor it.
I turn now to the issue of radiotherapy, as raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ironside, arising from a group of patients who suffered very traumatic injuries in the course of their treatment. The START trial, to which he referred, began recruiting on 4th January this year and has recruited so far 21 patients. All the participating centres will be scrutinised by a quality assurance team before patients may enter the study and any radiotherapy centre may volunteer to participate. The trial hopes to recruit 4,000 patients in four years, so completing recruitment in 2003. Follow up of patients will continue for 10 years or more after radiotherapy.
On the new approach to mammography, I know that some NHS trial hospitals are already using computers to display X-ray information to enable precision biopsies, and research is considering the use of that technique in treatment.
The noble Lord, Lord Vivian, referred to the defence medical services and the Royal Hospital, Haslar. The decision was taken that Haslar should close. That is unlikely to happen before 2002 because we are committed, as is the Ministry of Defence, to ensure that the change is properly planned, that the implications are dealt with and that the healthcare provisions for both the civilian and service populations of that area are safeguarded.
We want to establish the Centre for Defence Medicine as soon as possible to enhance the role that Haslar played as a focus for professional excellence in military medicine. On the broader issues facing service families, who often have difficulties of access to a broad range

1577
of facilities—education and welfare, as well as health facilities—an inter-ministerial group has been set up—I serve on it—to address some of those issues and to see that those families are not disadvantaged by being service families.
My noble friend Lord Sawyer referred to the work that Greg Dyke has done on the new NHS charter. I can reassure him that we will consult the public and the NHS in the spring on a new charter programme. He felt strongly that we should not impose that from above. It should grow from below. The value statement for the NHS will be one of the issues on which we shall consult.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, referred to the accessibility of drug treatments. Yes, there are enormous divergences; and the post-code prescribing phenomenon was not diminished—perhaps I may put it that way—by the existence of both GP fundholding and the internal market. However, through the mechanism of national service frameworks and the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, we are trying to ensure that unacceptable variations are reduced and that we consider both clinical matters and cost-effectiveness. We must do that not only to encourage the rapid spread of new and effective technologies, but also to tackle issues relating to the ineffective practice and treatment of the past. That could free some resources for the extra things that we want to do.
I end by commenting on nursing, which was a recurrent theme of the debate and on which, as one would expect, we had many contributions. The House values particularly the long experience and wisdom which the noble Baronesses, Lady McFarlane and Lady Emerton, bring to discussions of nursing issues. Many points were made, such as the need to consider nurse training, including the need for clinical experience and practice early in the course. The need for the recognition of clinical nurses in teaching was raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman. As was said, we need to end some of the negative separation that has grown up between academic institutions and the NHS so that we can make nursing students feel more part of the NHS. That is not to say that we should go backwards and completely dismantle what has gone before.
The UKCC Commission for Education will be enormously valuable in making us able to take on the real concerns, such as the need to have a range of skills among our nurses and to recognise the very important bedside skills, as well as the basic care provided for patients. We should value them just as we value the enormously responsible and demanding tasks that some nurses at the top of the profession are undertaking in jobs which, five or 10 years ago, would have been considered completely the province of doctors.
As my noble friend Lord Morris said, we must consider also the grading system within nursing and find a way, not to introduce performance-related pay—my right honourable friend always says that he has never mentioned performance-related pay for nurses except to say that we are not going to have it!—but to have a clearer system that does not impose restrictive ceilings on developing skills and practice but which recognises those who develop competences and take on further
1578
responsibilities. That is most important. Indeed, it is part of the range of issues which go together with the very real investment in pay that we announced this week.
However, as my noble friend Lord Rea suggested, those are not the only issues. Violence against staff is an important and destructive issue within the health service and we must be absolutely adamant about protecting staff against violence. We must improve the conditions in which they work. That is why providing the money to improve one in four A&E departments is important. That is why the hospital building programme is important—not only for patients but also for staff. That is why we must have family-friendly employment policies which recognise that people have commitments and that we cannot expect people to work on some of the rigid shift patterns of the past. All those things are tremendously important. It must also be possible to enter the profession at different entry points and to have retraining on a part-time basis for those who have family responsibilities, and which does not mean a diminution in income for, say, a healthcare assistant who wants to train as a nurse. Those are all things that we can do to reverse the current shortage of nurses.
Perhaps I may advise the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, on one point. He is not correct in thinking that money has been taken out of the capital fund to fund the nurses' pay award. The £100 million that is coming from the modernisation fund had always been allocated for staff. There is no impact whatsoever on the capital moneys, the IT money, the mental health money or the primary care money in the modernisation fund. We are not sacrificing that in order to fund the pay award.
Pay is one element, but other issues are also important. Good morale and feeling part of an important organisation are absolutely vital. The best news that I have had this week was to know that as of 6 p.m. today, since the first television advertisements were shown in our £4 million television campaign launched on Monday, which gives a central telephone number to call, we have received more than 8,000 calls. That is enormously heartening not only for the recruitment of new entrants to the profession but also in terms of luring back those who have left. Furthermore, it will enhance the value that we put on nurses and show them very clearly that we recognise the importance of their role. In that way, it will enhance the most important element of all, the retention of our existing nurses. That is the piece of good news on which I end. I am afraid that I cannot give the House the exact number of callers because I believe that responses are running at 10 per minute.
I am certainly not despondent about the state of the NHS at the moment. I would not say that it is without its problems or that it could not always use more resources. However, I believe that we have put in place the structures for building on what was created 51 years ago and for taking it, with strength, determination and affection, into the 21st century.
8.37 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank all those who have contributed to the debate and I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Family Farms
8.38 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley Lord Beaumont of Whitley rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what measures they intend to take to alleviate the economic hardships, both present and forecast, of those involved in family farms.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in asking Her Majesty's Government what measures they intend to take to alleviate the economic hardships, both present and forecast, of those involved in family farms, I should like to thank all those noble Lords who have indicated, by putting their names down to speak, that they are equally concerned by this question. I thank also those Peers who are not able to attend but who have written to me on the subject, such as the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. I take this opportunity to welcome my noble friend Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer to her new position, responding for the first time from our Front Bench.
I am the secretary of the All-Party Family Farms Group. I also serve on the executive of the Family Farmers Association. For the purposes of this debate, we are talking about farms of less than 125 acres which make up no less than 66 per cent. of all agricultural holdings in the United Kingdom. It goes without saying that a serious reduction in their number would make an enormous difference to the look and character of the British countryside and to the number of people living there.
These farms and those who work on them are under immediate and drastic threat. All farmers are doing badly and are likely to do worse. Family farms are doing worst of all. When one says "doing badly" it does not sound very terrible. However, we are talking of large numbers of people leaving the land; of mass bankruptcies; and of a rate of suicide well above the national average. I do not wish to become too emotive, although I certainly feel it, but we are talking about the destruction of the "Yeomen of England", a politically incorrect expression which I take these days to include yeowomen and Scotland and Wales.
Such a plight for any industry would demand action by government. The destruction of heavy industry, whether shipbuilding, steelworks or mining, has demanded action, if only of an ambulance nature. But what we are asking for is not ambulance but preventive action. Mr. Oliver Walston, whose father many noble Lords remember as a speaker on agriculture in your Lordships' House, has been asking on television for the past few weeks what it is that makes farming a special case that we should interfere to stop the inexorable laws of classical economics from working. I do not agree with a number of his conclusions or his premises, but they were good programmes. Time after time he met the
1580
answer from the people he interviewed that at stake was the whole existence of the countryside as a living, breathing, populated entity.
So my Question, as framed, includes an associated one. What are the Government going to do to save the rural countryside? It may be too late. If the Government act as quickly as possible, they may stem disaster. But they are unlikely to find another generation to take the place of this one without really drastic action. The chronicler par excellence of the small farm between the wars was Adrian Bell whose trilogy, Corduroy, The Cherry Tree and Silver Ley is shortly to be serialised on BBC television. His son, Mr. Martin Bell, did not follow in his footsteps but became a journalist and an MP and is a member of our all-party group. The children of family farms are voting with their feet. If the Government cannot save the countryside perhaps they can at least put together a parachute for retiring farmers. I am reminded of the RSM's despairing shout as the officer cadet marches his troops over the cliff. He said, "Say something, sir, if it is only goodbye".
What has caused this disaster in which we find ourselves? The underlying reasons are low world prices coupled with a world economic system which means that the hungry have not got the money with which to buy food. With most commodities we are inclined to shrug our shoulders and let the iron laws have their way. Even with the misery which it will entail, a government which has very few roots in the countryside might well do the same with agriculture and until very recently that appeared to be what was happening. But with a new Minister of Agriculture there appears to be the dawn of hope.
Addressing the Oxford Farming Conference Mr. Nick Brown said:
"A more competitive industry does not and should not mean ever-larger and more specialised farms. Although the long-term trend towards larger farm size will continue, there should remain a place for the whole range of farm structures and farm business organisations".
That may seem a small candle to light, but, believe me, it is a beacon compared with the black future family farms have been facing. I look forward tonight to some answers as to how it is to be achieved because, on the face of it, it looks impossible. But government must achieve it, not least because the problems for them of neglect of the problem will be horrific. The already high suicide rate will go up; and the countryside will suffer from depopulation, which will increase the problems of rural poverty, rural transport and rural shops apart from the cost of supporting families on social security.
Why are the small farmers the worst hit? It is not because they are inefficient. It is true that by the classical measurements of efficiency per pound invested they are not very efficient. But in terms of efficiency per unit of labour, food produced per acre, the preservation of biodiversity and the welfare of animals, which comes from knowing them all by name, they are immensely efficient.
The fact is that they are the worst hit because the immense cornucopia which comes from the common agricultural policy flows, as we heard on Mr. Walston's programmes, to the big farmers who are often not so much

1581
farmers as insurance companies. The belief held by the NFU, and until recently by the British Government, that the future of agriculture is agribusiness, has led to the encouragement of bigger and bigger farms and more and more rural depopulation. That is the way of the future, they say; that is the way of the great food producers such as the US. But it is not. The United States pays lip service to free trade and to the World Trade Organisation, but its behaviour is otherwise. An article in the Farmers Weekly of 9th October revealed that Congress is pumping 9 billion dollars into its farming sector this winter. Why? It is because the US Department of Agriculture has published a report of its National Commission on Small Farms entitled A Time to Act which says that it must. I imagine that MAFF has studied that report in depth. I certainly hope so.
There is not the same electoral power in this country for family farms nor quite the mythical—and by "mythical" I do not mean false—American sentiment stemming from,
"The bridge where once the embattled farmers stood and fired the shot heard round the world"
or the log cabin in which Abraham Lincoln was reared. But there is here wide public sentiment and sympathy towards the countryside as bodies like the CPRE and RSPB testify. A British or Royal Commission on small farms might well come to conclusions similar to those of its American colleagues. And we would not necessarily find our European colleagues unsympathetic. France has recently been moving to rescue what remains of its peasant sector. Can noble Lords imagine the problems of enlargement if we are going to insist on driving people off the land?
There is plenty the Government can do. Stop opposing "modulation" for a start. Insist on food security to go on with, and a country's right to ensure its own safety by growing its own food, if necessary, with a subsidy. There was a time, as many Members of your Lordships' House will recall, when that was important here. We should eliminate or at least limit the buying and selling of quotas. Other steps will be found in that admirable document of the Family Farmers Association, A Contract Proposed. Alternatively, I could commend the Liberal Democrats' policy of individual contracts between government and farmers. But what is needed most of all is a change of heart and mind across government, particularly in MAFF. The root of the problem is that the Government are indissolubly wedded to two incompatible beliefs. The first is that they would like—I put it no higher—to preserve the British countryside and to persuade people to go on living there. The second is that they feel that they must not interfere in any respect with the principles of free trade. They cannot continue to hold both these beliefs. There is no doubt which they must choose. Free trade is a political construct. The British countryside is our most precious heritage and family farms are at the heart of it.
This is not a chauvinist demand. I was a member of the British delegation to the International Parliamentary Union Food and Agriculture Organisation conference on How to Feed the World held in Rome recently. It was
1582
tremendously well attended by all except the very rich countries. There were only two representatives of the United States present. One was a delegate who came for less than an hour—the time it took him to deliver his speech. The second was a keynote speaker, an economist, who told us that there were no problems and that if there were, big business, science and conventional economics would solve them all. The overwhelming majority of the delegates disagreed.
I made much the same speech as I am making tonight, and I received enormous support in the room and all over the world. There is not a country in the world which does not know the importance of family farms. I ask our Government to make sure that we are not moving suicidally away from that belief and to outline just what they propose to do about it.
8.48 p.m.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, perhaps I may first commend the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, for his initiative on securing this debate. I do so partly because I strongly support the Family Farmers Association in which he served, as I did for a very long time the Small Farmers Association. The matters raised by the noble Lordz are both serious and timely. That they are serious is beyond all doubt: that they have been serious for quite some time is also certain. I recall in the last parliament being deeply concerned about farmers and particularly small farmers in my constituency. I made a number of speeches about that to very little effect. I still live within my former constituency and I still know the same farmers. I am aware of the deep anxiety which they feel. For many years politicians across the spectrum were quite happy to encourage people to enter farming. Unless they were among the financially fortunate few, they became small farmers and necessarily they then became livestock producers; and in order to remain livestock producers they had to be very caring of their stock, as the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, has told us earlier. They had to practise careful husbandry. I know many of them who had to devote enormous labour and dedication and toil to keep their heads above water. Many of them now face a desperate situation and they wonder if they can survive.
As I said, some of the farmers that I know are superb stockmen. For example, there is one friend whom I know very well indeed and if my wife or I go to his farm we know the names of some of his cows. We also know that we would need to have a pocketful of nuts to feed them, because they would come up to be rewarded for the recognition. That man does not know whether he can survive. People like that are desperately needed if the fabric of the British countryside is to be safeguarded.
There is another penalty on size, which I hope the Government will look on with some compassion. That is, that if there is a pursuit of de-intensification then it is possible that many small farmers could be kicked beyond the levels of survivability. But they have to survive. The countryside has to be cared for. It has to be managed. Rural areas have to be serviced; they cannot be left simply as a featureless prairie or for the benefit of weekend residents. There has to be a viable population there.

1583
Of course the continuing agricultural evolution means that we have the capacity to produce more and more food, but we can only do so if we continue to damage the environment and the ecological wealth that is still important in Britain but which has been far too badly damaged in recent years. However, if we are to allow the production of food to continue in ever-increasing—perhaps unnecessary—levels, then we do have to consider whether it is economically sane.
Is it economically sane for four-fifths of the money spent on agricultural subsidy and support to be paid to 20 per cent. of the farmers? That is a very important factor which has to be considered. Is it sane to see the rural areas depopulated and to look at all the damage that has been perpetrated in order to enable a large number of farmers to face ruin, while the very fortunate minority may survive? It is a factor which I hope the Government will take seriously into account.
I would suggest that if we are to see the new responsibility for green issues which the present Government have proclaimed we will have to look at the whole approach to agriculture with very real care. May I illustrate my view in one other way? I have for many years sought to serve the cause of conservation. Seventeen years ago I presented a Bill to Parliament to protect hedgerows. The then government blocked it because, they said, the destruction of hedgerows had virtually come to an end. They maintained that block year after year after year, while thousands of miles of hedgerows were destroyed. They maintained the block and they disregarded the facts which emerged that thousands of miles of hedgerows had been destroyed even though they were legally protected under the Enclosure Acts of pre-1840.
However, they brought in grants to plant new hedgerows; and that was welcome. Nevertheless older hedgerows of ecological importance continued to be destroyed, and then in 1992 they promised to protect hedgerows and in 1993, 1994, 1995 and 1996 they maintained the block on efforts to secure the protection that had been promised. Finally in 1996 we had the hedgerow regulations. I will not labour the point because I hope to introduce a debate into your Lordships' House at some future time when I can talk about some of the absurdities which those regulations contained.
If we are to care for rural Britain, then the small farmer is really at the very frontiers of sanity—and not merely the small farmer in the truly rural areas but those within and upon the fringes of the conurbations. They face enormous challenges and, in particular, they face squalid dumping, nuisance and crime. Their lot is sometimes a desperate one.
I live in Wath-upon-Dearne, which is my birthplace, and a man called Tom Williams lived there for a while before he became a Member of Parliament in 1922. He gave me a lot of good advice when I was a very young man, which was based on the fact that as Minister of Agriculture in the 1945–50 government the enormous challenges which that administration faced did not lead that government to neglect agriculture. It was historic and had historically consequential importance. I accept
1584
that the challenges faced by this Government are very considerable, although no more considerable than those which faced the government in 1945. I hope that in the next year or two we shall see the wisdom and the sensitivity which was applied then. The present plight certainly demands it.
8.55 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I shall begin my remarks this evening by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, for asking this Question. I must declare an interest, for I am a farmer and a landowner—not, it is true, a small farmer by any definition that can reasonably be used in this context, although in the current economic climate I sometimes wish I was a small farmer because it would mean I would lose money less quickly.
The remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, made it quite clear that the figures which are available show without any argument the current economic plight of the family farm. I should like to take slight issue with the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, in his definition because, particularly in upland areas, a farm of, say, 120 to 150 acres on bad land can be as impoverished as any small smallholding on lower ground. It is probably true that in thinking about this issue there are in fact other sectors of the economy which might be comparable. I think, for example, of the corner shop, which faces very similar difficulties in the current world. However, it is particularly important to focus on the family farm because, as has already been said, for many years it has been the central building-block of British agriculture. Small farms matter. After all, they have been the core of rural employment. They have been major contributors to domestic food production, and even in the kind of trading and inter-dependent world in which we now live, that matters a lot to our economy. They have been responsible for the use and management of a very great deal of the surface of our country.
It seems clear that if one looks carefully at agrarian history in England—I would not wish to speak for Scotland, although I am sure the same principles apply there—over the years there has been pressure upon the smaller farming units in the countryside. One has only to go back and look at the history of the enclosure awards to see how the changes affected by that legislation led to the leaving of the land by the smallest proprietors. Throughout the last 200 or 300 years of British history, the family farm has been under pressure, with all the social and other consequences which flow from it. One has only to look at John Clare's eulogy on the Northamptonshire countryside to see how those changes were perceived all those years ago.
It always seems to me a slight paradox that, while farmers pride themselves on being independent, they are in fact part of an industry that may perhaps be more regulated by government than almost any other. If we look at the framework of British agriculture since the war we see quite clearly that this is so. Domestically in the post-war settlement alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, in his references to Tom Williams, a strong defined framework by government was put in place, which was superseded by, though in many ways it was

1585
essentially similar to, the kind of regime that followed it when we joined the European Community and accepted the provisions of the common agricultural policy under the Treaty of Rome.
What we have heard tonight, and no doubt what we shall hear later this evening, makes it quite clear that it is not working. Many small farmers are working for an amount well below the minimum wage and also no doubt working outside the terms of the working time directive. That cannot be right. We are also seeing a change in the capital structure of farming where, increasingly, outside money is coming in and the traditional family business is being transmuted into something much more akin to traditional capitalism. Against this background, if the family farm is to continue and provide a basis for family businesses in rural Britain—in a Britain where the very nature of the rural economy is changing and will continue to change—we shall have to address this problem most carefully. If we do not do so, it will simply go away because the family farm will have ceased to exist.
There are those who say that diversification provides the answer, but that requires extra capital and, in an era of financial stringency, that is most difficult to achieve. Equally, going back to the 1947 Act, the planning system is based on a policy where the countryside was essentially a single land use area; namely, farming. There are still problems in the way of diversifying farms into other rural businesses. Quite rightly, where diversification is an option, planning authorities insist on expensive materials and their use for obvious environmental reasons, but that simply puts up the cost of diversification. Part-time family farming is sometimes said to be the answer and it can be in many circumstances. However, I am not sure that many traditional farmers are ideally suited to, shall I say, tele-working. Finally, there is the need for training and, if one looks at the colleges around the country, it is encouraging to see an increasing range and availability of appropriate training programmes.
However, perhaps most important of all, agriculture in this country and in the rest of the Community—and, for that matter, across the entire globe—faces serious change as a result of World Trade Organisation talks and, within Europe, the proposed enlargement to the east, together with Agenda 2000. This, understandably, is often seen as a threat but it could be a wonderful opportunity for, as we all know, the CAP is inherently economically inefficient.
I remember my noble friend Lord Plumb saying in the European Parliament that the key to understanding farming policy is to focus on profits not prices. That should be the theme which runs through our negotiators' considerations in these important talks. I hope that the Government will be able to assure us that, in the latter, there will be no tolerance of discrimination against this country which may possibly arise because we are not inside economic and monetary union. It must not be allowed to be a reason why we should be discriminated against in Britain. Equally, modulation will hit even the smallest farms in this country. That is also something that we must not allow. If we look to the future, I
1586
believe that farmers and small farmers have an increasingly important multi-functional role in the rural economy. But they cannot play that part if they go bust.
9.2 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for initiating this short but very important debate. Anyone with a salary or a stipend, or even anyone on the dole, can hardly imagine the extreme insecurity of many small farmers today. There is no certainty of income at all for those who are not in dairy farming; and, for them, it is but a small income. Their livestock may be unsaleable, except at derisory prices which simply add to the burden of debt and to the overdraft.
The family farmer who has invested a lifetime of skill and very hard work sees his livelihood melting away and his standard of living and that of his family falling well below the poverty level, let alone the dignity level. It is a truly desperate plight for many small farmers in many parts of Britain. Prices are too low, demand is unpredictable, the supermarkets are powerful and sometimes ruthless, and the public, by and large, indifferent.
Within farming families there are often bitter tensions—the older generation hoping that the farm can continue, the younger generation seeing how bleak the prospects are. In Oxfordshire half of the farmers will be retiring within 10 years. More than half of them see no way in which the farm can be taken on. Farmers who plan to retire cannot afford to do so. They, and sometimes their widows, struggle on, unable to cope properly, especially with the handling of large animals which leads to real problems with animal welfare on top of the social isolation and the deep unhappiness of the farmer or his widow. The debts rise remorselessly. Total income from farming has fallen by 64 per cent. over the past two years. But the burden of bureaucracy and red tape increases, often for good reasons, to levels which small farmers find quite intolerable.
This is not an industry which can be allowed to go to the wall; it is different, as the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont pointed out. It is our primary industry and that on which all life in fact depends. It is not the case that ever-larger holdings are the answer. That is certainly not so if we take seriously the social and environmental characteristics which make the survival of the family farm so important in many parts of Britain.
This problem has been described many times in your Lordships' House and debated on a number of occasions. I believe we all recognise that there are no simple answers. However, I want to suggest that action on three fronts could make a real difference—that is, action by government, by the public and by the farming community itself. First, government must be fully committed to CAP reform which redirects available European money from farmers who do not need it to those whose very survival can be assured only if there is carefully targeted support. We do not want to subsidise more production, nor pay headage payments for livestock, which leads to serious over-stocking and

1587
environmental degradation. As one local farmer put it to me, we need headage payments for people; that is to say, people who will manage the land wisely and in the interests of bio-diversity and make that vital contribution to the survival of small rural communities and their fragile infrastructure of schools, shops and small businesses, all of whose livelihoods are closely linked to the fortunes of the farmers.
Restructuring and diversification are happening. Value is being added by enterprising farmers to their primary products. Farmers' incomes are being supplemented by spouses and family members' earnings outside the industry. I believe that 60 per cent. of farmers now depend upon money coming in from outside sources as well as from the direct income of the farm. However, more government help is vital. What has already been given this year is much appreciated, but it is too little to make much difference and not sufficiently targeted towards our smaller family farms.
I should like to renew the plea that I made when I spoke about this topic in the debate on the gracious Speech in your Lordships' House two months ago. I ask for a policy of national modulation within an envelope of money which we and the Government can use to help our own farmers on the scale which is appropriate in this country. Modulation cannot work across the European Union on one basis because farms are so different in different countries. If we are allowed to practise our own form of modulation, I believe that it can really work. That is a matter for government.
Secondly, the public could do much more by learning and caring about our farming community and understanding the crisis which confronts it, by developing an informed taste for local produce, by shopping at local butchers and greengrocers, at pannier markets and farm outlets rather than at supermarkets. A real growth in demand for organic produce would encourage our United Kingdom farmers to expand our present small scale production and eliminate the need to import the 70 per cent. of organic food which at present comes from overseas.
Thirdly, I believe the farming community could take some important steps to develop a more co-operative culture with the kind of machinery rings and retail co-operatives that work well and make good sense in other European countries. We need to see a more generous attitude on the part of the larger farmers and a readiness to accept reductions in their own subventions in order to divert resources to the small family farms. As small farms struggle with complex form-filling and with intractable difficulties of gaining access to social security benefits, such is the unpredictability of farm accounts from year to year that there must be more scope within the farming community for mutual help with these bureaucratic burdens.
Finally, I wish to share briefly with noble Lords the experience of one Herefordshire family farm. The farmer and his wife are immensely hard working, cheerful, skilful and efficient. They have slowly built up their tenanted farm over many years. Not long ago they bought in 12 week-old pigs at £34 each. Suddenly the market crashed and 12 weeks later the fattened pigs
1588
were offered at market. The price was £9 each. Fortunately, thanks to the existence of a local abattoir and a friendly butcher, those pigs could be slaughtered and butchered locally, and the pork joints and the sausages sold in the small farm shop. The total return with value added in that way was about £100 per pig, which represented a small profit after rearing and butchering instead of a massive loss.
But not all small farmers live near an abattoir or a friendly butcher, or have their own outlet. We should spare a thought for pig breeders unable to dispose of the litters produced by their 50 or 60 sows and who have to destroy at birth 500 piglets instead of seeing them sold, reared and consumed in preference to imported pork.
The changes of the past two years have been bewildering in their intensity and devastating in their effect. But I believe that wise and concerted action by government, by the public and by farmers themselves can make a difference and change the prospects for family farms for the better. That change is urgently to be desired.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I interrupt the debate for one moment to remind noble Lords that their allocation is six minutes and if they speak for longer they take time away from other noble Lords.
9.10 p.m.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, I must immediately thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Herefordshire for his wonderful speech, and especially for his references to organic farming, which may reduce the length of my speech as I intended to speak on that subject. I am indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for this interesting debate and particularly to the Family Farmers' Association which produced the document, A Contract Proposed. I ask the Minister to take immediate account of that document as it is relevant to our discussion today.
Family farmers are the core of the farming community. As the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, said, they are the yeomen of England. Some two-thirds of the 240,000 agricultural holdings comprise fewer than 125 acres and they employ proportionally more farm workers than the so-called prairie farmers. The effect of the CAP has been intensification; that is, less labour and more chemicals. For instance, the number of full-time males employed has halved since 1979–81. While regular part-time employment has remained steady, overall, 90,000 farm workers have lost their jobs since 1979–81.
There is a vital need to bring more people back on the land, to regenerate village life and to provide more care of the land and the environment. Modern methods developed since the war have made intensification the order of the day. The development of the agri-chemical business has combined with support prices and the development of ever larger machinery to create a culture of large scale production with ever greater yields, ever larger herds, battery chickens in their tens of thousands to a shed, and pigs and calves in pens. Much of the latter

1589
practice has been outlawed recently. However, this has created problems for farmers who have to compete against the odds of imported competition.
Meanwhile the market in the UK has itself undergone a radical change. The advent of the supermarket has destroyed the age old market system through which the small and family farmer sold his livestock, not to mention the European Commission which has made regulations that have eliminated many abattoirs upon which the markets depended for survival. That has in turn eliminated the farmers' local market. The right reverend Prelate referred to that. The supermarkets in their need for consistency of supply have contracted the large farmers and overseas producers to supply their needs, leaving the small farmer with nothing but an over supplied local market to service at rock bottom prices. As a consequence, the small farmer has been deprived not only of his market-place but also of a place in the queue to supply the supermarket. That is a double whammy if ever there was one. We can see the consequences. Small farmers are going broke and are unable to meet present or future commitments. The noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, referred to the viable population that is needed in the world of small farmers. That viable population is rapidly disappearing.
There are two major problems with the hill farmer. One is that he cannot afford to retire and the other is that he cannot afford to sell his stock. There is a solution that has been suggested to me to propose for discussion which has, incidentally, already been proposed and discussed in your Lordship's Sub-Committee D. It is that the ministry should buy out the hill farmer's headage payments in advance for five or six years future payments in return for selling his stock and leaving his land fallow. Perhaps he would get four out of five or five out of six. That would provide the farmer with a sum upon which he could retire or start up a business and provide the ministry not only with a breather in the production of unwanted beef or sheep but also with a profit of one year's headage payment as well. It would be particularly useful as a source of providing a new young farmer with the means of a clear start in the future. In particular, there would be an environmental benefit of land being given a breather and prepared, as noble Lords will no doubt expect me to say, for organic production, which I would particularly favour. The sums are variable, but let us assume a farmer with 100 cows and a headage payment of £150 a cow, four years in advance. That would give him £60,000, which I suggest is a considerable inducement that even the Treasury might look upon kindly. I ask the Minister to reconsider this proposal and promote it.
Agenda 2000 needs to address these points—at least our interpretation of it does. We need more extensive farming, particularly an interest in the organic area with increased subventions to encourage and increase some tenfold the organic area under cultivation. Such increased subsidy can come from the reduction in CAP subsidies.
1590
Finally, I wish to quote from my excellent brief:
"Small and medium sized farms may not be the most cost effective way to produce food, but they are the most cost effective way to run Society".
9.16 p.m.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Earl, Lord Clanwilliam. He raised many of the points I had intended to make. I thank my noble friend and kinsman Lord Beaumont of Whitley for introducing this timely and important debate.
I declare a financial interest. I am enormously reluctant to speak in any debate where I have to declare a financial interest lest it be perceived that I am trying to make a personal gain. I am not. I own a hill farm of 420 acres called Triermain near Gilsland in Cumbria. Noble Lords who know their Walter Scott will be aware of the ballad of Triermain. The farm has been worked for the past 50 years by one man, who took over from his father, and his sons. The farm consists of 420 acres with 100 acres of fell. So in acreage it falls into the category of larger family farm mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood. It is less favoured land, much of it being marginal.
The farm has been consistently improved. In the past 20 year about £200,000 has been put into it from my earned income, from the rent of the farm, from tenant profits, when there were profits, from government grants, and through loans from the bank. The farmers, the Armstrong family, have obeyed all the regulations and have farmed in line with the policies of successive governments. I mentioned the three generations who have worked the farm. I was there last weekend. I told the family that I hoped that long after I had gone there would be a fourth, fifth and sixth generation. They said that that was unlikely if the situation did not improve.
The Government Chief Whip, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, replying to a debate on agriculture on 9th December 1998, quoted A.G. Street who once observed that for farmers everywhere the most important and urgent question every day was not what the politicians would or would not do for them, but whether it would rain tomorrow. As the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, who also lives in Cumbria, will know, it has been raining there since September. On top of the BSE problems, which have been compounded by the beef on the bone regulations—my farmers have never had any problems over the years with BSE—and assisted by a very poor harvest, the farmers have had to keep their cattle inside since September. As a result they have had to buy over £5,000 worth of bagged silage. The not over-generous compensation payments per head of cattle—140 calves per year are bred on the farm and 600 sheep—produced a mere £4,000. That highly successful farm could shortly go bankrupt, and it will be on my hands.
What suggestions can I make to improve the situation? First, pray, remove the beef on the bone ban immediately. Secondly, mount a second rescue package, based, as the right reverend Prelate and the noble Earl suggested, on a headage payment. Thirdly, introduce a scheme to give a cash payment to older farmers who retire based on a retirement grant for every year that

1591
they have served on the farm. When Her Majesty's forces were cut by a third, officers, NCOs and soldiers were given, as it were, a retirement payment to start afresh elsewhere.
Fourthly, I hope that we shall join the European currency. That will lead to a reduction in the pound. I agree with the right reverend Prelate that livestock farmers should be closing ranks and selling their livestock through the livestock auctions system so that they receive a realistic price for the product.
Of course farmers must diversify. How can that be done? I have five ancient monuments on my hill farm of such rarity that I have to be extremely careful not to damage them in the farming process.
Then there is red tape. I visited some farmers near Allendale called the Gibsons. I asked them, if I were the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, who is to reply to the debate, what they would expect from me. They told me that they are inundated with forms to fill in. They are often visited at most inconvenient times by over-worked civil servants who are occasionally impatient with them. I ask the various ministries dealing with hill farmers in less favoured areas to be more sensitive and patient with them.
Finally, what can I do? I have refused to reduce the rent as yet—it is a low rent—because I have to maintain and repair the buildings and fencing, and that is expensive. What I have done for my hill farmers is allow them to sign a post-dated cheque. There is an old saying that farmers drink to a bad harvest and a bloody war. At present it is impossible even for them even to do that, because the cup is empty.
9.23 p.m.
Lord Wise: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for raising this important issue. While allying myself with all the concerns raised by other noble Lords, I wish to take this opportunity to voice some of the concerns that I have regarding the horticultural sector.
Many of these enterprises are family based or led, sometimes specialising in niche crops with a high capital base and risk. Their commitment is equal to that of the more obvious family farm. Let us also bring to mind the social infrastructural benefits that these enterprises bring to local employment. They are generically relatively labour-intensive, often employing many part-time staff working flexible and sometimes anti-social hours, as the demands of multiple retailers for seven-day supplies of fresh produce have removed the traditional Saturday time off. The sector also provides high levels of seasonal employment on a localised scale—for example, hop, top and soft fruit picking.
Let us also remember that horticulture is an unsupported sector in aid terms. Many would argue that should be remedied in the CAP reform measures under consideration, but today's debate is on what government support can be given to the smaller units to maintain their ability to remain competitive against imports from outside and within the European Union. I accept that in certain areas the Government's hands are arguably
1592
somewhat tied, but there are examples of where they can act by relieving bureaucratic burdens or not imposing regulatory measures unilaterally.
In a debate last year, initiated by my noble friend Lord Rotherwick, I spoke of the downstream and direct consequences that possible "green taxes" in the shape of a pesticide tax would have on horticultural businesses. Again, I draw the Government's attention to the fact that they will be prejudicing the commercial viability of many horticultural units if they elect to introduce such measures unilaterally. The margins are so thin that this would be the proverbial last straw, so why consider it? The potential job losses in the field and packhouse industries would soon outweigh any exchequer gains.
On a related pesticide issue, I also urge government to consider carefully the results of their regulatory actions. Last summer, they announced a review of all acetylcholine esterase inhibitor pesticides, which tend to be the older insecticides in the OP class. I have no problem in appreciating their thinking behind this initiative—only the timing. The likely end result of this review will be the revocation of approval for use of certain products later this spring. The invidious element for growers is that this will not apply to their overseas and continental competitors.
Regrettably, the horticultural sector is quite dependent on these older products for a variety of technical and commercial reasons. If they are to be removed from the armoury of products available to growers, then surely this must be pan-European at the very least. Why should the beleaguered British grower lead with his chin yet again?
Many of these products are technical linchpins or backstops to certain crops—for example, the loss of malathion would leave the watercress industry with no insecticide measure available—and surely insect-damaged product is just not acceptable to the consumer. This industry could quite easily be lost to overseas—and so wider goes the "food gap" and wider still the balance of payments.
These pesticides are due for EU review, but this process is, I fear, progressing at a lamentable rate, probably due to lack of funding for the programme. Surely the Government would be better placed to be forcing the issue in Brussels rather than embarking on a review programme of their own. I quite agree that these pesticides should be reviewed according to modern day safety criteria, but not at the expense of United Kingdom horticulture.
There is precedent to support my argument. About two years ago the international agrochemical company Bayer withdrew an insecticide called Folimat from the United Kingdom market in a commercial response to a requirement from the United Kingdom review. This requirement will need to be fulfilled when Folimat comes up for EU review. Bayer has stated it will not be supporting the pesticide and will withdraw it from the full EU market at that time, but until then it will continue to market it. Folimat was the sole efficacious product approved for narcissus fly. Now bulb growers in the fens and the south-west have to watch their Dutch

1593
competitors enjoy a production advantage not open to them. They are investigating alternatives, but all research costs money, which the industry does not have.
I urge the Government to consider the indirect consequences of their actions more closely and, wherever appropriate, consult bodies like the National Farmers Union on such steps before they act. By so doing they will be less likely to shoot their own industry in the back, especially the smaller enterprises upon which this debate has centred.
9.30 p.m.
The Earl of Shrewsbury: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, deserves both our praise and gratitude for bringing to the notice of the Government the economic hardships faced by traditional farming families in these desperate times for the whole farming community. I must declare an interest as a small farmer who breeds excellent pedigree sheep near the Peak District National Park. I shall be very brief.
It is well known that the farming industry in the United Kingdom is suffering its most difficult times since the depression of the 1930s. Some industry pundits believe the present circumstances to be far worse than that. In the main it is the livestock farmer who has seen the end price of his stock plummet, be that stock for the store market or the butcher. In a nutshell, when I farmed in Shropshire 15 years ago my finished beef cattle regularly made more than they do today, without allowing for inflation. Feed barley off the field was £100 per tonne 15 years ago; today the figure is about £80, without taking inflation into account. In my part of the Peak District, which is a major sheep-producing area, store lambs last autumn made £20 each. Eighteen months ago they fetched over £35 apiece. The market value of my ram lambs has fallen by over £100 per animal on average in the past 15 months, and there is little, if any, sign of improvement
Meanwhile, costs increase and the consumer wants ever-better products and has higher health requirements and standards. I have no problem with the latter. My sheep are monitored from almost a cough or sneeze to an ingrown toenail because I firmly believe that quality pays in the long run and I intend to strive to be the best. Last week's front page in the Farmers Guardian suggested that farm incomes had fallen by over 48 per cent. in the previous 12 months alone. I believe that the figure is considerably larger. In my part of the Midlands the average farm is about 150 acres and very much family farmed, as it has been for generations. The majority of these farms are livestock-based with both husband and wife, and probably one offspring, working on the unit. Very long hours and low incomes are the order of the day—circumstances that would make the average working man or woman in this country very cheesed off with life, and pretty rapidly. However, there is no cause for complaint. People do not go into the farming industry to make vast piles of money or for an easy life. They do it because it is their way of life and a job at which they are expert. Families have been doing it expertly for generations. They are the best and most efficient farmers in Europe. That is a fact of which we
1594
should be very proud. But in very many cases the family business provides an income that is well below the average wage of a farm worker, who does not himself make a fortune.
Today it is a tragedy of vast proportions that the rug has been pulled from under the feet of these farming families through a complex and wide variety of causes. The present situation in agriculture drives many farmers to despair and, in increasing numbers, suicide. I believe that last year in Shropshire alone 12 farmers—perhaps the figure is even higher today—took their own lives. Real biting poverty becomes more and more prevalent. Fanning charities are inundated with requests for help from farmers and their families. These people are extremely proud and do not ask for help lightly.
Unless more is done to arrest the situation—it is now a matter of great urgency—in only 10 years from now the country will reap the results and the consumer and the Exchequer will pay dearly. This is not a threat but a promise based on fact. If the current tragedy continues young people will not go into the farming industry. That is happening already. The whole fabric of the countryside community will be damaged irreparably.
I and many in the farming community applaud the Government on the recent announcement of a £120 million package for farmers, and in particular hill farmers, who are very deserving of it. It is just what is needed, but, sadly, it is a mere drop in the ocean.
I appeal to the Government to help the farming community in every way possible to help it to survive and prosper in years to come. That investment will be well rewarded over the longer term. I appeal to the Government to stop the endless migration of young people—the seedcorn of the future—out of the industry; to stop the misery which hardworking farming families are experiencing on a daily basis; and to stop the tragic human cost of the worst depression the farming industry has seen in living memory. Something must be done.
9.35 p.m.
Lord McNair: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to my noble friend for asking this Question. My locus for joining this evening's debate is that for about 11 years my father ran a small market garden. It was not quite a family farm but close enough for me to understand the precariousness of a life in agriculture at the smaller end of the scale. He specialised in early and, for those days in the early 1960s, exotic fruit and vegetables such as melons, green peppers and aubergines. He specialised in flowers too. I remember a very cold night in the early 1960s when the temperature dropped to 1 degree Fahrenheit. That was 31 degrees of frost. The heating in the glasshouse could not cope and he lost a glasshouseful of chrysanthemums. Yes, my Lords; earning a living from the land is a precarious business. I wish today to talk about one way in which the financial effects of these uncertainties could be mitigated.
I am not sure how many noble Lords are aware of this, but my noble friend Lord Beaumont has written a thoughtful and thought-provoking book called The End of the Yellow Brick Road. It is well worth reading, as I am doing at the moment. My noble friend is too modest

1595
to blow his own trumpet, but I am sure if any noble Lord asked nicely he would sell him a copy. It is well worth the modest price. The book has a lot to say about the issues that we are discussing tonight.
In that book my noble friend refers to,
"contemporary suggestions that a Citizens Income should be funded out of a land tax".
The idea of a citizen's income is excellent although I would not suggest that it be funded from a land tax. I shall touch briefly on how I believe that it should be funded. But what I really wish to do is to explore the changes that a citizen's income would bring to the way we live.
I know of three ways to achieve that. One is the land tax proposed in the early part of this century by Henry George. Another proposal includes several variations by such people as Bill Jordan of the Citizen's Income Trust, and Hermione Parker. All require careful adaptation and fine tuning of the existing tax mechanisms as well as a significant further amount of redistribution.
My suggestion—I do not wish to labour it; it is my noble friend's debate—is that we adopt the mechanism of the resource economics proposition which is to replace income tax, corporation tax, national insurance contributions and value added tax with one tax on unprocessed energy resources. By doing that we could sweep away a lot of form filling and make our lives much simpler. But not only that, the mechanism of a unified national indirect taxation (UNITAX) enables the Government to pay, on present calculations, a citizen's income of £117 per week per adult—£20 at birth rising by equal amounts to £117 on the citizen's 16th birthday.
Just think what a difference that would make, in particular to the family which farms. I shall not emulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, and rattle off detailed figures for many different family circumstances. The figures are simple enough to work out. A family with children of different ages could well find themselves about £400 a week better off. The mathematics of the arrangement are unassailable. It just needs a leap of vision.
A citizen's income would have benefits for other citizens. Three homeless people could pool their resources and rent a flat. Students would have enough to live on while they studied; and 16 and 17 year-olds could afford to stay on at school, help on the family farm, train or even undertake an apprenticeship.
I hope that the Government will look at the various ways in which a citizens' income could be achieved. If we want our farmers to be custodians of the countryside, the development would be made more possible and palatable if my suggestion were adopted.
I have one more suggestion as I see I have another minute. We often run into time difficulties in debates. They might be avoided if the clock started at 1 instead of 0.
9.40 p.m.
The Earl of Stair: My Lords, I begin by declaring an interest. Not only am I involved in my local farming community, but I farm my own farm in a less favoured area in south-west Scotland.
1596
Tonight's Question tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, follows previous debates and Questions in this House on agriculture which in the main have addressed the business implications of the current agricultural crisis. This Question relates to an equally important aspect of the impact of the crisis on family farms, in particular in the light of the recent release from the Scottish Office that Scottish agriculture has shown a 45 per cent. decline in profits in the past year.
At a time when we are still waiting for the proposals on Agenda 2000 and related rural development policy to be confirmed, I would like to take this opportunity to remind the House of three brief points which uniquely affect the family farm in comparison with other small businesses. First, in terms of small business, most farms are highly capital-intensive in relation to the number of employees, discounting family labour, and as a result they tend to be asset rich but with a high dependency on the bank. Secondly, the livestock sector in particular is increasingly susceptible to the buying policy of big supermarket chains and abattoirs, which in turn trade on currency fluctuations and do not always buy British. Thirdly, it is about the only industry where the weather affects not only the quality of the end product but also the cost of production.
There is a favourite word often used as the easy escape for family farms in the present crisis. This word is "diversify". And the question which faces families wishing to bring in non-farm related income is: in which direction should they go? Very often niche food products and tourism and leisure are seen to be the best options.
However, with increased requirements in health and hygiene and other regulations, the capital required to diversify into the food industry tends to make it prohibitive. Tourism and leisure are the easiest diversification for a farm business. However, it should also be remembered that tourism in many parts of the country is a very seasonal harvest and many outdoor leisure activities can be influenced by the weather. There is also a limit on how many bed-and-breakfast or similar businesses each region can support without flooding the market.
The present Government are often not perceived as being generally farmer friendly. However, they are very keen to improve access to the countryside for the remainder of the mostly urban-based population. There does not appear to be an appreciation of the part played by the farming community in the maintenance of the countryside; and if the rural economy is allowed to degenerate there will not be the same countryside for people to enjoy.
A recent survey in south-west Scotland revealed that although the majority of current farmers intended to remain in farming and continue with similar enterprises, they intended to cut inputs into new machinery, capital investment and feed and fertiliser. Of the total surveyed, one third intended to cut their own personal drawings from their businesses. This does not suggest a very bright future for Britain's countryside or for the many businesses which rely on a successful agriculture industry.

1597
Under Agenda 2000, subsidy payments in the less favoured areas are likely to be land or quota based rather than headage related. While this will help some fragile environments, the consequent reduction in livestock and output will have a considerable knock-on effect on supporting industries and employment in rural areas.
Following the Agenda 2000 proposals, the current Rural Development Policy Objective 5b status of rural areas is likely to be replaced by a new Objective 2 status. While many rural areas with a population density of fewer than 100 persons per square kilometre will be eligible for Objective 2 status, some areas will miss out under the current proposals because there are not more than twice the EU average of persons employed in agriculture. Though the average farm size in the United Kingdom is considerably larger than in the remainder of the European Union, it does not mean that the requirements and benefits to the rural economy under Objective 2 are any the less.
Finally, can the Minister give an assurance that when Agenda 2000 and the new rural development policy are published the implications of both on British agriculture will be considered separately for their effects on small farms as opposed to the industry as a whole? Also, can the Government endeavour to ensure that as many less favoured area farming communities as possible qualify for new Objective 2 status in order to maintain a sustainable rural economy?
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, first, I thank and congratulate my noble friend Lord Beaumont of Whitley on tabling this Question. He has long been a champion both of a more environmental approach to life generally and of the small farmer. Noble Lords this evening eloquently made the case of what is important about small family farms, both environmentally and in terms of the rural society as a whole.
I should like to share some of the results of a survey commissioned by the National Farmers' Union in the South-West last year. It was one of the largest surveys of its kind ever carried out. It especially addressed two questions: first, how do farmers feel about their future in farming—the threats and opportunities? Secondly, what do farmers need over the next five years to secure their future? The answers show clearly that farmers are more realistic than to expect a large pot of money to bail them out; in fact, they are still willing to take chances, to create business opportunities, to look at off-farm work, at how to add value to their products and to look at more training to cope with all the regulations and red tape already mentioned this evening. But to do that they will need this Government's help. They need a clear message that the Government will commit themselves to some basic measures which are on offer from the European Union. If we take up the offer of a national envelope, it will start to turn the tide in rural areas.
1598
CAP reform and Agenda 2000 for small farmers and the so-called second pillar contain important measures which would address many issues mentioned this evening. Those measures are optional for member states and require substantial co-funding. But they are the key step in achieving the sort of farming methods in rural society and the "living, working countryside" that successive governments have espoused but done little or nothing to create up until this point.
First, the UK needs to subscribe to the scheme of set-up grants for young farmers. After listening to the debate this evening, not many people would encourage their children to go into farming where, certainly in my region last year, 70 per cent. made a loss. We also heard the downside of not much leisure time, few if any holidays and so forth. So young farmers will need encouragement. At the moment in the UK we are very much the exception in not participating in that scheme. It would encourage new entrants from the younger generation into the industry and compensate for those farmers' children who, understandably, choose a different way of life for themselves. New entrants would allow member states to pay a lump sum of £17,500 and an interest rate subsidy on loans. Besides encouraging new entrants into farming, the scheme would stem the flow of small farms being bought up by larger farms. Such a scheme would also help those who cannot even take the first step on the farming ladder by renting a county farm because the set-up costs are too high.
The second measure at which I hope the Government will look addresses the other end of the spectrum. Just as the industry needs younger, energetic entrants, it also needs an early retirement scheme to enable the older farmer to retire. Many tenant farmers, because their house is tied to their job, cannot afford to retire. So far the Government have chosen not to take part in the existing early retirement scheme, but the conditions of the new scheme are less restrictive and the Government should see that as a constructive part of the package. It would also apply to farm workers. Allowing retirement from a physically demanding job for some older people and opening up those opportunities for the young is a more logical step for rural areas than spending large sums of money moving the unemployed youngster to the town under New Deal.
The third measure, as the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, highlighted, is the need for training. That is crucial. In the National Farmers' Union survey that I mentioned, training opportunities were one of the key conclusions. The more training that farmers received, the more confident they felt about coping with the challenges and threats. Business management becomes even more critical if we are expecting farmers to diversify, take part in local produce schemes, tourism and environmental protection work. There is a deficiency geographically and in terms of curriculum. That certainly needs to be addressed.
Many noble Lords have mentioned the fourth measure which ties in with several concerns. It is a measure that would grant-aid farmers to help them process and

1599
market their produce. We have heard a great deal about the supermarket mark-up of produce. The farmer should earn a decent proportion of what the consumer pays for food. Shortening the food chain has many benefits that speak for themselves: fewer food miles, added employment in small-scale rural businesses and filling a public demand for local fresh produce.
Similar measures address forestry and would allow diversification into processing and marketing the timber. That is equally useful for rural areas.
Finally, we cannot regard farmers and their farms in isolation. We need younger generations to want to farm and to succeed. They are often the fixed points in an increasingly mobile rural population. As such, they take a long-term view of their rural communities; for example, in my village chairing the parish council, starting the youth club and running the Sunday school. The relationship is symbiotic. It will be no use bringing in measures to help farmers if the community of which those farmers are a part is on its knees with no school, no transport and no post office. Reform of the CAP and the introduction of rural development plans offer a real chance for a comprehensive approach, if it is done properly. People who work in those communities, within a supportive framework, can look forward to a bright future. Will the Minister say whether the Government mean to adopt the measures that I have outlined as a first step on that road?
9.52 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for making this evening's debate possible. I also want to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, on her first response from the Front Bench. It has been a joy to listen to her. We look forward to debating with her in the future.
I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, for his contribution. He is the only Member who has spoken from the Opposition Benches, for which we are sorry, but his contribution, as always, was pertinent and to the point.
We can all agree on one fact: that the farming industry has gone through, and still is going through, a very difficult time. MAFF statistics published on 28th January confirm that situation. They show that in real terms last year farming income fell by 32 per cent. Over the past two years total farming income has fallen by 58 per cent. The situation is dire. The reasons given for that fall include the reduction in commodity prices, economic difficulties in Russia and Asia, high interest rates and the strength of sterling. Whether big family farmer or small, all have had to cope with drastically reduced incomes.
Figures produced by Martin Turner at Exeter University showed that in the South West, to which others have referred, income has fallen heavily. Those on mainly cropping farms have also been hit, with average incomes falling to only £439 per farm.
1600
In Scotland, figures released on 29th January showed that in 1998—also referred to by other noble Lords—output was down by more than 8 per cent. and income from farming at £187 million was about one-third of the level it was two years ago. The Scotsman reported that,
"every farmer is different, but for a year's work the average farmer in Scotland can expect an income, the difference between what comes in and what goes out, of £416".
Incomes of £439 in the South West and £416 in Scotland make chilling reading.
Tonight's debate has covered many issues and, sadly, with the restriction on time, I cannot mention them all, but horticulture, young people, retirement schemes and market gardening are all very important. However, one of the most striking issues is the current plight of many of our farmers who are in dire straits. One organisation, the Royal Agricultural Benevolent Institution, the only national charity in England and Wales devoted to agriculture, has altered its provisions and now gives help to current serving farmers. In March last year the institution put an emergency fund together. It has received more than 300 calls and, as a result, has given £130,000 to 140 currently farming families. This morning the National Trust announced that it has launched a £400,000 package to help tenant farmers hit by the present crisis. That money will help to fund projects, including turning redundant farm buildings into holiday accommodation or light industry. Such financial help is welcome and I do not belittle the measures given, but they do not solve the problem.
Having recently visited farmers in Wales and having spent the past two mornings at the NFU conference here in London, I know that the one thing that all farmers recognise, and for which they are pressing, is a level playing field or common standards between countries. Farmers recognise that customers want high value and good quality food. British farmers can, and do, produce that food. However, they need to be able to compete with their counterparts from other countries, but they must compete within a fair system. British farmers have always been leaders in achieving higher welfare standards, but they must not be penalised in the market place, particularly with imported food from countries where food production is insufficiently regulated. That is where the rub lies and is an aspect that the Government have failed to address.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, referred to the speech made by Nick Brown at the Oxford Conference. I was much encouraged by the speech yesterday by the EU Commissioner, Franz Fischler, who, when referring to animal welfare issues, said in reply to a question that higher welfare standards were required. He indicated that extra payments would be made to farmers who sought to farm to those new standards. Such agreements would be voluntary, but those willing to undertake such work would receive help with the additional costs. Sadly, that will come too late for our pig producers who have already spent thousands uprating their housing systems, whereas producers in other countries do not have to bear such costs. I hope that the Government will take that point on board.

1601
This is the third farming debate in your Lordships' House in the past two months, underlining the great concern felt by those in the industry and by your Lordships who are present tonight. It is surprising and sad that the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, has failed to attend any of the three farming debates and has therefore not had the opportunity to listen at first hand to many of the concerns expressed.
Our farming industry needs to be profitable for, without profit, many of the environmental schemes that we want to see will not be possible. We want to produce good quality food. We want our Government to fight for a fair deal for our farmers. We look forward to the Minister's response.
9.58 p.m.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I too must thank and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, on tabling this important Unstarred Question. All noble Lords who have spoken have been entirely sympathetic to, and supportive of, small farms and farming. However, before I go any further, I too must welcome to the Liberal Democrat Front Bench the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer. I look forward to hearing from her on many occasions in the future. I am sure that we shall.
I shall deal first with four of the issues that have been raised. The issue of beef on the bone was mentioned. My right honourable friend the Minister will be making an announcement very shortly on that subject. As regards red tape, a great deal has been said about the NFU conference today. The Minister said today,
"We have been trying to help farmers by reducing and simplifying forms; reducing census and survey demands and providing forms with information already pre-printed on them to save farmers time".
He went on to say—and I believe that this will help—
"We are continually looking for a way to improve how we deal with unavoidable paperwork".
I shall also deal with the question of retirement schemes. We are sympathetic to what can be done in that regard. We have to look for a flexible scheme. My right honourable friend has said that he will certainly do that. I share the views expressed in relation to suicide. I assure the House that this matter is taken very seriously by MAFF. We are concerned about the high incidence of suicide. A MAFF official has been seconded for two years to the Rural Stress Information Network. Working on that basis, we shall do all we can to help to alleviate rural stress. I agree with what has been said—that the more we improve the farmers' lot let us hope that we shall also reduce the number of suicides.,
The decline in the total income from farming has been outlined tonight. It amounts to 32 per cent. in real terms. I agree with that. There is also some good news in that there have been four reductions in the base rate since October 1998. They are worth about £700 per full-time holding. There have also been the recent green rate devaluations which will be worth about £100 million to UK farmers in a full year. Finally, although no firm figures are available, we hope that farm rents will fall when they are re-negotiated—to reflect the decrease in
1602
incomes. I am putting these forward as factors that could possibly help farmers. We are also expecting the Commission's price fixing proposals in the near future.
We take very seriously not only the debate tonight; we are also listening to the views of farmers. That is what we have been doing with farmers and farmers' representatives across the UK. We shall continue to do so. We have taken a series of steps to help agriculture, both for the present and the future.
My right honourable friend sent a letter to all farmers in the country. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, that the Family Farmers' Association attended the associated conference in London. In addition, there are regional visits taking place seeking views on the CAP reform proposals. What is being said by farmers is being taken into account.
We are interested in family farmers and also in small farmers. There is scope for our strong stand opposing the Commission's proposal for mandatory EU-wide ceilings to be misinterpreted as the Government supporting only large farms. That is not true. The reality is that it would discriminate against many ordinary UK fanners as well because, as has been said tonight, our farms are larger and more efficient than most of those in Europe. In addition, any moneys would not be returned to our budget but would go back to the Community.
Noble Lords will also be aware of the measures taken by the Government to ease pressures and to encourage developments such as the aid package of £120 million which we announced on 16th November. It will particularly help many in the hard-pressed livestock sector which has been referred to tonight.
The introduction of the euro has led to major changes in the agri-monetary system—that has been referred to in our debate—which converts payments under the common agricultural policy into national currency. The old system had its adherents, and the green rate freeze has protected farmers' incomes to the tune of around £400 million during the two years it has operated. However, it is now time—and this has obviously been realised tonight—to move nearer to market realities. I believe that the new system which has been negotiated by my right honourable friend achieves that and also provides a smooth transition from the old to the new in the form of compulsory compensation.
I should now like to consider current and future measures to help the farmers we have been talking about tonight. All of us realise what a very difficult year it has been for livestock producers. For beef producers there has been the continuing effect of the structural surplus, as we have heard, together with falling market prices and demand. For sheep producers there have been two consecutive years of delayed finishing and poor market prices. In addition, the strong pound has made beef imports attractive while, on the other side, it has made sheep exports unattractive.
In the beef sector, one of the most important things for this Government to achieve is the lifting of the beef export ban in Europe. I am sure that all your Lordships were delighted to hear, as I was, about the European Union agreement to the Date-Based Export Scheme in

1603
November last year. After two-and-a-half years, British beef will soon be back on the world market. We are now putting the Date-Based Export Scheme into place. After the Commission inspection, which we expect to take place in the next couple of months, a date will be set which will enable exports of de-boned beef and beef products to begin. Of course this will be from a small base—
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. May I ask him to talk not so much about beef exports but to tell us something about the beef to be sold by the small farmer who is unable to find a market for his beef? May I ask what the Government are going to do for these people?
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, by the improvements that we are making we hope to be able to improve the lot of the small farmer. I do agree there is a difficulty, as has been mentioned tonight, about the supermarkets. I can assure the noble Earl that this Government believe in the small farmer and what he is doing in the farm shop. We do believe in beef being sold locally as far as possible, and we shall certainly do everything we can to assist in that direction.
We are trying in relation to Europe to establish the need to reform the common agricultural policy. I believe that that would help the farmers. We have to take it from being based on production alone to looking again, as has been said tonight, at other areas, taking into account the environment as well. I believe that if we can get through what we are trying to achieve it will be very helpful to small farmers and family farmers. We have to get away from what has been the basis of payments in the past: that is in relation to production.
Unfortunately, on sheep reform we were not able to do this, but we are proceeding as far as we can with other matters. It has also to be said that we must be interested as well in the rural community as a whole. I would like to say to your Lordships that we have a
1604
vision for the countryside and it is wrong to suggest that we are an urban government. Indeed, we have a long tradition in rural communities as well as in towns. We are well aware of the problems facing the rural areas and of the fact that they need special attention.
In our vision for the countryside we recognise the distinctive features and needs involved, and also the needs of family farms. Our vision has several strands. First, we believe in a living countryside and recognise the need to keep rural communities intact. The countryside should not be allowed to decay or to be turned into a museum or indeed a theme park. Secondly, like everyone else, we want to see a working countryside where jobs are available and residents are not forced to commute or move to the towns. A strong vibrant economy needs the contribution that rural areas can make.
Thirdly, we recognise that town and country are one nation with close relations between the two. Many who live in rural areas work in towns, while those who live in towns rely on the countryside for relaxation and leisure. We want to strengthen those relations. Fourthly, we want to enhance the environment. We want a countryside in which we care for the range of plants and animals and in which the landscape is properly protected and conserved. It is vital for the quality of life of those who live and work there, and equally of those who relax there.
Finally, we intend to promote a rural White Paper. We do care. We have already given help to bus services. We want to see a countryside which is alive. Having said all that to noble Lords and having expressed the concern of the Government for the countryside, I should like to finish by thanking all speakers who have participated this evening. It has been a good debate and one which I welcome. I can assure all noble Lords who took part that I shall ensure that all the views expressed are passed to Ministers, especially my right honourable friend the Minister in the other place.
House adjourned at eleven minutes past ten o'clock.

  Eurostar: Amsterdam
  Eurostar: Amsterdam
  Planning Applications
  Planning Applications
  Allotment Sites
  Allotment Sites
  Sewage: Dumping at Sea
  Sewage: Dumping at Sea
  Lords of Appeal: Appointment of Women
  Lords of Appeal: Appointment of Women
  Lords of Appeal: Role in Constitutional Change
  Lords of Appeal: Role in Constitutional Change
  Constitutional Court
  Constitutional Court
  Sex Offender Treatment Programmes
  Sex Offender Treatment Programmes
  Prisoners Under 17: Education
  Prisoners Under 17: Education
  Crime (Sentences) Act 1997
  Crime (Sentences) Act 1997
  Police Authority Funding
  Police Authority Funding
  Public Records: Security Service Files
  Public Records: Security Service Files
  Defence Attachés
  Defence Attachés
  Regular and Territorial Armies: Trained Strength
  Regular and Territorial Armies: Trained Strength
  Sudan: Diversion of Food Aid
  Sudan: Diversion of Food Aid
  Sudan: Operation Lifeline Sudan
  Sudan: Operation Lifeline Sudan
  Zimbabwe: Aid
  Zimbabwe: Aid
  Daily Attendance of Life Peers
  Daily Attendance of Life Peers