Sitting of 9 February 1999

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

    CITY OF LONDON (WARD ELECTIONS) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time on Tuesday 16 February.

Oral Answers to Questions
  ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

    Beacon Council Scheme
    Mrs. Janet Dean: When he plans to publish his proposals to establish the beacon council scheme. [68263]
    Mr. Ronnie Campbell: When he will publish his proposals to establish the beacon council scheme. [68275]
    The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): Today, we have published a prospectus on the beacon council scheme. The scheme will recognise the best councils as centres of excellence, from which we can all learn. We want the best public services for people in this country, and the scheme will help all those councils to give the best value and a better deal to local people.
    Mrs. Dean: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the superb timing of that publication. I had no idea that my question would produce such instant results. I welcome the scheme and the opportunity that it gives for local government to develop excellent services for local people. How will my right hon. Friend ensure that beacon councils spread best practice to other local authorities?
    Mr. Prescott: My hon. Friend is right—her timing is perfect. The Government intend that beacon councils will be selected by Government on the advice of an independent advisory panel. We are also working in partnership with the Local Government Association to co-ordinate a national programme to spread best practice. The beacon councils will have to be willing to do the job of spreading best practice, because we intend not only that
    102
    there should be excellence, but that others should learn from it. We are therefore insisting on this approach and encouraging councils to adopt it.
    Mr. Campbell: My right hon. Friend knows that Blyth Valley council in my constituency hopes to take up the flag as a beacon council after the May elections. Although I am not entirely convinced, I wish the programme every success. I have my doubts, but we shall have to wait and see. What difference will the scheme make to the taxpayers of Blyth Valley—in other words, will there be any more money?
    Mr. Prescott: The House will recognise my hon. Friend's comments as an enthusiastic endorsement. He asks an important question about the costs involved in the scheme. We are concerned about the local taxpayer. We are making available up to £700,000 in various grants for the seminars and visits, so there is no charge as such on local authorities who have the benefit of a centre of excellence. Moreover, if councils enjoy beacon status, they will already have demonstrated very good practice, from which local council taxpayers will already benefit.
    Madam Speaker: Mr. Crispin Blunt.
    Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown rose—
    Madam Speaker: I thought I was more articulate than that.
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: What chance is there of Reigate and Banstead becoming a beacon council, when its resources from central Government are undergoing a real cut? The Deputy Prime Minister told me in the House last Thursday:
    "The hon. Gentleman's authority, like all the others, will receive more than it did last year. That is a basic fact."—[Official Report, 4 February 1999; Vol. 324, c. 1140.]
    That is not true. In his letter to me yesterday, why did the Deputy Prime Minister not have the grace to apologise and admit that he had misled me and the House? He should not pretend that less is more.
    Mr. Prescott: I shall deal with one beacon at a time.
    I am not aware that the charge of the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) is justified at all, but I shall look into the matter and write to him. If I have made a mistake, of course I will apologise. I do not believe that to be the case, but let us wait and see. I shall certainly write to the hon. Gentleman.
    We want to encourage excellence. The scheme goes further than the charter marks that were developed by the previous Administration. Those did reward excellence, but we want other authorities to learn from beacon councils. We believe that the scheme will benefit councils, taxpayers and the cities in which they reside.
    Mr. Simon Burns: In principle, we welcome any scheme that makes local authorities centres of excellence that enhance the quality of service and the cost-effectiveness of services provided to local communities. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept, however, that we question how effective the initiative will

    103
    be, given that over the past 12 months there has been a cancer of corruption in Labour local authorities such as Walsall, Rotherham and Doncaster?
    Mr. Prescott: The House is concerned about excellence in local authorities and will condemn corruption wherever it takes place. The Government have done so wherever corruption has taken place, in Labour or Tory authorities. When the charter mark was given out under the previous Administration, there was mass corruption in Westminster but not a word of condemnation from the previous Administration.
    We should lift our horizons a little and get away from the politicking between parties on these matters. I readily recognise that the charter mark was one small step forward. I believe that this scheme is better because it establishes excellence by recognising it and getting other authorities to follow that example. That is what the House would want and that is what we are proposing. A little more objectivity in the comments from the Opposition would be welcome.

    Rail Services (Kent)
    Dr. Stephen Ladyman: What representations he has received on Railtrack investment in the upgrading of the lines from Ramsgate and Dover to Ashford. [68264]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): Ministers have received no representations about Railtrack investment on the upgrading of the lines from Ramsgate and Dover to Ashford, although I understand that the franchising director has recently written to my hon. Friend about the quality of service on those lines.
    Dr. Ladyman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her answer. I wonder whether she has any masochistic tendencies: would she like to try making a train journey from London to either Ramsgate or Dover? She would find herself in an antediluvian carriage, knee-deep in filth, and would probably conclude that the journey would be quicker on the back of a lame tortoise.
    Will my hon. Friend accept that upgrading the railway line from Ramsgate and Dover to Ashford, to join the channel tunnel rail link, is essential for the economic regeneration of east Kent? Will she give Railtrack and Connex a kick in the pants and make them start to produce plans? If the scheme is not commercially viable, will she see what she can do to help to make it happen?
    Ms Jackson: Open-minded though I am, masochism has never had any appeal for me, but the picture that my hon. Friend paints is a clear indication of the failure of the previous Administration to ensure that sufficient investment was made in our national railway system. However, any upgrading of the lines would be a matter for Railtrack. Its 1998 network management statement contained so few firm commitments that it caused the regulator to seek improvements to track quality, capacity constraints and dialogue with industry, which were agreed with Railtrack in July 1998.
    A new network management strategy will be published in March and, set against profits of £224 million for the six months ending on 30 September 1998, we look to
    104
    Railtrack to build on the commitments given to the regulator in July. As the House will know, there will be a national railways summit on 25 February and I will most certainly lay my hon. Friend's concerns at the feet of Connex.
    Mr. Damian Green: I am sure that commuters from my constituency will be slightly disappointed that the Minister prefers strategies and meetings to action on that point. May I put to her a practical point, which she may like to take? In the long run, the commuting services from east Kent into London would be improved by competition. Will she give an indication that she will allow domestic services to run on the channel tunnel rail link, when it is introduced? That would provide extra capacity and competition, which would improve services for commuters. Will she make that positive commitment now?
    Ms Jackson: The hon. Gentleman clearly paid no attention whatever to what the previous Administration did—regardless of the fact that he is a member of their party—in respect of the strictures that they set in place on rail privatisation.
    On the issue of action, at a meeting on 26 November it was agreed, with all franchisees and Railtrack, to improve performance on our railways, at the behest of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister. Those measures include 800 new train drivers, 500 new vehicles, a joint hit squad to identify and tackle the worst 50 black spots, a national troubleshooter team to tackle punctuality problems and a new national passenger survey to find out what passengers think about their rail services.
    I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware, and would endorse the fact, that allowing domestic passengers on to Eurostar train services without the requisite safeguards to ensure that there can be no infringement of safety, and introducing any service into our islands without the necessary restraints that we have on our borders, would not be the way to encourage people to use our railway system.
    Mr. Jonathan Shaw: If he will make a statement on the improvements proposed by Connex South Eastern to its train service to Kent. [68265]
    The Minister of Transport (Dr. John Reid): Connex is taking part in discussions with other industry parties to identify potential solutions to the capacity problems experienced on a number of their routes. I sincerely hope that any solutions to these capacity problems will also help to improve reliability and punctuality.
    Mr. Shaw: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) said, much of the rolling stock is filthy and dilapidated, and it is not uncommon for basics, such as water in the toilet, to be lacking. When he has his summit, will he take on board the fact that there are only two direct trains to the Medway towns? They provide a service for the 250,000 people who live there, so 25,000 commuters every day are served by only two direct trains. Could capacity be increased by at least one train to improve the rail services to the people in the Medway towns?
    Dr. Reid: I shall take account of my hon. Friend's comments. The tragedy is that, almost every day, we hear

    105
    of another horror story about one of our railway services. Only this morning, a colleague of mine stood on a platform at Elmstead Wood and three Connex trains in 25 minutes were cancelled.
    The bigger problem is that the advances that have been made, such as increases in investment, the fall in average fares and the increase in passenger numbers, will not cut any ice with the public until we improve reliability and punctuality. That is precisely why the Deputy Prime Minister called in the train companies at the end of November, and why we have an immediate action plan to tackle these problems in the short term. We shall talk to the train companies again at the rail summit on 25 February, and shall put to them the simple message that performance on our railways must improve, and that, if it does not improve, the companies that are failing the public will have no long-term future in the industry.
    Mr. Roger Gale: The rail service between London Victoria and Herne Bay and Margate has been frightful throughout the winter. I welcome the assurances that have been given and the work that the right hon. Gentleman is doing to improve matters. I also welcome the fact that Connex has introduced some new trains, and more are to be delivered in the spring.
    The real answer to east Kent's rail problems—touched on by the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman)—is to upgrade the line between east Kent via Canterbury and Ashford into London using the fast link. Some weeks ago, I attended a meeting with the leader of Kent county council and Railtrack, which has shown a willingness to study the building of a new Thanet Parkway station and a fast line. To do that will require money and European assistance with transport infrastructure. Will the Minister support us in seeking to retain the relevant status for east Kent?
    Dr. Reid: As the hon. Gentleman said, in his area, as in many others, there is a desperate need for investment in the railways infrastructure. Hon. Members on both sides will have noticed the recent comments of the acting Rail Regulator about the need to divert more of the surplus profits made by Railtrack into investment in our railways, rather than distributing them.
    As the hon. Gentleman knows, we no longer directly control the railways, because the previous Government privatised them. It is our view that, although unfettered competition gave us some benefits, it has had a terrible downside for passengers. We are trying to provide a strategic role for the railways by establishing a Strategic Rail Authority to give long-term direction. We want a network-wide framework within which we can produce a decent railway system and, above all, we want to put the passengers—the consumers, the people who use the railways—at the forefront of all our considerations, rather than any other organisation or group of people.
    Mr. Derek Wyatt: Like a number of colleagues who have spoken, I travel to London every day, unfortunately on the dreaded Victoria to Sittingbourne line. I caught it last night at five past 11, and I got home at a quarter past one. It is usually an hour's journey.
    My hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) referred to the east Kent initiative. We want the problems of north Kent to be considered. Sheerness is the fifth largest port, but we cannot connect
    106
    to Ashford without going up to Victoria. What we need in north Kent and east Kent is a brand new green line that will take freight to Europe so that the east Kent section can be regenerated. Will my right hon. Friend will consider this matter on his away day with the operators?
    Dr. Reid: It will be not so much an away day as an "at home" for my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister on 25 February. Of course my hon. Friend's constituency may well be mentioned. However, the comments that are made daily by hon. Members on both sides of the House should send a message to the train operators and to Railtrack that Parliament, on behalf of the people whom we represent, finds the present performance of the railway system intolerable. There must be year-on-year improvements if the railway companies are to carry the public with them.

    Wing Bypass (Buckinghamshire)
    Mr. John Bercow: What representations he has received regarding a bypass for Wing in Buckinghamshire. [68266]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): The A418 is a local authority road and any proposals for a bypass for Wing are a matter for Buckinghamshire county council. The council's transport policy and programme bid for 1999–2000 did not include a proposal for a bypass at Wing.
    In the past 18 months, the Government office for the south east has received 86 representations in favour of the Wing bypass–85 letters from the public, and one from the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow).
    Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the Minister, who I hope will be aware that, only last month, I presented a petition on behalf of 1,800 constituents calling for a bypass for Wing on the outer northern route. Given the four fatal and two serious accidents within 2 km either side of the A418 at Wing in the past two years, the prospective rise in pupil numbers at the Cottesloe school from 600 to 1,100, and the fact that residents of 14 old people's cottages in the village cannot cross the road without fear of death from heavy goods vehicles, does the Minister agree that the case for a bypass should be developed, a protected route agreed and, as soon as possible, a construction date announced for a suitable bypass?
    Ms Jackson: I understand that Buckinghamshire county council is currently preparing a private finance initiative bid for another road scheme—the Stoke Hammond bypass. That is its first priority. The reasons for the previous Administration withdrawing the programme in 1995 and the environmental reasons for abandoning the original concept remain—namely, a presumption against building new roads across open countryside. The Government's new integrated transport policy looks to road building as a last resort to be used when all other options have been exhausted.

    Shadow Strategic Rail Authority
    Mr. Lawrie Quinn: What progress he has made towards establishing the shadow Strategic Rail Authority. [68268]
    The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): We are making good progress towards establishing the Strategic Rail Authority. I hope that there will be time in the current Session to introduce a Bill to create the Strategic Rail Authority. In the meantime, we are establishing a shadow SRA which will be operational by the spring. I will announce its chairman soon.
    Mr. Quinn: Many in the House know of my interest in railways, but my main interest concerns my constituents who want to travel by rail. Can my right hon. Friend tell the House whether progress will be made towards formulating the Strategic Rail Authority so that it can play a full part in the rail summit on 25 February?
    Mr. Prescott: Yes. I hope that the shadow Strategic Rail Authority will be established on 1 April with the new chairman of the British Railways Board and the new franchising director in place. The shadow Strategic Rail Authority will take early action to ensure that the train operators deliver a better performance. It will also provide a strategic plan for the railway industry which will put the passenger to the fore.
    Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Can the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that the new Strategic Rail Authority will not include any plans to renationalise parts of Railtrack or any other parts of the railway?
    Mr. Prescott: The Strategic Rail Authority will have its functions spelled out in the relevant Bill. It will have powers to enforce a better railway system than we have at present. Of course, even under the previous Administration, such authorities retained the right for those bodies—or the Government—to take over a failing railway system. There had to be somebody to step in if the private sector decided that it had had enough, that it was not making enough profits and wanted to pull out. That is the nature of private business, so under any Administration there always has to be an operator of last resort.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I know that my right hon. Friend will be aware that safety is one of the most urgent problems in rail. I hope that he can assure us that the new Strategic Rail Authority—before even the legislation establishing it is on board—will begin asking awkward questions, particularly about the signalling system. If it is true that companies such as Railtrack are letting contractors handle equipment that is likely to be dangerous—even after the companies know, from the report of the Clapham inquiry, that use of such equipment can lead to death and injury—there are very clear indications that urgent action has to be taken to restrain their profit-driven views.
    Mr. Prescott: My hon. Friend raises a very important matter to do with safety—for which, of course, the Health and Safety Executive has primary responsibility. However, the Strategic Rail Authority will be able to take into account wider issues, such as those that she raised on maintenance, signalling and Railtrack. All too often, we hear one party blaming another. The Strategic Rail Authority will be able actively to intervene and to give its opinion and judgment on safety in matters such as those that my hon. Friend mentioned.
    Mr. Bernard Jenkin: While we await the arrival of the Strategic Rail Authority, may I endorse
    108
    the right hon. Gentleman's comments that passengers should come first? However, I do not know quite where the SRA would be without the £20 billion of private capital made available by the policies of the previous Government. [Interruption.] If the right hon. Gentleman did not catch that, I said that £20 billion of private capital was brought in by our policies.
    Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the regulators are about to report that, in the Government's first—almost—two years in office, train services have been getting worse? The Government's decision to close the royal Mall, for example, is causing traffic chaos for Londoners. Do such decisions—with strikes on the underground—demonstrate the right hon. Gentleman's idea of an integrated transport policy? I should remind him that we do not all have recourse to Jaguars and helicopters to help us out of our difficulties.
    Mr. Prescott: We can understand why the shadow Cabinet is considering changing the shadow Transport Front-Bench team. Although the Tories may think that Mr. Vroom-Vroom from "Top Gear" will improve their thinking on transport, such questions show the inadequacy of their thought on transport. The hon. Gentleman mentioned £20 billion in assets—which, I presume, takes into account Railtrack's three or fourfold asset-value increase, which was made possible simply because of the cheap price at which the previous Administration sold it. It was, in fact, a giveaway price. The hon. Gentleman's statement that the Government closed down the Mall just shows his total ignorance. It was closed by something called The Royal Parks, which is nothing to do with the Government.
    Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: May I tell my right hon. Friend how important is, and how long we have been waiting for, the Strategic Rail Authority to knock together the heads of Connex and Railtrack? In my own constituency, we have a single line from Hastings to Ashford which is unelectrified and which offers no hope of access to the channel tunnel. Connex says that it will do nothing about the line until its franchise is extended, and Railtrack says that it will do nothing without Connex's input. I hope that the Strategic Rail Authority will be able to sort them out.
    Mr. Prescott: It is quite clear from my hon. Friend's comments that we do not have rail integration because of the previous Government's obsessive—almost ideological—belief that integration was an alternative to competition, and that competition would solve the problems. Frankly, it will not. We have to integrate services—not only railway lines, but the other forms of transport, such as buses—and our White Paper was dedicated to dealing with that task. Our Strategic Rail Authority will place the emphasis on integration and putting passengers' interests first—not considerations of asset value and money, which have always been the obsession of Conservative Members.

    Public Transport
    Mr. Tim Collins: What plans he has to ensure that road users have access to high-quality public transport alternatives. [68269]
    The Minister of Transport (Dr. John Reid): Delivery of high-quality public transport, to give real choice to the

    109
    travelling public, is the key to our integrated transport agenda. We shall deliver it through the £1.1 billion that we are providing over the next three years for local and public transport, through additional funds and through the Strategic Rail Authority and local transport plans.
    Mr. Collins: I thank the Minister for that reply and for the small sums of money being made available for rural public transport in general and the Lake district in particular, but he will know that those sums are chickenfeed compared with the amount being taken out of the pockets of rural motorists by ever-increasing petrol prices. May I urge him to urge his colleagues in the Government to stop penalising rural motorists in south lakeland and elsewhere for travelling in the only way they can?
    Dr. Reid: I do not think that the sums can fairly be described as chickenfeed—but, if they are, I wonder how the hon. Gentleman would describe the £1.9 billion less that was to be provided by the Conservative Government. We are developing local transport plans with the help of an additional £700 million and giving £150 million extra for rural buses in areas such as his. In addition, we have brought in quality partnerships on buses, and centres of excellence such as Manchester, with real integrated transport. There has been an increase in freight on rail for the first time in decades: there was a 12 per cent. increase last year and another 16 per cent. increase in the first six months of this year. We are making advances in all those areas.
    We do not pretend that we can wave a magic wand and solve the problems overnight, but in 18 months we have done a great deal more and made far greater advances than the Conservative Administration did in 18 years.
    Mr. Bill Rammell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the alternatives to road travel need to be attractive and comfortable? Current operating standards for rail operators allow excess loading of 30 per cent. That means that for 30 per cent. of the passengers in my constituency who travel from Harlow to London, paying more than £2,500 a year for the service, the trains are not an attractive alternative. That was the system bequeathed to us by the previous Government. It beggars belief to hear Conservative Members criticising current rail standards, which have been caused by that system. Meanwhile, the Strategic Rail Authority needs to tackle excess loading.
    Dr. Reid: Yes, indeed. The worst and most profoundly anti-car policy would be to do nothing. That would increase congestion on our roads, increase pollution and increase discomfort, as has happened over the past two decades. I had hoped that, in view of the massive public disquiet about the railways, the Opposition would agree to put punctuality and reliability on trains above party politics.
    We should all back the efforts of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister to bring the railway companies and Railtrack to account and call for year-on-year improvements for the rail passengers of this country. We have been prepared to accept the increase in investment and passenger numbers that resulted from rail privatisation, but only a foolhardy Conservative Member would try to deny the daily experience of millions of rail
    110
    travellers on reliability and punctuality. I hope that the Conservatives will have the good sense politically not to oppose what we are trying to do, but will throw their weight behind the Government's attempts to improve our railway services.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: I am sure that the Minister is sincere in wanting more people to use public transport instead of private cars. What representations has he made to his colleagues at the Treasury, who currently give tax breaks to those who drive gas-guzzling company cars but tax penalties to those who use public transport provided by the employer? Is he aware that the latest Treasury wheeze is to tax employees who are provided with company buses for the full subsidy that the company offers them, even if the public are also invited to use the buses for public transport?
    Dr. Reid: The hon. Gentleman knows that the Treasury never has wheezes; it has rational thought patterns and discussions. Without going into detail, I can confirm that the tax breaks that encourage people to drive more business miles, and the disincentive of taxation of benefits in kind for employers or employees who benefit from buses laid on to bring them to work, have been the subject of discussions between Departments.
    I expect that, in light of the enlightened and rational view that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken on those matters in the past—in terms of protecting the environment, reducing congestion and encouraging public transport—the requests will not have fallen on stony ground. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman will have to await the decision of Her Majesty's Treasury on the matter.
    Mr. David Lepper: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a coherent, local and integrated transport policy, including good-quality public transport, is needed in Sussex and Kent if those parts of the south-east are to benefit properly from the economic potential made possible by the channel tunnel? Will he join me in welcoming the initiative taken by Brighton and Hove council, East Sussex county council, West Sussex county council, BAA Gatwick, Sussex Enterprise and—I have to say—Connex South Central in producing the document "Transport: A New Horizon", which sets out the ways in which such an integrated transport policy could help to release the economic potential of the south coast?
    Dr. Reid: Yes. Local transport plans must be the vehicle for the implementation of any strategic framework that we set at the centre. That is why local councils, local planning authorities and local transport executives are so important. There is no doubt that part of the integration is the physical integration of the various modes of transport, but that another part is the partnership between central and local government. I congratulate my hon. Friend, and those on the long list of those who have contributed to his local plan. We want to develop centres of excellence in this country, so that we can show—as we are in Manchester, and as we are beginning to do in South Yorkshire and Edinburgh—that, at long last, we can create a real and practical integrated transport system locally.
    Mr. Richard Ottaway: Will the Minister confirm that road users hoping to use London

    111
    Underground in the last few days will have been disappointed by recent developments? Will he concede that, with his partial privatisation, Railtrack is no longer interested in the deep tubes and the trade unions are not interested in the partial privatisation? Is the Minister not falling between two stools? All that he wants from the private sector is its money, while he gives nothing in exchange. All that the trade unions want from him is his money, for which he is getting nothing in exchange. The loser is London. Why will he not reconsider the whole project?
    Dr. Reid: If, in the course of his busy week, the hon. Gentleman has a chance to base his transport analysis on something other than hearsay evidence reported in newspapers, he will fare much better. No public-private partnership proposal has been received from Railtrack at any stage, although discussions have taken place. There has been no abandonment of Railtrack's commitment to the deep-line tubes, since it never expressed a particular interest in those in any case.
    So far as I could ascertain from the hon. Gentleman's question, he was asking about the public-private partnership. What we are trying to do with public-private partnerships, whether it is the channel tunnel rail link—which my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister negotiated and which won a recent award as the major piece of financial dealing this year—National Air Traffic Services or London Underground, is quite simple. We are trying to get the best of the public sector's strategic thinking and regulation on behalf of taxpayers, and the best of the private sector, while avoiding the worst of unfettered competition and bureaucracy from the centre. That is a sensible way. Some call it the third way, but it is effective.

    Nuclear Reprocessing
    Dr. Desmond Turner: If he will make a statement on the current progress towards the elimination of radioactive discharges from nuclear fuel reprocessing plants in (a) Britain and (b) France. [68270]
    The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): The Government are fully committed to the agreement reached at the OSPAR ministerial meeting in Sintra, Portugal last year on the reduction of radioactive discharges from all sources, including reprocessing plants. The French Government have made a similar commitment.
    Dr. Turner: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will he comment on the independent monitoring data on the French plant at Cap le Hague and inform us about the current level of discharge from Sellafield? Does he agree that the only truly safe level for radioactive discharge is zero, and is he satisfied that 2020 is a safe target, in public health terms, for achieving that?
    Mr. Meacher: At the OSPAR meeting, it was agreed that there should be progressive and substantial reductions in radioactive discharges to the sea to a point that would add close to zero to historic concentrations of radioactive substances in the marine environment. We have asked the nuclear operators, including British Nuclear Fuels Ltd., to produce 20–year discharge strategies to meet the OSPAR
    112
    objectives. That will certainly require that the level of discharges be close to zero by 2020. We have been assured by BNFL that it can fully meet that objective, and we certainly intend to hold it to that.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: The right hon. Gentleman will surely know that the money that will have to go to BNFL to reduce already very safe levels could be put to much better use in promoting health. Radiation is given off when one burns coal and comes from granite and other sources in our natural environment. It is very foolish of the Government to sign up to such agreements, when, in fact, Sellafield and Cap le Hague are already extremely safe.
    Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman is being extraordinarily complacent about the effect of radioactive discharges. Of course we are also concerned about the consequences of burning coal and emissions from granite, which are regulated by the Environment Agency and the other authorities, but it is perfectly clear that the level of radioactive discharge—which the previous Government agreed should continue to be reduced—is too high. A reduction is necessary for health reasons and a regular schedule for that continuing reduction is certainly justified. That is our policy; we are right to have it; and we certainly intend to fulfil it.

    Carbon Credits
    Mr. Alan Simpson: What plans he has for the regulation of the trading of carbon credits. [68271]
    The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): Developed countries took an historic step by agreeing legally binding targets for greenhouse gas emissions in Kyoto. The agreement provides for emissions trading to help countries to meet their commitments. We are working to ensure that the international rules for trading promote an effective system that combines real environmental benefits with the flexibility for business to reduce emissions at least cost. That is a good example of the virtuous circle resulting in a win-win outcome.
    Mr. Simpson: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his contribution to that agreement, but I wonder whether he is aware that major polluters in the United States have already found a way of subverting the trading of carbon credits, so that the public subsidise a transfer of payments to the polluter with no reduction in overall pollution. When he considers the regulations, will he take into account specifically what is being done by the Tennessee Valley authority in getting carbon credit transfers with neighbouring Wisconsin? Two rules may be usefully introduced, one precluding internal trading between or within industrial nations, and one introducing conditionality to carbon credits, requiring the polluter to demonstrate a major programme of pollution reduction before getting any trading entitlements.
    Mr. Prescott: I think that the House would like to congratulate my hon. Friend, who recently received the Green Ribbon award after being voted the best environmental politician of the year—especially as both I

    113
    and my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher) have also received that award. That is a good example of how hon. Members on both Front and Back Benches are walking in step, to the benefit of the environment.
    However, my hon. Friend raises an extremely good point that is at the heart of the discussions taking place in the international negotiations. That is the requirement that emissions trading must be governed by a strong compliance regime. At Buenos Aires, we agreed that there should be discussions between the technical groups. They have still not been concluded, but we are well aware of the general environmental concern that some developed countries may be tempted to trade in carbon in that way while not doing much about their domestic circumstances. In those negotiations, and in the final conclusion to the strong compliance requirement, the European Union has made it clear that there must be some form of ceiling to prevent such trading, and a commitment from countries to deal with their domestic economies.
    Dr. Vincent Cable: Does the Deputy Prime Minister accept that the underlying logic of carbon credits is to reduce the use of carbon-intensive fuels such as coal and to increase the use of less carbon-intensive fuels such as gas? Does not the Government's present energy policy do precisely the opposite?
    Mr. Prescott: We are certainly not pursuing the policy on coal adopted by the previous Administration. That policy completely obliterated many communities, and I announced the coalfield community programme to assist them with the difficulties that they face. The Government have made it clear that we are prepared to look at coal energy policy, and we have announced that our aim is to achieve a proper balance between coal and gas.
    There are always problems, whichever fuel is used. We take them into account, but our goal is to maintain progress through a properly balanced energy policy.
    Mr. Simon Burns: May I genuinely congratulate the Deputy Prime Minister on the way in which he has carried forward the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) in this important area? Does he share my disappointment that certain organisations characterised the Buenos Aires conference as an agenda for inaction? In the context of the question asked by the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson), how can certain developed countries be prevented from escaping their obligations through some clever footwork? It is clearly important that the developed world provides a proper and sincere lead for the developing world to ensure that we can get to grips with environmental problems.
    Mr. Prescott: I am grateful for the kind remarks made by hon. Gentleman. Those are very real problems and, starting from the first day that I took on my ministerial responsibilities, I have said many times at this Dispatch Box that I am grateful for the work done by the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal. He led the way in some of those matters, although the targets were largely voluntary. At Kyoto, we were working to achieve legal targets, and the right hon. Gentleman was a member of the delegation that I took there. The agreement between hon. Members on both sides of the House is very welcome.
    114
    I do not agree that the Buenos Aires conference was an agenda for inaction.
    Mr. Burns: I did not make that criticism.
    Mr. Prescott: I take the point, but that criticism has been made. We won a good victory at Kyoto in achieving the legal targets but, given all the flexibilities involved, it takes more than 12 months to reach agreement. Britain led the way yet again: it was our formula that suggested that a period longer than 12 months was needed to get right the flexibilities on the matter of carbon trading. The issues involved are extremely difficult, and we shall bear in mind the importance of ensuring that the responsibilities are borne fairly by the developed countries that signed up to the agreement. If we do not ensure that, eventually the developing countries will refuse to co-operate and there will be no global agreement. We are well aware of the difficulties, and I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support.

    Road Charging
    Mr. Geraint Davies: What assessment he has made of the benefits of road user charging in London. [68272]
    The Minister for Transport in London (Ms Glenda Jackson): The costs and benefits of road user charging were assessed in the London congestion charging research programme, published by the Government office for London in 1995.
    A new study has just been commissioned to illustrate the charging powers that we are proposing as part of the legislation to introduce the Greater London authority.
    Mr. Davies: Will my hon. Friend confirm that all revenues from road charging in London will be hypothecated for road transport investment in London? Will she also confirm that the Government's commitment to the A23 Coulsdon relief road will not be linked to any particular pricing or charging system in London?
    Ms Jackson: I can confirm that any revenue raised will be hypothecated and that every penny will be spent on improving public transport in London. The A23 was part of our targeted improvement plan, and we have always said that any additional revenue raised from either congestion charging or the private non-residential parking levy will be additional to any money that central Government find for transport.
    Mr. Richard Ottaway: Is not London the worst possible place to introduce taxes on road users? Is the Minister aware of a recent report that shows that motorists will have to be charged about £8 a trip if they are to be deterred from entering a town centre? If, as reported, the Government, or a Labour mayor, intend to levy a charge of only £2, does the Minister agree that that will deter no one; that it will not solve the congestion problem; and that the Government are simply using the motorist as a milch cow, replacing the subsidy

    115
    to London Underground that she will withdraw next year? In short, charging is a tax by the back door, and the Conservative party will oppose it.
    Ms Jackson: I am amazed by that diatribe against an idea originally introduced by the Conservative Administration as part of a paper examining the possibility of raising additional revenues from congestion charging. As in so many areas, the previous Government failed. They failed to introduce charges or to ensure that any money so raised would be hypothecated for the improvement of public transport. That was yet another example of how the previous Government failed the country and, specifically, the people of London. We are redressing their failure, and we shall continue to do so.

    Uniform Business Rate
    Mr. David Heath: What plans he has to reform the uniform business rate. [68273]
    The Minister for Local Government and Housing (Ms Hilary Armstrong): In our July White Paper "Modern Local Government: In Touch with the People", we said that local authorities would be given the power to levy a local rate of up to 5 per cent. of the national rate, provided that the local authority had effective consultation arrangements with business, and subject to business agreement on the use of the money raised. We also said that we would consider reducing the rate burden on small businesses. We said that we would first consult on the details; a consultation paper will be issued shortly.
    Mr. Heath: I am disappointed by the lack of action on the uniform business rate, which is innately unfair, particularly to small businesses. If the UBR is considered alongside other measures, such as the way in which the Food Standards Agency is to be funded, does it not appear that the Government's policies favour the superstore over the high street shop?
    Ms Armstrong: The hon. Gentleman must have been disappointed with my reply, although I made it quite clear that we recognise the problems of small businesses and that we have agreed to consult them. I have already met representatives, and we shall issue a formal consultation paper in the near future. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to respond to it.
    Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Will the Minister consider ensuring that north-west business rates can be spent by the new regional development agencies?
    Ms Armstrong: The business rate is an important aspect of local government taxation and of the way in which local government is funded. We want to retain it for those reasons. It ensures that businesses and councils work effectively together, which is essential if local authority areas are to progress. Our White Paper proposals must be properly consulted on, so that we can, with business and councils, find an effective way forward.
    Mr. James Gray: Given the current state of farming, will the Minister reconfirm the important principle under which farming businesses are exempt from the uniform business rate? Would she go further by
    116
    considering the plight of those who breed and manage heavy horses, as people do in my constituency? The horses are essential to organic farming, but breeding attracts the business rate. Will the Minister reconsider that disincentive to green farming?
    Ms Armstrong: I have said that we will consult on the proposals in our White Paper. The hon. Gentleman will have noted that it contained no proposal to extend business rates to agricultural land.

    Soft Drinks (Returnable Deposits)
    Mr. Chris Mullin: If he will take steps to require the payment of returnable deposits on soft drink bottles and cans; and if he will make a statement. [68274]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Alan Meale): Returnable deposits may be helpful in particular circumstances, but a legal requirement would conflict with the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997 that are already in place to promote recycling and recovery and, in some circumstances, could be contrary to the European Community directive on packaging and packaging waste.
    Mr. Mullin: Does my hon. Friend recall that, in the days when he and I were lads, long before the aluminium tin can, we could get thruppence back on a bottle of Corona?
    Mrs. Diana Organ: Tizer.
    Mr. Mullin: And Tizer. As a result, hedgerows and roadsides were not littered with soft and hard drink cans. Will the Minister look for a way around the problem that he has outlined because, were a deposit on drink cans and bottles to return, the problem of litter would disappear?
    Mr. Meale: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. He may be aware that the deposits on bottles were a bit more in my day than in his, but we are continually looking at ways in which to resolve that problem. For example, for the past four years, the Department has been trying to negotiate a way forward with business. We have now come up with new regulations that will go a long way towards solving the problem, but we continue to search for ways in which to improve on that. We are working with business to try to find a voluntary arrangement to meet the criteria. Deposit schemes are not always best because they can sometimes incorporate heavy use of transport, which adds to pollution and CO2 emissions.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: As the Minister will know, I run a retail business in Swansea. In my younger days, I often accepted a shilling deposit back on a Corona bottle and on many other fizzy drinks bottles. I know that the business community would want to get involved in any voluntary schemes that were available, but is not part of the answer to those problems making more litter bins generally available throughout the country to encourage particularly young people to use those bins, so that they do not discard their refuse in people's gardens and in the streets?
    Mr. Meale: The hon. Gentleman is right. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the

    117
    Regions is working continually with the Department for Education and Employment, and funding groups such as the Tidy Britain campaign, to find a solution. We are working to educate the masses to save and to stop polluting and contaminating our society.

    Company Cars
    Mr. Tom Brake: What measures the Government plan to reduce the mileage driven by company car users. [68276]
    The Minister of Transport (Dr. John Reid): The Government's White Paper "A New Deal for Transport" contains a wide range of measures to encourage more sustainable car use, many of which should help to discourage unnecessary mileage by company car drivers. We especially want to promote green transport plans among large employers; our aim is to reduce car use for travel to work and on business. The Government continue to review the company car taxation regime, to see how it might be altered to send better environmental signals.
    Mr. Brake: I thank the Minister for his response. Will he consider requiring company car drivers to display prominently on their cars the name of their company and a telephone number, so that they are discouraged from using their cars on illegal journeys and dangerous driving is discouraged?
    Dr. Reid: The hon. Gentleman in many ways symbolises what is good and bad about the Liberal party:
    118
    the sentiment is good and the ideas completely batty. That plan would intrude on the privacy of those individuals and raise questions of security. That shows that it is an ill-thought-out plan. Therefore, although I am prepared to give an accolade to his good sentiments, I suggest that he think a little more about the practical implications of his proposals.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that transport is critical for the economic development of the eastern region? Does he agree that a change in company car taxation so that a bigger subsidy could be given to public transport would be one way to solve the severe congestion that we face, especially in the region around my constituency?
    Dr. Reid: Yes, I accept that the eastern region is important for the economic development of the country as a whole. We have introduced the idea of a new income stream for local authorities through congestion charging, which partially meets my hon. Friend's point. Both sides of the House recognise that the main problem with company car taxation is that, at a certain level, there is an incentive to drive more business miles to pay less tax. I know that the matter has been, and continues to be, reviewed by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It has been discussed between Departments and between the Chancellor and my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister.

Meningitis (South Wales)
3.31 pm
Ann Clwyd(by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Wales to make a statement on the meningitis outbreak in south Wales.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Jon Owen Jones): Over the past two weeks, 11 cases of meningococcal infection have been identified in the Taff Ely area. Seven cases have been identified in schoolchildren attending Coed-y-Lan upper and lower schools and Trerobert primary school at Ynysybwl. Two pre-school children have also been affected and one 15-year-old pupil has died. Immunisation of all staff and pupils at the three schools is being carried out today. Appropriate antibiotics have been given to the above and to direct contacts in the case. The two other cases involve a teacher at Cardinal Newman school in Rhydyfelin, and an older woman from there, both of whom died. The teacher is believed to have had contact with one of the other known cases. Two helplines have been established, one by the health authority, and one by the education health authority. The National Meningitis Trust is also actively involved in providing advice locally.
This is a rare situation and all general practitioners are being asked to be alert to the signs and symptoms of meningococcal disease in the Bro Taf area. Parents and guardians should also be vigilant. It is a dreadful illness, swift and sometimes fatal in effect, but it is very treatable if prompt diagnosis is made. The House will share my sympathies for the relatives of the deceased and for the great anxiety that the people of the Pontypridd area, especially parents, are feeling.
Ann Clwyd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I offer my sympathy to the families of those who have died, and to those who are concerned about children who are sick in hospital or attend schools where an outbreak has occurred. My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells), the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs, who is sitting on the Front Bench at the moment, has already been actively concerned in the matter.
I am getting phone calls from worried constituents who fear that their children are at a school where one death has occurred but where they are not receiving any offer of treatment. Why is that? Can the Minister say how contagious health professionals believe meningitis is and say who needs antibiotic protection and who needs immunisation? A public health emergency has been declared in the Bro Taf health authority area. As my hon. Friend said, parents have been asked to be extra vigilant in looking for the symptoms of meningitis. Spotting the symptoms is vital, but even now, not everyone knows what to look for, particularly as there are several strains of meningitis with various symptoms. Can my hon. Friend spell that out? Can he also assure the House that there are sufficient stocks of all medicines that might be needed to contain the outbreak? Can he give details of the public helpline available to people who are concerned and who would like further information?
Are there any social, psychological or biological reasons why the number of cases among teenagers has apparently more than doubled in the past few years?
120
I know that, in 1996, there was an outbreak of meningitis in the Minister's constituency. Given that it appears that Wales has one of the highest levels of meningitis in Europe, can he tell the House whether any research is being done to establish the reasons?
Mr. Jones: Meningitis is a highly complex illness and medical science is far from understanding why there are outbreaks in particular areas at particular times and why they do not occur more often. The bacterium that causes the illness is present in about 10 per cent. of the population at all times, yet it does not normally—in most cases, for most people and at most times—cause an outbreak. What exactly causes an outbreak to occur remains a matter of great conjecture.
The vaccinations that exist are effective against a particular strain of the illness—the strain that is present in the cases reported in Pontypridd. However, the vaccine is not effective for long, nor is the use of antibiotics: those prophylactic measures have to be applied where and when the illness occurs, when it occurs in a non-sporadic fashion. The vast majority of cases, dreadful as they are, are sporadic, in that no others are affected. That is not the case in Pontypridd, where there has been a relatively large number of cases.
The health authority and the education authority have acted promptly to ensure that antibiotics and vaccinations are delivered to those who are most at risk. I am confident that all that could reasonably be asked to be done has been done promptly in the Pontypridd area.
Mr. Nigel Evans: I offer the sympathy of the official Opposition to the families and friends of those who have died of the disease. I pay tribute to the nurses and medical teams who are working in the Bro Taf health authority area, vaccinating pupils, teachers and others at three of the schools in the area affected by the outbreak; and to staff from medical charities associated with meningitis who are working with parents, spreading information about the disease and counselling those in need.
What extra support is the Minister giving the health authority to ensure that it is able to deliver the necessary medical support as quickly as possible to those in need, while ensuring that other medical priorities are not affected? Are there any plans to vaccinate pupils and staff from other schools in the area? What contact has the hon. Gentleman had with the Meningitis Research Foundation and the National Meningitis Trust, both of which are being inundated with requests for help, advice and counselling? I have spoken to both organisations today: one told me that 200 calls had been received over the weekend, and the other said that, this year alone, 10,000 calls had been received—an incredible figure. What extra resources can be given to those organisations, to help them to disseminate information and counsel parents, pupils and others in the short term?
As the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) said, the incidence of meningitis among teenagers has doubled over the past three years. The incidence of meningitis in Wales is three times that in the United States of America: we in Wales have had 45 cases this year alone. In the long term, what extra help can be directed towards urgent medical research into the disease?
What action are the Government taking to ensure that adequate advice is given to those who need it? Parents and others need to be reassured: although there is no need

121
for panic, there is every reason to be aware of the disease, of what to look for and of what to do if there is any suspicion that someone has the disease. The Meningitis Research Foundation and the National Meningitis Trust carry out those functions, but demands on their time and resources have increased tremendously over recent months. What can be done to assist them?
Do the Government intend to issue fresh guidelines, not just to general practitioners but to schools and universities? The Minister will be aware of other outbreaks in the area over recent months. What is being done to ensure that sufficient vaccines and antibiotics are made available, as the hon. Member for Cynon Valley asked?
The latest outbreak is worrying, and follows others not just in south Wales but in other parts of the country. Normally, the cycle would have peaked, but 1997 saw the highest incidence of meningitis since the second world war. What national strategy and action are the Government considering to ensure adequate assistance, and that the current cycle and the spate of outbreaks are urgently and properly contained?
Mr. Jones: The Government recognise that urgent vaccine development is required. In the coming year, £1 million will be put into such development. Vaccines and antibiotics have been made available in the south Wales area. Additional antibiotics and vaccines have been brought into the area from Bristol and the west midlands to ensure that adequate supplies are available. The monitoring committee, which is considering developments on the ground, is meeting at 6 o'clock tonight. I know that it is considering whether further vaccination should be called for and delivered to other schools.
It has been recognised over the past few years, partly as a result of the outbreak in Cardiff in 1996, that some people are particularly vulnerable, especially first-year students who are staying in halls of residence. I know that many health authorities have been issuing vaccines to such students as a matter of course when they go to university.
Ms Julie Morgan: May I express my deepest concern for the families involved, especially given that my constituency neighbours that of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells). Will the Under-Secretary confirm exactly what strain of meningitis has been identified? Will he advise parents whether they should send their children to school in such circumstances? I know that a number of parents are understandably keeping their children at home, and such advice would be useful. I also know that a number of teachers who have children of their own are concerned about whether they should be going to school. Will my hon. Friend please offer some advice?
Mr. Jones: The strain responsible for most of the cases is C2A, which is a new strain to the area, but not to the country. It has been known for the past four years, and has proved particularly virulent in this outbreak. One of the patients has been infected by a different strain—1B. The schools that have been affected have closed, although I do not believe that that was done on medical advice. It is up to the medical authorities to advise when and whether schools ought to close.
Mr. Lembit Õpik: The Liberal Democrats share the great concern of all in the House
122
about the tragic deaths, and the worry that the outbreak is causing parents and children who live in fear of contracting the infection. We welcome the speedy response of the health service during this very difficult time. Does the Minister agree that it is vital that parents follow the advice of local physicians and that, if asked, for example, to take their children to a school for vaccination, they should not ignore such a request out of misplaced, albeit understandable, loyalty to their children and worry of further exposure to the infection?
Mr. Jones: I concur completely with the hon. Gentleman's remarks. My hon. Friend the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs, who is sitting beside me, is not only the local Member but a parent of children at one of the schools affected. He has informed me that almost 100 per cent. of parents have responded and that the way in which the education and health authorities have co-ordinated work in Pontypridd has been exemplary.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I, too, offer my sincere condolences and those of my party to the bereaved families. In view of what the Minister said earlier about the complex nature of the disease and its many and varied symptoms, will he redouble the Department's efforts to ensure that all general practitioners are made acutely aware of those symptoms and of the need for urgent action when they appear?
Mr. Jones: All the general practitioners in the area have been given detailed guidance about this outbreak, and they periodically receive advice about outbreaks in general.
Mr. Malcolm Savidge: I express my condolences to those affected by the tragedies in south Wales. Will the Minister join me in expressing relief that Claire Booth, the 16-year-old schoolgirl in my constituency who was reported just last night to be fighting for her life against this virulent strain of meningitis, is today reported to be showing signs of making a remarkable recovery? Will he join me in wishing her a full and early recovery? In the light of the experience in south Wales, will he also join me in urging everyone to show the utmost vigilance in fighting the spread of this terrible disease?
Mr. Jones: Yes, obviously I am delighted that the girl is making a recovery. As a parent, I cannot imagine anything more worrying than the thought of my child falling ill with a disease that is so swift in its action and possibly fatal in its outcome. I only hope and pray that the Pontypridd child who is now critically ill in the University hospital of Wales makes a recovery.
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: I, too, offer my sympathies to the constituents of the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), who raised this question. The Minister might recall that in my constituency, last July, there was an outbreak of meningococcal meningitis in a scout camp. Happily, the children who were affected recovered, and the doctor who was originally consulted, Buckinghamshire health authority and the scout leaders reacted rapidly in giving information to the parents and children and administering the necessary antibiotics.

123
Will the Minister join me in congratulating those concerned on their prompt action on that occasion and agree with me that the co-ordination of public services by the health authority in the event of such an outbreak plays a pivotal role in preventing unnecessary anxiety and meeting the need for swift medical action? Will he consider what extra resources he may make available to health authorities that find themselves facing those extra, demanding responsibilities?
Mr. Jones: I share the hon. Lady's commendation of the work in her constituency to identify the disease early. Prompt action can be, and usually is, successful in treating those affected, but it is difficult to diagnose the illness because its symptoms are so similar to those of many other conditions. It is understandable that sometimes those symptoms are initially missed. We must ensure that, where there is an outbreak, we direct sufficient resources to the area and bring the problem to the attention of GPs and parents so that prompt action will be taken, if not in all cases, at least in the vast majority of them, so that we can stamp out the outbreak as fast as possible.

Points of Order
3.49 pm
Mr. Michael Howard: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I ask whether you have had any intimation from the Foreign Secretary, or from another Foreign Office Minister, that either intends to make a statement at the Dispatch Box about the Foreign Affairs Committee's report on Sierra Leone? As you may know, Madam Speaker, the report is very damning of both the Foreign Secretary and the Foreign Office. May we expect to hear from the Foreign Secretary at the Dispatch Box soon?
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Mr. Alan Clark.
Mr. Alan Clark: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. What is the House of Commons to do when the Foreign Secretary, whose principal official has been heavily criticised in the report, remains mute, while the Prime Minister prefers to appear on a chat show and rebut the whole report, because he is frightened—as he always is—of coming to this place and accounting for his actions and those of his Government?
Madam Speaker: There is no point of order there for me to answer. I cannot, of course, refuse to take points of order, but they must be genuine points of order to which I can respond.
Mr. Eric Forth: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Can you help us by giving us some guidance on how the House can respond promptly and effectively to a report that is so clear, so damning and so sensational? Surely the House must take a lead in responding, to ensure that there is proper accountability when one of our most senior Select Committees has produced a document that is beyond doubt and beyond argument.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Is not the case for a statement on the report doubly underlined by the trenchant terms of the criticism in it, and by the fact that the House should have an opportunity to learn the extent to which the Foreign Office has responded to the criticisms made by Sir Richard Scott, which were equally damning of the last Government and their misleading of the House of Commons?
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. You safeguard the interests of the House and of Back Benchers. I ask you whether it is appropriate, after the publication of such a damning report, for the Prime Minister of this country to see fit to appear on a chat show—the Jimmy Young show, I believe—to rebut its findings, without doing either you or the House the courtesy of coming here first to make a statement.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Does it refer to the original point of order?
Mr. Skinner: Yes, Madam Speaker. I just want to put the balance right. [Interruption.] I can handle five Tories any day of the week.
In respect of the point of order that you were not very clear about, Madam Speaker—and I agree with you—let me remind you of something. If you refer to Hansard of a few months ago, when the issue first arose, you will see that I declared then that some high-falutin' Foreign Office official was at the centre of the controversy. It has taken this tinpot Select Committee God knows how many months to find out what I told the House last year.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I cannot go on taking points of order. I think I have the feeling of some Members.
First, as hon. Members know, comments that the Prime Minister makes outside the House are not a matter for me. Secondly, I was asked whether we could debate, promptly and effectively, an issue that is concerning a number of Members. As I do not determine the business of the House, that can only be arranged through the usual channels, and Members who are anxious for the matter to be debated should adopt that approach.
The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) made his point succinctly. He is keen for a statement to be made, and I understand that. I cannot force any Minister to make a statement on this or any other matter, but those on the Government Front Bench
126
will no doubt have heard the right hon. and learned Gentleman's views and those of Back Benchers, and will report accordingly.
Mr. David Wilshire: On a different point of order, Madam Speaker. I wish to raise the issue of what appears to have been a leak of a confidential parliamentary document.
At 10 am today, the Foreign Affairs Committee published its report. It decided, as a matter of courtesy, to release it two hours early, covered by an embargo. The report was released to the media, and to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, at 8 am. At 7 am the "Today" programme was reporting Foreign and Commonwealth Office spokesmen and the Foreign Secretary as dismissing the contents of the report. Surely it follows that, to dismiss the report, they must have read it. They must therefore have had a leaked document before it was released under embargo. What are the arrangements for investigating what appears to be a serious breach of parliamentary rules?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman began his point of order by referring to what appears to be a leak of a parliamentary document. It was certainly a discourtesy if an embargo was broken. It is a matter for the Committee. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take it up with the Committee and the Committee Chairman, and follow it through that way.

BILL PRESENTED
  IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM
  Mr. Secretary Straw, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Prescott, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Cook, Mr. Secretary Dewar, Mr. Secretary Dobson, Mr. Secretary Darling, Mr. Geoffrey Hoon and Mr. Mike O'Brien, presented a Bill to make provision about immigration and asylum; to make provision about procedures in connection with marriage on superintendent registrar's certificate; and for connected purposes And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed [Bill 42].

Transport of Farm Animals
3.55 pm
Mr. Gwyn Prosser: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision with respect to the welfare of farm animals exported from Great Britain; to require Ministers to lay before Parliament proposals for ending the export of live farm animals and the transport of such animals over long distances; and for connected purposes.
My Bill is designed to help to bring live exports to an end. it reflects the widespread public concern about that cruel trade. In a recent poll commissioned by Compassion in World Farming, a massive 88 per cent. of those questioned said that they believed that the export of live animals should be brought to an end. They believed that animals should be slaughtered in the United Kingdom and exported as meat. I am in complete accord with that view, and I am pleased that the Government have restated their clear preference for our meat to be exported on the hook rather than on the hoof.
Each year, more than 500,000 animals—mainly lambs and sheep, but also pigs—are exported on lengthy journeys of 30 hours or more. Crammed into overcrowded trucks, the animals are vulnerable to being badly bruised and seriously injured. If they fall down, they stay down, trampled by their companions. In summer, hot weather and poor ventilation can be killers. Not many years ago, we heard ghastly reports of the 300 British sheep that died of heat exhaustion during a journey to Greece. Three quarters of the total stock perished in torturous conditions.
Before I came to the House, I was a Merchant Navy officer. I have heard the cries of shipped animals in the Red sea. I have smelt the stench of rotting carcases in the Arabian gulf. During my 12 years' sailing on cross-channel ferries from Dover, I witnessed the suffering of lambs and calves as they struggled to stay standing against the violent rolling of the ship when stuffed into overcrowded trucks.
I am pleased to acknowledge that significant improvements have been made in recent years. Building on initiatives taken by the previous Administration, the Government have implemented the Welfare of Animals (Transport) Order 1997 and are conducting a major review on the subject. Although the new regulations represent a step forward, they are still failing to ensure uniformly high standards of welfare and enforcement.
Just last autumn, welfare societies tracked down UK sheep that had been sent right across Europe to Greece. By the time they arrived, they were in extremely poor condition—most were gasping for air and many had already died. Last December, Compassion in World Farming trailed British sheep from a staging point in Belgium down to a slaughterhouse near Bari in southern Italy. The journey covered 2,000 km and lasted 30 hours. Together with the journey across the UK and the trip across the channel, the total travelling time could have exceeded 40 hours.
When the investigators tried to film the truck on its arrival at the slaughterhouse, two gunshots rang out from the slaughterhouse and they had to abandon their filming, but the gunshots are clearly recorded on video. We do not have to guess what the slaughterhouse bosses were trying to hide. Earlier film footage of the same location shows sheep being roughly dragged across by their back legs, their heads bumping along concrete floors. The stunning
128
process was so casually applied that the animals were in danger of regaining consciousness during the bleeding out.
The suffering inherent in live exports was highlighted as long ago as 1993, when the European Commission stressed that
"long distance transport in overstocked vehicles, combined with dehydration and starvation, results in poor welfare and often in high mortality."
Soon we will again witness what is undoubtedly one of the most cruel facets of the live animal export trade. Each March, thousands of United Kingdom sheep are exported to France for ritual slaughter during the Aid el Kabir festival. The animals are killed in open fields on the outskirts of Paris. The sheep are held down, their throats are cut and, while fully conscious, they bleed to death. Many of those killing the animals are untrained and carry out the slaughter so inexpertly that the sheep can take several minutes to die.
Science shows my concerns about the live animal trade to be well founded. A paper on sheep transport by scientists at the university of Bristol concluded that,
"from a welfare point of view, transport distances and times should be kept to a minimum".
It added:
"this study and previous work show that transport is a stressful process involving psychological and physical stress."
The researchers concluded that long journeys can result in increased levels of disease and mortality.
Although I seek to improve the general welfare of animals in transit, my Bill is also designed to bring this cruel live export trade to a complete end. Successive Governments have argued that European trade rules prevent us from prohibiting live exports. My Bill requires my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to lay before Parliament proposals for securing a derogation from our European Union partners permitting the United Kingdom to prohibit live animal exports.
We would argue our case on the ground that an overwhelming majority of British people consider this inhumane trade to be morally offensive. In 1991, the then Government secured a derogation permitting the United Kingdom to retain its ban on the export of horses for slaughter. Having demonstrated the principle that public moral offence is sufficient cause to seek, and obtain, derogation, it is not unreasonable, considering the growing moral objection to this trade, to ask the Government to extend that principle to farm animals.
A review of the European Union's transport directive is due at the end of the year. My Bill requires Ministers to lay before Parliament proposals in respect of how to encourage our EU partners, when undertaking that review, to embrace a far-reaching change of policy, whereby long-distance live transport would be abandoned throughout the EU and replaced by trade in meat.
My Bill also contains a number of measures designed to strengthen the welfare rules that currently govern the trade. Exporters claim that continental consumers want only our live animals, not our meat. As 95 per cent. of our sheep exports are in meat form, that argument is simply not borne out by the facts. With skilful marketing on the continent, it should be possible to convert all our exports into meat form.

129
United Kingdom abattoirs would clearly benefit from the ending of live exports. If, instead of being sent for slaughter abroad, the animals were slaughtered in this country, many new jobs, and extra profits, would be created in United Kingdom abattoirs and the allied industries. The rural economy would benefit from the added value derived from processing animals in this country rather than exporting them.
The export of tiny calves to continental veal crates first alerted public opinion to the horrors of live exports. Calf exports were halted by the beef ban. Dairy farmers, however, have made it clear that they want to resume calf exports. The recent lifting of the beef ban did not extend to calf exports, but, at a future stage, the EU may lift the ban as part of its changes.
Accordingly, it is vital, as my Bill requires, that the Minister should seek a derogation permitting the United Kingdom to prohibit live exports. Unless an exemption is allowed, thousands of calves could again be shipped off to endure an unimaginably cruel existence in the veal crates of Holland.
Finally, I want to mention a new abuse that has recently come to light. About 150,000 breeding sows are exported annually from the United Kingdom. On arrival on the continent, many are kept in sow stalls and tether stalls—systems so cruel that their use is illegal in the United Kingdom. I believe that it is wrong for sows to be exported for rearing abroad in systems that are so cruel that they are outlawed in our country.
We pride ourselves on being a nation of animal lovers, yet in the name of free trade we permit a commerce that regularly inflicts great suffering on animals. This inhumane trade in live creatures is cruel and unnecessary. My Bill will help hasten its end, and I urge the House to give it enthusiastic support.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Gwyn Prosser, Jackie Ballard, Mr. Peter Bottomley, Mr. Vernon Coaker, Mr. Bill Etherington, Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick, Mrs. Eileen Gordon, Mr. Mike Hancock, Mr. Nigel Jones, Laura Moffatt, Dr. Nick Palmer and Angela Smith.

TRANSPORT OF FARM ANIMALS
Mr. Gwyn Prosser accordingly presented a Bill to make provision with respect to the welfare of farm animals exported from Great Britain; to require Ministers to lay before Parliament proposals for ending the export of live farm animals and the transport of such animals over long distances; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 19 March, and to be printed [Bill 43].
Orders of the Day

  Employment Relations Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
  4.7 pm
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Stephen Byers): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill will promote the best of modern employment relationships in all our companies, encouraging a culture of fairness and trust in the workplace coupled with rights and responsibilities. We believe that, to achieve the prosperity that we want to see, there must be minimum rights for people while they are at work. That is in the interests of business as well as individuals, and that is why the Bill will be welcomed by good employers and responsible trade unionists everywhere.
  This legislation is a balanced and fair package that reflects careful thinking and thorough consultation. It delivers our manifesto pledge to provide minimum standards for treatment at work and to develop family-friendly employment policies. Our consultations began soon after the election, when we asked the Confederation of British Industry and the Trades Union Congress to hold talks on trade union recognition. They continued last May with the publication of the Government's "Fairness at Work" White Paper.
  As that White Paper and our subsequent work on improving Britain's competitive position have shown, wealth creation can be married with a strong, fair and just society. There is no contradiction. We need enterprising businesses to prosper, creating wealth, jobs and opportunities for all our people.
  The Bill sets out a radical, forward-looking package of measures that will create a framework of employment relations law fit for the next century. It will replace policies supported by the Conservative party, which were based on the notion of conflict between employers and employees, with measures for partnership based on rights matched by responsibilities.
  The legislation will contribute to economic prosperity by reducing staff turnover, increasing morale in the workplace and raising productivity. It will address the fundamental imbalance in the workplace that we inherited from the Conservative party after its 19 years in office.
  Of course, some steps were needed to curb the worst of trade union excesses, and those measures will be retained. But the Tory Governments went too far, fostering a divisive culture of mistrust and conflict, fear and low productivity, with workers being discriminated against because they worked part-time or chose to belong to a trade union.
  The Government are clear that our future economic success cannot be based on insecurity, exploitation and discrimination, and the Bill will tackle those difficulties. Now, more than ever, we need to foster a new culture in the workplace. The world is changing and the world of work has altered dramatically over recent years.

  131
  More people are working part-time, or on temporary contracts—29 per cent. of the work force are part-time, roughly double the figure 25 years ago.
  Mr. Alan Johnson: Is my right hon. Friend aware of a decision by Opposition Members to become part-timers? Is there some industrial action by Conservative Back Benchers or is there another reason why only six Conservative Back Benchers are here to support their reasoned amendment?
  Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend makes an important point about the way in which the Opposition are treating the Bill. I hope that they will reveal the extent to which they plan to oppose certain key measures. I had expected more Opposition Members to support the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood)—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—The Bill addresses the issue of insecurity at work and the right hon. Gentleman must have deep concerns about his own position, given the comments that have been attributed to the Leader of the Opposition. I have read the Bill in great detail and I regret that the provisions on job security do not cover the shadow Cabinet. I am sorry about that, but if amendments are tabled in Committee, perhaps the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), will give them consideration—or perhaps not.
  To return to the changed nature of the work force, more women than ever are working and more families depend on two earners. More than 50 per cent. of married women with children under five work—again more than double the figure a generation ago.
  Mr. Peter L. Pike: My right hon. Friend is referring to various categories of worker. There has also been an increase in the number of agency workers. Will he emphasise that the Bill will provide better protection to those employed in such work?
  Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Some 1 million people now work through employment agencies. A Bill that addresses the modern labour market must contain provisions that apply to employment agencies. I am pleased to say that the Bill includes specific measures to tackle abuses involving employment agencies, and I shall refer to them later in my speech.
  In a changed labour market, it is important that the Bill addresses the different nature of the work force. Increasing numbers of workers need to balance work with other commitments, such as caring for children or elderly relatives. New working patterns put new responsibilities on the Government, businesses and employees. They place a responsibility on the Government to ensure minimum standards of fairness and treatment for all in society and they place a responsibility on business to ensure that the task of making a reality of the flexible labour market does not fall solely on working people.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: The legislation is most welcome. May I make a plea to my right hon. Friend on behalf of a very small work force? I refer to the few hundred men employed as fishermen by a small number of trawler companies. Down
  132
  the years, they have been treated as casual workers in every sense of the word. I hope that the Bill will enable them to be treated differently by their employers, some of whom have been among the worst in Britain.
  Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Although their numbers may be small, their needs must be addressed. The Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield has already had discussions with his colleagues in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. We are giving very serious consideration to the particular circumstances applying to that section of the work force.
  Mr. Jim Marshall: I welcome the main thrust of the Government's legislation. However, as my right hon. Friend is talking about protection of the work force, will he perhaps help the House to understand better why employees working in companies with fewer than 21 employees will be excluded from the provisions on trade union recognition?
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Why?
  Mr. Byers: I shall explain, if my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) will give me a chance to do so.
  I have listened to the arguments that the collective rights provisions should apply to all businesses. Such decisions are always a matter of balance. Our view was that undue burdens should not be placed on businesses in circumstances in which it would not be appropriate to do so, and that, in such circumstances, we should not be prepared to extend the trade union recognition provisions. Although I understand the strong views that have been expressed, we believe that the package is reasonable and balanced. As it is balanced, we have not been prepared to accept the representations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) and some of his colleagues. Although I know that they will be disappointed, we think that, on balance, the package is the right way to move forward.
  Mr. Mike Hancock: If the Secretary of State genuinely believes what his Department is saying—that, in the next 10 years, most new jobs will be created in companies with fewer than 21 persons—surely there is absolutely no logic in withholding the rights of those individuals to be members of a trade union, or in companies not recognising the collective might of those employees? Surely his point falls foul of the fact that the overwhelming majority of new jobs will be created in the sector of small businesses with few employees.
  Mr. Byers: I should put the record straight. The Bill contains provisions that will ensure that any individual—regardless of the size of organisation for which he or she works—will be entitled to belong to a trade union and not to be discriminated against because of trade union membership. All individuals-regardless of the size of organisation for which they work-will be able to have someone of their choice represent them at a grievance or disciplinary hearing. If a company or business employing fewer than 21 people decides voluntarily to recognise a

  133
  trade union, it will be perfectly entitled to do so. However, on balance, the Government have taken the view that it is reasonable to have a cut-off.
  It is worth bearing it in mind that, in the past decade or so, many large employers have gone for derecognition. Now, because of the Bill's provisions, there will be automatic recognition of a trade union of which a majority of the work force are members. The provision will be welcomed by many thousands of people who are trade union members but have been denied recognition of their union.
  The Government believe that the Bill strikes the right balance and will be an important step forward. I should hope that most people, on examining the provisions, will agree that they provide a structure that will serve in the years ahead.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Byers: I shall give way in a minute or two, but should first make some progress in my speech.
  The final point on responsibility is employees' responsibility to demonstrate loyalty and commitment to their employer. However, flexibility does not have to entail—it must not entail—insecurity and poor treatment, which lead only to additional stress for many whose lives are already too stressful, to low morale and to poor productivity. We must help people to adapt to the new world of fast-changing markets and shifting work patterns without sacrificing their quality of life.
  The measures proposed in the Bill are already applied widely in many of our top-performing companies, which are reaping the benefits of greater employee commitment and co-operation, reduced staff turnover and absenteeism and increased productivity. The proposals, by underpinning modern employment policies in law, will help to spread just that type of best practice to all parts of the economy. We believe that, if employers treat their work force sensibly, employees will respond with loyalty and commitment.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner rose—
  Charlotte Atkins rose—
  Mr. Byers: I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) first.
  Mr. Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that having a cut-off point can create problems, whether it is 20, 15 or any other number? Is he aware that a large number of firms throughout the country with work forces of fewer than 20 have granted recognition rights to trade unions? One possible danger—I hope that it does not arise—is that some firms with a work force of, say, 18 might decide to abandon trade union recognition because the new law says that they do not have to recognise unions if they employ fewer than 20 people. What safeguards will be available to trade unionists who have an agreement, but might lose that recognition because of the cut-off?
  Mr. Byers: As I said earlier, there is nothing in the Bill to stop voluntary agreements that have already been entered into. I hope that employers will recognise the benefits of trade union recognition. Many companies do.
  134
  I shall give examples later of companies that have a positive partnership with their trade unions. They are successful, prosperous companies that are growing and are able to employ more people. Nothing in the Bill should act as a disincentive to employers on trade union recognition. The trade union movement needs to demonstrate to people in the work force the benefits of union membership. It is worth reflecting on the fact that 4 million people in many of the categories of organisation mentioned by some of my hon. Friends are not in union membership. The challenge to the trade union movement, in the light of the Bill in particular, is to recruit people. Unions now have a reason to do so, because if more than half the workers in a work place are in union membership there will be automatic recognition.
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Byers: Just a second; I want to answer my hon. Friend's point first. I understand the concerns about the cut-off, but we believe that the Bill is a balanced package.
  Before I give way to the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant), I must give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Charlotte Atkins).
  Charlotte Atkins: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. Is he aware that the accident rate in a workplace that has unionised workplace representatives is half that of non-unionised workplaces? Does he agree that the Bill will improve health and safety at work, even though it has no specific provisions on that?
  Mr. Byers: I have no doubt about that. Health and safety representatives are important, and there are measures in the Bill to help those who carry out that important responsibility. There is no doubt that businesses that have union recognition are far safer places to work than those with no such provision.
  Mr. Fabricant rose—
  Mr. Byers: I want to make progress, but I shall give way in a minute.
  There are three fundamental strands running through the Bill. The first is to promote family-friendly policies. The second is to promote a new culture of partnership in the workplace. The third is to ensure equal and fair treatment for all in the workplace. There will not be a continuous drip, drip of employment legislation throughout this Parliament. We have no plans to bring forward further measures. We intend this industrial relations settlement to last for the remainder of this Parliament.
  Mr. Fabricant: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I should like to pursue the point raised by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) about small firms with perhaps 18 employees. Does the Secretary of State accept that there might be one or two unscrupulous employers—to use the words of the hon. Member for Bolsover—who might be disinclined to employ 20 or 21 people for fear of compulsory union recognition? What assessment has he made of that?
  Mr. Byers: The hon. Gentleman always makes interesting interventions. If a business needs to employ

  135
  21 people to be prosperous and to make a profit, I am sure that it will do so. I do not believe that the measures in the Bill will act as a disincentive in that respect.
  I wish to refer to one of the most important aspects of the Bill—the package to promote family-friendly policies. The Bill's provisions form a major part of the Government's agenda for supporting families. Many businesses, large and small, have adopted practices in support of the family, to the mutual benefit of the organisation and the employee.
  Let us consider some illustrations of those companies and individuals who have benefited from flexible, family-friendly arrangements. One example is one of our leading supermarket chains, which has seen the benefits of being family friendly. The company wants staff to be flexible but, in return, is prepared to recognise individual needs. The supermarket chain has introduced maternity leave, study leave, paternity leave, child-care leave, adoption leave, shift-swap and bereavement leave. [HON. MEMBERS: "Which chain is it?"]
  Tory Members would have us believe that the company would be headed for bankruptcy as a result of all those changes. However, absence is down, saving the company £3 million. Labour turnover is down by 4 per cent., saving the company £2.4 million. In addition, 95 per cent. of female staff who go on maternity leave are now returning to work in the company's stores. Customer numbers are up by 35 per cent. and the company has 8.9 per cent. growth. That is clear evidence of how these policies work. [HON. MEMBERS: "Is it Asda?"] Tory Members have identified the supermarket chain—it is Asda, where the shadow Chancellor has one of his many directorships. In addition, the deputy chairman of the Conservative party is, I think, now the chairman of Asda.
  The secret is that Conservative Members know that these policies work, and are prepared to have them in companies where they are directors. However, they seek to deny the policies to organisations elsewhere. When Tory Members, as they have done in the amendment, seek to make the point that family-friendly policies are a burden and affect the profitability of organisations, they are talking nonsense. They work in practice and give security to the individual who, in return, provides loyalty and commitment to the employer. That works well, and the Bill will ensure that those good practices apply to all organisations and businesses.
  Mr. David Chidgey: The Secretary of State says that good practice is the key. However, is he not a little concerned that the many regulations proposed by the Bill demonstrate that the Government have, so far, failed to convince the rest of the world of the benefits of good practice? Does he not find it rather odd that, a couple of weeks ago in Bristol, the Prime Minister was telling business men that many of the regulations coming from European directives were out of date and should be reviewed, and yet the Bill is proposing extra regulations, over and above the European directives? Is he concerned that the Government have failed to get the message across and have to bring in the measures through regulation?
  Mr. Byers: It seems that the Liberal Democrats are opposing the family-friendly measures in the Bill. If that
  136
  is the case, that is news. I have given up trying to convince Conservative Members of the merits of our proposals, for the simple reason that they will always allow prejudice to dominate over fact. They will always ignore the facts—that is what they do. Any regulations arising from the Bill will be introduced sensitively and there will be full consultation about the detail of the regulations. During that debate, we may be able to convince even some Opposition Members of the merits of the provisions.
  Mr. Jon Trickett: Does my right hon. Friend endorse the findings of the recent Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development report, declaring that Britain's hire-and-fire labour market had trapped people in low-paid jobs, entrenched insecurity at work and had no beneficial effect on economic performance? Does he agree that the reduction in the qualifying period for protection against unfair dismissal, the right to individual representation and the other measures in the Bill will begin to strike a better balance between employer and employee in the workplace?
  Mr. Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order that the hon. Gentleman did not tell us that the OECD went on to say that our flexible labour market contributed to low unemployment?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): That is a matter for debate. It is nothing to do with the Chair.
  Mr. Byers: There are 400,000 more people in work than when we took office in May 1997. We can marry the need for prosperity and profitable companies with giving individual rights in the workplace; that is what the Bill is designed to do.
  There are clear examples from organisations of the benefits of family-friendly policies, but those policies also benefit the individual. For example, a mother of two summed up the position well when she said:
  "My company has allowed me time off when my children have been ill. It makes such a difference. If I have a crisis at home, I don't have to worry about my job because my company is so flexible. I have been very fortunate, but it works both ways. I am treated well by my company, so I try to put as much back in as I can."
  That is the approach that we favour.
  Contrast that with the case of a woman in Nottingham—the sort of woman who would get nothing if Conservative Members' approach was adopted. She was disciplined for taking time off work when one of her children had flu. Her daughter, frightened that her mother would be sacked if she stayed at home to look after her, hid the fact that she had a throat infection. Another woman, from Chesterfield, wanted to reduce her hours when her son was diagnosed with a disability. Her employer refused. Conservative Members think that that is fine, and they will do nothing to protect such parents with their family responsibilities. We reject that approach. We will stand by those parents, and the Bill will ensure that we can do precisely that.
  Mr. John Bercow: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the overwhelming evidence shows that, over the past 25 years, the American record of job creation is massively superior to that of the member states

  137
  of the European Union? Is that not substantially due to the American emphasis on flexible labour markets and deregulation?
  Mr. Byers: I agree that the American employment record is commendable, but it is underpinned by minimum standards in the workplace, a national minimum wage, statutory trade union recognition and, indeed, a parental leave directive, which gives effect to family-friendly policies such as those in the Bill. The hon. Gentleman should carefully consider the American experience of implementing policies that are reflected in the Bill.
  Lorna Fitzsimons: My right hon. Friend is being very co-operative in giving way to all those who want to intervene. Does he share my incredulity at the Conservative party, which claims to be the party of the family, but which, after 20 years of trade union legislation, has successfully undermined everything that was solid about the family? I welcome the fact that families can now plan and have some stability under the family-friendly aspects of our legislation.
  Mr. Byers: I agree. Conservative Members are condemned by the fact that they like to portray themselves as family friendly, when they are in fact prepared to accept the situation in which people risk losing their job if they want to care for a sick child or an ailing relative.
  Mr. Graham Brady: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Byers: Not for the moment, as I want to make some progress.
  The Bill will increase maternity leave for all to 18 weeks, giving women a right to 40 weeks, maternity absence after one year of employment—not two years, as at present. We will create a right to three months, unpaid parental leave for all employees with a young child. I am pleased to tell the House that we also plan to extend that right to parents who adopt a child. We will tackle discrimination against part-time workers, and we will give people the right to take time off for domestic emergencies. We believe that these are sensible, practical steps to help parents combine home and work responsibilities.
  Mr. Brady: Does the Secretary of State accept that many businesses would feel less worried about the proposals if he were prepared to be more specific about them? He referred to right to time off for domestic emergencies, but will he define what he means by the term "domestic emergencies"? Which people or members of the family does that right cover? He will know that the Irish Government, when legislating on the matter, were specific about which members of the family were covered. Will he give the same information to this House?
  Mr. Byers: We intend to consult on the detail, and that consultation will lead to conclusions. Conservative Members would criticise me if I were to describe in detail today how the regulations will apply. We shall consult business, both large and small, about the details of the regulations. In that way, we can ensure that we can work together in partnership to implement our family-friendly policies. We want to create the right environment and
  138
  climate to guarantee that people can work together, in a spirit of partnership, to achieve the growth and prosperity for which we are aiming.
  Mr. Brady rose—
  Mr. Byers: The hon. Gentleman is stuck in a time warp. He wants to turn the clock back. These measures are forward looking and reflect the need for employment policies that recognise the responsibilities of parents. The Bill will achieve that, as will the regulations.
  Mr. Ian Stewart: In light of his response to the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady), does my right hon. Friend agree with the response to the proposals from the Confederation of British Industry? It stated:
  "The CBI will work closely with relevant bodies to ensure that this proposed legislation delivers balanced and achievable rights and responsibilities for all concerned."
  Mr. Byers: I do agree, and it has been noticeable that the CBI has also said that our proposals on collective rights—about which I shall speak in a moment—form a workable package. In addition, the TUC has given the proposals a broad welcome.
  The Bill sets out a statutory procedure for union recognition for that small minority of cases in which the employees demonstrate that they want to be recognised, but the employer refuses. It also provides that a union can be derecognised if that is what the majority of workers want.
  The Bill makes it unfair to discriminate against employees for campaigning for or against recognition. Employees will continue to have the right to sign individual contracts, but will be protected against pressure from the employer to do so.
  At present, the law requires an industrial action ballot to be acted on within four weeks or it will cease to be effective. That provision works against good industrial relations. The Bill will allow an employer and a union to agree to extend the deadline for up to four weeks if, for example, they wish to continue negotiations. That will mean that more disputes are settled by negotiation, without resort to industrial action.
  At long last, in 1999, the Bill will ensure that people cannot be blacklisted simply because they belong to a trade union or are prepared to defend and represent the interests of their colleagues at work.
  Mr. John Redwood: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his generosity in giving way yet again. Has he seen the recent industrial output figures, which show a continuing collapse in British manufacturing? Has he seen the tidal wave of redundancies sweeping through the industrial heartlands? Has he seen the consistent advice from all business groups that this measure will make matters worse, not better? Why does he disagree with that advice—but, given that he does, what is he going to do about the manufacturing meltdown over which he now presides?
  Mr. Byers: I have two things to say in response to that intervention. First, it was a shame that the right hon. Gentleman did not come with me to British Aerospace in

  139
  north Wales yesterday to celebrate the 2,000th set of wings being put on an airbus. British Aerospace recognises trade unions, involves them in decision making and ensures that they are given the same information as corporate investors. As a result of that partnership, British Aerospace has gone from strength to strength. The share price has gone up 19-fold since 1992, and there have been profits in recent years. That has happened because the company worked in partnership with its trade unions. That is the reality of a manufacturing industry that has been a British success story.
  Secondly, the message I receive from manufacturers is that they do not want short-term decisions now, that will create problems later. They offer me the example of what happened under the Conservative Government: in the late 1980s, short-term decisions were taken for politically expedient reasons, but—as the right hon. Gentleman knows—they led in the early 1990s to interest rates at 15 per cent., inflation at 10 per cent. and the loss of more than 1 million manufacturing jobs. We are not going back to those days when there was a real meltdown in the manufacturing sector.
  Many manufacturing industries are currently doing well, working in partnership with their trade unions. The right hon. Gentleman may wish to talk down the economy, and we know that that is part of the Conservative party's wider policy, but the people in the country will not accept it.
  Mr. Redwood: Will the right hon. Gentleman examine the facts, the figures and the surveys of business opinion? Does he realise that yesterday's industrial output figures were the worst for 18 years? Does he realise that the surveys show that things are not getting any better? Does he know that there will be a great deal of trouble and further redundancies in the textile, steel and engineering industries? Why does he not care about that? Why does he not listen to the good business advice that is telling him to postpone the Bill and to do something to help business?
  Mr. Byers: Of course I care about the short-term difficulties faced by certain industries in the United Kingdom. That is one reason why I went to Longbridge yesterday to talk to the management and the work force about the difficulties that they face. The Government will not walk away from our responsibilities, but we believe that no short-term decision should be taken that could lead to worse effects later. We are confident that that is the right approach for manufacturing and for other sectors of industry.
  No provision in the Bill will have the sort of damaging effects referred to by the right hon. Gentleman. Many parts of manufacturing industry have adopted the policies in the Bill and are doing well.
  Mr. Phil Woolas: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Byers: I want to make some progress and to wind up as soon as possible.
  The third element of the Bill is the establishment of fair, minimum standards for all workers in the UK. The idea that only those in secure, full-time, permanent employment are entitled to employment rights and fair
  140
  treatment is outdated, short-sighted and bad for business. The Bill will ensure that part-time workers are protected against discrimination, comparable to full-time workers.
  The Bill will also ensure it is no longer possible for workers on fixed-term contracts to sign away their right to claim unfair dismissal. Workers will have the right to be accompanied at a disciplinary or grievance hearing by a colleague or by a union official of their choice. That provision will apply to all employers, whatever their size.
  The Bill will give us the necessary powers to bring legislation relating to employment agencies—the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike)—up to date. The rules have not changed for 22 years, despite an enormous rise in the number of people working for agencies. The industry has more than tripled in size since 1992 and it covers more than 1 million people. My Department sees many agency contracts that are simply unacceptable. For example, I have seen one contract that stated:
  "The agency accepts no responsibility for the health, safety and protection from injury to the temporary worker."
  That is unacceptable.
  Another agency in Sussex advertised for agricultural workers at £3 an hour, but then fined them £20 if they were late and £10 if they failed to hand in their time sheet on time. Workers ended up owing the agency money as a result of those policies—that will not happen under the Bill.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Byers: I want to draw my remarks to a close.
  We will consult in detail on employment agencies, setting out our proposals in considerable detail. In doing so, we will want to consult all interested parties. As my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Hope) has great involvement with employment agencies, I feel that I should give way to him on that point.
  Mr. Phil Hope: In my constituency, people who have worked, say, four days of a five-day contract and have been unable to work on the fifth day have received £1 an hour for the 35 hours that they have worked in the week. That is complete and utter exploitation. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we require legislation and regulations that mean that temporary workers can get the same basic rights to which all workers should be entitled?
  Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend makes an important point from personal experience in his constituency. Our provisions and approach to employment agencies will ensure that such exploitation simply will not be able to occur in future.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Byers: No. I want to draw my remarks to an end.
  The Bill is a package of measures that will create a new culture of partnership in the workplace, which is essential to Britain's future. There will be no turning the clock back; it is a forward-looking approach. No major burden will be placed on business. Rather, it is a balanced

  141
  package with a clear emphasis on partnership, not confrontation; fairness and trust, not insecurity and maltreatment; and rights coupled with responsibilities.
  Literally millions of people will benefit from the Bill: 135,000 mothers each year will benefit from our improved maternity provisions; 1 million people who work through employment agencies will no longer be exploited; 2.2 million people stand to benefit from the right to time off for domestic emergencies; more than 3 million people are potential beneficiaries from our parental leave proposals; and more than 6.5 million part-timers will be protected from discrimination.
  Those are the proposals of a Government acting for the many, not the few. The Bill will play a crucial part in building a modern Britain and a decent society. I commend it to the House.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I call the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), may I announce that Madam Speaker has ruled that there will be a 15-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches?
  4.48 pm
  Mr. John Redwood: I beg to move, To leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Employment Relations Bill because it will jeopardise employment, endanger the successful legacy of good industrial relations left by the last Government, impose further damaging costs on British business and risk industrial strikes and disruption, rather than leaving employers and employees free to settle relationships for themselves without outside interference."
  Mr. Geraint Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Redwood: I would be happy to accept the intervention, but, for the benefit of those who missed it, let me repeat that last point. Employers and employees should be left free to settle relationships for themselves without outside interference. That, of course, is our policy.
  Mr. Davies: Would the right hon. Gentleman be interested to know that, in Germany, parental leave is three years, strike rates are a sixth of the level of the past 10 years in Britain and productivity levels are 20 per cent. higher? Does he agree that the reason for introducing the measure is that the historically hire-fire attitude of British employers means that they do not invest in human capital and productivity, but—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is an intervention, not a speech.
  Mr. Redwood: I am all for companies doing the right thing by their employees, whether in Germany or Britain. What I would not want our country to do is to copy all the German laws and regulations, which have led to its having twice the level of unemployment that Britain has. That is exactly our case: we want to maximise employment opportunities for people, not to deny those least able to compete in the marketplace the opportunity of getting work.
  Mr. Fabricant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Joachim Milberg, now the chairman of BMW and
  142
  previously a director, said that one of the reasons for investing in the United Kingdom was that we did not have the very legislation that was causing so much trouble for companies such as BMW and Mercedes-Benz?
  Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend is right. It has not taken long under a Labour Government for such companies to start to change their view, which underwrites the Opposition's point.
  I was touched by the Secretary of State's concern for my political future. His mock concern was delightful, but I remind him that we have so far had three Labour Secretaries of State and only one shadow Secretary of State. I hope that we shall see the end of his secretaryship before I move on. I was interested that he was so worried about people working on part-time or temporary contracts. I thought that he must be describing Department of Trade and Industry Ministers, given how some have behaved in recent months. We trust that there will soon be something in place of strife there, but I do not think that this Bill will be the answer to all their prayers.
  The Secretary of State had one principal argument. Unfortunately, it is deeply flawed. He argues that, because British Aerospace and Asda afford high standards to their employees, so can everyone else. All we have to do is legislate and everyone will be as good an employer as my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman), the chairman of Asda. I do not think that all employers will rise to such standards without some of them shedding jobs and getting into grave financial difficulties.
  The Secretary of State's argument is like saying that, because one Labour Member can afford to lend £373,000 to the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), there should be legislation to make them all lend money to someone they like. Labour Members do not seem to be warming to that argument. It is simply not practical politics to legislate for every company to achieve the standards of the very best. If it only were, we would have done it long ago, and if it had succeeded, it would have been popular. If we force the pace too much and ask people to make commitments that they cannot afford, rather than helping employees, we shall hinder them. Instead of getting better opportunities and standards at work, we shall deny many people jobs at all.
  Mr. Nigel Beard: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that in respect of technology and science-based companies—whether involved with chemicals, electronics or pharmaceuticals—north America, Europe and Japan share one prevailing feature: a personnel policy that respects people, gives them security and promotes welfare, rather than giving it grudgingly? If ours is to be a high-technology, high-added value, high-wage country, it is vital that such a climate of employment should prevail. That is what the Bill seeks to achieve.
  Mr. Redwood: All hon. Members would like to live in a world where everyone had high-paid jobs, was treated with respect and had all the perquisites and advantages that the few currently enjoy. The issue is how to get there. We contend that, if we legislate for too high a standard too quickly, we shall destroy the jobs of those who do not enjoy those standards while offering nothing to the people who have the good jobs. We cannot immediately clean

  143
  out all the low-paid or bad jobs and replace them with high-tech jobs of the sort that I and the hon. Gentleman would like. In the meantime, we must think carefully about how we effect the transition to minimise the damage to families in such occupations.
  Mr. Hope: Will the right hon. Gentleman make clear which parts of the Bill his party would repeal if we ever again had the misfortune to have a Conservative Government?
  Mr. Redwood: We could not possibly say what we will repeal before the Government have worked out what the legislation will include. As the Government wish to change things, they are beholden to produce a better set of detailed proposals before we can give the detailed response that the hon. Gentleman would like.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way and sorry that the Secretary of State ran out of time before giving way to me, although I appreciate that he gave way many times during his speech. Clause 28, which deals with employment agencies, appears to give the Government the power that they used to want when they were in opposition: to be able to abolish employment agencies in any field they choose and to set conditions. Is that not the most pernicious part of the Bill in terms of attacking the flexibility of the British labour market?
  Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend is right to say that the clause will be extremely damaging if it is passed in its current form and construed in that way by the courts. I hope that my hon. Friend will speak on that subject, either today, if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or as a member of the Standing Committee, if he is invited and prepared to serve on that important Committee.
  I am delighted that the Secretary of State chose Asda as one of his two prime examples of companies offering good practice. Our case is that the way to achieve better employment standards is through the promotion and encouragement of successful businesses, rather than by means of blanket legislation, which industrial advice urges us not to pass at this juncture. The Government promise fairness at work, yet they deliver industrial collapse. Yesterday, we saw the worst output figures in manufacturing in 18 years—Labour Members try to look shocked at that news, but it is true. I do not know whether they read the newspapers or visit their constituencies: the factory closures and redundancies occur more often in Labour constituencies than in Conservative ones, because Labour Members still represent the industrial heartlands of this country.
  Day by day, we see job loss after job loss, factory closure after factory closure; we see Rover in crisis, the north-east in meltdown, and the textile industry suffering from retrenchment. We believe that having a job is more important than giving new rights to trade unions. All the Government do, as they watch manufacturing retreat, is make it dearer and dearer to make things in Britain.
  Mr. Richard Burden: The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned Rover, so will he take this opportunity to compliment the partnership at
  144
  work there, especially the partnership displayed in Germany and the role played by the head of the works council at Rover—a trade unionist—in helping to ensure not only ground-breaking agreements on working practices, but the preservation of jobs here in the United Kingdom? Is that not an example of partnership at work and the sort of thing that the Opposition simply do not understand?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is obvious that there will be more interventions, but they must be interventions and not short speeches.
  Mr. Redwood: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I welcome any successful partnership. What the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) describes is a fine testimony to the success of the labour relations legislation introduced by the Conservative Government. By developing such legislation during our period in office, we created industrial harmony in this country after years of strife during the 1970s. We urge the House not to disrupt that settlement or jeopardise such voluntary partnerships with the sort of intervention that the Bill would allow.
  British Steel recently warned:
  "The rate of job losses will accelerate given the extremely difficult trading situation.… it is imperative that the Government should do nothing to add to our costs and to undermine our competitiveness."
  That is exactly the point. A company selling expensive items, such as aeroplanes, in a market without much competition will find it far easier to generate the cash needed to make such payments to its work force than a company operating in a cut-throat business such as basic steel production. I ask the Secretary of State to accept not my urgings, but those of the leadership of British Steel, who are telling the Government not to legislate for higher costs at this juncture, because the company is fighting for survival in a highly competitive market.
  Mr. Bill Michie: Will the right hon. Gentleman quote the figure for job losses at British Steel under the Conservative Government, compared with the likely outcome now? I am worried about what is likely to happen now. I ask my question with feeling, because I was one of the 14,000-plus people in my area who were made redundant during the 1980s—thanks to the previous Tory Government. What is the difference between the figures and why has he suddenly become concerned?
  Mr. Redwood: I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman what the difference will be, because we do not yet know how many jobs will be lost at British Steel. We know that the management have already had to shed a lot of labour and that they are saying that they will have to shed a lot more. I shall not defend the loss of jobs during the 1980s: it was a tragedy then and it would be a tragedy today. However, the fact that jobs were lost during the 1980s does not make it right for the Labour party to enter office and say, "Good news—a lot more jobs will be lost. We have forgotten all the rhetoric we used in opposition, when we were angry about the jobs being lost under the Conservative Administration."
  Mr. Michie: The right hon. Gentleman is talking the industry down.
  Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman dares to say that I am trying to talk down industry. The British steel industry

  145
  is a great and world-beating industry, but it needs a break from the Government, who have made it very difficult to make things in Britain successfully and sell them at a profit.
  Mr. Woolas: In the light of what the right hon. Gentleman has just said, will he say sorry for what happened in the 1980s?
  Mr. Redwood: We have already done that in a previous debate. I want to move on to look at today's problems.
  Mr. Byers: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, as a member of the Government at the time, he did not disagree with the then Chancellor, who said that such high levels of unemployment were a price worth paying? Will he reflect on the costs that will be incurred as a result of the Bill? Will he confirm that the increase in the total wage bill as a result of these measures will amount to 0.01 per cent? I understand the difficulties that British Steel may be facing, but an increase of 0.01 per cent. of the total wage bill will not make the difference that the right hon. Gentleman seems to envisage.
  Mr. Redwood: The Secretary of State finally produced a compliance cost assessment—a report on costs—on Friday, giving us little time to study it. I believe that it came up with total costs of £59.7 million, which would be a small proportion of the wage bill. I assume that he has just calculated that as a percentage. Industry and the Opposition do not believe those figures for one moment. The Confederation of British Industry has costed just one item in the Bill at £200 million, and regards other items as likely to be much more costly than the forecast in the Secretary of State's favour.
  Mr. Byers: Which item?
  Mr. Redwood: The Secretary of State does not know which item. It is of course the costing for parental leave, which the CBI has already disputed and thinks is out by a very big margin. Every independent expert to whom I have put this in the two days following receipt of the Secretary of State's paper has told me the same thing: the numbers are a gross underestimate, and in sectors where margins have already been cut to the bone or where companies are in loss, the measure could be the straw that breaks the camel's back.
  Mr. Christopher Leslie: If the parental leave elements are too expensive, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, will he pledge to scrap them if he were ever to get back into government?
  Mr. Redwood: If the hon. Gentleman came to debates more regularly, he would know that the Opposition will set out in their manifesto which items they will repeal. We are expecting so many more bad bits of legislation that we are not going to draw up a shopping list yet. For the time being, we are opposing this measure because we believe that it is ill-conceived, and could damage the interests of those who want industry to succeed and jobs to be protected.
  Mr. Byers: The right hon. Gentleman says that the Opposition will not draw up a shopping list until they
  146
  have produced a manifesto, but they have already said on the record that they will abolish the working families tax credit, that they will scrap the new deal for the young and long-term unemployed, that they will repeal the working time directive and that they will not accept the social chapter. Is he not prepared to say yes or no to this measure because he is not prepared to come clean with the House and the British people? Is it because he is aware that the measures are popular and he will not accept the responsibility of being in opposition?
  Mr. Redwood: I fully accept the responsibility of being in opposition. I am opposing this measure and, with my colleagues, I have opposed all the other measures that the Secretary of State has mentioned. I and all my colleagues have said exactly the same throughout, as a responsible Opposition planning for government must. We will let the public know exactly what we think we can repeal in the next Parliament nearer the time, when we produce our manifesto. I am sure that, on reflection, the Secretary of State would agree that that is a perfectly sensible approach. We are not prevaricating; we have told the House and the public what we do not like, and have opposed those measures vigorously. In response to those that we accept, we have either allowed them to go through or allowed ourselves a little faint praise of them.
  Mr. Bercow: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a display of the most frightening ignorance by the Secretary of State that he apparently believes that one member state, of its own volition, can repeal the working time directive? What an absurdity!
  Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. I was afraid to point out the Secretary of State's embarrassment on that issue. When we debated the working time regulations, the Opposition made it clear that we had to meet our legal requirements from Brussels, but that we had a better way of implementing the measures which would have been less burdensome on British business.
  Mr. Geraint Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Redwood: Yes, once again I will give way.
  Mr. Davies: For the sake of clarification, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the Opposition will vigorously oppose the parental leave provisions in the Bill, but that they may, in the light of experience, come to accept them as a good idea? Is that his position?
  Mr. Redwood: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman listen to my speech, with which I should now like to make progress. I was explaining why we oppose the Bill, and as it develops in Committee—if we are lucky enough to be told in Committee what is planned—my hon. Friends will make clear our position on all the detailed measures.
  The Government have put industry into a vice and tightened the jaws until it starts to break. They have pushed up sterling, making our goods dearer abroad and imports cheaper. They have done so to such an extent that even Marks and Spencer, famed for buying British

  147
  products, has now been forced to buy more from overseas sources. That means that many more textile factories will close in the months ahead.
  The Government and the Bank of England pushed up interest rates, making it dearer to borrow money to expand and develop a business. We warned them that those interest rate rises were undesirable and would do damage. Even after the recent cuts in interest rates, our rates remain higher than those of our continental competitors. It is no good the Government saying that rates are low compared to those in the past. What matters is how our rates compare with those of our rivals in the present. Rates are low around the world; our rates are high relative to those of other countries.
  The Government have pushed up the costs of employing people. The working time regulations, the minimum wage and the Bill all make it dearer and more difficult to employ people. That means that fewer people will be employed than if the Government had left well alone. They are burying British industry under an avalanche of forms and good intentions. They are forcing many an entrepreneur to conclude that it is too difficult to employ an extra person or anyone at all. Their policies sound the death knell of smaller manufacturing businesses that have been squeezed too far, too fast by the Government.
  The Opposition want people to have good jobs which provide decent conditions of employment and pay good money. No sensible politician wants people to be poorly paid or badly treated. The Opposition have always accepted that some standards should be laid down in law, but those should be minimum standards providing basic protection. The best protection and opportunity that one can have is working for a decent employer. The best way of being able to work for a good employer is to have plenty of choice and freedom in the marketplace. Freedom, competition and policies that generate prosperity are the ways to higher standards. Too much law, too much regulation and too much Government interference are the best ways yet devised of sending business abroad and destroying jobs at home.
  Recently, Sony announced that it was transferring work from Germany to south Wales. That was good news for south Wales. I just hope that the Government read Sony's statement carefully and understood its impact. Sony is coming to Wales because it finds Germany's labour laws too restrictive and expensive. It would be a cruel irony if, having arrived, it found that the UK was about to match all those German laws and was worried about the cost.
  Mr. Martin O'Neill: Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that an international corporation such as Sony would make an important investment decision of a politically controversial nature without considering what the climate in the United Kingdom was likely to be? If Sony did consider that, surely its action is an endorsement of the policies of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
  Mr. Redwood: No, that is not at all true. Of course a company has to consider the facts and figures on offer, but our worry is that the Government will continue to tighten the vice until more good companies decide that somewhere else is better than the United Kingdom.
  148
  Have the Government finally understood how expensive and damaging to British business some European legislation will be? Do they now regret giving up the veto that entitled us to have lower unemployment than countries on the continent?
  Lorna Fitzsimons: Is my right hon. Friend—[Interruption.] I nearly got into hot water then. Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that the current exploitation, misery and blight on family life are a price worth paying?
  Mr. Redwood: I am saying the opposite. I am saying that I do not like the situation any more than the hon. Lady or her party—but we are debating how to get rid of it, and to ensure that, during the transitional period, jobs are not lost and then replaced with nothing. That would not help the people who have the jobs that the hon. Lady and I would rather not have to do ourselves.
  Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Let us suppose that someone who works for a bad employer says to that employer, "Please do something about my working conditions. I cannot stand them." If the employer says, "I am not interested. I will do nothing about it," what should that worker do? Should he just accept the situation?
  Mr. Redwood: If there is choice in the marketplace, the best answer is for him to go and work for a better employer. That is what we would like to happen.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: It is a dream world.
  Mr. Redwood: No, it is not. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman will restrain himself, I shall answer his point, and then take a second intervention from him. My generosity in that regard is well known.
  The hon. Gentleman should recognise that putting a stronger law into the hands of the employee does not always protect him against the really bad employer. That is the problem. The employee must still have recourse to unions, lawyers and the rest. He may not win; he may be victimised. He may end up in deeper trouble because he has tried to use the very protections that have been enshrined in legislation. That is one of my worries.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: What if the employer is still not prepared to take any action, and there is no choice in the marketplace—no other work in the area? In my constituency, unemployment is running at 8 per cent. What does the employee do if he cannot change his employment?
  Mr. Redwood: Like the hon. Gentleman, I have considerable sympathy for the employee, but I do not think that the Bill would necessarily help him. If he really has such a bad employer, and there is no choice in the area—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) wants a reply from the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), he must hear that reply.
  Mr. Redwood: Thank you for protecting my right of reply, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

  149
  My fear is that, even with this legislation, the employee of the bad employer would not be able to win in the circumstances described by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). I do not have an answer to all those problems; nor does the hon. Gentleman. I am trying to demonstrate that the Bill will not banish all bad employers—if only it would. That is a promise that the Secretary of State would not dare to make at the Dispatch Box. He is not going to stand up and say that his Bill will banish all bad employers, because he knows that he cannot make such a claim. That is exactly our case: the law is a clumsy instrument, and not an easy instrument for those with little money who are being exploited by bad employers.
  Mr. Ian Stewart: You do not understand.
  Mr. Redwood: How dare Labour Members say that I do not understand. I understand the plight of such people perfectly well, and I care about it every bit as much as Labour Members. It is about time that they recognised that.
  Mr. Stewart: Has the right hon. Gentleman ever stood in front of an employer and asked for time off to deal with an important family problem, and then been told "No"? Does he understand the alienation and helplessness experienced by an employee in that position? Has he ever understood it?
  Mr. Redwood: I quite understand how such things can happen—and yes, on occasions in the past I have wanted time off and an employer has been less than keen to grant it. Let me ask the hon. Gentleman to consider the plight of the middle manager. Money is not a huge problem for him, as he has a reasonable salary. He would like a bit of time off to help with the baby; but his employer lets it be known, unofficially and subtly, that if he takes time off, his chances of promotion and a decent salary increase will be wrecked. Nothing can be proved. The employee would be very unwise to go to law, because that would wreck his relationship with his senior manager.
  What kind of right is the hon. Gentleman offering that middle manager when he says that he can take unpaid parental leave at such a crucial time? He has no real choice. All that the Bill will do is tear him apart: his wife will be saying, "Please come home and help me," while his employer, in subtle, legally protected language, will be saying, "Just you dare." What does the middle manager do? He undergoes a great deal of mental strife in working out whether he should be loyal to his employer and his job, or loyal to his wife.
  Mr. David Watts: Is not the right hon. Gentleman advocating the case for employees to be allowed to join a trade union? The answer to his question is that a middle manager who had that problem could take the matter up with his trade union and be represented properly.
  Mr. Redwood: I am all for people belonging to trade unions if they wish, but I am not in favour of forcing them to become members, or making them use the trade union to represent them when they wish to represent themselves. Some people prefer to negotiate for themselves, and some people make a good job of negotiating for themselves.
  150
  The case of Rover has been mentioned in the debate. Unfortunately, the measures in the Bill will make the position worse. Three or four years ago, BMW thought Rover a good investment and Britain the best place to make cars in the whole of Europe. Now it is all red ink, and BMW is thinking of pulling out or winding down its operations. It is finding that it is not easy now to compete from a British base. BMW finds that the present combination of exchange rates, interest rates and industrial costs prices it out of the market and plummets it into losses.
  As a result of the Government's policy, we do not know whether there will be a Rover 35 to replace the 200 and 400 and, if so, whether it will be built in Britain. The Secretary of State will have to agree that nothing in the Bill will make it easier to persuade BMW-Rover to stay in Britain and expand.
  Mr. Burden rose—
  Mr. Redwood: There is nothing in the Bill that BMW is asking for as it bargains over the future of Longbridge and all those British jobs. The Government take pleasure—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is clear that the right hon. Gentleman is not going to give way, so the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) should not be standing.
  Mr. Redwood: The Government take pleasure in first blaming the management when they meet the employees, then blaming the workers when they meet the management. It never seems to occur to them that they must take some of the blame.
  Mr. Burden: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. What is there in the Bill that would increase costs for BMW? What conditions does the Bill impose on BMW that do not already exist in agreements with Rover Group?
  Mr. Redwood: Parental leave.
  Ms Harriet Harman: A few moments ago, the right hon. Gentleman appeared to be arguing against any rights for employees at work, on the basis that they were bad for employees. I presume that he is in favour of the right of a woman to have time off when her child is born. Is he not in favour of the right of the father to have time off when the child is born? Increasingly, fathers want to recognise their parental responsibility, and the Bill gives them, for the first time, a right in law to time off. Is the right hon. Gentleman against fathers having a right in law to time off when their new baby is born?
  Mr. Redwood: The right hon. Lady obviously did not listen to my remarks. I said that the Opposition accept basic standards at work in legislation. We left many of those standards in place when we were removed from office. I would be delighted if rights such as she describes could be negotiated. My worry is that, if we legislate too far, too fast, we will create more stresses for people in the workplace and give a real right only to those with money,

  151
  who have the freedom that money can buy, rather than to those who genuinely need the salary and the job, which are at risk in the negotiation.
  Mr. Brady: Labour Members have suggested several worthy cases in which employees might seek time off for domestic incidents. One of the main concerns is the gold-plating of the directive in the Bill. As it is presently drafted, it is not clear whether an employee could seek time off because his cat was poorly or because the washing machine was leaking. That is not in the Bill. How are businesses to know what costs they will face?
  Mr. Redwood: Echoing my hon. Friend, the CBI is extremely worried about the phrase "domestic incidents". What does that mean? It is rather different from a family emergency, and it is in the Bill. That is exactly the sort of issue that will have to be probed in Committee before we can say whether it is a good idea or a reasonable idea. The vagueness of the provisions is alerting industry to the potential damage that they can do. That naturally makes us reluctant to give a clear answer on the detail, as the Government themselves are so befuddled about the detail.
  Mr. John Townend: We hear a lot from the Government about the rights of employees. Small and medium-sized businesses will have the greatest difficulty. How is a firm expected to operate if its one representative wants to go off on a three-month trek with his six-year-old child? Is the firm expected to make no sales for three months?
  Mr. Redwood: A lot of businesses have written to or e-mailed me on that very point, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for introducing it at this juncture.
  What is there in the Bill to reassure the cashmere workers of Scotland, who face the sack thanks to the Government's mishandling of trade relations with the United States through their friends in Brussels?
  Mr. Byers: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way yet again. He made some comments about the position at Longbridge and Rover which need to be clarified. I am very concerned that BMW, on reading his comments, will look critically at the position at Longbridge, and I am sure that that was not his intention. The Government are doing all they can to secure employment at Longbridge. We are making the strongest possible representations to BMW to secure that.
  There is nothing in the Bill that weakens the Longbridge case and I hope that, on reflection, the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw those comments, which will be misinterpreted, which will put 14,000 jobs at Longbridge at risk and which run the risk of creating the meltdown in manufacturing in the west midlands about which he pleads such concern.
  Mr. Redwood: I will accept that as an offer from the Secretary of State that he will ensure that the Bill is amended so that nothing in it causes extra costs to BMW and Longbridge. On that basis, I happily consent to say that the Bill must not cause any damage, and I accept his word that he will make sure that it will not. If he checks
  152
  my remarks in Hansard tomorrow, he will see that my main worries about the current trading position of BMW-Rover are based on exchange rates, interest rates and general costs imposed by the Government.
  I urge the Secretary of State to look again at those issues. If he could offer more hope on them to BMW-Rover, that would greatly strengthen the case that he and I both want to put to the management because we want that car production in this country—we want that commitment—and we respect what the management and the work force have been doing in Britain. However, I hope that he will not ignore the plight of the cashmere workers, which I shall go on to discuss.
  It takes a special kind of talent to end up with jobs in the cashmere industry at risk because of a dispute about bananas. Why have the Government not made Brussels see sense on that? How have they got themselves into such a damaging row with friends and trading partners across the Atlantic, who are so important to many jobs here at home? How much fairness at work will there be for workers in that industry if they lose their jobs as a result of that trade dispute?
  Perhaps the new Secretary of State believes, along with the right hon. Member for Hartlepool, that basic industry is doomed. They clearly believe that old industry has no place in new Labour's Britain. They want us all toiling by the intemet and pager, rather than in the foundry and on the assembly line. They seem to think that the media business is the highest calling and politics the second highest. They advise the aspiring to become apprentice spin doctors, and they counsel against the mills and foundries. They cannot even create fairness at work in the new industries.
  Mr. O'Neill: There are about 500 cashmere workers in my constituency, who spin the yarn at Todd and Duncan in Kinross. The work force are predominantly female. The workers have trade union rights and a number of the measures enshrined in the Bill apply, and they certainly do not want the choice of abuse of Brussels or decent working conditions. They want a decent settlement and good working conditions, and they do not want the Opposition dividing the Government on their intention to achieve both.
  Mr. Redwood: I trust that the hon. Gentleman agrees that the Secretary of State should get on and solve that trade dispute before it spirals out of control. The Secretary of State must know that a lot of jobs are at risk in that industry because of the retaliatory action taken by the United States of America in response to the attitude of the Government and the Brussels government towards these trading matters.
  I am not expressing a view on that dispute; I am saying that it should not have got out of control in this way. It reflects badly on the Government's influence in Brussels, and on the diplomacy of the Government and the European government, that those jobs in Scotland, which should not be at risk and are totally unrelated to the issue of bananas, are at risk.
  We are threatened in the case—[Interruption.] Labour Members should not laugh about that matter. The possible job losses are serious and, for those in the banana trade, the issue of bananas is serious as well.
  The Government are now threatening to damage electronic commerce. Having decided to highlight the industry's success, they cannot resist the urge to meddle.

  153
  They are consulting businesses to see what they should put in their legislation. It is another Labour example of a Bill in search of a policy. The Secretary of State is a trumpet player in search of some sheet music to play. It never occurs to him that electronic commerce may be growing so quickly because Governments have not yet logged on hundreds of new regulations for that industry.
  Have the Government appointed either the digital envoy or the e-envoy that we were promised by the Secretary of State's predecessor? What mischief do they have in mind, or will the Secretary of State cancel two jobs that I should like to see cancelled? I would congratulate him if he were to announce that the digital envoy and the e-envoy are no more.
  At least the new Secretary of State has been forced to remove the words "fairness at work" from his legislation. He would have broken trade description law if he had been allowed to retain that phrase. How much fairness is there in the proposal that a father should be allowed unpaid paternity leave? I dare say that a Labour millionaire with an offshore trust would welcome that measure, but if a father is struggling to pay a mortgage on £300 or £400 a week and faces the many bills that a new baby undoubtedly brings, the last thing he can afford is a period of unpaid leave. How can he buy the pushchair and the other items that are needed when the baby arrives?
  Mr. Bill Etherington: Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that it should be paid leave? Would that not be a burden on industry?
  Mr. Redwood: That is a conundrum for the Government. I am sure that providing paid leave would be a popular measure among Labour Members. The Opposition have no such proposals, but if the hon. Gentleman thinks that it can be afforded, I am sure many fathers would be eternally grateful. Have the Government thought about the extra pressure that this measure will place on better-paid managers, as I described in answer to an earlier intervention?
  The worst part of the legislation is the section on trade union recognition. The Opposition and business groups have fought against the proposals. We pointed out that a minority could hold a ballot that attracted a minority of the votes and then insist on recognition for all. Together with the Confederation of British Industry, the Institute of Directors and other business groups, we have forced the Government at least to make the concession that 40 per cent. of the work force will be required to vote for such a proposal.
  Meanwhile, Labour's policies are already promoting strikes. On Sunday night, another 48-hour tube strike begins. That is a sign of things to come under this legislation. We still want to know why it does not require a majority of the work force to seek recognition of a union.
  Mr. John Healey: What view does the right hon. Gentleman take of the survey produced by the Institute of Management last autumn, which showed that 54 per cent. of British managers agreed that, if a majority of employees wanted union recognition, that should be allowed and the employer should be obliged by law to
  154
  negotiate with the union? Before the right hon. Gentleman dismisses that survey, does he agree that his party would kill for that level of support?
  Mr. Redwood: The business community strongly supports the line that we are taking on this legislation, as my hon. Friends and I will show in this debate. I have been passed a report of an interesting survey, which shows that 89 per cent. of all employers surveyed believe that this new law will lead to abuse of rights and difficulties for their firms. That is a convincing poll.
  We strongly object to the idea that a minority can insist on the majority of the work force, regardless of their views, being represented by a union. We are worried that that will send us back to the bad old days and the bad old ways of the '60s and '70s. This is a '60s and '70s sort of Government. The Prime Minister and his cronies seem to think that rock groups, Carnaby street and flower power are new and cool. They look like a bunch of middle-aged trendies trying to ignore their receding hairlines and bulging waistlines, forcing the whole country into their nostalgia for lost moments, misspent youths or youths that were not misspent enough. That is exactly what their trade union reforms look like. They want to go back to the mistakes of the '70s rather than forward to a freer and more flexible world of the next century.
  The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State may wish to defy the logic chips of the electronic age. They may want to stand Canute-like against the tides of global capital and new technology, defying the elements, but they must learn that modern business is all about individual contracts, freedom of expression and flexible working practices. It is far too fast moving and diverse to be captured in legislation with one size to fit all.
  The Government say that they want partnership in the workplace, yet they are legislating to set employees and employers against each other. Only the lawyers will win. Time off for a family emergency is a good idea, and most employers offer it already. Once it is enshrined in law, however, we shall have to ask what is a family emergency or a domestic incident. No reasonable employer will quibble over time off when a loved one dies or a child is seriously ill, but is a blocked drain or a broken window a domestic incident, and what if England are playing at home that day? Will an employer then have to sue if an employee digs in for his rights? Is that the way to promote partnership and harmony in the workplace? Surely it is better to leave the law out of it, and to hope that common sense and good negotiations between employers and employees will win through, as they do in so many companies and, as the Secretary of State has conceded, as they do in companies led by Conservative Members.
  It is especially rich of the Government to preach about fairness at work when they live under the shadow of Maxwell. How much fairness at work was there for Maxwell's less well-paid employees? How much fairness was there for the Mirror Group workers whose pension funds were pillaged? When will the Secretary of State finish the investigation, publish the report and do something about it? Is he the cover-up kid or will he tell us how he will judge the unfairness at work perpetrated by the Maxwell companies?
  Mrs. Maria Fyfe: What does the right hon. Gentleman have to say about the case of

  155
  LSG Skychefs? After a one-day strike by the work force, the management have locked them out and sacked them, and refuse to go to ACAS, although the union acted totally within the existing Conservative legislation. What does the right hon. Gentleman have to say about the gross unfairness to those employees?
  Mr. Redwood: I would need to hear both sides of the case and I should be happy to do so if the hon. Lady thought that I could help her with her problem. Of course I would want to reach a fair and sensible judgment based on hearing both sides of the case. I know from my experience of industrial relations that it is necessary to hear both sides before reaching a judgment.
  Mr. Michael Clapham: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, particularly in relation to pension schemes. Given what he has just said about Maxwell, will he apologise for the fact that the Tory Administration raided the Bus Employees Superannuation Trust?
  Mr. Redwood: I want answers on the Maxwell issues, which relate to the present Government and to Ministers. The hon. Gentleman is doing a very bad cover-up job when he tries to protect—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is not using this opportunity to debate a different matter. We are discussing the Second Reading of a Bill.
  Mr. Redwood: I thought that we were debating fairness at work, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I accept your judgment that I was beginning to stray off the exact subject of the Bill.
  About 95 per cent. of British businesses are relatively small and the Government are damaging them day by day, week by week and month by month. They are burying them under European red tape, new Labour red tape and old Labour red tape. They want to be seen as business friendly, but they do not understand business at all.
  I hope that the Secretary of State will listen to the voices of business, even if he does not listen to the Opposition. The British Chambers of Commerce says:
  "We fear it is becoming prohibitively expensive and …difficult for smaller firms to employ more staff."
  The Federation of Small Businesses tells us:
  "It is too costly and too risky to employ staff'.
  The Forum of Private Business says that the measures will
  "be disastrous for the nation's 98 per cent. of small firms".
  The Engineering Employers Federation says that the legislation
  "may make industrial action more common".
  The Chemical Industries Association says:
  "This is not a Bill which is welcomed by the industry".
  Individual companies have even worse fears. One employer wrote:
  "I will be reluctant to employ female secretaries who will require maternity leave …short term contracts will be the norm".
  156
  Another says:
  "I also worry that creeping unionisation will return us to the miserable era of industrial strife".
  A third company e-mailed us to say:
  "It is no coincidence that France finds it difficult to attract new businesses from abroad because of her ludicrous employment costs. The Government is in danger of removing our competitive advantage."
  A fourth tells us:
  "Our accounts department has spent nearly a full week with seven people analysing the Working Time Directive information. More time, more costs"
  will result from the legislation.
  The Government have been misleading us by saying that the proposals will cost only £59.7 million a year and that no jobs will be at risk. They should listen to the voices of British industry and British business before it is too late. They are presiding over an industrial collapse. The legislation certainly will not help and may hinder. I urge the Government to think again before many more factories close and many more of their constituents are made redundant.
  5.35 pm
  Mr. Martin O'Neill: I support the Bill. Today—for the first time in almost 20 years as an hon. Member—I am able to say that I support a Government's employment legislation. The previous Conservative Government introduced and passed a succession of Bills and measures that have done great harm to British industrial relations and contributed to the continual and persistent erosion of workers' rights.
  I should first pay credit to my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry—which I do without any disrespect to the Secretary of State—who has lived for many months with the issue of employment relations. We should pay tribute to his Herculean efforts in securing a genuine consensus for the Bill. I realise that there are fringe organizations—such as the Institute of Directors and the official Opposition—that would like to halt the Bill's progress. Nevertheless, on a raft of issues, we can see in the United Kingdom the emergence of a genuine social partnership.
  Longer maternity leave will be introduced in what has come to be known as the "family-friendly" sphere. One of the ironies in the debate is that the "new" Conservative party does not support improved maternity leave—such as was introduced, in 1953, by a Conservative Government, who were building on the foundations of the Attlee Government's first provisions.
  The official Opposition—that mean-minded lot—cannot appreciate why there is a case for improving women workers' rights. They say that improving those rights either would cost too much or is being proposed at the wrong time. Exactly the same arguments were advanced 25 years ago, when Barbara Castle piloted through equal pay legislation. We were told that that legislation could not be afforded and would cause the end of western civilisation as we know it. It is now part of the system.
  Mr. Ian Stewart: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. O'Neill: No; my speech must be very brief. I have only 12 minutes to speak, and should deal also with other subjects.

  157
  There is certainly a case for longer maternity leave and for wider entitlement to it. There is a case also for parental leave. At a time of stress in a family, when a father or mother has to leave work to look after a child, the last thing that he or she wants is a confrontation with an employer. Preventing the need for such confrontation is precisely why we have to enshrine provisions in a legislative framework.
  We should certainly extend the provisions to cover part-time workers. In dealing with family stresses, because of the changing employment patterns in our labour market, part-time workers are increasingly the most vulnerable. It is right that we should recognise those changes and deal with them, as that would end much of the heat and anxiety felt by that section of the labour force—who, we have to admit, are predominantly female—who are most affected by the changes.
  Quite understandably, when Labour Members are talking about employment rights, they tend to mean trade unions. Significantly, the Bill recognises that many workers in our labour market are not currently in trade unions and may long be outwith the scope of unions. It is therefore essential that those who are vulnerable should have the right to be accompanied by a nominated person in hearings. The provision will give those individuals confidence and much-needed assistance.
  Raising the compensation limit is another of the Bill's important provisions. The Select Committee on Trade and Industry held hearings on fairness at work, in which it became quite clear from the most authoritative source—the employment law Bar—that, in about 80 per cent. of cases, the sums involved did not exceed £50,000, which is the sum envisaged by the Government. I am not unduly concerned about that sum. If City fat-cats can negotiate higher severance payments, it will be up to them to do so. For disadvantaged people and those on low wages, £50,000 is probably more than two years' pay. That provision and the index linking are very sound and will benefit everyone.
  For many Labour Members, the significance of trade union membership—
  Mr. Townend: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has any experience of business, but I have a lot of experience of running small businesses. Does he accept that many small firms are on a knife edge and could be put out of business if they were faced with an award of £50,000? That would cause others to lose their jobs.
  Mr. O'Neill: That could happen. That is why it would be sensible to give due thought to the consequences before dismissing someone unfairly. The possibility of a fine of £50,000 should make any sensible employer stop and reflect. The measure will not just compensate workers; it will deter employers from irresponsible and unfair behaviour.
  If work forces are to have the protection of trade unions, proper recognition procedures are essential. I welcome the automatic 50 per cent. Rule—route 1. That is a major step forward, which will become one of the most important parts of the Bill. I have some misgivings about the requirement for 40 per cent. of the total work force to support recognition in a ballot. However, a ballot can be triggered if 10 per cent. of a work force are union
  158
  members. That may well give the work force and the unions the opportunity to organise themselves and secure a level of membership that is sufficient to provide a credible negotiated arrangement.
  We shall have to wait and see what the full role of the Central Arbitration Committee will be. The Government have said that they will review how it works. That pragmatic approach to some of the concerns that have been expressed on that aspect of recognition and the role of the CAC is welcome.
  I am not sure that I am quite as enthusiastic about the review of operations on the exclusion of firms with fewer than 21 employees. I have been associated with the print industry unions since I came to the House in 1979. Up to 90 per cent. of workers in the print industry work for small employers. I should hate to think that a system of industrial relations would be destroyed as a consequence of a decision of a Labour Government. I am cautious in welcoming what should not be required. If there is to be a limit of 21, due attention will have to be given to special circumstances.
  The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Ian McCartney): I thank my hon. Friend for his opening remarks. I should like to put his mind at rest. The recognition agreement covering small companies in the print industry is negotiated on a national basis, not by individual companies. I recently attended a conference in Solihull of print industry employers with joint sponsorship by the trade unions which considered how to move forward in improving partnership in the industry, based on the Government's proposals for fairness at work.
  Mr. O'Neill: I hear what my hon. Friend says and I am aware of those issues. However, there are still misgivings and concerns in the print industry that not all the employers will sign up to such agreements. We shall have to see. I take some comfort—but not a great deal—from my hon. Friend's assurance that the issue will be subject to a review.
  Non-unionised work places are less safe, less happy and more dangerous than unionised workplaces. We want to ensure that a positive case for trade unionism is put across. The proposals in the Bill represent a major shift to restore the balance between employers and employees. It provides the first opportunity in nearly a generation to end the sullen resentment and fear that scarred industrial relations in the Tory years. In this settlement, the trade union movement has not got everything that it wants, and the CBI's welcome is cautious—so Ministers must have got it about right. They have not made everybody unhappy, but, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made clear, this will not be the first in a series of Bills—it is a genuine once-and-for-all attempt.
  The courageous and bold nature of the move indicates what the Government believe to be necessary and that they are being up-front and frank. They have made it clear that there will not be another slice of salami every two years, and that there will not be periods of industrial uncertainty and difficulty as we had under the Tory Government, who brought out different legislation every two years.
  Mr. Tim Boswell: I am grateful to the Chairman of the Trade and Industry Committee for giving

  159
  way. Will he concede that, although Ministers' assurances about no new legislation may be true, the follow-up in terms of regulations and the clarification of the all-important details will take a good deal of time, and may well occupy our attention right through the Parliament?
  Mr. O'Neill: It is essential that measures on a complex issue such as industrial relations are put in a regulatory form. That enables the House to look at the matter issue by issue, and it can provide a proper degree of consensus. Such an approach can enable the House to change the proposals—or enable the Government to table amendments—if it is clear that it is not right.
  The House will have an opportunity in Standing Committee to explore every conceivable form of regulation proposed by the Bill. [Interruption.] Because of his lack of experience in opposition, the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) has not tackled the job of being on a Standing Committee and tabling the probing amendments that lie at the heart of the role of a sensible Opposition. If the Opposition cannot do that, they should not hide behind complaints. I may be stoking the fires for my hon. Friend the Minister of State, but, if the Opposition have concerns, they should express them not in this debate, but in Standing Committee. That is where sensible consideration should be given.
  This bold and courageous Bill has within it the means of securing a consensus across industry and society. We must recognise that the Bill is based on a premise that the Labour party wants to see people employed in decent work and with good wages on the basis of fairness for all. I welcome the Bill on that basis.
  5.48 pm
  Mr. David Chidgey: In response to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), let me state for the record that the Liberal Democrats have long argued for best practice in the workplace, including family-friendly policies. We do not oppose those concepts and principles. If we criticise the Bill tonight and in Committee, it is not because we are against the principles or the policies; it is because we see shortcomings and concerns, and we have the right and the duty as Opposition Members to raise them. Let it not be said that the Liberal Democrats are against fair and modern practices in the workplace.
  There are three main strands to the Bill, which I suggest are the individual rights of the worker, the collective rights of the worker and the family-friendly practices which will soon become law. I shall deal with each in turn. However, there is a fourth strand which, in spite of their claims to the contrary, the Government appear to have overlooked; the Bill is somewhat one-eyed in this respect. The fourth strand concerns the rights, or expectations, of the employer. If the Government believe in partnership in the workplace, they must consider that aspect. Without that fourth strand being as strong, sinuous and flexible as the others, the cord supporting employment opportunity will be prone to snap. Governments cannot legislate to make firms stay in business, but they can create legislation that drives firms out of business, and the Bill is in some danger of doing that.
  160
  There is no question but that the most important assets in the workplace are the skill and application of the work force. Employers who underestimate the value of their human capital do so at their cost. A healthy, committed and loyal work force is absolutely essential. There are plenty of examples of best practice—the Secretary of State cited a few—in which firms make an extra investment to provide good working conditions and gain a return through the greater commitment of their workers.
  The Bill has good intentions, but, instead of embedding best practice in the workplace, it drifts off into a maze of unspecified regulations which may be introduced as the Secretary of State decides. Those regulations seem to be supposed to cover all the facets of human nature and all the best and—dare I say it?—the worst attributes of the human condition. As if to add insult to the injury to the House, the regulations will be put on the statute book through secondary legislation, at the whim of the Secretary of State.
  The hon. Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill) went on at some length about the opportunity for us to debate the regulations, but there will be no such opportunity. Statutory instruments will come along well after the Bill has gone through the due process.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: The hon. Gentleman will know that, when we tackle the Minister in Committee, he will say that the Government are holding consultations; he will not talk about what will be in the regulations.
  Mr. Chidgey: I had rather hoped that, at this stage in the Parliament, the Minister would have enough confidence in the House to allow us to debate the issues here, rather than pushing us to one side.
  Mr. Ian McCartney: Let me put the hon. Gentleman's mind at rest. When the Government introduce regulatory proposals, we do so by debate in the House and by resolution, with a vote.
  Mr. Chidgey: I am afraid that we will have to disagree, because only the other week the working time regulations arrived on my desk, and I do not recall any debate on the detail. That is the problem. The Minister looks puzzled. I hope that he will allow us to consider the proposed regulations in detail in Committee. If that is his commitment, I am reassured, but the point still has to be made.
  Mr. Hancock: I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that the Minister was especially vague when he talked about the protection that people who are working on contracts through agencies will get. He did not spell out to those 1 million people what the changes would be, how they would be implemented and what benefits they would get. Surely the Minister should come clean and give them at least some indication of what they can expect.
  Mr. Chidgey: I agree.
  The Bill is in danger of becoming a bureaucrat's charter, starting an avalanche of legislation which will make a lot of work for civil servants and a lot of money for lawyers. I am also worried that it could create mischief in the workplace, which is the last thing that such legislation should do.

  161
  The Government claim that they support business and believe in partnership in the workplace—I know that the Minister sincerely believes in that—but the Secretary of State is on record as saying that he believes that wealth creation is more important than wealth distribution, which I do not go along with.
  Only last week, the Prime Minister told business leaders in Bristol:
  "There has been a shift in the debate in Europe. Things like the working time directive are things that were agreed a long way before."
  Mark the Prime Minister's words. He went on:
  "We can either say that the best way of job protection is more and more regulation to prevent people losing their jobs. But the danger is"—
  his grammar, not mine—
  "that you end up just clogging up the system so it cannot work properly."
  Mr. Alan Johnson: I have heard the hon. Gentleman's criticisms of the Bill. Which parts of it would he remove if the Liberal Democrats had the opportunity?
  Mr. Chidgey: If the intentions of the Bill were clear, I could say where I disagree with it. I have already said very clearly that we wholeheartedly endorse the principle behind it, but we cannot fathom how it will work, and we have a duty in Parliament to do that.
  There is an urgent need to put the Bill's aspirations into perspective and concentrate on the worthy, even essential, goal of shifting employment culture to embrace best practice, with the emphasis on example backed up by clear, straightforward, transparent regulations. I agree with the Secretary of State's examples of best practice, and I could cite many other instances of multinational firms recognising the worth of their staff and of good employment practices. They know that employees' working environment, participation in decision making, access to training, and opportunities to balance work, leisure and community activities are more important, in the mechanics of the workplace, than many of the elements set out in the Bill.
  The Bill, with its good intentions, sets a context, but it cannot create a future. It is better in rhetoric than in reality, especially in the way in which it encourages women and parents in employment. It is fussy, nannyish and over-prescriptive, but it is not the calamity that Conservative Members claim. There will be no huge leap in overall employment costs. Best practice shows that the rewards for the employer of maintaining good employment conditions far outstrip any costs. The competitiveness of our industry and commerce in Europe will not plummet overnight.
  Mr. Ian Davidson: Are the Liberals in favour of the 40 per cent. rule and the exemption of firms with 20 or fewer employees?
  Mr. Chidgey: If the hon. Gentleman will be patient, I hope that I will get to that before too long.
  A cursory examination of employment regulations throughout Europe makes the point clear. For example, if employers in Belgium want to make someone redundant, they have to pay one to three months' salary per year for the first five years of service, and one month per year
  162
  after that. The maximum works out at about four years' salary. In Germany, workers who have served 15 years and are over 50 are entitled to a minimum of 15 months' gross salary. In Italy, managers with more than 10 years' service are entitled to a year's salary.
  The costs of redundancy and dismissal in the UK are only a fraction of those in continental Europe, and the same goes for employment costs in general, so I do not want to hear any nonsense about the Bill driving firms out of business. That is not the issue.
  It has long been our view that individuals should have the right to join or not to join a trade union and that no one should be discriminated against for being in or for not being in a union. The Bill introduces those individual rights, which we welcome. It also introduces measures to protect workers against discrimination by omission, but it fails—a major omission in itself—to deal with the right not to be discriminated against on grounds of age or sexual orientation.
  Recent surveys show that a third of men over 50 are unemployed and that one in two of those are expected never to be in full-time employment again. There can be no doubt that those shocking figures are strongly linked to the culture of agism. There cannot be a Member of Parliament who has not been contacted by constituents who are bitterly frustrated at their failure to get employment because of their age. Highly qualified teachers in my constituency, with years of experience, cannot find work because they are passed over in favour of younger, cheaper graduates.
  The Bill also fails to address discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation. Many hon. Members will recall the rather famous example of a lesbian couple in Eastleigh who were denied the same benefits from their employer that other employees received. South West Trains gives travel passes to employees and their partners, regardless of whether they are married, provided that the relationship is heterosexual. If the relationship is homosexual, no matter how long established, travel benefits are denied. The Bill gives the Government the opportunity to tackle discrimination on grounds of age and sexual orientation. So far, they have failed to grasp that opportunity. I hope that they will rectify that.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) pointed out, the Bill also fails to make clear the degree to which the Government intend to extend employment rights to part-time and contract workers. We have long argued that part-time workers should enjoy the same rights as full-time workers, on a pro rata basis. That should be clearly stated in the Bill, which provides instead that the matter will be addressed only if and when the Secretary of State decides to make regulations.
  I am pleased that the Bill deals with updating compensation rates for unfair dismissal and that it removes that anomaly once and for all. However, I should still like to see the details of the likely costs of that provision, as they would go a long way towards reassuring business. Figures from the Library show that, under the existing regime, the median settlement for unfair dismissal is just over £3,000. I assume that the Government have assessed the rise in settlements under the Bill, and I have asked the Minister for an estimate. So far, however, he has not replied.
  I turn now to the question of collective rights in the workplace, which centres around trade union recognition. As the hon. Member for Ochil mentioned,

  163
  the Government's protracted negotiations with the TUC and the CBI have been well trailed. Both organisations are still grumbling, so it is likely that a reasonable balance has been struck; more often than not, if both parties in contract negotiations end up slightly unhappy, it suggests that the deal is a good one.
  However, there are dangers in relying too much on a rigid formula. The Government should heed the advice of ACAS. After its work some years ago on trade union recognition claims, ACAS came to the view that, although a ballot of worker preferences is a significant indicator, it cannot provide the overall verdict.
  The Bill provides for extending the powers of ACAS, but the Government should take note of that organisation's concerns. ACAS is rightly anxious to preserve its role as an independent, tripartite body, made up of the CBI, the TUC and independent members. The Bill must not weaken that position.
  The Bill will make it illegal to sack a worker for going on strike, and that is welcome. Any individual should have the right to withdraw labour as part of the due process in industrial action. Yet again, however, the Government have failed to provide any information on the impact of the provision.
  I have asked the Minister many questions about the impact of the Bill, and I am conscious of the fact that other hon. Members want to contribute to the debate. However, the Minister knows that I am still waiting for the answers. I hope that, in due course, I will find out why the Government decided that eight weeks should be the cut-off point before an industrial action causes dismissal to be triggered. However, I shall conclude by dealing with the issues of maternity leave and parental leave.
  No one should question the right to take maternity leave. I certainly do not, but I wonder why the Government have not taken the opportunity to simplify the rules and unify the provisions that appear in several Acts of Parliament in one simple, straightforward Act. That would make personnel officers' jobs one heck of a lot easier.
  The Bill introduces the right to parental leave, which again is to be welcomed. Good employers know that, if they recognise the demands of family life, their employees will suffer less stress and are less likely to take sick leave. Good working conditions bring greater commitment, greater loyalty and lower staff turnover.
  The principle is fine, but what about the practice? What degree of flexibility will be permitted? How much notice will be required? The Bill does not answer those questions. Such details are essential, but they are to be introduced by the Minister at a later date through regulation.
  The Government claim that they are business friendly and eager to support small firms, and so they should be; small firms are the engines of our economy. Yet in small firms the absence of just one individual can be critical to success. Employers need rights too: they need to be able to discuss and agree when maternity leave or paternal leave is taken.
  The impact of parental leave will be different in different firms. Sometimes, it will be better to take three months' leave all at once, with an agency worker in
  164
  to cover. That will not be possible in other firms: a drip-by-drip approach may be better, with the employee taking off one day a week. For example, taking off every Friday for two years would be roughly equivalent to taking three months off as a bloc. That would be less disruptive, to the firm and to the workers. However, any variation between those two extremes would be acceptable, as long as the agreement recognises the legitimate concerns and rights of both employer and worker.
  Again, the Government have failed to reassure business. A year or so ago, the cost of the parental leave directive was estimated at about £35 million. The Bill imposes additional regulations, and it is reasonable for business to ask how much they will cost. So far, answer comes there none.
  Finally, we come to the new idea, the gold plating on the European directive—the concept of emergency leave. I agree that decent employers will recognise the legitimacy of workers being able to take emergency leave. I also understand that some employers are not so open-minded, and that the provision has to be underpinned by regulation. However, I want those regulations to be simple and straightforward. I do not want the matter to be left for completion at the Minister's discretion, some time in the future. At present, we do not know where we stand, or how the provision will work.
  It is possible that each type of emergency will qualify for a different leave tariff. An employee could be entitled to a certain amount of leave if the central heating breaks down, another amount if a child breaks a leg, yet another for a granny's funeral. Will there be a points system, as with driving licences? Will employees be disqualified if they acquire too many emergency leave points over a period? A personnel manager might call an employee into his office and say, "Well, Mr. Smith, in the last 12 months you have accumulated emergency leave points for a broken leg at school and a broken central heating system, and now you've just taken extra leave for a second granny's funeral. I'm afraid your points are over the limit and we have to take your licence away. You're fired." [Interruption.] The answers to my questions are not in the Bill, and we need to know how the measure will work.
  What about employees who have the good fortune not to need sick leave or emergency leave? Will they get a reward, or a no claims bonus? Will they get extra days' leave? Where are the answers to those questions in the Bill?
  We support the aims of the Bill, as I have made clear. However, we do not accept that the Government are right to introduce half-baked legislative proposals, without detail or debate in Parliament. As I said at the outset, that will make work for civil servants, money for employers, and mischief between employees and employers. I want the Bill to go into Committee with a large dollop of common sense.
  6.8 pm
  Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Listening to the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey), I was reminded that, more than 100 years ago, Keir Hardie got fed up with the endless shilly-shallying and ambivalence of the Liberal party, to which he belonged. As a result, he founded the Labour party—and how right he was to do so. Judging from the hon. Gentleman's contribution, not a

  165
  lot has changed among Liberal Democrat Members. The speech was pointless, and I have never heard so much waffle. The Bill offers an opportunity to improve industrial relations legislation after what the Conservative Government did in their long period in office.
  I welcome the Bill's general tenor and content, but I want to concentrate on a few points. In particular, I very much welcome clause 3, which will put an end to blacklisting. Some hon. Members who have been here a while will remember when an anti-blacklisting campaign was mounted in the House. The campaign had a large, cross-party membership. Members of all parties but one were involved—and there are no prizes for guessing which party could not provide a single member of that campaign.
  I want to raise a serious issue. Clause 3 refers to blacklisting being prohibited on grounds of trade union activity, and that is an excellent provision. However, I remember an organisation called the Economic League, which was once a force in the land, with hundreds, if not thousands, of firms contributing to its funds, and, therefore, to the existence of a blacklist. People were blacklisted on grounds that had nothing to do with trade union activity. A constituent of mine was blacklisted for being a member of Anti-Apartheid, for example. The well-known Scottish folk singer, Hamish Imlach, was blacklisted on the grounds that he sang songs against Mrs. Thatcher, grounds that would have had most of Scotland blacklisted.
  I shall not embarrass the firms that once supported the Economic League by naming them. Those firms gave up their membership following excellent work by "World in Action" and the investigative reporters of The Guardian. The organisation was embarrassed out of existence, but that does not mean to say that blacklisting may not still happen. That organisation could have been resurrected under another name, and there is nothing to stop firms conducting informal blacklisting within their trades. I have no reason to believe that blacklisting no longer occurs.
  At the time of the campaign against the Economic League, the Daily Mirror—as it then was—did an excellent job. Into my hands came the entire list of those blacklisted, including several prominent members of the present Government. The Daily Mirror challenged the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major)—the then Prime Minister—to condemn the Economic League, but he refused to do so.
  The newspaper rightly said that the organisation was conducting kangaroo courts and allowed no one to challenge their listing, which was in any event secret. People could have been kept out of employment throughout their working lives because of allegations that they could not challenge. Clause 3 is particularly welcome, and I look forward to seeing it in action.
  I want to draw attention to some other aspects of the Bill. Recently, an American organisation that prides itself on union busting said that it would come to Britain to offer employers advice on how to subvert the intentions of the Bill. I am sure that the Minister and his colleagues will not put up with that. If any such action takes place, I hope that he will quickly review the Bill to ensure that no one gets away with it.
  I intervened earlier on the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), to ask about people who work for LSG Skychefs. Were I
  166
  not a member of the Transport and General Workers Union, I should not have known about the dispute involving those people, as it has had little coverage in the newspapers—at least where I live. I gather that the workers have jumped through all the hoops of Tory legislation. They have not acted unlawfully in any way. They are engaged in a legal strike. However, when they took one day's action at the end of last year, their employer retaliated by locking them out and dismissing them all. Every effort by their union and by others to take the dispute to ACAS has failed.
  When I raised that point with the right hon. Member for Wokingham, he said that he knew nothing about it and would want to hear both sides of the story. I was surprised that the shadow Secretary of State knew nothing about the dispute—surely it is his job to be aware of such matters. There is currently no one on the Conservative Front Bench to answer for the right hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] I see the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) returning to his seat. Let me put this challenge to him: will he look into the matter, and if the facts are as I have stated—I have no doubt that they are—will he take it up?
  The Conservatives live in a dream world, in which all employers would be good if only they could. They do not live in the real world in which some employers do not know that the world has changed, and that employees expect better rights.
  Mr. Boswell: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving me the opportunity to emerge from the ethereal darkness behind the Speaker's Chair. I shall study her speech, and if she would care to give me further details of the case, I undertake to look into it objectively and without preconception in favour of either party.
  Mrs. Fyfe: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that assurance and I shall place the information in his hands. I hope that, if he has any critical comment to make about the action of the firm involved, he will do so in public rather than simply in a letter to me.
  My final point relates to the size of companies covered by the Bill. It may seem reasonable to argue that, if a firm thinks it needs 21 employees, 21 is the number it should have. Firms will not employ more or fewer employees than they need to deal with their work load. However, it does not take much ingenuity to think of certain types of firm—for example, a small firm in the rag trade—which do not need huge workplaces or elaborate equipment, and which could get round the Bill by creating several small groups of workers under different company names. I hope that the Bill can be framed to prevent any such action to get round its intentions. Those who work in the rag trade have been among the most ill-treated employees.
  Years ago, before I came to the House, I taught trade union studies to people sent by the TUC to learn about industrial relations and about how to advance their interests and to negotiate with employers. The rag trade workers tended to be those who had the greatest number of problems and who faced the most outrageously unfair employer practices. Problems are greatest not among the largest firms, but among the type of employers who run small, fly-by-night operations that can easily close down and start up again elsewhere.
  I welcome the Bill's family-friendly aspects. It is nonsense to argue that firms may faces losses simply because they treat their employees decently. Ever since

  167
  the industrial revolution, it has been clear that, the better employees are treated, the more likely they are to treat the employer well and to be committed people whom employers are pleased to employ. Decent relations between one side and the other are more likely to result in a profitable enterprise than are attempts to get away with treating people as foully as possible.
  The Bill is welcome, and I look forward to seeing it further improved in Committee.
  6.18 pm
  Mr. John Bercow: The Bill is ill-judged and its main effects will flatly contradict earlier statements by Ministers. In April 1997, in the foreword to Labour's business manifesto, the Chancellor of the Exchequer—then shadow Chancellor—stated:
  "We will not impose burdensome regulations upon business because we understand that successful businesses must keep costs down."
  Nineteen months later, the immediate predecessor of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson)—declared:
  "we have no intention of introducing any legislation that will present a burden on business and reduce the competitiveness of British firms."—[Official Report, 25 November 1998; Vol. 321, c. 214.]
  The tragedy is that the Bill does both: it will raise costs, and it will reduce competitiveness. We have suffered the misfortune of having the Second Reading debate introduced by a Secretary of State—no longer in his place—who showed no evidence of ever having owned, run or even worked in a business of any kind, least of all a small business.
  Mr. Ian Stewart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bercow: Time is limited. I may take the hon. Gentleman's intervention later if time allows.
  Why should Ministers care? Through the normal methods of advance briefing and anonymous leaks to the media, we got an indication of their thinking on the matter. The other day, a senior Minister—one of those who wanders in the dark—told a newspaper that, as long as both the CBI and the TUC were brassed off,
  "we won't have a problem."
  One might ask—although it will not take long to provide an answer—what the said senior Minister meant by the use of the term "we". What he meant, of course, was that the Government would not have a problem; Ministers would not have a problem. The tragedy is that business will still have a problem, the economy will still have a problem and the country will still have a problem—at a time when company failures are rising for the first time since 1992; when small business start-ups are declining; when we are under increasing pressure; when profit forecasts are being revised downwards; when short-time working is on the increase; when downsizing is commonplace; and, when, at 6.2 per cent., on the Government's preferred measure, unemployment is substantially higher than in the United States. That is the reality of what the Government are doing.
  I want to focus on two particular aspects of the Bill. The first is the provision relating to trade union recognition. The Secretary of State did not even attempt to
  168
  gainsay the overwhelming evidence that most businesses implacably oppose the provisions for trade union recognition. He could not deny that that is true. Those businesses are against the provisions for trade union recognition because they believe that they will have a corrosive effect on company performance and industrial relations.
  Specifically, the fear of senior business men, large and small, is that the Bill will stop or weaken labour market flexibility and will militate against multi-skilling. Both of those are crucial preconditions of commercial advantage in a highly competitive world.
  Ministers could have done us a favour by at least allowing exemption from the provisions on trade union recognition for firms of fewer than 50 employees. A number of right hon. and hon. Members on the Government Back Benches complain about the Secretary of State for excluding very small firms—micro-businesses and other small businesses—from the legislation. The Minister will attempt to defend the Government's position, no doubt with great eloquence, in his winding-up speech.
  My complaint is that businesses of between 21 and 49 employees have not been excluded from the provisions. They will suffer as a result. That is unfortunate because, if the Government had made that concession in accordance with their definition of a small business in different legislation—the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998—that would have freed between 200,000 and 300,000 businesses in the UK from the clutches of this damaging impost. It is a disaster. The Minister should account for the differential treatment by the Government of different sectors in different legislation. Ministers have not explained why that is so.
  Secondly, I turn to the Government's so-called family-friendly policies, to which there are two main parts. We understand that parental leave is to be for three months per person, and that that leave is to be unpaid. The Government have made an extremely cautious estimate of the likely cost of the provision. They say in the regulatory impact assessment that they expect it to be about £28.8 million a year, although they concede, for those who bother to study the text, that that is based on what may prove to be a dramatic underestimate of the number of people who are likely, especially in the first year, to claim that entitlement.
  The Government reckon that only 0.5 per cent. of those eligible to claim the benefit will do so. The figures could, of course, be much larger than that, but I turn the mind of the House to the proceedings of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry—on which I am privileged to serve under the excellent chairmanship of the hon. Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill)—last November.
  On 4 November, the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who showed that he was not even aware that his Department had conducted an assessment of the likely costs of the directive, nevertheless brazenly declared that, whatever the cost of the parental leave directive—he was referring to a CBI estimate of the cost—it would be "a tiny fractional amount" of the total employment costs that are borne by business.
  With that observation, the former Secretary of State, who, again, has never run or worked in a business, still less owned a business, sought to dismiss the concerns of those who are worried about the Government's intentions.

  169
  The problem with his position and that of the new Secretary of State and Minister is twofold. First, although in isolation, any particular measure is of course likely to account for only a tiny fractional amount of the total costs that are borne by business, that does not mean that it is of no significance. It is the cumulative impact of a torrent of regulations and additional taxation from the Government that causes legitimate concern in the business community—£40 billion additional tax and regulatory burden in the course of this Parliament.
  My second point is, if anything, even more revealing for what it tells us about the naivety and ignorance of the right hon. Member for Hartlepool. In dismissing the cost as a tiny fractional amount and, to use another word, "marginal", he did not realise that, often, a marginal impact can make a decisive difference—between a business surviving and going under; being able to keep its existing employees and having to get rid of an employee or more than one employee; and staying at its present size and being able to take on more employees.
  The Government should not have signed up to the cack-handed folly of the European social chapter, which obliges this country to adopt the parental leave directive. If they had had any foresight, they should have looked across the Atlantic and seen what happens.
  In fairness, the Secretary of State conceded to me earlier that the American record on job creation was good. In the United States—I do not know whether the Minister, who is not an obvious fan of the United States economy, has looked at the example—there is provision for unpaid parental leave for three months. It is provided under the terms of the Family and Medical Leave Act 1993, but, in a country with 23 million small businesses, that legislation wisely excludes from its ambit firms of fewer than 50 employees. The British Government should have had the sense and judgment to do the same.
  What of time off for domestic incidents? The Government say that time off should be reasonable. I agree. The question is, are there to be limits or no limits? If there are no limits, the measure is open ended and could, potentially, be seriously abused. If there are limits, there is a danger—I do not say that it is an inevitability—that such time off will come to be regarded as a natural part of the holiday entitlement of an existing employee.
  What we need is careful consideration by Ministers, and no repetition of the outrageous parliamentary abuse that accompanied the introduction of the working time regulations. We need from the Minister a guarantee that there will a minimum three-month consultation period on the regulations; a guarantee that there will be a parliamentary debate on the regulations before they take effect; and a commitment that companies that will have to implement the regulations and bear the costs will receive at least three months' notice of having to do so, rather than the paltry and insulting six weeks with which they were fobbed off in the context of the working time regulations.
  The shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), rightly highlighted the serious opposition of business to the proposals. The Institute of Directors has said that they would sap the competitiveness of British firms. We know that British Chambers of Commerce thinks that they could slow or stop growth in the small business sector.
  170
  The Forum of Private Business has talked about the possibility that the moves could be disastrous for small firms. The Federation of Small Businesses said that the Bill could make it too costly and risky to employ staff. Our reliable old friends, the lawyers, predict an exponential increase in litigation and a massive increase in legal costs. Is a bonanza for lawyers what the Minister wants?
  I cavil not only at what the Government are trying to do—partly to buy off the trade unions for the £110 million in today's prices that they contributed to the Labour party's coffers in its 18 years in opposition; partly to assuage the European Union; and partly, I concede, out of a fair-minded concern to develop good employment relations. There is an alternative. If Ministers want to create better employment relations, they should start by fostering a climate that is conducive to the creation of more employment. That would entail a speedy reconsideration of their massive tax and regulatory imposts on British industry and commerce.
  On regulation, the compliance cost assessment should not be a casual afterthought trundled out at the last minute with scant regard for what people think; still less should it be a post hoc rationalisation of what Ministers have already determined to do. It should be part of the process of discussion, debate and consideration—part of the cost benefit calculus in deciding whether a measure should be introduced at all.
  I counsel the Minister to add to his reading list two important pieces of American legislation that are advantageous to the small business sector: the Regulatory Flexibility Act 1980 and the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 1996. That might sound a mouthful, but the taste of it to most American business men is rather better than the menu dished up by our thoughtless Labour Administration. The Government's proposals are bad for business, are unwise and have been introduced at the wrong time. The consequences will be damaging to the British commercial environment. The Government should think again, even now. The Opposition do not believe that the Bill deserves a Second Reading and we shall vote against it. I ask the Minister to consider carefully the legitimate criticisms and real anxieties that people across the country feel.
  6.33 pm
  Mr. Bill Etherington: It gives me great pleasure, in my first contribution this year, to speak on this Bill. I have been waiting 20 years, almost a generation, for legislation that considers the common man and woman at the bottom of the pile—the real wealth creators—rather than being for the benefit of companies, employers and their balance sheets, and, perhaps more importantly, their power.
  I am particularly pleased to follow last year's Back Bencher of the year. In many ways, his speech encourages me in mine. If one peels away the nice presentation and great eloquence, his party wants the employer to dominate and the employee to have the right to do as he or she is told. It is important to step back and see where we are before the Bill goes through.
  Legislation for trade unions and their members is now worse than it was 100 years ago. If anyone doubts that, I recommend, particularly to Conservative Members, that they read a book by the recently deceased Henry

  171
  Pelling—most of them have probably never heard of it—called "A History of British Trade Unionism". It shows how things have fluctuated over the years.
  Although I am implacably opposed to everything that the previous Government did from 1979 onwards, I am generous enough to admit that, unbelievable though it may seem, there have been times in history when the Tory party has introduced legislation beneficial to workers and trade unions that might have had a slight deleterious effect on employers and companies. What particularly pleases me about the Bill is that it begins to recognise that people have more responsibilities than just being at the beck and call of an employer.
  We need to look at the vast array of legislation introduced by the previous Administration. In case Conservative Members have forgotten, when people legitimately fought for their rights, they were classed by Mrs. Thatcher as the enemy within. That is dressed up now. I was amazed to hear the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) sound sympathetic. If I picked him up right, he said that they did not make legislation to stop people who were having difficulty with their employers joining a trade union. That is tremendous progress for the Opposition.
  I have an interest to declare, though not a financial one. I was formerly employed by the National Union of Mineworkers, the only decent employer that I have worked for since I left school. Perhaps I have been unfortunate, because we have heard about all these good employers. When I speak to colleagues about good employers, they say, "You know, Bill, that is a peculiar term. Are you talking about good employers or some who are better than others?" In many ways, that sums up the situation.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the National Union of Mineworkers. Was he one of its London employees who was sacked almost without notice when it decided to move its headquarters back to Sheffield? I remember them going on strike. That is not like a good employer.
  Mr. Etherington: The hon. Gentleman need not worry, because I have never been a London employee; being here is the nearest that I have come to it. I was not sacked by the NUM. I am not sure whether I was promoted or demoted when I came here; I am still trying to work that out.
  Every piece of legislation that the Tories introduced was anti-trade union. It had the gloss of improving the rights of trade union members within their union, but did nothing to improve their rights in their relationship with their employers. That is why we have ended up with so many people working longer hours under worse conditions, often for worse wages. The Tories left a wonderful heritage to workers, and they will never be forgotten or forgiven for it.
  I have one or two criticisms of the Bill, but they are comradely. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on his elevation to the Cabinet under difficult circumstances. If today is anything to go by, he is making a good job of it. That does not surprise me, because he comes from the same part of the world as
  172
  I do and represents a similar constituency. Unlike Conservative Members, he probably has a fair grip of what it is like to be at the bottom of the employment pile.
  The problem affects not middle management but people at the bottom of the pile. There is no need to mess about with any other form of words. That is what the Bill seeks to put right. I have heard all sorts of stories this afternoon about how it is easy for people to get time off and how this does not need legislation. If it were easy to get time off, there would be no need for legislation. That is the simple answer.
  It must also be said that we start from a bad position. British workers, trade unionists and trade unions have the least rights of any European Union country. That will improve as times goes on and the Bill is a good start.
  Mr. Ivan Henderson: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Etherington: Certainly, but will my hon. Friend please keep it brief, because I have only got 15 minutes?
  Mr. Ivan Henderson: Does my hon. Friend remember in 1992 when dockers were discriminated against for belonging to a trade union? They had fewer rights and less pay. The Conservative party did nothing to protect them. They were left to lose their jobs. They went to the other place under the law, but lost their money and their jobs.
  Mr. Etherington: I totally agree. I am willing to give way to any Conservative Member who can give an example of a Conservative Member, regardless of the consequences and no matter how bad the situation, standing up to support workers in dispute with an employer when that employer has reneged on an agreement or acted in a totally abysmal manner.
  Mr. Bercow: I intervened in an employment dispute in a former company of mine on behalf of an employee who shamefully was denied a bonus that she had long been owed, but that she was scared to claim. I was absolutely determined that she should get the bonus and I am pleased to say that, through her efforts and those of others including me, she eventually did so.
  Mr. Etherington: I am pleased to hear that, but it does not answer the question I posed, which was whether any Conservative Member had ever intervened in the House on such an issue, because I have never heard of that happening. I have made that offer before, but it has never been taken up and the hon. Gentleman' s intervention takes us no further forward.
  I have one or two problems with the Bill. Quite a lot has been said, mostly in interventions, about the waiver for small employers. I am concerned about that, albeit not for the same reasons that Conservative Members are concerned: they do not want any rights for anybody, no matter how big the firm, so I totally dissociate myself from any of their comments on the subject. My concern is based on human rights and civil rights. I cannot come to terms with the fact that, if one firm has 20 employees, all 20 of whom want recognition for negotiation purposes and so on, and the firm next door has 22 employees, 12

  173
  of whom want recognition, it will be the employees of the larger firm who are entitled by law to recognition, not the employees of the smaller firm. That cannot be right.
  I have heard the explanation given here and elsewhere by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, but I am still not satisfied. If the argument is that small businesses are special and different, I cannot go along with it. I do not want to put any additional burdens on small businesses, but the fundamental principles that should be paramount are equality of treatment, justice and civil rights. People working in small companies—about 25 per cent. of all employees—are the ones who most need the full protection and assistance of a trade union. Although I welcome the Bill, I am unhappy about that part of it.
  I am very unhappy about the clause whereby employers, if they have gone through the necessary—I nearly said charade, but that is unfair—system of negotiating meaningfully with employees, will be entitled to sack strikers after eight weeks. I perceive big dangers in that, the biggest of which is that—as the courts have proved on many occasions, sometimes on technicalities—there is already a considerable hurdle in terms of legal challenge to get over before employees are able to mount a strike without the threat of the law being hung over them. If it is considered right that employees on strike should have protection, there should be no time limit.
  I am very unhappy about that, but I think that the rest of the Bill represents a tremendous step forward. I am sorry to hear that it is to be the last such legislation in this Parliament, because I believe that legislation, as well as having a salutary day-to-day effect on miscreants, is a vessel for changing the attitude of society. Above all, I believe that the Bill will begin to change society's attitude.
  I hope that our manifesto for the next election, after which we shall be returned to government again, will contain a promise that we shall go a little further. No matter how good a piece of legislation is, it is always found that some aspects do not quite work the way they were intended to. I am reassured by the Secretary of State's saying that, if things do not work out in quite the way they were intended to, the Government will make amendments at a later stage, not by introducing wholly new legislation, but simply to address any problems that might arise from the Bill.
  I have waited a long time for this opportunity, but it has been worth the wait. I am a little happier that we have reached this stage and I shall be extremely happy when the legislation comes into force, because, unlike the Conservative party, I believe that the trade union movement has done more good in British society than any other organisation. Over the years, it has been constructive, it has looked after people, it has been willing to take on difficult causes and, unlike the Conservative party, it has acted as a moderating influence on society, not by looking after only a small number of people—the very well-off—but by showing its concern that there should be a better society for all.
  6.45 pm
  Mr. Graham Brady: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington) in this important debate. It is evident that he speaks from the heart, which is good to hear in the House of Commons, and I congratulate him on his speech.
  174
  There are deeply felt differences of opinion on the Bill. Its subject matter has been debated in the House of Commons and British politics for many years and it will, no doubt, continue to be a source of contention. However, the hon. Gentleman is right to identify today as being a good day for old Labour and for the trade union movement, for, contrary to the Secretary of State's remarks in his opening speech, the Bill is but the first of a series of steps.
  The most damaging feature of the Bill is that it gives no details of the Government's intentions—it is an enabling Bill that sets out broad powers in a wide range of matters, with the detail left to be supplied in regulations. There is so little detail in the Bill that, for all the Secretary of State's saying that the Government are taking but a single step and that the Bill lays down the industrial relations framework for the rest of the Parliament, he is in fact establishing a legislative framework that will give Ministers considerably greater powers to increase the power of the trade unions, decrease the power and freedom of business, and increase the costs that apply to business.
  Mr. Hope: The hon. Gentleman describes the Bill as damaging, but will he explain to temporary workers in my constituency of Corby why he regards the awarding of holiday pay to temporary workers as damaging? Will he confirm that the Opposition would withdraw holiday pay from such workers?
  Mr. Brady: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman raises that point, because in so doing he makes my case for me—that issue is not covered in the Bill. Now that the Bill has been published, temporary workers have no more idea whether they will have such security than they had a week, six months or two years ago. That is entirely illustrative of the approach taken in the Bill: it is not made clear at any point in the Bill who is covered, or what detailed provisions will be made for those who are covered. I am pleased to see the hon. Gentleman reading the Bill, perhaps for the first time. He might find it instructive.
  Mr. Hope: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should read the explanatory notes that accompany the Bill, for they make it absolutely clear which rights every worker will be entitled to. I repeat my question: do the Opposition support temporary workers having the rights that other workers already enjoy?
  Mr. Brady: Again, that makes my point. The hon. Gentleman would be wise to look more closely at the Bill and to consider why the Government are intent on avoiding putting detail in the Bill. I contend that the reason is that there is a balancing act to be gone through before the whole Bill represents a final settlement. The question is one of striking a balance, not between trade unions and business, or between the rights of employees and employers, but between the different parts of the Labour party. That balancing act has not yet been resolved. It is clear that the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister have not yet decided where they want to end up.
  The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) referred to a speech made by the Prime Minister in Bristol a couple of weeks ago. The spin coming off that speech was astonishing, with the suggestion that European directives would be repealed because they were no longer in tune

  175
  with the current vogue for greater competitiveness and less regulation. The Prime Minister is happy to talk about such matters, whether in this country or in Europe, yet what little detail we can glean from the Bill suggests an entirely opposite approach. The Prime Minister—and the Secretary of State—is saying one thing to a public audience, one thing to a business audience, and another thing to a trade union audience and to the Labour party, but he is not prepared to nail his colours to the mast and say what rights he would be prepared to accept in the Bill.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: My hon. Friend is making a good point, as did the hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Hope). The Bill gives the same rights to temporary employees as it does to full-time employees, but agencies can find the same way round them as they do in France. In France, an employee cannot be temporary for more than three months. That is exactly what is likely to happen as a result of the Bill. Temporary employees will be sacked after three months, and they will not be entitled to holiday pay because of it.
  Mr. Brady: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention.
  The Secretary of State suggested that he is seeking to end the divisive culture of conflict, fear and mistrust in the workplace, yet that seems to ignore the fact that, over the past 20 years, there has been less industrial action and fewer days lost through strike action. There has been a much better record in industrial relations than ever before. Now, the Labour party, with enthusiastic backing from its Back Benchers at least, is seeking to turn the clock back and roll back the important reforms that have made the United Kingdom one of the most competitive countries in the world.
  Lorna Fitzsimons: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Brady: No, I need to make some progress.
  The crucial test of the Bill—and of the Government's supposed new framework of industrial relations—will be whether it increases or decreases the likelihood of industrial action. Will it increase or decrease the likelihood of a return to industrial strife? I suggest that it is very likely to increase industrial disharmony and strike action, and that it will be a retrograde step for that reason. There will be more opportunity for dispute and more conflict over recognition.
  There will be trade union representation even in the very small businesses to which reference has been made because an employee will have the right to have a trade union representative with him in any grievance procedure. That point needs further attention because, although the Government have sought to spin the issue, suggesting that they have done everything that they can to please business and have excluded small businesses from the provisions, there is in fact a way in.
  At what point does a personal grievance become a collective grievance? Will it be possible for an employee to seek trade union support to complain about a grievance over pay? Will it be possible to take that action over the quality of food in the staff canteen or staff parking? That is not clear. The Bill clearly allows a way in which to circumvent in very small companies the exemption that it appears to provide for the benefit of small businesses.
  176
  There is procedure for a ballot on trade union recognition, but no counter-balancing limit on the right of strike action in support of recognition.
  Lorna Fitzsimons: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Brady: No, I said that I wanted to make progress.
  Such a lack of a limit makes one wonder whether the Bill is a genuine attempt to find a fair settlement. Given the supposedly fair balloting procedure to allow trade union recognition, why should it still be necessary to take industrial action either to speed up that process or in response to results that are not as some people might wish? The Bill, and the regulations that flow from it, will affect small businesses even though, on the face of it, they are exempt from some of the provisions.
  Reference has been made to the upper limit of unfair dismissal payments. A £50,000 payment may not be imposed often, but it does not need to be in order to put a small business out of operation. Labour Members have suggested that the higher limit will make businesses more careful and that unfair dismissal cases will not occur so often as a result. Making very small businesses over-concentrate on and be over-aware of legal procedure and regulation in every aspect of their daily activities could constitute a major cost. Some very small companies do not have recourse to proper advice on personnel matters.
  Mr. Ian Stewart: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that it is a function of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service to give advice, and that many codes of practice are already in place of which small and larger businesses can make use?
  Mr. Brady: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand that, in the cut and thrust of the daily lives of small businesses, the point is not whether the best advice is available should they seek it, but whether they have time to seek it or are aware of where it can be sought. By increasing pressure and potential costs on business, that could cause serious problems.
  The parental leave elements of the Bill will of course add costs. Again, there is no detail—not even on whether the provisions will be paid or unpaid. Ministers have suggested their preferences, but they are not in the Bill. Reference has also been made to the clause on domestic incidents. That is a classic case of gold-plating the European directive, adding unnecessarily to costs.
  Lorna Fitzsimons: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
  Mr. Brady: On that point, I will give way to the hon. Lady.
  Lorna Fitzsimons: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his gallantry. Is he aware of the direct correlation between the greatest incidence of time off and stress created by bad employment circumstances? As numerous employment studies have shown, good employment relations mean a healthy and loyal work force, greater productivity and less time off.
  Mr. Brady: That is precisely why I think that most employers seek to accommodate their employees where

  177
  they can, and why it is inappropriate to legislate to require businesses, which may not be able to face the cost and may make redundancies as a result, to do things that may not be in their interests.
  In implementing the European directive, the Government of the Republic of Ireland specified urgent family reasons for time off: owing to injury or illness of a child, an adopted child, a spouse or person with whom somebody is living as a husband or wife, a person to whom an employee is in loco parentis, a brother, sister, parent or grandparent. As a result, it is clear which circumstances businesses must face, and what the Republic of Ireland Government intend to happen as a result of the European directive.
  In this Bill, there is no such clarity. It has been left deliberately vague. It is not clear precisely which incidents in the home affecting a member of a family or somebody who depends on the employee may apply under the Bill. The provisions could apply to a neighbour. The cost of events surrounding anybody who is in the habit of depending on the employee, such as an elderly person whose neighbour does their shopping, should not be borne by the business. It is not sustainable to add such social costs to the daily operating costs of a business. If Ministers do so, they will put companies out of business.
  Small businesses will be affected, discipline and grievance procedures will provide a way of circumventing rights and exemptions that are supposedly being accorded to small businesses, and the Bill's lack of clarity and certainty will give many businesses cause for concern.
  The Government's performance over the implementation of the working time directive, the amount of time that they have taken considering its regulations and the fact that they were not prepared to debate them in the House give us no confidence in Ministers' ability to propose regulations that will do what they wish them to do, give us no confidence that the regulations will be brought forward in good time, give us no confidence that businesses will have adequate warning of what they will face, and certainly give us no confidence that there will be opportunities to express concerns about the regulations.
  This is a classic new Labour Bill, which none the less gives great hope to old Labour and the trade union movement. It is a classic new Labour Bill because it has no detail, does not nail its colours to the mast and is all spin. Recently, one newspaper sketch writer referred to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry as the "self-wipe Minister", because he could say something one minute, but it had disappeared the next. This is a self-wipe Bill. Although it has no content, it allows Ministers massive new powers to implement, at will, new regulations, which will have a devastating effect on British business.
  6.59 pm
  Mr. Ian Davidson: I welcome the Bill as the first legislation for 20 years that is not anti-employee and anti-trade union, and many Labour Members welcome it for precisely those reasons.
  The Bill's name has changed. A much better change would have been to name it the McCartney Bill, after the Minister of State who has been involved in piloting it through such choppy and difficult waters. The fact that we are debating it is a tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Minister, who has pursued the legislation with
  178
  skill, perseverance and, allegedly, not a little cunning—[Interruption.] My pronunciation may have misled the House, but I did say "cunning". My hon. Friend's achievement is all the greater when we consider the sources of the spin and disinformation that have accompanied the Bill through its formative stages.
  I welcome the concept of partnership incorporated in the Bill. The idea of involving and negotiating with the CBI and the TUC is greatly to be welcomed. I recognise the need to make allowances for the legitimate concerns that have been expressed, but we have to question the extent to which the partners, especially the CBI, have bought into the process. If the Tories are representing the CBI's views, as they claim to do, I wonder what evidence there is that the CBI has bought into the process, and if it has not, why have we bothered to make any concessions to the organisation at all?
  If there are negotiations and an agreement is reached, those involved must support it. If the CBI does not support the Bill, despite its having been involved in the negotiations, perhaps some of the terms in the Bill with which some of us are not entirely happy should be reconsidered.
  Redistribution of wealth has recently been discussed in some circles. I am all in favour of wealth creation—as we all are—but wealth distribution in its various forms makes up much of the substance of politics. The Bill gives us the opportunity to realise a much fairer distribution of wealth and power in our society. The strengthening of trade unions will result in a substantial shift of wealth and power in favour of working people and their families. That is what Labour Members should support.
  It is possible that the change in the distribution of wealth and power resulting from the Bill will be as great as or greater than any measure introduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Bill's impact, which will be more wages and more influence for working people, will dwarf much of what Governments do directly. We ought to consider renaming the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry the Secretary of State for redistribution of wealth.
  Mr. Chidgey: The hon. Gentleman almost answered my question with his previous comment. Does he make a distinction between the distribution of wealth and the redistribution of wealth, which I understand was very much old Labour's policy?
  Mr. Davidson: I shall come to that point in a moment—it is included in my notes.
  Trade unions will obtain higher wages and better conditions for their members, but I do not believe, as the Opposition seem to do, that our society is a zero-sum game. While workers in unionised firms are likely to be better paid, they are also likely to be better motivated. Just as they are likely to have more say, so they make a greater contribution. Just as they are in less fear, so they are less distracted from the work in hand and more able to concentrate on the job that they are trying to do.
  We must get away from the idea that, if one side wins, the other side automatically loses. That is why we should welcome the partnership concept and the positive recognition that workers are not simply units of production, but people with feelings who want to make a genuine contribution to the environment in which they

  179
  spend so much of their lives. We ought to be clear that involving the unions helps growth and creates the wealth that we can then discuss how better to distribute. Many Labour Members should stop apologising for being pro-union and should stop being defensive because, although criticisms can be made, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington) that the unions are overwhelmingly a force for good and for progress in our society.
  Although I support the broad thrust of the Bill, it is not perfect. In particular, the 40 per cent. rule leaves a great deal to be desired. I wonder how many hon. Members would pass the 40 per cent. test.—achieving 40 per cent. of the eligible votes, not of the votes cast—which is applied in this case. Local authorities would be decimated and the London referendum result would not have been carried if the 40 per cent. rule had been applied.
  As far as I am aware, that rule has been applied only once—in Scotland at the time of the first referendum on devolution. There is a lesson to be learned from those events because, not having achieved 40 per cent. of the eligible votes, people felt cheated. The matter did not go away; it returned and in the next referendum the vote was much larger. Those who introduced the 40 per cent. rule as a blocking mechanism ended up worse off because the devolution proposals that were eventually passed were tougher and more devolutionary than the original ones, so the rule was counter-productive.
  We should also consider whether the rule about 20 employees being the cut-off point for union recognition is helpful, productive and deserves support. Should employees' rights depend on the size of the firm in which they work? Should not the individual right to be represented by a trade union apply to the individual, rather than depending on the environment in which the individual is employed?
  I was disappointed to hear my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State say, in response to a question on that matter, that the issue is one of not placing burdens on business. Unionism—or perhaps I should say unionisation, given that a Unionist Member has just left the Chamber—should not be viewed as a burden. My hon. Friend the Minister should be more modern and recognise that unions are a bonus, not a burden. We should make it quite clear that we want to extend individual rights to everyone, irrespective of the size of the firm in which they work.
  The Bill is less than perfect on the issue of dismissal after eight weeks. We should not leave the lack of guarantees or defence for workers in its present form. Similarly, in the proposals under which action can be taken if someone is dismissed after less than eight weeks, the concentration is on the procedure that will be followed, but no comment is made about the good faith of those who will follow it. There will still be an opportunity for employers to make unfair dismissals in situations where there are insufficient grounds for response. Much of that will depend on interpretation.
  A number of areas are unclear. I hope that they will be thoroughly explored in Committee. They include questions about the Central Arbitration Committee, individual contracts, the definition of matters that are serious for union representation and issues surrounding agency employment.
  180
  This should not be the Government's final say. The situation must be monitored in practice. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) that attempts will be made to find ways around the legislation. People will search for loopholes. Union-busters will be brought in and, if they are creative, they may act in ways that we will not have considered during our debates on the Bill. It has already occurred to me, for instance, that a firm employing 38 people could easily redefine itself as two firms, each employing 19, in an attempt to get around the problem of recognition. The Government must make it clear that they are prepared to plug such loopholes and to deal with operations that are contrary to the spirit of the legislation that is eventually agreed by the House. I am not asking them to present entirely new employment legislation.
  Let me say a little about what has been said by members of the opposition parties. I am still not sure of the Liberal Democrat view on the 40 per cent. requirement. On three occasions, the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) went round and round the houses. I hoped that he would state unequivocally that the Liberals were against 40 per cent., and in favour of the extension of rights to firms employing fewer than 20. Had he done so, I would have asked him to prevail on his leader to prevail on our leader to reconsider, in the fraternal spirit in which such matters are handled by our two great parties. Perhaps we shall discover later whether that is indeed the Liberals Democrat position.
  Finally, I shall address myself to the second or third Bench from the back on the Opposition side of the House. I see that the Scottish Nationalists are entirely absent, as they have been virtually throughout the debate. I dare say that, during the forthcoming election campaign, they will take the opportunity to seek to cause mischief on whatever grounds are available, but their interest in the matters that we are discussing can be measured by their absence. I do not think that there can be a role for those who wish to intervene in industrial relations simply to create political mischief—if they have a contribution to make, they should be here to make it.
  I support the Bill. I hope that it is enacted in an improved form, and I hope that the Government will give an undertaking to be prepared to plug loopholes if and when they are discovered.
  7.13 pm
  Mr. Ian Bruce: This has been a good-natured debate, and it has been interesting to hear the views of, in particular, Labour Members. I hope to be a member of the Standing Committee, but, given the honesty and straightforwardness of Labour Members today, I suspect that I shall not have an opportunity to hear their views then, because the Whips are putting black marks on the register even now.
  Mr. Ian McCartney: A blacklist.
  Mr. Bruce: It will be a blacklist! The Minister suggests that it will be, but I am sure that he is jesting.
  I must declare some interests at the outset, because clause 28 concerns matters in which I have had a professional interest. For some 12 years, I ran an employment agency in Yorkshire. I have not actively traded in employment agencies for 10 years, but until the

  181
  last general election I was an adviser to the Federation of Recruitment and Employment Services. I am currently an adviser to Trevor Gilbert and Associates, which is an expert witness practice, but which also owns a business employment agency.
  I do not speak on behalf of those organisations. I have received no briefing. I speak from the heart about what I consider to be the basis of the Bill, and about what I consider to be the Government's aim. I assure the House that I have no blind trust and that no funds have been paid to me, even by the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson). I was grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) for suggesting that we should all receive £370,000-odd from the hon. Gentleman. However, I want to concentrate on clause 28. I took the Bill home at the weekend, thinking that I was going to make a speech about the employment relations issues that we all thought would be in it. I was astounded when I read clause 28.
  Some time ago, when writing an article to be published by one of the employment agency magazines—I do not remember which one—I took advice from the right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher). Subsequently, because the right hon. Gentleman was replaced almost immediately—not because of anything that he had done—I took advice from the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). Previous Labour party manifestos had made it clear that Labour was opposed to employment agencies: it wanted them to be abolished, and it wanted employment businesses to be abolished. That was the Labour party's settled policy. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Members on the Front Bench below the Gangway agree.
  I took advice—and, of course, a Conservative must take some note of advice given by the right hon. Member for Sedgefield, who is now the Prime Minister. The advice was that the Labour party did not see the matter as a priority. Indeed, I think that Labour entirely abandoned the idea of abolishing employment agencies. I have heard Labour Front Benchers, both as Opposition spokesmen and as Ministers, express the view that the flexibility of the United Kingdom market, with employment agencies and employment businesses, is one of the things that make our labour force and our labour market work so well. That is why I was so astounded to read what the Government propose. They propose to restrict the services that may be provided by employment agencies and businesses, to regulate the way in which those services are provided and to restrict or regulate the charging of fees. That may not mean a great deal to those listening to me, so let me give an example.
  Let us suppose that the Government announced that they would take powers enabling them to decide where British Airways could fly, how many staff would be allowed, how much should be charged for tickets and how much commission should be paid. Let us suppose that the Government said that was the law of the land. Surely, with new Labour, the House of Commons would not lie down and say, "That is fine. Let the Government, by regulation, do what they like with the industry."
  Labour Members tend to say that employment agencies are not regulated. In fact, they are the most regulated businesses that we have. No other type of business allows
  182
  the Department for Education and Employment to send an inspector to go through every bit of paperwork. That is intended to protect the workers.
  Mr. Hope rose—
  Mr. Bruce: The hon. Gentleman—to whom I shall give way in a moment—will probably say, "£1 an hour. It is the same story that he tells us all the time." Of course that is not acceptable. The Federation of Recruitment and Employment Services would be entirely against it. It would probably drum out—probably has drummed out—the organisation about which the hon. Gentleman is going to complain. This part of our labour market is already highly regulated.
  Mr. Hope: I am still not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is speaking on behalf of his South Dorset constituents, or on behalf of the network of employment agencies that recruits him as an adviser for between £5,000 and £10,000 a year. Does he believe that a supposedly highly regulated employment agency market should allow agencies in my constituency—I am talking about working time directive specifications on holiday pay—to deduct 35p an hour from existing hourly wage rates in order to—
  Mr. Bruce rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. If the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) gives way to another hon. Member, it is for me to judge whether the hon. Member to whom he has given way has exceeded his position. I cannot have two hon. Members on their feet at the same time.
  Mr. Bruce: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I rather suspected that the hon. Gentleman would speak on issues other than those relevant to the Bill. Of course I accept that, whatever the Government decide are the rights of employees, that must apply to all employees. I am against the possibility that, as a result of special regulations being introduced, employees who currently work for employment agencies might be disadvantaged, might lose their jobs or might be changed around more regularly than the employment agency would want.
  Mr. Ian McCartney rose—
  Mr. Bruce: Will the Minister tell us the Government's intention towards employment agencies? Is it to go back to old Labour's decision to get rid of them, or at least to restrict them to such an extent that they would not even be allowed to have long-term workers working under a temporary contract?
  Mr. McCartney: I shall deal in my winding-up speech with the general issues that the hon. Gentleman raises. Let us have clarification. Is he supporting the minority of agency employers who are illegally deducting pay earned by a worker, for the purpose of getting around the legal commitment to pay workers holiday pay? Is that what the hon. Gentleman supports?
  Mr. Bruce: The hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense. There is to be a legal requirement to pay holiday pay to

  183
  employees who work for an employer for longer than three months. That will be a legal requirement. In France, an employer is not allowed to keep an employee on a temporary contract for more than three months. As a result, such employees are let go after three months and another temporary employee is taken on. Under the Government's proposals, that will be the legal position for an employment agency. Provided that a person is not employed by the same organisation for more than three months, the employer will not have to pay holiday pay. The hon. Gentleman should know what his own regulations require.
  Mr. Hope rose—
  Mr. Bruce: No, I shall not give way again to the hon. Gentleman. I am running out of time, so I shall make my own speech in my own way.
  I am grateful to the Minister for informing us that he will deal with the Government's intentions towards employment agencies. More than 1 million people use such agencies to get a job. I can assure the House that the vast majority of them want to be on temporary contracts, or use a temporary contract as a means of getting a permanent job in the same company. That is how employment businesses make their money—they get a fee for placing people in permanent employment. That is what happens, whether or not the hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Hope) believes it to be the case.
  Lorna Fitzsimons rose—
  Mr. Bruce: No, I am sorry, I cannot give way because of the time already taken up on interventions.
  I shall touch briefly on other issues in the Bill. Of course it is right to say that the Government have decided to force people into negotiations. The Bill contains a raft of regulations telling companies how to do so, even if they are unwilling to negotiate. Our Government have helped NATO to force Kosovars and Serbs into negotiations, but we all know what happens when employers are forced to recognise a trade union and forced to negotiate with a group of people with whom they do not want to negotiate.
  Of course, the two sides can keep to all the rules and regulations, but the situation of employees will not be improved unless the employers are a willing party to the negotiations. The Labour party is trying to pay back its trade unions—a labour of love, or the love of Labour—I am not sure which. Frankly, that will not work.
  On maternity leave, we heard that 97 per cent. of Asda employees, when given maternity leave on a voluntary basis, return to their jobs. That is not the figure for statutory maternity pay. Almost all women who leave to have a baby use the system of statutory maternity pay and the employer's obligation to keep their job open. They know that it is a right, so they ask their employer to keep their job open, whether or not they intend to return to work. That stops a permanent employee being taken on, which is great for employment agencies, I can assure the House. The employer takes a temporary worker from an employment agency for that period.
  184
  A week before they are due to return to work, women tell their employer, "I have had the baby and everything is fine. I never planned to go back to work. I am quite happy staying at home with my child," and they give their notice to—
  Mr. Hope: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should be grateful for your guidance, as I am not sure of the rules of the House. If an hon. Member is currently in receipt of financial remuneration from a recruitment agency, is he entitled to speak in the House, even though he has declared that?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: We had quite a lengthy declaration from the hon. Member for South Dorset. He placed his position before the House and therefore, I believe, conformed with the rules that the House applies in such a situation.
  Mr. Bruce: I should be very pleased to sue the hon. Member for Corby if he wants to make that allegation outside the House. He does not like what I am saying because I am getting to the nub of the matter.
  When a woman is told that she can have three months' statutory maternity leave, unpaid, at the end of her paid maternity leave, the sensible woman—especially if she is having her first child and is not sure whether she wants to stay at home with the child—will say to her employer, "Yes, I want to take up my right to three months' leave." The employer will be told only a week before the end of that three months, "Sorry, I am not coming back. I never intended to come back, but I made sure that you kept my job open." The cost of that in teaching, for example, is that supply teachers and specialised teachers must be brought in to cover an employee's absence on maternity leave.
  I am sorry that I gave way to hon. Members, as I wanted to make several other points. The practical way to deal with matters in the workplace is by agreement. I entirely concur with any hon. Member who says that the right way for an employer to proceed is by giving employees the rights that we all think good employers should give. It is in the employers' interests to do so. However, the more the Government try to force employers to do so, the more the Government will find that the regulations are forcing employers to do things that a decent employer would not want to do.
  7.27 pm
  Mr. Michael Clapham: I shall begin by declaring an interest. I am a trade unionist at present; I have been a trade unionist since I started work. For 17 years before entering the House, I was a regional, then a national, officer of the National Union of Mineworkers.
  Mr. Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As the hon. Gentleman has honourably declared his interest, should not other hon. Members who have spoken before him and who are also members of trade unions have declared their interest as well?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: We are getting off course. It is not usual to have such challenges across the House. If there is any serious cause in the mind of any hon.

  185
  Member for complaint about advocacy rules, that is a matter to be taken up with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, not thrown across the Floor of the House.
  Mr. Clapham: I agree with the point made eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington) when he said that trade unions are a force for good, and that trade unions are perhaps the best organisation devised by man to look after the welfare of his fellow man—
  Mr. Ian McCartney: And woman.
  Mr. Clapham: Indeed. Within the term "men", I was referring to women as well.
  Trade unions are a force for good. I noted that, in the speech of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), there was an anti-trade union slant throughout. The speeches from Opposition Back Benchers have generally been anti-trade union. That does not serve the purpose of the debate.
  Mr. Bercow rose—
  Mr. Clapham: If the hon. Gentleman will hang on for two minutes, I will give him a chance to intervene.
  The anti-trade union prejudice of Conservative Members does not add to the debate; in fact, it detracts from it. I hope that Conservative Back Benchers will speak in a purposeful rather than a prejudiced way.
  Mr. Bercow: May I confirm my belief that the trade unions, over the years, have often done much good? I support the good that they have done, and I believe that no one did them more good in terms of the legal framework within which they have come to operate than my noble Friend Lord Tebbit of Chingford.
  Mr. Clapham: The framework to which the hon. Gentleman refers—that set up from 1980 and during 1982, 1984, 1987 and onwards—restricted trade unions and has caused much of the problem that we have to deal with. If he looks at research on trade unions that has been done in this country and in America, he will see that companies that consult trade unions and work closely with them have higher productivity. The framework that was set up during the 1980s militated against that, and much of what we have to deal with has come about because of that framework.
  My hon. Friend the Minister has worked hard to ensure that the Bill has come before the House today. It will redress many imbalances, for example those of inequality and injustice in the current industrial relations framework. That will happen because of the recognition that trade unions are a force for good. If the hon. Member for Buckingham would care to look at some of the work that trade unions have done, and are doing, he would realise that.
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to some of that work. For example, trade unions ensure a framework of security for the member and his family by providing the opportunity for him to be able to sue a negligent employer. That creates a situation in which the employee feels secure. Trade unions provide a service on the shop floor through
  186
  their work in health and safety. That has created a much safer workplace. I believe that the work that has been done since 1974, when health and safety representatives were established, has made the shop floor a much safer place.
  Trade unions have also done much to ensure standards of pay and best practice. Most of all, they have added to competitiveness. They have done that because of the work that they do with employers in supporting progressive technology. If the hon. Member for Buckingham looks at the—
  Mr. Bercow rose—
  Mr. Clapham: No, I will not give way again. The hon. Gentleman has had his chance.
  If the hon. Gentleman looks at the research, he will see that companies where trade unions are active generally invest in new technology. Overall, trade unions are a force for good.
  There is perhaps a greater need for trade unions today than at any time. I refer hon. Members to Sunday's report in The Observer on the new Treasury paper. No doubt my hon. Friend the Minister of State will have read part of that paper, which pointed out that the class barriers in the United Kingdom are more entrenched than at any time since the beginning of this century. That is the result of 18 years of Toryism and the kind of legislative framework that the hon. Member for Buckingham referred to. That framework put a straitjacket on industry and prevented trade unions from being able to work constructively with employers.
  Mr. Bercow rose—
  Mr. Clapham: No, I am not giving way.
  The Treasury paper suggests that, at the same time, there are 1.3 million more children living in poverty than there were in 1979 and that, overall, 4.3 million children live in households with an income below the poverty line. Those households make up 13 million people living on an income below the poverty line.
  I point out to the hon. Member for Buckingham that a survey carried out recently in my constituency, and across the Barnsley borough, showed that the average income on the council estates was between £5,000 and £6,000 per annum. The average income across the borough was £11,000 per annum, compared with an average income in Yorkshire and Humberside of £318,500 per annum.
  From that comparison of the figures, the hon. Gentleman can see the deprived state that part of my constituency and the Barnsley borough are in. They are in that state because of the previous Administration, who closed down the collieries without any thought for the communities and without giving any help to regenerate those communities. Those communities now live in a deprived state.
  This Government, through the coalfields task force, are setting out to regenerate those communities. That is the legacy that we were left by the previous Government. The Bill will help to redress some of that, because it helpfully gives trade unions opportunities to work with employers. Trade unions are, by their nature, redistributive and that will add to the regeneration. The Bill is enormously important.

  187
  We know that the nature of a class society is such that—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Buckingham shakes his head, but we know that the nature of a class society is such that it breeds inequality because it feeds off inequality. What happened over the period that the hon. Gentleman talked about—trade union legislation was introduced by the previous Administration from 1980 onwards—militated against trade unions being able to work with employers to ensure that wealth was created and that that wealth could be equally shared within society. Consequently, we are experiencing the kinds of inequality to which the Treasury paper referred. The Bill will help to remedy that situation.
  The hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) referred to employment agencies and their work. No doubt he will have seen references in this week's press to agency workers employed on North sea rigs being paid 81p an hour for working long hours—illegal hours. Those people were employed via an agency. The Bill—and clause 23, to which he referred—has been introduced to control that sort of exploitative practice.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Clapham: No, I am sorry. I am not giving way. [Interruption.] I am not giving way at all. Conservative Members seem to think that—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has told the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) that he will not give way and, therefore, I would not want him to pursue his intervention from a sedentary position.
  Mr. Clapham: Conservative Members seem to think that employment practices—
  Mr. Bruce rose—
  Mr. Clapham: I am not giving way, so the hon. Gentleman may as well take his seat.
  Conservative Members seem to think that previous legislation resulted in good employment practices. They ought to consider lorry drivers. If they went through the archives in the Library, they would see last week's report by the BBC in Yorkshire on lorry drivers' hours. It found that lorry drivers worked more hours than at any time in the past—in excess of 84 hours a week—and slept in bunks at the back of their cabs. One lorry driver likened that to office workers—or Members of Parliament—being chained to their desks and, after a day's work, being forced to sleep under them. Employment practices in some industries are abysmal. The Bill will help to address those injustices.
  I am critical of some key planks of the legislation, although in a comradely way, because I know that the Minister of State has done a hell of a lot of work to bring the Bill before the House. One of my main criticisms is of clause 15, which deals with the dismissal of people who have been on strike for eight weeks. The clause enables employers to get rid of their striking work force after eight weeks.
  The Bill requires the employer to take procedural steps to resolve the dispute. There is a difference between procedural steps and substantive proposals to resolve a
  188
  dispute. In my estimation, substantive proposals are required, so I ask my hon. Friend to reconsider that clause with a view to requiring that, after the ninth week of dispute, if no substantive proposals have been made, the matter should be referred to the Central Arbitration Committee as though it had been referred by the employer and the trade unions. The CAC should be directed to reach a fair settlement of the dispute. That would be a much better procedure than dismissing striking employees after eight weeks.
  That is my major criticism, but, overall, I welcome the Bill as a step forward. It will ensure that best practice is used throughout industry, which will help Britain's competitiveness.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If I may say so, some comradely spirit will be required if a great many of the hon. Members on the list are to catch my eye. I hope that, if possible, hon. Members will show some restraint within the time limit.
  7.42 pm
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: I oppose the Bill, but I assure the hon. Members for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) and for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington) that I do so neither because of an inveterate hatred of trade unionism nor to support the class system, which I do not think exists in this day and age.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: In a comradely way, I am sure that my hon. Friend would allow me to mention that people who work for an employment agency must have a contract of employment within 24 hours, whereas other people have to have a contract within three months. That shows that employment agencies are regulated.
  Mr. Fabricant: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting that important point on the record.
  It is clear to me that there would never have been the improvements in employee conditions and welfare that have occurred without the growth of the trade union movement at the turn of the century. It is also clear that the shift away from worker exploitation to caring capitalism has come about mainly because of the work of the trade union movement at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century.
  The problem with the Bill is that it reflects the nature of the House of Commons. The House is increasingly made up of individuals who, before coming here, were never involved in wealth creation. Being a student of the economy is no substitute for working in the economy. As an economics graduate, I can certainly attest to that. I have to tell those hon. Members who were first politics graduates then worked for a think tank—an increasing number, I am sad to say—that they are even further removed from the real world.
  I wanted to take part in this debate because I started an electronics manufacturing company 12 years before I came to the House. By the time I left that company—[Interruption.] I do not know why the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) is laughing, because I am talking about keeping people employed in jobs. Her constituents will not find it amusing when unemployment increases in her area. I am participating in the debate because I want people to stay employed.

  189
  By the time I left that company, we had customers in 48 countries around the globe. That involved motivating and caring for our staff and, from time to time, negotiating with trade unions. I speak not from a brief prepared by others, but from experience.
  To my mind, the Bill is well-intentioned, like so many Labour Members. However, like so many Labour Members, it is also hopelessly naive. Far from protecting employees, it will destroy their job prospects. It will work against those seeking jobs in the future—new deal or no new deal. Like much of the Government's legislation, it will take time for its ill-effects to be experienced. That is why it is so dangerous. That was recognised by the Prime Minister, who said as much to the party faithful in Manchester a few days ago when he warned them of a tough time ahead.
  The House of Commons Library has calculated that the Government have already added £40,200 million to the social and tax bill over the life of this Parliament. Often, that has been at the expense of small businesses. The latest such move has been the introduction of a tax to pay for the new Food Standards Agency. Lord Sainsbury will have to pay the same flat-rate food poll tax for the shops he owns as little corner shops in villages in my constituency and that of the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne will have to pay. The same applies to the legislation before us. The Bill will hit small firms with as few as 21 employees, and it will hit the unemployed.
  At a time when the Government, quite rightly, want to get the long-term unemployed back to work, why are they reducing the qualifying period for unfair dismissal from two years to one year? They compound the mistake by increasing the maximum limit on awards for unfair dismissal from £12,000 to £50,000. I realise that, to the Secretary of State, those figures are but a drop in the ocean, but let me tell him and the Minister that a £50,000 fine creates a major dent in the cash flow of a small company. It is even more likely to force the company into liquidation. What price jobs then?
  Do the Government not realise that this measure will present a major disincentive to employing new people? Do they not realise that no employer will want to recruit the long-term unemployed if he faces a potential £50,000 fine if he gets it wrong? If he employs someone who makes a mistake, is it not more likely that he will sack the employee before the 12 months are up rather than give him a second chance? This measure, further compounded by the effects of clause 3(1)(b), will result in few employers taking on long-term unemployed people unless they come with the highest of references, which is unlikely under the circumstances.
  The chairman of the Federation of Small Businesses has said:
  "Small firms are now being over-regulated to such a degree that it is too costly and too risky to employ staff. The provisions of the Employment Relations Bill will place them under further pressure."
  The Government have yet to learn the lesson preached by Abraham Lincoln: "You cannot make a poor man rich by making a rich man poor." This legislation will merely succeed in keeping the poor man poor.
  What about enforced trade union recognition? I believe that there are many advantages in negotiating with a single, responsible trade union rather than with individual groups of employees. That is true partnership. Partnership, like marriage, cannot be imposed on an unwilling partner:
  190
  both must willingly consent. That is probably why I never got married. The Bill is not about partnership: it is not a basis for trust or for any working relationship.
  Even the new Labour convert, Adair Turner, Director General of the CBI, wrote in the Financial Times:
  "Good employee relations should be built on trust and this is not best fostered if collective bargaining has been imposed on an employer by a trade union. Collective bargaining can work where it has two willing partners, but not where there is only one. No real improvements in industrial relations occurred the last time we had compulsion in the 1970s and indeed the legislation proved to be unworkable."
  Those are his words, not mine.
  The Engineering Employers Federation believes that the legislation will create the climate for increased industrial action, and the Institute of Directors expressed similar reservations.
  The new Labour Government and the current Secretary of State in particular believe in wealth creation. They do not want to return to the bad old days of the 1970s and before, yet the Bill creates the climate for just that. Far from heralding a new epoch, it merely turns the clock back. I hope that Rupert Murdoch, who bought The Times when it was bankrupt, moved it from Fleet street, broke the luddite print unions and created a new era of newspaper production at Wapping, is aware of what the Government are doing. Had the Bill been an Act back in the 1980s, The Times would still be bankrupt and Wapping would remain an area of dereliction.
  The Secretary of State rightly believes that wealth creation is more important than wealth redistribution. Unfortunately, he does not know how to create wealth and refuses to take advice from those who do. If the Secretary of State had run a company, large or small, instead of lecturing in law at Newcastle poly for 15 years before coming here, he would not be introducing the Bill.
  Everywhere one looks in the Bill, there is a further burden of paperwork. Records must be kept on training, on leave, on ballots and so forth, and just to twist the knife still further, when trade union ballots are held, 50 per cent. of the cost must be borne by the employer.
  Those measures are damaging enough for large companies, but why cripple small firms at birth—why not exempt small companies employing fewer than 50 employees? The Confederation of British Industry, the British Chambers of Commerce, the Federation of Small Businesses and the Institute of Directors have all asked the Secretary of State to raise the threshold. Why will he not listen? What analysis has his Department made on the percentage on-costs of the measure on an average business employing 20 people? Has such an impact analysis been prepared?
  The other worrying aspect of the Bill is its dependence on future regulation and, as my hon. Friends have said, omission of detail. The Bill is equivalent to a blank cheque. No finance director in his right mind would issue a blank cheque to a supplier, yet the Secretary of State is asking the House of Commons to give him just that.
  Clause 22 provides no details as to how the Central Arbitration Committee will work. Who will be its members exactly? What will be its relationship with ACAS? Proposed new section 263A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 says that the chairman of the committee shall appoint a panel or panels. How many panels will there be? Is this just

  191
  another employment scheme for Tony's cronies? If so, it will be little compensation for those who do not find jobs or lose jobs as a result of the legislation.
  Even the provisions for parental leave are left to regulations, so Parliament will not have the opportunity to scrutinise or amend an important part of the Bill. There are many unanswered questions. How old will a child be when parental leave is available? Will evidential proof be required, involving more paperwork? Will notice be required?
  All that uncertainty creates instability in an industrial climate that is already volatile and weak. When the Secretary of State meets BMW's new chairman, Joachim Milberg, to discuss Government aid to help modernise Longbridge, will he tell him of the legislation now going through Parliament? Does he think that Mr. Milberg will be impressed? One of the reasons why BMW bought into Britain was to avoid the draconian employment legislation that has already brought stagnation to the German car industry. Will the Secretary of State tell Mr. Milberg that the Government have compromised their commitment to full employment in Britain for the sake of Labour's commitment to Europe?
  So, there we have it—a Bill with sufficient detail to frighten all the employer organisations. What frightens me, however, is what the Bill does not say. Without Margaret Thatcher's reforms in the 1980s, I would not have been able to build up my company which, directly and indirectly, employed more than 1,000 British people who might otherwise have been on the dole. The Bill does not build on that; it turns the clock back. It makes nonsense of the new deal. Yet the plodding herd opposite will be expected to drift into the Aye Lobby tonight like so many cows being called to the milking parlour—and with about as much thought.
  No doubt when the Minister is questioned about the Bill in future, he will get a pager message and say in defence, as others have done in defence of other Bills: "This Bill had the overwhelming support of Parliament." God help this Parliament and God help those in future who will seek fulfilment through being employed.
  7.56 pm
  Judy Mallaber: I certainly will not drift into the Lobby tonight. I shall support the Bill with great enthusiasm, as I welcome its provisions. Having heard the speeches of Opposition Members, I am also looking forward to the next election, as I shall have a great time explaining why my Conservative opponent seems to want to get rid of paternity rights, maternity rights and rights for part-time workers, trade unionists and individual workers in the work force—at least that seems to be the pattern of Opposition speeches.
  I shall focus on family-friendly policies and flexible working. I welcome the Bill's commitment to women's rights—a matter that has concerned me for many years. Flexible working patterns must be backed by the security of individual rights, and trade union organisation in the workplace can help to negotiate sensible arrangements for the benefit of employees and employers. The Bill provides a sensible framework for employment that will take us into the next century.
  I took a note of the opening speech by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood). He said that we needed to move to the free and flexible arrangements of
  192
  the next century. The Opposition have not caught up with this century. The right hon. Gentleman said that we must not legislate too far too fast. He was talking about a legal right for men to take leave when their children are born. If he thinks that there should be no such legal right in the next century, I should like to know which century he lives in.
  At last we have a Government who have caught up with the reality of people's lives. They realise that family life no longer means a man in one employment for 40 years and a woman at home with children. We need a modern employment system and a modern welfare system that match the reality of men and women changing jobs throughout their lifetime, sharing work and home responsibilities and working different hours at different times of their lives. Achieving that will be a complex process, of which the Bill is a part.
  It is a long time since women were forced to give up work when they married. It is a long time since 1945, when nurseries were closed down when the war ended because women were expected to give up paid employment and go back home. Hon. Members will know from their personal lives and those of their families how long it is since things changed and how slow Governments have been to catch up. Many employers have introduced flexible working patterns, but others have not. The Bill seeks to accommodate them with sensible measures and additional encouragement.
  Women have always juggled different parts of their lives—their home and work responsibilities—but many men would also like the opportunity to see their children grow up. That is why the working time directive is so important in moving against the long hours-short hours culture that bedevils Britain and is unique to it.
  The Bill is a modernising measure. As someone who worked for the National Union of Public Employees for many years, representing low-paid women workers, I am delighted that the issues that I raised when they were regarded as unfashionable—a minimum wage, full-time rights for part-time workers, child care and family-friendly policies—are now part of our strategy and that they are seen not as being nice to employees, but as central to economic policy.
  Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Judy Mallaber: No; I do not have very much time, as many other hon. Members wish to speak.
  Earlier in the debate, hon. Members—particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Rochdale (Lorna Fitzsimons) and for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson)—stated clearly why family-friendly policies are necessary if we are to have a modern economy, modern businesses and modern employment conditions. The fact is that employers require a highly motivated, flexible and well-trained work force. Moreover, businesses pay a cost if they lose employees because they have not been sufficiently flexible in allowing employees to stay in employment.
  I have run an organisation, on a tight budget, of 20 employees. I did what I could to be flexible in assisting employees when they had a domestic crisis. If their request was daft, I told them so, and that they could not have the time off. I should say that, as the Bill does not contain any daft provisions, passing the Bill will not

  193
  encourage problems. The point is that I did not want to lose staff members who were trained and good employees because I could not provide them with a flexible employment relationship.
  Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Judy Mallaber: No. I have been asked by other hon. Members to leave sufficient time for them to speak. The hon. Gentleman will know that I allowed him to intervene in my speeches in Committee in the past, and that I am, therefore, perfectly happy to debate with him. However, I must make some progress in my speech.
  Mr. David Ruffley: Stepford wives.
  Judy Mallaber: I should like to make a few comments on the provisions on part-time workers.
  Ms Candy Atherton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it acceptable for an Opposition Member to refer to women Members, and other hon. Members, as "Stepford wives"?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not believe that that has entered the lexicon of unparliamentary language. Nevertheless, I deprecate any immoderate language in the House, particularly if it comes from a sedentary position.
  Judy Mallaber: I have worked on employment issues longer than most hon. Members in this Parliament, including some of our Front Benchers and many of my fellow Back Benchers. I am also a member of the Employment Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on Education and Employment, which is examining in detail the Bill's provisions on part-time workers. The House may even be interested to know that the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) and I are engaged in a debate on how both our views can be accommodated in the report on part-time workers, which will soon be published and deal with many of the points that Conservative Members raised on the details that should be included in the regulations. I am therefore speaking not as a Stepford wife, but as someone with many years of practical experience on the issue.
  As a matter of social justice and fairness, there can be no justification for treating part-time workers worse than other workers, simply because they work fewer hours. Since 1989, the percentage of part-time jobs has increased from 24 to 29 per cent. of all jobs. People in part-time jobs comprise a major part of our work force, and I welcome any proposals to prevent discrimination against them.
  I should like to comment on provisions in the Bill that have not been mentioned so far in the debate. They provide for codes of practice and guidance on facilitating flexible organisation of working time taking into account the needs of both employers and employees. It is beneficial to employers if they develop flexible working arrangements. The health service provides a topical example—which applies to both the private sector and the public sector—of the benefits of flexible working arrangements.
  194
  I should say that positive working arrangements have already been developed in the health service, in other public services and in the private sector. Parts of both sectors have also developed arrangements that are not so flexible. The Employment Sub-Committee has taken evidence on examples of both good and bad practices in both sectors.
  The nurses issue is particularly topical. We know that we have a nurse shortage, and have consequently started a nurse recruitment campaign. We know also that nurses' pay and conditions are part of the problem. In a parliamentary question, which was answered on Monday, I asked what evidence the Department for Health has obtained
  "concerning the extent to which inflexibility in working hours deters nurses from taking up employment".—[Official Report, 8 February 1999; Vol. 325, c. 121.]
  I am pleased to note that the Department has conducted a survey on the matter, and that reports on it will soon be issued.
  I should like to cite an example of the importance of flexible working arrangements in my own area—not from my constituency, but in Derbyshire—although I cannot provide the details, as they are in dispute. The case involves an E-grade nurse who is seeking to return to work after maternity leave. She cannot afford a full-time nursery place, so she will have to rely on a mix of nursery care, child minders and other family arrangements. She will also have to place her child in a nursery for two days a week if her overall plans are to work, enabling her to return to work. She is quite happy to work a shift pattern or to work varied shifts. However, she will have to tell the nursery on which two days of the week she will require nursery provision. One would think that—with 24-hour working and rotating shifts—it would be perfectly easy to tell her on which two days she will have to work.
  The nurse has come up against comments such as, "We all managed. We all had to put up with it. You can't expect the ward to meet your personal needs. You're a nurse; you put up with it." She said:
  "I want to return to work and given the current shortage of nurses I felt the trust would welcome me. All I am asking is for a little flexibility in order that I can combine motherhood and a full time post."
  We have a nurse shortage, but that nurse cannot return to work because of a simple refusal to consider flexibility.
  Last week, I spoke to the chairwoman of the nurses and midwives Whitley council staff side, who told me of her general practitioner—a trained surgeon who cannot find a part-time job as a surgeon. Although she could accept a junior grade, she cannot find a position at her level that would utilise her skills. She is now working as a GP, rather than using the training for which we have paid. The situation is ridiculous; it is absurd.
  There are many other positive examples, both in the public services and in my area, of attempts to provide child care and flexible working arrangements. The private sector also provides many positive examples of such provision and arrangements—some of which were mentioned by the Secretary of State in his opening speech, and others of which have been cited to the Select Committee.
  Family-friendly policies assist employers and employees. No one is pretending that we can make arrangements that will always suit everyone, as everyone's

  195
  needs cannot always be met. We want to ensure that it is possible to find practices that suit both employers and employees.
  Recently, The Independent on Sunday examined the matter of how to enable flexible working and how to meet the needs of both employers and employees—as the Bill will help us to do. The article stated that the president of the Association of Management Consultancies and group MD of Hay Management Consultants believed that child-friendly hours need not be a problem in many businesses. She said that some jobs would be more appropriate for such practices than others. We all know that. I do not know whether we could job share, for example, the Prime Minister's job or the Secretary of State's job. The association's president continued:
  "The challenge for companies is that a lot of people haven't even thought about it … Some companies just have not got the creative mindset to make it work."
  The health trust that I mentioned did not have a creative mindset.
  In the Bill, we are seeking to provide some legislative rights. However, in other spheres, we are encouraging employers and employees to have a creative mindset, which is what we will need if we are to deal with modern conditions, modem family patterns and modem working patterns, so that we can go forward into the next century, to the benefit of everyone.
  8.9 pm
  Charlotte Atkins: For too long, the central fact of British economic life has been job insecurity. The legal obstacles to treating workers as disposable items was entirely swept away by the previous Administration. For many people, work has become nasty, brutish and overwhelmingly short. In such an industrial environment, there is little incentive to invest in employees' skills. United Kingdom industry invests much less per person than does much of European industry. Our investment per employee is less than half that in Germany and two fifths less than in France. Labour Members recognise that there is no future in a low-skill, low-wage economy. It just creates a downward spiral, with industry having to cut pay and conditions ever more to operate profitably as the supplier of low-value-added goods and services.
  British productivity is 40 per cent. lower than in Germany and 20 per cent. behind France and Italy. Do Conservative Members believe that that shows the success of their policies to create more competitive industry?
  Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Lady asks us about productivity. While some of us were involved in production, she worked for a trade union. How can she talk authoritatively on the subject? [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before the hon. Lady continues, may I encourage the colloquium below the gangway to cease? There is a disturbance going on that is preventing proper debate.
  Charlotte Atkins: Yes, I worked for a trade union, but the figures that I have quoted come from the Conservatives'
  196
  White Paper on competitiveness. You have demonstrated that UK industry does not have a proud record on competitiveness. You have talked eloquently—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady again, but hon. Members who have been here for a while must remember the correct forms of address.
  Charlotte Atkins: The hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) has spoken eloquently about the importance of competitiveness, but the figures show that Conservative policies on the issue have not succeeded in increasing industrial productivity. If we are to break out of this spiral of decline, we must create partnerships at work, giving every individual rights to decent minimum standards and fairness at work that are enforceable by law. It is clear that the voluntary way has not succeeded.
  That makes economic as well as moral sense. How can commitment and flexibility be encouraged when employers ignore the views of their employees on such a fundamental issue as establishing a collective voice at work? A huge gulf exists between the best employers and the rest. The Bill will help to promote good practice and narrow that gap. The voluntary route is not a way forward.
  Mr. George Stevenson: Would my hon. Friend care to refer to the situation at the Stoke potteries, where 250 people were locked out in early December? They have not been paid a penny since and have now been arbitrarily sacked by the employers. That is the Conservative way.
  Charlotte Atkins: I am well aware of the situation. My hon. Friend and I have discussed the issue many times. I am outraged by such behaviour, but unfortunately it is often typical.
  The majority of the most successful companies tend to be unionised. Some 88 per cent. of the top companies recognise unions. In my constituency, Blue Circle negotiated a ground-breaking agreement called the "Way Ahead", covering 2,000 employees in 10 plants. It provides for a pay increase of 0.25 per cent. above inflation over three years, and gives job security with no compulsory redundancies. There is proper training to increase the skill base and retraining when necessary. There is also real job enrichment, enabling employees to reach their full potential. Four members of staff are being sponsored to do degrees at Stafford university and the Open university. That commitment has been created by both sides in forming a partnership.
  Job security is central to improved productivity. Shop floor employees are far more willing to suggest ways to cut repetitive tasks or to identify wasted time if they know that the resulting improvement will not mean that they lose their jobs. Alan Hardy, Blue Circle's business process review manager, says:
  "You don't build a partnership based on trust if you don't recognise the trade unions. We want to work with the unions to improve the business. That's the way to provide real job security."
  The "Way Ahead" deal is more than just a long-term pay deal; it is a change of thinking away from the traditional adversarial approach. That is the spirit of the Bill.
  These issues are not just for big employers. Marling Ltd. is a medium-sized firm in Leek producing webbing products, such as car seat belts and safety harnesses. It is

  197
  also happy to be unionised. Its partnership with its employees has led to innovative ideas coming from the shop floor to improve productivity. When ideas are put into practice, the employee who thought up the idea is rewarded. Everyone in the firm benefits, as the future competitiveness of the company is vital for job security in an industry that, sadly, has already lost many jobs in Leek. Such partnership is important in large and small companies.
  The family-friendly policies in the Bill will build on the excellent work already achieved by the Government, including the working families tax credit, the national child care strategy, increased child benefit, help for disabled people and support for carers. That should be welcomed, because the Government recognise that there is more to life than just work.
  Mr. Bercow: The hon. Lady has mentioned family-friendly policies. Detail is clearly important. What is her interpretation of new section 81, described in paragraph 140 on page 35 of the explanatory notes to the Bill? It talks about the circumstances in which collective and work force agreements can take precedence over the regulations to be issued.
  Charlotte Atkins: If I am fortunate enough to be selected for the Standing Committee, I shall be happy to explore that matter with the hon. Gentleman. It is sad that Conservative Members tend to sneer at family-friendly policies. That is surprising, given how many of them have decided to resign and spend more time with their families. I hope that they will take the issues seriously. Families will produce the young skilled men and women whom we need to be competitive in the next century.
  We have seen the welcome impact of good family-friendly policies in many areas. I hope that we shall be able to give a boost to such policies by ensuring that the Bill is passed and promotes beneficial arrangements in companies, large and small.
  8.18 pm
  Mr. Ian Stewart: Over 18 years, the Tory Government stripped workers of employment rights and created an unequal balance of power in law between employer and employee. The Bill takes significant steps to redress that imbalance and promote co-operation and genuine partnership at work.
  Of course, most of Britain's top companies recognise unions. Of the top 50 FTSE companies, 46 do. The Bill will have to drag some firms into the 21st century, but for many the transition will be smooth, building on the consultation and bargaining procedures already in place.
  The Bill covers individual, collective and family-friendly policies. I shall talk about the first two categories. Because of time constraints, I shall be disciplined and leave other colleagues with particular expertise and interests to comment on the family-friendly policies, which I wholeheartedly endorse. I wish that such policies had been in place when my family were young. I am delighted that they may be of benefit to my adult children.
  I welcome the reduction from two years to one in the qualifying period after which a dismissal can be ruled unfair. It is estimated that between 135,000 and 270,000 employees a year who are dismissed after one to two years' service could benefit from the Bill. A number
  198
  of current provisions allow employers to dismiss workers fairly on grounds of capability, including sickness, misconduct and, redundancy or for other substantial reasons. Even if the qualifying period for unfair dismissal were reduced to six months—that is, restored to the 1979 position under the last Labour Government—employers with good reason who had gone through a proper procedure would not be prevented from fairly dismissing employees. The fallacy that poor workers cannot be sacked is promoted by poor managers. The change will still leave us with the highest qualifying threshold in the EU, together with Ireland. Nevertheless, the new measure, which will give an extra 250,000 million workers an opportunity to lodge an unfair dismissal claim, if appropriate, is significant.
  I congratulate the Government on the substantial increase in the amount that can be awarded in cases where employees have been found to have been unfairly dismissed. The cap on compensatory awards is to be increased from £12,000 to £50,000. I am happy to admit that I lobbied the previous Secretary of State to keep the original White Paper proposal to abolish the cap. That was in the full knowledge that the median award for unfair dismissal in 1996–97 was £2,575—way below the existing cap of £12,000.
  I did not put forward the argument for no cap just because I wanted to protect high earners who were dismissed; I did it for another reason. I found that, when I presented cases at tribunals—in my former life as a Transport and General Workers Union official—one element of compensation that was rarely considered during remedy discussions and calculations was loss of pension rights. Few people—including, in some notable cases, chairs of industrial tribunals—were aware of that, or of the fact that the sums involved could be substantial. I hope that awareness can be raised, and that fuller consideration will be given to it in future. I am pleased that the cap will be uprated regularly and I hope that the need for it will be kept under review.
  A second area of calculation that would be more significant for lower earners is the current cap of £220 on the calculation of a "week's pay". I hope that the Government will be able to look again at the restrictive nature of the current limit. I would like Ministers to consider the method of calculating an individual's "week's pay", basing it on the last 12 weeks of salary, including any regular overtime payments.
  Employees of firms of all sizes will have the right to be accompanied by a fellow employee or a trade union official in disciplinary hearings or grievance hearings about serious issues, and I particularly welcome that measure. Many workers will, for the first time, have the opportunity to call in experienced and professional trade union officials to argue their case. I understand that 740,000 employees will benefit from the measure. It will help not just vulnerable employees, but those who lack confidence. I am conscious of the fact that some employees may find a workmate reluctant to act as an advocate in their case for fear of victimisation.
  I have heard employers argue that their enlightened procedures for dealing with such matters should not be disrupted. "We handle grievances fairly," they say. If that is true, employees will probably not need to request trade union representation—but they should still have the right to do so. This is an issue of fairness, freedom of individual choice and basic human rights. Whether people work

  199
  full-time or part-time, it is important that they have some meaningful voice in decisions about their working environment and their personal interests. If they do, they will be better motivated and more productive, which is in the best interests of their employer and the country.
  I warmly welcome the introduction of the partnership fund, as I have a long-standing interest in education and training. I am an enthusiastic supporter of the university for industry and the lifelong learning initiative championed by the Government. Trade unions have comprehensive training programmes for officials and members, and they have long advocated the importance of extended training opportunities for employees as part of the collective bargaining process. I believe that Government funds for the training of employees and managers to assist and develop partnerships at work are vital. I welcome the £2 million committed to the fund, and I hope that the Government will quickly see the need to increase that progressive provision.
  I wish to refer also to employment agencies, which have long been of interest to me. I am pleased that the Government are looking to improve the enforcement of employment law in that field, as it has been unchanged for 20 years. However, we have yet to have a coherent definition of who is the employer and who shoulders what responsibilities regarding employees placed with client companies by employment agencies. I accept that the issue may be outside the scope of the Bill, but I hope that it will be tackled in the not-too-distant future, and I hope that the Government recognise the prime role of agencies in this matter.
  I welcome the Bill. I echo the comments of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that fairness at work is vital to the quality of our everyday lives. I have long believed in the need for a UK definition of social partnership that recognises and respects the differing interests of workers and employers, but also identifies the areas of agreement and trust and seeks to tackle the differences in a civilised way. As a Chinese proverb says, one hand has difficulty washing itself. Fairness at work is crucial to the development of productive individuals, productive companies and a productive economy.
  Hon. Members could be forgiven for thinking that my speech is a bid for a place on the Committee to consider the Bill, and I confess that it is. However, my welcome for the Bill is sincere, and well-deserved by the Government. The Bill is an arrow pointing in the direction of a more civilised and modern approach to our industrial relations, and I believe that it is warmly welcomed by the House.
  8.27 pm
  Mr. Alan Johnson: I declare an interest as a member of the Communication Workers Union and as someone who was happily employed by the union for 10 years. Like my hon. Friends the Members for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) and for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington), I have spent many years at the sharp end of trade unionism.
  Labour Members have been frustrated—although the debate has not been acrimonious—by the lack of any understanding by the Conservative party of what we mean when we talk about the commitment of trade unionists.
  200
  Trade unions have been a force for good—not because of union leaders or people who sit on executives, but because of the thousands of men and women who spend their own time trying to help others at the workplace.
  I have come to the conclusion that there is no point in trying to strike a chord with Conservative Members. The hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) suggested that hon. Members should not speak in this debate unless they had an economics degree or had started their own business. That reinforced me in my suspicion that discussing the principles behind trade unionism with the Conservative party is like trying to explain origami to a penguin. There is a complete absence of understanding.
  The argument has been that the Conservative party was on some noble quest during the 1980s. I do not doubt the honour and integrity of those Tories who say that they personally believe in trade unionism and the rights of trade unions. They have said that we are not taking employers' views into account. Let me remind them that, throughout the 1980s and the early 1990s, when they imposed legislation that grew progressively worse, they were opposed by 100 per cent. of the trade union movement. There was no attempt to find consensus: we were locked out.
  If Conservative Members seek to tell us that they were on a noble quest, let us remember that they were attacking not trade unions but trade unionists and the rights of ordinary people at work.
  Mr. Ian Stewart: Human rights.
  Mr. Johnson: My hon. Friend is right: it is a human rights issue.
  Let us remind ourselves of some of the noble deeds of the Conservatives in government. They increased the length of service before workers could claim unfair dismissal, from six months to a year, and then from one year to two. They took away the right of youngsters under 21 to be covered by a wages council, and then they disbanded wages councils altogether. When they got to the nitty-gritty of their noble quest and the principled nub of their argument, they increased from six months to two years the qualifying period of continuous employment after which employees are entitled to be given, on request, a written statement of the reasons for their dismissal.
  The reasoned amendment says that we should leave
  "employers and employees free to settle relationships for themselves without outside interference."
  Two of the primary measures in the Bill are about union recognition and the right to take strike action without being dismissed. The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), whose integrity I do not doubt, said that he wanted to hear details of the dispute in Scotland mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe). I can tell him about a dispute that started when I was still general secretary of the Communication Workers Union. It started on 6 February 1997 and has just passed its second anniversary. It is exactly about the way in which workers cannot deal with these issues with employers by themselves.
  The dispute, of which my hon. Friend the Minister is aware, is at Critchley Labels in south Wales. The workers were 96 per cent. unionised and the employers took full advantage of another tranche of Tory legislation—allowing the redundancy of fewer than 20 workers to go

  201
  ahead without consultation—and made 10 workers redundant. Without consultation, the employers sacked a disabled employee who had worked for the company for 17 years, along with the branch chairman and the branch secretary.
  The work force objected, took a ballot on industrial action and implemented an overtime ban to try to get the company not to reverse the redundancies but merely to have consultations on that possibility. The employers tore up the union recognition agreement. In the ballot, 88 per cent. of the work force voted for strike action. They took strike action. They were all dismissed. Two years later, in an area of high unemployment—my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig) is still trying to resolve the issues—they are still out of work.
  That is the nonsense of suggesting that, without the minimum standards that we are seeking to implement, workers can fight against an employer. Critchley Labels could not happen under the Bill. We cannot make the legislation retrospective, but I would like my hon. Friend the Minister to state clearly that we are making working conditions more civilised and that the very worst of British employers, such as the management of Critchley Labels, will have to comply, perhaps belatedly, with the spirit of the Bill.
  I am extremely pleased to support the Bill. I argued for this approach before I was a Member of Parliament, when I was a trade union leader. We seek partnership and consensus, but there must be basic civil rights for people at work. My hon. Friends the Members for Sunderland, North and for Eccles (Mr. Stewart) were absolutely right when they said that the issue was about improving the quality of our democracy.
  The Bill challenges the concept, championed by Conservative Members, that in this country one leaves a democracy and enters an oligarchy when one puts on one's coat to go to work. That concept would be foreign practically anywhere else in Europe, and in most civilised countries, but it has underpinned industrial relations here for far too long.
  I fully accept that the workplace is changing—of course we need different skills for the employment that is available today—but I do not believe, as some human resource managers are trying to convince us, that the desire of the work force for fair treatment, basic job security and minimum standards has changed. The idea that workers are desperate to spend every hour that they can in the workplace, in slavery to the employer, is ludicrous. People want jobs and understand that job security cannot be guaranteed, but they want a job as part of a life that is fulfilled away from the workplace. That is why I think that the Government have struck the right balance with the Bill.
  I also believe that the Bill is a victory for those people on both sides of industry—I have worked with them over the years—who rejected the polarised positions of right and left. This is an opportune moment for an overview of the history of the past 25 years, when the approaches of the Labour party, and of the trade union movement under the enlightened leadership of the general secretary of the TUC, have changed so much.
  In the past, those on the right parroted the mantra, "management's right to manage". However, those on the left were equally wrong to say that workers achieved civil rights in the workplace only when they got their union
  202
  cards. The trade union movement was badly misrepresented in the 1970s because we did not move away from that polarised position. I was there: I wore those flares and that tank top. At that time, both sides of the argument rejected the minimum wage, and believed that industrial democracy and employee participation were funny things that they had on the continent but were not for British workers. Both sides chanted the mantras "free collective bargaining" and "no legally binding agreements".
  We must remember that, at the end of a period that was supposed to have been the trade union movement's glam rock decade, the United States Department of Labour reported that British wage rates were 18 per cent. below the rates in France, 40 per cent. below those in Germany and 35 per cent. below those in Holland. We were the only country in Europe that had no basic, minimum standards. Pensions, redundancy and sickness—
  Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Johnson: No, you didn't give way when you were speaking.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. I am not giving way to anyone, and nor am I not giving way. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will use the correct parliamentary form of address.
  Mr. Johnson: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  We in Britain worked longer hours than any other workers in Europe. That was not a successful period for looking after the basic civil rights of people at work.
  The Bill adopts the right approach. We should consult the employer as far as we possibly can—although I have to note that employers grew increasingly embarrassed about the legislation introduced by the previous Conservative Government. In the end, the embarrassment was huge on all sides. The Bill is the way forward because it charts a course for basic human rights at work and for dignity. It turns the issue of trade union rights into one of civil rights, and I support it.
  8.38 pm
  Mr. Bob Laxton: I, too, shall begin by declaring an interest. I have been involved in small companies, and have been an active trade unionist all my life. I have also been involved on the employer's side in local government, in various roles. I believe that my experience gives me a balanced view of many of the issues relevant to discussion of the Bill.
  I welcome the Bill, which will put in place provisions for employment legislation that will reflect the requirements of the most modern and efficient companies, both in this country and in Europe. Conservative Members have tended to overlook that aspect of the Bill.
  I listened—at times with some incredulity—to the speeches of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) and of certain other Conservative Members. They seem almost to hark back to times of yore. Certainly, 20 years ago, the issues that they raised would have had some credibility in some cases. They seem to hark back, however, almost to Dickensian times, an era in which some of them might have felt more comfortable and at ease with themselves.

  203
  In the '60s—the 1960s, not the 1860s—some areas of trade union activity sometimes left more than a little to be desired. However, the pendulum has swung excessively in the opposite direction. Until recently, poverty pay in some parts of industry was as low as £1 or £1.50 an hour. Employers were also able to exploit employees, being able to demand excessive hours and, in some cases, dangerously long hours. Zero-hour contracts remain, there is no job security and employee rights are limited.
  Fortunately, all that applies to only a minority of employers. When it comes to the most efficient and effective companies in the United Kingdom, the facts speak for themselves. Some 46 of the top 50 FTSE companies recognise trade unions in their workplaces. Companies such as Tesco—Britain's biggest employer—are also heavily unionised. That has not inhibited Tesco in overtaking Sainsbury to become the UK's top supermarket. Such companies well understand the process of partnership.
  Times are changing. The working time directive limits the hours that employees can be asked to work. We should all appreciate that, for the first time in British history, employees have a guaranteed legal right to at least three weeks' paid holiday every year. Measures such as those have started to change industrial relations in the UK.
  The Bill provides for individual rights, collective rights and family-friendly policies, many of which will apply for the first time in UK history. Individual employees will be given better, more effective rights and protections against unfair dismissal, and, when unfair dismissal does occur, the compensation ceiling will rise more than four times higher than it is at present. That will ensure that employers who decide, quite wrongly, to dismiss employees will think two, three or four times before doing so. They will begin to think seriously about the punitive financial consequences of going down that road. My hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Stewart) stated that, despite the current £12,000 ceiling, payments from industrial tribunals average something like £2,500, but employers will have to think carefully about how they act in future.
  For employers who wish to dismiss an employee, there will be no problem if proper, professional employment practices are applied, and if the dismissal is clearly fair. Employers have nothing to fear from such a practice because justice will be on their side, as it has to be on the side of the employee.
  Much has been said already about the family-friendly aspects of the Bill. Those aspects will improve maternity rights for parents and rights in relation to domestic emergencies. Despite criticism about the lack of detail on those matters, the provisions will be welcomed by employees throughout the country.
  I have said how much I welcome the Bill and its raft of provisions. It is all about partnership at work, something that I regret Conservative Members do not quite understand or, in some cases, do not seem capable of getting their head round. Partnership at work works in the best UK companies—the most efficient and most effective. As a Government, we seek to introduce it and to encourage it. The Bill will drive that policy further forward, and the sooner the better.
  204
  Even before it reaches the statute book, the Bill has started to have an impact on industrial relations. There has already been a boost to partnership in the workplace. Many companies have started to grant recognition to their work force and to trade unions. Again, that is long overdue.
  I shall allude to some personal experiences that I have had. As I have said, for many years, I worked in a large company—and a high-technology company to boot. I spent some dispirited and unhappy mornings outside company sites leafleting employees, who I know desperately wanted to have the protection and benefits that becoming trade union members would give them. I shall talk specifically about those companies that operate in the cable business.
  All the companies that I had dealings with—including Nynex, now Cable and Wireless Communications—implacably opposed any trade union activity in the workplace. I never managed to understand where they were coming from. Such industries had a particularly skilled work force, with high intellectual and technological skills. Many companies would have benefited from the partnership arrangements that could have applied. However, in my experience, employees in those companies were not involved in partnership. It seemed that they turned up to earn their money, to do not the minimum, but to work hard. However, they were not particularly interested in giving the companies the benefit of their experience and technological skills.
  If those companies embraced their work force and allowed them to have a representative role in the workplace, they would draw real benefits. Regrettably, they still hold out and seek not to recognise trade unions. I cannot for the life of me understand why they do not move forward. The only thing that I can say is that many of those companies were perhaps unduly influenced by the American experience, Nynex being basically an American company and Cable and Wireless Communications operating originally out of Hong Kong, yet being anti-union.
  The Bill will assist employees in such industries and the companies themselves. I have said before that they need to embrace their work forces and draw on the skills and talents of the people whom they employ. I believe that the Bill will do much for the mutual benefit of both sides of industry.
  8.50 pm
  Mr. Dominic Grieve: I apologise if I seem to be losing my voice, but I am prompted to intervene briefly by the comments of the hon. Member for Hull, West and Hessle (Mr. Johnson) on the inability of Conservative Members to comprehend the arguments of Labour Members. To a great extent, I fully understand his arguments. Having spent some of my time in recent years doing employment law and representing both trade unions and employers, I can easily see that Labour Members made legitimate points in respect of many areas of industrial relations during the part of the debate that I heard.
  As always in human relations, the problem is how to translate the desire to ensure good employer-employee relationships into statutory format. The problem with the Bill is that it is difficult not to regard it as a return, albeit in attenuated form, to an extraordinarily complex set of

  205
  rules whereby the state intervenes to govern employer-employee relationships. Not only that, it seeks to govern them in a way quite different from the recent general thrust of employment law, which has been about individual rights. The Bill is about not individual rights but collective rights. It is that difference that Labour Members do not seem to understand, and that is why the Bill causes me so much anxiety.
  Dr. Godman: Good.
  Mr. Grieve: The hon. Gentleman says, "Good." Labour Members cannot have it both ways. They cannot say that it is all about partnership one moment and say, "Good," when people on the other side of the partnership say that they are anxious. That aptly represents the return to confrontational tactics fomented by the Government. I suspect that they will come to regret it.
  I shall consider some specific proposals. The question of union recognition has a long history, but I am blowed if I can see any advantage to altering the current position. The proposal is a form of collective blackmail of one set of individuals, the employers, by another. In a free society, people should be allowed to make their own arrangements. Once again, instead of considering the rights of individual employees, a set of nanny state rules to govern employer-employee relations is being foisted on us. That is a retrograde step.
  The second issue is the unfair dismissal of striking workers. If there is any proposal in the Bill to which I object, it is this. Employers and employees make contracts, which are now tightly defined. As I found when I represented employees, breaches of, or failure to adhere to, contracts by the employer usually led to fully justified awards of damages. Through industrial tribunals, employees can get good redress on such issues. However, with the dismissal of striking workers, who is breaking the contract?
  If the contract is being broken by the employees, who are taking action outside the contract and, as a result, bringing work to a halt, that is their right. That they should then be protected for eight weeks from the consequences of their actions is a return to all the worst features of 1960s industrial relations.
  I find it difficult to understand how the human rights of an employer are enhanced when he, finding that his work force have, without any justification, withdrawn their labour, cannot take the action which, to my mind, he is fully entitled to take and say, "All right, that's your choice, but I reserve my choice to go off and hire other workers who want to work under the terms of the contract." Such a form of interference returns us to neanderthal industrial relations. It will do this country absolutely no good.
  Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the proposals suggest only that it would be for the tribunal to decide whether to dismiss was fair or unfair? The Bill does not suggest that dismissal is always automatically unfair, but simply leaves it open to the tribunal to decide whether a dismissal was unfair in the circumstances. It might well be that, in certain circumstances, it would be unfair.
  Mr. Grieve: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but that is a subtle variation of a simple position. Fairness or
  206
  unfairness in employment, according to the terms, is governed by the terms of one's contract; however, as I believe he will agree, the provision goes quite outside the terms of the contract and goes to the justification, social or otherwise, for the action taken by employees. The state is ill-placed to start that sort of regulation, and starting down that road will not contribute to good industrial relations or to economic prosperity, on which everyone—employer and employee—is ultimately dependent.
  In the same vein, I am especially troubled by that part of the Bill that deals with what are described as family-friendly policies. In fairness to the Government, and as one whose background is partly French and draws on a long history of holiday periods being set by statute, the three-week minimum holiday is not a subject on which I shall trouble myself greatly. However, I confess to having grave reservations about the three-month period set for paternity or maternity leave.
  Direct experience suggests that, in small businesses, the sudden departure of an employee creates enormous problems, and I simply do not understand why the employer should have to shoulder the burden of finding and training the replacement and dealing with the attendant difficulties. The same thing happens when an employee is off sick, but that at least is human and understandable. That it should happen simply because the state has decreed that, in the event of the arrival of a child, not only the mother but both parents may have three months off, is objectionable. One of the reasons I find it objectionable is that I come from a self-employed background where such little perks and delights were not open to me—but then, I would not have expected them.
  The measure is a retrograde step and is another means by which burdens are imposed on small employers that they cannot meet. The history of the past century has been of the transfer of burdens on to employers. Some of those were justified, which is why I said at the start of my speech that I accept that Labour Members have argued some perfectly legitimate themes. Every Member of Parliament should be committed to good industrial relations.
  Mr. Ruffley: Conservative Members have been enjoying my hon. Friend's speech. Would he care to comment on an opinion from the Law Society that suggests that the roles and functions of the Central Arbitration Committee are so badly defined in the Bill that a spate of judicial review challenges in the courts is inevitable?
  Mr. Grieve: My hon. Friend is quite right, but this will not be the first time that badly drafted legislation passes through Parliament. On issues of "social justice", the tendency towards the opaque makes life for the judiciary extremely difficult, but it makes life for lawyers, such as me and my colleagues, extremely enjoyable, as it provides a fertile field for making money. On the whole, I am not a believer in involving lawyers in people's problems and I keep telling them that, if at all possible, lawyers should be kept out. One of the ways to keep lawyers out of people's difficulties and problems is to ensure that everybody understands his or her rights. If legislation is badly drafted, that does not happen.
  Some Labour Members have said that they wish for partnership and that the issue is not one of "them and us". I, too, want partnership between employer and

  207
  employee—it is the foundation of a happy country—but it will not be achieved by putting social regulation, through the nanny state, on one party.
  9 pm
  Mr. Jonathan Shaw: I am grateful to be able to contribute to the debate. I shall keep my comments short, as I know that several of my hon. Friends want to speak.
  I also congratulate the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), on his work to get the Bill before the House. In combining it with the minimum wage legislation, he has made a huge contribution to our party in government.
  Work is the fundamental basis on which our society functions. It is a basic human right to be treated fairly in the workplace and to be represented, if one so wishes. Increasingly in recent years, however, that has not happened. Ordinary, decent, hard-working people have seen their rights swept away and replaced, in some extreme examples, with a climate of fear and intimidation. There is no better example of that in Kent than at Co-Steel in Sheerness. It derecognised unions and set about a systematic policy of intimidating and bullying union stewards. My hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) has campaigned hard for those workers and spoken up in the House on the matter on several occasions.
  The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) said that our legislation will be a return to the bad old days, the bad old ways, yet existing employment legislation is in the dark ages. Parts of my constituency could be described as middle England. During the election campaign, I spoke on the doorstep to many ordinary people who were concerned about the lack of protection, representation and fairness at work. The hire today, fire tomorrow mentality does not sit comfortably with the public. It is not, as some might say, the British way.
  People said to me time and again that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Laxton) said, the pendulum has swung too far in favour of unscrupulous employers. The vast majority of British people believe that employees should be entitled to some holiday, have a minimum wage, be able to look after their sick children and take time off. The Bill, combined with our other policies, will redress the imbalance and, most importantly, be very popular.
  All hon. Members, if not the vast majority, will have heard in their surgeries constituents' tales of appalling treatment by employers. I heard one of the worst examples in my surgery last year. An ordinary man, who had served his country with distinction as an officer in the Royal Air Force, was working for a college of further education. He had worked there for 11 years, and been promoted throughout. He had secured tens of thousands of pounds of funding from the European social fund, improved the courses and increased the number of people attending the college.
  In 1995, the college, like many further education colleges, organised its pay structure locally. My constituent's colleagues asked him to become their union steward. All deliberations and negotiations went successfully, but, shortly afterwards, the principal falsely
  208
  accused my constituent of a variety of indiscretions that brought the college into disrepute. Regrettably, particularly for my constituent, the only way in which the dispute could be resolved was through an industrial tribunal.
  Following the industrial tribunal's decision, the principal instigated disciplinary proceedings against my constituent. Both disciplinary hearings started at 6 o'clock in the evening. One finished at 1 o'clock in the morning, and the other at 2 o'clock in the morning. Despite the requests of my constituent and his union representative for an adjournment, it was refused. My constituent was told that the hearing would continue regardless of his presence.
  It was no great surprise to my constituent that he was sacked and has to take his case to another industrial tribunal. Having earned a reasonable salary, he can expect only a maximum pay-out of £12,000. That is unlikely, given that the average pay-out is about £2,500. He may lose his home, and the strain on his family's health has been unbearable. The new cap of £50,000 may have prevented the college from taking action. I also welcome the fact that the cap will be index-linked.
  The Bill causes the Tories many difficulties because it not only goes against their natural sense of injustice, but will add to their unpopularity. There is a generation—Thatcher' s children—who, come the next general election, will see huge differences between our policies on representation, fairness at work and the minimum wage and the bad old ways under the Tories. They will easily make a decision.
  Before I came to the House, I worked with young people. Shortly before the election, a young lad told me that he had just been fired from a job packing oranges. He had worked for the company for six months and there had never been any concern about his work. I asked him why he was sacked and he replied, "I was talking to the person who was standing next to me. That's the way that we are treated." He had no expectation of being treated any other way, but he did not have any commitment to the company.
  That young lad will have his first vote at the next election, as will millions of other young people, and what a stark contrast he will find between our policies and the bad old ways under the Tories. I, along with my hon. Friends, will certainly be reminding him of that—but, having listened to many speeches in the debate, I do not think that he will take too much reminding.
  9.6 pm
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: It is a privilege to take part in this debate. The key test of the Bill should be whether or not it improves industrial relations. One of the reasons that this country's economy has been so successful since 1979 is that we have had an increasingly liberal employment regime. One has only to consider countries with successful economies, such as the United States with its mobile and flexible labour laws, to understand the damage that the Bill could do.
  If we look back to the circumstances that we inherited in 1979, we remember the bad old days of secondary picketing, flying pickets and the intimidation and even violence that went on during strikes. We can remember the results of those strikes, such as the closed-shop dispute at Grunwick and the dreadful pay disputes in 1975,

  209
  when Ford workers went on strike for a 50 per cent. pay rise and were awarded a 30 per cent. rise. That is the regime that we took over in 1979. A staggering 29 million working days were lost to strikes in that year. By 1997, only 235,000 days were lost to strikes. That was a result of the regime that we put in place during the 1980s and 1990s.
  Mr. Ruffley: Would my hon. Friend like to hazard a guess as to how many members of the present Cabinet supported Baroness Thatcher's reforms to remedy the problems that he has just identified?
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: It is not difficult to guess that figure, because I doubt whether any Labour Member supported the Thatcher reforms.
  My remarks are not political—I genuinely want there to be good industrial relations in this country. I totally oppose, as every hon. Member should be elected to this place to oppose, unnecessary burdens on employers, because only through entrepreneurship and success, especially of small businesses, will this country ultimately be successful as an economic power.
  One of the great achievements of the Thatcher years was that we created 1 million extra small businesses employing 1 million extra people. I want there to be full employment, a labour force richly rewarded for their work and people with mobility who have proper skills and training. That is the economy that I want this country to have.
  My fear is that we shall have an economy that is increasingly dirigiste, increasingly regulated and, increasingly taxed and that imposes increasing burdens on small businesses. Why, for example, does the Bill use the arbitrary figure of 20 workers above which the provisions will apply, ignoring all the pleas and representations made by the CBI that a more realistic level for small businesses would be 50 employees?
  I sincerely hope, in a non-partisan way, that the Minister will consider that factor. I think that a business employing only 20 people will be saddled with a huge burden if it is forced to recognise the trade union membership of its entire work force, given the costs associated with employment law and other aspects of such recognition. Given that we want to encourage seedcorn businesses, surely it would be sensible to increase the number to a more realistic 50.
  Mr. Bercow: Should it not be emphasised that, although firms with 20 or fewer employees are excluded from the requirements relating to trade union recognition, no firm is excluded from the provisions of the parental leave directive, because of the Government's crass folly in signing up to the social chapter?
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: I entirely agree—and, as my time is limited, I shall say something about parental leave now.
  Parental leave is difficult to define. How old will a child have to be, and what evidence will have to be produced, before leave can be claimed? It strikes me as folly for both parents to be eligible. I do not mind whether the father or the mother is eligible, but it seems unreasonable for both to be eligible at the same time.
  The Bill has another worrying aspect. The increasing trend towards secondary legislation is creeping into all the Government's Bills. It is a bad trend and an undemocratic
  210
  trend: it means that regulations can be introduced through secondary legislation and need not be properly scrutinised and debated in the House. I think that law should be accurately drafted and introduced through primary legislation so that the House can scrutinise it. Under the last Finance Bill, for instance, regulations were introduced to provide for all the necessary preparation for the euro. I consider that to be an abuse of Parliament. This Bill, too, provides for increased secondary legislation.
  The provision relating to the Central Arbitration Committee also worries me. We do not know what the committee's role will be, or how its membership will be composed. We do know—because clause 22 tells us—that the committee
  "shall consist of members appointed by the Secretary of State."
  The Secretary of State cannot even trust those members to appoint their own chairman: he will make the appointment for them. That shows how little the Government trust democracy. The committee might actually be composed of independent people who are able to make up their own minds.
  We know that the committee's members must be "experienced in industrial relations". Thank goodness for that. What would be the point of appointing people with experience of stamp collecting or some other irrelevant qualification? We would expect them to have proper qualifications. We also know that some members must have experience as employers. That, surely, is only right, in a Bill in which partnership has a role to play.
  Time is limited, so I will finish my speech. I believe that this is the ultimate payback to the trade unions for all that they have donated to the Labour party between 1979 and now. How much has the payback been—£100 million or £150 million? I do not know; we can only guess and speculate. The Bill, however, is the ultimate prize. That is unfortunate, because I think that it will have a detrimental effect on unemployment. Already, about 18.5 million people are unemployed in Europe. Fortunately, the trend has fallen progressively in this country over the past two or three years. What a tragedy it would be if people became unemployed solely as a result of the Bill.
  It is, I think, almost inevitable that employers on whom extra costs are imposed will become less competitive. When the far east begins to get its act together, it will produce some highly competitive electrical and chemical goods, and those industries will be able to undercut our firms, which will be shackled with European-type legislation. If we do not resist such legislation, Britain will sink further and further, and become less and less competitive. We shall drift back to the bad old days of 1979, with secondary picketing and flying pickets. I hope that the Government will have second thoughts and ameliorate the worst aspects of the Bill.
  9.15 pm
  Lorna Fitzsimons: The hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) argues, with amazingly scant regard for the facts and figures associated with the Administration whom he supported, that the Bill will cause a catastrophic rise in unemployment. Two thirds of manufacturing capacity was destroyed by the previous Government, and one business went bust every three minutes.

  211
  Like many other hon. Members, I shall declare an interest. I am a member of MSF—the Manufacturing, Science and Finance Union—but I also have experience of being a small employer and a large employer, in the profit sector and the not-for-profit sector. With that background, I know that many of the arguments that I have heard from Conservative Members are lazy, old-fashioned politics. That is as out of date in the Chamber as it is useless in the debate about how to go forward in industrial relations in a modem economy.
  The tried and tested way of punishing people and of levelling down pay, skills and terms and conditions did not work. It caused strife and blight in communities. It is laughable for the Conservatives to position themselves as the pro-family party. Their industrial relations legislation had a disastrous effect on the people whom I represent and, indeed, on my family.
  How can people plan a stable family environment when they have a zero-hours contract—when they turn up day after day, not knowing whether they will be paid for their work? How can there be a positive planning environment for a family without paid holidays? Those are the basic needs of families, which are the building blocks of our communities and society.
  The family-friendly aspects of the Bill apply universally to all workers. Good employment will once again mean good family policies. The world of work and the world of home must work together. One cannot ignore the fact that, when a child is sick, that affects the family members who work—the mother or the father. Businesses that have good, flexible practices reap the rewards. The amount of sick leave taken by their employees decreases because of the greater flexibility and the greater honesty and loyalty of the work force.
  Many of my hon. Friends have quoted case studies from their constituencies which showed that workers' loyalty and productivity increased if they were valued. We could all quote ad infinitum examples of the destructive effect of bad employment practices.
  Various aspects of the Bill are worth highlighting. The agency clause is important. An agency representing workers in a competitive, high-skill, high-wage sector is entirely different from agencies that operate in constituencies such as mine. Such agencies have worked for years to negate employers' responsibilities for terms, conditions and basic minimum rights. That is wrong. I welcome the fact that some of the more honourable Opposition Members acknowledged that the denial of those rights shames all of us and is bad for the economy, for business and for society.
  I welcome the provisions on the working terms for part-time workers. In my constituency, a lot of work is part-time and, by increasing the rights of part-time workers, we have enfranchised thousands of my constituents who previously did not think that legislation covered them. They would never have thought of going to their trade union, because they knew that they did not have any rights that could enfranchise them. Now they can go to their trade union and actively choose to be represented, because they have rights. That will change their outlook and enable them to participate more, and it will be wholly welcomed.
  212
  We have to get back to a more intelligent, balanced debate about the art of the achievable, and I firmly believe that the Bill is a start in terms of minimum standards in the workplace. It states the humane standards, which were eloquently set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, West and Hessle (Mr. Johnson). We all know of the old lazy politics of the bad old days, of the left and the right. Neither was particularly useful to good business or to good employment practice or for workers' representation.
  The good management of business is difficult. Some of us have been managers, and management is an underrated skill. It is said that people are promoted into management when they do not have management skills, but have been good at their job. We must realise that it is a shoddy excuse when a bad manager says that it is difficult to achieve something with a poor employee.
  Training and investment, which are part of the Bill, will help employers to deal with issues of motivation, reskilling and directing their work force. Training and investment will not hinder that and they have never been provided for previously in legislation. On several levels, the Bill is good—not only for business, but for positive trade unionism. I plead with Conservative Members, as well as with commentators outside the House, to stop using the old reference points of, "Business good, trade unions bad". There is good and bad on both sides of the fence.
  Trade unions have used the challenge of the legislative framework that they had to work within, and the representation that they give to their membership is second to none. In constituencies such as Rochdale, the good trade unions are gaining members hand over fist. Membership is thought to be a good insurance policy, because all the services that trade unions provide are considered to be a vital lifeline for lots of employees in fragmented satellite work forces.
  We must continue to consider small businesses. I understand their plight, because the economy of my community is based on them, but it should not stop us trying to work out ways to overcome the problems that they have because of their unit of resource—one, two or three employees. We should federate those businesses, look at the supply chain in which they work and seek imaginative ways of encouraging them to adopt good practice, even though it may not be possible, through this legislative framework, to include them in that.
  Many of the vulnerable workers who will be helped by the Bill, especially in constituencies such as Rochdale, are non-English speakers. They may be in low-skill, low-wage temporary work, but, if we are to enfranchise the total population with their rights under the Bill, we must consider using other languages within targeted communities to make sure that people such as the Asian women from Pakistan and Bangladesh whom I represent receive their rights as much as well-enfranchised English speakers.
  9.24 pm
  Mr. Tim Boswell: I begin with two declarations. The first is of my interest as the employer of one full-time employee. The second is the fact that I am ever hopeful. In that context, I hope that the House will have the wisdom to accept our reasoned amendment, which was moved so elegantly and eloquently by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood).

  213
  My right hon. Friend shares, with many hon. Members on both sides of the House, my aspiration for good industrial relations based on voluntary agreement. He also shares my scepticism in respect of the Bill's central proposition, which is that partnership is best, or only, secured by coercion. We do not believe that to be true.
  As my right hon. Friend said, the economy is teetering on the brink of recession, and it is against that background that the debate has taken place. Undoubtedly, manufacturing industry is already deep in recession with successive months of downturn in production. The prospects are no better for white collar occupations—tell that to people who work for Deutsche Morgan Grenfell or Barclaycard.
  The Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will have to do rather better in future than they have done with the windy banalities of their 10 productivity roadshows. Their rhetoric suggests to me that they have discovered a new grammar based entirely on adjectives, with the noun disappearing from sight. Even new Labour's newspeak cannot identify the assertion of a proposition with the reality of that proposition. It is time that Ministers came out of denial and came to terms with the fact that, in the Prime Minister's words—which will return to haunt him—hard choices sometimes have to be made.
  The Bill has been designed explicitly to increase employee rights—even if they are coyly retitled "employment relations", whatever that means—and it cannot avoid increasing costs and hassle for businesses of all sizes. It does that precisely when the economy and business, which is the sole creator of wealth in this country, are already under great pressure.
  My hon. Friends who contributed to the debate have spoken cogently of the difficulties that the Bill will cause employers and, ultimately, their employees. We shall explore those difficulties in greater depth in Committee. Labour Members have naturally been somewhat friendlier towards the Government's proposals, and they have made contributions based on their undoubted industrial knowledge. Given the different flavours—some of them old trade unionists and some of them new Labour—an internal debate seems to have taken place in the Labour party.
  Dr. Ian Gibson: Is that so terrible?
  Mr. Boswell: Indeed, it is very welcome. Conservative Members share the Government's declared enthusiasm for the warm things such as partnership and productivity, but saying them is not achieving them. I ask Labour Members to consider that, because there is a real danger that the Government's stated intentions will backfire, and they may end up doing more harm than good. I need hardly remind Ministers of the danger of unintended consequences, given that they are grappling with the question whether au pairs qualify as employees for the purposes of the national minimum wage.
  The Opposition want fair and practical legislation, and we approach the Bill in that spirit. I am afraid that the Government have contributed to the uncertainty about the impact of the Bill. Even for this Government, the structure of the Bill is more dependent than usual on subsequent regulations—for example, to prescribe the details of parental leave and what constitutes a domestic emergency.
  214
  There have been eight months of consultation. It seems to me that there will have to be another eight months of consultation before we know the answers.
  It is clear that the Government are moving towards a much looser definition of parental leave than is required by the European directive—they are gold-plating it. My hon. Friends have drawn attention to Irish law, although we do not want to follow Irish law in providing for paid parental leave.
  The Government have said that this is their final word on industrial relations matters. That is rather reminiscent of the eerie phrase from pre-war Germany that this was positively their last territorial claim.
  Will Ministers here and now rule out any extension of parental leave to include a requirement of payment by hard-pressed employers—yes or no? We shall not know about that and so many other matters until the regulations are made. I am inclined to suggest that we should retitle the Bill "Employment Relations (Further Details to Follow)".
  Some things, however, are clear enough. This is old Labour's finest hour in the shape of the Minister of State enjoying it. New Labour is paying its grudging homage to the past. We are beginning to understand that, during Labour's frustrating years in opposition, the unions shelled out more than £100 million at today's prices to the Labour party. That investment led to manifesto commitments, particularly and notoriously on union recognition. Even now, damaging as they are, the Bill's provisions fall sadly short of the TUC's clear intention. I found it fascinating that so many Labour Members metaphorically left their gloves on the table for future challenges and extensions to the legislation.
  Of course, the provisions are still too difficult for the CBI and other representatives of industry, even though the CBI joined in the haggle that preceded the famous treaty negotiated on 17 December by the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), after which he departed the scene. However, the CBI, as ever in measured terms, concluded:
  "Getting the detail of the Bill's provisions and its implementation right is critical to minimising the negative impact on business."
  We need to consider that point rather carefully.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: Much of the debate has focused on the Bill's negative impact on businesses. Does my hon. Friend think that it would have been a good idea had the Bill contained some provisions that were positive to business, such as providing employment or helping to increase profitability in some way?
  Mr. Boswell: Precisely. It is quite clear that the CBI thinks that the Bill's overall impact will be negative.
  The Institute of Directors has been even blunter. It concluded:
  "The Bill is entirely inconsistent with its objective of creating a competitive economy. These measures will sap the competitiveness of British firms."
  And so they will. [HON. MEMBERS: "They will not"] It is interesting to hear the barracking comments from Labour Members, but it is certainly the view of the employers' side of British industry that they will.
  I ask the Government to provide a simple litmus test. In the terms of my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), does the Bill contain a single

  215
  measure that reduces the burdens on employers and businesses? The gestation period of the Bill has had three successive Secretaries of State and, until now, it has never been clear whether they would jump left or right, but the Bill is left hand down all the way.
  I now turn to our specific points of concern, starting with trade union recognition. Ministers know that the last time it was enforced, from 1975 until the fall of the Labour Government—much contributing to it—coincided with the virtual collapse of the British economy, and that disputes about recognition helped to sour the industrial climate. This time, some hurdles may cause resentment among the unions, but the CBI will not lie down under the proposal for automatic recognition when 50 per cent. of the relevant bargaining unit are in membership. That will have to be argued. Therefore, a great deal hangs on the performance of the Central Arbitration Committee. Previously almost the most self-effacing quango in the land, it now takes centre stage as it has to handle such important questions. It must have clear guidelines if it is not to spend its entire life in the tangles of judicial review. One of my major concerns is that this is a Bill for employment lawyers rather than for employment.
  In respect of individual employment rights, I concede that, at least in this respect, the Government have listened to reason by changing their original proposals and retaining a cap on unfair dismissal claims, although it has increased fourfold to £50,000.
  I should add—parenthetically, to be nice to the Minister of State, for once—that I am grateful to the Minister for embodying my suggestion of using algorithms, or logical trees, in his explanatory notes, to take people through how they should respond to claims for recognition. [Interruption.] I note what the Minister says about his own proposals.
  We should recognise that, in at least two respects, the fourfold increase in the limit must tip the balance in favour of going to a tribunal. The first effect will be felt in claims of wrongful dismissal under contract. Through the notice period, such claims are currently limited to about £12,500, whereas this increase will provide for claims up to £50,000. Secondly, the increase will simply raise the stakes—the opportunity—of hitting the jackpot as against doing nothing at all.
  In other words, the provision will pay employees—as they will be so advised—to have a punt in the tribunal. I foresee that that in itself, if it does nothing else, is likely to put a heavy strain on tribunals, which are already fully loaded. The strain is almost wholly unacknowledged in the Government's regulatory impact assessment, which suggests an impact, on unchanged claim numbers, of £1.8 million—confirming my suspicion, as ever, that regulatory impact assessments are a refined work of fiction.
  Finally, I should deal with the Bill's family-friendly package. Ministers forgot about their debts to the unions when launching the legislation. They told the press that everything in the Bill was about the family, as a means of taking eyes off the ball of the much more controversial issue of recognition rights. The Opposition are not against the family—in case Government Members ever thought that we were.
  216
  The regulatory impact, even in the Government's own terms, on families is admitted to be very far from trivial, at about £29 million for parental leave, and another £15.8 million—a spuriously precise figure—for extensions of maternity leave. Of course, the parental leave provision takes no account of the cost if "domestic emergencies" are subsequently defined, as I suspect they will be, as whatever the employee wants them to be.
  As the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) said in his thoughtful speech, it would be interesting to try to define "domestic emergency" and to tell employees that they can have so many hours a year to deal with them. If we were to define such emergencies, they would become an entitlement and not an accidental necessity. That is before—I hope that the Minister will deal with the matter—any suggestion that the Government might extend the provisions to include paid leave.
  All that omits the simple reality that—as my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) said—for a small employer, loss of a key worker for three months, even if the leave were unpaid, could literally wreck a small business. Moreover, the costs that are so lightly imposed by the Bill fall on top of the burdens of regulation and record keeping already imposed by the national minimum wage and the working time directive. Over the period of a Parliament, those two measures alone are calculated to add about £15 billion to business costs in back-door regulatory tax, even before considering the front-door, straightforward business tax increases which amount to £25 billion. Faced with such burdens, small businesses will not expand employment. Many of them will not take the first step of taking on an employee.
  You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may ponder the purpose of the Bill. Although Ministers and Government Back Benchers have failed to concede it, Opposition Members know that, during the previous Government's period in office, the British economy flourished. For some months after the general election, it has continued to flourish, as part of the golden economic legacy bequeathed by us to Labour. As that legacy is now squandered in higher taxes, higher spending and greater regulation, we know that British business now faces the mother of all struggles—to stay internationally competitive.
  One part of our legacy has remained largely untouched until now—our new settlement in employment law, created over a long period and not without difficulties. By 1994, that settlement had resulted in the number of days lost to strikes falling to 1 per cent. of its peak. There are some worrying signs, particularly in the public sector, that the numbers may be picking up.
  Under any Government, employment law is a network of rights and responsibilities. We believe that the balance that we struck was broadly fair. There were some bad employers and some bad employees, and good practice was not always universal. However, the balance was about right, as the facts show.
  We approach the Government's proposals with heavy scepticism, because we know where they come from and the constituency that they are designed to satisfy. We believe in certain simple concepts. Businesses create jobs and wealth. Entrepreneurs take risks in the face of uncertainty and open up new markets. Governments should not and must not hinder them. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about employees?"] I am interested that Labour Members should say that. I have repeated the words used

  217
  by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry last week at the Mansion house. It is clear that some of his hon. Friends were not invited to listen to him.
  We fear that the detailed proposals in the Bill will not be in place of strife, in Barbara Castle's famous phrase, but will open up a place for strife. They will disturb a delicate balance of rights and responsibilities. The key is whether the proposals help business, and we shall test them against that criterion in Committee. They will then be subjected to the even greater test of events. In that spirit, I commend the reasoned amendment to the House.
  9.42 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Ian McCartney): We have had an interesting debate. I thank the 12 Labour Members who have contributed. We have seen commitment from all parts of the United Kingdom to partnership in the workplace, setting out new opportunities for employers and employees to work together. We are introducing a new settlement in employment relationships and a new environment for companies to flourish with commitment from the work force and a commitment back to the work force by employers.
  It has been a disappointing debate for the Opposition. The Scottish Nationalists did not even turn up to give their support to workers from Scotland. They turned their backs on Scottish workers and gave a smack in the face to Scottish businesses, who support the Government's principles of partnership in the workplace to develop the Scottish economy and make it more competitive.
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan rose—
  Mr. McCartney: The hon. Gentleman is pleading with me to give him an opportunity. I have sat here for hour after hour. I do not know where he was, but he certainly was not in here supporting Scottish workers or Scottish businesses. That says a lot about him.
  The Conservatives gave a pretty pathetic showing. They could not even muster enough speakers to put their tired old story to the House and the British people. We had to have Labour Member after Labour Member because there were no Conservatives left to speak in support of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood). In 12 years in the House, I have never known a Front-Bench spokesperson of any party to have so little support from his Back Benchers. [HON. MEMBERS: "Or his leader."] I shall come to his leader in a moment.
  I welcome my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to our first debate together in government. He has said that he is an outrider for new Labour's juggernaut. I wish him well in that position and I give him the commitment that I ride shotgun for that juggernaut. Anyone attempting to upset my right hon. Friend will have to deal with me first. I am looking forward to reuniting the team that we had before the election, when we worked together on the Jobseekers Act 1995 and a range of other measures that the Tory Government brought in. We will work well together to ensure that the Bill becomes a reality for millions of British workers.
  There is a real difference of approach between the Conservatives and the Government, embodied not just in the Bill, but in the speeches and the eloquence of my right
  218
  hon. and hon. Friends, and the tatty—almost disgraceful—way in which some Tory Members threw aside any concept of partnership, minimum standards or the capacity for employers and workers to work together to make their business successful, so that workers and employers benefit from the fruits of that success.
  Listening to the Conservatives, one would think that history commenced on 2 May 1997. Let us remember what the Government had to pick up. The previous Government opted out of Europe, leaving industry totally isolated and confused about whether it should comply with directives. They squandered millions of pounds of taxpayers' money on defending Tory ineptitude in the European courts. Every three minutes of every working day, a company went bust under the Tories. To make sure that they stayed bust, the Tories piled on an avalanche of 45,000 regulations on business. Tory Industry Ministers had a phrase, "Kill them and bury them". That was the demented policy of Tory Industry Ministers.
  There were 45,000 regulations on business, and two thirds of Britain's manufacturing economy was decimated by the Tories—and they come here and say that they are on the side of business. They have been on nobody's side but their own. No wonder, at the last election, managers and workers alike united across Britain to get rid of the Tories and their aging and dogmatic approach to business and employment relations.
  The Tories are uninterested in social partnership. Why bother, when a hire-and-fire culture pervades their party from top to bottom? Remember the hapless Viscount Cranborne? He was in a job for four centuries—[Interruption.] However, his managing director summarily dismissed him—sacked him—without even minimum consultation. There was no written warning, no grievance procedure and no appeal.
  Viscount Cranborne is not the only person in the Houses of Parliament who has a lineage in parliamentary activity. My father, who is 80 this year, made his maiden speech in this House on 14 December 1970, opposing the Conservatives' Industrial Relations Bill. I am sure that he is listening to the debate this evening, and I wish to quote what he said nearly 30 years ago about the Tories and their view of industrial relations. It is quite illuminating. I will just use the favourable parts, as he was a bit of an old trade unionist. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!] I knew that that would get Tory Members going. My father said:
  "Trade unions prefer to see a continued era of peaceful negotiation in industry, where trade unions are free to bargain for their members, and a truly free society where they can function on behalf of their members."—[Official Report, 14 December 1970; Vol. 808, c. 1021.]
  What my father said then about partnership and co-operation in a workplace where people wanted unions to represent them effectively was true 30 years ago, and it is true this evening. I am pleased that my father has stayed with us all this time, as we get back to the position where every worker in Britain—full-time, part-time, temporary, casual or agency—will be treated with dignity in a flexible labour market.
  Not only are the Conservatives committed to hire and fire, but they also now practise age discrimination in a big way. Two weeks ago, Opposition Front Benchers were told that they were too long in the tooth, and they were threatened with the sack. The right hon. Member for Wokingham, seemingly, is not up to it. He was told that

  219
  he was a forlorn figure. The Daily Telegraph—the house magazine of the Conservative party—said that a
  "slaughter of the old guard"
  was to take place. No one, but no one, was impressed with him, and each time he got up to speak he lost the party even more support.
  I used to be called D. C. M. McCartney—"Don't come back on Monday". I am devastated by the fact that the right hon. Member for Wokingham looks like inheriting that title. I feel a duty to advise him that he has some rights under the Bill and that it may protect him. He can have a fair hearing, the right to be properly represented and the right to be accompanied at grievance and disciplinary proceedings; and he should not be subject to a campaign of victimisation by his line manager. I hope that Wee Willie Winkie is listening to this.
  I will be happy to assist the right hon. Gentleman, because he is too valuable an asset for the Labour party to lose. He is doing far too bad a job to be sacked. If, in the next few weeks, I can rush up anything to assist him, he should have a word in my ear and I will see what I can do. I am all in favour of all-party support and co-operation when it comes to people's employment rights. [Interruption.] I see that another hon. Gentleman wants to talk to me.
  Mr. Boswell: I am grateful to the Minister. He is trying to present the Bill as a family-friendly policy. If any of my right hon. and hon. Friends wanted to spend more time with their family, would he not be seeking to encourage them rather than taking them through a grievance procedure? He may have it a bit wrong, but of course we want them all to stay here and argue against the Bill.
  Mr. McCartney: It would probably be best for the British economy if they all spent more time with their family. While we are on the subject, I should like to say that I am the youngest grandfather in the House of Commons, with seven grandchildren, who are known in the family as the flying pickets.
  There is a contrast between the Conservative party and the Government. The Conservatives argue on behalf of the few, and we are the Government of the many. We want to work with business and unions, not to impose ideology on them. That is why we set up the Low Pay Commission, with representatives of large and small employers as well as unions, to advise us on the level of the national minimum wage. That has been a successful example of partnership at work.
  We took a similar approach on fairness at work. Soon after the general election, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister asked the CBI and the TUC to narrow their differences on trade union recognition. The talks culminated in the constructive joint statement of December 1997, which formed the basis for the proposals on recognition and fairness at work in the White Paper that we published last May.
  We are building a culture of partnership at national level to promote partnership at the level of the individual enterprise. We are taking time to consult, to listen and to involve the employers and the unions in the formulation of the legal framework for minimum standards in the workplace.
  220
  The best employers are already on board, involving and consulting their employees, through unions, works committees, staff councils, electronic media, quality circles, team briefings and a myriad of other channels. The best employers offer good conditions and excellent training and they reap the rewards of that investment: they get the best staff who stay with the business and give it their commitment and loyalty.
  Who is right? Tesco or the right hon. Member for Wokingham; Blue Circle or the right hon. Gentleman; Hyder or the right hon. Gentleman; or the Co-op bank or the right hon. Gentleman? I believe that it is 4:0 to business. The right hon. Gentleman has a worse record than Glen Hoddle. I cannot help wondering what he was in a previous life. Perhaps he was Glen Hoddle.
  Let me help the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues. Partnership means the need to recognise and value the central role of the work force in any business, both financially and through day-to-day recognition of their contribution. Everyone must be encouraged to contribute to the success of the whole organisation. It also means the need for a common understanding of the business's aims and goals and for an agreed work culture.
  Employers need to have a strategy for developing their employees, and not only the highly skilled or the high fliers. Workers must be encouraged to identify and enhance their skills in the enterprise and challenged to ensure that there is no waste of talent, and—crucially—there must be an inclusive relationship between employers and employee representatives. The critical difference between the Government and the Opposition is that we believe in partnership and want it to work. That is what the Bill is about.
  Modern companies know that to succeed in the world economy there must be a contribution from staff. I give the House the example of two companies that recently have recognised trade unions for the first time. Hays Clinical Services stated:
  "We are a modern, thinking company who see good industrial relations as vital to our success."
  The Gap Employment Agency said:
  "The agreement works to both of our advantages. The union plays a role in negotiations and gets new members, while the company gets to keep staff for longer in a market with a traditionally high turnover."
  Everyone deserves to be treated decently and respected at work. The Bill is designed to achieve that. Much has been said in the debate about the costs of the Bill, about the way in which it is drafted and about the need not to impose unnecessary burdens on business. We have gone one better: employers and employees will benefit enormously from greater participation in the labour market, reduced staff turnover and a climate of greater commitment and trust in the workplace.
  I know of a significant employer that reported that one of its core businesses had a staff turnover rate of up to 100 per cent. a year. Taking into account both growth and turnover, the company has to recruit 50,000 people a year just to stand still. That involves an astronomical cost for training and recruitment of around £85 million to £100 million a year, or about £1,750 per recruit. The company never gets a return on that investment, and that is why it is changing culture: it now recognises the minimum wage, trade unions and the need for partnership in the workplace. Partnership reduces the costs that employers bear as a result of bad practice.

  221
  The CBI tells us that £25 billion a year is lost to British industry through unregulated absenteeism. The Government's proposals will give people employment rights. It will also give employers the security to change the bad culture of unregulated absenteeism in the workplace, and they will therefore benefit hugely from the reduction in those terrible on-costs.
  Various hon. Members asked questions earlier. Because of the time, I shall deal with those questions in Committee, or answer them by letter.
  This is a proud day for the Government. Before the election, we made a number of pledges with regard to employment. We pledged to introduce a national minimum wage—done. We pledged to introduce the working time directive and holiday pay—done. We pledged to restore trade union rights at GCHQ, to introduce a new deal and to adopt the social chapter—all done. Now we are about to put in place the last major piece of the framework of reforms that will create a fairer and more modern labour market in Britain. The Bill honours our manifesto commitments on partnership in industry, and on rights and responsibilities in the workplace. It honours our commitments to strengthen family life.
  Conservative Members have shown their disdain for the Government's programme for social partnership and for a renaissance in employment relations. The Opposition tabled an unreasoned amendment to the Bill, and their performance this evening has been lamentable. It raises one important question that they can dodge no longer. When the Opposition go into the next election, will they pledge to scrap the minimum wage? Will they remove rest breaks from workers who work for more than six hours a day? Will they abolish paid holidays for more than 2 million workers? Will they increase the period for unfair dismissal from one year to two? Will they scrap full-time rights for part-time workers, and stop time off for family emergencies? Will they cut maternity pay and maternity leave? All those pledges would be the consequence of their vote against the Bill this evening. The Opposition will not be allowed to wriggle.
  I have waited all my working life to stand here and present this Bill to the House. I am proud to recommend it. I ask all hon. Members to support the Bill, British industry and millions of British employees.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 135, Noes 395.

  Division No. 61]

  [9.59 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Cash, William

  Amess, David

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  (Chipping Barnet)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Chope, Christopher

  Bercow, John

  Clappison, James

  Blunt, Crispin

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

  Boswell, Tim

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Collins, Tim

  Brady, Graham

  Colvin, Michael

  Brazier, Julian

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Cran, James

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Burns, Simon

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Butterfill, John

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  222

  Duncan, Alan

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Evans, Nigel

  Moss, Malcolm

  Faber, David

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Fabricant, Michael

  Norman, Archie

  Fallon, Michael

  Ottaway, Richard

  Flight, Howard

  Page, Richard

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Paice, James

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Paterson, Owen

  Fraser, Christopher

  Pickles, Eric

  Gale, Roger

  Prior, David

  Garnier, Edward

  Randall, John

  Gibb, Nick

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Gill, Christopher

  Robathan, Andrew

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Gray, James

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Green, Damian

  Ruffley, David

  Greenway, John

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Grieve, Dominic

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Shepherd, Richard

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Hammond, Philip

  Soames, Nicholas

  Hawkins, Nick

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Hayes, John

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Heald, Oliver

  Spring, Richard

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Steen, Anthony

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Streeter, Gary

  Horam, John

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Townend, John

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Tredinnick, David

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Trend, Michael

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Viggers, Peter

  Leigh, Edward

  Walter, Robert

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Wardle, Charles

  Lidington, David

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Whittingdale, John

  Loughton, Tim

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Luff, Peter

  Wilkinson, John

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Willetts, David

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Wilshire, David

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Madel, Sir David

  Woodward, Shaun

  Malins, Humfrey

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Maples, John

  Mates, Michael

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Mr. Nigel Waterson and Mr. Stephen Day.

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Alexander, Douglas

  Benton, Joe

  Allan, Richard

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Berry, Roger

  Ashton, Joe

  Best, Harold

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Betts, Clive

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Blackman, Liz

  Austin, John

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Banks, Tony

  Blizzard, Bob

  Barron, Kevin

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Battle, John

  Boateng, Paul

  Bayley, Hugh

  Borrow, David

  Beard, Nigel

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Beggs, Roy

  Brake, Tom

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Browne, Desmond

  223

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Burden, Richard

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Burnett, John

  Edwards, Huw

  Burstow, Paul

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Ennis, Jeff

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Etherington, Bill

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Caborn, Richard

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Feild, Rt Hon Frank

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Fisher, Mark

  Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Flint, Caroline

  Canavan, Dennis

  Flynn, Paul

  Cann, Jamie

  Follett, Barbara

  Caplin, Ivor

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Caton, Martin

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester}

  Chaytor, David

  Fyfe, Maria

  Chidgey, David

  Galloway, George

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Gapes, Mike

  Clapham, Michael

  Gardiner, Barry

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Clark, Dr Lynda

  Gerrard, Neil

  (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Goggins, Paul

  Clelland, David

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Clwyd, Ann

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Cohen, Harry

  Grocott, Bruce

  Coleman, Iain

  Grogan, John

  Colman, Tony

  Gunnell, John

  Connarty, Michael

  Hain, Peter

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Cooper, Yvette

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Corbett, Robin

  Hancock, Mike

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hanson, David

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Cotter, Brian

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Cousins, Jim

  Harvey, Nick

  Cranston, Ross

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Crausby, David

  Healey, John

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack

  Hepburn, Stephen

  (Copeland)

  Heppell, John

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Dafis, Cynog

  Hinchliffe, David

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hoey, Kate

  Darvill, Keith

  Hood, Jimmy

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Hope, Phil

  Davidson, Ian

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Dawson, Hilton

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Denham, John

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Dobbin, Jim

  Hurst, Alan

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Hutton, John

  Donaldson, Jeffrey

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Illsley, Eric

  Doran, Frank

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Dowd, Jim

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Drew, David

  Jamieson, David

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Jenkins, Brian

  224

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Mitchell, Austin

  Johnson, Miss Melanie

  Moffatt, Laura

  (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Jones, Ms Jenny

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Mountford, Kali

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Mudie, George

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Norris, Dan

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Olner, Bill

  Keetch, Paul

  O'Neill, Martin

  Kemp, Fraser

  Õpik, Lembit

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Khabra, Piara S

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Kidney, David

  Pearson, Ian

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Pendry, Tom

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Perham, Ms Linda

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Pike, Peter L

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Plaskitt, James

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Pollard, Kerry

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Pond, Chris

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Pound, Stephen

  Laxton, Bob

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Lepper, David

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Levitt, Tom

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Linton, Martin

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Livingstone, Ken

  Purchase, Ken

  Livsey, Richard

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Radice, Giles

  Love, Andrew

  Rammell, Bill

  McAllion, John

  Rapson, Syd

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Raynsford, Nick

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Rendel, David

  Macdonald, Calum

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  McDonnell, John

  Rooker, Jeff

  McFall, John

  Rooney, Terry

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Rowlands, Ted

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Ruane, Chris

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Ruddock, Joan

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  McNulty, Tony

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Sanders, Adrian

  McWilliam, John

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Sawford, Phil

  Mallaber, Judy

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Marek, Dr John

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Martlew, Eric

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Maxton, John

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Smith, Miss Geraldine

  Meale, Alan

  (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Merron, Gillian

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

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

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Snape, Peter

  Miller, Andrew

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  225

  Spellar, John

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Tyler, Paul

  Stevenson, George

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Wallace, James

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Wareing, Robert N

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Watts, David

  Stott, Roger

  Webb, Steve

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  White, Brian

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Stringer, Graham

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Stunell, Andrew

  (Swansea W)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

  Willis, Phil

  (Dewsbury)

  Wills, Michael

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Winnick, David

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Wise, Audrey

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Wood, Mike

  Timms, Stephen

  Woolas, Phil

  Tipping, Paddy

  Worthington, Tony

  Todd, Mark

  Wray, James

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Touhig, Don

  Wyatt, Derek

  Trickett, Jon

  Truswell, Paul

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Mr. Mike Hall and Mr. Greg Pope.

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

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

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

  (a) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums so payable under any other enactment;

  (b) any expenditure of the Secretary of State under the Act.—[Mrs. McGuire.]

  Question agreed to.

  FOOD STANDARDS
  Motion made, and Question put,
  That the quorum of the Committee appointed by Order [8th February] to report on the draft bill on the Food Standards Agency (Cm. 4249) shall be three.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
  Hon. Members: Object.

  PROCEDURE COMMITTEE
  Ordered,
  That Helen Southworth be discharged from the Procedure Committee and Mr. Colin Burgon be added to the Committee.—[Mrs. McGuire.]

Mixed-sex wards
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): I call Dr. Julian Lewis.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
10.15 pm
Dr. Julian Lewis: I am grateful to my colleagues for giving me such a warm send-off on my debate, although start-up might be a more appropriate term.
Let me start with a quotation:
"Patients charter offers Hobson's choice on mixed-sex wards. Government not even attempting to collect figures on patients denied beds in single-sex wards."
Those are not my words, or those of any Conservative Member, but the words of the then shadow Secretary of State for Health, the right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), in a Labour party press release dated 20 November 1996. At the outset, I state that I am not, and have never held myself out to be, a medical expert—[Interruption.]
Mr. Edward Leigh: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May we have some order in the Chamber, so that we can listen to this important debate?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a matter for the occupant of the Chair to decide.
Dr. Lewis: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I have come to the topic by a gradual process, though my involvement with people who have experience as professionals, as designers of mental health hospitals and units, as psychiatric experts and even as users of psychiatric services. I hope to explain why I felt it necessary to apply for this debate, by taking hon. Members through the process of the problem's gradual emergence in my awareness.
I return to the position in November 1996, when the Labour party was, rightly, protesting about the continuing problem of mixed-sex wards. I shall quote the right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury further, because I totally agree with him. He said:
"The last Patients' Charter…said that patients could expect single-sex washing and toilet facilities; and that their wishes to be treated in single-sex wards 'will be respected wherever possible'."
Note the words "and that", for they mean that it is not enough to give patients single-sex washing and toilet facilities and then to say that single-sex wards have been achieved. As the right hon. Gentleman went on to say:
"These two promises sound good on paper. But a report from the Patients' Association yesterday revealed that segregated washing and toilet facilities are far from being the norm; while patients all over the country commonly report that if they do express a preference to be treated in a single-sex ward, as the Charter encourages them to do, they are suddenly told that in fact their wait for treatment will be far longer as a result."
228
Let us look at the relevant section of the patients charter, which states:
"You have the right to be told before you go into hospital whether it is planned to care for you in a mixed ward for men and women. (It may not be possible to tell you this if you are admitted to hospital in an emergency.) In all cases, you can expect single washing and toilet facilities. If you would prefer to be cared for in single sex accommodation (either a single sex ward or 'bay' area within a larger ward which offers equal privacy) your wish will be respected wherever possible. There may be some cases, particularly emergencies, where a hospital cannot provide single sex accommodation."
Labour was saying that that was a dead letter.
Mr. Leigh: Does my hon. Friend remember that the Labour party manifesto said that it would take steps to abolish mixed-sex wards in the NHS? What has happened to that commitment?
Dr. Lewis: I shall explain the developments. I am happy to acknowledge that some steps in that direction have been taken, but by no means enough has been done. I am concerned that, having taken a few steps in the right direction, which the manifesto commitment outlined, the Government are almost trying to say that the battle is won, the deed is done, the problem is solved. That is not so. Since I first took an interest in this subject some months ago, some worrying developments have made me realise the need to bring the matter more closely to the House's attention.
I remind the House that, on 12 December 1997, I proposed that the provision of single-sex ward areas be made a statutory commitment under the Mental Health (Amendment) Bill, which I moved after being fortunate enough to draw second place in the ballot for private Members' Bills. Sadly, the Government saw fit to amass a combination of Back Benchers and Front Benchers to waste five hours of parliamentary time and talk out the Bill.
Subsequently, there have been some more encouraging developments. In particular, I was tipped off about a development of a mixed-sex ward in a new psychiatric unit at Charing Cross hospital. I raised the issue with the Secretary of State, who gave a characteristically forthright response. He said, "It's news to me if any new mixed-sex wards are being constructed, and if they are, I will put a stop to it." As far as I can see, in this case, he did so.
At that point, the plot began to thicken. As a result of the Secretary of State rightly instructing Charing Cross hospital to revise its plans to create a new mixed-sex ward, the Goodmayes hospital—which was concerned that its proposals for its psychiatric unit would fall foul of the Secretary of State's determination to abolish mixed-sex wards—wrote to the NHS executive.
Mr. Philip Hammond: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in view of the express determination of the Secretary of State to end mixed-sex wards in psychiatric hospitals, it is very odd and surprising that the recently published mental health code of practice makes no reference to such a management objective?
Dr. Lewis: I agree with my hon. Friend; indeed, I am about to explain why I think that may be. I much welcomed his reference to this omission in the code, when he considered it in Committee in January.

229
The Goodmayes hospital received a reply on 3 August 1998 from a lady called Judith Guest of the patients charter unit at NHS executive headquarters. It was sent to the consultant psychiatrist and clinical director of Goodmayes hospital, Mr. Andrew Margo, and said:
"Patients have a right to feel safe in hospital and it is recognised that there are special circumstances in mental health wards that have to be addressed to make patients feel secure. There should be separate sleeping and washing areas for men and women and those should be accessible to people when needed and suitable arrangements put in place to ensure that the area is safe. But completely segregating services would not be acceptable, as there are good clinical reasons to provide an environment in hospitals which, as closely as it can, prepares people for their return to their own accommodation".
I am very concerned about that advice. Indeed, I have raised it in correspondence with and questions to the Secretary of State. Nor will it come as any surprise to the Under-Secretary, because I have done my level best to inform his office of my entire line of argument, in the hope that that would assist him in addressing specifically the points which concern me so much.
Mrs. Angela Browning: In considering what would be the norm in the community, under what circumstances can my hon. Friend imagine, for example, that women would find it the norm to have men whom they did not know in the same sleeping accommodation, and vice versa?
Dr. Lewis: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend, as I am always am when she brings the searchlight of her intellect and her specialised knowledge to bear on these topics. She anticipates a point that I intended to make later, but I shall deal with it now because it is precisely what the group of users from the Maudsley hospital has emphasised to me in my two meetings with its members.
I take the opportunity to pay tribute to Jolie Goodman, Cath Collins, Lynne Clayton and Denise McKenna for the campaign that they have been running. They have collected a number of deeply worrying examples of what is entailed for a woman who finds herself an in-patient on an acute ward. First, they contrast two quotations to make the point that my hon. Friend has just emphasised. They quote a pilot wing manager from the Charing Cross development as saying:
"Sexual harassment is a fact of life in mental health wards…We feel that single-sex services themselves are not suitable here because we're trying to create a normal environment."
The campaigners' response states:
"Mixed wards don't reflect a 'normal' society. They are full of a completely mixed bag of strangers in extreme distress who are forced to live in intimate circumstances with each other."
We can all anticipate the extreme examples of abuse that might occur in such an artificial environment. I shall give only two examples that the campaign group has drawn to my attention. These are the experiences of people who have written to the group. The first concerns a female user who, in 1998, wrote:
"In 1995 I was a patient in"—
I shall not name the hospital—
"and a woman on my ward was raped by a male patient who followed her into the female bathroom."
I interject that all too often what is lacking is a proper definition of what is meant by a ward. The term "bay" is particularly misleading because it refers to corridors:
230
a male corridor opens off in one direction and a female corridor opens off in the other, but there is nothing apart from the vigilance of the staff to stop people going from one to the other.
The second example concerns a 17-year-old woman who, in 1998, wrote:
"I, too, have been sexually assaulted by two male patients on my ward in July of this year. This experience was so traumatic and dreadful that it stopped any progress I was making for several months."
As I said, we could all imagine those extreme cases, and I had already thought of what might be entailed by those terrible circumstances; but what came as a revelation to me in the first-hand testimonies of the campaign group were the examples of more everyday occurrences with which female in-patients have to contend. I make no apology for reading out one or two that some people might find rather disgusting. The first states:
"On entering the games room, a female patient tripped over the legs of a male patient who was lying flat on his back on the floor masturbating. When she complained to a nurse, she was told, 'He's very ill, you know,' and nothing was done."
The funny thing—funny peculiar or funny ironic, but not funny in any other sense—is that that patient was ill, and indeed it was not his fault, but he should not have been where she could stumble across him in that way, or vice versa.
Another example concerns a woman who found herself surrounded by half-dressed men asking whether she wanted a boy friend as she queued for breakfast. It has been explained to me that queueing is a key part of life as an in-patient. One queues for meals and one queues for medication. What does a female do if she is being groped or interfered with in a queue? What does she do if someone starts to bully her for her food or benefits? Another example concerns a frail lady who was bullied by a young male patient into handing him her benefit money.
Then there are the cases caused by proximity and geography. The men's toilets are sometimes at the beginning of the corridor leading to the dining room, and the doors are frequently left open while the toilets are in use. That is not the fault of the mentally ill people who leave them open, but it should not be visible to women.
What can I say in the short time that remains? There is a risk that the pendulum will swing too far. This keeps happening in mental health. At one time, the pendulum swung too far in the direction of institutionalisation: anyone who had anything wrong with them was put away for years—for the better part of their lives, sometimes for ever. That injustice was recognised. Then the pendulum swung the other way, with care in the community, and hardly anyone was admitted as an in-patient.
A compromise has now been reached in distinguishing between those who need to be long-term in-patients and those who can do well in the community. That is good, but I was disturbed to hear the Secretary of State say some time ago in a statement on mental health that community care had failed. No; part of it failed, and part of it succeeded. Now we are trying to get the balance right.
I appeal to the Minister to come out from behind the obfuscation of official language. He cannot have it both ways. Either the Government believe in the principle of single-sex wards, or they believe in the philosophy of a "normalising" environment—in which the single-sex

231
wards that he is talking about relate only to very basic functions, and there is nowhere for women to be during the day without the intrusion of men. If the Minister's concern is genuine, he must say once and for all tonight that the idea of creating a "normal" environment by putting sick men with sick women, in circumstances in which they cannot be held responsible for their actions, is fatally flawed, is unacceptable, and will finally be rejected.
10.32 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Hutton): I thank the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) for giving me notice of some of the points that he has made. I congratulate him on raising such an important subject tonight. I know that he has a long-standing interest in it: indeed, I believe that he is one of only a few hon. Members to have displayed such a continuing interest. I am grateful to him for giving me the opportunity to set out the Government's intentions in relation to mixed-sex accommodation in psychiatric units.
We should see the issue in the wider context of the Government's plans to modernise mental health services, which we outlined at the end of last year in the strategy document "Modernising Mental Health Services". In that document, we tried to make it clear that we wanted services to be safe, sound and supportive—safe to protect the public, patients and staff, providing effective care for those with mental illness at the time when they need it; sound to ensure that patients are given the best and most appropriate care and treatment in the right settings, and have access to the full range of services; and supportive through work with patients, carers and local communities to help people to lead lives that are as independent as possible.
Effective responses to mental health problems require three elements to be in balance: resources and the systems to make the best use of them, legislative powers, and the processes of care. Deficiencies in one area cannot be compensated for by change in another. Increasing resources—which we are doing—will not be cost-effective unless the necessary care processes are in place; strengthening legislative powers cannot overcome the problems of inadequate resourcing. We recognise that reform in all three areas is needed to modernise mental health services.
Our plans for mental health services, taken with our proposals for modernising health and social care, add up to a comprehensive set of policies that will provide a new vision for mental health services. Our new vision is underpinned by new investment—the hon. Gentleman did not refer to it, but I am sure he will not mind if I do—of £700 million over the next three years. That sum represents the largest single increase in investment in mental health services since the NHS was established in 1948. It will be supported by the development of a new mental health national service framework, which will set new service models, and by a review of the current legislation.
In planning for high-quality mental health and social care, we do not, unfortunately, start with a blank sheet of paper. Instead, we inherit a complex legacy of problems
232
in policy, planning and the patterns of service delivery. All those need to be addressed. That will take time, but the plans set out in "Modernising Mental Health Services" make clear the direction that we intend to take, with a clear set of objectives and a focus on new investment. "Modernising Mental Health Services" marks a new beginning for mental health provision in England.
On the situation regarding mixed-sex accommodation that we inherited from the previous Administration, it is worth pointing out to the hon. Gentleman, as I know that he has a balanced and sensible approach to these matters, that many of the problems that he rightly identified did not date from 1 May 1997. He will probably want to join me in regretting the fact that the previous Administration, whom he strongly supported, made such poor progress in eliminating mixed-sex accommodation in the NHS.
I am acutely aware of the concerns that have been raised about the safety of patients in psychiatric units. Like the hon. Gentleman, I have had meetings with former patients. I recently met four women who have at various times been patients in the Maudsley hospital. They expressed to me their serious concerns about harassment and serious assaults on acute psychiatric wards. I was extremely concerned by what those women told me of their own experiences. As we have done on previous occasions, I made it clear to them, and I do so again today, that we are committed to getting rid of mixed-sex accommodation in the NHS.
The hon. Gentleman developed his arguments in his comments. It might be helpful to him, and to all the other hon. Members who are present and who are clearly interested in the subject, if we start to define some of our terms. By "single-sex accommodation" we mean clearly defined, separate sleeping areas, separate day rooms and social areas, and separate toilets and washing facilities. Guidance will be issued that will state clearly that male and female toilets and bathing facilities should be located in separate areas, close to respective male and female sleeping areas.
The word "accommodation", about which the hon. Gentleman was concerned, means the whole range of buildings and types of living space used by patients in the NHS. It would be wrong for the hon. Gentleman to suggest that using the word "accommodation" is in any way a narrowing of our manifesto commitment to ensure the safety of women patients who use the NHS. We made a clear promise in our manifesto and we will keep it. I cannot make myself any clearer than that.
I was intrigued by some of the hon. Gentleman's comments. I have read the speech that he made when he introduced his Bill. He might be interested to reflect on some of the words that he used in that debate. Introducing clause 2, he said that it dealt with mixed-sex areas, not wards. He said:
"I am not talking about big open spaces with male patients at one end of the room and female patients at the other, but all wards should have an area reserved for women if they want that. It would be a refuge room not unlike the ladies waiting rooms provided at some railway stations for women who want to wait in a women-only environment."—[Official Report, 12 December 1997; Vol. 302, c. 1267.]
I was rather surprised by the tone of some of the hon. Gentleman's remarks today expressing his concern about the use of the word "accommodation," which I do not think can be justified by what we have said.

233
I repeat that we will not tolerate violence against women anywhere in the NHS. We are determined that all women in mental health units should be assured of conditions that are safe and free from harassment and abuse. However, we cannot overnight repair the damage of many years' neglect and under-resourcing. The previous Government spoke much about safety, but we are determined to take action to make improvements to protect patients. We inherited a national health service badly in need of modernising, and that is particularly true of mental health services. We also need to bring about a change in culture. Outdated attitudes and practices have no part in the revitalised services that we want to bring about.
What action are we taking? We are taking action on several fronts. We have set the national health service objectives to implement our commitment to the elimination of mixed-sex accommodation. We are monitoring its performance in achieving those objectives and we are to issue further guidance on mixed-sex accommodation. We are investing in staff training and we will ensure that variations across the country are reduced through the implementation of the mental health national service framework, which, in turn, will be monitored and enforced by the Commission for Health Improvement.
I want to say a little more about each of those areas to show that a substantial amount of work is taking place to deliver our commitment to getting rid of mixed-sex accommodation. First, the NHS has been given three key objectives: to ensure that appropriate organisational arrangements are in place to secure good standards of privacy and dignity for all hospital patients; to achieve fully the patients charter standard for segregated washing and toilet facilities across the NHS; and to provide safe facilities for patients in hospital who are mentally ill which safeguard their privacy and their dignity.[Interruption.]
We have made it clear—I say this in response to the sedentary intervention from the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan)—that we expect 95 per cent. of health authorities to have met those objectives by the end of 2002.
Last August, we issued a monitoring tool to ascertain the progress of the NHS towards achieving those objectives. That contained a checklist to assist health authorities in monitoring the processes in place to deliver good physical segregation of the sexes in hospital. It also included additional arrangements for mental health in-patient facilities.
The NHS executive has monitored progress in achieving the objectives that have been laid down and the Government have already published two reports, which show health authorities' progress in this area. A further monitoring report will be published in the spring. We continue to keep this issue high on the NHS agenda, through the performance management systems that we are introducing, and to check hospitals' capital plans to ensure that the money that they have been given contributes towards the elimination of mixed-sex accommodation. As
234
a clear signal of our commitment in that area, £70 million has been earmarked specifically for that purpose from the NHS capital allocation for next year.
The monitoring checklist produced by the NHS executive included specific points to check that the safety of patients in mental health units is maintained, but we want to go beyond that by producing more detailed guidance that specifically addresses the issues for vulnerable, mentally ill people in hospital. Although there are constraints on the ability of NHS trusts to maintain the best standards in their existing stock of buildings, they must do what they can, within the constraints of the accommodation, to protect patients' privacy and dignity.
We have made it clear that new developments must achieve best practice standards in providing separate accommodation for the sexes. Each of the new schemes is being scrutinised by the regional offices to ensure that they eliminate problems and that they comply fully with the patients charter requirements.
When I addressed a conference of hospital designers and service providers last month, I announced that we would be issuing further guidance for mental health units in the late spring. That guidance will help to inform discussion locally about how to achieve the targets of privacy and dignity. It will also contain examples of good building design and solutions to varying ward layouts and requirements for operational policies that ensure the safety, privacy and dignity of all patients within the NHS.
We want to ensure that trusts have proper management policies in place and protocols to prevent assaults. The guidance will also give advice on what to do, both at trust management level and at individual ward level. It will cover such issues as the assessment of each individual's needs and the risks that they may present; speedy, robust arrangements to deal effectively with staff, or patients, who sexually abuse or harass patients; and monitoring of complaints to enable identification of problems over the care and treatment of women patients.
The guidance will also make it clear that each ward should have a written policy relating to the safety of women and that a designated officer at senior level in the trust should have overall responsibility for the safety of women. I could say more, but we will shortly run out of time.
All those requirements will be reflected in the mental health national service framework, which will specifically address unacceptable variations in services across England. It will set national standards for health and social care and establish performance indicators to measure the progress made by those services.
I can assure the hon. Member for New Forest, East that the NHS will not be complacent about the safety of women. There is no place in the health service for discrimination, sexual harassment or assault—at all. Women must feel safe in mental health services. That is our objective and that is what we will deliver.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Arrest Warrants
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the procedure for the review of an outstanding warrant of arrest issued by the RUC; how frequently an outstanding warrant is reviewed; and in what circumstances and by what criteria an outstanding warrant could be set aside. [69881]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 8 February 1999]: There are various types of arrest warrant:

  1. Bench/arrest warrant

  2. Committal warrant

  3. Distress warrant

  4. Extradition warrant

  5. Enforcement of Justice warrant.

  Different procedural arrangements for review apply to each. However, it should be noted that, generally, warrants issued under the appropriate legislation are returned if not executed, within the time specified therein.

  Data held by central statistics unit of the Royal Ulster Constabulary

  Court statistics

  CS Reference Number

  Crime statistics Ref No—Unique number created by the system to identify each court record

  Year

  The year in which the case went to court

  Court Code

  The location of the court in which the case was heard, i.e. Bangor or Belfast etc.

  Bill No.

  Court Service reference number.

  Court Date

  The date on which the case was held.

  Sex

  Male, Female or other (businesses etc.)

  DOB

  The offenders date of birth.

  Age

  Age of offender—generated by the computer.

  Occupation

  The occupation of the accused, this only applies to members of the security forces, i.e. police, army or prison officer.

  Ethnicity

  The ethnic origins of the accused.

  FCN

  Force computer number—criminal record number issued to the defendant.

  Offence Date

  Date on which the offence occurred.

  Sub Division

  The radio call sign of the Sub-Divisional headquarters where the offence took place.

  Previous Convictions

  State if the defendant has any previous convictions.

  TIC

  The number of offences taken into consideration.

  Scheduled

  States whether the offence is scheduled or non scheduled. Scheduled offences are heard in crown courts and are of a more serious nature, i.e. terrorist or other serious crimes.

  Additional

  As the system can only hold seven offences, any additional charges are noted here.

  Plea

  Guilty or Not Guilty.

  Prefix

  States if the offences was attempted, siding and abetting, conspiring or inciting.

  Offence Code

  Numeric code of each offence.

  Suffix

  States if the offence was armed robbery or aggravated burglary.

  Finding

  Decision of the court—guilty, not guilty or sent to trial.

  Type of Offence

  States if the offence is primary or secondary and also if it is indictable/summary/motoring.

  Disposal

  Numeric code to identify the sentence.

  Unit

  Specifies if the penalty is monetary or of time duration.

  Amount or duration

  States the amount of the fine or the duration of the sentence.

  126
  If a time limit is not specified the unexecuted warrant is returned to a court or issuing Justice at the end of twelve months for cancellation or re-issue.

  Generally, warrants are not executed after a lapse of two years without instruction from the issuing authority in cases:

  (a) to enforce appearance at Magistrates' Courts; and

  (b) to arrest for trivial offences.

  Except in cases of a serious crime or where delay in execution may result in the escape of the accused, a warrant which has been on issue for more than four years is not executed without instructions from the issuing authority.

  The setting aside of an outstanding warrant is a matter for the issuing authority.

  Police and Court Databases
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list the headings under which police and court databases in Northern Ireland record(a) arrests, charges and convictions, (b) the personal details of individuals who are arrested, charged or convicted and (c) the employment details of individuals arrested, charged or convicted; and if the databases contain information on the numbers of individuals (i) whose employment may change from the time of their arrest to the time of their conviction and (ii) arrested, charged or convicted who may have served part-time or full-time in Her Majesty's armed forces or the Royal Ulster Constabulary. [69879]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 8 February 1999]: Details of the fields of information held by the Royal Ulster Constabulary in its Court database are as follows:
  127
  This database does not contain information on the numbers of individuals whose employment may change from the time of their arrest to the time of their conviction.

  Information recorded on court databases

  Belfast Crown Court

  Belfast and Newtownabbey magistrates courts

  (a) Arrests

  Not recorded

  Not recorded

  Charges

  Number against each defendant per offence category:

  Number against each defendant per offence category:

  Murder

  Indictable—Crown Court only

  Manslaughter

  Indictable—Tried Summarily

  Wounding

  Major motoring

  Burglary and Robbery

  Minor motoring

  Fraud and Forgery

  Other Summary

  Sexual Offences

  Criminal Damage

  Offences against the State

  Drugs

  Theft and unauthorised taking

  Convictions

  Number per defendant

  Number per defendant

  (b) Personal details of individuals arrested, charged or convicted

  Not recorded

  Not recorded

  (c) Employment details of individuals arrested, charged or convicted

  Not recorded

  Not recorded

  These databases do not contain information on the numbers of individuals (i) whose employment may change from the time of their arrest to the time of their conviction or on those individuals (ii) arrested, charged or convicted who may have served part-time or full-time in Her Majesty's armed forces or the Royal Ulster Constabulary.

  Civil Service Pay Awards
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the average percentage increase in salaries of non-industrial civil servants, excluding members of the senior civil service, in her Department for 1998–99; and to what extent the pay awards were staged. [69512]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The headline pay settlement for the Northern Ireland Civil Service (NICS) was 3 per cent. on the paybill and, together with the additional funds from staff turnover, staff in post received performance-related increases, averaging 4 per cent. of which 0.5 per cent. was paid as non-consolidated non-pensionable bonuses. The increases were not staged.

  The headline pay settlement for the Northern Ireland Office (NIO) was 2 per cent. on the paybill and together with the additional funds from staff turnover staff in post received performance-related increases averaging 3.5 per cent. The increases were not staged.

DEFENCE

  RN Base Clyde
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which organisation maintains and refits nuclear
  128
  The following information in respect of the databases of the Courts has been provided by the Northern Ireland Court Service, a unified and distinct civil service of the Crown, responsible to the Lord Chancellor.

  submarines at RN Base Clyde; when the contract commenced; and what previous experience of such work the organisation had. [69062]

  Mr. Spellar
  Nuclear submarines are not refitted at HM Naval Base Clyde. Repair and maintenance on nuclear submarines at the Clyde Naval Base is conducted by Royal Naval personnel and Civilian contractors. To meet fluctuations in workload and when it has been considered cost effective to do so, contracts for maintenance work have been placed with civilian companies. These are principally Babcock Rosyth Defence Ltd., Devonport Management Ltd. and Rolls Royce and Associates, all of whom have wide experience in this work.

  REME
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what advice he received from TAVRA North West on the proposal to transfer HQ 101 Battalion REME to Queensferry. [69344]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  This advice was given in confidence, as part of internal discussion. I am therefore withholding the information under exemption 2 (internal discussion and advice) of the Code of Practice on access to Government information.

  Procurement Contracts
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what evaluation of past performance is included in the assessment of bids for defence procurement contracts; and what criteria are included when considering bids from contractors who have not previously supplied his Department. [69411]
  129
  Mr. Spellar
  The MOD takes account of a company's capability and capacity, including past performance, when deciding which companies should be invited to tender. Where there is uncertainty about the ability of firms to meet the requirement, companies that have expressed interest, including potential new suppliers, are normally asked to complete a pre-qualification questionnaire to provide information on, among other matters, their technical capability and delivery history. As part of the implementation of Smart Procurement, we are seeking, jointly with Industry, to reinforce our procedures for taking account of past performance in assessing tenders.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the profit margins included in bids made by tenderers for defence procurement contracts. [69410]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Ministry is unaware of the level of profit included in competitive bids for defence procurement contracts since this is a judgment for the tenderers to make. In non-competitive contracts the level of profits is negotiated in accordance with the Government Profit Formula, on a company-by-company basis.

  RN Base Faslane
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if installed personal IPM7 monitors are in use at RN Base Faslane; if personnel are monitored by IPM7 when they leave the yard; and if he will make a statement on the practice at other nuclear establishments. [69465]

  Mr. Spellar
  One IPM7 walk through monitor is installed in the Clyde Naval Base. When leaving classified areas all personnel are monitored for contamination by trained Health Physics staff using hand held instruments. They also have the option of using the IPM7 at this stage. In the very unlikely event that personnel are contaminated, they are taken to the Health Physics Group for decontamination, which includes compulsory monitoring by the IPM7.

  At MOD-owned nuclear establishments, it is the practice to monitor the working environment and exposed personnel for possible contamination. Contamination monitors are used as part of the overall monitoring arrangements.

  Landmines
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress his Department has made in finding alternatives to landmines for use in military operations. [69561]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 8 February 1999]: There is no single weapon which can replace the capability previously provided by anti-personnel landmines. Work is continuing to establish how best to provide the required capability in the future, consistent with our obligations under UK and International law. Where necessary, anti-tank mines will continue to be used in military operations.
  130

  Royal Ordnance, Bishopton
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the overseas sources which will meet his Department's requirements for propellants following the closure of Royal Ordnance, Bishopton. [69569]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 8 February 1999]: The supply of sub-components, including propellant, for equipment supplied under existing MOD contracts is a matter for Royal Ordnance and other prime contractors until the completion of the contract. Future MOD requirements for propellant will be subject to procurement decisions in due course. We expect that alternative sources of propellant will be available from friendly and reliable sources in Europe, or further afield.

  Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when access will be restored to the website of the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe. [69570]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 8 February 1999]: Work is underway to restore access to the website of the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE). This work is a matter for the SHAPE authorities.

  Biological Detection Systems
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make a statement on the prototype biological defence vehicles which his Department intends to purchase; [69560]

  (2) what progress his Department is making on the development of personal biological weapons detectors. [69558]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 8 February 1999]: A number of vehicle-mounted Prototype Biological Detection Systems were accepted into service on 7 December 1998. They provide a deployable detection capability to supply field commanders with the information necessary to institute protective and medical countermeasures. These prototype systems provide an interim capability until the vehicle-mounted Integrated Biological Detection System enters service. This is currently the subject of a competition for full development and production.

  MOD work on a personal biological agent detection system is currently at the research stage.

  Civil Service Pay Awards
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the average percentage increase in salaries of non-industrial civil servants, excluding members of the senior civil service, in his Department for 1998–99; and to what extent the pay awards were staged. [69519]

  Mr. Spellar
  The headline pay settlement was 2½ per cent. on the paybill and, together with the additional funds from staff turnover, staff in post received performance-related increases averaging 4½ per cent. The increase was not staged.
  131

  Competitive Sport (Armed Forces)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the role of competitive sport in the armed forces. [70122]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Participation in competitive sport within the Armed Forces has long been recognised as playing a very considerable part in Service life. In addition to being a key means of promoting physical fitness, team spirit and of great benefit to maintaining high levels of morale, sport within the Armed Forces contributes to military effectiveness by developing personal qualities such as motivation, courage, resilience, stamina and co-ordination.

  Market research indicates that opportunities for competitive sport within the Services is high on the list of factors which attract many potential recruits to join the Armed Forces. It is my Department's firm policy to promote fitness and a healthy lifestyle among personnel and to encourage fully the participation by members of the Armed Forces in structured sporting activities, together with adequate time to do so.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if Wednesday afternoons are still set aside for competitive sport for armed forces personnel. [70128]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The Armed Forces have traditionally set aside Wednesday afternoons, on an informal basis, to give personnel the opportunity to partake in competitive and non-competitive sporting activity. This is still encouraged although the level of participation is very much dependent on operational requirements and training commitments within the various chains of Command, with whom the final decision rests. In some cases representative sports are played on other days of the week in order to reduce the effect of absence from primary duties.

  Northern Division
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what will be the cost of relocating and retasking existing brigades in establishing the proposed northern division. [70123]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  No existing brigades are to be relocated as a result of the establishment of the northern division. Rather, there will be a transfer of responsibility for some existing tasks between Divisional and Brigade Headquarters; small numbers of staff will transfer accordingly, but the costs will not be significant.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what will be the cost of providing new and refurbished buildings in Edinburgh when 2 Divisional HQ moves from York to Edinburgh. [70127]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  We estimate that the initial cost of refurbishing office accommodation at the Headquarters Scottish District in Craigiehall will be some £250,000; there is a project to rebuild the headquarters in due course 132
  and it was assumed in the review of the Army's divisional/district structure that this project would proceed at a cost of £7 million during the second half of the next decade.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what criteria he based his decision to move the Army's 2 Divisional HQ from York to Edinburgh. [70124]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The criteria were that the headquarters of the Northern Division should be able to carry out its role effectively and at reduced cost when compared with existing arrangements.

  Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions in the past five years the Ministry of Defence Observer has attended a board meeting at the Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research. [70023]

  Mr. Spellar
  Four.

  Armed Forces Pensions
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate the cost of backdating the changes which became operative from 1 April 1975 to the Armed Forces pension arrangements to cover all those who retired before 1 April 1975. [70230]

  Mr. Spellar
  The only change to the Armed Forces Pension Scheme which became operative on 1 April 1975 was the introduction of preserved pensions for those with insufficient service to qualify for an immediate pension. In line with public service pension scheme practice the improvement was not applied retrospectively to those who had already left the Armed Forces. An estimate of the cost of backdating the change is not available and could be obtained, if at all, only at disproportionate cost.

  Furthermore, costs to MOD could not be considered in isolation from other Government Departments. It is the general practice for all public service pension schemes, when introducing improvements, to apply them only to those serving at the date of the change. If the pensions of all retired Scheme members were retrospectively increased each time a new improvement was introduced, changes to schemes would become very expensive and probably unaffordable.

  Guards Battalions
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the numbers of trained officers and soldiers currently serving in the Guards battalions by nationality. [69856]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The following figures are limited strictly to those personnel serving with their battalions. It does not cover officers or soldiers from the Foot Guards posted to units or establishments away from their battalions, staff, headquarters, diplomatic staff, or training organisations. Where no nationality is know it is categorised as No Nationality.
  133

  1 Grenadier Guards

  Nijmegan Coy Grenadier Guards

  1 Coldstream Guards

  7 Coy Coldstream Guards

  1 Scots Guards

  F Coy Scots Guards

  1 Irish Guards

  1 Welsh Guards

  Total

  Strength of all trained officers

  English

  31

  4

  29

  3

  28

  3

  33

  25

  156

  Scottish

  —

  —

  1

  —

  11

  —

  1

  —

  13

  Welsh

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  8

  10

  British

  1

  1

  2

  —

  1

  1

  2

  —

  8

  N Irish

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  2

  Manx

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  2

  No Nationality

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Indian

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Channel Island

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  British/Irish Rep

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Brit/US

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Total

  33

  5

  35

  3

  40

  4

  43

  33

  196

  Strength of all trained soldiers

  English

  475

  63

  565

  96

  178

  39

  420

  130

  1,966

  Welsh

  3

  1

  4

  —

  6

  —

  8

  407

  429

  Scottish

  10

  3

  21

  1

  290

  49

  19

  6

  399

  N Irish

  2

  —

  3

  —

  3

  —

  148

  1

  157

  British

  11

  —

  13

  1

  14

  3

  9

  9

  60

  Citizen Irish Rep

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  39

  —

  421

  Irish Rep/Foreign

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  3

  Irish Rep/Resident

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  3

  British/Irish Rep

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  2

  Manx

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  2

  Australian

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  British Hong Kong

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  New Zealander

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Rhodesian

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Trinidadian

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Eireian

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  S African

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Channel Islander

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  British/British Commonwealth

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Brit Nat/Foreign Restr

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Total

  507

  67

  609

  99

  491

  93

  654

  553

  3,073

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is(a) the establishment and (b) the current strength of each of the regiments in the Foot Guards; and if he will list each element of company strength serving with them, indicating where each battalion has soldiers attached to it from another battalion, which battalion they are from and in what numbers. [69855]

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

  Royal Tournament (Gun Competition)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the naval gun competition in the Royal Tournament. [70121]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  We announced in September last year that the Royal Tournament in its current form will end in 1999. A special event will be held in the year 2000 to celebrate the millennium. As we said at the time of the announcement, the nature of events in 2001 and beyond are subject to further work on timing, location and format. The future of the naval gun competition is being considered as part of that process. At present nothing has been ruled in or out.
  134

  South Coast Biological Defence Trials
  Mr. Caplin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the independent review conducted by Professor Brian Spratt of the South Coast biological defence trials. [70568]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Professor Brian Spratt has now completed his review of the microbiological defence trials conducted along the South Coast in the 1960s and 1970s. The MOD welcomes his main findings:That the trials would have caused no harm to the vast majority of people.
  That, although there may have been an unquantifiable risk of infection in a small number of people who had a serious underlying disease, such as cystic fibrosis, any such infections would have been infections of the chest or blood and would have occurred within days of release of the bacteria.
  That it is extremely unlikely that there is any link between the bacteria released in the trials and health problems reported by people who have suffered chronic ill health, miscarriages, or who have had children with disabilities.

  I have arranged for a copy of Professor Spratt's full report to be placed in the Library of the House.
  135

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Recycling
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee (1) what proportion of the consumption of each of the following materials on the Parliamentary Estate is currently recycled(a) paper, (b) kitchen oils, (c) lightbulbs and fluorescent tubes, (d) glass drinks bottles, (e) drinks cans, (f) refrigerant gases and (g) plastic products; [68734]

  (2) if she will set targets for each of the next five years for the recycled proportion of (a) paper, (b) kitchen oils, (c) lightbulbs and fluorescent tubes, (d) glass drinks bottles, (e) drinks cans, (f) refrigerant gases and (g) plastic products consumed on the Parliamentary Estate. [68735]

  Mrs. Roe
  These are matters for the Serjeant at Arms. I have asked him to write to my hon. Friend.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Asylum Seekers
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers were(a) declarees at the point of entry and (b) non-declarees who were subsequently identified as seeking assistance in each quarter since 1 January 1997. [68584]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  This information is not available in the form requested.

  Asylum seekers may generally receive benefit in the form of income support, housing benefit and council tax benefit, if they are port asylum applicants, or support from local authority social services departments, if they are in-country asylum applicants or asylum appellants.

  The information requested on those who seek support from local authority social services departments is not available. But on those who seek income support, statistics available on the number of urgent case payments that are claimed, awarded and refused are shown in the table. Only a small proportion of urgent case recipients are not asylum seekers.

  The number of total urgent case payment claims broadly reflects the total number of asylum seekers who have sought income support; the numbers awarded indicate how many were on-arrival asylum applicants, the

  Asylum applications1received in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, May 1997 to December 1998, by month, for selected nationalities

  Principal applicants

  Applications

  Poland

  Romania

  Bosnia and Herzegovina

  Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

  Croatia

  Slovenia

  FYROM (Macedonia)

  Albania

  Hungary

  May 1997

  55

  40

  10

  95

  5

  15

  —

  35

  —

  June 1997

  30

  55

  15

  110

  5

  —

  —

  50

  —

  July 1997

  40

  65

  10

  150

  5

  —

  —

  40

  —

  August 1997

  40

  65

  10

  200

  10

  *

  *

  40

  —

  September 1997

  35

  25

  5

  220

  10

  5

  *

  55

  —

  October 1997

  35

  85

  10

  240

  5

  *

  5

  30

  —

  November 1997

  40

  70

  10

  220

  20

  —

  5

  40

  —

  December 1997

  90

  75

  10

  295

  50

  *

  10

  50

  —

  January 1998

  90

  40

  5

  270

  5

  —

  *

  30

  —

  February 1998

  95

  55

  5

  270

  5

  *

  *

  30

  —

  136
  numbers refused are indicative of those who were in-country applicants (although this may also include a number of on-arrival applicants who do not satisfy the other rules of entitlement). But the latter do not include those in-country applicants who applied for support direct to local authority social services departments.

  Number of urgent case payment claims, awards and refusals January 1997 to December 1998

  Number of urgent case payment claims

  Number of urgent case payment awards

  Number of urgent case payments refused

  1997

  January

  2,051

  1,347

  685

  February

  1,879

  1,103

  594

  March

  1,682

  1,257

  623

  April

  2,475

  1,348

  731

  May

  2,431

  1,458

  645

  June

  2,121

  1,300

  675

  July

  2,621

  1,305

  1,166

  August

  2,376

  1,192

  841

  September

  2,642

  1,399

  1,048

  October

  2,480

  1,458

  1,060

  November

  2,448

  1,062

  776

  December

  2,379

  1,112

  711

  1998

  January

  3,077

  1,248

  933

  February

  2,544

  1,288

  953

  March

  2,900

  1,504

  1,142

  April

  2,723

  1,221

  1,146

  May

  2,401

  1,110

  1,050

  June

  3,064

  1,449

  1,134

  July

  3,348

  1,437

  1,806

  August

  3,372

  1,719

  1,796

  September

  3,418

  2,215

  1,829

  October

  3,698

  2,168

  2,314

  November

  3,270

  1,922

  1,883

  December

  2,899

  1,959

  1,447

  Note:

  Please note data are subject to amendment

  Source:

  Benefits Agency Management Information Statistics

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for asylum were received from nationals of(a) Poland, (b) Romania, (c) Bosnia and Herzegovina, (d) Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, (e) Croatia, (f) Slovenia, (g) FYROM, (h) Albania and (i) Hungary in each month since 1 May 1997. [69990]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The information requested is given in the table.
  137

  Asylum applications1 received in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, May 1997 to December 1998, by month, for selected nationalities

  Principal applicants

  Applications

  Poland

  Romania

  Bosnia and Herzegovina

  Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

  Croatia

  Slovenia

  FYROM (Macedonia)

  Albania

  Hungary

  March 1998

  95

  45

  15

  280

  10

  —

  5

  55

  —

  April 1998

  140

  70

  10

  385

  10

  *

  —

  30

  —

  May 1998

  85

  60

  15

  315

  5

  5

  *

  40

  —

  June 1998

  100

  50

  15

  680

  15

  *

  *

  55

  —

  July 1998

  80

  115

  10

  845

  15

  5

  25

  35

  —

  August 1998

  140

  95

  15

  905

  15

  —

  *

  55

  —

  September 1998

  160

  70

  20

  870

  25

  —

  5

  65

  —

  October 1998

  200

  115

  15

  1,160

  30

  —

  *

  70

  —

  November 1998

  140

  125

  20

  735

  80

  —

  5

  55

  —

  December 1998

  265

  170

  10

  675

  115

  —

  5

  40

  —

  Total

  1,945

  1,500

  245

  8,920

  450

  35

  65

  900

  —

  1 Figures rounded to nearest 5, with *=1 or 2

  Source:

  Immigration Research Statistics Service, RDS

  Police Conduct
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many metropolitan police officers have been suspended from duty due to allegations as to their conduct and for(a) up to three months, (b) up to six months, (c) up to nine months, (d) up to 12 months, (e) up to 15 months and (f) over 15 months. [69069]

  Kate Hoey
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis tells me that the total number of officers suspended from duty as at 1 February 1999 was 106, and that the other information requested is as follows:

  Period of suspension

  Number

  Up to 3 months

  29

  Up to 6 months

  19

  Up to 9 months

  14

  Up to 12 months

  13

  Up to 15 months

  14

  Over 15 months

  17

  The suspension of a particular officer from duty does not imply that action will be taken against that officer. That depends on the outcome of investigations on the case.

  Strip Searches
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the conclusions and recommendations of the review evaluated by his Department of strip searching procedures; and if he will place a copy of the final report in the Library. [69608]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Prison Service has completed its report on searching in prisons, but it has still to finalise recommendations and submit its proposals on how these will be implemented. A copy of the final report and its recommendations will be placed in the Library when this process has been completed.

  Bus Lane Offences
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions of private motorists charged with driving in a bus lane during the hours when 138
  such lanes are not authorised for use by private vehicles in the Greater London area there have been in each of the last three years. [69400]

  Mr. Boateng
  Prosecutions of private motorists are not separately identifiable in the statistics collected on motoring offences, nor can this offence be distinguished from other offences connected with neglect of traffic directions in the statistics collected centrally.

  However, most bus lane offences are dealt with by fixed penalty notice, and information obtained from both the Metropolitan and City of London Police shows that 15,218 fixed penalties notices were issued by them for contravening a bus lane in 1996, 15,061 in 1997 and 14,846 in 1998.

  Driving (Drugs)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to reduce the incidence of driving whilst under the influence of illegal drugs. [69543]

  Mr. Boateng
  We are working closely with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and Association of Chief Police Officers. The Home Office Police Scientific Development Branch is researching into the possible development of roadside drugs screening technology and we support the Association of Chief Police Officers in its work to ensure that officers have the appropriate training to enforce the current legislation as effectively as possible. We will consider possible changes in legislation in the light of the results of the DETR research into the incidence of drugs in road fatalities.

  Channel Islands (Separation of Powers)
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what proposals he has to review the constitutional separation of powers between Judiciary and Legislation in Jersey following the European Court of Human Rights decision in McConnell v. the United Kingdom; [69555]
  139
  (2) what proposals he has to review the constitutional position of the Bailiff of the Royal Court of Guernsey and the separation of powers in that island following the European Court of Human Rights decision in McConnell v. United Kingdom. [69556]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The European Court of Human Rights has not yet made a decision in this case. On 4 December 1998, the European Commission of Human Rights decided to refer the case to the Court and it will be examined in due course.

  Home Detention Curfews
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how he plans to monitor the effectiveness of the Home Detention Curfew Scheme. [69480]

  Mr. George Howarth
  An evaluation of the Home Detention Curfew (HDC) scheme is being carried out by the Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate. The study will cover a variety of issues including the impact on prisoners and on the prison and probation services, assessments of suitability for HDC, the extent to which home detention curfews are successfully completed, recalls to prison, the rate of re-offending and the cost effectiveness of the scheme.

  We expect results on the first year performance of the scheme to be available in mid-2000.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 25 January 1999,Official Report, columns 76–78, concerning the home detention welfare provisions of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, when he proposes to write to the hon. Member for Hertsmere. [70280]

  Mr. George Howarth
  I wrote to the hon. Member on 8 February. A copy of this letter is in the Library. I will write again to the hon. Member when the remaining information becomes available.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many of the prisoners released under the home detention curfew provisions of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 have been released subject to supervision by a probation officer; [70115]

  (2) how many of the prisoners released since 28 January under the home detention curfew provisions of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 are serving sentences as a result of convictions for offences (a) of violence, (b) of burglary and (c) to which Part I of the Sex Offenders Act 1997 applies; [70117]

  (3) how many of the prisoners released since 28 January under the home detention curfew provisions of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 have previous convictions for offences (a) of violence, (b) of burglary and (c) to which Part I of the Sex Offenders Act 1997 applies. [70116]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The data are not yet available and I will write to the hon. Member when they have been collated.
  140

  Departmental Efficiency Gains
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to express efficiency gains as a percentage of his departmental budget; and if he will make a statement. [69630]

  Mr. Straw
  My Department's Public Service Agreement (published in the White Paper "Public Services for the Future: Modernisation, Reform, Accountability") includes a target for the Home Office to achieve efficiency improvements of 3 per cent. a year; as well as targets for improvements against total spending on the police and the fire services of 2 per cent. a year, and on the probation service of 4 per cent. a year.

  The White Paper describes the range of projects and targets which are in place to achieve these efficiency gains. For example, a Modernisation Programme has been launched which will develop better management, accommodation, personnel and Information Technology systems. Specific targets have been set, or are being developed, for correspondence, telephone response, sickness absence, procurement, processing of immigration casework and a number of other areas.

  I have no plans to express these efficiency gains as a percentage of my budget, as this would be misleading in relation to the work that is underway. Rather, the efficiency improvements will be made up of a range of increases in output relative to input, budgetary savings and transfers of existing resources to meet new priorities.

  Police Authority Contingency Reserves
  Maria Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what requirements his Department has laid down in respect of the contingency reserves to be kept by police authorities in England; and what guidance his Department provides in relation to the use to which such moneys should be put. [69473]

  Mr. Boateng
  Section 43 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 requires Police Authorities to have regard to the level of reserves needed for meeting estimated future expenditure when calculating their budget requirement. The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA) has recently re-issued to police authorities advice in determining the appropriate level of reserves and balances. CIPFA recommends that the level of balances for a Police Authority should be around 2 per cent. to 5 per cent., depending on local circumstances.

  The Home Office provides no separate guidance to police authorities on the use to which reserves and balances should be put. The allocation of all resources, including reserves, is entirely a matter for the Chief Constable and the Police Authority.

  Casinos
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many licensed casinos there are in(a) England, (b) Wales and (c) the North West of England. [69377]

  Mr. George Howarth
  There are 100 licensed casinos in England and 4 in Wales.
  141
  16 casinos are in the north west of England, (Lancashire, Greater Manchester and Merseyside; Cumbria and Cheshire have none). One more is due to open in May or June this year.

  Amusement Arcades
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many licensed amusement arcades there are in(a) England, (b) Wales and (c) the North-West of England. [69374]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Government do not collect figures on the numbers of amusement arcades.

  However, BACTA (the trade association for the amusement machine industry) estimate that there are between 1,800 and 2,000 amusement arcades in Great Britain. They have no geographical breakdown.

  Prison Statistics
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many convicted prisoners are housed in cells designed for two people but housing in excess of that number. [69462]

  Mr. George Howarth
  No centrally held data are available on the number of convicted prisoners housed in cells designed for two people but housing in excess of that number. This information could be provided only at a disproportionate cost.

  The Prison Service does record the numbers of prisoners housed in cells designed for single occupancy but housing two prisoners. Separate figures for convicted or unconvicted prisoners are not available. The average number of prisoners held two to a cell designed for one for the 1998–99 year to December is 12,080. No prisoners have been held three to a cell designed for one since March 1994.

  Metropolitan Police (Legal Costs)
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in how many cases in each of the last five years the Metropolitan Police has funded in whole or in part the legal costs of serving or former police officers facing criminal charges; and in how many cases funding is still continuing. [69843]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 8 February 1999]: At my request, the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis is arranging for information about the number of cases there are being funded in the current financial year to be collated, and I will write to the hon. Member when that is available. Relevant information for the previous four years is not recorded centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The Commissioner tells me that the Metropolitan Police are currently reviewing their system for recording such information.

  Stephen Lawrence
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he plans to make a statement on the inquiry into the death of Stephen Lawrence. [69342]
  142
  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 8 February 1999]: The Inquiry into the death of Stephen Lawrence is expected to report shortly. I will make a statement when I publish the report.

  Public Consultations
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish his Department's collation and assessment of responses to all the Government's public consultations. [69777]

  Mr. Straw
  The Home Office issues public consultation documents from time to time. It usually publishes a synopsis of views when it gives a Government response to such consultation and those views made available in the Library. It would be of disproportionate cost to give a collation and assessment of all such documents.

  Civil Service Pay Awards
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average percentage increase in salaries of non-industrial civil servants, excluding members of the senior civil service, in his Department for 1998–99; and to what extent the pay awards were staged. [69514]

  Mr. Straw
  In the non-agency Home Office, the headline pay settlement was 2.7 per cent. on the paybill. Together with the additional funds from staff turnover, staff in post received performance related increases averaging 4 per cent. 0.5 per cent. of these increases was staged and will be paid with effect from 1 April 1999.

  Back Beat Club Raid
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much was spent on(a) the surveillance operation and (b) the raid on the Back Beat Club in December 1998; how many police officers were involved; and what was the value and types of controlled drugs seized. [69311]

  Mr. Boateng
  This is an operational matter for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. He tells me that a number of people have now been charged following this police operation. As the matter is now before the court, I cannot comment further at this stage on matters which may be material to the case.

  General Pinochet
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reasons he was not informed of the contacts on 14 October between the Metropolitan Police and his Department relating to the former's contacts with the 5th Central Magistrate's Court in Madrid; and what was the nature of the information passed on. [70254]

  Mr. Straw
  I was informed on Friday 16 October of the contacts between the Metropolitan Police and the 5th Central Magistrates Court. These contacts over the period 14–16 October related initially to a request to interview Senator Pinochet. Such requests for interview are, as a matter of routine, executed directly by the police or other law enforcement agencies. Where such requests are made directly to the Home Office they are referred to
  143
  the police to execute. This was set out in my reply I gave to the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), on 27 October 1998, Official Report, column 123.

  Disclosure of information that passed between the Metropolitan Police and the 5th Central Magistrate's Court is a matter for the Metropolitan Police.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the total cost to date to public funds of the arrest and detention of General Pinochet. [70282]

  Mr. Straw
  Costs in extradition proceedings are generally treated on a reciprocal basis. In this case, the United Kingdom is responsible for the costs of processing extradition requests made from Spain. In return, Spain is responsible for the costs of processing extradition requests made from the United Kingdom. The costs incurred in police operations are a matter for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, and, in this case, for the Chief Constable of Surrey.

  Figures on legal costs are not yet available. The costs of the hearings in the House of Lords have not yet been settled and no costs order will be made until the conclusion of the case.

  As of today, the fees of Counsel instructed by the Treasury Solicitor's Department on my behalf are £69,125, of which £18,000 subject to agreement or taxation, is recoverable under a costs order made against Senator Pinochet in the Divisional Court in my favour. As of today, the fees of Counsel instructed by the Treasury Solicitor's Department as amicus curiae are £54,500.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who signed the initial warrant for the arrest of General Pinochet; where and at what time; with representatives from which bodies in attendance; with what prior warning to the person who signed the warrant; and at whose request. [70236]

  Mr. Straw
  The issue of a provisional arrest warrant is a matter for the police and the magistrate. The first provisional arrest warrant was signed by Mr. Nicholas Evans, Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, at his home at around 9–9.30 pm on 16 October 1998. I understand

  Minister

  Dates

  Places visited

  Purpose of visit

  Secretary of State and Joyce Quin

  26.5.97 to 27.5.97

  Brussels

  Justice and Home Affairs Council Meeting

  Joyce Quin

  9.6.97 to 11.6.97

  Prague

  Council of Europe Justice Ministers Meeting

  Lord Williams of Mostyn

  15.9.97 to 19.9.97

  Paris, Germany, Oslo

  Fact-finding to look at procedures for investigating suspicious deaths, human rights and community sentences

  Alun Michael

  16.9.97 to 18.9.97

  New York

  Visit New York Cares Scheme and New York Police

  Joyce Quin

  17.9.97

  Paris

  Debate at Ecole Nationale d'Administration

  Joyce Quin

  26.9.97 to 28.9.97

  Sienna

  Pontignano Conference

  Secretary of State and Joyce Quin

  9.10.97 to 10.10.97

  Luxembourg

  Informal Justice and Home Affairs Council

  Joyce Quin

  20.10.97 to 21.10.97

  Strasbourg

  Meeting with MEPs prior to UK Presidency

  Secretary of State

  20.10.97 to 21.10.97

  Paris

  Meetings with French Interior Minister and Minister of Justice

  Joyce Quin

  4.11.97 to 6.11.97

  Stockholm

  Studying of tagging and prison organisation

  Alun Michael

  16.11.97 to 17.11.97

  The Hague

  To present European Crime Prevention Awards and visit juvenile delinquents computer system and day training centre

  Joyce Quin

  3.12.97 to 5.12.97

  Brussels

  Justice and Home Affairs Council

  Secretary of State

  4.12.97 to 5.12.97

  Brussels

  Justice and Home Affairs Council

  Alun Michael

  5.12.97 to 8.12.97

  Bosnia

  To visit British Police serving in Bosnia

  Secretary of State

  9.12.97 to 10.12.97

  Washington

  G8 Meeting on Organised Crime

  144
  that officers from the Metropolitan Police Extradition Squad and clerks from Bow Street Magistrates' Court were in attendance. The Metropolitan Police applied for the warrant following receipt, via Interpol, of a request for the provisional arrest of Senator Pinochet issued by the fifth Magistrate's Court in Madrid.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which body served the arrest warrant for General Pinochet; at what time; with how many people in attendance; and with what armed backup. [70237]

  Mr. Straw
  The service of the arrest warrant is an operational matter for the Metropolitan Police. The first provisional arrest warrant for Senator Pinochet was served by two officers of the Metropolitan Police Extradition Squad at 11.45pm on 16 October 1998. In attendance were the head of the Metropolitan Police Extradition Unit and another officer; a civilian interpreter; a doctor; and two nurses. There was no armed backup.

  Road Deaths (Penalties)
  Ms Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce a mandatory life ban on driving for those guilty of causing road deaths. [68262]

  Mr. Boateng
  Disqualification from driving is obligatory where a driver is convicted of causing death by dangerous driving or causing death by careless driving while under the influence of drink or drugs. The period is, however, currently a matter for the courts discretion. The Government keep all penalties under review but have no plans currently to impose a mandatory life ban.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the occasions on which he and Ministers in his Department have undertaken overseas visits in the course of their ministerial duties since 1997; and if he will give details of the purpose and duration of each visit. [67746]

  Mr. Straw
  [pursuant to his reply, 28 January 1999, c. 361–64]: On closer examination, the list provided contained three inaccuracies. The correct list of Home Office Ministerial visits overseas between 2 May 1997 and 25 January 1999 is now given in the table:
  145

  Minister

  Dates

  Places visited

  Purpose of visit

  Mike O'Brien

  18.12.97 to 19.12.97

  Luxembourg

  Conference on European Year Against Racism

  Mike O'Brien

  4.1.98 to 14.1.98

  Pakistan, India, Bangladesh

  To observe entry clearance posts

  Secretary of State

  13.1.98 to 14.1.98

  Madrid

  Meetings with the Spanish Minister of the Interior and Minister of Justice

  Secretary of State

  26.1.98

  Brussels

  Meetings with the European Parliament Civil Liberties Committee, the EPLP and the ELDR

  Joyce Quin

  28.1.98

  Brussels

  To address the European Presidency Racism and Xenophobia Debate

  Secretary of State

  4.2.98 to 6.2.98

  Washington, USA

  Accompanying Prime Minister: Meetings with National Institute of Justice, Baltimore Police Department, Department of Justice and Attorney General Reno

  Mike O'Brien

  10.2.98 to 11.2.98

  Brussels

  To attend the 'Lets Kick Racism Out of Football' seminar

  Lord Williams of Mostyn

  15.2.98 to 16.2.98

  Paris

  To address the OECD Workshop on Global Network Society

  Secretary of State and Joyce Quin

  18.3.98 to 19.3.98

  Brussels

  To attend Justice and Home Affairs Council Meeting

  Lord Williams of Mostyn

  21.3.98 to 25.3.98

  Thailand

  To launch a UK funded course on Child Sex Exploitation

  Joyce Quin

  26.3.98

  Amsterdam

  To address the Dutch Probation Conference

  Joyce Quin

  8.4.98 to 9.4.98

  Prague

  To discuss EU enlargement

  Joyce Quin

  16.4.98 to 17.4.98

  Warsaw

  To discuss EU enlargement

  Joyce Quin

  21.4.98 to 22.4.98

  Vienna

  To address the UN Crime Commission

  Joyce Quin

  28.4.98 to 1.5.98

  Budapest

  To discuss EU enlargement

  Secretary of State

  14.5.98

  Vienna

  Meetings with the Austrian Interior Minister and Minister of Justice

  Lord Williams of Mostyn

  26.5.98 to 27.5.98

  Milan

  To visit the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM)

  Secretary of State and Joyce Quin

  27.5.98 to 29.5.98

  Brussels

  To attend the Justice and Home Affairs Council meeting

  George Howarth

  7.6.98 to 10.6.98

  New York

  To attend the UN Special Session on Drugs

  Joyce Quin

  29.6.98 to 30.6.98

  Brussels

  To address the European Presidency Civil Liberties and Legal Affairs Committee

  George Howarth

  30.6.98

  Brussels

  To address a meeting of the EU Civil Liberties and Internal Affairs Committees

  Secretary of State and Kate Hoey

  23.9.98 to 24.9.98

  Brussels

  To attend Justice and Home Affairs Council meeting

  Secretary of State

  15.10.98 to 16.10.98

  Avignon

  To attend and address a seminar on Family Law and Organised Crime

  Kate Hoey

  28.10.98 to 30.10.98

  Vienna

  Informal Justice and Home Affairs Council

  Mike O'Brien

  3.11.98 to 6.11.98

  Ethiopia and Nigeria

  To attend entry clearance conference and observe entry clearance posts

  Kate Hoey

  4.11.98 to 5.11.98

  Strasbourg

  Council of Europe Ministers meeting on tackling organised crime

  Secretary of State and Kate Hoey

  2.12.98 to 4.12.98

  Brussels

  To attend Justice and Home Affairs Council meeting

  Kate Hoey

  6.12.98 to 8.12.98

  Budapest

  Visit to firm up co-operation on organised crime following successful bid for twinning project

  Mike O'Brien

  11.1.98 to 15.1.98

  Slovakia, Czech Republic and Poland

  Meetings with Government Ministers regarding asylum seekers

  Secretary of State

  27.1.99

  Strasbourg

  To visit the European Court of Human Rights

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Planning
  Mr. Hopkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his plans for the reform of the planning system. [68277]

  Mr. Caborn
  The statement "Modernising Planning", published in January 1998, set out a comprehensive agenda for action to improve the operation of the planning system at European, national, regional and local levels. Following consultation, changes are now being implemented. I propose to publish a report on progress shortly.
  146

  Urban Design
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action the Government are taking to improve the quality of urban design. [68278]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Government take every opportunity to encourage higher standards of urban design and will be considering what further measures might be appropriate when the Urban Task Force reports in the early Summer. In the meantime, the Government are encouraging good design by publishing good practice guidance, including: "Places, Streets and Movement", a companion guide to "Design Bulletin 32", published last autumn, which aims to improve the design of housing layouts; and a more general "Good Practice Guide on Design in the Planning
  147
  System", which we expect to publish in the Spring. In addition, design competitions were held for the Millennium Villages in Greenwich and Allerton Bywater, which demonstrate he Government's commitment to encouraging better quality development.

  Air Freight (Regional Airports)
  Ms Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to promote air freight trade at regional airports. [68279]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  In "A New Deal for Transport", the Government said that they would encourage the growth of regional airports to meet local demand. This applies to both passenger and cargo traffic. My Department has just commissioned a study to improve our knowledge of the UK freight industry and the ways in which Government action could support it.

  Capping
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his plans to cap local authority budgets in 1999–2000. [68281]

  Ms Armstrong
  As promised in our Manifesto we have abolished crude and universal capping. We will decide whether there is any need to use our capping powers once authorities have set their budgets.

  Crossrail
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the proposal by a consortium of local authorities, led by the Corporation of London, to achieve a private finance initiative for the Crossrail project. [68282]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Representatives of the Corporation of London told my officials last summer that there is interest in the City in investing in Crossrail. My officials asked the Corporation to invite those willing to invest in the project to approach the Department. We have heard nothing about this since.

  Birmingham Northern Relief Road
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact of re-routing traffic from the M6 and M42 to the Birmingham northern relief road. [68283]

  Dr. Reid
  Assessments of the impacts of the Birmingham Northern Relief Road are set out in the Department's Evidence and Environmental Impact Assessment Statement presented to Public Inquiries held into the proposals during 1994 and 1995.

  Council Tax Benefit Subsidy
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will postpone the implementation of proposals to limit the payment of council tax benefit subsidy in 1999–2000 to allow for consultation on the impact of its introduction. [68284]
  148
  Ms Armstrong
  We have consulted fully on our proposals. There is no reason to delay introduction of the scheme.

  Leisure and Tourism
  Mr. McNulty
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what research his Department is undertaking on planning for leisure and tourism. [68285]

  Mr. Caborn
  A research project on Planning for Leisure and Tourism is currently being undertaken for my Department. It is looking at how planning policy guidance for England could best facilitate leisure and tourism developments whilst achieving more sustainable patterns of development and travel. The final report is expected in July.

  Fishing Vessel Accidents
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to publish the findings of the consultations he undertook concerning the consultative document "Fishing Vessel Accidents and the Recovery of Those Lost at Sea". [68288]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I have today published an analysis of the responses made to the consultation paper. A copy has been placed in the Library of the House. The Government's response to the consultation exercise will be published in due course.

  SSAs (West Sussex)
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the revision of standard spending assessments for West Sussex county council. [68290]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Standard Spending Assessment for West Sussex County Council for 1999–2000 is £464.8 million, an increase of 3.7 per cent. from the previous year.

  Planning Fees
  Mr. St. Aubyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the level of planning fees. [68291]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Government's aim has been to raise planning fees gradually over a number of years until they enabled 100 per cent. recovery of local authorities' total estimated costs of determining planning applications. The two fee increases introduced in 1997 have brought us to this point and we have no immediate plans to raise fee levels. However, in the context of Best Value, my officials are currently working with the Planning Officers' Society on more systematic ways of measuring planning costs. This work may form the basis of a revision of planning fees in due course.

  Passenger Rail Services
  Ms Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to enhance the reliability and quality of passenger rail services. [68292]
  149
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  A National Rail Summit will be held on 25 February to build upon the short-term measures agreed with franchisees and Railtrack last November and to kick start a long-term effort to improve standards across the railway network. We will be looking to the rail industry to demonstrate at the Summit how they propose to deliver year-on-year improvements in performance.

  North West Regional Development Agency
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he next intends to meet the members of the North West Regional Development Agency to discuss arrangements between sub-regional structures and the region. [68293]

  Mr. Caborn
  I plan to meet the North West Regional Development Agency Board within the next few weeks.

  Urban Renaissance
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the urban renaissance report produced by the urban task force. [68294]

  Mr. Caborn
  An urban renaissance is vital in order to improve city environments and to tackle the problems of social exclusion. I welcome the Urban Task Force's Halfway Report 'Urban Renaissance'. The report shows that the Task Force's consultation exercise has gathered valuable contributions from a wide range of sources. This gives assurance that the Task Force's final recommendations will have a sound base. The Task Force will produce their final report and recommendations to the Deputy Prime Minister in the early summer.

  Public Transport (Derbyshire)
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he has taken to improve access to public transport in rural parts of Derbyshire. [68295]

  Dr. Reid
  We have already allocated just over £1.5 million for improved bus services in rural Derbyshire as part of the additional funding for rural transport of £50 million announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in his last budget. Over half of Derbyshire's allocation will be used to fund the Southern Derbyshire Rural Access Initiative, a scheme aimed at improving transport links to help combat social exclusion in rural areas. There will be further allocations in future financial years. In addition, £600,000 has been allocated to Derbyshire for rural and non-package minor works in the local transport capital settlement for 1999–2000.

  Rail Services (Northampton)
  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact of the west coast main line upgrade on rail services to Northampton. [68296]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  None. I understand that Railtrack is shortly to provide the Rail Regulator and the Franchising Director with a report on its Strategic Review 150
  of services between London and Northampton. The Review will identify options for meeting future demand and improving services.

  As part of his assessment of the type and level of services the network should provide, the Franchising Director, acting as part of the shadow SRA, will consider the options identified by Railtrack against the planning criteria already approved by Ministers. A report to Ministers is expected during the second half of the year.

  London Borough Councils (Elections)
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has for annual elections to borough councils in London. [68297]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Government's White Paper, "Modern Local Government—In Touch with the People" (Cm 4104) sets out our policy for more frequent elections for councils, including for London boroughs which would have elections by thirds in each of the years between elections to the Greater London Authority.

  Buses
  Mr. Rapson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the role of buses in the integrated transport policy. [68298]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Our Transport White Paper last year made it clear that we see buses as having a central role in an integrated transport policy, with a renewed emphasis on quality services meeting passengers' needs. We shall be issuing a further paper shortly setting out our proposals in more detail.

  Waterways (Freight Transport)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he intends to introduce targets for the increased use of waterways for freight transport. [68299]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government are committed to encouraging greater use of inland waterways, and will be re-examining the rules of the freight grant scheme with a view to increasing the number of applications for inland waterways projects. There has been a significant increase in the 1998–99 budget. However, as the scheme is demand-led it is not possible to set meaningful targets.

  Planning Enforcement
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action the Government have taken to encourage the dissemination of good practice on planning enforcement. [68300]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Government have encouraged good practice on planning enforcement by publishing "Enforcing Planning Control: Good Practice Guide for Local Planning Authorities", in July 1997. The Guide covers good practice on investigation, negotiation and formal action, illustrated by actual cases. A copy of the Guide is available in the Library.
  151

  Pension Funds (Bus Employees)
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has for the return of the bus employees superannuation trust pension funds to its members. [68301]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 12 January 1999,Official Report, column 167.

  Company Cars
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what measures the Government plan to take to reduce excessive mileage by company cars. [68289]

  Dr. Reid
  I refer to the answer I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) today,Official Report, column 117.

  Disruptive Passengers (Airlines)
  Mr. McCabe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has had with airlines regarding problems caused by disruptive passengers. [68280]

  Dr. Reid
  On 25 November 1998 I held a meeting with representatives of the airline industry, and other interested organisations to discuss ways in which the problem of disruptive behaviour by airline passengers could be addressed. As a result a working group was established to consider ways of gaining reliable data about the number of incidents of disruptive behaviour and to consider the need for research into their causes. Its first meeting was on 1 February.

  PPG 13
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to publish planning policy guidance No.13 on transport. [68286]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The draft consultation PPG 13 will be published in the summer.

  Trunk Roads
  Mr. Ruffly
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received regarding levels of public spending on trunk roads. [68287]

  Dr. Reid
  We have had, and continue to have, many representations regarding the levels of public spending on trunk roads—some arguing for more expenditure, others for less.

  Integrated Transport
  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the proposals in his Integrated Transport White Paper which(a) require primary legislation, (b) require secondary legislation and (c) can be implemented under current legislation. [66044]
  152
  Dr. Reid
  The great majority of the proposals can be implemented under current legislation. I have today written to the right hon. Member with details of the proposals in all three categories, and have placed a copy of the letter in the Library of the House.

  Bull Bars
  Mr. Bradshaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he plans to announce his conclusions following the consultation on bull bars. [69407]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) on 8 February 1999,Official Report, column 8.

  National Air Traffic Services
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many meetings his Department's Ministers have had with National Air Traffic Services since May 1997 in connection with NATS' investment programme and commercial future; and what plans they have to consult United Kingdom airline representatives before any policy decision is taken. [69474]

  Dr. Reid
  Ministers have had 16 meetings with NATS since May 1997. These meetings covered a broad range of topics including the company's investment programme and commercial future. The Government issued a consultation paper on the future of NATS in October 1998. Airlines were invited to comment; and a number of them have done so.

  Contaminated Metals
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 21 January 1999,Official Report, column 562, if he will make a statement on the five incidents involving interception of illegally imported radioactive contaminated metals; when and where the metals were discovered; what their origin was; and what steps have been taken to prosecute those responsible. [69628]

  Mr. Meale
  The five cases referred to in my answer of 21 January are:

  Date

  Location discovered

  Origin

  July 1997

  Willenhall

  Possibly Russia

  July 1997

  Sheffield

  Probably Russia

  September 1997

  Sheffield

  Probably South Africa

  July 1998

  Sheffield

  Georgia

  August 1998

  Hathersage, N. Derbyshire

  Probably Russia

  The people discovering the above incidents in the United Kingdom are not considered to be at fault; they acted very responsibly in declaring an inadvertent importation of radioactive materials, to the Environment Agency. They could not have known about the radioactive content before receipt. Therefore no enforcement action has been taken in the UK. No information is available about what action was taken overseas.
  153
  The assistance of the metals industries in protecting the environment and the public from the potential consequences of such incidents is welcomed. The Environment Agency works with overseas enforcement authorities, by exchanging information via the National Criminal Intelligence Service (NCIS) and INTERPOL, to help them pursue regulatory investigations in the countries of origin.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list(a) for the 50 local authorities with the highest and (b) for the 50 local authorities with the lowest dependency on council tax benefit, the proportion of actual 1998–99 council tax that was funded by council tax benefit; and if he will make the information available to local authorities in electronic form. [69364]

  Ms Armstrong
  The actual proportion of council tax in 1998–99 funded by council tax benefit will not be available until later this year when local authorities have finalised their financial accounts for 1998–99. However, I have placed in the Library of the House, two tables which show for the authorities requested, the proportion of council tax yield to be funded by council tax benefit which is consistent with the budgets and council taxes set by local authorities for 1998–99. The information is also consistent with data to be used in the Council Tax Benefit Subsidy Limitation Scheme for 1999–2000 and will be made available to local authorities on the Department's Internet site.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will estimate for the most recent year for which figures are available(a) the total amount paid in business rates in South Gloucestershire and (b) the amount received by South Gloucestershire Council from central Government out of the total yield of business rates. [69475]

  Ms Armstrong
  The authority calculated £44.7 million to be its provisional contribution to the rating pool for 1998–99 as a result of collecting business rates from the businesses in its area, and it will receive £55.4 million back from central Government as its share of the distributable amount of non-domestic rates. In 1999–2000, the latter figure will rise to £60.9 million; estimates of the former figure are not yet available.

  Biosafety Protocol
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which ministers will be attending, and what position the Government will be advocating, at the forthcoming meeting in Colombia to discuss the Biosafety Protocol. [69821]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 8 February 1999]: The Government are eager to ensure that the final meeting of the Open-ended Ad hoc Working Group on Biosafety developing the Biosafety Protocol reaches a successful conclusion. I refer the hon. Member to replies given to the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) on
  154
  19 January 1999, Official Report, column 446, that set out the Government's position on commodities, liability and redress and socio-economic considerations.

  We believe the scope of the protocol should be broad, covering all transboundary movements of LMOs resulting from modern biotechnology which may have an adverse effect on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, taking also into account risks to human health, with a mechanism for granting exemptions.

  The UK believes that the Protocol should refer to the precautionary principle. The EU has proposed its inclusion in the preamble to, and in the objectives of the Protocol.

  On AIA procedures, our aim is to establish a predictable, science-based and transparent regime which establishes controls proportionate to the risks.

  We will argue strongly for the inclusion of provisions requiring the exporter to indicate, either through labelling or accompanying documentation, whether the movement/ shipment contains LMOs. This will also help to show that a movement is in conformity with the Protocol and will provide transparency and openness on LMOs.

  It is clear that Parties must have or develop the capacities to be able to make informed decisions about proposed transboundary movements. We therefore believe that the protocol should reflect the need for the strengthening of human and institutional capacities.

  We will, alongside our European partners, seek in negotiations to obtain an instrument that provides the necessary environmental safeguards without hampering trade. We would be against any provision that could be taken as a subordination to other international agreements. In our view agreements should be regarded as being of equal standing and treated in a complementary manner.

  No UK Ministers will be present at the meeting.

  Water Abstraction
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he plans to publish his final proposals for reforms to the water abstraction licensing systems for England and Wales following his consultation paper of June 1998. [R] [69999]

  Mr. Meale
  The Government will publish their decisions on the reform of the water abstraction licensing system in England and Wales within the next few weeks.

  Foreign Goods Vehicles
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals his Department has to restrict the use, in the United Kingdom, of foreign and EU trucks running 11.5 tonne axles in a 4X2 configuration. [69270]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 8 February 1999]: Other than the application of local weight restrictions the Department has no proposals to restrict the use of vehicles running with 11.5 tonne axles in a 4X2 configuration. From 1 January this year vehicles operating with that configuration and at that weight, of all nationalities, are permitted in the UK.
  155

  Packaging Waste
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which businesses operating in Pudsey constituency are subject to the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997; what monitoring has taken place to assess their compliance; and what was the outcome of such monitoring. [70204]

  Mr. Meale
  I understand that Environment Agency records indicate that there are 10 companies within the constituency of Pudsey which are obligated under the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997. The 10 obligated companies are members of the Valpak compliance scheme. During 1998, the Environment Agency concentrated its monitoring efforts on those businesses which had failed to register and, those which were individually registered. None of the above companies fell into either of these categories.

  Civil Service Pay Awards
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the average percentage increase in salaries of non-industrial civil servants, excluding members of the senior civil service, in his Department for 1998–99; and to what extent the pay awards were staged. [69517]

  Mr. Prescott
  The headline pay settlement was 2.55 per cent. on the paybill, and together with some of the additional funds from staff turnover, staff-in-post received performance-related increases averaging 3.7 per cent. On top of this, some staff benefited from a number of restructuring changes which brought total average earnings growth to 5.3 per cent. The increases were not staged but were implemented in 2 phases, both backdated to 1 August 1998.

  Planning (Streamlining)
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress has been made on proposed changes to speed up the preparation and adoption of local plans and urban development plans. [68267]

  Mr. Raynsford
  As part of the Government's agenda to modernise the planning system, we published a consultation paper last year outlining proposals to improve the arrangements for the delivery of local plans and UDPs. We intend to take those proposals forward. A full revision of PPG12 on development plans will be issued for public consultation shortly.

  Razor Wire
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to bring the use of razor wire in non-military establishments under the jurisdiction of the planning authorities. [70243]

  Mr. Raynsford
  It is for local planning authorities to decide whether the use of razor wire in particular cases constitutes development requiring planning permission. In some circumstances, development involving the use of razor wire may be carried out in the exercise of permitted development rights granted by the Town and Country 156
  Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995. In such cases, it would be for the local planning authority to consider whether to withdraw those permitted development rights by giving a direction under article 4 of the Order. However, we advise in Circular 9/95 that permitted development rights should be withdrawn only in exceptional circumstances.

  Housing (North-West)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact of the capital receipt initiative on the availability of housing in the North West region. [68517]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The forty three housing authorities in the North West received a total of £101 million under the Capital Receipts Initiative (CRI) in 1997–98 and 1998–99 (£22.4 million and £78.6 million respectively). Returns from authorities show that over the two years around 70 per cent. of the resources are being used to refurbish and improve Council housing stock. The remaining resources are supporting Registered Social Landlord activity, including provision of new units, through Local Authority Social Housing Grant (9 per cent.), renovation grants and home repair activity in the private section (15 per cent.) and other housing-related regeneration activity (6 per cent.). The North West's total CRI allocation for 1999–2000 is £78.6 million.

  Public Interest Immunity
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what provisions govern the use of public interest immunity certificates by his Department; and to what extent these relate to files held by local authorities. [70226]

  Mr. Meale
  The principles governing public interest immunity certificates for documents in my Department's possession are those mentioned in the Attorney-General's written answer to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies) on 11 July 1997,Official Report, column 616. It is for local authorities to decide, applying established legal principles, whether to make claims in respect of files which they hold. In all cases, a claim to public interest immunity is subject to the Court's supervision.

  SSA (Oldham)
  Mr. Woolas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what consideration he has given to changing the sites of measurement for snow days in calculating the standard spending assessment for Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council. [68378]

  Ms Armstrong
  We considered the proposals put forward by Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council for changing the weather stations whose records are used in the calculation of their Standard Spending Assessment.

  We concluded that, if the weather stations were to be reconsidered, it should be done on a basis that dealt with all local authorities consistently, with the benefit of meteorological advice.
  157

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations have been received by the NMEC concerning food at the Dome. [67270]

  Janet Anderson
  A small number of representations have been made about food and catering at the Dome, in addition to those received from potential caterers and suppliers.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if the Millennium Dome will contain a display or other information on biotechnology. [67483]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 25 January 1999]: The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) is seeking to ensure that as many aspects of science and technology as possible are reflected in the Millennium Experience at the Dome.

  BBC Transmission
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions he has had with the BBC on the standards of transmission quality; and if he will make a statement. [68305]

  Janet Anderson
  There have been no such discussions. The BBC is responsible for the transmission of its television services and for ensuring that standards of transmission quality in terms of picture and sound are maintained, as far as is reasonably practicable.

  I know of particular concern about the transmission of programmes in widescreen format which results in the appearance of black bands above and below the picture on conventional television receivers. I understand the BBC minimises the size of the bands where possible, in order to strike a balance between delivering improved services offered by new technology and continuing to meet the needs of viewers using conventional systems.

  Olympic Bid (London)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions he has had in respect of a bid by London to host the 2012 Olympic Games. [68187]

  Mr. Banks
  I have regular contact with the British Olympic Association, who have to submit UK bids for the Olympic Games. With my support, they are currently conducting comprehensive studies on what is already in place and what needs to be in place to mount a winnable London bid. Following these studies, and taking into account recent developments within the IOC, a decision will be taken on whether to bid for the 2012 Games.

  Whilst I am one of the strongest supporters of a top quality bid at the earliest opportunity, I have made it clear to the BOA that Government support will also depend on the introduction by the IOC of a bidding system which is seen to be transparent, honest and can enjoy the confidence of all bidding cities as well as the entire Olympic movement itself. I have stressed this position to Mr. Samaranch, President of the IOC.
  158

  Departmental Papers (Access for Visually Impaired)
  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he 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. [67844]

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

  My Department has produced White and Green Papers in both Braille and large print and would be happy to make the texts of documents available in floppy disk format on request.

  Sport (Women)
  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the benefits to young women and girls of participating in sport. [65077]

  Mr. Banks
  Whilst this Department has not carried out specific research, the English Sports Council (ESC), through which central Government funding for sport is channelled, undertakes a range of activities aimed at promoting the benefits of sport and encouraging more women into sport. The ESC will be carrying out its Young People and Sport Survey later this year. The survey will focus on the participation rates of girls in sport.

  The Government remain determined to increase the opportunities for women in sport at all levels. We shall continue to work closely with the Sports Councils and others to make progress on this issue and will look closely at women in sport as part of our Strategy for Sport, due to be published in the Summer.

  I have had useful discussions with a number of groups to discuss women and sport, including the Womens Sports Foundation and have valued proposals about how the Government can do more for women in sport. I shall be meeting shortly with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Women to discuss this.

  Tobacco Sponsorship
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) how many meetings have taken place with the group established to examine alternative funding to tobacco sponsorship in sport in the last 12 months; and if he will list the dates of these meetings; [68452]

  (2) what progress has been made so far with the group established to examine alternative funding to tobacco sponsorship in sport. [68453]

  Mr. Banks
  [holding answer 1 February 1999]: We have made significant progress with the Task Force. Having negotiated the necessary lead time for the sports to adjust, seven have sought our assistance to make the transition—rugby league, clay pigeon shooting, billiards and snooker, pool, darts, ice-hockey and angling. We have been in contact with the sports since the announcement in November 1997 and the expert group first met informally on 19 June 1998. Following this meeting, we sought detailed information on the sports' existing sponsorships,

  159
  and what commercial benefits they can offer new sponsors, in order to assess their needs and how a Task Force could help. We completed this stage of the exercise before Christmas and the group met again on 10 December 1998. Since then members of the Task Force have held individual meetings with the sports on the following dates:

  Clay Pigeon Shooting Association: 18 January 1999

  Rugby Football League: 19 January 1999

  English Pool Association: 21 January 1999

  National Federation of Anglers: 21 January 1999

  Ice Hockey Superleague Ltd.: 25 January 1999

  World Professional Snooker & Billiards Association: 27 January 1999

  British Darts Organisation: 29 January 1999.

  I am pleased to confirm these meetings have been very positive. The sports recognise our determination to end the totally inappropriate links with smoking in a way that minimises the impact on them, and are working with us to help them establish new commercial relationships that can be sustained. The group will meet again shortly to consider the nature and timing of help needed to replace existing contracts, many of which have several years to run. We will also consider the frequency of further meetings this year. I will keep the House advised of all significant developments.

  Sporting Ambassadors
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list(a) the people who have been made sporting ambassadors since May 1997, (b) the sporting ambassadors still in post, (c) how many official visits they have made and (d) where they made official visits. [69100]

  Mr. Banks
  [holding answer 8 February 1999]: The Sporting Ambassadors Scheme was successfully piloted in four English Sports Council (ESC) regions in 1997. It involved 37 schools, of which 23 were primary; 11 were secondary; two were special and one was a community college.

  The pilot phase involved a total of 18 Ambassadors representing 15 different sports. The Ambassadors were as follows:

  Sport

  Allison Curbishley

  Athletics

  Arnie Sidebottom

  Cricket

  Chris Leonard

  Rowing

  Danielle Sanderson

  Athletics

  Dave Rice

  Athletics

  Eve Miller

  Athletics

  Jill Atkins

  Hockey

  Jo Durie

  Tennis

  Joe Lydon

  Rugby League

  Kenneth Churchill

  Paralympic Athlete

  Kevan Baker

  Paralympic Athlete

  Liz Talbot

  Athletics

  Mick Hill

  Athletics

  Mike McFarlane

  Athletics

  Paula Blank

  Athletics

  Samantha Adamson

  Athletics

  Steve Sylvester

  Cricket

  Sue Rolph

  Swimming

  160
  Around 2,110 pupils attended school assemblies, awards ceremonies or question and answer sessions involving a Sporting Ambassador. A total of 1,567 pupils also enjoyed first hand contact with Ambassadors through coaching or participation. Feedback from the pilot stage suggested that most benefit was gained when the Sporting Ambassadors lived locally, could be seen out training and who could identify with the school and pupils.

  The Sporting Ambassadors Scheme is now being rolled out on a national basis and the English Sports Council aims to set up 10 visits in each of the 10 Sports Council regions. These visits are currently being set up and will take place during the spring and summer school terms.

  A list of the sportsmen and women who have agreed to become Sporting Ambassadors as at 5 February is as follows. In addition, Rob Andrew MBE, Tanni Grey MBE and Denise Lewis MBE are the lead Ambassadors and will work with the ESC to promote the scheme and forge links with sport.

  Sport

  Kendra Slawinski OBE

  Netball

  Katy Roberts

  Hockey

  Mark Palmer

  Paralympics

  Isabel Newstead

  Paralympics

  Danielle Sanderson

  Athletics

  Joanne Goode

  Athletics

  Paula Blank

  Athletics

  Julian Halls

  Hockey

  Fleur Horner

  Rounders

  Sarah Price

  Swimming

  Karen Pickering MBE

  Swimming

  Donna Kellogg

  Badminton

  Eleanor Harvey

  Rounders

  Paula Radcliffe

  Athletics

  Jo Mould

  Hockey

  Emma Shepherd

  Rounders

  Linzi William

  Rounders

  Karen Frape

  Rounders

  Ian Harrison

  Paralympics

  Joanne Davies

  Badminton

  Colin North

  Cricket

  James Brindle

  Cricket

  Thomas Evans

  Paralympics

  Paul Ratcliffe

  Canoeing

  Tim Brabants

  Canoeing

  Rachel Crosbee

  Canoeing

  Ian Raspin

  Canoeing

  Heather Corrie

  Canoeing

  Tim Reddish

  Paralympics

  Clare Ryan

  Rounders

  Julian Golding

  Athletics

  Billy Waugh

  Hockey

  Nick Thompson

  Hockey

  Kelly Holmes MBE

  Athletics

  Debbie Bampton MBE

  Football

  Richard Nerurkar

  Athletics

  Julia Mann

  Badminton

  Anna Hemmings

  Canoeing

  Tricia Davey

  Canoeing

  Joanne Zinzan

  Netball

  Paula Woods

  Swimming

  Jenny Hunter

  Swimming

  Kathy Osher

  Swimming

  Donna Fraser

  Athletics

  Lorna Boothe

  Athletics

  James Clark

  Canoeing

  Stephen Harris

  Canoeing

  Rebecca Train

  Canoeing

  Ivan Lawler

  Canoeing

  161

  Sport

  Karen Brown

  Hockey

  Tanya Woodward

  Badminton

  Deborah Keeley

  Ice Skating

  Ken Churchill

  Paralympics

  Emma Haworth

  Rounders

  Nicola Simms

  Rounders

  Martyn Smith

  Gymnastics

  Dominic Flood

  Fencing

  Mark Flores

  Gymnastics

  Scott Holmes

  Triathlete

  Graeme Storm

  Golf

  Gayle Adamson

  Swimming

  John Quinn

  Badminton

  Stephen Miller

  Paralympics

  Kirsty Wade

  Athletics

  Hazel Robson

  Athletics

  Graham Ratcliffe

  Mountaineering

  Alan Hinkes

  Mountaineering

  Allyn Condon

  Athletics

  Robert Crutchley

  Hockey

  Vicki Horner

  Swimming

  Colin Haughton

  Badminton

  Steve Shaw

  Paralympics

  Angela Jones

  Rounders

  Helen Don-Duncan

  Swimming

  Sara Sankey

  Badminton

  Rob Anderson

  Paralympics

  Jeanette Chippington

  Paralympics

  Steven Sylvester

  Cricket

  Paul Morris

  Gymnastics

  John Shaw

  Hockey

  Steve Redgrave CBE

  Rowing

  Anthony Downs

  Paralympics

  Sion Brinn

  Swimming

  Neil Willey

  Swimming

  Paul Palmer

  Swimming

  Mark Stevens

  Swimming

  Jo Jackson

  Paralympics

  Rebecca Pantaney

  Badminton

  Allison Curbishley

  Athletics

  Lucy Newcombe

  Hockey

  David Hempleman-Adams

  Mountaineer

  Katherine Merry

  Athletics

  Sarah Blanks

  Hockey

  Janet Mcmorran

  Paralympics

  Rachel Dunn

  Rounders

  Nigel Capewell

  Paralympics

  Alan Ash

  Paralympics

  Lorraine Cole

  Badminton

  Adam Ruckwood

  Swimming

  David Byas

  Cricket

  Daniel Cook

  Rugby Union

  Arnie Sidebottom

  Cricket

  Joe Lydon

  Rugby League

  Meghan Fenoughty

  Rounders

  Suzzana Thorpe

  Rounders

  Graham Nash

  Hockey

  Dean Thomas

  Paralympics

  Kevan Baker

  Paralympics

  Ian Wilson

  Swimming

  Linda Hindmarsh

  Swimming

  Clare Taylor

  Cricket, Football, Hockey

WALES

  New Deal
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what projects have been approved under the New Deal for Communities Programme in Wales. [69274]
  162
  Mr. Hain
  None. New Deal for Communities is an England-only Programme run by DETR. The parallel Welsh Programme is "People in Communities" and its eight demonstration projects are:

  Gurnos and Galon Uchaf—Merthyr Tydfil

  Duffryn—Newport

  Blaenymaes and Portmead—Swansea

  Peulwys Estate—Conwy

  Southsea and Brynteg—Wrexham

  Rhiwgarn Estate, Trebanog—Rhondda, Cynon, Taff

  Rhymney—Caerphilly

  Deiniolen, Dinorwig and Clwt Y Bont—Gwynedd.

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

  Hospitality
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much his Department has spent on hospitality in each of the last five years. [69216]

  Mr. Michael
  Welsh Office expenditure on hospitality for the last five years is as follows:

  £000

  1993–94

  27

  1994–95

  29

  1995–96

  22

  1996–97

  21

  1997–98

  15

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

  Genetically Modified Foods
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the food industry relating to genetically modified foods; and if he will make a statement. [69544]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  My right hon. Friend and I have had no such discussions. The Government's policy in respect of genetically modified food is based on ensuring the protection of public health and the provision of adequate labelling for consumers.

  In future, the safety and labelling of genetically modified foods will be a matter for the National Assembly.

  Primary Care Groups
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many primary care groups he plans to establish in Wales. [69547]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  There will be 22 Local Health Groups in Wales, covering areas which are broadly coterminous with Local Authority boundaries.

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

  Regeneration Programmes
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on plans for the
  163
  regeneration of former industrial sites in Wales; and what consultation takes place with local communities in the development of regeneration programmes. [69590]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The Welsh Development Agency's highly successful Land Reclamation Programme is progressively removing the remaining scars on the Welsh landscape. Since 1976, over £300 million has been spent on reclaiming some 18,000 acres of land and the Agency plans to spend £18 million in the current financial year reclaiming a further 370 hectares of land. Sites currently being reclaimed include the former British Coal Workshops in Tredegar.

  The Programme is being developed in conjunction with local authorities who consult with the local community during the planning process. The Agency also consults local communities direct on a wide range of community-based regeneration programmes such as the Slate Valley's Initiative in North Wales. More generally, I welcome the fact that working more closely with local communities is one of the priorities identified in the WDA's current Corporate Plan.

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

  Environmental Task Force
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many New Deal places on the Environmental Task Force(a) have been taken up to date and (b) are in the process of being taken up, in Blaenau, Gwent. [69587]

  Mr. Hain
  Information on the number of people entering the options within the New Deal for 18–24s is not held by local authority area but is available by Employment Service District (Unit of Delivery).

  In the Heads of the Valley and Caerphilly Unit of Delivery, which covers Blaenau Gwent, 122 people had taken up places on the Environment Task Force by the end of November 1998 (the latest available figures).

  No information is held on the number of people in the process of entering the Environment Task Force.

  National Assembly (Elections)
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about the appointment of regional returning officers for the first elections to the National Assembly for Wales.[70567]

  Mr. Michael
  Subject to parliamentary approval to the draft National Assembly for Wales (Representation of the People) Order, which will shortly be laid before both Houses, I propose to appoint the following returning officers to the posts of regional returning officer at the first elections to the National Assembly for Wales on 6 May.

  Mid and West Wales: Mr. Bryn Parry-Jones, returning officer for Pembrokeshire.

  North Wales: Mr. Philip McGreevy, returning officer for Flintshire.

  South Wales Central: Mr. Byron Davies, returning officer for Cardiff.

  164

  South Wales East: Mr. Lawrence Nippers, returning officer for Newport.

  South Wales West: Ms Vivienne Sugar, returning officer for Swansea.

  The formal designation of the regional returning officer appointments will be made once the Order has been approved and come into force.

  Exports
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the total value of exports from Wales to(a) EU countries and (b) the rest of the world in each of the last five years. [69788]

  Mr. Hain
  Export data on a regional basis are not currently available. HM Customs and Excise Department are reviewing the way export data are collected to enable regional data to be available after devolution.

  Although responsibility for export promotion in Wales will be a matter for the National Assembly, the provision of export data will remain the responsibility of HM Customs and Excise Department.

  Civil Service Pay Awards
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the average percentage increase in salaries of non-industrial civil servants, excluding members of the senior civil service, in his Department for 1998–99; and to what extent the pay awards were staged. [69507]

  Mr. Michael
  Staff have received performance-related increases averaging 4.1 per cent. from 1 August 1998. The increases were not staged.

HEALTH

  Medicines (Children)
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he will take to ensure that the existing licensing framework for medicines minimises the risks posed to children's health. [67187]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 2 February 1999]: The safety of medicines is monitored via the "Yellow Card" adverse reaction notification scheme by medical staff at the Medicines Control Agency (MCA). This has recently been extended on pilot basis in Trent Region to cover adverse reactions specific to use of medicines in children.

  There is currently no obligation on companies to apply for a licence for use of their product in children, although it is desirable wherever possible that medicines should be used under the terms of the licence. There can be practical difficulties in conducting such clinical trials—as well as significant ethical concerns. However, because of the concern about extensive "off-label" use of medicines in children, in 1997 European guidelines were developed to encourage the conduct of clinical trials in children. This is a major step forward and requires an applicant for a marketing authorisation (licence) in the United Kingdom or elsewhere in Europe, to justify reasons for not supplying data on use of the product in children. If the industry's response to the guidelines fails to result in

  165
  the timely availability of licensed medicines for children, the UK will consider what further steps can be taken to minimise the risks posed to children's health from use of such medicines.

  Slimming Products (Teenage Magazines)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will take steps to dissuade the publishers of teenage magazines from promoting slimming products to young teenagers by way of articles or competitions. [68850]

  Janet Anderson
  I have been asked to reply.

  Magazines are wholly independent of Government and subject only to the general law of the land and to the voluntary Code of Practice of the newspaper and periodical industry. My hon. Friend may wish to bring his concerns to the attention of the Periodical Publishers' Association, Imperial House, 15–19 Kingsway, London WC2B 6UN.

  Blood Transfusion Service
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will make a statement on the future of the Blood Transfusion Service in Liverpool. [69315]

  Mr. Hutton
  We are considering a report by Professor Bellingham on the Liverpool Blood Centre. We shall be making a statement shortly.

  Body Piercing
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what powers exist to license and regulate body piercing activities; what plans there are to empower local authorities to license and regulate body piercing activities; and if he will make a statement. [69476]

  Ms Jowell
  Local authorities in London have powers either to licence or to register and inspect cosmetic body piercing businesses. Local authorities outside London do not have similar powers. Following the Department of Health/Welsh Office consultation exercise in October 1996, we have concluded that legislation to give local authorities outside London powers to regulate cosmetic body piercing businesses should be introduced, if Parliamentary time allows.

  Epilepsy
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of individuals diagnosed with epilepsy in the Portsmouth area. [69680]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Compulsory Treatment Orders
  Mr. Hesford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to introduce proposals for the implementation of compulsory treatment orders in advance of the enactment of a new Mental Health Act. [69696]

  Mr. Hutton
  We have appointed an expert group, chaired by Professor Richardson, Professor of Law at Queen Mary and Westfield College, to advise on the changes necessary to mental health legislation including how measures might be introduced which will, for a very 166
  small number of people, require compliance with agreed treatment plans whether they are detained in a hospital or live in a community setting, with appropriate safeguards. The group will submit their recommendations by 1 July 1999. Any new measures can only be introduced once the necessary legislation has been enacted.

  North and East Devon Health Authority
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he has made of the implications for the duty placed on the NHS to provide nursing care of the judgment in R v. North and East Devon Health Authority ex parte Coughlan; and if he will make a statement; [70227]

  (2) what plans he has to issue guidance to health authorities and local authorities on their responsibilities following the judgment in R v. North and East Devon Health Authority ex parte Coughlan. [70228]

  Mr. Hutton
  Following the judgment in Rv. North and East Devon Health Authority ex parte Coughlan, the Health Authority submitted an application for leave to appeal against the High Court's decision. In light of the impact on policy of the High Court's view on funding of nursing care, we decided to support the Health Authority's application for leave to appeal, given the importance of clarifying the judgment and making the legal position clear. This application for leave to appeal was granted on 4 February. We will consider the need for guidance to Health and Local Authorities once the result of the appeal is known. In the interim, Health Authorities and Social Services Departments are advised to seek their own legal advice if they have any concerns. The overall implications of the case are still being assessed.

  Civil Service Pay Awards
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the average percentage increase in salaries of non-industrial civil servants, excluding members of the senior civil service, in his Department for 1998–99; and to what extent the pay awards were staged. [69515]

  Mr. Denham
  The headline pay settlement was 2.4 per cent. on the paybill and together with the additional funds from staff turnover, staff in post received performance related pay increases averaging 4.1 per cent. The increase was not staged.

  Teenage Mothers
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of children aged under two years in local authority care were born to teenage mothers. [69892]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is not available centrally. Although the Department collects statistical information on the care histories of children who are looked after by local authorities in England, this does not include information about the children's parents.

  Xenotransplantation
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will suspend consideration of the recent application to conduct a clinical trial of a xenotransplantation
  167
  procedure on humans until the code of practice on the welfare of xenotransplantation source animals is in place;[69313]

  (2) what legislation would govern the treatment of animals used to provide cells or tissue for any clinical trial of a xenotransplantation procedure on humans approved by the United Kingdom Xenotransplantation Interim Regulatory Authority, before the establishment of the code of practice on the welfare of xenotransplantation source animals. [69312]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Animal (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 regulates any use of living vertebrate animals plus octopus vulgaris in procedures which might cause pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm. Responsibility for the Act, including the welfare of animals which may be used as sources of xenotransplantation, lies with the Home Office in Great Britain and the Department of Health and Social Services in Northern Ireland.

  The Code of Practice on the welfare of high health status pigs as xenotransplantation source animals is currently being developed by the Home Office Animal (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate. Members of the United Kingdom Xenotransplantation Interim Regulatory Authority (UKXIRA) have met representatives of the Inspectorate to discuss specific elements of the proposed code of Practice and welfare issues concerning source animals for xenotransplantation in general.

  In considering any application to undertake a xenotransplantation procedure involving humans, the UKXIRA would expect to see evidence of animal welfare standards at least equal to those discussed with the Home Office Animal (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate. The Code of Practice is expected to be published later this year.

  David Lewis Centre, Cheshire
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his Department's investigations into the David Lewis Centre, Cheshire. [69310]

  Mr. Hutton
  The David Lewis Organisation has carried out an internal review of the standard of care provided to a 19-year-old patient following an allegation of neglect made by her family. South Cheshire Health Authority has now received the report and has accepted its findings. The Health Authority is in the process of commissioning a comprehensive independent expert review to assess whether the services provided by the David Lewis Centre are modern, effective and appropriate in meeting the needs of the children and adults in their care. That review is now expected to be completed by the end of April.

  Nurses (Probation)
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received on the value of a probationary period for nurses; and if he will make a statement. [69791]

  Mr. Denham
  We have received no representations concerning the value of a probationary period for nurses.
  168

  Nursing Assistants
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many and what percentage of NHS trusts(a) currently have staff classified as nursing assistants or nursing auxiliaries and (b) have incorporated nursing assistants or nursing auxiliaries into a health care assistants scheme. [69792]

  Mr. Denham
  There were a total of 424 National Health Service Trusts in England as at 30 September 1997. Of these, 383 (90.3 per cent. of the total number of trusts) employed staff classified as nursing assistants and/or nursing auxiliaries.

  Source:

  Department of Health Non-medical workforce census.

  It is a matter for local decision as to whether trusts incorporate nursing assistants or nursing auxiliaries into health care assistant schemes. No figures are kept centrally.

  Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors (Registration)
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he plans to publish the report commissioned from J. M. Consulting on the review of legislation covering the registration of nurses, midwives and health visitors. [69790]

  Mr. Denham
  The Government have carefully considered the independent Review Report and have decided to publish it, together with a detailed response, later this week. Copies of the Report entitled "The Regulation of Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors" are available in the Library.

  In the Lords today, my noble Friend Baroness Hayman announced a new, modernised and strengthened system of self-regulation for nurses, midwives and health visitors. The review recommends new legislation to replace the current arrangements. The criteria and principles for new legislation echo the Government's clear commitment to work with the professions and the regulatory bodies to strengthen the existing systems of professional self-regulation. The new arrangements will be designed to:

  acknowledge and strengthen the accountability of practitioners;

  strengthen the involvement of users and employers in the processes;

  put public protection explicitly, and for the first time, at the heart of regulation.

  The report recommends, and the Government accept, that the current dual regulatory structure (of a Council and four National Boards) be replaced with a new United Kingdom-wide body, with ultimate responsibility for regulating the professions, but national arrangements may be made in respect of some functions previously carried out by boards.

  The Government have, however, decided not to accept recommendations relating to health visitors, who will continue to be a separate profession, retaining separate registration and representation on the new Council. A further review to explore the scope for the regulation of health care support workers is recommended, and we plan to commission this work shortly.
  169
  This is a thorough and thoughtful review, based on very extensive consultation. It was undertaken in the context of rapid developments and changes in the education and roles of the professions, and against the background of Government policies on the National Health Service and on devolution. This means that in Scotland and Wales, the new Council will be expected to commission educational quality assurance work in relation to nursing and midwifery from bodies whose structure and other functions will be determined by the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales. Within Northern Ireland it will be up to the Northern Ireland Assembly, once it is fully operational, to determine the arrangements. No separate body is envisaged for England, although it would be open to the Council to collaborate with the Quality Assurance Agency.

  Many of the recommendations in the report reflect issues of good practice and are addressed to the new Council, which will be smaller and more streamlined and strategic, both in its structure and functions. Others cannot be achieved without new legislation to replace the current Act. It is widely accepted that there is a need to find a way to implement these changes and a power has been included in the Health Bill, currently subject to Parliamentary scrutiny, to effect changes to primary legislation by Order. We will be bringing forward an amendment to the Health Bill to enable us to repeal the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act 1997 once the new arrangements are in place.

SCOTLAND

  Government Projects
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list each of the projects currently operating under (1) the National Childcare Strategy, (2) the Social Inclusion Partnerships, (3) New Deals in Scotland, (4) New Housing Partnerships, (5) Alternatives to Exclusion from School, (6) Early Intervention Schemes and (7) the Community Schools Initiative, indicating for each(a) the number of people benefiting, (b) the amount of money to date provided by (i) the Government and (ii) other bodies, (c) the estimated total number of people who will benefit and (d) the estimated total financial contribution of (x) the Government and (y) other bodies. [68943]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Since the information requested is lengthy, I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as possible, placing a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Scottish Parliament (Voting)
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what educational publicity campaign he plans to undertake, and at what estimated cost, to inform electors of the new voting system for the Scottish Parliament. [69053]

  Mr. McLeish
  [holding answer 3 February 1999]: The Government believe that voters have a right to understand how the new electoral arrangements will work and is therefore planning a substantial publicity campaign to inform voters about the new voting system for the Scottish Parliament. I am pleased to say that we have had helpful and constructive discussions with the Opposition parties
  170
  about our proposals. The campaign will feature a mix of press, television, radio and leaflets and will begin in mid-February. There will also be information about registration and absent voting. We estimate the total cost will be approximately £2.5 million.

  Scottish Enterprise
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will break down by subhead the expenditure on administration by Scottish Enterprise in(a) 1997–98 and (b) 1998–99; and if he will make a statement. [69239]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 4 February 1999]: The overall budget allocations to Scottish Enterprise for 1997–98 and 1998–99 included £59.29 million and £61.29 million for administration respectively. The allocation of the resources within the Administration Block is an operational matter for Scottish Enterprise and I have asked the Chairman to write to the hon. Member.

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

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide a breakdown of the planned budget for Scottish Enterprise for(a) 1999–2000 and (b) 2000–01; and if he will make a statement. [69184]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 4 February 1999]: The Scottish Enterprise budget for 1999–2000 and 2000–01 was announced as part of the Government's Comprehensive Spending Review and is £427 million and £435 million respectively. The detailed breakdown for 1999–2000 is at present being finalised and will be published in The Scottish Office Departmental Report.

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

  NHS (Administrative Expenditure)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the total administrative expenditure in the Scottish NHS for(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97, (c) 1997–98, (d) 1998–99 and (e) 1999–2000; and if he will make a statement. [69240]

  Mr. Galbraith
  [holding answer 4 February 1999]: Health Boards in Scotland receive an annual general revenue allocation and it is for Health Boards themselves to decide on how best to deploy funding made available to meet the health care needs of their resident population. No estimate is made centrally for administrative expenditure. Outturn figures for total administrative expenditure for Health Boards and NHS Trusts are available for 1995–96, 1996–97 and 1997–98. These are detailed in the table.

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

  Year

  Expenditure £000

  1995–96

  486,963

  1996–97

  490,077

  1997–98

  488,710

  171

  Industry, Enterprise and Training
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the level of cash spending on Industry, Enterprise and Training for(a) 1999–2000, (b) 2000–01 and (c) 2001–02; and if he will make a statement. [69241]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 4 February 1999]: Planned net provision and estimated expenditure for Industry, Enterprise and Training is £544 million in 1999–2000, £545 million in 2000–01 and £595 million in 2001–02.

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

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide a breakdown of expenditure on Industry, Enterprise and Training for(a) 2000–01, (b) 2001–02 and (c) 2002–03; and if he will make a statement. [69236]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 4 February 1999]: Planned provision for 2000–01 and 2001–02 following the Comprehensive Spending Review is shown in the table. Provision for 2002–03 will be decided in the context of the next review of expenditure which will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Industry, enterprise and training programme: expenditure summary

  £ million

  2000–01 plans

  2001–02 plans

  Scottish Enterprise

  388

  425

  Highlands and Islands Enterprise

  61

  61

  Investment Assistance

  70

  84

  Innovation

  5

  5

  Scottish Tourist Board

  19

  19

  Other

  1

  1

  Total

  545

  595

  Note:

  All figures are shown net of receipts which for the enterprise bodies includes business receipts.

  Totals may not add due to roundings.

  Industry, Enterprise and Training provision is focused on building industries and jobs for the future.

  Skye Bridge
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much was collected in tolls on the Skye Bridge in the latest year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [69245]

  Mr. Macdonald
  [holding answer 4 February 1999]: The latest published accounts of Skye Bridge Ltd. show that toll income for the year to 31 December 1997 was–3,253,993. From 1 July 1999 this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 2 February 1999,Official Report, column 589, on the Skye Bridge, if he will place in the Library copies of the Deputy Crown Agent's letters of 6 November 1995 and 5 January 1996 to the Procurator Fiscal in Dingwall. [69886]
  172
  Mr. McLeish
  As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, all communications between the Crown Office and Procurators Fiscal are strictly private and confidential. Despite that, my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate provided the information contained in the written answer of 2 February 1999,Official Report, column 589, in an attempt to be as helpful as possible.

  My noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate considers that it is not appropriate to go further and to place copies of the letters requested in the Library.

  Scottish Parliament (Income Tax)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the(a) gross and (b) net annual (i) full year and (ii) first year, revenue yield from a decision to raise income tax by one penny by the Scottish Parliament; and if he will make a statement. [69237]

  Mr. McLeish
  [holding answer 4 February 1999]: It is currently estimated that adding 1 p to the basic rate of income tax in Scotland in 2000–01, the first year in which the tax-varying power could be exercised, would yield £180 million gross (£175 million net of payments of income-related benefits) of additional tax revenue.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if it is his policy that the Scottish consolidated fund will receive the full-year revenue from any use of the Scottish Parliament tax-varying powers in the first year for which these can be used; and if he will make a statement. [69186]

  Mr. McLeish
  [holding answer 4 February 1999]: Section 77 of the Scotland Act 1998 provides that if the Scottish Parliament uses the tax-varying power in any year to increase the basic rate of income tax in Scotland, the Board of the Inland Revenue will be required to pay into the Scottish Consolidated Fund an amount equal to an estimate by the Board of the proportion of income tax receipts for that year that is properly attributable to the tax-varying resolution of the Parliament.

  School Books and Equipment
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the expenditure of Scottish schools on books and equipment for the latest year for which figures are available. [69417]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 8 February 1999]: Total expenditure by education authorities in Scotland on text and library books, and educational tools, equipment and materials for nursery, primary, secondary and special schools was £52.2 million in 1996–97, the latest year for which information is available. Estimates are not available for such expenditure in future years, but future expenditure should reflect additional resources for education made available in the Budgets of 1997 and 1998 and the Comprehensive Spending Review. In particular, additional resources of £2.4 million are being allocated to local authorities this financial year for books for school libraries, in support of the National Year of Reading. From 1 July 1999 this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.
  173

  Second Home Owners
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the cost of a rebate of 50 per cent. on the council tax of second home owners in Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [69497]

  Mr. McLeish
  [holding answer 8 February 1999]: Information is collected centrally only in respect of the total number of dwellings in receipt of the 50 per cent. council tax discount and we cannot identify how many of these are second homes. The percentage of all dwellings receiving a 50 per cent. discount is around 2 per cent. From 1 July 1999 this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Education Expenditure
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the spending on education in each of the current local government areas of(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97, (c) 1997–98, (d) 1998–99 and (e) 1999–2000. [69498]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 8 February 1999]: The available information is given in the following table. The current local government areas were not responsible for education spending in 1995–96. From 1 July 1999 this will be a matter for The Scottish Parliament.

  Local authority education spending

  £000

  Councils

  1996–97 Final Outturn

  1997–98 Provisional Outturn

  1998–99 Budget Estimates

  Aberdeen, City

  87,162

  86,437

  88,210

  Aberdeenshire

  109,686

  112,025

  111,739

  Angus

  48,012

  48,192

  49,866

  Argyll and Bute

  49,507

  47,188

  49,095

  Clackmannanshire

  24,084

  24,458

  25,198

  Dumfries & Galloway

  67,532

  69,214

  70,643

  Dundee

  70,320

  69,074

  69,169

  East Ayrshire

  59,089

  58,104

  60,657

  East Dunbartonshire

  53,343

  51,531

  53,922

  East Lothian

  37,557

  36,970

  37,881

  East Renfrewshire

  42,645

  41,980

  44,144

  Edinburgh, City

  159,099

  159,859

  164,035

  Scottish Office

  Agencies

  Associated Departments

  Year

  Item

  Value (£)

  Item

  Value (£)

  Item

  Value (£)

  1997–98

  April

  —

  —

  Scanner

  300

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Computer

  3,000

  —

  —

  May

  Laptop

  1,727

  —

  —

  —

  —

  July

  Disk Drive

  200

  Netting

  3,000

  —

  —

  Hard Disk

  179

  Computer

  1,100

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Printer

  500

  —

  —

  August

  Speakers

  65

  Bench

  400

  —

  —

  Mobile

  33

  Microwave

  200

  —

  —

  Laptop (2)

  3,500

  —

  —

  —

  —

  September

  PC trackball

  106

  —

  —

  Dictaphone

  350

  Ansaphone

  60

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Modem

  170

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Laptop

  1,949

  —

  —

  —

  —

  October

  PC board

  70

  Trailer

  1,800

  —

  —

  Modem

  132

  Laptop

  1,500

  —

  —

  PC CD (2)

  280

  Netting

  2,000

  —

  —

  Pager

  80

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Car

  1,275

  —

  —

  —

  —

  174

  Local authority education spending

  £000

  Councils

  1996–97 Final Outturn

  1997–98 Provisional Outturn

  1998–99 Budget Estimates

  Eilean Siar

  23,591

  23,523

  24,604

  Falkirk

  62,762

  61,704

  64,222

  Fife

  167,748

  164,946

  167,128

  Glasgow City

  290,555

  273,361

  288,201

  Highland

  114,011

  113,125

  115,812

  Inverclyde

  42,823

  42,884

  45,504

  Midlothian

  40,623

  40,721

  41,236

  Moray

  41,888

  39,903

  41,716

  North Ayrshire

  65,239

  67,212

  68,906

  North Lanarkshire

  161,135

  159,380

  165,241

  Orkney

  15,372

  14,980

  15,358

  Perth and Kinross

  56,188

  56,677

  58,795

  Renfrewshire

  82,644

  82,199

  84,651

  Scottish Borders

  48,314

  46,928

  47,702

  Shetland

  23,886

  23,384

  23,821

  South Ayrshire

  52,534

  50,656

  47,151

  South Lanarkshire

  145,592

  143,589

  140,775

  Stirling

  40,639

  36,802

  39,539

  West Dunbartonshire

  49,655

  50,439

  53,287

  West Lothian

  83,209

  77,700

  79,355

  Scotland

  2,416,444

  2,375,145

  2,437,559

  Notes:

  1. All figures are net current expenditure excluding loan & leasing charges as returned by the individual local authorities to The Scottish Office

  2. The provisional outturn figures for 1998–99 and the budget estimates for 1999–2000 are not yet available

  Departmental Theft
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the items and their estimated value stolen from (i) his Department, (ii) its agencies and (iii) associated public bodies during(a) 1997–98 and (b) 1998–99 to date; and if he will make a statement. [69266]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 8 February 1999]: A variety of items are periodically reported missing. Security procedures remain under constant review and revised procedures are introduced as necessary. The following items have been formally recorded as losses due to theft from The Scottish Office, its agencies and associated Departments in 1997–98 and 1998–99 to date.
  175

  Scottish Office

  Agencies

  Associated Departments

  Year

  Item

  Value (£)

  Item

  Value (£)

  Item

  Value (£)

  November

  Printer

  250

  Light

  350

  —

  —

  Laptop (2)

  5,500

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Modem (2)

  300

  —

  —

  —

  —

  December

  Car

  3,975

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Keyboard

  41

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Carpet Tiles

  100

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Stamp

  60

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Soldering Iron

  93

  —

  —

  —

  —

  January

  Dictaphone

  42

  Labelmaker

  151

  —

  —

  Guillotine

  30

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Stapler

  25

  —

  —

  —

  —

  March

  —

  —

  Cash

  66

  —

  —

  1998–99

  April

  —

  —

  Paint

  100

  —

  —

  —

  —

  VCR

  200

  —

  —

  May

  Adaptor

  50

  —

  —

  Hard Drives 2

  360

  Laptop

  1,500

  —

  —

  —

  —

  June

  Audio Kit

  700

  —

  —

  —

  —

  July

  Ansaphones

  105

  —

  —

  —.

  —

  Laptop

  1,329

  —

  —

  —

  —

  August

  —

  —

  Mobile

  200

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Picture

  200

  —

  September

  DAT Drive

  1,292

  —

  —

  —

  Audio Kit

  700

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Mobile

  100

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Laptop

  1,600

  —

  —

  —

  October

  Laptops (2)

  3,240

  —

  —

  —

  November

  Laptops (2)

  3,807

  —

  —

  —

  December

  Stamps

  585

  —

  —

  —

  January

  Fax

  400

  Camera

  400

  —

  —

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

  Health and Educationr
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his priorities for improving the(a) health service and (b) education system in Scotland. [69416]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 8 February 1999]: The Government's strategic aims and clinical priorities for the National Health Service in Scotland are set out in "Priorities and Planning Guidance for the NHS in Scotland 1999–2002". Our plans to reform the structure of the National Health Service in Scotland to replace the internal market were detailed in "Designed to Care: Renewing the National Health Service in Scotland" (Cm 3811). I intend to publish proposals related to the broader health agenda shortly, taking account of the responses to consultation on "Working Together for a Healthier Scotland" (Cm 3584). All these documents are in the Library.

  The Government's priorities for improving school education are set out in our White Paper "Targeting Excellence: Modernising Scotland's Schools" (Cm 4247) which was published on 27 January. Our priorities for post-16 education and training are set out in our Green Paper "Opportunity Scotland" (Cm 4048) published in September 1998. I sent the hon. Member copies of these documents, and copies are also available in the Library of the House. For higher education, our priorities are set out in the Government's responses to the Dearing and Garrick reports, published in February 1998. I sent the hon. Member a copy of the Garrick report, and copies of both reports are available in the Library of the House.
  176
  We expect shortly to publish our strategic framework for further education which will set out our challenge to colleges to widen participation, improve links with each other and other sectors, and to raise standards and quality.

  Our priorities for health and education contribute to our overarching aims to promote social inclusion and excellence, and will be delivered within the enhanced resources allocated as a result of our Comprehensive Spending Review.

  From 1 July 1999 these will be matters for the Scottish Parliament.

  Nursing Homes
  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to introduce dual registration for residential and nursing homes for the elderly. [70024]

  Mr. Galbraith
  Proposals for improving the regulation of residential care and nursing homes will be set out in the White Paper which we intend to publish next month.

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

  Civil Service Pay Awards
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the average percentage increase in salaries of non-industrial civil servants, excluding members of the senior civil service, in his Department for 1998–99; and to what extent the pay awards were staged. [69511]
  177
  Mr. Dewar
  The average performance related pay increases received by staff in post are set out in the table.

  Percentage

  The main Scottish Office pay bargaining unit

  4.20

  Historic Scotland

  3.05

  Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency

  4.10

  Scottish Prison Service

  4.25

  The increases were not staged.

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

  Medical Waste Disposal
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the (i) longest, (ii) average and (iii) shortest distance over which the higher risk clinical waste for incineration is transported from the(a) Hairmyres and Stonehouse Hospitals NHS Trust, (b) Law Hospital NHS Trust and (c) Monklands Hospital NHS Trust. [69208]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The incineration of such waste for these Lanarkshire NHS Trusts is currently carried out at a plant on the Crosshouse Hospital site. This is 35 miles from Monklands Hospital, 30 miles from law Hospital and 20 miles from the Hairmyres and Stonehouse Hospitals.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has for the future disposal of healthcare waste from the(a) Hairmyres and Stonehouse Hospitals NHS Trust, (b) Law Hospital NHS Trust and (c) Monklands Hospital NHS Trust; what sites will be used for (i) the incineration and (ii) the landfill disposal of medical waste; and if he will make a statement. [69210]

  Mr. Galbraith
  Following a recent tendering exercise which was carried out in consultation with public health doctors, specialist engineers and environmentalists, including the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, a contract was awarded to Eurocare Environmental Services Limited which will, from 1 April 1999, service the clinical waste disposal needs of two-thirds of Scotland's NHS Trusts. All of the Lanarkshire Trusts have given a commitment to be part of the contract which across Scotland is expected to realise savings of around £6m for re-investment in patient care. Under the arrangements the bulk of the clinical waste from Lanarkshire will be treated at a disinfector/heat treatment plant in Cumbernauld. When processed, the safe, inert residue will be disposed of at a licensed landfill site near Cumbernauld. There are also low volume, higher risk clinical waste materials which will be disposed of by incineration at plants in the Midlands of England.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the regulations pertaining to the current practice for the disposal of healthcare waste by the(a) Hairmyres and Stonehouse Hospitals NHS Trust, (b) Law Hospital NHS Trust and (c) Monklands Hospital NHS Trust. [69207]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The following legislation applies:

  Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974

  Environmental Protection Act 1990

  The Radioactive Substances Act 1993

  Controlled Waste (Registration of Carriers and Seizure Vehicles) Regulations 1991 (SI 1991 No 1624)

  178

  Environmental Protection (Duty of Care) Regulations 1991 (SI 1991 No 2839)

  Management of Health & Safety At Work Regulations 1992 (SI 1992 No 2051)

  Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994 (SI 1994 No 1056)

  Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1994 (SI 1994 No 3246)

  Special Waste Regulations 1996 (SI 1996 No 972)

  Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road Regulations 1996 (SI 1996 No 2095)

  Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road (Drivers Training) Regulations 1996 (SI 1996 No 2094).

  Barnett Formula
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each project over £50,000 payments under the Barnett Formula to his Department in the two most recent years and moneys already allocated under the formula for the financial years 1999–2000 and 2000–01. [69858]

  Mr. Dewar
  The Barnett formula is used to calculate the Scottish share of changes to the baselines of those English or English and Welsh programmes which are comparable to Scottish programmes. It is not applied to specific projects. The Departmental Expenditure Limit figures for Scotland for the years 1999–2000 to 2000–01, which were calculated in accordance with the Barnett formula, are set out in Table 22.1 of the Comprehensive Spending Review White Paper "Modern Public Services for Britain: Investing in Reform" (Cm 4011).

  Nationalised Industries (Funding)
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list by(a) administration costs and (b) by funded project over £50,000 the moneys given by his Department over the two most recent years for which figures are available to each of the nationalised industries in Scotland; and if he will list the sums allocated for each of these headings in (i) 1999–2000 and (ii) 2000–01. [69860]

  Mr. Macdonald
  The two nationalised industries sponsored by the Scottish Office are Caledonian MacBrayne Limited (CalMac) and Highlands and Islands Airports Limited (HIAL).

  The Scottish Office does not specifically allocate an element of grant to meet CalMac and HIAL' s administration costs. Account is taken of administrative costs when the Department considers and approves the revenue deficit grant paid to each company each year.

  The following projects were funded in 1996–97 and 1997–98 at a total cost of over £50,000.

  Cal/Mac Projects over £50,000 funded by capital grant

  £

  Project title

  Capital grant

  Harbourworks

  1996–97

  Tiree passenger walkway

  57,658

  Fishnish slipway widening

  100,341

  1997–98

  Castlebay berthing dolphin

  84,022

  Lochboisdale berthing dolphin

  56,693

  179

  Cal/Mac Projects over £50,000 funded by capital grant

  £

  Project title

  Capital grant

  Vessels

  1996–97

  MV Loch Alainn

  860,250

  MV Clansman

  600,000

  1997–98

  MV Clansman

  9,900,000

  HIAL Projects over £50,000 funded by capital grant

  £

  Project title

  Capital grant

  1996–97

  Barra—3 storey VCR visual control room Phase I

  241,504

  Barra—Fire appliance

  75,504

  Barra—Fire appliance

  75,504

  Barra—Fire appliance

  63,426

  1997–98

  Barra—Visual control room Phase II

  122,421

  Campbeltown—DME (Distance Measuring Equipment)

  129,960

  Inverness—Ambulift

  55,900

  Islay—Standby generator

  63,504

  Kirkwall—Control tower building

  648,621

  Kirkwall—Ambulift

  53,900

  Sumburgh—PAMOS (Partially Automated Meteorological Observation System)

  151,554

  Fast rescue craft

  77,750

  Ambulift

  54,760

  Allocations for 1999–2000 for Cal/Mac and HIAL have not yet been finalised. Allocations for 2000–01 will be drawn up in the course of 1999–2000.

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

  Local Enterprise Companies (Funding)
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each local enterprise company in Scotland the(a) rural development (b) research and development, (c) business start up, (d) business support and (e) other projects of value greater than £10,000, by project heading, in 1998–99; and if he will list in each case the sums allocated for (i) 1999–2000 and (ii) 2000–01. [69921]

  Mr. Dewar
  Contractual arrangements for individual projects are an operational matter for Scottish Enterprise, Highlands and Islands Enterprise and the local enterprise companies. I have asked the Chairmen to write to the hon. Member.

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

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the(a) current premises, (b) staff numbers by grade and responsibility and (c) administration costs, indicating separately office costs, staff costs and other
  180
  costs for each non-departmental public body for which he is responsible for (i) 1998–99, (ii) 1999–2000 and (iii) 2000–01. [69859]

  Mr. Dewar
  This information is not collected centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide for the two most recent financial years a breakdown of spending by project over £20,000, or if necessary to protect commercial or other sensitivities, by regional total, on(a) research, (b) grants to, (i) individuals, (ii) organisations and businesses and (iii) public bodies, by project aim, (c) capital projects, (d) maintenance and (e) security, by each non-departmental public body for which he is responsible, listing those allocations which have already been made for (1) 1998–99, (2) 1999–2000 and (3) 2000–01; and what is the total budget of each of these organisations for each year over the period. [69857]

  Mr. Dewar
  The budget figures for NDPBs for 1998–99 can be obtained from Appendix 7 of "Serving Scotland's Needs, The Government's Expenditure Plans 1998–99" (Cm 3914). Plan figures for 1999–2000 and 2000–01, as set in the Comprehensive Spending Review, will be published in Spring 1999 in "Serving Scotland's Needs, The Government's Expenditure Plans 1999–2000 to 2001–02". The remainder of the information requested is held locally by Non-Departmental Public Bodies and, as such could be gathered centrally only at a disproportionate cost.

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

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Appeals (Trinidad and Tobago)
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement of the Government's policy on the withdrawal of the jurisdiction of the Privy Council over appeals from Trinidad in respect of criminal matters only; and what representations he has received from the Attorney-General of Trinidad in support of such a withdrawal. [69649]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is the final court of appeal of Trinidad and Tobago. It is for Trinidad and Tobago to exercise its sovereign right to decide whether or not it wishes to retain this avenue of appeal. The Government do consider, however, that if Trinidad and Tobago were to decide to withdraw from the appellate jurisdiction of the Judicial Committee, it would be appropriate first to ensure access to an appeals procedure of equivalent stature. There have been discussions to that effect between my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor and the Attorney-General of Trinidad and Tobago on several occasions.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what discussions he has had with the Attorney-General of Trinidad on the cessation of the jurisdiction of the Privy Council over appeals from Trinidad. [69648]
  181
  Mr. Hoon
  I have had no such discussions. My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor has met the Attorney-General of Trinidad and Tobago on several occasions during which various matters, including the appellate jurisdiction of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, were discussed.

  Queen's Counsel
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) if he will list for the last year,(a) the highest figure and (b) the average figure given as the gross fee income by successful applicants for Queen's Counsel; [69360]

  (2) if he will list for the last year, what was (a) the highest figure and (b) the average figure given as the gross fee income by unsuccessful applicants for Queen's Counsel; [69359]

  (3) if he will list for the last year, (a) the highest figure and (b) the average figure given as the gross fee income by all applicants for Queen's Counsel. [69356]

  Mr. Hoon
  The figures are as follows:

  £

  Highest

  Average

  Successful applicants

  >589,000

  >246,000

  Unsuccessful applicants

  >665,000

  >165,000

  All applicants

  >665,000

  >175,000

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to introduce a limit on the number of applications an individual may make for Queen's Counsel status. [69355]

  Mr. Hoon
  My noble and learned Friend has no plans to introduce a limit on the number of applications an individual may make for the award of Queen's Counsel.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department in each of the last five years(a) in how many civil litigation matters the use of Queen's Counsel was authorised by the Legal Aid Board and (b) of (a) how many had authorised the use of junior as well as Queen's Counsel; what were, in civil litigation cases, in each of the last five years, (i) the highest amount for an individual civil litigation case authorised to be paid to a QC, (ii) the average amount for an individual civil litigation case authorised to be paid to a QC and (iii) the highest amount paid in total to an individual QC; and if he will list in relation to each category above, the figures for criminal litigation. [69358]

  Mr. Hoon
  I am unable to answer the majority of that part of the question which relates to civil legal aid as the Legal Aid Board do not record separately payments to Queen's Counsel. Therefore, the information requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Records of the amount paid in total to an individual Queen's Counsel in respect of civil proceedings are available for the last two years only and were as follows:

  Year

  £

  1996–97

  350,000

  1997–98

  394,952

  182
  For criminal legal aid in the higher criminal courts,

  (a) The number of criminal cases in which a payment was made to a QC in each year from 1993–94 to 1996–97 was as follows:

  Year

  £

  1993–94

  1,472

  1994–95

  1,349

  1995–96

  1,375

  1996–97

  1,331

  Note:

  Information is not yet available for 1997–98

  (b) Information on the number of cases where junior as well as Queen' s Counsel were authorised is not collected centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  (i) The highest amount paid to an individual QC1 in a criminal case in each of the last five years was as follows:

  Year

  £

  1993–94

  315,987

  1994–95

  463,849

  1995–96

  295,218

  1996–97

  561,415

  1997–98

  348,471

  (ii) The average amount paid to QCs in each year from 1993–94 to 1996–97 was as follows:

  Year

  £

  1993–94

  14,883

  1994–95

  20,333

  1995–96

  19,188

  1996–97

  21,069

  Note:

  Information for 1997–98 is not yet available

  (iii) The highest amounts paid in total to individual QCs1 in each year from 1993–94 to 1996–97 was as follows:

  Year

  £

  1993–94

  over 440,000

  1994–95

  over 660,000

  1995–96

  over 500,000

  1996–97

  over 500,000

  Note:

  Information for 1997–98 is not yet available

  1 Payments made to individual banisters are in respect of closed cases only; that is where the case has been disposed of and all bills, including those of defence lawyers, have been determined. It should be clearly understood that any payment to an individual recorded in any year could well reflect payments received in earlier years. In those instances, payments have been aggregated in the year in which the final payment was made.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department in each of the last five years(a) how much was spent by the Government on fees to Queen's Counsel and (b) what was the highest amount paid in respect of an individual case to a single QC. [69363]
  183
  Mr. Hoon
  No central record is kept of fees paid to Queen's Counsel by the Government. The information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Judicial Appointments
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list for each of the last five years,(a) how many (i) High Court judges and (ii) circuit judges have been appointed and (b) of (i) and (ii), how many were (A) women, (B) from ethnic minorities and (C) solicitors. [69361]

  Mr. Hoon
  The table shows the figures for the numbers of women, ethnic minority practitioners and solicitors appointed as High Court Judges and Circuit Judges in each of the last five years.

  Year

  Total

  (a) Women

  (b) Ethnic minority origin

  (c) Solicitors

  (i) High Court Judge appointments

  1994

  6

  1

  0

  0

  1995

  12

  1

  0

  0

  1996

  9

  0

  0

  0

  1997

  7

  0

  0

  0

  1998

  7

  0

  0

  0

  (ii) Circuit Judge appointments

  1994

  35

  2

  0

  4

  1995

  48

  4

  1

  16

  1996

  45

  1

  0

  5

  1997

  27

  3

  1

  3

  1998

  37

  6

  0

  3

  Court Dress
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to review the rules relating to advocates' court dress; and if he will make a statement. [69362]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Lord Chancellor has no present plans to review the rules relating to advocates' court dress.

  Public Trust Office
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what discussions he has had with officials from the Public Trust Office; how he monitors the performance of that office; what plans he has to review the role of the office; and if he will make a statement. [69502]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 8 February 1999]: The arrangements for the Lord Chancellor's monitoring of the performance of the Public Trust Office are set out in its Framework Document. Ministerial discussions with Public Trust Office officials take place from time to time within this framework.

  The Public Trust Office is a "Next Steps" Executive Agency which attained agency status in 1994. A Quinquennial Review of the Agency is due this year. The Review will be conducted by someone external to the Department, and will comprise an evaluation of the performance of the agency and a Prior Options Review which will examine all options for discharging the
  184
  agency's functions. The Review will start shortly. It will be able to take account of the forthcoming report of the National Audit Office into aspects of the work of protecting the financial welfare of people with mental incapacity, and the subsequent views of the Public Accounts Committee.

PRIME MINISTER

  Official Entertainment
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Prime Minister how much was spent on official entertainment at 10 Downing street in 1997–98. [69162]

  The Prime Minister
  The cost to my office of official hospitality, including official entertainment, at 10 Downing street and Chequers in 1997–98 was £43,777.

  This compares with total expenditure on entertainment at 10 Downing street during the 1996–97 financial year of £50,126.

  Ministers (Public Funds)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister what steps he has taken to ensure that activities undertaken by Ministers on behalf of the Labour Party do not involve the expenditure of public funds. [69818]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 8 February 1999]: The Ministerial Code makes it clear that Ministers must not use public resources for party political purposes.

  Duty Free
  Mr. Peter Bottomley:
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will estimate the consumption effects and health outcomes of the abolition of duty free imports of tobacco, alcohol and other goods with the EU. [70056]

  The Prime Minister
  The decision to end duty free sales within the European Union was taken by the Council of Finance Ministers in 1991, with the support of the Conservative Government. It was a fiscal measure deemed necessary for the effective operation of the Single Market and took no account of levels of consumption or health issues.

  St. Malo Declaration
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions has he had with the German Government on the recent British/French St. Malo declaration; and if he will make a statement. [69924]

  The Prime Minister
  Since St. Malo I have had discussions with a number of European colleagues, including the German Chancellor, on European defence. French and British officials have also discussed with the German EU/WEU Presidency how best to take the issue forward in the run up to the WEU Ministerial at Bremen (10–11 May) and the European Council at Cologne (4 June).

  Monetary Policy
  Sir Brian Mawhinney:
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer of 3 February 1999, Official

  185
  Report, column 932, if he will list those factors which he has assessed as detrimental to economic stability if monetary policy were to be transferred from the independent Bank of England to Her Majesty's Treasury. [70102]

  The Prime Minister
  The benefits of the Government's new monetary policy framework are clear: inflation has been at or close to its target; inflation expectations have fallen; the differential between yields on German and British long-term government debt has closed markedly; base rates are at their lowest level for over four years; and long term interest rates are at their lowest level for over 40 years and mortgage rates their lowest for over 30 years.

  The UK's past experience of monetary policy, when short-term political considerations detracted from longterm stability, suggests that any move to take back control of interest rates from the Bank of England would risk jeopardising those achievements.

  General Pinochet
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Prime Minister at what time(a) he and (b) his Office was informed of (1) the police decision to arrest and (2) the arrest of Senator Pinochet. [70283]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) on 2 November 1998,Official Report, column 403.

  Pensioners' Parliament
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister if a Minister will be attending the Pensioners' Parliament to be held in Blackpool between 11 and 13 May. [69577]

  The Prime Minister
  To date no Minister has been invited to attend the Pensioners' Parliament, which I understand is organised by the National Pensioners Convention.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Civil Service Pay Awards
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what was the average percentage increase in salaries of non-industrial civil servants, excluding members of the senior civil service, in her Department for 1998–99; and to what extent the pay awards were staged. [69513]

  Clare Short
  The headline pay settlement was 2 per cent. on the paybill and together with the additional funds from staff turnover, staff in post received performance-related increases averaging 4 per cent. The increases were not staged.

  EU Aid Budget
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the 10 countries which received the most EU aid in the last year for which figures are available; and if she will make a statement. [69040]
  186
  Clare Short
  In 1997, the latest year for which figures are available, the 10 countries which received the most EU official development assistance are set out in order. Our proposals to seek to change this situation are set out in our EU Strategy Paper "Working in Partnership with the European Community", a copy of which has been placed in the Library.

  1. Bosnia and Herzegovina

  2. Morocco

  3. Egypt

  4. Tunisia

  5. Palestinian administered areas

  6. Slovenia

  7. India

  8. Jordan

  9. Bangladesh

  10. Mauritania.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what proportion of the EU aid budget is currently invested in low-income countries; and if she will make a statement. [69039]

  Clare Short
  In 1996 45 per cent. of EC external assistance (official development assistance plus official aid) went to low income countries, compared with 71 per cent. for the Department for International Development's bilateral programme. Our strategy to increase EC spending in low income countries is set out in our EU Strategy Paper, "Working in Partnership with the European Community", a copy of which has been placed in the Library.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with her European counterparts concerning the proportion of the EU' s aid budget which is invested in low income countries. [69041]

  Clare Short
  I discussed the EU aid budget with all my European colleagues in the last meeting of the Development Council, on 30 November 1998. I and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State also meet our counterparts individually. We raise this issue at every possible opportunity.

  Morocco
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with her French counterpart concerning Morocco. [69042]

  Clare Short
  On 23 December 1998 I met Monsieur Charles Josselin, my French counterpart, and we discussed a range of development assistance issues including EC aid to the Mediterranean and the Middle East, but we did not specifically discuss Morocco.

  Central America
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment her Department has made of the long-term rehabilitation needs of the countries in Central America affected by Hurricane Mitch. [69038]
  187
  Clare Short
  Following our initial response in the aftermath of Hurricane Mitch, (£4.2 million bilateral emergency aid and £10 million towards the World Bank's multilateral trust fund) we have been carefully considering our future assistance.

  Part of the £4.2 million assistance included rebuilding secondary roads and bridges, repairing water and sanitation infrastructure, restoring primary health and education services and work on epidemiological surveillance and epidemic control. A Department for International Development mission is planning to visit Honduras and Nicaragua on 22 February to check on the progress of this work and look at possible longer-term assistance. The team will hold meetings with the relevant government ministries and non-governmental organisations.

  Before Hurricane Mitch struck, we had already planned to spend £6 million in Central America over the next two years, working with some of the key multilateral organisations. We will now refocus our assistance in the light of the need for reconstruction. We have recently signed an agreement with the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) in which DFID will provide funds to strengthen the capacity of local organisations to enable them to make more effective use of loans provided by the IDB.

  We are also currently looking at supporting a regional rural development and natural resources technical assistance unit (RUTA), possible co-operation with the Pan American Health Organisation (PAHO) on health projects in the region as well as long-term support alongside the emergency road-building project announced in December. A project aimed at regenerating crop production by providing appropriate seed has also recently been approved.

  Palestinian Authority
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action she has taken to prevent corrupt use of EU and British aid to the Palestinian Authority. [68715]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The UK and the European Commission rarely provide direct financial assistance to the Palestinian Authority. In cases where assistance has been so provided, special payment and accounting mechanisms have been incorporated to ensure that funds have been properly spent. UK aid to the Palestinians is largely in the form of technical co-operation and support to non-government organisations, who are major deliverers of services in the West Bank and Gaza. EC and UK projects and programmes are regularly monitored, including site visits, to ensure that funds are used for agreed purposes.

  Donors have repeatedly made it clear to the Palestinian Authority their concern about financial management and the importance of transparency.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Benefit Card
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on progress on introducing the Benefit Card. [68822]
  188
  Angela Eagle
  At present, 204 post offices (89 in the North East, 115 in the South West) are operating Benefit Payment Service for Child Benefit. There are now nearly 36,000 Child Benefit customers using the Benefit Payment Card.

  Mrs. Swati Pankhania
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security for what reasons maternity benefit has not been paid to Mrs. Swati Pankhania of Rushey Mead, Leicester who made an application under reference PW916526C/STBFC/DN; and when he expects payment to be made. [69228]

  Mr. Bayley
  The administration of Maternity Benefit is a matter for Peter Mathison, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. I have asked him to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Keith Vaz, dated 8 February 1999:

  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Question asking for what reasons maternity benefit has not been paid to Mrs Swati Pankhania of Rushey Mead. Leicester.

  Maternity Benefit (MB) has not been paid because the independent Adjudication Officer (AO) decided on 2 November 1998 that Mrs Pankhania was not entitled to Maternity Allowance (MA) from 7 December 1997 to 11 April 1998 because she was entitled to Statutory Maternity Pay (SMP) from her employer in respect of the same pregnancy.

  I should explain that AOs are statutory office holders. They are required to make impartial decisions based on the application of the law to the facts of the individual case. It would be improper for me, or indeed a Government Minister, to comment on, or interfere in, their decisions.

  However, the AO's decision to refuse MA is not a formal decision on the employer's liability to pay SMP. A customer who wants a formal decision on this separate issue must request it from the AO within six months from the earliest day in respect of which liability for SMP is in dispute. The time limit is absolute. I understand that Mrs Pankhania recently made such a request.

  Mrs Pankhania now needs to complete form SMP14 explaining fully why she thinks she is entitled to SMP and what she has done to pursue it with her employer. The information that she provides will then be sent to her employer for their comments. Once these have been received the AO will give a formal decision on SMP. If the AO decides that the employer is liable, they have three months in which either to pay SMP or appeal against the decision. If the employer does not appeal and does not pay SMP, the Benefits Agency will take over responsibility for paying it.

  I understand that Mrs Pankhania is currently in India. We have sent form SMP14 to her husband who is arranging to forward it to her. Every effort will be made to resolve this issue timeously.

  I hope that this is helpful.

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will instruct the Benefits Agency to investigate allegations that the holidaymakers who were recently ejected from an Airtours flight to Jamaica were fraudulently claiming income-related benefits; and if he will make a statement. [69893]

  Mr. Timms
  Questions on Benefit Agency operational matters are the responsibility of the Chief Executive, Peter Mathison. He will write to the hon. Member.
  189
  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. lain Duncan Smith, dated 8 February 1999:

  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking if he will instruct the Benefits Agency (BA) to investigate allegations that the holidaymakers who were recently ejected from an Airtours flight to Jamaica were claiming income-related benefits; and if he will make a statement.

  The information that the BA holds about its customers is confidential and there are strict rules about its disclosure. I am therefore unable to provide any details about this case.

  In general terms, whether fraud is involved in the case of a benefit customer taking a holiday abroad depends on the eligibility rules of the individual benefits involved.

  The BA takes benefit fraud very seriously and where proof of wrongdoing is established, a very firm line is taken against the culprits. I can assure you that the BA will fully investigate suspected fraud where there are reasonable grounds to support an enquiry.

  I am sorry that I cannot be more helpful.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much money has been received by the Treasury from CSA payments to offset the cost of single parents met by public funds for each year of the CSA's existence. [69666]

  Angela Eagle
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mrs. Faith Boardman. She will write to my right hon. Friend.

  Letter from Faith Boardman to Mr. Frank Field, dated February 1999:

  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about maintenance collected by the Child Support Agency.

  Since launch in April 1993 to 31 December 1998, a total of £1,927.46 Million (M) in child maintenance has been collected and arranged by the Agency for payment from the non resident parent to the parent with care. Where maintenance has been collected by the Agency £438.72M has been retained for the Secretary of State to offset benefits that have already been paid. A yearly breakdown is provided in the table below.

  Child Maintenance collected and arranged since launch

  £ million

  Collected and arranged

  Retained for SofS

  Total

  1,927.46

  438.72

  1993–94

  12.57

  5.75

  1994–95

  187.4

  47.94

  1995–96

  301.5

  68.12

  1996–97

  399.88

  95.71

  1997–98

  547.14

  121.31

  1998–99 up to 31 December 1998

  478.96

  99.89

  The problems encountered by the Agency during its first 2–3 years are a matter of public record. From a slow beginning, the amounts of maintenance collected and arranged rose to just over £301M in 1995/6, and to just under £400M in 1996/7.

  The £547.14M collected and arranged in 1997/98 represented an increase of 37 per cent on the amount in 1996/97, while the amount retained by the Secretary of State in the same period grew by 27 per cent.

  Our emphasis is on getting maintenance flowing, and in doing this supporting the Government's aims for keeping lone parents off benefit and the New Deal arrangements for helping those on benefit into work.

  I hope this is helpful.
  190

  Mr. William Gallacher
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects the final resolution in the case of Mr. William Gallacher of Westgate on Sea of his benefit claim; and if he will make a statement relating to the speed with which benefit claims made by the disabled are processed. [69697]

  Mr. Bayley
  The administration of disablement benefits is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, Peter Mathison. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Roger Gale, dated 8 February 1999:

  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Question asking when the Secretary of State expects the final resolution to be made in the case of Mr. William Gallacher of Westgate on Sea of his benefit claim; and if he will make a statement relating to the speed with which benefit claims made by the disabled are processed.

  Mr. Gallacher's claim for Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit (IIDB) was received by the Benefits Agency on 8 May 1997. The Adjudication Officer's decision, based on the findings of the Adjudicating Medical Authority on the claim, was issued to Mr. Gallacher on 14 October 1997. This length of time was needed to arrange a medical examination, confirm details of his employment, and contribution history. This information is required in all IIDB claims to confirm if the case satisfies the conditions for entitlement. In Mr. Gallacher's case, the history since 1940 was potentially relevant and needed to be scrutinised.

  Mr. Gallacher lodged an appeal, received at the BA processing office on 28 November 1997, against the findings of the Adjudicating Medical Authority. The case was referred to the Independent Tribunal Service on 28 November 1997. A hearing date has been set for 5 March 1999.

  The target times for completion of the processing of all Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit claims are, 60% in 85 days and 90% in 175 days. In Mr. Gallacher's case the decision was issued to him within the second target time.

  I hope you find this reply is helpful.

  Benefits Agency Staff
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what surveys the Benefits Agency has carried out of the level of job satisfaction among its staff since 1992; and if he will place the results in the Library. [69667]

  Angela Eagle
  The Administration of the Benefits Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Peter Mathison. I have asked him to reply to my right hon. Friend.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Frank Field, dated 8 February 1999:

  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Question asking what surveys the Benefits Agency has carried out of the level of job satisfaction among its staff since 1992; and if the results will be placed in the Library.

  The Department of Social Security carried out a Department-wide staff attitude survey in 1994 which included Benefits Agency staff. Between 1994 and 1998 the Agency has only carried out local surveys. However, towards the end of last year the Benefits Agency commissioned a national staff survey. The report of the results is currently being prepared.

  I can confirm that a full copy of the results will be placed in the House of Commons Library. I will ensure that a copy of the BA results from the DSS 1994 survey is also placed in the Library.

  I hope you find this reply helpful.
  191

  Family Credit
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in what percentage of couples receiving Family Credit benefits one partner is not working. [69686]

  Angela Eagle
  As at August 1998, there were 393,000 couples receiving Family Credit of which 92.3 per cent. (363,000) were cases where the partner was not working.

  Note:

  Figure is based on a 5 per cent. sample of all Family Credit claimants.

  Source:

  Family Credit Quarterly Statistical Enquiry, August 1998.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the average duration of claim for Family Credit payment. [69937]

  Angela Eagle
  As at August 1998, the average duration of a claim to Family Credit was 19.9 months.

  Note:

  Figure is based on a 5 per cent. sample of all Family Credit claimants.

  Source:

  Family Credit Quarterly Statistical Enquiry, August 1998.

  Disability Benefits
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list those disability benefits on which there was an underspend in 1997–98 and the sums involved. [70120]

  Mr. Bayley
  The information is in the table.

  Over this Parliament, expenditure on the four principal disability benefits—Attendance Allowance (AA), Disability Living Allowance (DLA), Incapacity Benefit (IB) and Severe Disablement Allowance (SDA)—is forecast to grow in real terms by 7.0 per cent. This is equivalent to a real increase in annual spending of over £1 billion. Within this wider trend, in 1997–98 there were small differences between forecast and outtum spending for these benefits.

  £ million

  (1)

  (2)

  (3)

  (4)

  Benefit

  Published forecast for spending in 1997–98

  Outturn spending

  Difference, column (3) minus column (2)

  AA

  2,704

  2,521

  -183

  DLA

  4,959

  4,953

  -6

  IB

  7,617

  7,412

  -205

  SDA

  991

  999

  7

  Note:

  Forecasts in column (2) are the figures that were published in the 1997 Departmental Report, Cmd 3613.

  Family Credit Childcare Disregard
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if, under the rules for the family credit childcare disregard, a mother who worked for at least 16 hours a week as a registered childminder, and who entered into a contractual relationship with her husband, and who cared on a professional basis for her own children at 192
  premises other than the parental home, will be able to disregard the costs to the family of childcare for the purposes of family credit assessment. [70079]

  Angela Eagle
  For the purposes of the Family Credit disregard, Family Credit General Regulation 13A(2) provides a definition of eligible childcare. Childcare charges paid by a Family Credit claimant to a partner or by a partner to a Family Credit claimant in respect of any child for whom either or any of them is responsible, are not defined as eligible childcare.

  Civil Service Pay Awards
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the average percentage increase in salaries of non-industrial civil servants, excluding members of the senior civil service, in his Department for 1998–99; and to what extent the pay awards were staged. [69510]

  Mr. Timms
  The headline pay settlement for this Department, its Agencies and its Non-Departmental Public Bodies was 2.5 per cent. on the paybill and together with the additional funds from staff turnover, staff in post received performance related increases averaging 4.6 per cent. The increases were not staged.

  Disabled Children
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what consultations he has held with groups representing disabled children under five years of age; and what plans he has to make finance available to help the parents of severely-disabled under-fives with the costs of transportation for hospital visits. [68801]

  Mr. Bayley
  The Government's proposals for people with long-term illnesses and disabilities were outlined in the recent consultation document "A New Contract for Welfare: Support for Disabled People". Consultation ended on 8 January and 342 responses were received. Many of these came from organisations representing disabled people, including three from organisations specifically representing disabled children.

  Our proposals included extending 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. This has been widely welcomed. This help would be neither means tested nor subject to a contribution condition, would be tax free and would give access to the Motability Scheme. No attempt is made to specify how families should spend Disability Living Allowance.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Education Welfare Service
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the work of the Training Advisory Group for the Education Welfare Service. [69623]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Training Advisory Group for the Education Welfare Service has an important role to play in co-ordinating training provided for education welfare officers and dealing with related questions of
  193
  professional development. The Department is one of a number of bodies represented on TAG and we are pleased to contribute to its work.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the projects which are funded by the School Inclusion: Pupil Support grant programme which relate(a) to an enhanced role for education welfare officers and (b) to all other objects. [69624]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The grant will support multiple projects in 134 local education authorities. Many of these involve enhanced roles for education welfare officers (EWOs), particularly as part of multi-disciplinary behaviour support teams. Given the large number of projects and the overlapping, often integrated, work of EWOs and other agencies, identifying and listing individual projects in the manner requested in the question would involve disproportionate cost.

  Digital Broadcasting
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations he has received from the ITC regarding the provision of digital broadcasting for educational services. [69692]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 8 February 1998]: There have been a number of contacts with the Independent Television Commission over the last year, including both a meeting and exchanges of correspondence.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many tenders his Department has received for the provision of digital broadcasting services. [69691]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 8 February 1999]: Responses to tendering exercises conducted by the Department for Education and Employment are treated as commercial in confidence.

  New Deal (Young People)
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many young people on the New Deal Scheme have been employed(a) as classroom assistants in schools and (b) as childcare providers. [70010]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 8 February 1999]: Responsibility for the subject of this 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 Mrs. Theresa May, dated 9 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 question about the numbers of young people on New Deal who have been employed as classroom assistants in schools and as childcare providers. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.

  Up to 8 January 1999, 852 young people on New Deal had been placed as childcare assistants (427 in unsubsidised jobs and 425
  194
  on the Employment option). A further 731 had been placed on Full-Time Education and Training and Voluntary Sector options in the childcare area.

  Unfortunately, similar, information on classroom assistants is not readily available.

  Civil Service Pay Awards
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the average percentage increase in salaries of non-industrial civil servants, excluding members of the senior civil service, in his Department for 1998–99; and to what extent the pay awards were staged. [69518]

  Mr. Mudie
  The headline pay settlement was 2.5 per cent. on the paybill; and together with the additional funds from staff turnover, staff in post received performance-related increases averaging 3.6 per cent. The increases were not staged.

  SSA and LEA Budgets
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list(a) his Department's recommended standard spending assessment percentage budget increase and (b) the percentage increase set by the local education authority for each English local education authority. [69576]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The table sets out the underlying increase in the education SSAs for 1999–2000, after allowing for local authority changes of function and new arrangements for music and student support services. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has written to all English Local Education Authorities to urge them to match the cash increase in their education SSA with a corresponding cash increase in their education budgets. We will be monitoring the spending plans of authorities when they set their final education budgets to see whether they actually use the cash increases for education services.

  Final Education SSAs for 1999–2000

  LEA

  Education SSA £ million

  Change £ million

  Change %

  City of London

  0.8

  0.0

  1.7

  Camden

  87.4

  4.0

  4.8

  Greenwich

  126.2

  6.0

  5.0

  Hackney

  103.6

  5.0

  5.0

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  63.2

  3.4

  5.7

  Islington

  91.7

  4.2

  4.7

  Kensington and Chelsea

  40.2

  2.7

  7.1

  Lambeth

  111.4

  6.9

  6.6

  Lewisham

  127.5

  6.9

  5.7

  Southwark

  124.2

  7.8

  6.7

  Tower Hamlets

  145.6

  8.0

  5.9

  Wandsworth

  98.2

  4.9

  5.3

  Westminster

  66.8

  4.3

  6.9

  Barking and Dagenham

  84.3

  5.2

  6.6

  Barnet

  135.9

  7.4

  5.8

  Bexley

  105.9

  6.0

  6.0

  Brent

  123.1

  5.8

  4.9

  Bromley

  125.8

  7.5

  6.3

  Croydon

  140.4

  8.0

  6.1

  Ealing

  129.4

  7.0

  5.7

  Enfield

  139.3

  8.0

  6.1

  Haringey

  110.6

  7.5

  7.2

  Harrow

  81.1

  3.5

  4.5

  Havering

  99.0

  4.5

  4.8

  Hillingdon

  107.9

  5.6

  5.5

  195

  Final Education SSAsfor 1999–2000

  LEA

  Education SSA £ million

  Change £ million

  Change %

  Hounslow

  107.1

  5.4

  5.3

  Kingston upon Thames

  53.4

  2.7

  5.2

  Merton

  66.3

  3.2

  5.1

  Newham

  156.6

  10.3

  7.0

  Redbridge

  118.4

  8.6

  7.9

  Richmond upon Thames

  52.5

  2.8

  5.7

  Sutton

  78.8

  4.6

  6.2

  Waltham Forest

  111.1

  7.0

  6.8

  Birmingham

  506.0

  23.3

  4.8

  Coventry

  136.1

  6.1

  4.7

  Dudley

  120.4

  6.5

  5.7

  Sandwell

  136.0

  6.4

  4.9

  Solihull

  88.0

  5.5

  6.7

  Walsall

  124.6

  6.8

  5.8

  Wolverhampton

  111.9

  5.7

  5.4

  Knowsley

  85.2

  4.0

  5.0

  Liverpool

  238.3

  9.3

  4.1

  St. Helens

  76.5

  3.0

  4.1

  Sefton

  122.2

  6.1

  5.2

  Wirral

  148.7

  6.8

  4.8

  Bolton

  117.5

  6.0

  5.4

  Bury

  71.5

  3.9

  5.8

  Manchester

  207.7

  9.6

  4.9

  Oldham

  108.6

  5.3

  5.1

  Rochdale

  96.9

  5.1

  5.6

  Salford

  95.2

  4.6

  5.1

  Stockport

  104.4

  5.5

  5.5

  Tameside

  95.6

  5.4

  6.0

  Trafford

  91.1

  6.5

  7.7

  Wigan

  125.3

  6.3

  5.3

  Barnsley

  87.4

  4.4

  5.3

  Doncaster

  136.1

  6.2

  4.7

  Rotherham

  116.1

  6.6

  6.0

  Sheffield

  195.0

  11.1

  6.0

  Bradford

  233.8

  9.5

  4.2

  Calderdale

  88.2

  5.0

  6.0

  Kirklees

  164.3

  8.3

  5.3

  Leeds

  292.4

  14.8

  5.3

  Wakefield

  129.0

  6.5

  5.3

  Gateshead

  78.3

  3.4

  4.6

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  111.0

  5.0

  4.7

  North Tyneside

  77.6

  3.4

  4.6

  South Tyneside

  68.8

  3.4

  5.1

  Sunderland

  129.1

  5.7

  4.6

  Isles of Scilly

  1.2

  0.0

  0.8

  Cambridgeshire

  190.9

  11.3

  6.3

  Cheshire

  263.8

  13.8

  5.5

  Cornwall

  189.8

  11.1

  6.2

  Cumbria

  195.5

  10.0

  5.4

  Devon

  243.8

  15.9

  7.0

  Essex

  524.1

  29.2

  5.9

  Gloucestershire

  214.8

  12.7

  6.3

  Herefordshire

  61.1

  4.1

  7.3

  Worcestershire

  198.2

  10.9

  5.8

  Hertfordshire

  446.5

  23.6

  5.6

  Kent

  553.5

  29.7

  5.7

  Lancashire

  468.5

  25.3

  5.7

  Lincolnshire

  250.7

  15.3

  6.5

  Norfolk

  286.5

  17.4

  6.5

  Northamptonshire

  257.8

  14.8

  6.1

  Northumberland

  129.3

  6.3

  5.2

  Nottinghamshire

  296

  16.4

  5.9

  Oxfordshire

  217.4

  10.2

  4.9

  Shropshire

  100.8

  5.7

  6.0

  Somerset

  175.6

  10.9

  6.6

  Suffolk

  250.3

  14.1

  5.9

  Surrey

  358.3

  21.1

  6.3

  Warwickshire

  187.6

  10.1

  5.7

  West Sussex

  269.2

  15.5

  6.1

  North Yorkshire

  219.6

  13.6

  6.6

  196

  Final Education SSAs for 1999–2000

  LEA

  Education SSA £ million

  Change £ million

  Change %

  Bedfordshire

  161.0

  7.4

  4.8

  Buckinghamshire

  193.6

  10.4

  5.7

  Derbyshire

  272.4

  15.6

  6.1

  Dorset

  135.3

  9.2

  7.3

  Durham

  203.4

  9.6

  4.9

  East Sussex

  174.3

  10.1

  6.2

  Hampshire

  446.8

  24.9

  5.9

  Leicestershire

  228.2

  13.6

  6.3

  Staffordshire

  323.1

  18.2

  6.0

  Wiltshire

  159.1

  10.1

  6.8

  Isle of Wight

  53.2

  2.6

  5.1

  Bath & North East Somerset

  62.3

  3.3

  5.6

  Bristol

  134.2

  7.0

  5.5

  North Somerset

  68.0

  3.6

  5.6

  South Gloucestershire

  93.8

  6.3

  7.2

  Hartlepool

  42.6

  2.2

  5.4

  Middlesbrough

  68.5

  3.1

  4.8

  Redcar and Cleveland

  66.2

  2.9

  4.6

  Stockton-on-Tees

  82.1

  4.5

  5.8

  Kingston-upon-Hull

  114.8

  5.2

  4.8

  East Riding

  121.3

  7.4

  6.5

  North East Lincolnshire

  73.0

  3.1

  4.5

  North Lincolnshire

  65.0

  3.2

  5.2

  York

  60.3

  3.5

  6.1

  Luton

  87.6

  4.3

  5.2

  Milton Keynes

  92.7

  4.3

  4.9

  Derby

  96.8

  5.3

  5.8

  Poole

  50.0

  3.2

  6.9

  Bournemouth

  55.8

  3.3

  6.3

  Darlington

  39.7

  2.2

  6.0

  Brighton and Hove

  82.8

  4.9

  6.3

  Portsmouth

  72.8

  4.1

  6.0

  Southampton

  87.4

  5.0

  6.1

  Leicester

  134.9

  5.6

  4.3

  Rutland

  11.6

  0.4

  3.8

  Stoke on Trent

  99.5

  3.9

  4.1

  Bracknell Forest

  41.6

  2.0

  5.1

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  51.1

  2.4

  4.8

  West Berkshire

  60.9

  3.5

  6.1

  Reading

  48.0

  2.7

  5.9

  Slough

  59.0

  3.3

  5.9

  Wokingham

  58.5

  3.0

  5.4

  Peterborough

  78.9

  2.5

  3.2

  Halton

  59.4

  2.5

  4.5

  Warrington

  78.5

  4.6

  6.2

  Plymouth

  107.7

  5.9

  5.8

  Torbay

  49.9

  3.4

  7.3

  Southend

  68.9

  3.9

  6.1

  Thurrock

  60.5

  3.9

  6.8

  Medway Towns

  118.0

  6.0

  5.3

  Blackburn

  70.7

  2.7

  4.0

  Blackpool

  52.8

  3.4

  6.9

  Nottingham City

  116.7

  6.1

  5.5

  The Wrekin

  66.2

  3.9

  6.2

  Swindon

  73.3

  5.7

  8.5

  England

  20,414.0

  1,100.0

  5.7

  Schedule 2a Students
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment for each of the last three years, how many students in further education colleges were registered as students on schedule 2a courses without having been entered for the appropriate examination. [68736]
  197
  Mr. Mudie
  Information on the number of students in English further education (FE) sector colleges registered as students on schedule 2a courses without having been entered for the appropriate examination is not available. The number of students enrolled on schedule 2a courses in English FE sector colleges for each of the last three years is:

  Year

  Thousand

  1994–95

  1,226.0

  1995–96

  1,664.5

  1996–97

  2,315.2

TREASURY

  Unemployment (Scotland)
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) 16 and 17-year-olds in Scotland and (b) 18 to 24-year-olds in Scotland are unemployed according to the ILO definition. [68771]

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

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Malcolm Chisholm, dated 9 February 1999:

  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question on young people who are unemployed in Scotland.

  The ONS measure of unemployment, derived from the Labour Force Survey (LFS), is defined on a consistent and internationally recognised basis set out by the International Labour Organisation (ILO) and counts as unemployed people who are: a) without a paid job; b) available to start work within the next two weeks and c) have either looked for work in the last four weeks or are waiting to start a job already obtained.

  The Autumn 1998 (September-November) quarterly Labour Force Survey estimates that the number of ILO unemployed in Scotland aged (a) 16–17 year olds is 22,000 and (b) 18–14 year olds is 48,000. These estimates are not seasonally adjusted.

  Standard Chartered Bank
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has(a) met the Governor of the Bank of England to discuss the activities of Standard Chartered Bank and (b) called for a report from the Governor of the Bank of England on Standard Chartered Bank's involvement in India; when he last met the Chairman of Standard Chartered Bank; and what changes to the system of banking supervision he plans following the involvement of Standard Chartered Bank in India. [69084]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Chancellor has regular meetings with the Governor of the Bank of England at which a wide range of issues is discussed. He also receives regular reports from the Bank. There is no record of him meeting the Chairman of Standard Chartered Bank since his appointment as Chancellor. On coming into office, the Government announced their proposals to reform the system of financial supervision. The first stage was the Bank of England Act 1998 which transferred banking supervision to the Financial Services Authority. A further Bill implementing the reforms in full was published, in 198
  draft, for consultation last July. The Government are considering the response and will introduce the Bill in the next Session of Parliament.

  Travel Insurance
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the percentage of travel insurance which was bought from(a) travel agents and tour operators and (b) other sources in (i) 1992, (ii) 1995 and (iii) 1998. [69376]

  Ms Hewitt
  A report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on Foreign Package Holidays published in December 1997 (Cmnd 3813) gives the following information:

  Distribution of sales of travel insurance by outlet, 1992 to 1996

  Percentage

  1992

  1994

  1996

  Travel agent

  63

  61

  58

  Tour operators

  25

  23

  19

  Sub-total

  88

  84

  19

  Direct

  5

  5

  7

  Bank/Building Society

  3

  4

  6

  Others

  4

  7

  10

  Source:

  Mintel

  Aviation Tax
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Government will support proposals for an aviation tax in future European Union negotiations. [69472]

  Ms Hewitt
  There no proposals for an aviation tax as such. As was made clear in the White paper on the future of transport, the Government support international action through the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) to remove the international tax exemption for aviation fuels.

  In June 1997 we welcomed the initiative by the Dutch Presidency of the EU which led to the study on the competitive and environmental effects on the EU of a unilateral aviation fuel tax and look forward to its publication later this year. We will consider our position in the light of the conclusions of this study.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department have a statutory base; and which are subject to investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner. [69912]

  Ms Hewitt
  One executive non-departmental body sponsored by the Chancellor' s departments has a statutory base. It is the Policyholders Protection Board, created by the Policyholders Protection Act 1975.

  The ambit of the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration does not extend to the conduct of the Board's business.
  199
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department(a) admit members of the public to all board or committee meetings, (b) hold public meetings, (c) have lay or consumer representatives on their boards and (d) operate some form of appeal or complaints procedure; and if in each case this is under a statutory requirement. [69982]

  Ms Hewitt
  There is one executive non-departmental body sponsored by the Chancellor's departments. It is the Policyholders Protection Board. The Board:

  (a) does not admit members of the public to board meetings or committee meetings;

  (b) does not hold public meetings;

  (c) includes a representative of policyholders interests in accordance with the Policyholders Protection Act, 1975;

  (d) does not operate a formal appeal or complaints procedure.

  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which of the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department publish(a) the minutes of meetings, (b) the agendas of meetings and documents for those meetings and (c) a register of members' interests; and if in each case this is under a statutory requirement. [69942]

  Ms Hewitt
  There is one executive non-departmental body sponsored by the Chancellor's departments. It is the Policyholders Protection Board.

  The Board does not publish the minutes of meetings, agendas of meetings, documents for those meetings, or a register of members' interests. It does, however, publish an annual report, and there are statutory provisions on disclosure of members' interests in matters falling to be considered by the Board.

  Industrial Action
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many cases of industrial action involving random one-day strikes called over a period have taken place; and in how many cases the period of random action has exceeded eight weeks, in each year from 1993 to 1998; [69563]

  (2) in how many cases industrial actions in the form of strikes have extended beyond eight weeks in each year from 1993 to 1998. [69564]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 8 February 1999]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Director of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. David Chidgey, dated 9 February 1999:

  As Director of the Office for National Statistics, I have been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary questions on industrial action in each year from 1993 to 1998.

  I am unable to provide information in the form requested. The duration of a dispute is classed as the total number of days of strike action, not the length of time the parties were in dispute. I have provided information on this basis in the attached tables.

  Table 1

  The following table shows the number of stoppages beginning in each year from 1993 to 1997, which involved forty days or more of strike action1, whether or not these covered consecutive working days.
  200

  Year

  Stoppages beginning in year

  1993

  7

  1994

  2

  1995

  8

  1996

  4

  1997

  3

  19982

  n/a

  1 It is assumed that an eight week period includes forty working days. The duration of a dispute is classed as the total number of days of strike action, not the length of time the parties were in dispute.

  2 Provisional data for 1998 will be available mid-March 1999, final data for 1998 will be available mid-April 1999.

  Table 2

  The following table shows the number of stoppages in progress, in each year from 1993 to 1997, which did not exceed one day in duration.

  Year

  Stoppages in progress

  1993

  119

  1994

  118

  1995

  139

  1996

  118

  1997

  106

  19981

  n/a

  1 Provisional data for 1998 will be available mid-March 1999, final data for 1998 will be available mid-April 1999.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to which public expenditure vote the cost of the use of RAF and charter flights by Treasury Ministers is charged. [70076]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Treasury Ministers' travel costs are charged to Class XVI Vote 1.

  Green-field Development
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will abolish capital gains tax roll-over relief on the sale proceeds of green-field development land. [68799]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Capital gains roll-over relief is available when the proceeds from the disposal of assets used only for the purpose of a trade are invested in new assets which, on acquisition, are taken into use, and used only, for the purposes of a trade. There are no plans to change that.

  Building Societies
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what representations he has received regarding building societies during the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement; [68436]

  (2) what recent discussions his Department has had with building societies; and if he will make a statement; [68438]

  (3) what proposals he has for legislation to protect the principle of mutuality; and if he will make a statement. [68437]
  201
  Ms Hewitt
  The Treasury has regular discussions with building societies and their representatives, who have put forward a number of proposals for legislation in recent years. Many of them, however, involve reducing Boards' accountability, or otherwise limit the rights of members—especially the less well off. This seems to the Government to be incompatible with the fundamental principles of mutuality. The Government have, however, increased the turnout threshold on conversion votes from 20 to 50 per cent., to ensure that conversions can occur only with the clear endorsement of members.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Animal Exports
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he plans to introduce(a) reforms to the way in which veterinary surgeons are nominated to carry out pre-export inspections of farm animals and (b) new guidelines as to how such inspections should be conducted; and if he will make a statement. [67937]

  Mr. Morley
  We are actively working to finalise the new procedural guidelines and administrative arrangements, together with proposals on the charges livestock exporters would need to pay. Introduction of the proposed new charging arrangements would require the adoption of a statutory instrument, and the timing of this would be influenced by the devolution arrangements for Scotland and Wales.

  Tobacco
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the principal(a) domestic and (b) export markets for tobacco grown in the European Union under subsidy. [69326]

  Mr. Rooker
  The specific information requested is not available. However, the European Commission's 1997 report on the common organisation of the market in raw tobacco says that the European Union consumes about 23 per cent. of its tobacco production. The main export markets for EU raw tobacco are the former-USSR, Central and Eastern European Countries, North Africa and the USA.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the member states of the EU which will benefit from financial support from the FEOGA budget in the current financial year for their tobacco growing industries. [69324]

  Mr. Rooker
  The eight producer Member States under the EU tobacco regime are: Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many people are employed as a result of grant-assisted tobacco growing in the European Union. [69325]

  Mr. Rooker
  The European Commission's 1997 report on the common organisation of the market in tobacco says that there are about 135,000 tobacco farmers in the Community, and that the number of people who earn their living farming tobacco exceeds this figure. In addition,202
  the report says that some 30,000 people were employed in the first processing of tobacco in 1990 (including seasonal jobs).

  There is no information to relate employment in the EU tobacco sector to availability of the Community support to tobacco production.

  Dairy Farms (Closures)
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many dairy farms were closed as a result of action taken following farm inspection reports in each year since 1995–96. [69704]

  Mr. Rooker
  The table shows the number of production holding registrations withdrawn by financial years. Certain of these withdrawals were temporary as production holdings may be re-registered once they have made the necessary adjustments to comply with legislative requirements.

  Year

  Number

  1994–95

  62

  1995–96

  29

  1996–97

  73

  1997–98

  51

  Ministerial Flights
  Mr. Terry Lewis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to answer the question tabled by the hon. Member for Worsley on 25 January concerning ministerial flights (ref. 67363). [69627]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  Shortly.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Departmental Documents (Right hon. Member for Hartlepool)
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will publish all his Department's internal documents relating to the loan by the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) to his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson). [67333]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 27 January 1999]: No. All information in the DTI's possession on matters of substance relating to the loan is already in the public domain.

  Arms Exports
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will place in the Library details of the licensing of military contracts to Jakarta in the last five years. [68843]

  Dr. Howells
  The entry in the relevant legislation under which the export of goods is controlled is known as their rating. The Export Control Organisation's computer databases have been interrogated and the following results were obtained. Between 1 January 1994 and 31 December
  203
  1998, 301 Standard Individual Export Licences (SIELs) were issued covering the export to consignees or end-users in Indonesia of goods subject to export control by being listed in Part III of Schedule 1 to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994, the so-called Military List. Individual licences may cover a range of goods with various ratings. Where this is so, the licence is included in the Table in the total for all of the relevant ratings.

  SIELs issued in each calendar year covering the export to Indonesia of goods on the Military List

  Number of SIELs issued in each year covering goods with this rating

  Rating

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  ML1

  4

  4

  1

  0

  2

  ML2

  5

  2

  3

  3

  2

  ML3

  3

  3

  1

  0

  1

  ML4

  3

  1

  0

  2

  1

  ML5

  6

  4

  1

  3

  1

  ML6

  4

  13

  9

  4

  1

  ML7

  1

  0

  2

  1

  0

  ML8

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  ML9

  4

  0

  1

  0

  1

  ML10

  10

  8

  27

  17

  16

  ML11

  22

  13

  15

  19

  9

  ML13

  1

  1

  6

  4

  2

  ML14

  4

  4

  3

  2

  2

  ML15

  2

  6

  4

  1

  2

  ML16

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  ML17

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  ML18

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  ML21

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  ML22

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  ML24

  0

  1

  3

  1

  0

  PL5001

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  PL5002

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  PL5006

  1

  2

  2

  0

  2

  PL5017

  0

  0

  1

  0

  2

  PL5024

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  PL5027

  2

  3

  0

  0

  0

  Total number of such licences

  68

  60

  77

  55

  41

  This information should be considered in light of the answer given by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) to my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) on 30 October 1997, Official Report, columns 870–71.

  As regards Open Individual Export Licences, I shall write to my hon. Friend as soon as possible and place a copy of that letter in the Library of the House.

  In addition, goods on the Military List may have been exported to Indonesia under certain Open General Export Licences; copies of all Open General Export Licences valid at any time during the period are in the Library of the House.

  Fireworks
  Mr. Nigel Grigffiths:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will take steps, including a campaign of public information, to ensure that the code of practice on fireworks as it relates to the timing of firework sales is not breached in connection with the celebration of the new millennium. [69615]
  204
  Dr. Howells
  The present voluntary code of practice relates to sales of fireworks in the run-up to Bonfire Night. Officials in the DTI will be contacting fireworks suppliers to discuss the issue of the sale of fireworks for the Millennium celebrations.

  Lucas Varity
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 2 February 1999,Official Report, columns 584–85, regarding Lucas Varity, if it is his policy that his Department would not intervene in the takeover on grounds other than competition. [69699]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 8 February 1999]: If any proposed acquisition were to fall to the UK authorities under the Fair Trading Act 1973, the Director General of Fair Trading (DGFT) would advise my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether or not the merger should be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission for investigation. In formulating his advice on merger cases, the DGFT takes into account any representations he receives on competition and other public interest issues. The Secretary of State would take his decision in the light of the DGFT's advice. Each case is considered on its own merits.

  If any proposed acquisition were to fall to the EC Merger Regulation the European Commission would assess the acquisition's effect on competition. In commenting on the acquisition we would therefore not normally give our views on grounds other than competition.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 2 February 1999,Official Report, columns 584–85, regarding Lucas Varity, if he will take steps to establish whether the takeover will fall within the jurisdictions of (a) the UK authorities and (b) the European Commission. [69698]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 8 February 1999]: The European Commission would decide whether any proposed acquisition fell within the scope of the EC Merger Regulation. If it were not to fall within the scope of the EC Merger Regulation it would fall to the UK authorities under the Fair Trading Act 1973.

  Dismissals (Breach of Contract)
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many employees were dismissed for breach of contract on the ground that they took industrial action by going on strike, in each year from 1993 to 1998. [69594]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  [holding answer 8 February 1999]: These figures are not collected.

  Unfair Dismissal
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many cases of unfair dismissal were brought before industrial tribunals in each year from 1993 to 1998; how many cases were proven in each year; what was the average award in each year; and what was the total of the awards made in each year. [69595]
  205
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  [holding answer 8 February 1999]Information for financial years commencing 1 April 1993 is shown in the table. The outcome of a case may appear in a later year than the one in which it was registered.

  Year

  Applications registered

  Number successful at hearing (%)

  Average award

  Number of awards

  1993–94

  41,801

  5,952 (44.0)

  2,773

  3,113

  1994–95

  38,363

  4,829 (39.3)

  3,289

  2,998

  1995–96

  39,580

  4,325 (38.0)

  2,499

  2,099

  1996–97

  39,018

  12,910 (34.6)

  12,575

  11,696

  1997–98

  37,366

  4,418 (40.1)

  2—

  2—

  1 Information on tribunal outcomes is not available for the whole of 1996–97 as a result of procedural changes. The information given relates to cases registered before 1 September 1996 and disposed of in that year.

  2 Information is not yet available.

  Petrol Industry
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to receive the report of the Inquiry by the Director General of Fair Trading into the 1966 undertakings by petrol suppliers; and if he will publish it. [69761]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 8 February 1999]My right hon. Friend and I expect to receive advice from the Director General of Fair Trading regarding the 1966 petrol undertakings within the next month. The Director General's advice is given in confidence. I will announce my decision on the undertakings in due course.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what studies he has(a) made and (b) commissioned into contractual arrangements introduced by petrol suppliers since 1 January 1989; and what assessment he has made as to their conformity with fair competitive practice; [69758]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the terms of the partnership licence agreement currently used by Esso Petroleum; [69756]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answers 8 February 1999]: My Department has neither made nor commissioned such studies or assessments since 1 January 1989. The Director General of Fair Trading is responsible for keeping the operation of markets and the state of competition under review.

  The Office of Fair Trading was asked by Esso in 1992 to consider its new partnership licence agreement. OFT concluded that the terms were not manifestly unfair or unreasonable and therefore not in breach of paragraph 19 of the 1966 undertakings. The Petrol Retailers Association were informed of OFT's view on 8 December 1992. The OFT's view remains unchanged.

  No other new petrol licence agreements have been considered by OFT.

  The Director General has examined the petrol market a number of times since the MMC last reported in 1990, and on each occasion concluded that competition in the petrol market was effective and serving consumers well.
  206
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how his Department monitors retail petrol industry gross margins and pump prices; and what assessment he has made of the monitoring's effectiveness in assuring consistency of treatment under(a) UK and (b) European competition law. [69757]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 8 February 1999]My Department collects information about pump prices from retailers. This information is published in Energy Trends and in the Advanced Energy Statistics Press Notice.

  The Office of Fair Trading is responsible for monitoring markets and considering complaints about anti-competitive practices in the UK. OFT monitors gross margins on petrol and petrol pump prices using information from published sources and my Department. Successive studies of the supply of petrol in the UK by OFT, including that published in May 1998, have led OFT to conclude that competition in the petrol market is effective and serving consumers well.

  The application of EC competition law is the responsibility of Directorate General IV of the European Commission.

  Employment Relations Bill
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimates his Department has made of the current compliance costs of the Parental Leave Directive to the United Kingdom, in the context of the Employment Relations Bill; how many newly-entitled employees there will be; how many are expected to be(a) full-time and (b) part-time workers; and how many in each category are expected to be employed in firms with workforces (i) up to 10, (ii) up to 20, (iii) up to 50, (iv) up to 250 and (v) over 250. [69562]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  [holding answer 8 February 1999]: Estimates are not available in the form requested. However, the Regulatory Impact Assessment for the Employment Relations Bill, which has now been published, estimates the compliance costs of our proposals to implement the Directive at £36 million per year to employers. The estimate assumes that beneficiaries will include some 61,500 parents per year who will take up the new entitlement to parental leave, and 560,000 employees who will be protected by the statutory right when they take time off to deal with a domestic emergency. Full-time and part-time employees will be entitled to the new rights on the same basis.

  Welsh Stamps
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will ensure that Welsh stamps are available in all Welsh post offices. [70054]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Post Office is fully committed to implementation of its Welsh Language Scheme and reports progress annually to the Welsh Language Board. Welsh definitive stamps are already widely available at post offices in Wales and The Post Office is currently reviewing its supply process to improve the availability of stock.
  207

  Internet Watch Foundation
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he intends to publish the review of the Internet Watch Foundation; and if he will make a statement. [70364]

  Mr. Wills
  Copies of the review of the Internet Watch Foundation, conducted by KPMG and Denton hall, were placed in the Libraries of the House of Commons and the House of Lords this morning. The report is also available on the Department's website. The report commends the success of the IWF since its inception in 1996, and makes recommendations for improvement to keep pace with the rapid developments taking place in the Internet industry.

  The IWF's structure, hotline operations and relationship with the Internet industry, Metropolitan Police and National Criminal Intelligence Service were all examined as part of the review. Work on developing rating systems, future activities and funding arrangements were also considered.

  Findings show a steady increase in the number of reports of potentially illegal material received and processed by the IWF, mainly from outside the UK. Other key points include:
  there were 453 actionable reports of illegal material on the Internet from December 1996 until end of August 1998;
  the IWF has made an important contribution in tackling child pornography, which accounts for almost 90 per cent. of material that is assessed by the Foundation as illegal;
  the IWF has played a leading role in developing content rating and filtering systems for Internet content that is legal, but that may be harmful or offensive; and
  low public and industry awareness of the IWF (particularly among non-users of the Internet).

  The report puts forward a series of recommendations, including:
  raising awareness of the IWF through a publicity campaign, to include: printed and electronic material for current and new users; web pages with hot links to the IWF site; mailings and promotional material with CD Roms;
  further work on developing rating systems and filtering technologies and deciding how to tackle real time Internet chat services which could pose a danger to children;
  drawing in UK Internet Service Providers not tied into IWF;
  improving Police/IWF communication; for example, through developing working procedures and regular formal feedback;
  further work on potentially illegal adult pornography;
  better co-operation with watchdogs responsible for illegal material other than child pornography: for example, financial scams, copyright infringement and racism; and
  improved management structure and funding, including a higher representation of public bodies and charities on the Policy Board.

  The report demonstrates the IWF's success to date in dealing with complaints about child pornography on-line and in developing content rating and filtering systems which will enable people to filter out legal, but offensive material from their PCs. But the Report also shows that a good deal more work needs to be done. I welcome the report's recommendations for the further development of the IWF and encourage the Internet Industry and the IWF to consider them carefully as a basis for developing the IWF's work in future.
  208

  Mobile Telecommunications Networks
  Mr. Plaskitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made towards issuing licences under the Wireless Telegraphy Acts for operators of third generation mobile telecommunications networks. [70363]

  Mr. Wills
  Good progress has been made in consultation with industry in developing detailed plans for an auction of licences for third generation (3G) mobile telecommunications. The Government have been considering further how to provide benefits to the full range of customers from increased and sustainable competition in view of the opportunities presented by the Information Age.

  Key issues addressed in consultation have included:

  (i) means of helping potential new entrants to the mobile market in the UK compete on a fair basis;

  (ii) the opportunities provided by technical development affecting the proposed number and design of licences.

  In the light of these consultations the Government remain committed to their overall aim and objectives, which are those previously described to the House by my hon. Friend the present Financial Secretary on 18 May 1998, Official Report, column 233. In particular, the Government continue to attach great importance to the further development of competition in the sector, including promotion of sustainable market entry. To this end it is minded to ensure the availability for a period of roaming onto second generation networks by any new entrants to the mobile market. It is also initiating a further brief consultation on the specific proposal that five licences be offered, a larger one being reserved for a new entrant.

  The Government expect that, subject to market and other developments and to final decisions nearer the time, the auction will take place in the second part of the financial year 1999–2000.

  In carrying out its further work, the Department will continue fully to consult industry, and to publish all relevant information on the Radiocommunications Agency website at "www.open.gov.uk/radiocom/".

  Insolvency Service Disqualification Unit
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the income and expenditure of the Insolvency Service has been in each of the last three years attributable to the disqualification of directors; and what proportion of the costs were borne by(a) the Disqualification Unit of the Insolvency Service and (b) official receivers. [69641]

  Dr. Howells
  The income attributable to the disqualification of directors is the recovery of costs awarded against disqualified directors and is shown in the annual published accounts of The Insolvency Service as follows:

  Year

  £000

  1995–96

  479

  1996–97

  671

  1997–98

  1,456

  209
  The expenditure of The Insolvency Service attributable to the disqualification of directors is as follows:

  £000

  £000

  Disqualification Unit official receivers total

  1995–96

  10,185

  4,878

  15,063

  1996–97

  14,885

  4,218

  19,103

  1997–98

  17,727

  4,286

  22,013

  The Insolvency Service is funded through the DTI's Vote.

  Civil Service Pay Awards
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the average percentage increase in salaries of non-industrial civil servants, excluding members of the senior civil service, in his Department for 1998–99; and to what extent the pay awards were staged. [69509]

  Mr. Byers
  For the main DTI bargaining unit, the headline pay settlement was 2.55 per cent. This, taken together with additional funds from staff turnover, resulted in staff in post receiving performance related increases averaging 4 per cent. The increases were not staged.

  Maternity Leave
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what have been the costs of maternity leave to the United Kingdom in each year since 1994; and what proportion of these costs relate to employees in firms with workforces(a) up to 10, (b) up to 20, (c) up to 50, (d) up to 250 and (e) over 250. [69596]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The information requested is not available. However, the costs of providing maternity leave will differ according to the arrangements in individual companies, many of which provide more than statutory entitlements.

  We estimate that there are about 370,000 pregnant employees in any one year. The costs of meeting the statutory requirement to pay out Statutory Maternity Pay and Maternity Allowance to women who qualify for them are set out in the table. Employers are reimbursed 92 per cent. of the cost of Statutory Maternity Pay, with small employers reimbursed in full. The Department of Social Security pays out Maternity Allowance.

  £ million

  Tax year

  Statutory Maternity Pay expenditure

  Total Maternity Allowance expenditure

  Maternity Allowance expenditure for employees

  1994–95

  480

  27

  10

  1995–96

  524

  29

  12

  1996–97

  341

  33

  14

  Notes:

  1. Expenditure on Statutory Maternity Pay for any year may take into account adjustments made by the Government Actuary in respect of recoveries made by employers for earlier years.

  2. Figures are for Great Britain.

  3. Expenditure on Maternity Allowance for employees is estimated from a 1 per cent. sample of awards to Maternity Allowance.

  4. The latest year for which information is available for both Statutory Maternity Pay and Maternity Allowance is 1996–97.

  Source:

  National Insurance Fund Accounts
  210

CABINET OFFICE

  Civil Service Pay Awards
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what was the average percentage increase in salaries of non-industrial civil servants, excluding members of the senior civil service, in his Department for 1998–99; and to what extent the pay awards were staged. [69521]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  The headline pay settlement (excluding Agencies) was 3 per cent. on the paybill and, together with the additional funds from staff turnover, staff in post received performance-related increases averaging 4.5 per cent. The increases were not staged.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Private Military Companies
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the Government will publish the guidelines which were introduced following the Legg report for his officials when dealing with representatives of private military companies. [69354]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The guidelines introduced on 24 July were intended for internal use only pending preparation of more detailed guidance in consultation with other Government Departments.

  We intend to make the revised guidance available to Parliament and to companies or individuals who request it. The Foreign Affairs Committee will also receive a copy of the final version.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received on the operational involvement of British private military companies in the recent hostilities in(a) Sierra Leone, (b) the Democratic Republic of Congo and (c) Angola; and if he will set out the Government's definition of a private military company. [69391]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We have no confirmed reports of the involvement of British private military companies in combat operations in the recent hostilities in Sierra Leone, Angola or the Democratic Republic of Congo.

  There is currently no agreed Whitehall-wide definition of a private military company. The Government are drawing up guidance on private military companies. This will be made available to Parliament and to companies or individuals who request it.

  Trinidad and Tobago
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Trinidad Government about the cessation of the jurisdiction of the Privy Council over appeals from Trinidad and Tobago; and if he will make a statement. [69647]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given today by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, the Lord Chancellor's Department,Official Report, column 181.
  211
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made relating to prisoners on death row in Trinidad; and if he will make a statement. [69646]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We call on all countries to abolish the death penalty. Where the death penalty is used we urge that it should be used only in accordance with the State's international obligations and international standards. Together with our EU partners we have made a number of representations in Trinidad and Tobago on the cases of individual death row inmates.

  Last year, together with our EU partners, we also urged Trinidad and Tobago to revoke their decisions to withdraw from the American Convention on Human Rights and to denounce and re-accede to the first Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights with a reservation on death penalty issues.

  We have also held a number of bilateral discussions on the subject of the death penalty with members of the Trinidadian Government, including discussions at the Caribbean Forum in Nassau, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, and attended by members of the Trinidadian Government. My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Baroness Symons, also invited the Trinidad and Tobago High Commissioner to call on her in response to their individual cases where death warrants had been served. We are currently considering, with EU partners, what further representations to make to the Trinidad and Tobago Government.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 1 February 1999,Official Report, column 496, when the Bay of Gibraltar was first described as the Bay of Algeciras in a paper laid before Parliament. [69661]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 8 February 1999]: Usage of this geographical term is as described in my answer to the hon. Member for Sevenoaks of 1 February 1999, Official Report, column 496. This has no implications for our position on sovereignty over British waters around Gibraltar. It is not practical to conduct a survey of past usage, but I understand that both terms have been used in public documents in the past.

  Chechnya
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 26 January 1999,Official Report, column 212, for what reasons his Department received the Interfax report on the hostages in Chechnya over 24 hours after it was issued. [70239]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  This media report from Chechnya was accessed in the FCO at about 0900 GMT on 7 December, when the relevant FCO officials started work.

  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, (1) pursuant to his answer of 21 January 1999,Official Report, column 536, what action was taken by the Moscow Embassy on receipt of the Interfax report on the hostages in Chechnya; [70240]
  212
  (2) pursuant to his answer of 26 January 1999, Official Report, column 212, what action was taken by his Department on receipt of the Interfax report on the hostages in Chechnya.[170241]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  This Interfax report was inaccurate in several important respects, as current investigations into the murders of the hostages in Chechnya confirm. Our information at the time of the report supported this assessment. We had seen nothing then, or since, to indicate that the hostages had ever been held outside Chechnya. H.M. Embassy had been in recent close contact with the Russian authorities, who had undertaken to inform us if they obtained any detailed information on the location of the hostages. It was clear then, as now, that no Russian rescue operation was planned. The media report followed a long series of similarly unreliable reports from Chechnya seen by the FCO during the previous 18 months.

  As is usual in such cases, FCO officials circulated the report in Whitehall. A copy was also faxed to Granger Telecom.

  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 21 January 1999,Official Report, column 536, for what reason the Moscow Embassy received the Interfax report on the hostages in Chechnya 24 hours after it was issued. [70238]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The Interfax media report was issued at 12:56 GMT on Sunday 6 December. The Embassy received the report as soon as it was open, at about 06:00 GMT on Monday 7 December.

  Civil Service Pay Awards
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the average percentage increase in salaries of non-industrial civil servants, excluding members of the senior civil service, in his Department for 1998–99; and to what extent the pay awards were staged. [69516]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The headline pay settlement was 2 per cent. on the paybill and, together with additional funds from staff turnover, staff in post received performance-related increases averaging 4 per cent. The increases were not staged.

  General Pinochet
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for what reason the Metropolitan Police contacted his Department concerning their communications with the 5th Central Magistrate's Court in Madrid on 14 October. [70294]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The Metropolitan Police informed the FCO that they had received, via Interpol, a request from the 5th Central Magistrate's Court in Madrid to interview Senator Pinochet.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the (i) nature and (ii) frequency of the contacts made by the Metropolitan Police with his Department, between the time when the police were contacted on 14 October by the 5th Central Magistrate's Court in Madrid and the issuing of an arrest warrant for General Pinochet. [70288]
  213
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  This Department does not keep a comprehensive record of telephone calls made by officials. Until the inquiry concerning Senator Pinochet's entitlement to diplomatic immunity on the afternoon of 16 October, contacts between the Metropolitan Police and the FCO concerned only the request from the 5th Central Magistrate's Court in Madrid to interview Senator Pinochet, received on 14 October. All such contacts were by telephone.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the nature of his Department's investigations into the well-being or otherwise of General Pinochet following the incorrect news reports of the general's death in early October. [70286]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  On 9 October, our Embassy in Santiago sought clarification from the FCO about inquiries from the press in Chile about reports that Senator Pinochet had died in hospital in London. FCO officials contacted the Chilean Embassy who confirmed that the reports were untrue and that Senator Pinochet was recovering from surgery in a London hospital.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance was provided by his Department towards the travel arrangements for Senator Pinochet's planned return to Chile in late 1998. [70293]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave to the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Trend) on 25 January 1999,Official Report, column 149.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will deposit in the Library those sections of the four reports from the British Embassy in Madrid to his Department which deal with the investigations by Judge Garzon. [70291]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) on 2 February 1999,Official Report, columns 597–98.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the diplomatic protests from the Chilean authorities following the arrest of General Pinochet made reference to promises from Her Majesty's Government to assist in the travel arrangements for Senator Pinochet's return to Chile. [70292]
  214
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  No such promises were made. Following Senator Pinochet's arrest on 16 October, the FCO received two Notes from the Government of Chile (on 17 and 23 October). Neither of these refers to promises from HMG to assist in the Senator's travel arrangements.

  Malaysia (Human Rights)
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Malaysia since 2 October 1998 about human rights and the application of the rule of law. [70244]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We take all appropriate opportunities to raise such issues with the Malaysian authorities. Most recently, we have expressed concern about a number of aspects of the trial of former Deputy Prime Minister Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim and related developments. Our High Commission have attended the trial regularly and fully associate themselves with the statements issued by the European Union on 2 October and 27 November.

  Sudan
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received concerning the activities of Arab militias in Southern Sudan. [69037]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Military activity in Southern Sudan continues to be a cause for concern.

  We have not recently received any representations on this specific issue but we continue to urge all sides to work towards a peaceful settlement to the ongoing civil war.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current status of the arms embargo on Sudan; and if he will make a statement. [69043]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We fully support and comply with the EU arms embargo which was implemented in 1994. The embargo was introduced as a result of the ongoing civil war in Sudan, the lack of any movement towards a peaceful settlement to the conflict and the resulting humanitarian crisis.

  We expect the embargo to remain in place until the conflict has been resolved.

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

Message from the Queen
Lord Camoys: My Lords, I have the honour to present to your Lordships a message from Her Majesty the Queen signed by her own hand. The message is as follows:
"I have received with great satisfaction the loyal and dutiful expression of your thanks for the Speech with which I opened the present Session of Parliament".

Company Cars: Excessive Mileage
Lord Beaumont of Whitley Lord Beaumont of Whitley asked Her Majesty's Government:
What measures they plan to take to discourage excessive mileage by company cars.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, the Government's White Paper, A New Deal for Transport, contains a wide range of measures to encourage more sustainable car use, many of which should help to discourage unnecessary mileage by company car drivers. We especially want to promote green transport plans among large employers, aimed at reducing car use for travel to work and on business. The Government are also implementing, over five years, substantial increases in tax where employers provide company cars with free fuel for private motoring, in order to discourage its provision. And, as mentioned in the pre-Budget Statement in November, the Government are continuing to review how the company car taxation regime might be altered to send better environmental signals.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that moderately satisfactory Answer. Is he aware that those who drive company cars while on private business cover more than twice the mileage of other car users? Does he agree that the practice should be discouraged as a way of reducing both the amount of traffic on the roads and the amount of pollution? Is it not time that something rather more drastic was done about this, along the lines set out in the Labour Party manifesto?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as I said, a number of measures are being taken to reduce the use of company cars. It is true that the level of mileage is higher in total for company cars than it is for other comparable cars. The safety record is also less good
98
and, because they tend to be larger cars, there are consequences in terms of emissions. As regards the taxation regime and further policy, your Lordships will have to observe a little patience. There will be a Budget Statement later this year. I could not possibly pre-empt anything that might be said in that context.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, is the Minister aware of a report in today' s Guardian regarding the Boots company, which, as a major employer, is trying to encourage green transport plans for its employees by subsidising a local bus service? The Inland Revenue has indicated that that represents taxable benefits in kind and is to fine the company half a million pounds. How does that fit in with the Government's green transport policies?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am aware of the report. Indeed, the Guardian is catching up with a story that appeared in the rest of the press a week ago. The provision of transport in kind by employers has been taxable for many years. We are examining the perverse effects of that in order to give better signals in that area as well. However, at present the Inland Revenue is right. Under existing tax rules such provision is taxable.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, rather than mileage, is it not more important to curb polluting emissions? That is a matter for the Chancellor in his forthcoming Budget, as the noble Lord has indicated. However, should the Government now be commended for themselves restraining excessive mileage as a result of their apparent preference for helicopters?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the number of occasions on which the Government use helicopters is relatively small. Nevertheless, we are examining all areas where the means of transport used by government departments add to pollution and congestion with a view to cutting back on them and we are asking the public to take similar measures.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, I understand what the Minister has said regarding the Government's proposal to discourage excessive mileage in relation to company cars. But is it not the case that the greater the mileage driven in company cars, the more the tax liability of the individual is reduced? 'What do the Government intend to do about that?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the present situation is precisely that. There is a perverse incentive to increase the alleged business miles over the figure of 18, 000 a year. As my right honourable friend the Chancellor indicated, he is examining the situation to try to remove the perversity. More than that I cannot say today.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, why does the Minister's department sanction car allowances for

99
local councillors which recompense those who use large cars at a much higher rate than those who use small ones?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, a significant number of expense systems—in local government, national government and in the public and private sectors—need to be looked at from that point of view. We should all consider it.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the important principle raised in the Question is part of a much wider and greater problem? What action do the Government propose to take to try to induce the travelling public to economise on fuel and, more importantly, to use more fuel efficient vehicles?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Government have already taken a number of measures in relation to taxation which should encourage the use of smaller and more fuel-efficient cars and more energy-efficient forms of fuel. There may well be further measures which we could contemplate in that direction. But there is a limit to the extent to which we can achieve such things through traditional taxation. We also have proposals which would give local authorities the power to raise road user charges and workplace parking charges in order further to discourage the inappropriate use of the car.
Lord Islwyn: My Lords, will the Minister look at the other side of the coin in this argument? Let us suppose that a young executive is denied a company car and in turn buys an older model which is less environmentally friendly. Surely, that is hardly the best way to protect the environment. Likewise, he could buy a foreign car, but would that not be detrimental to the British economy and our balance of payments position?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I fear that in this globalised economy a number of business executives already drive what could, in one term or another, be called foreign cars. There is a possible indirect effect from using older, less fuel-efficient cars, but the reality is that a company car, in terms of both business and private use, tends to be used more intensively, tends to be larger and therefore tends to create greater emissions than a private car. It is not a straightforward issue but nevertheless the overall picture is that there is excessive use of and therefore pollution by company cars.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the noble Lord said that local government arrangements need attending to. Do the Government intend telling local government what to do, or allowing them to do it for themselves?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, expense systems are a matter for individual local authorities. In general, guidance to local authorities is that they should introduce more environmentally friendly systems of
100
transport, both in terms of their own transportation systems and the way in which they compensate their workforce.

EU Enlargement: Progress
2.46 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire Lord Wallace of Saltaire asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they anticipate that the first group of applicant states from central and eastern Europe will become full members of the European Union.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, successful enlargement of the European Union remains a central objective for the United Kingdom. So I am pleased to be able to confirm that the accession negotiations are on track. But it would be premature to try to predict now when the first accessions might take place. The overriding priority is for the candidates and the EU to concentrate on our mutual preparations for enlargement. If any timetable were to be set at all, it could only be done rather later in the process.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. She recognises that it is now seven years since the first of the applicants applied to join. However, if it is another seven years before they eventually join, disillusion among their publics, already evident in Poland, risks some of the underlying strategic objectives of British and other West European foreign policy. That policy is to ensure that we establish security, democracy and prosperity across central and eastern Europe. Can the British Government do more to ensure that negotiations proceed with greater speed than so far?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am sure we all hope that it will not be a further seven years. I believe that the British Government got the accession negotiations with Cyprus, Hungary, Poland, Estonia, the Czech Republic and Slovenia off to a good start on 31st March last year. The initial phase of negotiations—that is the screening of the acquis—is going well. Substantive negotiations with the countries I have just mentioned on the first seven chapters of the acquis began on 10th November. We support the German presidency's aim of opening negotiations on the next eight chapters and bringing the total of 15 to some conclusion by the end of that presidency at the Cologne Council in June. So 15 of the 31 chapters will, we hope, be dealt with during that period. I believe that that is reasonably good progress.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether the Government have carried out any objective research as to whether it is in the interests of the central and eastern European countries to have full membership of the EU? For example, have they

101
examined the recent publication The Poisoned Chalice? If so, can they say why they disagree with it, if indeed they do?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I believe that it is for the central European states themselves to judge what is in their interests. They have so judged, some as far back as seven years ago. They have been pursuing their desire to join the European Union. That is true not only of the countries to which I referred in my Answer to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace. It applies also to Bulgaria, Romania, Latvia, Lithuania and Slovakia, which are now part of the enlargement process. Preparation for their membership continues. I believe that those countries, like ourselves, have assessed that enlargement will lead to greater stability, freedom and democracy throughout Europe and to the creation of the largest single market for trade and investment in the world.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is my noble friend satisfied that the interests of the applicant countries are better served by their own counsel on the question of membership of the EU rather than by the views of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson? Can my noble friend comment on whether the present budgetary provision based on a percentage of GDP is likely to be sufficient to accommodate the interests of the applicant members, even though we hope that the common agricultural policy and expenditure thereon will be severely limited?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I had hoped that what I said would be seen to accord with the remarks of my noble friend, although perhaps I said it rather more politely. It is for these countries to decide for themselves. In December the Vienna European Council welcomed progress made on the "pre-ins"—the countries not involved in active negotiations at the moment—but agreed with the Commission's recommendation that the Union was not yet able to begin substantive negotiations with those countries. There will be a review at the end of 1999. As to the other issues raised by my noble friend, we are making progress and hope to have further reports by the end of March.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, does the Minister agree that in respect of Latvia, with under 5 per cent. inflation, 95 per cent. of the privatisation programme completed, and 40, 000 of the ethnic minorities undergoing voluntary language training, it is high time for us to push for that country to start negotiations? Will the Minister suggest to her colleague in another place, the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, that when he next speaks to the Prime Minister of the Russian Federation, Mr. Primakov, he extracts from him an assurance that the Russian Federation will cease to exert pressure on Latvia and that if he fails to receive such an assurance he will put down the receiver?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I hardly believe that I am in a position to judge whether the Secretary of State would regard such action as
102
appropriate. Many people have considerable sympathy with the points that the noble Earl makes about Latvia. When the matter was last examined it was agreed and confirmed by the Vienna European Council that Latvia had not quite reached the stage of development to enable it to begin substantive negotiations. But the country is making progress and the position will be reviewed again at the end of this year.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, given that the timing of the accession of central and eastern European applicants greatly depends on the readiness of the EU institutions, can the Minister inform the House what steps the Government and their European partners have taken to bring about institutional reform?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, a great deal is happening on institutional reform. We are committed to looking at all of these issues. The three main tranches of such reform are the common agricultural policy, the structural and cohesion funds and the stabilisation of expenditure. Those matters are being looked at under the auspices of Agenda 2000. We hope to have reports by the end of March, which is only weeks away, with final regulations being adopted before the European Parliament elections in June. I believe that we are making good progress on all three fronts.

Lomé Convention
2.54 p.m.
Lord Judd Lord Judd asked Her Majesty's Government:
What issues have become the most significant in the current renegotiation of the Lomé Agreement between the European Union and the ACP states; and what are their priority objectives for the outcome of those negotiations.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the renegotiation of the Lomé Convention began in Brussels on 30th September 1998 and must be completed by February 2000. It remains, therefore, at a preliminary stage with all parties still exploring each others' positions. The European Union's priority objectives are poverty eradication and the integration of the ACP states into the world economy. Issues that are likely to prove significant include the future trade arrangements provided by the convention and ways in which European Community development co-operation can be made more effective.
Lord Judd: My Lords, while I thank my noble friend for her reply, does she agree that if poverty eradication is an objective it is, to say the least, disappointing that the Commission's Agenda 2000 and the financial perspectives for the years 2000 to 2006, far from targeting the poorest countries of the world, target middle income countries? Will this issue be addressed n the negotiations and the needs of Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, for example, be reasserted? Further, can my noble friend assure the House that in these negotiations the Commission's preoccupation with free trade

103
agreements will be challenged? As the Commission's own evidence indicates that these are usually unfeasible and not very helpful, does not the real challenge remain to enable the poorest countries of the world to begin participating in a meaningful way in the world economy?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I believe that the questions raised by Agenda 2000 are largely matters of internal reform. My noble friend is concerned about the position of the European Union in regard to aid. I remind my noble friend that the European Union wants to rationalise and simplify aid instruments in order more effectively to encourage economic growth and to reduce the dependency culture. It is enormously important that there is sustainable development in the programme that we put forward and that the ACP countries can expect more advanced notice of the resources that they will receive to help them in turn with forward planning. My noble friend is worried about the free trade areas. The free trade areas will be introduced after a roll-over period of five years under the World Trade Organisation waiver. But I stress to my noble friend that impact assessment reports on the free trade areas are currently being studied by the European Union.
Baroness Young: My Lords, while I welcome the observations of the Minister about trade in the post-Lomé negotiations, can she enlarge on what role she sees private enterprise playing in this development?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the European Union position in the Lomé discussions is concerned with industrial development and ways in which ACP countries' trade can be encouraged. The questions involve not only industrial development but structural reform programmes. There is also concentration upon the contribution that the private sector can make to development in those countries. Based on my own experience, I believe that Her Majesty's Government have made a very great effort in regard to private sector investment in the countries of the Caribbean.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is it not a fact that the Secretary of State for International Development has raised very serious doubts about whether the British aid contribution, a third of which is administered by the European Union, is properly directed? Does my noble friend agree that much of that money goes to relatively rich countries while poorer countries, particularly those in Africa, do not get the support that they need and deserve if we are to bring them properly into the world community?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, it is concerns such as those voiced by my noble friend and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development that have led the European Union to support the target of halving the proportion of people who live in extreme poverty by the year 2015.
104
European Development Fund projects have a very important part to play in achieving that aim. My noble friend's point is well taken, not only by my right honourable friend, who has managed to persuade our European partners that they should also be looking at this question, as they are.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, what part is played in the negotiations by the development needs of the Caribbean banana producers?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we have been discussing for the past 18 months or so, at virtually every level of government, the needs of the Caribbean banana producers. As we know, the needs of those banana producers have taken something of a blow in recent weeks. I am glad to report that since we last discussed the issue in your Lordships' House the WTO agreed on 29th January that we shall have a further month of negotiations. It is an enormously important issue. There was some consensus in your Lordships' House that if the banana producing countries of the Caribbean are not allowed to continue with that legitimate trade, the temptation to diversify into some forms of illegitimate trade may become very great.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I agree totally with the Minister. Given the close link between CAP reform and trade proposals for the new convention, what assessment have the Government made of the impact of such reform on the economies of the ACP states? What steps are they taking to ensure that the European Union faces the consequences of its agricultural policy for the ACPs?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, those are questions which were dealt with when drawing up the position of the European Union for the Lomé discussions. They were considered before the negotiating mandate was arrived at. The negotiating mandate has now been published and the negotiations are going forward. So those points were taken into consideration in getting the European position together before the negotiations with the Lomé countries began towards the end of last year.

Regional Development Agencies: Boundaries
3.1 p.m.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In so doing, I declare an interest as President of the Southern Tourist Board.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they regard it as desirable for the boundaries of the new regional development areas to coincide with those of the regional tourist boards.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the boundaries of the regional development agencies, which

105
were approved by Parliament in the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998, match those of the Government Offices for the Regions. It would be sensible for the boundaries of the regional tourist boards to be aligned with those of the RDAs. It is for the regional tourist boards themselves to determine their own regions as they are not government bodies.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that helpful reply. First, in view of the significance of tourism for the creation of employment, will the Government ensure that the needs and potential of tourism are fully recognised by the RDAs, and that those interests are represented on their boards? At present, they are conspicuously absent.
Secondly, how will the Government ensure that important tourist attractions and destinations are not disadvantaged when the RDA boundaries within which they are located exclude the area in which they are best marketed for tourism? I refer, for instance, to Bournemouth which would like to stay in the south and not be in the south-west.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I cannot accept that tourism is not represented on regional development agency boards. Tourism is not represented on all the boards but there is representation where it is an important part of the regional economy. If there are examples where tourism should be more widely represented, I should be glad to hear of them.
It is for the regional tourist boards to determine their own regions. In Cumbria, for example, a separate tourist board would rather be linked with the north-east than with the north-west. It would be sensible for it to maintain links with both boards which might have common interests with it.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, the Government assured this House that the boundaries of the RDAs were not to be "fixed in stone for all time". Will the Minister assure the House that the existing administrative regional boundaries will not be used as a fait accompli to prevent the boundaries for any future English development agencies being fixed by the Boundary Commission after full and proper consultation with the public?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am not sure that I understand the noble Baroness's reference to "English development agencies".
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I referred to English regional agencies.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not understand that reference.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, clearly I should have read my notes. However, one is always frightened because Members yell "Reading, reading!". I refer to English regional assemblies.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government have always resisted blandishments from
106
the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Front Benches to anticipate what the boundaries of democratically elected English regional assemblies might be. We have resisted the temptation to assume that they would be the same as those of the regional development agencies because clearly it is of enormous democratic importance that regions in this country should determine their own boundaries by agreement.
Lord Newby: My Lords, the Minister seems to imply that the Government support the introduction of regional assemblies in the English regions outside London. If that is so, can the Minister give some indication of when we may see some progress, if only to give the democratic support which the RDAs will need in order to maximise the economic potential of the English regions?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, government policy has not changed since we stated in our manifesto that the prerequisites for democratic regional assemblies in England would be the wishes of the local authorities and the wishes of the people in the region. That position has not changed. The justification for regional development agencies stands on its own legs in the sense that those are business creation economic regeneration organisations designed for a country where only London is a region with GDP per head above the European average.

Health Bill [H.L.]]
3.6 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill provisions make a number of important and wide-ranging changes to improve health and the treatment and care provided to patients on the National Health Service.
The origins of the Bill are the Government's White Papers in England, Scotland and Wales, published over a year ago now, to rebuild a modern and dependable National Health Service, based on the fundamental and historic principle that if you are ill or injured there will be a National Health Service there to help, and that access to it will be based on need and need alone—not on one's ability to pay, who one's GP happens to be, or where one lives.
Before I go into the detail of the Bill, it may be appropriate to record now the sorrow that I am sure is shared throughout the House at the news of the death today of the noble Baroness, Lady Robson. She made a great contribution to healthcare in this country and to debates on healthcare in this House both from the Back and Front Benches of the Liberal Democrats. I feel sure that she would have been particularly interested in the debate today with its aspects of professional

107
self-regulation, given her contribution to the professional performance legislation in 1995. I am sure we shall all miss her.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the White Papers on which the Bill is founded received widespread support. That is because they go with the grain of what many in the NHS had been trying to do despite the obstacles presented to co-operative working by the internal market. In our proposals now we are discarding the things that failed and building on the things that worked, such as the increasingly important role of primary care, and we have backed these proposals with the biggest cash injection the NHS has seen in 50 years.
Good early progress has been made in implementation. A great deal has already been done without the need for primary legislation. And, as we promised, we have developed our proposals through dialogue with the NHS, with users, carers, professional bodies and others. This dialogue and discussion have helped shaped the Bill now before the House.
Before running through the detail of the provisions, I should like to highlight three critically important White Paper themes which the Health Bill takes forward: first, that there has to be a new and systematic approach to improving the quality of services in the NHS; secondly, that the NHS needs to work together and in partnership with local government, with voluntary bodies and within the community—it is everyone's business to improve health and healthcare; and, thirdly, that responsibility should be devolved to local clinicians to give them a stronger role than ever before in shaping services, getting the best out of NHS resources and promoting the health of their local communities.
Your Lordships will have seen the Explanatory Notes to the Bill, and rather than replicate these, I shall aim to give some detail of the policy intentions behind the provisions. The debate today will, I suspect, focus on the provisions in Part I which will apply to both England and Wales. Later this year, broad responsibility for the NHS in Wales will transfer to the National Assembly. Devolution provides a tremendous opportunity for the NHS in Wales to be shaped so as best to meet the needs of the people of Wales.
Part II of the Bill contains provisions which will apply only to Scotland. I am pleased to see that several noble Lords with Scottish interests will be speaking later today. I am equally delighted to see that my noble friend Lord Macdonald of Tradeston is on the Front Bench and will listen, as I shall, with particular interest to their contributions.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, before the Minister leaves that point, perhaps I may ask why Part II is in the Bill at all. Before the Bill becomes law, in 88 days a Scottish Parliament will be elected. Two months later it will be entirely responsible for health.
108
Surely, the right and proper course would have been to leave these important matters to be discussed and decided by the Scottish Parliament later this year.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I believe that the right and proper course was to ensure that progress on the White Paper in Scotland was not impeded by further delay. It was well received and there is a desire both north and south of the Border to take forward the important issues of quality and professional self-regulation, an issue which is reserved for the UK Parliament. Progress can then he made in Scotland as well as in England and Wales.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. Is not the position that the new acute and primary care trusts in Scotland come into operation on 1st April? The Government need legislation to abolish the existing trusts and to set up the new trusts, otherwise they would be subject to legal challenge. I am absolutely astonished that a former Conservative Health Minister does not even begin to understand that point of view.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, my noble friend has detailed knowledge and experience of the work of the health service in Scotland. Perhaps I may return to the provisions which will apply only to Scotland. Many of them are similar to Part I of the Bill applying to England and Wales, but there are also differences in the proposals for primary care and the quality agenda is being tackled differently. The distinctive approach in Scotland recognises the different history and starting points north and south of the Border while maintaining the coherence of a National Health Service across the United Kingdom, which I am sure noble Lords in all parts of the House will wish to see preserved.
I turn to the detail of primary care and deal first with fundholding. Primary care groups and trusts build on the work of multifunds, GP commissioning groups, individual fundholders and total purchasing pilots. They develop the potential of primary care commissioning, but without the disadvantages of individual fundholding which has been a bureaucratic and costly system, has allowed service development to take place in a fragmented way, has artificially separated responsibility for emergency and elective care, and has given advantage to some patients at the expense of others.
We are therefore ending standard and community fundholding on 31st March this year, through regulations which were laid yesterday. A much reduced residual scheme will then operate until Sections 14 to 17 of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 are repealed at the earliest opportunity after Royal Assent by Clauses I and 36 of the Bill.
I turn to the new arrangements. Primary care groups and local health groups in Wales will be responsible for improving the health of their local communities, commissioning an increasing range of services, including emergency as well as elective care, and developing high quality primary care services. They will cut bureaucracy, and for the first time in the history of the NHS the primary care professionals who do the

109
majority of prescribing, referring and treating will come together to ensure the best use of resources to benefit patients.
Primary care trusts take the primary care group model further. They will be freestanding statutory bodies, with additional freedoms and responsibilities. They will be able to employ staff and own property and they will have rights and liabilities. They may also become providers of healthcare, a function currently performed by NHS trusts, allowing the integration of primary and community health services in a way that has never before been possible.
These freedoms will give local clinicians opportunities to innovate and transform services, extending choice and convenience for patients, for example, through more use of convenient day surgery in health centres close to home; joined up healthcare offering treatment, advice, physiotherapy and chiropody all on the same site; and wider health partnerships with GPs teaming up with dentists, opticians and pharmacists to provide a complete package of health services from one complex.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, my noble friend has referred to chiropody. As she knows, the Society of Chiropodists and Podiatrists is concerned that the Bill lacks specific mention of protection of titles and any definition of the future regulatory regime. The society believes clarification on both to be necessary if the Government are to achieve their aim of professional self-regulation. What can she say to reassure them?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I know of my noble friend's association and interest with the Society of Chiropodists. When I come to the subject of professional self-regulation, I shall pick up some of the points that he has made, which I know are of concern. I hope that those concerns can be allayed.
Many primary care groups are keen to take the steps to trust status. A large number have already expressed interest, and we hope to establish the first PCTs by April 2000. The Bill will enable us to meet that demand.
I was surprised to see the reasoned amendment tabled yesterday by the noble Earl, Lord Howe. We have approached the drafting of these provisions with two simple goals: first, to allow flexibility for primary care trusts to evolve in the light of experience; and, secondly, to integrate primary care trusts firmly within the existing system of NHS law. Primary care trusts will receive most of their functions from health authorities. These functions are mainly provided under Part I of the 1977 Act. This has a very flexible structure. The functions for health authorities are currently set up in secondary legislation. We are simply mirroring that approach. If the noble Earl looks back to his own Government's 1990 Act he will see that the functions of the NHS trusts were set out in a way similar to the approach we are taking for primary care trusts in Clause 4 and in a lengthy Schedule 1.
Obviously, the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee will consider our approach and we shall look carefully at its comments and recommendations.
110
However, I am confident that the Bill sets out a practical and wholly appropriate legislative framework for taking on this task.
I turn to raising the standards of quality in NHS care, which are at the heart of the Government's drive to modernise the NHS. All patients who are treated on the NHS want to know that they can rely on receiving high quality, safe, and effective care when they need it. And, overwhelmingly, they do receive it. We recognise that there is much good practice to build on. But there have also been some serious lapses, and when they have occurred they have harmed individual patients and dented public confidence. New and systematic action is needed to raise standards and ensure that high quality care is provided consistently.
In July we set out a package of clear and coherent proposals in the consultation document A First Class Service, and these have been warmly supported. Our quality programme comprises three strands: setting the national framework; ensuring systematic local delivery; and monitoring to ensure that the standards of quality we all want are being met. We are making real headway in implementing these. In parallel with the Bill we have laid regulations to set up the national institute for clinical excellence as a special health authority, and our first national service frameworks will be published this spring.
The Health Bill contains a number of key provisions in this area. Clauses 14 to 17 and Schedule 2 will establish a new external body, the commission for health improvement, to provide independent expertise to strengthen NHS action to assure and improve quality and tackle local service problems. The commission will be an independent England and Wales NDPB, at arms' length from but accountable to the Secretary of State in England and the Assembly in Wales. There are separate arrangements in Scotland which are also designed to help monitor and ensure quality standards.
The commission will support the development of clinical governance in a way that sustains and improves the quality of services, and ensures that fewer problems occur in future. Where local efforts are unable to make a difference in tackling serious problems, the commission will provide the NHS with access to the skills and expertise needed for rapid action to put those right.
One of the areas of the Bill which I am certain will be of particular interest in your Lordships' House and indeed to which reference was made in our debate last Wednesday on the Stale of the National Health Service is the subject of professional self-regulation—an issue raised by my noble friend Lord Morris of Manchester.
We have been exploring with the professions the regulatory bodies and others how best to modernise and strengthen the existing systems of professional. self-regulation to ensure that they are more open, responsive and publicly accountable. Patients need the assurance that the people to whom they are entrusting their care have been properly trained and continue to maintain high standards. But recent events have dented public confidence. The professions recognised and are responding to this, and have made a wide range of proposals to update their legislation.

111
The systems of self-regulation are set out in a number of separate Acts. These make provision which, with very few exceptions, may be changed only by means of primary legislation. The Government are constantly being asked by the professions to make such changes. But there is little prospect in the congested parliamentary timetable to find time to make these changes if a new Bill is required each time. To break the logjam we have concluded that we should take a power, set out in Clause 47 and Schedule 3, to enable existing regulatory systems to be modified and new professions regulated by order.
The Government have discussed the detail of the measures with the professions, and continues to do so. We have been driven by three main considerations. First, it is vital that we find a way not only of tackling the backlog of amendments to a number of Acts, but also a way of making substantial changes to meet the clearly articulated aspirations of the Professions Allied to Medicine; and also a number of professions that are currently unregulated by statute.
Perhaps I can say to my noble friend Lord Morris of Manchester that the question of title, which is one of the matters that is important to the professions, is covered in paragraph 1 (d) of Schedule 3 and there is a clearly laid out framework on the face of the Bill which provides safeguards as to what the power can and cannot be used for. Perhaps I can come to that in a moment.
I turn now to nurses, midwives and health visitors. I know that for them one of the frustrations in approaching these issues has been that the Government have been in the process of considering the review of the Act governing their self-regulation. I am pleased to announce today the publication of the independent review of the Nurse, Midwives and Health Visitors Act, which recommends new legislation to replace the current arrangements. The new arrangements will be designed to acknowledge and strengthen the accountability of practitioners; strengthen the involvement of users and employers in the processes; and put public protection explicitly at the heart of regulation.
The report recommends, and we accept, that the current dual regulatory structure of a council and four national boards be replaced with a new UK-wide body, with ultimate responsibility for regulating the professions, but national arrangements may be made in respect of some functions previously carried out by the boards. The Government have, however, decided not to accept recommendations relating to health visitors, who will continue to be a separate profession. We shall be bringing forward an amendment to the Bill to repeal the current Act once the new arrangements are in place. A circular giving a more detailed response, and inviting views, will be issued later this week.
The second consideration in framing the order-making power is that we must also be clear what the power can and cannot be used for. We have sought to give categorical assurances to the regulatory bodies on a number of points on the face of the Bill. The schedule leaves no doubt that all matters that are central to self-regulation must remain with professional
112
bodies—keeping the professional register, setting standards of eduction for entry into the profession, provision of guidance on standards of professional conduct and performance and fitness to practice procedures.
Thirdly, the power must clearly be subject to appropriate levels of parliamentary scrutiny through procedural safeguards, and we have specified on the face of the Bill requirements for consultation, publication of draft orders three months before they are laid, and affirmative procedure.
It is very much the Government's hope that we can work constructively and successfully in partnership with the professions on this issue. This power is not about dismantling self-regulation. We share the common aspiration to strengthen, not weaken, that self-regulation.
The third key strand of the Bill is partnership. Services need to be built around the needs of the people who use them, not the organisations which provide them. Too often the structural boundaries between services have been a major obstacle to getting the right services to the right people. In the discussion document, Partnership in Action, we set out our plans to make partnership a reality by updating existing systems, removing existing barriers and introducing new incentives for joint working. I am pleased to say that the warmth with which those proposals were received clearly shows that our plans go with the grain of what both the NHS and local authorities are seeking to achieve.
Clauses 19 to 25 contain a package of measures to put partnership working central stage. Clauses 19 and 20 provide updated and extended duties of co-operation covering all NHS bodies and their local government partners. These are backed by practical measures. Health improvement programmes will bring together all the local players to improve health and health services, and tackle inequalities. The Bill gives them statutory underpinning in Clause 21. It also provides in Clause 6 for new incentives for those health authorities which, with their local health partners, make greatest progress on this.
The Bill takes new powers to break down barriers, not just between health and social services, but between the NHS and wider local government, through greater flexibility over the transfer of funds and over operational arrangements such as pooled budgets, where this will best improve health. The Bill sets clear expectations for partnership working and offers local organisations and staff new ways to make this a reality, with scope to shape local arrangements round the needs of patients and communities.
These clauses set out a framework within which all local organizations—including, for instance, voluntary and patient organisations within the context of health improvement programmes—can work together to improve the health of local people. The new provisions will provide space for health services and local authorities to think more inventively; to develop innovative solutions to long-standing problems; and to use local resources in new and imaginative ways. They

113
complement those in the Local Government Bill which will introduce the duty of best value for local authorities and enable the Government to remove obstacles to joint working.
Before I conclude I should outline a number of other important provisions in the Bill relating to NHS trusts, high security psychiatric services, the Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme and fraud. Turning first to NHS trusts. Clauses 8 to 12 and 43 to 45 modernise the framework within which NHS trusts operate. The Bill leaves in place the devolved responsibility that trusts need to enable them. and their staff to get the most out of NHS resources for their patients. But it sets this firmly within the context of trusts' role within the wider national health service.
Clauses 10 to 12 and 43 to 45 simplify the trust financial regime to reflect better the status of trusts as public sector organisations, rather than trying to imitate a commercial business structure. Aficionados of the NHS trust financial regime can find full details in the Explanatory Notes. Clauses 8 and 37 update the arrangements for trust establishment orders to give them greater flexibility when dealing with their estate.
Clause 34 fulfils our commitment in Modernising Mental Health Services to enable high security special hospitals to be constituted as NHS trusts, to promote better integration of secure provision.
I turn now to pharmaceuticals. We are committed to renegotiating the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme and are currently conducting negotiations with representatives of the industry. We consider that a voluntary scheme which is clear and fair is the best way of working, and this view is shared by the industry. But fairness has to mean that everyone complies with the agreement and companies in the same situation are treated in the same way.
Unfortunately, this is not thought to be the case with the current agreement. One major company has refused to submit financial returns since 1990 and resisted all approaches to comply. Over the past year 24 companies have increased product prices without the department's agreement, at an estimated cost to the NHS of £30 million. That is at the expense of other NHS treatment and care.
If action is not taken to secure compliance, there is a risk that the scale of losses will increase. It is the Government's duty to ensure that the NHS gets a fair deal. It also helps the pharmaceutical industry if everyone knows that there is a clear, fair and universally applied arrangement. In the long run, it makes it possible for the Government to run such matters with a much lighter touch.
The powers in Clauses 26 to 31 will enable the Government to ensure compliance with aspects of a new agreement which would be the result of full discussion with the industry. Perhaps I may use medical terminology here and say that we are talking about informed consent. So they will not significantly affect those companies committed to complying with the agreement, but they. will secure compliance from any other companies. In the ongoing negotiations we are committed to finding a fair deal for the NHS and a fair
114
deal for the pharmaceutical industry. We believe that it is possible to put in a place a system which delivers these objectives, and which ensures that this country continues to be in the forefront of research and development in this area.
Also included in the Bill are new powers to tackle fraud against the NHS by patients and family health service practitioners, to cut down exploitation by a small minority at the expense of the great majority of honest NHS patients and practitioners. We need to ensure that NHS resources are spent where they should be, on patient care. The new powers will help underpin the strategy set out in Countering Fraud in the NHS, published in December 1998.
This is an immensely important Bill. It will deliver the far-reaching changes that are necessary to underpin the development of the health service into the next century. I am sure that we shall have detailed discussions on its provisions in your Lordships' House. I look forward to them. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Hayman.)
3.33 p.m.
Earl Howe Earl Howe rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion, That the Bill be now read a second time, at end to insert "but regrets that neither the definition of a Primary Care Trust nor any adequate provisions relating to the functions, powers, responsibilities and structure of such are contained in the Bill; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to amend the Bill accordingly."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for introducing the Bill with her usual clarity. We have before us a very radical Bill. It is a Bill that must surely qualify as the flagship of the Government's health reforms in the current Parliament. To the regret of all on these Benches, it is a Bill that seeks to undo much of the good resulting from the work of the previous administration. But that is not the only reason why we believe that this is a deeply flawed Bill. It is presented by the Minister as heralding bold, new initiatives designed to improve the quality of healthcare across the board, to eliminate unfairness and to pare down NHS bureaucracy. I wish it were that straightforward.
In my remarks today and at subsequent stages of the Bill, I shall seek to show it up in its true colours, as a measure that, far from providing a platform for improvement, will instead be a recipe for inflexibility, inefficiency, lack of choice and, perhaps above all, tight central control of our wealth service by politicians in Westminster.
The previous Conservative government introduced GP fundholding. This Government now want to abolish it. Why? The benefits and success of the fundholding system have been recognised by anyone who has ever had anything to do with it. Fundholding has given GPs greater financial and clinical autonomy and, in the process, enabled them to deliver a better standard of care to patients. Efficiency savings have been ploughed back

115
into shorter waiting times, new specialist services, surgical procedures developed within the practice and improved surgeries and waiting rooms. It is not only Conservatives and fundholders who recognise that; even the Government's White Paper acknowledged that fundholding has enabled doctors to,
"sharpen the responsiveness of hospital services and extend the range of services available in their own surgeries".
The British Medical Association, the Audit Commission and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development have expressed similar opinions. The philosophy is simple: the greater the autonomy of a GP, the better the patient care; and the closer to patients that decisions are taken, the more effectively are GPs accountable to them.
At present about 60 per cent. of patients in the country are looked after by a fundholding practice, leaving 40 per cent. who are not. So, the system has to go. That is a funny sort of logic. It is a logic which should sound a warning bell in all our minds of something that the Labour Party all too often finds appealing: the idea that we should aspire to a levelling down of standards and not a levelling up.
What are we getting in place of fundholding? Primary care groups and, under the Bill, primary care trusts—PCGs and PCTs—representing the most fundamental upheaval in the family doctor service since the formation of the NHS. This is a point to note because it is precisely the reverse of what the Prime Minister promised us. In June 1996 the then Leader of the Opposition pledged to health service managers that,
"there would be no great upheavals".
Those were his words.
But these reforms are, indeed, an upheaval. One manifestation of that is that they will coerce every single general practitioner into a primary care group. The Government have argued that there is no coercion and that PCGs will simply "cover" GPs rather in the manner of a health authority. How can that be a proper description of reality when doctors will have no choice as to whether they are part of a PCG and no choice as to whether and when they give up their budgets and their ability to commission healthcare services?
However, coercion is not the only problem. Of equal seriousness, contrary to all the Government's much vaunted aspirations, are the bureaucracy and inefficiency that look set to be an integral part of the new structure. The PCG/PCT structure is likely to be very costly to administer. Initial estimates vary from £150 million to over £300 million per year, without accounting for start-up costs. That is considerably more than the cost of fundholding and yet the Government have budgeted for savings. Indeed, they have earmarked the money for other purposes.
It is almost a dead certainty that any system that attempts to control the commissioning and budgetary functions of every single GP and involves the co-ordination of a multitude of different bodies and agencies will, by its very nature, be bureaucratic. However, even more disappointing is the prospect of complicated new mechanisms being built into the
116
commissioning process that are bound to result in a health service that is actually less responsive to patient demand, not more.
Let us consider referrals, for example. Long-term service agreements with hospital trusts will dictate where referrals are to go. No longer will a GP be able to shop around for a hospital where waiting times are shorter or care is better. Let us suppose that a hospital consistently underperforms. If a PCT wants to place a new contract elsewhere, it will have to go through all manner of lengthy negotiation procedures with the trust and the health authority. No longer will a hospital feel that it has to be on its mettle at all times in case another hospital captures its business.
What of the GP's budget? There will be no incentive to generate savings at practice level because any efficiency gains will simply be swallowed up by less efficient practices in the same group. What about the creation of new services? The flexibility to create and organise them at local level will not lie with the GP or his practice as it can at the moment. Policies and decision-making will lie with the board of the PCG.
The Government want and expect many PCGs to move towards trust status but the ease with which they will be able to do so may ironically be diminished by their inability to operate at the levels of efficiency that many doctors will wish to attain. The result could be exactly the opposite of what the Government intend.
All that is in the supposed interest of fairness. But when we look at how PCGs are to be organised, we find another irony. We find four possible grades of PCG. Some will be without much autonomy and provide fewer services, while others will have more autonomy and provide more services. It is difficult to take the Government's criticism of two-tier care seriously when what they are creating is a structure that will by its very essence deliver four possible tiers of care, with the quality of that care determined by postcode.
These major reforms have been in gestation for 21 months. The White Paper "The New NHS" appeared more than one year ago. The flagship of the Government's programme of reform in primary care is the creation of the primary care trust, and intended to occupy the highest tier of the ladder in its ability to provide and commission health services right across primary and secondary care and into the community health sector.
Those trusts will control budgets of £60 million or more and involve doctors, nurses, hospitals, local authorities, voluntary groups and many others in the delivery of services. Throughout the Bill, references to primary care trusts abound—not least in the clauses dealing with the duty of quality, the duty of partnership and the commission for health improvement. Yet when we look for a definition of a primary care trust, we find nothing. There is no definition of this new, all-seeing, all-singing, all-dancing creature. The Government have ducked it. The whole bothersome task of devising a definition has been shunted to statutory instruments. The Minister prayed in aid the need for flexibility and cited precedent. For a measure this important, those are not satisfactory arguments. They seem more like excuses for sloppy legislation.
It goes further. We looked in the Bill for an indication of trust responsibilities and board membership—the powers and responsibilities of GPs and other professionals in the management of primary care trusts. We looked for a few critical details about the structure of those bodies. We looked in vain. That information is absent from the Bill. No proper forethought can be given by anybody, least of all your Lordships, to what primary care trusts will mean in practice without an appreciation of these matters. Nor, without some detail in the Bill, can there be confidence about the nature of the proposals. We are entitled to that confidence.
Those are the considerations that underlie the reasoned amendment in my name. Our objections to the Bill spread much wider than the proposals for PCGs and trusts. In last week's debate of my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes, I spoke about interference from the Government in clinical decision-making through their attempts to manage waiting lists and through the clinical guidance issued by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. For all the Government's high-minded objectives on clinical governance, the unspoken subtext is a desire to introduce covert mechanisms that could seriously undermine the clinical autonomy of GPs and clinicians.
Two key parts of those mechanisms are NICE and the commission for health improvement. They should be looked at together. There is a widely shared concern that NICE' s remit will focus as much on controlling expenditure as on clinical excellence. We all understand the desirability of controlling expenditure but that cannot and should not be achieved at the expense of clinical freedom or quality of care.
We all understand the need for responsible clinical audit but CHIMP's. powers of intervention combined with the first cash-limited drugs budget in the history of our health service will exert real pressure on GPs and clinicians to take rationing decisions that they would not otherwise face. Our health service has always had to take decisions on priorities. Whether we call that rationing, prioritising or anything else is immaterial. What matters is that such decisions are taken as openly and transparently as possible. The Bill puts rationing decisions out of sight of the patient while making GPs and clinicians the fall guys if a rationing decision comes out into the open.
If there is a theme to the Bill, it is control of not only doctors' professional judgment but the system of supervision by which that judgment is regulated. There are provisions in the Bill for the Secretary of State to end self-regulation of the medical profession by Orders in Council. Those powers are excessive and unnecessary. The Government argue that they are necessary to make swift changes without the need for legislation.
We all understand the desirability of making minor changes to the GMC and other professional bodies swiftly and easily but the Bill's powers are sweeping. They would enable the Government to abolish the GMC altogether and set up a substitute body under their control. I do not believe that I am alone in finding that deeply sinister. The British Medical Association has
118
described those powers as totally unacceptable to the medical profession and contrary to recent written commitments by the Minister, John Denham. The Government have promised not to abuse those powers. If that is so, why are they needed? Why should we accept as necessary powers that could sweep away without debate in Parliament the ability of doctors to regulate their activities?
The theme continues in the Government's proposals for the pharmaceuticals price regulation system, where they have arrogated to themselves sweeping powers to bring the current voluntary scheme to an end and to control the price of any drug at will. Lower medicine prices are appealing but too much of that will kill the golden goose. The Government say that they will not use the powers widely but if that is done, the policy is bound to lead sooner or later to the withdrawal of products from the UK market and damage to the research capacity of the British pharmaceutical industry. The consequence will be that new products will take much longer to reach British patients. That cannot be right. The Bill's provisions for the PPRS are wrong-headed and excessive.
I see in the Bill the substitution of political control for professional autonomy. I see in the Bill the high-handed use of Orders in Council and the bypassing of Parliament. I see in the Bill voids and spaces where there should be information. I see nothing that does justice to the complexity of the problems in our health service, nor anything that will alleviate those problems. I see instead new, bureaucratic arrangements and new systems for delivering patient care that even family doctors do not believe will improve standards.
I like always to be able to say in your Lordships' House that I do not question the Government's motives for wanting to change our health service. Indeed, change is a fact of life. However, the policies underlying the Bill are not simply misguided. They conceal a government agenda that is designed to obfuscate, not illuminate the basis of clinical decision-making. That part of it makes a bad Bill even worse. Our debates in Committee and at Report stage will provide us with the opportunity to correct some of the Bill's more glaring defects. I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion, That the Bill be now read a second time, at end to insert"but regrets that neither the definition of a Primary Care Trust nor any adequate provisions relating to the functions, powers, responsibilities and structure of such are contained in the Bill; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to amend the Bill accordingly."— (Earl Howe.)
3.50 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, perhaps I may, first, thank the Minister for her kind remarks about my predecessor as our party's health spokesman, my noble friend Lady Robson of Kiddington. I know that she will be greatly missed in this House, particularly on these Benches. This Bill is one of the centrepieces of the Government's term of office. It is clearly vital in the delivery of their promises on the NHS. Yet the approach adopted for the Bill is interesting. The Government have

119
not taken the opportunity in the legislation to adopt a collaborative and transparent style by which we feel that we can all contribute to the making of the NHS for the next 50 years; instead, they have adopted a dictatorial and opaque style for which they criticised the Conservative government over the 1990 reforms.
The Bill contains unprecedented powers for the Secretary of State for Health to determine vital matters for the health service simply through regulations. Considering the Bill is like being promised a full meal only to be given, on arrival, a voucher for consumption of the meal at a future date. As a result, we on these Benches are, sadly, dissatisfied with virtually every part of the Bill, despite recognising its good intentions.
We welcome the abolition of fund holding. We believe in the goal of a primary care-led NHS and the need to involve all GPs and other professionals, not just some, in primary care planning and secondary care commissioning. We want all localities to be able to innovate, not just a few. However, we have a number of concerns about the creation of the new primary care trusts. Those trusts need to relate to a fully democratically accountable structure for commissioning primary care. The Government are not going far enough in the Bill. As the House of Commons Select Committee said in its recent report, The Relationship between Health and Social Services:
"The Department of Health's proposals in Partnership in Action to allow a lead commissioner and integrated provision are a step in the right direction. However we consider that the problems of collaboration between Health and Social Services will not be properly resolved until there is an integrated health and social care system, whether this is within the NHS, within local government or within some new separate organisation".
We agree. We believe that after stage two primary care trusts have taken effect, residual health authorities should be merged with local authorities on the basis of coterminous boundaries. Under our model, PCTs would still, as currently envisaged, be the commissioning bodies for secondary care but within the overall context of health improvement plans which we strongly support. The rights and duties of the Secretary of State in relation to PCTs should, however, pass to the combined local authority/health authority.
I turn next to the proposed cash limiting of primary care trusts. The new provisions mean that they will be trusts with their own separate identity and a fixed, cash-limited budget for salaries, premises and drugs, which will need to be adhered to. Therefore, there will be no flexibility in the system to cope with crises, such as epidemics later on in the year. In addition, GPs will be caught between the hammer of a cash-limited budget and the anvil of the demands of the national institute for clinical excellence, specifying which drug treatments constitute best practice. They may find themselves very easily in a rationing situation, which is not of their own making. We do not agree that these cash limits should be imposed on GPs' or PCTs' drug budgets.
There is absolutely no detail in the Bill on the issue of the composition of boards. We believe that the mix of those on PCGs currently is not satisfactory. The former Minister of State went too far in appeasing the medical
120
profession. We have the paradox of doctors reported as not wanting to spend time on PCG boards whereas there are members of the professions allied to medicine who would like to sit on such boards but are not entitled to do so. Of course, we recognise the need to maintain the confidence of the medical profession, but chairmanships of PCGs or PCTs should be open to professions other than doctors. For example, why not nurses? Professionals such as community pharmacists and opticians, along with other health professionals, such as physiotherapists, must be strongly involved in building the best possible primary care. The voluntary sector, service users and carers need to be involved. All this should be spelt out in detail in the Bill, but in a flexible way.
Although we support the concept of PCTs, there are no details in the Bill of how individual practices will relate to them. In implementing the new structure, it is vital that individual practices should have enough flexibility and incentive on the one hand to make the best use of resources and, on the other, enough clinical freedom to make
Then there is the issue of the transition from PCGs to PCTs. It appears from the Bill that the health authority or the Secretary of State can determine that a PCG will become a PCT without the consent of the PCG. That is clearly unacceptable. They cannot be press-ganged into the new structures. There must be clear, objective criteria and consultative procedures set out on the face of the Bill before a PCG can become a PCT. There are currently some 60 PCGs indicating an intention of becoming PCTs. They need clear guidance in the Bill as to how that will come about.
I move on to the quality agenda, as set out in the consultative paper, A First-Class Service. If implemented properly, this could be one of the Government's great achievements in relation to the NHS. But, as elsewhere in the Bill, the detail is lacking. Why does the duty of quality set out in Clause 13 not also include health authorities and the primary care groups under them?
Despite the recent publication of a consultation paper on how appraisal by the national institute for clinical excellence will work, NICE remains the spectre at the feast. Will the new commission for health improvement be obliged to enforce NICE's recommendations? Should there not be specific provisions in the Bill about this and about how NICE's decisions are reached? We welcome the setting up of the commission for health improvement, but it must retain the confidence of the clinical professions it is auditing. Ofsted is not necessarily the best model; nor will naming and shaming have that effect.
The commission itself should have a broader remit. It must be able to conduct national reviews on topics determined by it, and not just by the Secretary of State. It should be able to act on complaints made by members of NHS staff and the public and must be able to review the broad aspects of clinical care, not just medical standards. What will the relationship of a commission be to the Audit Commission? There must be a clear limit

121
to the external audit to which NHS institutions are expected to submit. Above all, the commission should have independence, and authority. Perhaps the best model is that of FEM Inspectorate of Prisons. All the reports of the commission should be published.
As I mentioned, the Bill should go much further than Partnership in Action in terms of merging health authority and local authority functions. What do Clauses 19 and 20, which set out a duty of co-operation, mean in concrete practice? Is it just motherhood and apple pie? Why are not other partners, such as voluntary organisations and other bodies outside the health service, mentioned?
We strongly support the institution of health improvement programmes, but we need to have strong community, voluntary sector and carer involvement in consultation on the plans. The requirement and mechanism for this should be specified in the Bill, along with a requirement to publish the plans. As it is, the area of joint working arrangements is unclear. Accountability and consultation mechanisms through health improvement boards need to be spelt out in the legislation, not in regulations. Without that it is inappropriate for the Bill to seek to abolish joint consultative committees.
I turn now to the control of prices. These clauses are a tangled web. The Government seem to be keeping every possible option open. What have the Government now decided on the PPRS? Should they not come clean? There have undoubtedly been abuses of the current voluntary system with price hikes of some well-established drugs of as much as 300 to 400 per cent. On the other hand, the pharmaceutical industry is one of the great UK research and development and manufacturing successes. Although the achievements of the PPRS are not certain, it is clear that the relationship of the industry to clinical research in the NHS has benefited both sides.
We oppose the hybrid scheme under Clause 26 where the Secretary of State can effectively enforce a voluntary scheme. The Government need to choose between either developing a voluntary scheme or developing a statutory scheme. We do not believe that a half-way house is acceptable. We on these Benches are attracted by a statutory scheme, but the Secretary of State has a conflict as both regulator and purchaser. The DTI should perhaps be responsible for the regulatory aspects and for the exercise of any powers under Clause 28. That would tie in with any industrial policy designed to ensure a strong pharmaceutical sector for the United Kingdom. But the terms of any statutory scheme need to be spelt out in the Bill. The current clause appears to allow price control for every kind of medicine whether purchased or prescribed in the UK. Will a statutory scheme be based on controlling prices of individual drugs or the profits of drug companies? What will the provisions be? Under any statutory scheme there should be a duty to consult NICE on cost effectiveness before setting prices.
Of all the areas in the Bill the issue of medical discipline is probably the most oppressive as it affects the livelihood of so many professionals in the NHS. The clause allows the Secretary of State to play not just
122
Henry VIII but the even more malign Richard III if he chooses to. He can override all opposition in regulating the professions and abolish self-regulation entirely. The treatment of the professions is wholly inadequate in the Bill. There is no protection of title specified for any of the professions allied to medicine.
The Bill should specify the key elements of governance and there should be a common procedure across the professions; otherwise, the Government could set up a whole range of new regulatory bodies and transfer functions to them. In particular the advisory committees for each profession allied to medicine which have been suggested should be enshrined in primary legislation as protection for the principle of self-regulation. The Bill should clearly specify the establishment of the council for the health professions and its advisory committees, the continuance of the GMC and the UKCC, the financial arrangements for the councils ensuring independence, the level and limits of lay representation, the: functions of the councils, in particular the power to control entry, keep the definitive register for the professions and remove or restrict registration, and, finally, the reporting link to the Privy Council. Other aspects could be dealt with by regulation. Of course there should be the flexibility to admit new professions by regulation and to change disciplinary procedures. We agree that registration in a profession should be subject to continued competence and that there should be express power for all professional bodies to discipline for incompetence.
We on these Benches support much of the contents of the NHS White Paper and the consultation papers, A First Class Service and Partnership in Action. The Bill contains far less detail than those papers. The Bill is not only a grave disappointment; it is unacceptable in its current form. However, we do not believe that the issues should be dealt with by way of an amendment at Second Reading. The time and the place to consider all the issues I have raised should be the Committee stage. We shall raise those issues in a vigorous fashion at that stage. We shall not support the amendment.
4.3 p.m.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, this Bill contains several clauses upon which I believe the Government deserve congratulation. However, there are many other matters of fundamental concern to the healthcare professions which give rise to grave anxiety.
Before turning to such fundamental issues, I shall mention briefly several important but less dangerous clauses. First, I note those relating to the regulation of the pharmaceutical industry and the price of NHS medicines. Here I must declare an interest as an occasional neuroscience adviser to a pharmaceutical company. This industry is one of the brightest jewels in Britain's industrial crown, making a major contribution to our balance of payments. Many of the new, effective, if expensive, drugs introduced within the past few years have been discovered tit the United Kingdom because of the excellence of the research and development programmes of such companies. It is crucial that any control exercised by government upon their activities

123
should take full account of the major costs of such R&D and must be exercised with a light hand and with careful consideration of all relevant issues.
When some years ago I chaired a sub-committee inquiry of your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology into international investment in UK science, we found that there was massive inward investment in UK industry— not least from the USA and Japan—largely in pharmaceuticals, because of the strength of our science base. This must not be imperilled. Concern is mounting about the transfer of drug manufacturing from the UK to countries such as Ireland, where low corporation tax makes such relocation commercially worth while.
My comments on primary care groups and trusts, as described in the Bill, will be brief, as many other of your Lordships are better qualified to discuss these. However, I note that the general principle is commended by the BMA and most other professional organisations. The previous system of fundholding—which I supported— and non-fundholding practices gave rise to some anomalies which should ultimately be resolved by such groups and trusts. Despite the proposed boycott by Bosworth doctors, I believe that these organisations will prove to be successful, always provided that there is adequate funding and involvement in their governance by doctors, and probably dentists, nurses and other healthcare professionals.
I also commend the provisions of the Bill relating to the detection and abolition of fraud. However, in passing I must stress the vital importance of confidentiality of health information, not least in relation to the proposed and welcome establishment of the commission for health improvement (CHIMP). Some time ago I introduced a Bill into your Lordships' House to make it a criminal offence for a non-healthcare professional, such as an NHS administrator or the secretary of a doctor in private practice, to disclose confidential information relating to individual patients. That Bill was not pursued because the then government introduced a code of practice to preserve the confidentiality of such information in the NHS. No such control yet exists in relation to the staff of doctors in private practice. I look forward to hearing the Minister's comments on this point.
The amended responsibilities set out clearly in the Bill relating to the authority of NHS trusts and boards are also welcome, provided the voice of the universities continues to be heard, as indeed are those relating to clinical governance, not only through CHIMP but also through the work of the national institute for clinical excellence (NICE), which will be an important parallel development. I am delighted that my former colleague in the University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Sir Michael Rawlins, will chair that body. NICE and CHIMP together should fulfil crucially important roles relating to improving and maintaining high standards of clinical practice throughout the NHS. As the BMA has said, the UK medical profession is fully committed to ensuring the highest quality of care for all patients and to ensuring that doctors play a full and appropriate
124
professional role in systems of self-regulation and clinical governance to achieve this objective, provided always that the necessary resources are made available.
However, I must admit to some anxiety about the additional workload needed to fulfil these worthy goals. The introduction by the previous administration of the purchaser-provider principle, with the avowed aim of enhancing competition between hospitals seemed a brave ideal in seeking value for money, but had several unforeseen and unfortunate consequences. Tertiary referrals to centres of excellence were greatly reduced and research, the lifeblood of medical advance, was also damaged. I trust that the Government will maintain and indeed expand their health R&D programme and will move more rapidly to the projected target of spending 1.5 per cent. of the NHS budget on R&D.
These points are relevant when medical recruitment to the NHS is below target and when those who continue to work loyally and effectively for the service are under increasing pressure. A recent BMJ paper revealed that about 16 per cent. of present day GPs came to the UK, mostly from the Asian sub-continent, in the 1950s and 1960s. Most will retire in the first decade of the next century, by which time the projected increase in medical students will not yet make any contribution to the NHS workload. Incentives persuading doctors to stay in the NHS and not to take early retirement, as so many are doing, are very much needed.
In particular, I must report my concern about the continuing problems of clinical academic medicine. The senior lecturers, readers and professors in clinical departments make a vital contribution to the NHS and many, under pressure from managers, have been required to increase their burden of clinical work in order to bring down waiting lists. Such pressure has inevitably eroded the time available for teaching tomorrow's doctors and for research; hence recruitment into this vitally important field of medicine has shown a serious decline. I trust that the Government are still considering the recommendations of the Richards Report, following the inquiry into NHS research by a sub-committee of your Lordships' Select-Committee on Science and Technology which I was privileged to chair. The continuing involvement of the relevant universities in clinical governance is vital.
While I have commended several provisions of this Bill, I must now express grave concern, which I know is shared, by members of the other healthcare professions, about the provisions in Clause 47 and in Schedule 3 relating to professional regulation. Recently, dedicated, efficient and hardworking doctors throughout the country have been appalled, as have members of the public, by the reported catalogue of errors and/or negligence recently exposed in a number of high-profile cases coming before the GMC and other bodies. The GMC, the BMA and the Royal Colleges are working hard to improve standards of openness and accountability which patients have a right to expect. There has been a fundamental shift in the culture of medicine, and doctors clearly accept the need for transparency about their conduct and professional performance so as to retain public trust. Later this week the GMC will be considering a paper proposing regular

125
revalidation by peer review, in collaboration with the Royal Colleges, of: he standards of clinical performance of doctors in all branches of the profession.
In 1983 Ralf Dahrendorf (now Lord Dahrendorf) said in his Jephcott Lecture to the Royal Society of Medicine:
"I would claim that the English professions are a model of the potential of self-government, of an implied contract with society, and thus of liberty. The alternative—the professions bound by the state—is certainly fearful".
He spoke with authority, recognising the problems encountered in his native country, Germany, where the professions are under direct government control.
Even more trenchantly, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, in the Spectator in 1988, wrote on "How to ruin the professions". He said that independent learned professions are the hallmark and glory of a free society, but they must respond to public scrutiny and criticism and must never provide cover for incompetence. How true those comments are still.
A recent MORI poll concluded that 91 per cent. of the public are satisfied with their doctors, and trust them. In striking contrast, politicians scored 30–35 per cent. and journalists 15 per cent. Only nurses scored higher, at 96 per cent.
Soon after I joined the GMC in 1971 the Merrison Commission recommended a major reform of that body in order that it should contain a majority of members elected by the profession, along with some lay members. During my presidency, from 1982–89 we gradually increased the number of lay members and every hearing of the Professional Conduct Committee included two lay representatives. In such hearings, it was my experience that the medical members usually took a more critical view of the behaviour of doctors coming before them than did the lay members. But I soon realised that many doctors appearing before that committee were not guilty of serious misconduct but were showing an inadequate standard of professional performance which some would call incompetence. It was therefore my wish to see that, in parallel with the existing procedures dealing with professional conduct and ill health, a mechanism should be introduced to deal with unacceptable clinical performance. During the distinguished presidency of my successor, the noble Lord, Lord Kilpatrick of Kincraig, the Medical Act was amended by the Medical (Professional Performance) Act of 1995; and the GMC now has appropriate powers to deal with these matters.
But today we are not dealing solely with the regulation of the medical profession but also with the regulation of pharmacists, dentists, opticians, osteopaths, chiropractors, nurses, midwives and health visitors. For some years the GMC, the GDC and the UKCC, have wished to see amendments to their powers introduced in the light of new developments, and in order to give greater protection to the public. But the United Kingdom Government have felt unable to devote the necessary legislative time to amending primary legislation.
Hence, some powers to be conferred by this Bill upon the Secretary of State to amend the functions of these bodies by Order in Council are welcome, provided
126
always that such orders deal with issues other than the fundamental structure and functions of the self-regulatory bodies. An order-making power could therefore secure desirable improvements within existing regulatory frameworks; and the proposals to abolish the Professions Supplementary to Medicine Act and to give the Secretary of State authority to introduce long-awaited regulatory powers over many other professions are also welcome in principle, but details of the Government's proposals are eagerly awaited, particularly since so many other professions haw been seeking self-regulation for many years.
It is to a limited extent reassuring that powers under these clauses will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure and must be subject, first, to wide consultation with the relevant professions and, secondly, to debate in both Houses of Parliament. However, the powers conferred on the Secretary of State in what is effectively a Henry VIII clause, namely Clause 47 as at present drafted, are in my view excessively wide-ranging. Paragraph 8 of Schedule 3 would enable the Secretary of State to alter fundamental regulatory frameworks established through primary legislation. While Clause 47 could not be used to abolish a regulatory body, it could be used to diminish significantly its powers.
Indeed, it would be Possible to transfer the regulatory functions to another body, provided that it was wholly or mainly made up of members of the specified profession. Hence, the Secretary of State could transfer such functions to a government-appointed body of a few professionals, with no lay or professionally elected representatives. I believe that this is a dangerous position. I also believe that the GMC, the GDC and other bodies are moving rapidly towards restoring and indeed maintaining public confidence in the principle of self-regulation. This Bill, at least in Clause 47 and the relevant schedule, could seriously impair the position.
I remind the Minister that the GMC and other regulatory bodies are at present answerable not directly to government but to the Privy Council. This cherished principle renders these bodies to some extent immune from political interference. How will this Bill affect the position? Similar concerns will no doubt be expressed, and have been expressed, by other noble Lords.
It is paradoxical that when last year we debated the Teaching and Higher Education Bill that Bill as originally drafted contained a raft of Henry 'VIII clauses, granting almost unfettered powers to the Secretary of State over issues such as the discipline and health of the teaching profession. Happily, at Committee stage the Government were persuaded of the crucial importance of expanding the section of the Bill dealing with the powers of the GTC, which proved comparable in the end to those now falling to the professional regulatory bodies in the health field.
Regrettably, therefore, I must conclude that the powers vested in the Secretary of State by Clause 47 and the relevant section of Schedule 3 are draconian and, as at present drafted, unacceptable. We may be assured of the good will of the present Administration, but what of future governments? These provisions represent a major

127
flaw in this measure, and I urge the Government to amend them and leave fundamental issues of the functions and structure of these bodies unimpaired.
4.18 p.m.
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, this Bill, I am convinced, contains proposals for some of the most fundamental and far-reaching changes which our beloved National Health Service has seen in all its 50 years of proud history. I want to concentrate on some of those changes today, but first I should like to say a word about change itself.
There are those who say that what the NHS needs above all is a period of stability— and who could not understand the feelings of those who work in the NHS who have had to cope over the years with reorganisations without number? Indeed, when I was employed in the NHS for 12 years I too used to join with the many staff who said that all they wanted was a period without major change. Since then I have come to realise that, when we are talking about any major service in the public or private sectors, we have to understand that the only constant thing about change is that change itself is constant.
How could constant change not be the case for the health service when we consider what has happened to healthcare in the years since the NHS was established— the change in life expectation from the early sixties to the late seventies; the fall in length of hospital stay from 45 days to fewer than seven; the vast developments in treatments such as laser surgery, day surgery, chemotherapy, and so on; and, perhaps above all, the increase in patient expectations and better informed patients who want to be involved in their own healthcare. Any health service which had not changed rapidly in both the treatments it provides and the way it is organised, would have withered and died long ago.
Most people are resistant to change and anxious about it. There is one change in the Bill to which there will be few resisters, and that is the abolition of the so-called market. This pernicious system—which has set hospital against hospital, doctor and nurse against doctor and nurse; which has actively discouraged the sharing of information and encouraged reinvention of wheels; and which has shamelessly provided better services for some patients at the expense of others—will be mourned by few of those who work in our health service. It is a change which is almost universally welcomed by those who have found that patient care is more important to them than winning some notional competition.
The most welcome change to me—because I believe it is the most welcome to patients—is the provision in the Bill for moving to a primary care-led service. Over the years, much lip-service has been paid to the idea of primary-led. I think I first heard the phrase some 25 years ago—although of course in those days we called it "GP-led" because the term "primary care" to embrace all the people and professionals involved had not yet been coined. Everyone has understood the importance of it as this is where most patients' experience of the NHS actually is. But this has not
128
happened, and hospitals and secondary care have continued to exert a disproportionate amount of influence on the way in which our health service is organised.
The Bill will change that at last. It will, thereby—if we use the opportunities that it gives us properly—bring huge benefits for patients and their families. Staff at the primary care level are the ones who know about local health needs, and it is they who will now be making decisions which ensure that their patients get the best possible care and treatment.
I also welcome enthusiastically the inclusion of a lay member in the new primary care groups. These primary care groups will not only ensure that local services reflect local needs, but will emphasise quality of service and the closest possible linkages between hospitals, general practitioners and community services. The potential for that seamless service—which patients want and need—is there, although of course we must be aware that the system may take time to work effectively for all patients. Those involved in primary care groups will need to develop their skills and, in some cases, to change their attitudes.
Nowhere will this be more important than in the development of health improvement programmes. To ensure that these improvement programmes achieve maximum impact, it is vital that they are developed in consultation with patient and carer groups.
Thus far, the Bill contains welcome provision for consultation with local authorities and other health professionals. It may be useful to consider whether including a duty of partnership and consultation with local and national voluntary organisations who represent the interests of patients and their families would be helpful. Such groups have pioneered new and effective ways of working, and have revealed needs, and ways of meeting needs, which professionals have not perceived, as the Minister has acknowledged in her speech. I have no doubt that the most effective primary care groups will consult such groups—and, indeed, many are already encouraging their lay members to do so—but the Minister may wish to consider extending encouragement to duty. Such a move would certainly help to ensure that patients were able to offer their views in a constructive way, and that they would be involved in deciding what actually constitutes high-quality healthcare from their point of view, which is surely the most important one.
The inclusion of a place for social services representatives on the primary care groups will make an important contribution to that closer working of health and social services which is so vital to patients, and which has been for so long a source of conflict rather than co-operation. In this respect, I must also mention the welcome provision to allow NHS bodies to transfer payments to local authorities and vice versa for health-related expenditure. The Bill also allows two new arrangements—pooled budgets and a lead commissioner of services, which could be either health or social services.
The Government may wish to consider how the charging policies of local authorities will impact on these arrangements. For example, where a service is

129
provided by a health service body on behalf of a local authority, would a person be liable to be charged for that service? That would certainly add to the confusion which already surrounds charging policies and would be a very unwelcome development. I know that the Government intend issuing guidance later this year to ensure that there is more consistency nationally about charging, and I hope that the issue of what is a health service and what is social care will be addressed.
As this Bill passes through your Lordships' House, I believe it is important that we consider it always in conjunction with the many other government initiatives which will impact on our nation's health. The public health agenda, the acknowledgment that healthcare is vitally influenced by poverty, had housing, poor diet and low expectations, the education agenda, welfare reform and specific initiatives focused at particular groups, such as those for older people and the national carers strategy that we heard about yesterday, will also need to be considered. The development of technology, not only in schemes such as NHS Direct, but the computerisation of doctors' surgeries to include the reception of hospital tests results and electronic links between surgeries and pharmacies, will also be important. All these and many more must be taken into consideration in the modernisation of our national health service.
But. in my view, the most important issue of all—the test against which we must judge how these far-reaching changes work in practice—is without doubt this: will they give the patient more opportunity to contribute to the maintenance of his own health and that of his family? I believe that they will.
4.27 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, before I enter the debate I should like to declare an interest. I am an executive director of the consultancy firm MJM Healthcare Solutions, whose main client is the National Health Service.
I have a second disclosure. Last week, my much-loved mother-in-law died; her funeral is tomorrow. I have a house full of grieving relatives and I feel that I ought to get back to them. I am torn between your Lordships' House and my family's needs. I feel that I should leave before the end of the debate. I crave your Lordships' forgiveness. I know how cross I used to get as a Minister if noble Lords left before the end of a debate.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I can assure the noble Baroness that I will not be the slightest bit cross. I think that she should go home as soon as possible.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, perhaps I should go before I make my speech.
It is understandable that every new government want to legislate for the NHS. The NHS is probably the most popular institution in this country. It is the one which generates huge concern and it is one of the very few organisations over which the Government still have total control. Its ethic is based on the superb principles of love thy neighbour and each according to his needs; it is
130
a highly-cherished principle. But the price of a tax-based service, largely free at the point of use, means that the Government have carte blanche to meddle. As a result, the poor, dear NHS is subjected to a state of constant revolution, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, has said, perhaps matched only by Chairman Mao and his lady wife.
I understand the temptation. Indeed, I understand the necessity to keep up with social changes, developing technologies, rising expectations, demographic trends. and so on. I welcome the themes that have been outlined by the Minister this afternoon—the continuing emphasis on a primary care-led NHS, quality, partnership and local autonomy.
I thank the Minister for the very clear way in which she introduced the Bill. But I must profess disappointment that when initiatives are shown to be a proven success, embodying the very themes which were outlined this afternoon, they are abandoned for ideological reasons. The independent OECD stated that. contrary to what the Minister said, GP fundholders did a better job of purchasing services than health authorities and were more prepared to diversify, to challenge hospital practices and to demand improvements.
The BMA found that fundholders encouraged consumer accountability and GPs were truly willing to share the decision-making process with their patients. The Audit Commission said that fundholders introduced more services to patients, improved communication with hospitals and were more cost effective in their drug prescribing.
I know that the criticism levelled at fundholding was that it was two-tiered and that some patients received a better service than others but, as my noble friend Lord Howe said, instead of a two-tier system we now have a four-tier system. Primary care groups will not only introduce four tiers of service but will diminish patient choice in that they are statutory and cover much larger areas so that patients will not be able to choose to go to a practice which does not belong to such a group rather than one that does.
I could level a great deal of criticism at the concept of primary care groups, especially in relation to cost and the work which has been done as regards total purchasing schemes which are the nearest that we have to primary care groups. But I have this sinking feeling that, whatever we say today or, indeed, throughout the passage of the Bill, PCGs in principle will remain. Sadly I am resigned to that but I am committed to the NHS and am determined that PCGs as amended, I hope, throughout the passage of the Bill should work as well as is possible.
I ask the Minister—and I shall read Hansard for her reply—what incentives the Government have put into the Bill to encourage PCGs to do well. What are the sanctions if they fail? What will happen if a PCG overspends? Is there a presumption that the health authority will bale it out? If it does so, is that fair to patients in other PCGs within that health authority which will presumably have to pay the price by forgoing services which are due to them?

131
Neither the Government nor the health authority can lean on or dismiss the chairman or members of the PCG board since they are voted into their positions by their professional colleagues, unlike the primary care trusts whose membership will be appointed. Where are the incentives and the sanctions? Where is the accountability? As I read the Bill, the commission for health improvement has a role of intervention. But what does that mean? It can force prescribed persons to compile reports; but so what? Where is the action and, above all, where are the incentives to do well?
In my experience of running three large organisations, putting the boot in achieves an immediate response but it does not motivate and engender loyalty in the medium and longer term. I share the concerns of my noble friend and those of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, about primary care trusts. But one hopes that the issues which have been raised today will be clarified early during the passage of the Bill.
My second point is much more important and fundamental. Organisational arrangements, although they make a difference and affect issues of choice, quality, accessibility and effectiveness, are to some extent en passant and ever-changing. But the relationship between the public and the medical profession—the doctor, nurse or therapist—is not. It is fundamental and the very essence of healthcare. Without the confidence and trust of people in those professions, we lose everything. That relationship is the cornerstone, the foundation, on which healthcare is based. Governments are peripheral in comparison. As the noble Lord, Lord Walton, said, a recent opinion poll revealed that doctors, along with nurses, remain the most respected of all professionals. That is no accident. They have worked hard over many decades to gain that respect.
An element which engenders that confidence in doctors is their independence; the fact that it is a self-regulating profession for which, through the Royal Colleges, the GMC and other institutions, standards are set and it is increasingly aware that those standards must be met. It is not the poodle of any political administration. As a recent editorial in the Daily Telegraph stated, peer pressure can be as powerful as any other influence on how professionals behave. But if doctors become mere employees of the state, that could fall away.
No one would wish to defend the situation which arose in the Bristol case or, indeed, in the case of the Kent gynaecologist. From time to time there are of course others who fail in their duty of care. They are not to be protected and their professional behaviour should be exposed and dealt with appropriately. The medical professional can be criticised for being too slow in putting its house in order but I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Walton, that there is no doubt that it wishes to do so and, indeed, is doing so.
When I was a Minister only two or three years ago, with the full support of your Lordships' House, we passed a Bill to strengthen and widen the powers of the General Medical Council. As a result of an inquiry by
132
the Chief Medical Officer, there is now an obligation placed on medics to report cases of incompetence among their colleagues. They are obliged to report those who break the profession's ethical code. The confidential inquiry into peri-operative deaths, the regular review of maternal deaths and, through CESDI, of infant deaths, the introduction of medical and clinical audit and so on—all relatively recent initiatives—are making an impact on standards of care.
But perhaps the most encouraging sign is the obvious willingness of the medical profession itself to go further. The highly respected president of the GMC, Sir Donald Irvine, has shown by his leadership a commitment to make the profession more open; to increase the membership of lay members; and to work closely with them. His whole attitude is one of reform. He has not only thought about change but, through his obvious integrity, he has maintained the confidence of his colleagues and instilled in them a realisation that change is inevitable.
I prefer to see those changes led by the profession. As Sir Cyril Chantler, the Principal of the United Medical and Dental School of Guy's and St Thomas' said recently:
"Medicine used to be simple, ineffective and relatively safe. It is now complex, effective and potentially dangerous. The mystical authority of the doctor used to be essential for practice. Now we need to be open and work in partnership with our colleagues and with our patients".
These are eminent men, men of integrity and substance. They know the business; their intentions are honourable; and quite frankly, I put my trust in them before transient Secretaries of State or Ministers, of whatever political persuasion. I put my trust in Parliament and I shall oppose, along with any other Members of your Lordships' House, any Henry VIII clauses which seek without a full debate to meddle with the regulatory system of the health professions. That should not be an issue decided by the whim of a Minister but should be debated publicly in Parliament, since it is the people's business.
My third and last point concerns the pharmaceutical industry. On the whole, governments fail to see beyond the next PES round and industry and commerce, beyond the next quarterly or half-yearly results. In addition, our manufacturing industry and City institutions have progressively moved into the control of foreign hands. The shining exception is the pharmaceutical industry with its huge investment in research and development, its international business and its vast contribution to our overseas earnings.
In so many ways it is a model for this country, especially as its survival depends on the long term. What is more, it values this Government's emphasis on education. Every industry needs a home market; it needs to be cherished; it needs a constant flow of highly educated entrants with originality of mind and determination. Our record is good. Five of the world's top 20 medicines were discovered by the pharmaceutical industry in the UK.
It is tempting for the Government to see the drugs budget simply as a cost, whereas over the past 40 years advances in the use of medicines have helped to free up

133
hospital beds. If we take the top 12 major diseases alone, admission rates have fallen by half, making an annual saving of £10 billion a year, about double the cost of all NHS medicines.
Other nations realise the value of the pharmaceutical industry to their country's prosperity: that it is a prize worth winning. They recognise that its prospects are boundless. If we shun the industry, if we bring harsh penalties to what after all is a voluntary system—the PPRS, which has been effective in the past—the industry will go to: hose who welcome it and who show it respect. It is of paramount importance that it stays here. We should not invest in education, science and technology only to encourage the brightest minds to emigrate.
The Government must seriously do a long-term cost-benefit analysis in the widest sense and look beyond the next PPS round to the very long term. The true benefits of supporting the pharmaceutical industry will be huge rewards in employment and in the education of our society.
So, while recognising the Government's desire to legislate for the NHS, I hope in the spirit of this House they will recognise the sincerity of those who do not share all their views; who share their desire to improve healthcare but not this way of doing so. As is customary, I among others in the House will seek to amend, to improve, but above all to clarify, since there is much in the Bill which is obfuscated and clouded in mystery. Let the Government live up to their rhetoric when applied to others; be honest, open, and above all transparent in their intentions. I look forward to the Committee and other stages of the Bill.
4.41 p.m.
Lord Winston: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House wishes to express condolences to the noble Baroness and her family. I am sorry that she has to leave the debate; we understand why. We recognise her contribution to healthcare in this country under the previous government.
I am a member of the Hammersmith Hospital Trust. Part of that trust was, and still is, Queen Charlotte's Maternity Hospital. Consequently, I came into repeated contact with Lady Robson. I heard only this afternoon, when it was announced, that she had passed away. She is a very serious loss to this House and to our service. I have some wonderful memories of her—not least of her chain-smoking in the corridors of power, an odd thing for someone so totally committed to healthcare. She was a wonderful woman—trenchant, straightforward and honest. We shall greatly miss her.
There are many good provisions in the Bill. The accent is primarily on what has been regarded as the poor relation of the health service, primary care. That is greatly to be recommended. We on this side of the House are very pleased that the Government have focused on that issue. It is very important.
However, it is not entirely clear that the Bill will necessarily always improve standards of general practice. I believe that standards of general practice in this country are among the highest in the world. I cannot
134
think of many other places where general practitioners have such wide experience, such good training, such excellent postgraduate support and continued medical education. That is almost unique to Britain. However, one of the problems is that, of necessity, a general practitioner cannot encompass the whole of healthcare. Therefore, placing too much emphasis on primary care will worry a great number of people in the caring professions.
Also good is the fact that the Bill breaks down the barriers between the NHS and other bodies locally and, to some extent, nationally. As we on this side of the House have repeatedly said, although it is not only a Labour message, improving the care and health of people locally is not really a matter of primary or secondary care. It involves much wider health issues, including the environment, education, poverty and so on. If primary care is to be effective, it is important that we pay attention to those mechanisms within government.
My noble friend the Minister said that doctors should be properly trained. I am extremely worried about that Training depends much more on the structure of the NHS than on any other factor. We do not learn medicine as undergraduates in medical school. I know that from my own experience as a doctor. I see my son, a recently qualified doctor, going through the Cambridge course at the moment. Nothing could be more remote during that training than caring for people. One learns to care for people when one comes into contact with them and becomes responsible for them. Undergraduate training does not prepare one. Training starts after qualification.
I well remember my first training lesson. A patient was brought in unconscious. I diagnosed—as it happens correctly—that she was in a diabetic coma and gave her a massive dose of intravenous insulin. She was at death's door. I then phoned my registrar, who was in the local pub, and told him what I had done. Then I realised that I had given quadruple strength insulin intravenously. That is not the sort of thing you learn as an undergraduate. I was terrified. Fortunately, the patient did not die. It was probably the only thing that saved her. It restored her biochemical balance in the most dramatic way. Those in the biochemistry department said that they had not seen anything like it for some years.
The truth is that training depends on contact with those who have specialist knowledge. That has been the keynote of our health service. I have learnt it, as have all of us, through contact with people who inevitably have a major degree of specialist training. 'That training may be neurosurgery; equally, it may be general practice.
One of the problems with the Bill, as was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Walton, is that there is nothing in it that supports academic medicine or training. Those of us who are in the academic sector are seriously worried, particularly those in the hospital and specialist sector, about the consistent undermining of specialist care. I repeat: we must not divide primary and secondary care. We have to work together in the National Health Service. I do not see enough evidence of that in the Bill. I hope that that will be attended to in Committee.

135
Secondary care cannot be under-rated. Each of your Lordships may, or may not, be cured through primary care. But one thing I can promise is that, when you develop cancer, lung disease or heart disease, or have problems with your prostrate or have breast cancer, all of you will require secondary care, as does every member of the community in the British Isles, indeed of the human community. It is the essence of healthcare.
I am afraid that I must refer to a speech made last week by my noble friend Lord Warner. A disagreement arose about the issue of primary and secondary care. My noble friend seemed to imply that secondary care was in some way elitist, that it was too expensive. It is not. It is all part of the same continuum, and we must never forget that. We cannot undermine one at the expense of the other. They must work together. The NHS depends on both.
I am worried that the Bill may do too little to put right the destruction of secondary care which has occurred over a long time in our hospital practice. There has been fragmentation and loss of specialist referrals to centres that can do the teaching and training. There has been a destruction of our knowledge and teaching base. There is all too frequent conflict between universities and the health service all over the country. It is not a conflict that either wants to see. But it is inevitable, due to pressure on finances.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, in his excellent speech, made an interesting point that suggests almost a misunderstanding. He said that we must recognise the clinical autonomy of GPs and clinicians. Of course, it is the same thing. We are all clinicians and must work to a common goal. We must get away from the separation.
Primary care cannot entirely get to grips with the complexities of modern medicine. To some extent that is inevitable with high technology, which leads much of our knowledge and practice. We run the risk of making our health service second-rate in international terms if we do not recognise it when we legislate.
There are two gaps in the Bill to which I wish to draw attention. They have already been discussed or have been alluded to in part. One is the composition of the primary care trusts. We are naturally nervous about their structure and composition. I hope that during the passage of the Bill through Parliament we can hear some understanding of how the trusts will be composed. It must be clear. Many of us will seek to ensure proper specialist representation on the trusts in order to achieve local standards of the highest order.
I am sorry to reminisce, but when I started my training in the district general hospital the local consultant—be it the chest physician or the heart physician—felt that he had a responsibility for the local community. If there was a factory locally where people were suffering from chest disease, he wanted to be out there doing something about it. Unfortunately, the structure of the health service has now divorced that specialist care from the local area. If we are to have primary care trusts, we must ensure that they are set up
136
with that aim in mind. Hospitals must play a major part in how the health of the local community is maintained. There must be interdigitation.
The other gap in the Bill is regulation of the professions. We shall come back to it at the Committee stage. I share the concern so well expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Walton, in that respect.
Finally, one point echoes the remarks made by other noble Lords. It concerns the drugs industry, the pharmaceutical industry, which is one of the jewels in the crown of British industry. We cannot get away from that: it is an area in which we lead. What does the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry say at the moment? It says:
"The UK is becoming a very hostile environment for the pharmaceutical industry and a very difficult location from which to run a global pharmaceutical business."
We cannot afford to lose that inward investment. It is only one example of where we can have inward investment in the health service. There are many other examples to which we shall return. I hope that some of the issues can be explored carefully during the Committee stage of the Bill.
4.53 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, in recent months the noble Lord, Lord Winston, and I have become sparring partners outside, not inside, the Chamber, especially on occasional Wednesday evenings. Today is not a Wednesday and I do not intend to take up the cudgels with him at the moment.
I begin by thanking the Minister and her team in the department in which I had the honour to serve before the split for the most comprehensive explanatory notes on a Bill I have ever seen. They are a model of what explanatory notes should be, not only explaining what the Bill seeks to do but giving the recent history of the particular part of the health service with which we are chiefly concerned today.
The noble Baroness has perhaps realised by now that it might have been wiser, on reflection, not to be quite so explicit. Unexpurgated versions can cause harm. As my noble friend Lord Howe and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, might have said—indeed, almost did say—what a contrast with the Bill!
For many years all thinking people who work in the NHS have been suspicious of change. The noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, who is not in her place, I am sorry to say, mentioned it. The Minister talked about the Bill going with the grain of developing NHS thought. I was struck by that phrase and wondered whose thoughts she had in mind. We have clearly been listening to different people. It might be described as the attitude of, "Leave us alone and we will deliver." Whenever change is in the air, we hear it loud and strong; we have all heard it. It happened when we changed the control from local government to central government. We heard it in 1976 while working up the National Health Service Act; in the 1980s, at the time of what came to be known as the Fowler reforms; in the 1990s with the National Health Service and Community Care Act, the Health Authorities Act, the National

137
Health Service (Primary Care) Act and now the soon to be Health Act. "Not this time", says the Minister. We shall see.
The changes have come thick and fast and they are getting both thicker and faster. Small wonder that NHS people, both directly and indirectly employed, are becoming fed up. As my noble friend Lady Cumberlege said, governments of all persuasions fail to recognise that the NHS is a vast juggernaut of an organisation. Oh, yes! I know that Ministers—I have done it myself—say that it is the second biggest employer in the world, employing, if that is the word, around 1 million people, a little, but only a little, smaller than the Indian state railways. But they do not consider what that really means. It means that if there is to be a change—whether for better or worse—it needs a long time to bed down because only then will it prove itself—or not, as the case may be. I know only too well that Ministers love interfering. They feel they have to, in order to justify themselves. If I have learnt nothing else during my time in politics, it is that most of the time it is better to see that the existing law is working properly and is obeyed rather than seek to change it radically.
Last week, I had occasion to congratulate the Minister on NHS Direct. That new and expanding service is clearly an advance. But it is not what I am talking about. I am talking about the amazing number of changes that managers in the NI-ES have had to put up with and adapt to. Not just managers either: the changes invariably affect the frontline staff as well. A patient will inevitably get better slower in a ward of unhappy nurses.
The Minister is right about what the health service exists for. What people want it to do is keep them in good health, help them to better health and, when they are ill, ensure them speedy help. Very few worry about how managerially that is achieved. The Bill is a managerial Bill. But will it help patients get what they need? I doubt it will make much difference in emergency treatment. The NHS has always pulled out all the stops there. It is elective surgery that is slow and, as we have heard, getting slower. If GPs have a modicum of control, as they have under the present system, they can try to obtain and often succeed in getting the faster treatment that they, and at least initially only they, believe their patients need.
I could not agree more strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Winston. This interface is absolutely vital. The Government will say that that is happening now. But is it? Waiting lists are reducing but we all know that that is a myth. For the patient, the person who really matters, waiting does not start with the consultant. It starts when the GP says, "I'll book you in with the consultant.".
This is known in some circles as waiting to get on the waiting list. The figure is becoming larger and larger. In the past year from September to September it grew by over 100, 000. That puts the Government's election pledge to reduce waiting lists, that is, consultant waiting lists, by 100, 000 into perspective, does it not? Mind you, they cannot do that Although reduced since the peak in March last year the figure is still almost 150, 000 above that which the Government inherited. What will the Bill do for the real figure? My noble friend Lord Howe is
138
right. How can we possibly tell from such an obscure Bill, unless my noble friend's amendment is attached and accepted? This House always complains of framework Bills. Like the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, I await the report of the scrutiny committee with keen anticipation.
But I do not want to be entirely negative. My experiences in Northern Ireland taught me that health and social services worked properly as a seamless web (to use a horrible expression) only if they had a communal budget. I do not have time to go into detail. but at first sight I welcome Clause 24 as a step in the right direction, especially if it means, for example, that a hospital trust can unblock beds by paying social services to provide home helps. However, I have the strong suspicion that the money will go only one way. We shall discover that during the passage of the B111. We shall also see whether joint consultative: committees really have had their day or whether the Government are right in saying that Clauses 21 to 23 will do the trick. But that is a detail and this is Second Reading.
In general, I believe that the Bill if, in the main, necessary at all, comes two years too soon. Twenty-one months of thinking is not, as far as I can tell, enough. I hope that the Minister will explain to the House exactly what underpins the framework and the details of the new system that she proposes. I accept that change in the NHS is necessary, but radically altering and not abandoning, as the Government claim, the purchaser/provider split when it has not properly bedded down is a mistake. I hope that we do not all come to regret it.
5.2 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I shall deal with some aspects of primary care trusts and partnership as expressed in the Bill. The Liberal Democrats did not support the creation of fundholding practices by the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990. In the event, the ability of GPs to commission secondary healthcare and to be innovative in primary care was well demonstrated. But, as we had feared, the competitive and two-tier nature of the scheme resulted in inequality of access to NHS care, as the Audit Commission report of 1996 and the Dowling report on differential waiting times of 1997 confirmed.
We agree with the thrust of the Bill that a single structure for primary care provision and secondary care commissioning as proposed through primary care trusts is preferable to fundholding. Together with partnership proposals, it offers the hope of restoring the national character of the NHS in a way that is responsive to local need. Unfortunately, as my noble friend said, lack of detail in the Bill may hamper the possibility of bringing this hope to fruition. For example there are a number of widespread doubts about how the transition to primary care trusts is to be managed. The changeover will involve a huge cultural shift as well as more down-to-earth considerations such as a requirement for new specialist staff to manage the commissioning process and adequate IT systems to control budget monitoring. As a member of a shadow hospital trust,

139
and later of the real hospital trust board, I witnessed the confusion and waste of resources that resulted from lack of preparation for the role of the new hospital trusts. Only gradually did useful packages of software become available and hospitals understand that they needed skilled contract negotiators to manage their end of the commissioning process. Only gradually did they become capable of detailed monitoring of the budget to avoid a financial crisis in July of every year.
While some former fundholders will no doubt bring commissioning expertise into the PCTs, others may not contain a nucleus of expertise in these areas. Since each is likely to be managing a cash-limited budget of some £60 million or more against a background of ever-increasing demand, we simply cannot afford a long process of self-education through error as happened to an extent in hospital trusts.
Another difficulty that the Bill does not appear to tackle is that GPs in PCTs will be both purchasers and providers of care. They will be both commissioners and suppliers. I do not know the correct terminology, but no doubt I shall learn during the progress of this Bill. Experience of social services departments as they have sought to deal with the problem via reorganisation of their staff indicates that it is not always easy for individuals to straddle both roles. Will the Government provide guidance to general practitioners and other health workers in primary care as to how they should handle this problem?
A related point that concerns a number of professional bodies is whether, and if so how, the GP's status as an independent contractor is affected by membership of a primary care trust board. A further point is that community health councils and others associated with users and the interests of the community at large are also concerned by the absence of requirements imposed upon trusts to consult and co-operate with the local community. For example, the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, highlighted the potential value of a statutory obligation to co-operate with the voluntary sector. I agree with her.
Under the Liberal Democrat model for a joint health service/social services structure that is governed by a democratic organisation, the role of the CHCs would be redundant. However, the Government are not adopting that approach and so the question remains as to the future role of CHCs.
A related concern, which is very relevant to the needs of elderly patients among others, is that the role of therapists is not always sufficiently valued by the medical profession and that the number of such therapists is insufficient to meet the needs and demands of patients and clients. Do the Government see a role for the professions allied to medicine within the primary care trusts? What efforts will they make to encourage more people to enter the professions? Will the lack of input from the related professions on PCG boards be tolerated with respect to PCTs?
In relation to partnership, there is a general welcome for the duty placed on all parts of the NHS to co-operate with one another in exercising their functions under
140
Clause 19, and the new duties imposed upon NHS bodies on the one hand and local authorities on the other to co-operate with one another under Clause 20. Of course, aspiration is not the same as action and there is much detailed work to be done on putting this into practice. Many kinds of organisation appear to be excluded from the requirement to co-operate. It is not unreasonable to be cautious about the ease with which this co-operation can be achieved in practice. The culture of social services differs from that of housing and education departments on the one hand and from the culture of the health service as a whole on the other. I carry the scars of that culture clash, which I acquired when I served on both a county council and a hospital trust board and was treated by both sides with all the enthusiasm that is generally meted out to a messenger.
To take but one example, how is the problem of the charge/no charge culture to be solved in practice? While the organisation of care of the elderly, for example, may be improved, how can we be certain that the level of care will be similarly improved given cash-limited budgets? All of the organisations involved will be working to cash-limited budgets. We have seen how the ideals of care in the community have been sullied by the need to prioritise care only for the most dependent clients under the pressure of cash-limited budgets. Yet how can this need to prioritise help those who could benefit by early assistance in the struggle against dependency?
Of course GPs faced with their cash limits may find innovative ways to provide suitable care for patients outside the expensive hospital environment. However, I must be careful. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Winston, has left his place; nevertheless I take his argument seriously. Are the Government relying on those innovative mechanisms to solve the problem of the growing cost of care in the community?
Some have welcomed the possibility that money can move from the NHS into local authority schemes. But do the Government plan to allow mutual commissioning of services between local authority and NHS bodies? That is not possible currently but it could be useful. Is that one of the provisions to which the Minister referred when mentioning the Local Government Act?
Finally, although we cannot support the unusual amendment to today's Motion moved by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, I wish to emphasise our dislike of the lack of detail in the Bill and the proliferation of secondary legislation that will therefore ensue. Secondary legislation is the bane of our current legislative process. It represents the exaggerated power of the Executive over the legislature in our constitution. I am sure that the lack of detail in the Bill will be challenged by many and will form part of the staple fare of consideration of the Bill at Committee stage and later. Perhaps the Government should remember in this time of constitutional upheaval the effect in another turbulent era of the cry, "The power of the king has increased, is increasing and ought to be diminished".
5.11 p.m.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, a debate today on a public health Bill is to be warmly welcomed. Those who have taken part in the debate have made major contributions according to their expertise and knowledge. The combined knowledge and experience of your Lordships will contribute to foreseeing the consequences of the Bill—whether or not for the benefit of the public.
Those of us who have seen at first hand the work of the NHS in recent years at some of the teaching hospitals in London have been immensely impressed by the high standards of the doctors and staff employed. Many, in particular nurses, are temporary staff employed due to shortages. Their services have been impressive and have contributed to the high standards in the hospitals. They are irreplaceable.
The proposals in the Bill and in the White Paper setting out provisions published in December 1997—it is already over a year ago—give some cause for concern as well as reassurance. There is reassurance where improvements to the system, quite rightly, are proposed; and concern where improvements are being replaced by radical reorganisation with an increase in time spent on organisation and discussion rather than on patient care.
Retention of the separation between planning of hospital care and its provision—thus ensuring the improvement of health, meeting healthcare needs of the community, and ensuring that the local health service is built around the needs of the patient—is to be warmly welcomed.
Building on the increasing importance of primary care, it is made clear that the community nurse or family doctor represents most of the contact that patients have with the NHS. However those factors will be affected by the imposition of health improvement programmes which, according to the new proposals—I refer to paragraph 2.11—will govern the action of all parts of the local health service to ensure consistency and co-ordination. I ant always hesitant to use such words because they seem to have different meanings for different people.
No doubt there will always be some example of failure to provide high quality care. That has already been mentioned. But we want to be sure that the service available under the NHS is aimed at achieving the highest standards of care. It is stated that the aims of the new NHS will be to treat patients according to need and need alone. I wonder whether that will be the result of the Bill. We note the capping of management costs which will affect the possibility of ensuring those standards; and the limits imposed on the financial duties of primary care trusts. Those are two examples where there is no guarantee to meet the expenses which may be involved.
Confusion over the current waiting lists and so-called non-waiting lists, to which reference has been made, is sufficient to raise considerable anxiety about the ability of the Department of Health to identify clearly how to treat patients according to need and need alone.
As with previous governments, the Government will wish to fulfil their aspirations for the best service for the health of the nation. Whether previous governments got
142
that right is a matter for individual criticism or praise. However, I am sure that it is the Government's aim to achieve that. To seek improvements on past action is understandable. What is not acceptable is to decry previous systems, which may be improved. To change the system unnecessarily can produce hindrance, delay and extra unnecessary costs. Genuine assistance and the speeding up of the process of care for the patients must remain the paramount, central objective.
The formation of a national service framework, a national institute for clinical excellence and a commission for health improvement, together with new statutory responsibilities, will give opportunities for intervention in the work of the GP, without guaranteeing improvement in either the efficacy or success of the service to the patient. I believe that that is the failure of the Bill at present. During the passage of the Bill through this House, I hope that some amendments will be made to improve it. The current flexibility in the National Health Service should not be replaced with rigidity.
5.17 p.m.
Baroness McFarlane of Llandaff: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her clear introduction of the Bill and for her patience and endurance for the second time within a week.
I speak as one who has worked as a nurse, a midwife and a health visitor, and with an interest in ensuring that the National Health Service delivers a high quality service. I also served on the Royal Commission on the National Health Service from 1976 to 1979 set up by the noble Baroness, Lady Castle. We, suggested restructuring the health service. Those suggestions were overtaken by a change of government in 1979. I have also served on a health authority, a district health authority, and as the first appointed chairman of the English national board, and as a member of the UKCC. I therefore speak with a great wealth of experience about how the National Health Service works. I am sure that all noble Lords taking part in the debate share a great deal of experience of the NHS.
I welcome the main objectives of the Bill for modernisation and partnership, and the working arrangements for them. I welcome the objectives of Clause 1 for the abolition of GP fundholding and the provision for the establishment and funding of primary care trusts. I believe that this will contribute to the NHS ethos of equality of access to services and do away with some of the bureaucracy and the culture of competition which has grown up in the health service.
In a service which is to be primary healthcare led—I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Winston, about the importance of secondary care—the contribution of nurses, midwives and health visitors is pivotal. Nurses have already developed clinically effective and cost-efficient services in primary care. They are running outreach health clinics for the homeless, diagnosing and treating a range of conditions; and practice nurses run minor injuries clinics in local health centres. Patients with chronic diseases such as asthma, diabetes, Parkinson's disease or irritable bowel disease all benefit

143
from nurse-led care. Because of that and because of the importance of primary care nurses in the service, it is essential that nurses are able to commission and develop such services according to the needs of the local population. I believe therefore that we need to look at the governance of the trusts. That is not altogether clear in the Bill as tabled.
The report of the Commons Health Committee published earlier this month stated:
"We recommend that Primary Care Trusts are not established unless their Board Membership has been reviewed to ensure it reflects the broader professional and community input that is required for PCT status … Concerns have been expressed about the potential conflict of interest in having a built in majority of provider GPs on PCT Boards".
Is the Minister able to confirm that that recommendation of the Commons Health Committee will be accepted?
There are also problems in the employment of professional staff by primary care trusts. Only last week an article in the Nursing Standard stated that serving on a primary care group could cost nurses thousands of pounds a year—I did not know that they had thousands of pounds a year to lose, but that is what the article maintains—if their contracted hours are affected by PCG duties. The guidance given suggests that an employer is entitled to all or a proportion of the allowance made to members.
Under Clauses 13 to 18 dealing with quality, I welcome the establishment of the commission for health improvement. Some of the early clinical nursing research in the 1960s had as its objective to establish ways of measuring the quality of nursing care. Since that date nurses have been very much involved in establishing ways of assessing the quality of nursing care. The nursing profession would seek assurance that the work of the commission will cover not only medical standards, but also the essentials of care—hygiene, cleanliness and dignity, continence care and information and support for patients. A recent survey published by Help the Aged entitled, Dignity on the Ward, draws attention to some appalling conditions and poor care received by older people in hospital. Hence I seek an assurance that the commission will cover the basic essentials of care in hygiene, cleanliness and dignity.
The aspect of the Bill that is causing the greatest concern among the professions and about which I have received the most representation is the section on the self-regulation of the professions. I do not want to repeat too much of what has already been so eloquently said by my noble friend Lord Walton, the noble Lord, Lord Winston, and others. The registration and self-regulation of nursing, midwifery and health visiting goes back many years and is jealously guarded by the profession. I accept that, 20 years after the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act 1979, the time is ripe for a review of the role and function of the statutory bodies. But I am disturbed that Part III of the Bill appears almost as an afterthought under the heading, "Miscellaneous and Supplementary" provisions.
The Minister indicated that her department had been exploring with the professions legislation that should take place for nurses, midwives and health visitors.
144
I was appalled that this Bill and the provisions on self-regulation appeared without waiting for the publication of the consultations that have been taking place and for the report from the UKCC Commission on Education. That is not partnership. At least we had some verbal information of what the consultations on the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act were saying and I am delighted, for instance, that it is said that the health visiting profession is to continue as a profession in its own right.
But I am disturbed, as are other people, about the use of Henry VIII clauses to regulate the profession by order. I understood that the report of the Committee of Ministerial Powers, as long ago as 1932, ruled that such powers should be exceptional. I am glad that these are to be subject to affirmative procedure, but I still believe that the professions are exceedingly uneasy about the provisions. We shall certainly want to challenge them by amendment at further stages of the Bill.
5.27 p.m.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, pointed out in her able representation of the nurses, midwives and health visitors, I too seem to have been on my feet on behalf of the dental profession on several occasions over the past two or three weeks. Like other noble Lords, I receive many briefing papers from representatives of different branches of medicine and healthcare. Among others, they come from physiotherapists, chiropractors, the NHS Confederation, the National Consumer Council, the Royal College of Midwives and from Boots. A brief even arrived from the Association of Community Health Councils since I took my seat this afternoon. All made valid points which I am sure will be examined at the next stage of the Bill.
There are three parts of the Bill which will affect dentists and I intend to confine my remarks to them this afternoon. They are the establishment of primary care trusts to replace primary care groups: measures to improve quality and prevent fraud and a proposal to introduce order-making powers to change the Dentists Act.
The Government have a commitment to provide dental services for the whole population and to improve access where there are difficulties. Where primary care trusts are established to provide health services to the population they serve, dentistry should be represented on the boards of those trusts. This good practice has already been established in Wales with dental representation on local health groups.
Secondly, the provision of dental services, particularly by the hospital and community dental services, must not be adversely affected by these proposals. Safeguards must be given to ensure that the community dental services are not fragmented and the services they provide to special needs patients, who by definition are in the most vulnerable groups within society, must be maintained. The public health role of the community dental services also requires them to establish particular functions across a district and it is important that these arrangements are continued.

145
The Bill will place a new duty of quality on NHS trusts. It will also set up the commission for health improvement. Such much-needed measures can only be a success if they are introduced in full consultation with the professions, including dentistry.
The Bill also provides for stronger measures against fraud. Rightly, the Government seek to eradicate fraud whether it is perpetrated by patients or practitioners. The proposed actions which can be taken against dentists who are brought in front of the NHS tribunal accused of fraud are severe, if not draconian, and will prove a deterrent to anyone contemplating a dishonest act. If found guilty, the dentist will be unable to work in the NHS and will almost certainly be unable to work at all. In these circumstances, adequate safeguards must be written into the Bill.
I had hoped to see a provision in the Bill to give the Secretary of State powers to ensure that all dentists and doctors must now have compulsory indemnity. It is of paramount importance that patients who are treated by general practitioners should have the same rights, in the event of any claim, as those who are treated within a trust. While declaring an interest as a member of the Council of the Medical Protection Society, I would support the idea that indemnifiers should be approved by a panel set up by the Secretary of State and would strongly recommend that they provide an occurrence-based rather than a claims-made cover.
Finally, I turn to the Government's proposed order-making powers. The Government's proposals will end the frustration of finding time to open the Dentists Act to get change. Last year, the Government proposed, "to simplify the process by which the law regarding professional regulation is kept up to date by amending the Dentist Act by Order". This Bill will introduce a simpler procedure which will help with modernisation of the General Dental Council and other regulatory bodies such as the General Medical Council. They will, of course, continue to retain their roles as regulatory bodies for education, standards and disciplines.
As my noble friends Lord Howe and Lord Walton and other speakers have pointed out, there are, however, threats in the Bill as currently drafted. It gives wide powers to the Secretary of State under Clauses 47, 48 and Schedule 3, paragraph 1, to amend existing legislation and regulations as he thinks fit. Clarification is needed as to the extent to which these powers will be limited. The core functions listed in Schedule 3, paragraph 8 (2), must be exercised solely by the General Dental Council. The schedule, however, allows them to be the responsibility of a "professional body", which is only loosely defined in the Bill. Again, clarification is needed. Although the Government say that they are committed to the principle of professional self-regulation, there are no safeguards to ensure that the existing methods of ensuring this will be preserved.
Dentists consider that the best way to ensure that professional self-regulation continues to be effective in meeting the needs, of both society and the profession is to provide for minor changes to be achieved quickly, by order. However, major changes should remain subject to primary legislation, thereby allowing proper debate and consideration by Parliament.
5.37 p.m.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, I wish to make clear at once that I bring no professional qualifications to today's debate. However, I bring more than 30 years experience of the National Health Service in Scotland. For some time I was Health Minister in. the Scottish Office in the 1974 to 1979 Labour Government. For some time I was a non-executive director of an acute hospital trust. For some time I was chairman of Fife Health Care Trust, a position which I relinquished a year ago.
I describe that background in order to make three points before dealing with Part II of the Bill, which relates entirely to Scotland. First, I greatly welcome the abolition of fundholding. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, does not share my view. She believes that it would be far better if all general practitioners were fundholders rather than the small number who took up the option in Scotland. Two measures proposed by the previous Conservative government were never taken up in Scotland. One was opting out of the state education system. Only one school in Scotland chose to do so. The other measure was fundholding. In my former parliamentary constituency of Falkirk East there is evidence of general practitioners who entered the fund-holding system, suffered it for a year and then withdrew. I can name a general practitioner in my native home county of Fife who had to go to university to take a business management degree in order to deal with the paperwork of the fundholding system as it grew up.
One of the best medical examples I cart give is of a young boy who was seriously ill, never to get better. His parents claimed their right to have him at home and to have 24-hour care and attention for him. A very expensive care package was put together so that the boy could be discharged into his home environment. Part of the package was a contribution of £50, 000 from the general practitioners who were fundholders. The care package collapsed because the fundholding practice refused to make its £50, 000 contribution. There is ample evidence to support the claim that a number of general practitioners inflated their prescribing Bill during the year before the introduction of fundholding because their allocation was based on that year's spending. That, too, threw up enormous difficulties with the fundholding principle and I am delighted to see the back of it.
I turn to the pharmaceutical industry. I recognise what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Walton, the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, and my noble friend Lord Winston that the pharmaceutical industry is the jewel in the crown. I recognise that it attracts tremendous inward investment. I recognise, too, that it is the heart of research in this country. However, those three claims and more do not give the pharmaceutical industry the right to overcharge the NHS for the drugs it supplies. When my noble friend Lord Healey, who was in his place earlier today, was Chancellor of the Exchequer and I was the Health Minister in Scotland a well-known drug company, which I shall not name to save it embarrassment, had to repay the then Labour government £3 million for overcharging for drugs. I recognise all those plus points about the

147
pharmaceutical industry, but perhaps I may make it clear that they do not give the industry the right to overcharge the NHS for drugs. During our debates we must keep in proportion the importance of industry on the one hand and its freedoms on the other.
The third point that I wish to raise before moving to Part II of the Bill relates to the self-regulatory bodies. It makes no difference whether we are dealing with the professions or the press. There is one common aspect; that they move to put their own house in order only when they are under threat of legislation to do so. We ought not to turn a blind eye to the fact that there has been disquiet about the way in which self-regulatory bodies regulate their professions under circumstances of serious complaint, whether from Bristol or elsewhere. I accept that people have confidence in the medical profession, general practitioners, doctors and the nursing profession, but we will not do the professions any favours if we turn a blind eye to the concerns being expressed about the way in which complaints against those professions are dealt with by the self-regulatory bodies. We shall have the opportunity to deal with this matter in secondary legislation through statutory instruments and the affirmative resolution procedure. One of the weaknesses of such legislation is that it cannot be amended. We can only vote for it or against it; there is no question of amendment. That is something we must all take on board.
I turn to Part II of the Bill which deals entirely with Scotland. In many ways, Scotland is way ahead of England and Wales in the reorganisation of its health service. The primary care trusts, about which so much has been said this afternoon, are already in place in Scotland. The trustees have all been appointed. The reason I was astonished by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, raising his point this afternoon is that the primary care trusts will come into being in Scotland in few weeks' time, on 1st April. I was formerly chairman of the Fife Healthcare NHS Trust which will now become the primary care trust in Fife. To illustrate the importance that has been placed on primary care, that trust has appointed as a medical director not a consultant psychiatrist or a consultant geriatrician but a general practitioner because it is at that level that we see the sharp end of medicine.
I sometimes wonder whether it is generally understood that for every 100 patients who visit their general practitioner, the general practitioner will treat 100. He or she will give them a prescription. The patients go away with their prescriptions and are usually cured. Only 10 in each 100 are referred to hospital, of whom only four are actually treated in hospital. The other six are returned to their general practitioner with advice to the GP about how they should be treated. They are treated and usually cured. Of the four who go to the secondary sector of the National Health Service, the district general hospital, perhaps one in 100 is referred to the tertiary sector, to the great centres for the treatment of cancer, cardiac problems and so on. That is why the general practitioner is so vital.
148
In my view, primary care trusts will be an important element in the strategic planning of health services across any region where they are in place. I have one complaint. I shall leave it with my noble friend Lord Macdonald of Tradeston. I am delighted that he has been in his place on the Front Bench throughout the debate to hear what is said about Scotland. I would have taken this matter further in Scotland. I am not saying anything in your Lordships' House that I have not said at health service conferences in Scotland. I would have abolished the health boards in Scotland as well. Listen to this: it costs £6.1 million per year to run Fife Health Board and it does not treat a single patient. The primary care function of the health boards will be transferred to the primary care trusts. After 1st April, the health boards in Scotland will simply act as bankers on the one hand, allocating resources to the acute and primary care sectors, and as strategic planning authorities on the other hand.
The days have long passed when areas such as Fife, Stirlingshire and the County of Angus had illnesses, diseases and conditions that were peculiar to their own area. The coalmining industry has gone, as has the jute industry in Dundee, and the foundries in Stirlingshire. If one looks across and along that massive area, one sees that certain common illnesses are prevalent, whether in Arbroath or on the boundaries of Stirlingshire and Glasgow.
It is perfectly possible strategically to plan the health service across much wider areas than hitherto has been the case. I advise my noble friend on the Front Bench that that is where the massive savings can be made: in the abolition of the health boards and the setting up of strategic planning authorities comprising the acute sector, the primary care sector and part of local government in the form of social work. Those three elements brought together could easily help us strategically to plan the health service across much wider areas.
I am fairly certain that I speak for large numbers of people in Scotland when I say that we welcome Part II of the Bill. It will allow us to get on with the reorganisation that was promised in the Labour Party's manifesto on which we won the election. We reduced the number of NHS trusts from its high level of 47 to a much more manageable figure of 27 or 28. We have amalgamated a number of acute trusts to give a much better co-ordinated, integrated, acute service to the people served by the acute hospitals.
I come now to a matter that is not for your Lordships' House because I suspect that this will be the last piece of Scottish legislation that we shall discuss. In many ways I am unfairly taking advantage by talking, through your Lordships' House, to the incoming Scottish Parliament. All that I want to see now is even more integration, with the abolition of the health boards, and much more responsibility given to the primary care trusts on the one hand and the acute trusts on the other, joined by the social work departments of local authorities.
Finally, there is also a strong case for that part of the social work department that deals with care in the community being taken away from local government

149
and given to the health service. The conflict that has arisen between social service departments and the health service about discharging patients from long-stay hospitals into the community is unbelievable. When a patient is discharged we are told that the money follows the patient. My noble friends can take it from me that when patients have to be re-admitted because of a relapse in their condition, the money never comes back with the patients. Once a local authority gets its hands on the money, it is a prisoner of the local authority. The health service gets the patient back, but the money never comes back with the patient. I leave those thoughts with your Lordships and I am grateful for the tolerance that has been shown.
5.49 p.m.
Baroness Fookes: My Lords, I rise with some diffidence as I do not have the deep and direct experience of the National Health Service evinced by many noble Lords who have spoken. However. I have been in political life a long time. I have seen many reforms and reorganisations heralded in the NHS, local government and other organisations. It is my experience that rarely do all the glorious things expected from the latest reform come to pass. In the fullness of time, further great changes are heralded. I dare say it will be the same with the Bill.
I am sorry—unlike the noble Lord, Lord Ewing of Kirkford—that we are parting with the fundholder principle. I thought it one of the few changes that was working and, had it been allowed to last longer, that would work even better. One of its strengths was its voluntary nature. If doctors did not like fundholding, they did not have to become involved. I gather that that was the case in Scotland. Many doctors who did join found fundholding a rewarding way of managing practices that gave power back to general practitioners. That is important. We are in danger of losing that advantage with the change to primary groups and eventually, trusts.
I understand there will be no voluntary arrangement. Doctors will perforce have to join the new groups or trusts as they are formed. They will be large, and that will make for more bureaucracy. If I were a betting woman, which I am not, I would wager that groups and trusts will produce more bureaucratic procedures than ever existed under the arrangements for fundholding.
I am concerned also about the upheaval for many people who work, n the health service. I have a friend who became an administrator of a large multifund in a deprived area of London. She became increasingly enthusiastic about the improved services that it was possible to offer. She is devastated by the decision to do away with fundholding and all the changes involved in moving to the new system. I imagine many others feel the same. I am reluctant to see that change happen. I wish it well but T have grave doubts that it will work as well as the Minister says.
Clause 19 contains a noble expression about the various NHS bodies co-operating one with another. Although that is a noble sentiment, I do not understand what it means. What precise duty can there be? If there
150
is a duty, presumably there can be derelictions of duty. Who will be responsible for ensuring that they are put right? To put it crudely, that seems like waffle. It sounds good but will not be particularly practical. I seek guidance on that point when the Minister winds up.
The notorious Clause 47 has been mentioned by several noble Lords who referred to the specific worries of various professional groups ancillary to medicine as to how they will be governed. I want to make a general point about the approach to making legislation. Over the years it has become increasingly obvious that governments favour a light framework to which they can add details later. That seems to give too much power to the government, or in this case the Secretary of State for Health.
It is all very well to say that matters will come before the House under the affirmative resolution procedure and can be debated. However, the point was made well by the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, that it is not possible to alter the provisions. Therein lies the rub. That is where Parliament loses control and the executive gains it. To put it vulgarly, either one swallows the order whole or one spits it out. That does not seem a sensible way of proceeding.
It would be far better if the Bill contained the right for parliamentarians to make alterations. In the absence of that right, I do not think that the Government's power should be exercised as widely as it is. The Government should think again about the whole approach. It would not hurt them to produce something far more detailed and, if they cannot, to make regulation the subject of separate legislation. I do not believe that we are here to make life easy for governments.
5.56 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, when the White Paper was published by the incoming Labour Government, one welcome aspect was their commitment to abolishing the internal market. I presume that we have before us the substitute. I want to understand the new internal market because, whatever one calls it, there is a different kind of market here.
Before fundholding was introduced, the GP was able to deal with patients and was subject to light budgetary constraints on how much he or she could spend on patient treatment. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, pointed out several advantages of fundholding but many people found that system inequitable. There are various ways of dealing with that inequity. Either one makes every GP a fundholder so that no patient belongs to a non-fundholding practice, or one returns to the previous status quo. That would be imperfect.
There are two kinds of inequity in the health service. One relates to fundholding but the other does not. The inequity highlighted by fundholding was that in any local area, some patients might belong to fundholding practices while others might not. Another big inequity, which was disclosed in the Black Report many years ago and more recently in the Acheson Report, was that there are health inequities across the country, due to environmental or economic factors. Although the NHS does its best to deal with them, it is far from resolving

151
them completely. Clause 21 is welcome because it places on health authorities a duty to improve health in their regions.
If one wants inequities to be overcome in every area, all patients should have equal access to medical services. At present, across areas people have access to unequal resources, so that poorer areas get more and richer areas get less. I do not know how the primary care trusts will deal with that problem. I have read the Explanatory Notes, but I still find it hard to understand. Perhaps later, during the Committee stage, we will be able to understand it.
It seems to me that a primary care trust will be a very large unit. Indeed, it may span a whole borough of, say, 100, 000 people and have a budget of £60 million, with all the GPs belonging to it. I do not quite know how the inequity as between patients within an area will be dealt with by those trusts. Moreover, it is not quite clear as to whether there is any mechanism, as between PCTs, for paying those covering poorer areas more to enable them to look after their patients better, than those that cover more prosperous areas. That remains to be sorted out; indeed, it is very hard to know what we are doing in that respect.
I make the following suggestion with caution. It is just possible that such trusts are too large. Although we want to put every patient in some group or trust, perhaps there ought to be many more of them, thus providing much greater diversity as regards primary care. I have in mind much greater diversity of size and mix of different kinds of medical healthcare. I believe that diversity will lead to experimentation which may, in turn, lead to an improvement in quality. Whereas, if you have a large monolithic primary care trust, it may be difficult for patients to get what they want.
I have but one comment to make about self-regulation. I just wish that the latter had not been made part of the Bill; indeed, I wish that it had been done separately. I can envisage the Committee stage being entirely dominated by discussions on Clause 47, and nothing else. It always happens. If you try to do anything with well-organised professions, they will take up all the time. Doctors and lawyers are like that; but, fortunately, economists are not. There is no licence for being an economist: anyone can be an economist. We have failed somewhere. I am afraid that Clause 47 will dominate our Committee discussions.
I have one final point to make about pharmaceutical price regulation. I very much take on board what my noble friend Lord Ewing of Kirkford said. There are two factors to bear in mind. First, there is no doubting the fact that we have a very good pharmaceutical industry; indeed, it is a world leader. But, secondly, we must bear in mind one of the advantages it has had over a number of years. It has had a single stable buyer—one great purchaser. That has reduced uncertainty to an enormous extent. Pharmaceutical industries in other countries do not have such a large single purchaser. That removes so much uncertainty and frees the industry to carry on the research and development and take risks, because the risks are at the margin of the business and are not the main concern.
152
I do not want to detract from the possibility that things could go wrong. Of course, the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry is not very happy with this, but it was never happy with regulation. However, if you want to encourage research and development, you should do so through a tax concession and not through overpricing. The pricing should be left so as to allow it to be as reasonable and as efficient as possible. If you want to encourage research and development, you should do something else. I believe that it would be a mixing up of two different objectives to allow people to overprice just because they are good at R&D. I say that because not everyone who overprices is necessarily good at R&D. Indeed, they are two different things. I very much welcome those provisions and am less disquieted than other noble Lords about the concerns of the pharmaceutical industry.
As the possible outcome of this legislation, perhaps not now but during the next 10 to 15 years, I should like to see a greater equity in local health provision as between patients coming from different income classes and inter-regionally—that is, people living in different areas. The kind of evidence produced by the Black and Acheson Reports is something about which we should be seriously concerned. Indeed, we ought to be able to do better.
6.4 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, as ever, the noble Lord, Lord Desai, has made a fascinating speech and put forward one or two interesting suggestions, which we shall no doubt follow up. However, I go back to the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Ewing. He knows the National Health Service very well indeed, warts and all; and displayed that in what he said. But, in Scotland's case, it seems to me that the manner in which the Government are proposing the enormous changes contained in the Bill is surprising, to say the least. They are fundamental changes, particularly in primary care.
Part II of the Bill, about which I shall mostly speak, replaces fundholding and the present relationship of GPs to health boards and trusts with new reconstructed trusts, which are as vaguely described in that part of the Bill as they are for England and Wales. Below the primary care trusts there is to be a structure for professional involvement—a combined structure which is considerably different from that proposed for England and Wales. At present, the whole system seems to be understood mainly by those who are preparing for its implementation. As far as I can discover, few, including GPs, are not somewhat mystified and there has scarcely been any public discussion.
In addition to Part II, Clause 47, which relates to professional self-regulation, also applies to Scotland, as do the powers in Clauses 26 to 31 on the price of drugs. On the latter I should point out that the regulation of prices will be of considerable interest to a very large and important pharmaceutical industry in Scotland. It will also be of equal interest to our important university medical schools, and their related hospitals, which

153
depend for much of their income and much of their research skill on chat which comes to them in the way of new drugs and new inventions.
As my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish suggested in his brief intervention during the Minister's introductory speech to the Bill, all this is being done only 13 weeks before the elections to the Scottish Parliament—a parliament which will be opened on 1st July, its new devolved responsibilities to include this very health service. Clause 51 of the Bill tells us, as one would expect, that, from then on, the responsibilities (which in the Bill are said to be those of the Secretary of State for Scotland) will pass to Scots Parliament Ministers. So we at Westminster are being asked to turn the Scottish health system upside-down and to set up arrangements, which, in less than five months, will be the responsibility of others.
I am glad to see that the Scottish Office Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, is sitting in his place today. I wonder whether he will be able to help his noble friend Lady Hayman to explain this extraordinary timing. In his intervention at the beginning of the debate, the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, seemed to think that this did not matter. However, knowing their plans for devolution from the outset, why did the Government put all this in their general election manifesto, rather than waiting and putting it into their manifesto for the Scottish Parliament? It seems to me that it would have been very much more democratic and very much simpler. Perhaps the Minister will also be able to tell us what will happen if the Bill has not become law by 1st July. Judging by the reception that her speech and the Bill have received thus far, that seems a possibility. We shall certainly need to explore the practicality of the timing of the implementation of Part II in Committee. Those are my first questions.
The following questions concern the drafting of Part II of the Bill. It is not at all surprising that so few people working in the National Health Service, and even those whose job it is to develop it, understand Part II which is due to be implemented in April. However, it is difficult to know what is supposed to be happening. The clauses of Part II are drafted almost entirely in terms of amendments to a previous Act, the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978, which itself was amended by the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990. I suggest that this renders Part II of the Bill difficult for noble Lords and interested bodies to comprehend who want to design amendments. It has to be said that the Explanatory Notes do not tell us all that much either as regards Part II. Can the Government help us well before Committee stage by producing a text showing how the existing 1978 Act will read if Part II of this Bill becomes law, with the changes perhaps printed in heavy type? That would help the Committee and those who want to brief us.
I have given the Minister notice of my next point. For the benefit of all concerned in Scotland, now and in the future, will the Government consider including such a text as a schedule to the Bill? It is not unknown in Scottish legislation. Erskine May states at page 532 that an example of such a schedule, sometimes known as a Keeling schedule after Mr. Keeling who proposed the
154
idea, was included in the Rating and Valuation (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill 1983. Will the Government consider that kind of clarification?
One of the few clear statements in Part II of the Bill is that GP fundholding practices will cease. As the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, knows, I consider that for Scotland in particular that is a mistake. North of the Border fundholding has been taken up unevenly—the noble Lord is quite right about that—but where it has been adopted it has been used most responsibly and with considerable benefits to patients. In my part of the world, Angus, which the noble Lord mentioned, a group of fundholding GPs were dissatisfied with the slow turn around of blood samples, which are so important to GPs. They were unable to get an improvement within the public system and they approached the private sector. Quickly a twice-a-day collection was established with next day turn around for all patients, not just the patients of fundholding practices. That was a huge improvement. In the Grampian region where fundholding covers 50 per cent. of patients, all patients, not just the patients of fundholding practices, can now have physiotherapy on Saturdays, which was not the case previously.
Most of what we know of the system which is to replace fundholding is to be found in the White Paper Designed to Care and not in this Bill. Even the White Paper is fairly vague, as are the Explanatory Notes in this case. For primary care cash limited funding will pass from health boards to primary care trusts. Those trusts will set up below them voluntary groupings called, in wonderfully Old Labour language—for which I believe the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, may have some affection—local healthcare co-operatives. But what is in a name? GPs, pharmacists, dentists and other professionals will come together in these co-operatives to involve themselves in the development and management of services. They will be allowed a budget if they wish, although, needless to say, the Secretary of State or the relevant Scots Parliament Minister will control its extent.
In my part of the world primary care trusts will include a vast area—the whole of Angus. Perthshire and Kinross. I understand that it is planned in Angus alone to have two co-operatives, one in Dundee and one in Perth, each with its own board and committees of health professionals. These co-operatives will be health professionals' main point of contact with the system. I wonder how much of their time will be taken away from patient care in doing this, and at what cost to the health service.
The Prime Minister in his introduction to the White Paper stated,
"We are saving £100 million of red tape and putting the money into … patient care".
I wonder whether that will be the case. How long would it take to effect the change in our local blood test turn around under the new system? I am told that under the new arrangements it would take well over a year to get any change at all, if one got it. Nothing might happen.
That leads me to a point made by the British Medical Association which is anxious about the vagueness of the Bill and indeed the White Paper on another aspect of

155
primary care trusts. It wants to know whether there is any role for primary care trusts in Scotland—as there is in England and Wales—to commission secondary services. The BMA suspects there is not. Perhaps the Minister would confirm that when she replies to the debate because it is an important point and we should like to know the answer straight away if possible.
The Minister referred to all this as modernisation, as one would expect. However, it seems to me strangely old fashioned, quite frankly, to move from devolution down to GPs, down to the coal-face, back to centralisation, with people at the coal-face able to communicate only through bureaucratic bodies. I wonder whether that will work and whether it will be cost-effective. In Committee we must clarify precisely what the Bill states in relation to Scotland and the rest of the UK. We must identify the powers which will be in the hands of the Secretary of State and the Scots Parliament Minister. We must look closely at what can be done through statutory instrument. It will be interesting to see what the committee which examines these things on behalf of your Lordships has to say about that. Then we must do all we can to ensure that this Bill is workable.
I am sorry about the Bill. I do not think it is nearly as good as it should be. I am not sure what my noble friend will do about his reasoned amendment but I hope noble Lords will listen carefully to what he says when he speaks at the end of the debate, and that perhaps they will support the amendment.
6.18 p.m.
Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, I begin by declaring a current interest as a non-executive director of the London Ambulance Service NHS Trust and a former interest as the director of the Association of Community Health Councils for England and Wales until I joined your Lordships' House.
I welcome this Bill and in particular its objective of improving the quality of healthcare in the NHS through a duty of quality on NHS trusts and primary care trusts. I also welcome its objective of improving the accountability of providers and commissioners of health services. I welcome the new duty of partnership on NHS bodies and between the health service and local government. Although I acknowledge that these will be controversial for many noble Lords, I welcome the provisions to modernise the regulation of the health professions.
I was concerned by the remarks of my noble friend Lord Desai on economists. I take the view that the public have the right to expect that economists should be regulated and that there should be a proper complaints and redress system for the public when the economists get their diagnoses wrong. But perhaps that will be a long time in coming.
It is worth remembering that our NHS is still the envy of the world. As a nation, we have a healthcare system that is more universal, more efficient and more effective than those available in most other parts of the world. What is more, we spend less of our GDP per head on the healthcare system than most other developed nations. However, there remain enormous health
156
inequalities, and the gap between rich and poor has widened in the last 20 years. Too many people die prematurely in this country because of the effects of poverty and poor living conditions. I know that the Public Health Alliance has estimated that one jumbo jet per day crashing, with all its passengers being killed, is the equivalent of the number of excess deaths among those who are on lower incomes.
The market orientation of the past few years has done little, if anything, to improve the efficiency of the service or, more importantly, to widen the choice available to individual patients. Indeed, the elements of competition have worked against the co-operation of different parts of the service. That is why the Government's approach of replacing competition with co-operation and introducing a new duty of partnership is so important: mutualism rather than the free market.
At the same time, health authorities will be required to set a framework—the health improvement plan—for commissioning decisions which will enable improvements in health status to be achieved. So what we have there is a shift in focus to outputs rather than inputs. The emphasis will now be on what should be achieved rather than on the precise agency that does it—dare I say it, very much The Third Way.
There will be collaboration between the NHS and local councils to achieve improvements in health, recognising that such improvements are more likely to flow from tackling the causes of ill health rather than the symptoms of illness, and recognising that such action is going to be collective as well as individual. Yesterday in your Lordships' House we had an interesting series of exchanges at Question Time about the interpretation services in the health service. In my view, it would be the case that Clause 13 of the Bill, which sets out the duty of quality to be laid on each primary care trust and NHS trust, implies an acceptance that each patient should be entitled to equal treatment, irrespective of their linguistic and cultural background. To assist in this, accurate and accessible interpreting and translating services need to be available throughout the health service.
One example may be useful to illustrate the point. How many of your Lordships have had occasion to seek treatment from a doctor or to collect medication from a pharmacy while abroad? Under such circumstances one may be anxious, bewildered, certainly not feeling well and therefore perhaps less able to cope in whatever command we might have of another language. I suspect that in those circumstances the ready availability of interpretation services would be most welcome.
In my local authority area nearly 40 per cent. of the children in the local schools speak a language other than English at home. In such areas—though it is also true across London and in many other parts of the country—good interpretation services are vital within every hospital, clinic and GP's surgery. A modern, dependable service cannot rely on schoolchildren interpreting for their parents or their grandparents.
The importance of a user-centred service—one that is responsive to the needs of those who depend on it and which is built on a true partnership between the patients

157
and the professionals—must underpin the provisions of this Bill. I look forward to a number of issues being clarified during its passage through this House. May I therefore pose a number of questions to which I hope it may be possible to return in due course?
First, how is "quality" in Clause 13 to be defined? Is it to be a definition that is medically driven or will the views of patients, carers and other health service users be taken into account in defining standards against which quality is measured in monitoring service provision and in evaluating outcomes? Secondly, why is the duty of quality not imposed on health authorities, which will have a key role in setting the framework within which NHS trusts and primary care trusts will operate? Likewise, in the interim period, should not a duty of quality be placed on primary care groups?
Thirdly, how is the commission for health improvement to operate? May we assume, for example, that its reports will be in the public domain, subject of course to the protection of any individual patient's confidentiality? Will those reports be routinely sent to community health councils with an interest in the services covered by any specific report? Will CHCs be able to trigger an investigation by the commission where they feel that one is merited?
Fourthly, in responding to the reasoned amendment proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, will my noble friend the Minister be able to reassure the House that primary care trusts will have a membership which includes a majority of lay people? Will primary care trusts have a duty to consult widely on their plans and proposals and will CHCs have the same rights as they currently do in respect of health authorities? Furthermore, will CHCs have the right to inspect services directly run by primary care trusts?
Finally, I should like to touch on another issue to do with primary care trusts. We understand that they will be permitted to provide services to private patients and to run private facilities. Can we be reassured that there will be practical safeguards to protect the interests of NHS patients and to make sure that primary care trusts providing private services operate in the generality of their activities for the benefit of the health service as a whole? I am sure that we would all want to make sure that there are no conflicts of interest.
While these questions are important, they do not detract from the overall thrust of the Bill. The proposals in it are good, will be good for patients and will help to achieve the Government's objectives, which I am sure we will all share, of making services more accessible, more equitable and more responsive to the modern needs of service users—creating a new NHS that is truly modern and dependable.
6.26 p.m.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, I wonder how community hospitals will fare under a primary care group or a primary care trust. We understand from the White Paper that the PCGs and PCTs will be representative of all the clinical professions in their area. Will that include representatives from community hospitals and will it include physiotherapists and other
158
professionals allied to medicine, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, mentioned? Will it include alternative medicine practices? We look forward to finding out, and of course we must ask what the results will be for our community hospitals.
Take, for example, the case of the Burford Community Hospital that has fared so badly under the Oxfordshire Health Authority during the life of this Government. Burford Hospital has a deserved reputation for having pioneered nursing practices later adopted nationally and occasionally internationally. For instance, Burford had the country's first nursing development unit. Burford developed "primary nursing", which led to the "named nurse" concept. Burford pioneered patient self-medication and Burford was the first clinical area to introduce "nursing beds", where nurses—not doctors—are responsible for admissions and discharges.
Now this centre of excellence is faced with closure as part of a programme to reduce rural Oxfordshire's health capacity by 52 beds and move the caseload to the John Radcliffe in Oxford. It is claimed that this will save Oxfordshire Community Health Council £1.5 million over four years—and well it may—but the costs of treating patients do not disappear. They are merely transferred elsewhere. For instance, the minor injuries unit at Burford will go but another will be opened at Witney at an anticipated cost of £200, 000, to be financed by the health authority with £200, 000 of new money. I am no accountant, but is not another word for "new" the much criticised "creative"?
Moreover, the community health council is going to purchase respite and palliative care from the private sector to alleviate the strain of closing 52 rural beds. Fifty-two beds gone from the rural environment and, with them, the nurses, doctors, administrators and ancillary staff! What will be in their place? A round trip of 50 miles from Burford to Oxford, 36 miles from Witney and 48 miles from Chipping Norton. The costs of these extra journeys will be borne, in part, by the patients and their families and friends.
We should also consider the position of the John Radcliffe, one of our leading hospitals with an enviable reputation for treating critical and acute problems. It will be faced with a full-time demand for at least 35 beds—. based on 39 beds at an average occupancy of 90 percent.—removed from Burford alone. Those relatively low cost beds in the rural community have been used to both obviate admissions to Oxford and to facilitate discharges.
I quote from the John Radcliffe response to the consultation:
"A delay in patient discharge inevitably leads to a delay in patient admission. Therefore, in our present situation, each day we have 16 of our 26 patient assessment areas in the Accident and Emergency department effectively blocked because of unavailability of community hospital beds. A further loss of 52 beds would have a catastrophic effect upon this already intolerable situation".
That opinion was apparently endorsed in the White Paper on the NHS. Again I quote:
"Too often in the past community hospitals have been sidelined. Their contribution to managing pressures of rising admissions has often been ignored. Patients will be able to use local community hospitals to the full rather than have to travel to more distant acute hospitals. This will be particularly significant in rural areas".

159
In the light of this, will the Minister tell us how the Health Bill will enable the Government to use local community hospitals, not close them?
Time does not allow me to relate in detail the very cogent arguments of the community health council against this proposal, but they cover the overwhelming public and professional opposition. The arguments include the unacceptable pressure that will be placed on other parts of the health and social care system; the failure of the proposal to meet local needs; and the waste of development potential in the community hospitals.
However, I cannot ignore the position of the Government who sat in opposition complaining that the NHS was in jeopardy. The Government said in their election manifesto, "We have no plans to close hospitals." We should look more closely at the words, "We have no plans" because there is nothing in the manifesto to stop a government with an overwhelming majority putting pressure on a health authority to do their dirty work for them; nothing to stop the most populist government of all time concentrating on fulfilling a specific pledge—to bring down waiting lists—at the expense of common sense and common decency to all those who voted them into power; and, most despicably, nothing to stop them plundering the results of the money-raising carried out over many years, enthusiastically and successfully, to provide support, buildings and equipment for community hospitals countrywide. Will the Minister say how she proposes to repay the Burford Hospital's comfort fund the £138, 000 it spent on a new day unit, opened just a year ago.
Finally, how is it that, after a year of agonised debate, the Secretary of State for Health, Frank Dobson, was unable last week to give a straight yes or no to the delegation which asked him to overturn the Oxfordshire Health Authority decision? One wonders whether this Health Bill, with its draconian powers and, as my noble friend Lord Howe mentioned, its four-tier system, will enable Ministers to bring a halt to the uncertainty that the community hospitals are suffering?
6.34 p.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I, too, am interested in Part H of the Bill, which is of course designed for Scotland. The Scottish clauses are modest—in volume at least—in comparison to those for England and Wales. This is very appropriate in view of the impending devolution of the NHS in Scotland to the Scottish Parliament and Executive. Indeed, there is a small case to make in principle: that there should have been no changes made to the NHS in Scotland on the ground that it ties the hands of the new Scottish Executive to make changes in the foreseeable future. However, I shall not pursue that argument because the removal of fundholding and the internal market is so clearly demanded in Scotland, and the new emphasis on putting the patient back in the centre of the future Scottish health service is so clearly correct.
The plans for greater integration of the various elements of the health service ought to be the basis of delivering a more coherent and co-operative service.
160
This can be mirrored by the one-door approach taken by the personal social services in Scotland, as enshrined in the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968.
The Bill brings in organisational changes for Scotland's 15 health boards, which will be implemented on 1st April this year. In view of the late introduction of this Bill, there are already in place shadow primary care trusts and embryonic local healthcare co-operatives. As someone who is domiciled in Clackmannanshire, I am aware that the Forth Valley Health Board will combine the two acute hospital trusts into one and has set up the shadow Forth Valley primary care trust. This new trust will absorb the work of the Central Scotland Healthcare Trust, which currently delivers community and priority services, and will integrate those services with the work of the two shadow local healthcare co-operatives.
At present, these shadow local healthcare co-operatives are targeted on Falkirk and on Stirling and Clackmannanshire. In view of the approach taken by the Clackmannanshire council in encouraging alliance working, I suspect that a separate local healthcare co-operative for Clackmannanshire will be more responsive than one trying to react to the rightly differing approach of the two local authorities.
These organisational changes will. I hope, bring efficient management and development to the existing health services. But the real test will be this: can the health service begin to reach into the largely uncharted waters of health promotion and the prevention of ill health? Scotland's population generates some pretty awful statistics about the state of its health; it is not good and it must get better. This is probably the first marker for measuring success for the reinstated Scottish Parliament.
Since the cause of much of our preventable ill-health lies across the width of the administrative spectrum, all talk about co-operative and integrated working will need to be real. If the contributory causes of much of Scottish ill-health lie in poverty, poor quality housing, bad diet, lack of exercise, unfocused education, low self-esteem and addiction to or the abuse of tobacco, alcohol and drugs—prescribed or otherwise—then a formidable amount of activity will be required by the authorities in all their forms. There will also need to be a commitment by individual citizens and their families to work towards this goal of a healthier nation.
The Bill aims to set out the basis for a more straightforward health service. The success of the Bill will be judged by the wisdom of those who work in the industry, the willingness of the general public to heed advice and to demand it, and the commitment of the governing class to tackle these real issues. That means abandoning fears about raising sufficient resources. Very few people now believe that you get better value if you pay less. I look forward to the Committee stage of this Bill which could lead to so much.
6.40 p.m.
Lord Warner: My Lords, I speak from a background of over 20 years in the DHSS, six years as a director of social services for Kent County Council and three years

161
as chairman of an FHSA in east London. It is clear from my contribution n the debate last week that I strongly support the abolition of GP fundholding which I must say. from my experience, had nothing to contribute in deprived areas. I welcome its replacement with primary care trusts.
Today I wish to address some remarks to Clauses 19 to 25 concerning partnerships between health bodies and the NHS and local government. Those are long overdue changes and, in my view, the Government are to be warmly congratulated on pushing on with those reforms.
Before I do that, perhaps I may strike a dissenting note as regards the idea of a framework Bill. In my view, there is much to he said for leaving to secondary legislation the detail in relation to items which have a strong operational significance. I have seen from my own experience the problems of governments of all persuasions in trying to respond to pressures, often from professionals and managers in the services, caused by changes which are operationally necessary but which the primary legislation prevents.
I suggest that the approach in this Bill will enable us to produce a better and more responsive health service over the years. It is certainly my experience that governments do not ignore in legislation the concerns of powerful professions. The only thing which is scarcer than money is probably parliamentary time. When professions wish to be able to adapt their regulations, it is easier for them: do so if there is provision for that in secondary legislation. The reality is that all governments consult the professions before they draft the secondary legislation. I suggest that we should become a little more relaxed about Clause 47.
I turn now to the issues of partnership. I spent six years as a director of social services in the 1980s and early 1990s trying to make community care work within the current legislative framework. There were many good aspects of the previous government's community care changes. Indeed, some former Ministers deserve enormous credit for risking their political careers in persuading the then Prime Minister that civilisation would not end if local government were given the lead responsibility for community care. That was absolutely the right decision and it enabled care management to be introduced and individualised care packages to be developed. As a result, many more people were able to be cared for at home and in the community rather than in hospitals. Unfortunately, the legislative barriers between health and social care often made it difficult to pass money over what my right honourable friend Frank Dobson has called the "Berlin Wall" in the interests of those needing care.
Health and social care partnership working is a lot like personal relationships. It requires trust and sharing information, resources and responsibilities. There have been some heroic figures who have overcome organisational barriers to make partnerships work. But it often requires huge persistence and people are often looking over their shoulders to see whether the auditors, governing bodies or others are going to challenge their behaviour. I can still remember the endless arguments with the six different health authorities with which
162
I dealt about whether it was right for community nursing services to be provided to elderly people in local authority homes as an alternative to the far greater cost of transferring them into hospital. This Bill gives a clear signal that partnership working should be the norm, not an exceptional activity requiring superhuman endeavour.
The whole area of services for people with learning disabilities is a good example of where services have been bedevilled by squabbles between health. housing, education and social services. Those squabbles are usually about who should pay. The people with children with learning disabilities are not interested in the arcane organisational disputes with which they are often confronted. They need some integrated life-time planning for their children's needs and secure arrangements for their own respite care. Too often they are frustrated because the different agencies cannot agree funding for the services they all know are needed. Those parents have enough problems to cope with without having to grapple with different bureaucracies patrolling their territorial boundaries.
Clause 20 makes it absolutely clear that,
"In exercising their respective functions NHS bodies … and local authorities … shall co-operate with one another in order to secure and advance the health and welfare of the people of England and Wales".
I have assumed that primary care groups will also be required to co-operate because they are associated with the health authority. It is sad that we need to introduce such legislative provision but the reality is that we do. Unlike the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, I do not regard that as waffle. I regard it as a clear statement of statutory intent.
Of course those changes would be empty words if they were not reinforced by the new powers to transfer funds in both directions between health and social care. People will be discouraged from engaging in empty joint planning exercises where worthy objectives are agreed but the money does not flow in support of their achievements. The provisions in Clauses 22, 23 and 24 remove the excuses for not having proper joint working between health and social care. People will no longer be able to say, "Well, we should like to be able to work with our health or social services colleagues on this project but the law", or, "the auditors"—the two favourite excuses—"will not allow us to do so".
I welcome the fact that better partnership working is in place in the context of jointly agreed health improvement programmes rather than simple healthcare services. I believe that that will pose some interesting challenges for NHS managers who may encounter professional tribalism in some quarters. For example, although much is made of the shortage of nurses, we could still make much better use of the nurses we have with more use of trained sub-professional staff in areas like long-term care, health education and community supervision. Just as doctors have passed functions to nurses over the past decade or so, some nurses will have to learn to pass more tasks and responsibilities to suitably trained non-nursing staff.

163
It has taken the NHS 50 years to reach this point in partnership working and to begin to understand the importance of more permeable boundary organisations across which funding can flow. It has taken a government of the same political persuasion as that which introduced the NHS to bring about that change. The Minister and her ministerial colleagues will, however, need to keep up the pressure on people to use those new powers.
Lifestyle changes, a better living environment and improved social care and support will often produce greater health gain than healthcare services. That is a difficult lesson for many NHS managers and professionals to act upon, given that many of them have spent most of their working lives in the hot-house atmosphere of the acute hospital. We should not underestimate the extent of institutionalised thinking which may need to be changed both within the NHS and local government. There will be local councillors who do not wish to see local authority funding mingling indistinguishably with NHS money. There will be managers on both sides of the health and social care divide who want to protect projects and ways of working over which they have more direct control. There will be health professionals who are threatened by health improvement programmes that are not healthcare driven.
My noble friend Lord Winston chided me earlier for suggesting that primary care should be developed at the expense of secondary care. That is not so. I know very well that we need both. The failure to have good quality primary care and community care in the more socially deprived areas simply increases the demands and pressures on the secondary care sector. The Bill will go a long way to help redress that balance and will reduce demands on the secondary care sector.
The Bill is the beginning, not the end, of stronger partnership working for better health. I believe, to coin a phrase, that it will enable the NHS to be tough on the causes of ill-health as well as on ill-health itself. I welcome its introduction and hope that it will have a speedy passage.
6.50 p.m.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, the Bill contains much work instituted by the previous government as well as much instituted by this one. The Government will of course take credit for both, and will continue to blame any shortcomings in the field of health on the previous government. But of such is politics.
There are points of a background nature I wish to make which I hope will have some relevance before I address some detailed points arising from the Bill. The first, I suggest, is the rise in consumerism among all sections of the population. People are subjected to television advertisements, the publication of league tables, the identification of "best buy" and an increasing coverage in the media of individual brands of all kinds of goods. Such discrimination and comparison affect the public's attitude to the shape of the health service it is looking for and to which it feels entitled.
164
The next point is that healthcare in this country must be structured to keep pace with the ever-increasing (if I may tamper with the dictionary) individualisation of medicine. In the past, every man's medical history and condition is, and always has been, as unique as his fingerprints. But as a result of the ever-increasing onward march of medical genomics it will, in the near future, be possible to identify a person's medical profile to a degree that has never previously been possible. So the statistics that those produce are both a tool and a challenge to the providers of healthcare. I say a tool in that it enables areas of individual need and treatment opportunity to be analysed in great detail. The challenge is to the providers to meet as many as possible of those areas of medical need within the realities of a not unlimited budget.
That very sophistication leads to another requirement concerning what, to the ordinary man, is a bewildering array of treatment, procedures and pharmaceuticals. It is essential for the medical profession to take the public with it in educating people as to what is available, whether they need it and what it does—an approach whereby the GP, in his traditional one-to-one consultation with the patient, will become an educator and an advocate in guiding the patient through the maze of modern medical practice. I feel that the restrictions on the GP's discretion, referred to by my noble friend Lord Howe, will not assist this new and increasing obligation to educate the patient.
Another general point is that the health service must cope with the unexpected. The most striking example is the AIDS epidemic of the past 15 years. And let us look for a moment at Russia. Who would have foreseen that, following the collapse of the Soviet Union, life expectancy would fall by some five years and that alcoholism, diphtheria, and polio—which I thought was a dead disease—would show appalling increases? There is of course no parallel with the National Health Service, but that is an illustration of how events can colour in an unexpected way a country's management of its healthcare. Reference was made earlier to the NHS juggernaut. That juggernaut needs to be fitted with some delicate and effective power steering.
To take the point further, the national management of healthcare must be seen in the context of a unique asset which enjoys different custodians from time to time but must always be responsive to the needs of the times in the way I have described.
I now turn to some detailed points in the Bill, and, first, the abolition of GP fund-holding practices. It is, I think, true to say that it was the intention of the previous government to make fundholding as widely available as possible. It was available to any practice which sought it, and the only ones which remained outside the scheme were broadly those which held out as a matter of political principle and small practices where there was not the organisational capability.
The present proposals appear, by a remarkable sleight of hand, to have achieved the previous government's intention of making funds available to the poorer practices by ensuring that all GPs are part of a primary care group. While improvement in resources will be less

165
marked in the established fundholding practices, there should be a considerable improvement in the one-man practices in inner-city areas. That is very much to be welcomed, although we would have liked to see the continuing expansion of GP fundholding. The purchasing power of these groups will be considerable; however, I am concerned that there is a danger of their being of an unmanageable size.
The proposals in Clause 24 to facilitate co-operation between NHS bodies and local authorities is to be welcomed. However, it is not clear from Clause 5 whether or not there is a "best value" element, which is already present with local authority tendering. If that is not factored into these arrangements, there is the danger of cosy arrangements springing up between local authorities and NHS trusts. I welcome the Minister's reference to that in her opening remarks. I hear disturbing reports in one or two areas where the NHS trust and the social services department have made an agreement which will have the effect of shutting out newly created primary care groups, thus maintaining the status quo of control between themselves. While I have reservations about the creation of primary care groups, I should not like to see their introduction prejudiced by a blatant abuse. I should like to take up the matter with the Minister.
I now turn to the purchaser/provider split and the abolition of the internal market. The internal market had the effect in many hospitals of bringing a sense of involvement and an awareness of cost and profitability to all who work there—from porters to consultants. I remain sceptical as to whether the ideals of working "for the service" will be realistic under the new arrangements. On that point, I regard the jury as being out. However, I welcome the retention of the purchaser/provider split, which carries with it in relation to both parties a basic discipline of efficiency.
I have a concern. It appears that when primary care trusts reach level 4—that is, the top level of purchasing and managerial freedom—they rise, as it were, above the purchaser/provider regime and embrace the functions of both with all the dangers of slack cost control which the purchaser/provider system was designed to counteract. I should welcome the Minister's reassurance on that point.
In conclusion, I echo the considerable concern expressed on this side of the House about the Bill's dependence on secondary legislation and on centralisation. Nevertheless, I believe that the Government's intentions in introducing the Bill are sincere, if flawed. I hope that we shall be able to effect some improvements in Committee.
6.59 p.m.
Baroness Emerton: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for her introduction to the Bill, and also for her announcement of the publication of the JM Report, an independent review of the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act, which has been awaited by those professions for some time.
166
Like my noble friend Lady McFarlane, I declare an interest, having been a nurse and midwife and chairman of the UKCC; and I am currently a lay member of the General Medical Council.
The need to move forward and modernise the regulatory bodies has, I know, been recognised. Understandably, any change in the form of reorganisation causes a level of anxiety. However, I am sure that when the proposals set out in the JM Report, accepted by the Government, are seen and understood, that will reassure nurses, midwives and health visitors. Especially welcome is the Government's rejection of the proposal not to register health visitors. The public health agenda is huge, with health visiting playing an important and increasing part, and it would have been catastrophic to remove registration. Health visitors will play an increasingly important part in the primary care groups and primary care trusts. Indeed, the inclusion of nurses in the primary care groups and primary care trusts is a welcome step forward and certainly something that will provide a career progression—and an exciting one—for nurses in the community.
There have been many references already to the part of the Bill relating to self-regulation. Turning to Clause 47 and Schedule 3, at the heart of professional regulation is the need to protect the vulnerable public, and within clinical governance there is a requirement for professional self-regulation. It is to be expected that those in the healthcare professions are anxious to ensure that professional and educational standards and regulation through professional conduct procedures are of the highest possible standard. The professions, I am sure, would not wish to stand in the way of changes to facilitate those functions. The assurance in the Bill in Schedule 3 paragraph 7, to which Clause 47 (1) applies, is welcome. The paragraph states:
"An Order may not abolish the regulatory body of any profession to which section 47 (I) (a) applies".
However, with the introduction of the Order in Council power, I know that there are anxieties about paragraph 8 in Schedule 3. As currently drafted, it states:
"this paragraph does not prevent an Order altering any such function".
As the functions listed in the previous paragraph are the core responsibilities of the regulatory bodies and are interdependent, an order could fundamentally change the regulatory body's raison d'être. These functions of keeping a register of practitioners require standards to be met. They have to be set through educational programmes and the performance monitored against those standards in order for members of the professions to remain on the register. If there is a failure to do that, the mechanism for protecting the public is to have procedures which can ultimately remove the person from the register as unfit to practise, thus protecting the vulnerable public.
Within the fast changing healthcare programmes and developments, there is a need to facilitate changes which might be required within the functions listed in Schedule 3, paragraph 8 (2). Those changes could well be effected by an order, subject to consultation and the affirmative procedures as set out in paragraph 9 of Schedule 3. They would prevent the problem of the

167
backlog of individual Bills, which because of the heavy parliamentary programme, have been delayed for as long as three years. This I am sure would be welcomed by the professions, provided that paragraph 7 of Schedule 3 remains intact. It states that:
"An Order may not abolish the regulatory body of any profession".
Please could the Minister clarify and assure the professions that paragraph 8 (3) of Schedule 3 would not lead to fundamental changes in the regulatory frameworks which have been established through primary legislation by Parliament.
The point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Desai, that much time would be spent during the Committee stage discussing regulation to the exclusion of other aspects of the Bill. I think that that is likely because of the important fact that the professions wish to ensure the principle of self-regulation because their concerns lie in ensuring that the vulnerable public are protected by the means of self-regulation.
I have travelled to many countries and looked at the regulatory process relating to nurses. I have come away every time with the clear message that the systems within the United Kingdom are much envied—indeed, so much so that we in the United Kingdom were asked to set up an international conference on a regular basis to assist those countries which are experiencing great difficulties in setting up a regulatory system.
The National Health Service has been described as the envy of the world. I suggest that the professional regulation that we have in this country is also the envy of the world. I am sure that there will be many contributions during the Committee stage and I look forward to contributing to the debate.
7.4 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for presenting this long and complicated Bill so well and clearly. I also thank her for sitting through the debate, listening to all the points we make. I very much look forward to the winding up by my noble friend Lord McColl of Dulwich. Your Lordships will be aware that, with my noble friend and neighbour Lady Carnegy and the noble Lord, Lord Ewing—who is not in his place—we represent a substantial Scottish element today. Outside the Chamber, whenever I consult my noble friend Lord McColl, he rightly reminds me of Private Frazer in the comedy "Dad's Army". He looks at me and says: "You are doomed" and I get rather worried. But then my noble friend says to me: "You are doomed—to listen to my speech tomorrow, next week and in the months to come", and I put a smile on my face.
Quite apart from wading into me in the nicest possible way, my noble friend Lord McColl is a professional. He combines many of the attributes mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant. My noble friend is an academic: he teaches, he is a professor of surgery and he still practises to this day. Above all, he is one person who knows how the National Health Service has worked and works now. He also knows of the small problems
168
that need to be addressed. That is why, for my part, I am delighted that he is with us today and will be present throughout the passage of the Bill.
I have a few concerns over primary care groups and primary care trusts. They relate to whether the institution of the groups will enable primary care to be given the flexibility that it needs in regard to all the varying diseases, ailments and sicknesses which occur more and more throughout the population. That needs to be addressed at source. I am quite concerned about the flexibility, given the geography and population. I was thinking of England and Wales; I had queries about Scotland but they were answered in the notable speech of my noble friend and neighbour Lady Carnegy. She gave a couple of examples from our neck of the woods in regard to blood testing and physiotherapy. Those subjects are akin to the ailments that affect many people on a day-to-day basis. My noble friend Lady Carnegy pointed out how they could be and had been addressed through the trusts in Scotland. So it is good to see flexibility there.
In regard to the NICE, I am concerned as to whether it will duplicate or replace any existing consultative machinery or advice. No doubt, if not tonight then at a later stage, the Minister will be able to give us advice. I was also interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Walton, referred to as CHIMP, consultational health improvement.
What concerns me most in the Bill is the Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme. I understand that it has been in evidence for about 42 years. The Minister may be trifle startled that 20 years ago I was on the Opposition Front Bench in 1977, having to cope with the Patents Bill. It chanced that I was asked to study the problems of the pharmaceutical industry in regard to patents. I am sure it will be of interest to the noble Baroness that a major vote was carried against the Government on an amendment proposed by a supporter of the Labour Government and a Cross-Bencher. At the dinner held by the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry in March 1977—and I should declare an interest: it was an excellent dinner, but that was the only tangible benefit that I have ever received from the industry, although I receive paper and possibly mental intangible advice—the late lamented Minister, Lord Ennals, said that when the Bill returned to another place the Government had no intention of reversing the—I will not call it crushing—important defeat in your Lordships' House. I did not note the words of Lord Ennals at the dinner but 20 years ago during the stewardship of the noble Lord, Lord Ewing of Kirkford, he said he believed that the then voluntary price regulation scheme was an excellent system. I believe that that is still the case.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that it is the Government's intention to achieve a voluntary system of price regulation. The incidents which he described strike a chord with me. I was a Member of another place at the time when the legislation to which he refers was debated. My

169
constituency had considerable pharmaceutical industry interests and I was party to some of the debates and arguments at that time.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I compliment the Minister. I do not know whether the noble Baroness, as a lay person, is involved in science and the law. Certainly I am neither a scientist nor lawyer; I am a mere accountant. If one gets involved with patents and in particular pharmaceuticals, one can find oneself in considerable difficulty. I believe that at that time the Minister represented Welwyn and Hatfield.
In July 1998 the PPRS was given considerable praise by the Minister's right honourable friend in another place. In a reply in October last year the noble Baroness appeared to apply the brakes slightly. I believe she said at that time that she looked forward to full compliance with the scheme and more transparency. I hope that under the existing scheme there are enough avenues by which the Government and the Secretary of State can discuss what is and what is not reasonable price or profit, let alone transparency, in the figures and costs. I am sure the noble Baroness and her right honourable friend are aware that, in looking at prices, profits and return on capital, one is attempting to aim at a moving target, because most of the large pharmaceutical companies have global interests.
Perhaps I may be the first speaker today to ask the noble Baroness to glance at the happy pale green paper—the Bill. The noble Baroness will see that Clause 27 bears the title "Power to control prices". That is absolutely fine. However, one wonders why there is to be a power to control prices. From the studies that I have made and the representations that I have received over the years, the pharmaceutical industry has looked at return on capital and profits as well as prices. Is this a new departure?
I ask the noble Baroness to look at Clause 28 (4) which states:
"The scheme may provide for any amount representing sums charged".
Is that meant to be prices? If not, does it mean something else? Perhaps the noble Baroness can write to me about that or perhaps we can return to it at Committee stage. In subsection (5) reference is made to "amount representing the profits". That appears to me to be very much tie language of the existing scheme. The scheme has developed under all governments over the past 42 years.
Clauses 26 to 30 remind me of the philosophy of the great football team that I know is supported by the family of the noble Baroness. Much of its attitude can be described as "fee-fi-fo-fum". It tends to put itself forward in that way. Perhaps the noble Baroness will turn to Clause 31. Subsection (3) makes reference to the power to make regulations,
"under any of those provisions or section 30 may be exercised generally …"
That removes half of the "fee-fi-fo-fum" and threat. One wonders what "generally" means and whether her great football team is turning into a team of tabby cats.
170
However, in subsection (4) one sees that the powers conferred may be controlled by reference to the
"prices or profits which would be reasonable in all the circumstances".
That appears to remove most of the threat or in terrorem Clauses 26 to 31. Indeed, the football team may be tabby cats that roll over to have their tummies tickled.
One wonders how the last two subsections of the clause can be reconciled with some of the thoughts and remarks made about the Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme. Alas, when I rose to my feet the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Tradeston, was not here. However, perhaps he or the noble Baroness can advise me on one matter. I believe that the PPRS now applies to Scotland or that it is intended to do so with the coming into being of the Scottish Parliament. Perhaps I can be advised as to that. If not, I can return to it at Committee stage.
I should like to touch on two other subjects: first, what may be described as the rationing of healthcare. There are continuing discoveries in both medicine and medical practice. One always finds new cures and remedies for existing diseases. I remember one example in my home town of Angus which is very relevant to Scotland. I understand that beta-interferon can considerably help those who suffer from multiple sclerosis. One particular friend who suffered from this condition discovered that he was unable to have treatment with beta-interferon because he lived in Angus but that had he lived in Fife or other areas where there were different views about the clinical effectiveness of this treatment he would have received it. That is one particular problem that perhaps we will be able to consider. I am sure that the Government take that on board. It is an aspect to which I may return in Committee.
The last item to which I refer is waiting lists. This is always a point of discussion that tends to evoke a considerable amount of heat in your Lordships' House. My noble friend Lord Skelmersdale made reference to this matter in his speech. I read about waiting lists for elective surgery. But space must also be reserved in hospitals for winter and summer emergencies. If one watches television or listens to the radio in the summer one is told that the pollen count will be so much. There are also winter emergencies. As to the latter, five weeks ago today I was not in your Lordships' House but skiing in Switzerland. At 10 o'clock in the morning an emergency helicopter arrived. I and others were informed that it had picked up someone who turned out to be my noble friend Lord Astor. Five weeks ago he suffered a winter emergency. Thanks to the wonderful treatment that he received in Switzerland we see him back here thriving and alert with the occasional clatter of crutches, which is by the by. That is a typical winter emergency which can happen elsewhere. But if a winter emergency occurred anywhere within the National Health Service I am sure that it could provide as good a treatment as that received by my noble friend.

171
I may be about to be visually challenged because I am now into my fourteenth minute. I very much welcome parts of the Bill. I shall have a little more to ask the noble Baroness in the course of Committee stage. I thank her for presenting the Bill so clearly today.
7.20 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, as the penultimate "run of the mill" speaker, I shall be brief and stick to the substance of the Bill. If I were sitting on the other side of the Chamber, I should probably describe the Bill as a "ragbag" of assorted fragments of legislation. However, as a loyal supporter of the Government, I should welcome it as a treasure chest full of finely crafted gifts. In fact it is more like a lucky dip in that while feeling around at the bottom of the bran tub one can discern the general outline of its separate packages, but the detail is a little less easy to make out.
In his reasoned amendment, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, is critical of the lack of detail in certain clauses relating to primary care trusts. I find his amendment rather grandiose in its wording. It calls for government amendments, but as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and others have pointed out, surely the time for that is during the next three stages. Is that not their very purpose? I am sure my noble friend would be helpful and accommodating about the Bill if approached in a constructive way by the noble Earl, possibly outside the Chamber. The noble Earl's amendment may be unnecessarily confrontational, in particular at this early stage. There seems to be quite a lot of meat about the structure of primary care trusts in the relevant clauses, Clause 1 to 7, and in Schedule 1 as well as in the existing legislation to which the Bill refers appropriately, as the Minister pointed out.
However, I have to report that the British Medical Association is rather unhappy about the omission of some details. Perhaps the Minister could be a little clearer in her explanation of why, for instance, the detailed composition of primary care trust management boards has not been spelt out on the face of the Bill. I am sure she has read the comments of the BMA, but for the record it says:
"It is essential that healthcare professionals have the same level of input to, and influence over, the development of local health services as they have been given in Primary Care Groups"—
which of course are now taking shape throughout the country without any special need for legislation. Further BMA concerns about omissions from the primary care trust clauses as they stand include the future status of the local medical committees as representing all local GPs, and the mechanisms for seeking professional advice on commissioning decisions. Other noble Lords have mentioned that.
A particular point that needs to be addressed is the need for high quality public health advice, both in measuring and assessing the health needs of the population through epidemiological expertise, and in contributing to health improvement programmes. The BMA is anxious to know whether the Government intend to make it a statutory duty of a PCT to involve
172
healthcare professionals in decision making as it is with other health authorities. It would be helpful if my noble friend can state the Government's intentions in that area. There seems to be a good case for including such a requirement on the face of the Bill.
Like my noble friend Lord Desai, I am interested in the mechanisms for distributing resources to cope with varying degrees of deprivation both between and within primary care trusts. Populations vary; some will be 100, 000 in number. My noble friend has written to me about that, but the response is rather detailed. It would be useful if it could be spelt out more clearly.
Perhaps my noble friend can explain a problem with which I have a little difficulty. It concerns the "independent contractor" status of most GPs and the fact that they are contracted to give services to the National Health Service and are therefore technically "providers". At the same time they will be, initially in primary care groups and then as part of PC trusts (if those come into being), commissioners of hospital services but also of community and primary care services. The split between commissioners (previously known as purchasers) and providers will then be ended despite the Government's stated intention to retain that part of the 1991 legislation. As local GPs will be involved in PCT management board responsibilities, they will in effect be commissioning their own services. The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, referred to that, as did the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and others. As a former GP I can well see the advantage of that, but perhaps some sort of "arm's length" mechanism needs to be built in.
Another untidy area involves the boundaries of PCGs and PCTs. Patients do not necessarily register with a doctor in the same catchment area as their home. Many GPs have sizeable parts of their registered practice population living in a different health authority. Practice lists are notoriously inaccurate. especially in inner cities where there is rapid population turnover. That will make it difficult to allocate appropriate resources to PCGs and PCTs. The problem is well discussed by Drs. Gilley and Majeed in the British Medical Journal of 16th January. I hope that the Department of Health will take good note of those helpful articles.
I am quite pleased with much of the remainder of the Bill, in particular the establishment of CHIMP (Clause 14) and, by implication, NICE, although it is not in the Bill. However, best of all is the provision in Clauses 22 and 23 for financial co-operation between local authorities and health authorities. That was well described by my noble friend Lord Warner from his personal background with the social services directorate in Kent. That provision should greatly improve community care and, among other advantages, may speed up the discharge of elderly patients blocking beds. I hope that it will prove to be a further step in the realisation by Government that healthcare and social care merge imperceptibly; or, to put it another way, they overlap. In the community they do so almost from end to end.
I share the anxiety expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Walton, and others, about Clause 47 and Schedule 3. The new powers to amend the regulation of

173
the health professions by Orders in Council are accepted by many of the professions as necessary. But not only the BMA but other professions are worried that under paragraph 8 (1) of Schedule 3, the Secretary of State could theoretically set up a new professional regulatory body, with the Government paying for it, which would then not be independent as is the GMC now. John Denham, the Minister concerned, has reassured the BMA that the Government would not use that power. However, without that assurance being written into the Bill in some way, a future Secretary of State could bypass the GMC or any other self-regulatory body. I hope that my noble friend can agree to discussions which might lead to a small amendment which will recognise the Government's support for the principle of self-regulation and the protection of the General Medical Council. That will be reassuring to all the healthcare professions and would lead to a continued fruitful working relationship between them and the Department of Health.
7.28 p.m.
Baroness Berners: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her explanation of the Bill, and my noble friend Lord Howe for his lucid dissection. I speak on the Bill as a lapsed, hands-on nurse with many medical friends. The National Health Service, under the stewardship of the Conservative government for more than two-thirds of its existence, has during that time conserved its principles, increased its capabilities, built up and founded good practice and kept up with the rapidly changing face of medicine, technology and the nation's expectations. There is a good foundation on which subsequent governments will continue to build by responding to the changing demands of healthcare and its administration.
The Bill, setting out what the funding of £21 billion is supposed to cover, heralds yet another huge set of pressures on those who administer the service. The legislation and its provisions will never cover the enormous costs engendered either in financial terms or in terms of the potential health risks to the hard pressed, conscientious, compassionate executives, clinicians and caring staff; in fact, all who do their best to promote the health of the nation already under great pressures.
There are far too many radical proposals to carry out at once when, inevitably, there has to be a different reallocation of funds nationwide. So, for example, the search for ways of making more beds available, already a very fraught problem in every area, will still not be possible because, as in East Gloucestershire, the money has been reduced but expenses have been increased. We have seen, for example, the funding of the much welcomed pay award to nurses; financing of the new working time directive; and paying for up-to-date proven drugs. Those are but a few of the mounting needs with their associated high cost. There are no powers to run a deficit; the long suffering public pay the price.
I understand that my own area health trust is dismayed by the huge pressures it will have to bear to deliver an adequate health service. The shift of emphasis from treatment to prevention is acknowledged to be the
174
next sensible step in improving the service and is generally welcomed. But the treatment must go on and it is expensive. How can the problem of affording proven treatment be resolved? Thousands of lives are lost every year. Young lives are cut short. What will be said to the parents of young children who are not sufficiently well off to afford the £9, 000 drug needed to allow them to bring up their family and not otherwise available to them? Nowadays, people know what is the proven treatment before they visit their GP or consultant. What a dilemma!
When doctors, nurses, patients and their relatives perceive an inefficient hospital trust administration, resulting in bad practice, unhealthy conditions regarding cleanliness, low staff morale and patients' food left untouched, to whom can they turn? Who should they ask to improve conditions? What inspectorates are in place to deal with the situation? Perhaps the new commission has been created for this purpose.
The noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, expressed the same regret that the regulation of healthcare and associated professions has been relegated to the heading of "Miscellaneous and Supplementary". I would welcome what is listed in Schedule 3, paragraph 1 (c) (e) and (f) appearing in Clause 47. That would cover education and training before and after admission to practice; standards of conduct and performance; and discipline and fitness to practice.
I wish to comment briefly on the welcome new strategy for nurses, the super nurse. Have any been appointed yet? By all reports, nurses are in very short supply, resulting in under-staffing. Therefore, wherever nurses are employed they must be working flat out to the best of their abilities in the time they have available. They must have worked out before they joined the service the maximum number of hours they have available. How can they be expected to do even more, even better, without crumbling under pressure? It is a release from pressure that is really needed in all the services.
So yes, we need more nurses, but let us be choosy about recruitment. How carefully are prospective students vetted? There have been reports of a few lazy, insubordinate and intimidating staff in hospital wards. I feel that there should not be an indiscriminate choice of candidates to make an impressive statistic. We are lacking a grade of nurses trained by the bedside both clinically and compassionately, bringing out the practice of common sense for the relief of suffering, including a concern for the anxieties of patients suddenly whisked out of their homes and into unfamiliar surroundings.
By "clinically trained" I do not mean to intensive care standard. That is superbly carried out by our graduate nurses under Project 2000. This new grade of nurse should have as part of her duties the responsibility of helping patients to feed and ensuring that they take nourishment. I know for a fact that this does not happen in every hospital. It is not a difficult thing to do, but it is absolutely vital to recovery. And there is another duty. Everyone who has ever had to spend more than a day in bed knows the feeling of the "numb bum". Why has the practice of preventing bedsores by regular massage

175
by nurses been stopped? It is all part of a constant communication between staff and patients. If the disciplines necessary are neglected, hours and hours can go by before a critical condition is noticed. Very often people suffer in silence.
I conclude with the first step into treatment by the National Health Service—the general practitioners. They are well trained, hard working people and the pressures on them mount daily as they are required to do increasing amounts of paperwork. It is not a new problem, but it is getting worse by the day. Their precious time is needed for footwork, not form filling of every type and description. GPs have expressly voiced that concern. Is it all really necessary?
7.37 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, we have had a wide-ranging debate today which befits the Second Reading debate of a major plank of the Government's legislative programme. As might have been expected, the debate has concentrated on six areas. The first is the three key features of the Bill; the abolition of fundholding GP practices and their replacement by primary healthcare groups and subsequently trusts; and the duty of quality and the duty of partnership. We also debated the Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme; Part II of the Bill which relates to Scotland; and Part III, which is the notorious Clause 47. In winding up from these Benches, I wish to touch briefly on all six issues.
As was clear from the contributions of my noble friends Lady Thomas of Walliswood and Lord Clement-Jones, we on these Benches support the abolition of GP fundholding and its replacement by a broader grouping led by the primary care interests. That said, we have some real reservations about the detail of the Bill and those have been echoed by other speakers in the debate. As my noble friend Lady Thomas said, there is a considerable learning process to be experienced whenever one makes radical changes in institutions. It is by no means clear that the Bill has allowed time or resources for those learning processes, be it the transition from fundholding to primary care groups or the subsequent transition from primary care groups to primary care trusts.
Secondly, as quite a number of contributors to the debate noted, there is considerable vagueness in the primary care trust arrangements. They mix the purchaser and provider role. It is not clear whether cash limits will be imposed and, if so, how they will work. Finally, we are extremely concerned about the governance issues. Who will sit on primary care trust boards? What is the role for the profession? That issue was raised by a number of noble Lords. What is the role of lay members? None of that is clear.
As we have made clear, one of the reasons why we welcome these proposals is that our vision has long been one that would bring together the health service at the local level with local authority social services to provide that seamless web of care services and, indeed, to emphasise the role of public health issues—housing,
176
environmental services and education—as major contributors to the health of the nation. Those issues were stressed by the noble Lord, Lord Rea, in his speech.
In other words, for a long time we have wanted to see joined up thinking about health and social care at the local level. But in doing that, I should also like to take on board the issues raised by the noble Lords, Lord Walton and Lord Winston; that is, that it is important to include secondary care as part of the same continuum. One of the faults of the original National Health Service was the separation of the hospital service from primary care, so making the NHS hospital-led. One of the benefits of GP fundholding was to turn that relationship on its head. As the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, pointed out, it was the GPs who then called the tune. We hope that the primary care trust will maintain the bias that the service should be primary care led. But it is extremely important that the primary and secondary sectors are complementary to each other rather than antagonistic to each other.
Given our welcome for the wider remit of the primary care group and primary care trusts, it is not surprising that we also welcome the second main principle embodied in the Bill; that is, the duty of partnership. But again, there is uncertainty as to precisely what is a duty of partnership. Are the proposed health improvement plans any more than motherhood and apple pie? Like the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, said, we would wish to see the duty of partnership extended to voluntary sectors and to carers. As we all know, they are essential contributors to today's National Health Service.
I come to the third keystone of the first part of the Bill—the duty of quality. Again, we welcome that commitment. But as my noble friend Lord Mar and Kellie emphasised, it is outcomes not inputs that we should measure in terms of quality. As the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, emphasised, we need to set standards not only for medical practice, but also in terms of nursing and care standards. But once again there is a considerable element of vagueness in the Bill. How do we measure quality? Why is the commission for health improvement to inspect the primary care trusts and the hospital trusts but not the health authorities? Will the commission's report be made public? What is the relationship between the commission for health improvement and the Audit Commission?
That last thought raises a further issue about the proposals which worries me. Perhaps because I come from the education sector, whenever I see something that has a monitoring or inspecting role, Ofsted raises its head. One of the problems with the Conservative reforms of the 1980s which introduced market disciplines into the public sector was that we found ourselves being expected to go out into the marketplace and compete and at the same time meet an increasingly detailed set of targets. In effect, the command economy was there and the market economy was there. But I wonder whether, as a nation, we are in danger of going overboard for inspection and monitoring of these things; for naming and shaming. In the very good speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberledge, she stressed

177
the importance of the health service as a trust relationship. That is vital. But too much inspection can undermine morale and break that trust relationship.
I should like to speak briefly about three other aspects of the Bill that were discussed today. First, the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme. In my academic role, I have undertaken many studies of the pharmaceutical industry. What I find fascinating about that industry is that it is the only one in the United Kingdom where we have had a consistent industrial policy for almost 40 years. Because we have had a consistent policy, we have managed to build an industry that has become a major player on the global scene.
Going back to the 1980s, Glaxo was a family firm selling dried milk; Wellcome was a company that was not very large and uncertain as to whether it had a public role or was a private company. ICI only began dabbling in pharmaceuticals in the mid-1950s. All those companies, in their different ways, have now become world leaders. An important part of that has been that we, in this country, provided consistent support for the industry. That support has come through the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme. We pay more for our drugs than France and Spain, but we have benefited greatly from new and innovative drugs which have been introduced and developed in this market. They have drastically reduced the cost of the National Health Service itself. For example, Tagamet and Zantac totally transformed the situation in relation to stomach ulcers and, more recently, EPO replaced the need for blood transfusions.
The industry also provided a major stimulus for research in the life sciences in this country. It has been a mutually reinforcing relationship. As the noble Lord, Lord Walton, stressed, we have attracted a great deal of foreign direct investment in this sector—investment in research and development which is high quality investment bringing good quality jobs. But they have come because we have an excellent science base. The industry has contributed also to that science base. It is indeed one of the few examples in Britain where excellence in science is translated into technological and commercial advantage.
We would be ill-advised therefore to throw away a scheme which, to my mind, has benefited the industry so substantially. But that said, there are limitations. The noble Lord, Lord Ewing, emphasised the fact that their profits are considerable and there are occasions when the industry has been known to overcharge. I do not believe the scheme; provides enough incentives to keep costs down and the whole process is much too secretive. It should be, within the limits of commercial confidentiality, much more open and above board. But having said that, it is important that we do not throw the baby out with the bath water. We on these Benches would favour the retention of a voluntary scheme, if possible. We do not like the idea of a hybrid scheme, half voluntary and half statutory. If a voluntary scheme cannot be negotiated, we feel that there should be a statutory scheme.
I do not want to say much about the health service in Scotland because that is not an area that I know much about. The point made by the noble Baroness, Lady
178
Carnegy of Lour, struck me as interesting: that is, how extraordinary it is that such extensive changes are being proposed now when in five months' time the responsibility for running the health services in Scotland will rest with the Scottish Parliament. That said, exactly the same criticisms seem to apply to the provisions relating to Scotland as to those relating to England and Wales; namely, that they are still too vague and we do not know precisely what is being proposed.
I turn to Clause 47 and Schedule 3, the so-called Henry VIII provisions. I was struck by the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, when she said how appalled she was that the Bill could appear without waiting for the consultation process with the professional bodies to be concluded. That, together with the fact that so much is left to delegated powers—even if under the affirmative resolution procedure—makes that clause extraordinarily unsatisfactory. The Bill should specify the key elements in the Government's structure.
From these Benches, there is broad agreement with the general principles of the Bill, but the devil is in the detail—perhaps I should say that the devil is in the lack of detail. We disagree with much of that detail. My noble friend Lord Clement-Jones made clear from these Benches that we do not support the amendment. We believe that the deficiencies in the Bill should be dealt with in Committee and be challenged then by amendment and the process of debate.
7.52 p.m.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for her clear exposition of the Bill and, as my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale mentioned, for the Explanatory Notes. I am grateful also to my noble friend Lord Lyell for declaring my interests in the National Health Service!
As I listened to Labour Peers attacking the GP fundholding concept I was left wondering whether they had ever spoken to Professor Brian Abel-Smith, one of the most brilliant advisers the Labour Party ever had. He told them, "Whatever you do, don't get rid of GP fundholding because it has been a success". How sad that the Government did not accept his advice.
The beauty of GP fundholding was that it was voluntary. That was a sensible arrangement because GPs are independent contractors. To be fair to the Government, the Labour Party's White Paper said that fundholding had brought real benefits to patients, as my noble friend Lord Howe mentioned.
The Labour Party's answer to GP fundholding is to have a compulsory system whereby groups of between 50 and 100 GPs are dragooned into primary care groups. I was fascinated by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Desai. I believe that he is absolutely right when he says that between 50 and 100 GPs in such a group would be far too many. It is difficult enough to get five professionals to agree on anything, let alone 50 or 100. I am sure that that applies to economists as well as to doctors.
General practitioners will no longer be able to act individually. It is very likely that the system will reduce the ability of GPs to offer such a wide range of services,

179
reduce their ability to secure improvements in the hospital service, and tend to reduce incentives for them to provide a more efficient service.
We on these Benches have the distinct impression that the Labour Party is rather hostile to the freedom which general practitioners have been enjoying. Sadly, the way in which the resources will be allocated will leave little room for incentives to make the savings at practice level as efficiency gains will tend to be swallowed up by the whole primary care group.
As has been mentioned, the combination of national institute for clinical excellence best practice guidelines plus the cash-limited prescription budgets will certainly shackle the GPs' ability to decide what is the best treatment in the best interests of the patients. Behind all that there is a feeling among GPs that the Government want to shift on to the profession the blame for the present rationing and that those in the profession will carry the can for the rationing imposed by Whitehall.
The Labour Party has always criticised GP fundholding as being a two-tier system for patients. However, as many noble Lords have pointed out, the Government are introducing a four-tier system. Dr. John Chisholm, chairman of the British Medical Association's GPs' committee, stated:
"People in different parts of the UK will receive different levels of service".
The problem is that, whereas with GP fundholding patients were usually able to choose the fundholding GP, under these arrangements there will be no choice; patients will simply be assigned to the primary care group on the basis of where they live. As has already been described, it will be a four-tier service on the basis of the postcode.
I have always found curious the Government's claim that they are abolishing the internal market. I thought that the Labour Party had turned its back on nationalisation and was in favour of the marketplace. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Desai, hinted, the Government have not abolished the internal market; they have retained the purchaser/rovider split which is the essence of an internal market. The window-dressing which they have used is to say, "The evidence that we've abolished the internal market is that we have a new statutory duty of co-operation. Our health service trusts will be legally required to work in partnership".
Clause 19, as we have mentioned already, states that it is the duty of health authorities, special health authorities, primary care trusts and NHS trusts to co-operate with each other in exercising their functions. How on earth will that be enforced? As my noble friend Lady Fookes pointed out, that sounds like a lot of waffle. Perhaps the Labour Party might try to extend the principle to other parts of the market, such as the commercial world, encouraging companies to co-operate with each other in exercising their functions.
Many references have been made to CHIMP and NICE. CHIMP is the body responsible for enforcing guidance produced by NICE. The set-up will certainly provide the Government with a means of increasing
180
rationing, but will the search by NICE for evidence-based medicine include the various branches of alternative medicine?
As regards the role of CHIMP as a device for monitoring clinical quality, it will have the powers of absolute privilege in respect of any publications. It seems that CHIMP will have wide-ranging powers and functions, including a power to enter and inspect NHS premises at any time and force the compilation of reports. Failure to comply could result in conviction and a fine. The profession increasingly sees that as a severe threat to its autonomy. The BMA's chairman, Dr. Ian Bogle, pointed out that CHIMP could lead to doctors losing their clinical freedoms. I think he is right.
For many noble Lords—including the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane of Llandaff, and my noble friend Lord Howe—the most ominous parts of the Bill are Clause 47 and Schedule 3, which will enable the Secretary of State to undermine the whole structure of self-regulation by ministerial decree. That is most worrying.
Many of us have been state employees for a long time but it has not felt like it. The new regime will feel very oppressive. It is not only doctors who will be affected by these draconian measures. They will affect other health professions not already under statutory regulation and could extend to new professions that have not yet emerged. An Act of Parliament will not be required but only an Order in Council. The Government have reacted in a knee-jerk fashion to recent cases that received an enormous amount of publicity, such as Bristol. It seems that the Government are seizing the opportunity to reduce the independence of the medical profession. That will impair the doctor-patient relationship, and will ultimately be harmful to patients.
I cannot help wondering why the Government are involving themselves in this great upheaval when the real problem is morale. The noble Lords, Lord Walton and Lord Winston, pointed out that there is no mention in the Bill of the university side, which desperately needs more resources and encouragement. The noble Lord, Lord Winston, mentioned that my noble friend Lord Howe had spoken about GPs and clinicians. I should explain that my noble friend is a distinguished classicist and knows that "clinic" is a Greek word meaning bed, so clinicians are bed people. That explains a lot. GPs do not tend to have beds.
As to morale, thousands of patients are demoralised. They have been denied NHS operations for varicose veins, sebaceous cysts and lipomas. Many of those people are poor and cannot afford to have their operations done privately. Why do the Government continue refusing to help those poor people? Why cannot the Government use some of the £22 billion that they keep telling us about to allow those operations to be undertaken by the NHS? Are they worried that would increase the number of patients on waiting lists?
Another source of poor morale in the NHS is the gross imbalance between the number of consultants and junior staff. There are far too few consultants and far too many junior staff. Even worse, they have been

181
training for 20 years and, at the end of it, they find that they have no job. The NHS is a monopoly employer so there is nowhere for those people to go. What an appalling waste of scarce resources and a tragedy in human terms. What are those junior staff supposed to do?
Last week, the Minister kindly wrote to reassure me that none of those junior staff members would be out of a job. I recommend that she speaks to the 13 or 14 postgraduate deans, who have a very different story to tell. There is a desperate need for more consultants in psychiatry, accident and emergency, cardiology, cardiac surgery, oncology, palliative care and obstetrics. Why do not the Government make a serious effort to create 20 or 30 more consultant posts in all those specialties this year, bearing in mind that £22 billion is available? Will the Minister provide some hope for those beleaguered junior staff members? They have made a great contribution to the service. If the Minister could take steps to increase the number of consultants, it would go some way to reassuring the NHS at a time when it is reeling from the prospect of this draconian Bill.
We look forward to the Minister's replies to the many questions that have been asked and fears expressed about the Bill. We particularly look forward to a detailed answer to the amendment proposed by my noble friend, Lord Howe.
8.5 p.m.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, when speaking in your Lordships' House one often has the feeling that one is stepping through a looking glass, if not in Wonderland. The idea of an NHS reeling from the threat of this "draconian Bill" bears little resemblance to reality. In the real world of doctors and nurses, they are more interested in the pay review, a successful recruitment campaign for nurses, the day-to-day conditions in which they work and the pressures, as we all recognise, that they face.
This important Bill deserves scrutiny and many detailed issues have been raised in the debate. I hope the House will understand that I shall not be able to reply to every point in the course of this speech but there will be many opportunities to deal with them in the later stages of the Bill's passage through the House. There will be facilities for any noble Lord to discuss specific points of clarification.
I do not deny that the Bill is complex. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, and others for their kind comments about the explanatory notes. Even so, we are dealing with complex legislation that amends previous legislation, which itself amended previous legislation. I hope that a meeting before Committee stage will be helpful in dealing with points of clarification.
I do not deny for a moment that serious issues have been raised to which I alluded in my opening speech—perhaps predominantly that of self-regulation. That is a real concern to the professions, government and patients. After all, the Bill is about ensuring safety for patients. It is in everybody's interests that we get those
182
issues right. I look forward to debating the detail. I listened intently to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Walton, and the noble Baronesses, Lady McFarlane and Lady Emerton. We will not only scrutinise but may change the Bill in the course of its passage to achieve what I believe are mutually agreed aims. That is absolutely appropriate for the way in which your Lordships' House conducts its business.
I have to say that I found it uncharacteristically provocative of the noble Earl to table an amendment at this stage in the passage of the Bill.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Baroness Hayman: That technique has not been used in your Lordships' House since 1985.
Lord Henley: Rubbish, my Lords. It was 1991 or 1990.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, perhaps we will both go back and look at our precedents—but it has not been done for some years. I hope that it is not a reflection--if I may take up the football metaphor of the noble Lord, Lord Lyell—of the hooligan tendency on the Conservative Back Benches permeating to the Front Bench. It would not be the most sensible way to deal with these particular issues. We welcome detailed scrutiny of the Bill and want to look constructively at any suggestions about how we might better achieve the objectives we have outlined.
In my opening speech I said that we would certainly want to take into account the views of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee and weigh very carefully anything it has to say on the topic. However, in regard to the reasoned amendment and primary care trusts, perhaps I may reiterate that the legislative approach taken in the Bill is well in line with the approach that governments have taken over many years to NHS legislation. Indeed, it is expressly intended to accommodate primary care trusts within the general framework of NHS legislation as it has grown up over the years. We believe that that is the right approach to accommodate primary care trusts within NHS law and that it will enable them to evolve in response to local circumstances, thereby building on their own experience, as we promised they would do. It is very much part of a developmental agenda, which I believe was the thrust of some of the arguments about radical reorganisations not being in the interests of the service. If we want to retain some of that flexibility, there are prices to be paid.
It is for all of us as legislators to debate where the right balance is struck in terms of every detail being put on the face of the Bill. Of course, it is the putting of every detail on the face of primary legislation which has led us into some of the difficulties that the professions have encountered in their concern to be able to amend the legislation that deals with professional self-regulation. Again, we are trying to strike the correct balance between enabling legislation and the right kind of safeguards which need to be there.

183
Therefore, this is nothing to do with draconian powers and nothing to do with attempting to obfuscate; it is simply ensuring that we avoid the welter of technical and administrative detail for which legislation is often criticised. We must ensure that flexibility exists to respond quickly to changing circumstances and that we enable detailed administrative arrangements to be readily updated over time within structures and principles set out in parliamentary primary legislation. We must also allow flexible timing to develop, consult on it, and modify secondary legislation over time. In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Earl will think carefully about whether it is really the most sensible and the most considered way to proceed to press his amendment to a Division.
I made reference to the complexities in the legislation. The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, kindly gave me notice of the specific question she would ask on Part II of the Bill; namely, whether we could provide a Keeling schedule for the Scottish provisions. I should like to take that suggestion back and consider it with the parliamentary draftsman to see whether it is possible. I shall write to the noble Baroness on the matter.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for her agreement to my request. However, can she also agree to our having a draft of such an amendment before the Committee stage? In that way we would know what we are talking about as regards Part II, because it is not self-evident from the Bill.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I shall certainly consider both those issues. I am grateful for the noble Baroness's intervention because it has allowed me to clarify the position about the last time such a reasoned amendment was tabled. I suspect that we were both right, but certainly I was right to say that 1985 was the last time that an Official Opposition tabled such a reasoned amendment.
Lord Henley: My Lords, does the Minister agree that that was not the last time that it was used? It is irrelevant whether or not it was used by the Official Opposition. It has been used since then by other Members of this House.
Baroness Hayman: Yes, my Lords. Because minority factions have employed such tactics in the past, and because they are now so decimated, the noble Lord seems to think that it is the sort of guerrilla tactics in which the Official Opposition should take part. However, I move on as I am anxious to deal with some of the specific issues which have been raised.
I shall deal now with one of the fundamental issues which was inherent in the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord McColl. I refer to the accusation that, in some way, there is an ideologically driven change of structure that takes away improvements created in the past. I reject that totally. I believe I said very clearly that, in recognising some of the benefits that have come with fundholding and with collective commissioning
184
arrangements, the Government are trying to build on such improvements. But it is absolutely crucial and central to our purpose that we intend to bring those benefits to all parts of the population. We shall not do so in a spirit of levelling down, but in a spirit of ensuring quality across the board. It is not part of an ideological compulsion but absolutely a matter of principle that we do not believe that the mechanisms of the market are the most appropriate way to ensure equality of access to high quality care in a complex and much cherished public service like the NHS. That is central to what we believe.
I took note of some of the remarks made by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, when he said that he mourned the demise of GP fundholding. For example, he said that it would no longer be possible to shop around for a hospital where the care is better and that hospitals would not be on their mettle in case another hospital captured their business. That is not the way to drive up standards within the NHS. We firmly believe that issues of co-operation and collaboration are what actually deliver in terms of quality for patients and in terms of cost-effectiveness. It is on the basis of ensuring that the population as a whole can benefit from high quality services that we are taking this legislation forward.
I should like to deal briefly with some of the issues raised about primary care trusts. I believe that there has been a real welcome for the way in which these will put doctors and nurses in the driving seat of community health services. I take the opportunity to confirm that nurses are already able to chair primary care groups and that some have been appointed to do so in St. Helens and Knowsley and in south Cambridgeshire. Moreover, every PCG must have at least one nurse on its governing board. I know that there is interest in the arrangements; indeed, there has been wide consultation on the way forward. My honourable friend the Minister for Health hopes to have more to say soon in that respect. It will be important to balance the need for strong professional influence and involvement with the proper requirement for public accountability and local involvement in any public body responsible for large sums of public money. Getting those arrangements right and getting the balance right are issues to which my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley, and other noble Lords, referred.
I turn now to some of the other issues raised. One of them was mentioned most potently by my noble friend Lord Winston when he talked about PCTs. He expressed a concern that, in putting this particular responsibility and authority at primary care level, it would in some way diminish the role of secondary care and, indeed, of tertiary care. I make no apology—I do not think my noble friend would expect me to do so—for the emphasis that we are placing on the perspective of the patient and the community, and the GP and the community nurse, as the persons nearest to the patient and the community and therefore best placed to articulate their needs and aspirations as regards the National Health Service. However, that does not in any way diminish the recognition that what we need are high quality services at secondary and tertiary level. We recognise the crucial role of universities and medical research. We are talking about a continuum of care. My

185
noble friend talked about the importance, as regards cancer treatment, of ensuring that specialists are available.
I think we all know from the experience of implementing Calman-Hine that we need a continuum of care. However good the tertiary services are, if that vital first link in primary care and at GP level is not made and the patient is not appropriately referred, the system is as nothing to that patient. We should not pit one part of the service against another part. We should realise that we need to give appropriate recognition to all those parts. That is a difficult task. It is one of the reasons why we seek to involve in health improvement programmes clinicians at all levels, at primary and secondary care level, and also the voluntary groups and the patient groups and those in the community.
Several detailed points were made about the provisions in Part of the Bill in relation to Scotland. My noble friend Lord Ewing of Kirkford spoke—as ever on health matters—with great authority and knowledge. He said clearly that fundholding was never popular in Scotland—I believe that was echoed by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie—and that the Government are therefore right to build on the consensus that the benefits of primary care-centred services should be universally available. As my noble friend pointed out, primary care trusts in Scotland have been established and will be operational by 1st April. However, they cannot adopt the full range of powers without the Bill, as my noble friend Lord Ewing indicated. That is why it is important that we legislate as soon as possible. There has been much public discussion of the Scottish reforms—the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, referred to this matter—and since the publication of the White Paper Designed to Care the proposals have been generally welcomed. Most of them have been put in place under the existing legislation and this Bill deals with those few matters which require a change in the law.
I refer to devolution and the general point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, who is not present at the moment. We have been careful to legislate for Scotland only where that is necessary and only where there is a clear consensus. For example, we are not legislating on joint working between health and local government as that is a matter which could rightly be dealt with by the Scottish Parliament.
I turn now to the important issue of professional self-regulation which has attracted perhaps some of the most stringent comments from noble Lords. I was not in the Chamber when my noble friend Lord Desai made his speech but I have heard reports of it. It is important that we do not view professional self-regulation as separate from the rest of the quality agenda and as something that can be dealt with separately. It is very much part of the quality agenda and part of our agenda to ensure consistency of care within the NHS. That is why I believe it is right to include it within the Bill.
We all understand that the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, had to leave your Lordships' House. She said that professional self-regulation was at heart about trust between professionals and patients. She referred to a recent survey which revealed how highly
186
trusted doctors and nurses are. My own cursory reading of that survey suggests that they are now even more highly trusted than clergymen and that the only people who are less trusted than government Ministers are journalists. I stopped reading at that point and tried to comfort myself with the thought that one can at least aspire to high standards even if some people do not think you have attained them.
I listened to the exposition of the Bill given by the noble Earl, Lord Howe. I believe that he has misunderstood what is contained within it. I make it absolutely clear that there is no intention or desire to end professional self-regulation. The powers within the Bill have been referred to as sweeping. However, we have tried to put on the face of the Bill checks and balances to ensure that there is full debate before change occurs inside and outside Parliament. Clause 48 (6) provides for affirmative procedures. We could not abolish the GMC by order, as has been suggested. That is specifically excluded by paragraph 7 of Schedule 3 which states that an order,
"may not abolish the regulatory body of any profession to which section 47 (I) (a) applies".
It is important to clarify these points and to give some reassurance in terms of the drafting of the Bill. I think that would be in everyone's interests. It is also important to be clear about our purposes. We want to work with the professions, not against them. As the noble Lord, Lord Walton, said, we have a common endeavour to modernise and strengthen the existing arrangements for professional self-regulation. I acknowledge the efforts that the professions themselves are making in this area. The noble Lord will perhaps be interested to know that the Chief Medical Officer will attend the GMC conference on revalidation and take part in those proceedings.
We do not wish to dismantle the framework of professional self-regulation. We do not wish to react hysterically—as I think the noble Lord, Lord McColl, suggested—to the real problems and concerns that have arisen concerning particular cases. However, it is in no one's interest to diminish the high esteem in which professional self-regulation is currently held. If we want to strengthen that, we have to find the appropriate mechanisms to do so. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, and my noble friend Lord Morris both mentioned some of the problems inherent in a primary legislation framework which seeks to do this, just as some of the problems of a secondary legislation framework have been mentioned in the debate tonight. We have to strike the right balance. My noble friend Lord Ewing and the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, emphasised the fact that orders may not be amended by Parliament. That is absolutely right and is all the more reason for making sure that there is full consultation on any draft order and for making sure that it is right before it ever comes before Parliament. Those are some of the safeguards that we have tried to adopt.
However, I repeat once more that we seek to do something which I firmly believe is in the interests of the professions themselves as well as in the interests of patients. If there are ways in which we can improve the Bill so that it better meets the objectives that are shared

187
between the Government and the professions, and offers reassurance on points of concern, we shall want to consider that most carefully and constructively.
I wish to mention briefly the PPRS provisions to which reference has been made. I restate that the Government recognise what has been achieved over the years of the PPRS and the voluntary agreement. However, I think it is equally recognised—my noble friend Lord Ewing referred to this and, in fact, I would not expect any of your Lordships to fail to acknowledge it—that a situation where some companies decide simply and unilaterally not to take part in the scheme and simply and unilaterally decide to raise prices that are outwith the terms that have been agreed with the industry as a whole and where there is no power to ensure compliance is not a satisfactory one.
Again, we need to look at these provisions in detail but we remain committed to reaching a voluntary agreement with the industry. We recognise the strength of a successful pharmaceutical industry in the United Kingdom. We show our support for that in a number of ways. We recognise too that the research and development on which these industries are based are in the interests of patients as well as of the country as a whole. We want to find a resolution to this issue that is actually fair to the NHS and to its purchasing responsibilities and also fair to what is a very important industry.
I am very conscious that I have not dealt with all the points that have been raised. I think we shall have interesting debates over the next few weeks. There have been criticisms that the Bill goes too far and is draconian and criticisms that it does not go far enough in terms of strengthening the links between local government and the health service. It is important that in all the mechanisms we are dealing with through this legislation we look at some of the principles behind it—the principles of improving quality and of having partnership not only between different parts of the NHS but also between the NHS, the local authorities and the voluntary groups. We should look forward, not to framing the legislation alone, but to doing an enormous number of other things that we need to do with the resources that are going into the health service. We want to see improved, more accessible and more responsive care across the board so that resources are invested in front-line staff whose contribution to the NHS is so critical. I commend the Bill to the House.
8.32 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, this has been a very interesting debate. I have listened with care to the contributions made by your Lordships and in particular to the speech of the noble Baroness. I accept entirely that in a Bill of this kind there is a need to delegate order-making powers to Ministers for the sake of flexibility and administrative convenience on what might be called routine issues. I would never seek to argue otherwise, but what I feel has emerged from the contributions of a number of your Lordships is that a Bill of this importance really ought to include a
188
framework at least—and it is a framework Bill—for each of the major provisions within it, in order to give each of them some substance.
The noble Lord, Lord Ewing of Kirkwood, pointed out that one of the weaknesses of affirmative resolutions is that they cannot be amended. I quite agree with him. That is one very good reason why I believe we should have at least the essential features on the face of the Bill. Only if they are on the face of the Bill will we have an opportunity to amend them if we wish to do so. As it is, the Bill is silent on even the definition of primary care trusts. I really do not think it is sufficient to say that each primary care trust will be different and that we have to accept that there will be a "suck it and see" approach to setting them up. I am quite sure that each primary care trust will be different, but equally I cannot accept that none of them will have any principal features in common. I am not asking for "small print" on the face of the Bill but I am asking for principal headings so that we can all be certain of what we are talking about.
The Minister has not accepted my point—I confess that I did not hold out much hope that she would—but I tabled my amendment, which I believe is perfectly in order, and we have had a debate about it. I would just say to the noble Baroness that I do not believe it would in any way infringe the established conventions of the House if I were to ask your Lordships to agree to my amendment. However, the point about primary care trusts has been made, and made emphatically; and it has commanded considerable support from all sides of the House. I have reached the view that a Division on the issue would be superfluous.
However, I doubt very much that the fears of doctors will have been allayed by what the Minister has said this evening. The answers we get in Committee really must be better and fuller ones. Further to that, I anticipate that our debates in Committee will be considerably lengthier than they would otherwise have been by virtue of the Government's refusal to concede any part of the point I have made. Therefore, with my thanks to all noble Lords who have supported me and with the promise that we shall return to these matters in Committee, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

University Accommodation
8.36 p.m.
Lord Tope Lord Tope rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether adequate measures and inspection arrangements are in force to ensure the safety of university students who rent accommodation.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to those noble Lords who are going to stay tonight to take part in this short but, I think, very important debate. Perhaps I may say at the start that I have received a letter today from the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, regretting that a prior engagement has

189
prevented his attendance here tonight. He goes on to say that he knows that students have some genuine concerns over the matters we shall discuss.
Perhaps I may also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, for sparing a little time last week to discuss some of these issues with me so that, it is to be hoped, we can have a more useful and more informed debate, and indeed some more informed responses from the Government.
Since I put down this Question every student, or recent former student, to whom I have spoken has immediately identified with the issues and has given me all sorts of stories either from his or her own personal experience or from that of close friends. Furthermore, the issue has generated considerable interest and concern among students and their representatives in all parts of the country I think we have touched here on an issue of wide and great importance.
I want to say a little about the very real problems and difficulties which are causing hardship and real physical danger to thousands of young people at our universities. Then I should like to go on to suggest some relatively small changes in regulations that would have real benefits immediately. I think that in the longer term—though, one hopes, not in the too-long term—a mandatory licensing scheme for the properties that students rent is what we need.
Over half the one million full-time students in England and Wales rent flats or houses in the private rented sector. The overwhelming majority of these students live in shared houses or flats. For example, they have a room of their own and share a living room, kitchen, toilets and bath or shower. For many young students, this will be their first experience of living on their own; yet it is very clear that, frankly, many of them are living in death traps.
The English House Condition Survey 1996 found that 19 per cent. of private rented dwellings were unfit for human habitation under the fitness standard set in Section 604 of the 1985 Housing Act. Dangers include faulty or poorly-serviced gas appliances which release toxic fumes like carbon monoxide. These alone have been responsible for the deaths of at least 10 students since 1990. Other common dangers are inadequate means of escape from fire, inflammable furnishing, dangerous electrics, infestation by pests (including rats and cockroaches), inadequate facilities for the preparation of food and washing, dampness, poor insulation and poor security.
I have been in touch with the student housing officers in a number of universities. From Manchester University I was told that students have suffered badly enough from carbon monoxide poisoning to warrant court action. Indeed, from Manchester Metropolitan University we heard of a case where one young man spent a whole term quite badly incapacitated by drowsiness, missing lectures and even one important exam. It turned out that because his landlord had divided up the property in an illegal way, the student was sleeping with his head very close to a gas boiler, which was leaking fumes. Only the real luck of a spot inspection revealed the true cause of the problem. He was. in a way, fortunate; other students
190
have died. A very common complaint to student unions is that the landlord cannot supply the legally-required gas safety certificate. This is usually a sign that the gas appliance has been installed or maintained by amateurs.
Another major threat to life and limb is collapsing ceilings. Again, amateur decorators tend to skim thin plaster on to existing thick Victorian ceilings. The plaster then dries out and pulls the whole lot down. Ceilings also collapse because of long-standing problems with plumbing or structural defects. Often the student will have reported leaking water or excessive damp problems, but no action is taken. Delays in repair work mean that in the meantime young people have to live and try to study in appalling conditions.
Many students suffer illness and discomfort from damp conditions caused by poor ventilation because windows are nailed shut, or damp courses are inadequate or because exterior brickwork needs pointing.
Every type of vermin you can think of has been reported to us. Slugs often infest damp houses; mice arid cockroaches are common; and in both London and Manchester we have had tales of pigeons infesting the lofts of students houses. Landlords are too fond of filling houses with second-hand furniture which does not comply with the new regulations. When this is combined with poor electrical wiring, lack of smoke alarms and no adequate means of escape, it is no exaggeration to speak of death-traps.
These and many other problems suggest that the time is overdue for some comprehensive solution. Liberal Democrats believe that the Government should introduce a licensing scheme for all private rented properties. Under such a scheme landlords would have to satisfy basic health and safety requirements before they could let their properties.
The evidence we received from the students' union at Livepool John Moores University made the point, which I hope the Government will take on board, that legislation heavily favours the landlord and that it is often a laborious, expensive and time-consuming process for students to pursue enforced disrepair procedures. Students are short of both money and time, and this results in many landlords simply "waiting it out" and putting off the repairs until the complaining students disappear.
I know that the noble Baroness is at least as aware as I am that we now have an increasing number of students in this country from other European Union countries. If these are difficulties for students of our own country, who speak the language well and have at least some knowledge of our systems, then it is even more difficult for visitors from overseas.
The Liverpool students also report that the council's environmental health officers are normally,
"very supportive and efficient in their function of enforcing relevant housing law and guidelines. However, they too are subject to the cumbersome policy and procedure that has to be followed to force a landlord to carry out essential repairs. In many cases, by the time government agencies or the courts are in a position to order action, the students' contract has expired."
That may be so, but the young people have just gone through nine months of a housing nightmare.
I hope that I have given some brief indications of both the kind of difficulties students face, and the scale of those difficulties, which are, indeed, nationwide. Perhaps I may now turn to at least a few of the possible solutions.
On the matter of gas leaks and carbon monoxide poisoning, we suggest that the time has come to review the enforcing regulations with a view to giving environmental health officers the same powers to enter domestic rented premises to inspect gas installations as the Health and Safety Executive already possesses in law. The plain fact is that the HSE has its hands full already with factories and industrial complexes: the EHOs, however, really could do the job, given the necessary resources.
In a similar way we would encourage the Government to re-examine the powers of environmental health departments to enforce essential repairs. Can they find some way to "fast-track" through the civil courts to force landlords to carry out essential repairs?
We have been examining examples of good practice through which students can be guaranteed a decent standard of private rented accommodation. We are aware of the good work done by regulatory agencies such as Liverpool Student Homes and UNIPOL, the pioneering student housing agency in Leeds. There are many other schemes as well.
Two schemes we looked at in some detail were run, in one case by a local authority, Lancaster City Council, and in the other by a university, the University of Teesside at Middlesbrough. The accredited property scheme set up by Lancaster City Council is a voluntary scheme which landlords are invited to join. The landlords gain in various ways: the kitemark logo which they are able to display in the front window of their properties gives them an edge over other providers in attracting new tenants; the council gives them positive advertising publicity; they get access to discounts on building supplies; they get property services from, for example, plumbers and electricians; and they get preferential arrangements for property insurance. The city council also supply model tenancy agreements.
The renters, for their part, gain handsomely, because in order to join the Lancaster scheme, landlords have to satisfy very thorough and well-thought-out requirements. Properties have to be in "a reasonable state of physical and decorative repair"; be "structurally stable" and "substantially free from dampness". There must be "an adequate level of natural lighting" and "adequate electric lighting". Proper ventilation is required, especially where gas appliances are installed. There are specifications about heating appliances, power points and insulation. A proper means of escape from fire, together with a fire detection and warning system, is also required.
Minimum room sizes are also laid down: the smallest bedroom permitted is 6.5 square metres or, as many noble Lords will understand rather better, 70 square feet. The requirement is rather larger where there is no separate living-room in the house.
The scheme functions by an initial survey of the property by the city council. Thereafter there may be spot checks by the city council, and automatic checks are carried out straightaway if a tenant complains. At the end of the third year there will in any case be a new survey of the property.
I should perhaps make it clear that this service is offered to all potential tenants in Lancaster, not just university students, although there are specific requirements laid down for properties rented to students. Students known to us at Lancaster University profess themselves very pleased with the scheme.
The other scheme I mentioned that we looked at is the head tenancy scheme run by the University of Teesside at Middlesbrough. In this case the university's accommodation service will manage the property on behalf of the landlord and guarantee to pay the rent. The university pays the owners termly in advance by cheque. They then sign a different agreement with a group of students which entitles them to occupy the property under the terms laid down in the contract. The owner is still responsible for the maintenance and insurance of the property. In the event of repairs not being carried out, the university reserves the right to authorise the repair and charge the landlord accordingly.
Before a property can be registered by the accommodation office, both gas and electricity safety certificates are required. All upholstered furniture must comply with the Furniture and Furnishings (Fire Safety) Regulations 1988.
Liberal Democrats feel strongly that the key elements of this kind of good practice need to be formulated into a national code of practice for student lettings, and that all our universities should be developing schemes along these lines—suited to their particular location and situation—so that good standards can be guaranteed. These schemes have in common the registration of rented properties with an inspecting authority. Landlords are given a checklist of all the features they need to have in place on their properties so that all the hazards I have been talking about are eliminated before the young students apply to rent them. At the very least, British universities need to have that code of practice proposing such schemes, or once the current review of the law affecting houses in multiple occupation is complete, the Government should introduce a mandatory scheme for licensing shared houses and HMOs.
Life at university for young people at the end of this century has become much more hazardous and precarious than it was at the time of our generation. Parents must also have a reasonable expectation that their daughters and sons will live in safe and decent conditions when they live away from home for the first time. I feel confident that the Government will be able to assure us at the end of this debate that serious moves are afoot to address a very serious problem.
8.50 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tope, for initiating this debate and for giving us the benefit of his views based on evidence which he has collected from different parts of the country and to

193
which I have listened carefully and with growing concern. But I note also the voluntary schemes that he mentioned which are obviously encouraging.
I should declare an interest. I am president of the University of Wales. Swansea, and the university has an excellent relationship with Swansea City Council. I have had the benefit of discussing the Question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, with the student accommodation officer and also with the president of the student union at Swansea. But the views which I express are my own and they are not the views of an expert.
The main problem exists in the private sector where students or groups of students reside in a house which has not been registered with the local authority as a house in multiple occupation or in a house which has not been approved as suitable accommodation by the appropriate university or college. It seems to me that once a house has been approved or registered, that should be a guarantee to the students that its safety arrangements are in good order. On the other hand, if a house is not on an approved list of accommodation or is unregistered as a HMO, students should be on their guard from day one.
Throughout the country people are buying houses which they do up and let to students and others who share some of the facilities. Clearly, there are inherent risks of fire in any residential property but the risks are greatly increased by multiple occupation because each separately let part will make use of its own heating, lighting and cooking facilities.
I read in the Joseph Rowntree report published in 1995 that the risks of death from fires are up to 28 times higher in HMOs than in self-contained housing. To the best of my knowledge, that finding has not been challenged. If a house is in law in multiple occupation, then the local council may serve a statutory notice requiring the owner to carry out fire precaution work. The notice may also require the number of occupants to be reduced. Obviously, some of the work may involve quite considerable sums of money but plainly the protection of occupants of houses in multiple occupation against the risk of fire is extremely important.
I understand that one problem is that it is sometimes very difficult to determine whether a house is in law a house in multiple occupation. That has been defined as a house which is occupied,
"by persons who do not form a single household".
But that definition is less attractive to apply than it might appear at first sight. It requires the combination of a clear mind allied to a fine judgment and information about a wide range of considerations. Therefore, it is not surprising that there are wide variations among local authorities in their enforcement of HMO standards.
There have been a number of decisions by the courts about the definition. In particular, it was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, who said in a leading case some 20 years ago that there is not a single test to answer the question whether in law a house is in multiple occupation. In 1995, in the case of Barnes v. Sheffield City Council, a case involving a house let by a private landlord to students attending the same university, the Court of Appeal held that there was not
194
a litmus test which could be applied to determine the answer to the question and that regard must he had to all relevant factors; moreover, that the weight to be given to any particular factor will vary widely from case to case, depending on the overall picture. I noted that in the Barnes case, factors such as shared use of facilities, the stability of the student group and the size of the property as well as six other main factors were taken into consideration by the court. One is left to wonder whether the definition of an HMO remains unchanged. For example, should it be provided that a house providing residence for, say, four or more students—the number involved in the Barnes case—should be deemed to be a house in multiple occupation?
I accept that in applying the letter and the spirit of the law, much must depend upon the nature and quality of relationships between authorities and their officers. I mentioned that the relationship between the University of Swansea and the Swansea City Council is excellent. It should be a matter of good practice for university housing authorities and fire authorities to work together in a co-ordinated way to ensure that premises which are in multiple occupation are maintained in a fit state to be used as residential accommodation.
I accept that the Housing Act 1996 sought to address some of the difficulties. It introduced a scheme for the registration of houses in multiple occupation and empowered the Secretary of State to make model registration schemes. Today, three years on, perhaps the Minister will tell us how many such schemes have been adopted. How many registrations have been revoked? Has it been possible for local authorities, faced with many other pressing needs, to devote adequate resources to enable registration schemes to be established, inspected and monitored, and to enable them to tackle poor standards in HMOs? Does local authorities' income from registration meet the total cost of enforcement of the law? If the definition of HMO is not to be changed, will the department issue, re-write or update circulars 67/69, 12/86 and 12/93 which relate to the problem which, I believe, housing authorities still have in applying the definition of HMO. I hope that any new circular will offer guidance in terms that we can all understand.
I shall not detain the House further. I have risen, partly because of my involvement with one university and also because I believe that students are entitled to be reassured about the safety of rented accommodation. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, has raised critical issues and asked penetrating questions about which I hope my noble friend the Minister will be able to enlighten and reassure us.
9 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I do not wish to speak for long in this debate; however, I wanted to take the opportunity not only of thanking my noble friend Lord Tope for raising this subject, but also of reinforcing some of the points that he made in his speech.
I live in a university town, Guildford, and I teach at the University of Sussex, on the south coast. In both cases, students face an enormous shortage of affordable

195
rented accommodation. House prices and rents in London and the south east are considerably higher than elsewhere. "Affordable" is therefore an important issue. Students are of course perennially poor. These days most live on a combination of grants, loans and parental contribution, amounting to £3, 000 to £4, 000 a year, topped up increasingly by casual work in pubs or supermarkets. They live on £75 to £80 a week. They get together and share accommodation. However, by virtue of their very low incomes they are inevitably seeking flats and rooms at the lower end of the market. Because of the shortage, they are open to exploitation by greedy and lazy landlords.
I spoke yesterday to the welfare vice-president of the University of Sussex students' union. She spoke of cockroaches, mice, damp, leaking taps and blocked-up drains. These were common woes. But she had two particular gripes. One was of landlords who took large deposits at the beginning of the year failing to provide any inventory of the effects against which the deposit was supposedly paid—and failing to tell the students that this was the case—but then claiming at the end of the year that the deposit was necessarily withheld to make good depredations. The second was against landlords who promised but never quite got round to doing repairs. As she said, with the students moving in freshly in October, they start making complaints in November. Foot-dragging landlords spin matters out through the spring and, before you know it, it is May and the students are moving on in June. At that point it is not worth their while pursuing the issue because they are moving on so quickly. And of course the following October the repairs are still not done and a fresh group of students pursue the same case.
She also spoke to me about a "host family" scheme, which applies mainly to foreign language students in Brighton but is also used by the university to place first-year students who cannot be placed in campus accommodation. She said that often it works quite well, but sometimes it does not; that sometimes the accommodation is not up to scratch, but because the arrangement is informal there is no contractual relationship between the family and the student and they have no contractual rights.
These days students have a tough enough time without all these other hassles. As my noble friend Lord Tope made clear, the legal position of shared flats and houses—homes in multiple occupation—is unclear. It is not easy for either environmental health officers or the Health and Safety Executive to act. Yet the horrific cases of carbon monoxide poisoning that have come to light illustrate the dangers of doing nothing. It would be good to see local authorities following the lead of towns such as Lancaster or universities such as the University of Teesside and setting up schemes of their own. I am only sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, is not present. There is a very strong case for the Brighton and Hove unitary authority thinking of these matters and instituting a registration scheme somewhat similar to that promoted by Lancaster. As it is, neither the borough nor the university has been prepared to act. The students' union is now trying instead to go it alone,
196
setting up a scheme which sounds rather like the scheme in Leeds whereby the union sets itself up as its own accredited letting agency. But at present the union is stymied by the lack of £20, 000, which it needs as start-up money for the scheme. It seems that neither the university nor the local authority is prepared even to help with that.
This is a very real problem. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Tope for bringing it to our attention. I hope that as a result of this brief debate the matter may receive some publicity and something may be done about it.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I apologise for intervening in the gap. I knew that my commitments today were uncertain and that I might not be able to arrive in time. I am very pleased that I am able to be present and take part in the debate. I have a particular interest. I once represented a Hampshire ward that includes a university. There were a lot of houses in multiple occupation surrounding the university that were inhabited by students. When, in another place, I sat on the Committee that dealt with the 1996 Housing Act I pursued many of the points that have been raised this evening. I was particularly interested in fire safety and the regulation of gas appliances. I therefore identified closely with the comments made earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies.
In the brief time available to me, I wish to highlight two areas. One relates to the certificates that landlords are now required by law to provide when their gas appliances have been inspected. I feel strongly about this. I raised this issue during the passage of the Housing Bill. Since that time the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998 have come into use under which a landlord is required to produce the certificate and the students do not have to ask for it. That was identified as a real problem.
Secondly, I wish to pursue the issue of the regulation of houses in multiple occupation. I strongly agree with many of the comments made earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. There is a huge raft of legislation surrounding regulation of houses in multiple occupation. We have already identified one duty on landlords to produce certificates when domestic gas appliances have been serviced. Landlords also have a duty to carry out repairs under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. They also have a duty to ensure that the furniture provided is safe and complies with the Furniture and Furnishings (Fire Safety) Regulations 1988. Landlords also have a duty to ensure good management of accommodation under the Housing in Multiple Occupation Management Regulations 1990.
Local housing authorities have powers to require works to be done to make private rented homes fit for human habitation. That comes under Part VI of the Housing Act 1985. I could continue. There are other responsibilities of the Health and Safety Executive to enforce the requirements of the gas safety regulations. Local trading standards authorities have powers to enforce the furniture and furnishing regulations.

197
We can see that the current regulatory framework is complex and rather confusing for landlords and tenants. It involves a great number of different enforcement agencies. As my noble friend pointed out, it leaves the enforcement of health and safety standards largely at the discretion of statutory agencies. In addition, there is the legal confusion mentioned this evening about what constitutes houses in multiple occupation. That has led to disturbing developments. The judgment has meant that some landlords appear to be actively seeking to let accommodation on a shared basis to evade the health and safety regulations since the court case that was highlighted earlier.
The second effect of the judgment has been that many local authorities are reluctant to use their houses in multiple occupation powers to inspect shared houses or even to enforce standards because they fear that they will lose such cases in the courts. Shelter carried out a survey and found that 85 per cent. of the councils surveyed thought that the legal definition of a house in multiple occupation should be amended so that shared houses are clearly included. The area urgently needs to he looked at. The current legislative framework is cumbersome. There is a real opportunity for that to happen and I hope that the Government will grasp it. I know that the Government are committed to introducing a new national mandatory licensing scheme for houses in multiple occupation. The new Labour manifesto pledged:
"We will provide protection where most needed: for tenants in houses in multiple occupation".
I served during the Committee stage of the 1996 Housing Bill in another place. At that time the Opposition spokesman was clear as to Labour's view. Labour wanted to see proper regulation. We supported each other firmly on the matter against the last government.
As was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, the matter was discussed in some detail and promises were made three years ago. I hope that today we shall hear from the Minister what the Government intend to do. As we have heard, there have been some dreadful tragedies and many students have died.
9.11 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, the House must be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tope, for bringing this matter to our attention this evening. He outlined in detail many of the problems which students face when they move into the privately rented sector. It seems unnecessary for me to go into detail again on that. He also outlined some schemes which either universities themselves or authorities in university towns are beginning to put in place to rectify matters. It seems to me that those schemes deserve the greatest possible encouragement from the Government.
It must be faced that these are problems of the wider housing sector. It is not exclusively a university student problem that we are discussing. If proper standards are valid for university students, then how can they be separated from proper standards for everyone else?
198
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, highlighted the complications that arise because of the variable standard of enforcement applied from authority to authority over houses in multiple occupation. This is not a straightforward matter, and it certainly goes wider than simply university accommodation. That said, many universities have their own accommodation and still have problems. One university housing officer commented to me that some students, in defiance or due to ignorance, breach many of the safety regulations that are in place for their protection. That may appear to be a harsh comment but it was spoken with a certain amount of bitterness. It does nothing, however, to excuse the fact that clearly too many students must live in an environment that is beyond their control and in wholly unsatisfactory circumstances.
It is also a fact that the university authorities will need to pay increasing attention to this matter and the general question of university security and safety. It is becoming a matter of note that at conventions where universities seek to attract students parents home in on safety almost as a first item of concern. No responsible parent wishes his or her child—a student will be regarded as a child even though he or she is on the way to being grown up—to go to a university where it is believed that security and safety are not treated with adequate seriousness.
Security is a matter that goes wider than simply housing. Even where a security service is sponsored or provided by the student union, as the bulk of its funding comes from the university such expenditure forms part of general university expenditure. I am aware that one university spends between £100, 000 and £200, 000 annually just on campus security such as closed circuit television. This is designed purely for the security and safety of students. It is another aspect of university life that, sadly, must be treated with enormous care by university authorities.
Other universities have to make provision, either themselves or through the student union for escort services to get students back to lodgings in safety. That may even involve providing a bus service. This does not suggest a happy situation although it demonstrates that universities act responsibly and try to deal with matters within their direct control. But it must be a matter of regret that security costs more and more and so comes into competition with funds that should be devoted to academic matters. Certainly the managerial problems of universities do not get any easier.
Student unions play their part. They issue an extremely good document in conjunction with the Chartered Institute for Environmental Health that provides very good advice to students who move into private houses or flats. The document discusses all the relevant problem areas that are important to the very large number of students who have to make their own housing arrangements independently of universities. I do not know whether general arrangements are made for the distribution of that document. I suspect that it varies from university to university. But I believe that any university where students are obliged to live in private rented accommodation would be well advised to

199
undertake the distribution of that document to all new undergraduates when they finally accept their places and before they arrive at the university.
We all know that houses in multiple occupation are subject to a regulatory system and that various local authority bodies and others must deal with that matter. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, said, the service is variable. It is quite clear that if universities keep a register of approved accommodation and enter into schemes like those at Lancaster and Leeds that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, outlined, the number of situations in which university students have problems will probably reduce.
It is a depressing fact of life that it is probably only a matter of time before one university or another is sued for damages by someone with a perception that the university has been negligent in some way about some aspect of the subject under discussion. That is not a happy situation. But the advent of conditional fees must make it likely. I received that opinion from a university secretary. I should like to hope that the opinion of such a senior administrator in a university might be wrong but I am afraid that time is on his side.
Universities nowadays are free standing, independent corporations, properly responsible for the management of their own affairs. They are, however, dependent on the public purse for a large part of their finances. I look forward to hearing from the Minister that the Government have in mind to use their strong position vis-à-vis finances to persuade universities to take the necessary action, which they are able to do if they have the will, to give proper protection to the students they take in as undergraduates.
9.21 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tope, for raising this important subject today. I should like to reassure the House that the Government very much share the concerns that have been expressed about the safety of university students who rent accommodation. We are firmly committed to ensuring that student accommodation is safe and provides reasonable living conditions.
The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, referred to liabilities for universities with regard to any action. I am sure the noble Lord will understand that on a matter to do with the law I prefer to write to him; and promise to do so.
Students can be particularly vulnerable, as many noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Tope, have said. They are often living away from home for the first time and may not appreciate potential sources of danger in their accommodation. I stress that we are not prepared to tolerate their exploitation by unscrupulous landlords.
There have been too many tragedies which could and should have been prevented. I recognise and pay tribute, as did the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and others, to the efforts of the National Union of Students to increase
200
awareness of those dangers. But in addition we need to tackle the problem at source by minimising those dangers as far as we can.
Existing measures under housing and health and safety legislation have generally proved to be effective in reducing risks to people in rented accommodation. But we are aware of some shortcomings, including those mentioned by noble Lords today. I shall try to respond in detail to the points raised.
The noble Lord, Lord Tope, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, referred to the general problems of damp, infestation and structural problems. Local authorities have powers to deal with those problems under existing legislation—for example, Section 604 of the Housing Act 1985. That applies to any houses.
The Government are committed to introducing a licensing system for houses in multiple occupation (HMOs) because they play an important part in providing student accommodation. Our aim is to ensure that HMOs are safe and provide acceptable basic living conditions. We intend to issue a consultation paper on proposals for HMO licensing in England and Wales in the early part of this year. We want a new system which avoids the ambiguities—a point mentioned by noble Lords—and enforcement difficulties associated with existing controls. Our objective is to improve standards in HMOs through a comprehensive fair and effective scheme. My noble friend Lord Prys-Davies asked for further guidance to be issued on the definition of HMOs. We cannot use guidance to extend the definition. It is clear that what is needed is action beyond that.
We are aware of difficulties with the definition of HMO in England and Wales, particularly in relation to shared houses of the type occupied by students. We intend to adopt a more precise definition. One option would be to use the definition based on that currently used in Scotland. That would apply to all houses shared by members of more than two families. The vast majority shared by students would therefore be covered by this definition.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Tope, I point out that primary legislation will be required to introduce this scheme and that the Government will legislate as soon as an opportunity becomes available. In the meantime, local authorities already have wide-ranging powers to ensure acceptable standards for HMOs. In England and Wales, they have discretion to introduce HMO registration schemes which require landlords to register properties with the authority. Schemes may include the power to refuse or revoke registration if acceptable standards are not met. However, as I have indicated, we recognise the problem that local authorities are cautious because of the difficulty with the definition.
The noble Lords, Lord Tope and Lord Dixon-Smith, referred to the fact that the worst housing conditions are often found in this part of the private rented sector. Poor fire and other health and safety standards are all too common, together with overcrowding and inadequate facilities. We are determined to protect the most vulnerable sections of the community from exploitation by unscrupulous or uncaring landlords. Our aim is to ensure that properties in multiple occupation are safe and provide acceptable basic living conditions. We want the

201
system to be comprehensive and effective. At the same time, we recognise the need to ensure that unnecessary burdens are not placed on HMO landlords. HMOs play an important role in providing housing for groups of people, including students, who may have difficulty in finding alternative accommodation.
In response to the point articulately stressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, about greedy and lazy landlords, our aim is to ensure that we improve standards in HMOs rather than close them down. The discretionary nature of the powers has led to inconsistent enforcement, with some local authorities taking a more proactive role than others, depending on local policy. That is why we are keen to introduce a comprehensive licensing system. That issue was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and by my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, asked about deposits. We are concerned about the problems tenants face in getting their deposits returned. We are quite clear that they should not lose part or all of their deposit at the end of the tenancy and they deserve a proper explanation if that is happening. We are proposing a voluntary self-financing scheme to ensure that tenants' deposits are safely held. If, following meetings with representatives, the voluntary scheme is unsuccessful, we have made it clear that we will consider legislating to set up a system which ensures and enforces it.
A similar point was raised by my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies. Many noble Lords speaking in the debate mentioned the question of gas safety. Gas safety law requires landlords, including HMO landlords, to maintain gas appliances, flues and pipework in a safe condition: to arrange annual safety checks of appliances and flues using an installer registered with the Council for Registered Gas Installers (CORGI) and to provide records of those checks to tenants. The regulations apply to most rented domestic premises, including those occupied by students. Those regulations are enforced by Health and Safety Executive inspectors who work closely with local authority environmental health officers who have enforcement responsibility for other housing legislation, particularly with respect to HMOs.
As the noble Lord, Lord Tope, said, it is a critically important area. I am pleased to say that the Health and Safety Executive is currently conducting a comprehensive review of gas safety. That will consider, among other issues, the relative roles of health and safety and other legislation. It will also consider alternative enforcement strategies and bodies. The review's recommendations should be available by the end of the year. The HSE recently launched gas safety web pages on the Internet, which provide information to students on the law, their landlord's duties and what action they can take if their landlord does: not provide them with a copy of the relevant safety check. To focus the landlord duties further, the HSE: published a new leaflet. Copies have already been distributed in large numbers by university accommodation officers to landlords renting accommodation to students and, of course, to students themselves.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Tope, in terms of health advice, twice in the past three years the
202
Government's Chief Medical Officer wrote to all GPs alerting them to the symptoms of carbon monoxide poisoning. That advice reminded GPs to be even more diligent when examining patients during the winter months when carbon monoxide poisoning may be diagnosed as flu or other winter illnesses. Each winter all GP surgeries receive copies of the latest government publicity on carbon monoxide poisoning for the information of doctors and their patients.
The question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, implied that he was arguing for licensing of all private rented housing. At present the Government are not proposing wholesale licensing in the private rented sector. However, we are concerned about poor standards at the bottom end of the market. If standards are not improved over time through existing voluntary arrangements, the Government will consider taking action.
I was asked a question by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, regarding non-fire safety approved furniture. Foam-filled furniture legislation applies to the supply of such furniture when letting property for business, enforced by trading standards. However, we acknowledge that there is a real difficulty with enforcement. Houses in multiple occupation schemes may enable local authorities to deal with the problem and licensing will definitely do so.
My noble friend Lord Prys-Davies, with the particularly detailed knowledge he has from his valuable connection with Swansea University, and other noble Lords paid tribute to the Lancaster and Teesside schemes. It is extremely important that we recognise the work being done on a voluntary basis at this stage and pay tribute to that. It is important with regard to the specific issue of HMOs that the appropriate action is taken following the proper consultation.
The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, referred to the wider issue of campus security and the problems that universities face. As I have said, I am not prepared on the hoof to impersonate a lawyer, as it were, but I shall write to the noble Lord. However, I recognise the concerns that have been expressed about the need for all young people to be protected in terms of safety. Few people realise that those in our society who are most vulnerable to physical attack are not little older women, like me, but young men. Universities have to work hard to ensure that all students, not only female students, are protected.
I hope that I have covered the points raised. I reiterate my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Tope, for his courtesy in providing me in advance with information about his specific areas of concern. I hope that noble Lords are reassured that the Government take these issues very seriously, as demonstrated by our intention to consult on the HMO licensing scheme and the review of gas safety legislation. If, on reading Hansard, I find that I have failed to reply to any specific point, I shall, of course, write to noble Lords.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before ten o'clock.

  Sudan: Kidnappings
  Sudan: Kidnappings
  Iraq: No-Fly Zones
  Iraq: No-Fly Zones
  Sudan: Al-Shifa Chemical Factory
  Sudan: Al-Shifa Chemical Factory
  Iraq: Military Operations
  Iraq: Military Operations
  Embassies: Terrorist Threats
  Embassies: Terrorist Threats
  Hearing Aids: Prescriptions
  Hearing Aids: Prescriptions
  Propellant: Procurement
  Propellant: Procurement
  Spratt Report: South Coast Biological Defence Trials
  Spratt Report: South Coast Biological Defence Trials
  House of Lords Appellate Committee: Composition
  House of Lords Appellate Committee: Composition
  Scotland: Pig Industry
  Scotland: Pig Industry
  Scottish Department of Agriculture, Environment and Fisheries: Funding
  Scottish Department of Agriculture, Environment and Fisheries: Funding
  A.7 Trunk Road: Improvements
  A.7 Trunk Road: Improvements
  Drug Treatment and Testing Orders
  Drug Treatment and Testing Orders
  General Pinochet
  General Pinochet
  Teachers: Pay Award
  Teachers: Pay Award
  Class Sizes
  Class Sizes
  European Social Fund: Repayments by London Boroughs
  European Social Fund: Repayments by London Boroughs
  European Union: VAT Rates
  European Union: VAT Rates
  Tuberculosis Organisms in Milk and Cheese
  Tuberculosis Organisms in Milk and Cheese
  Meat Hygiene Directive
  Meat Hygiene Directive
  Organophosphate Sheep Dips: Adverse Reactions
  Organophosphate Sheep Dips: Adverse Reactions