Sitting of 25 February 1999

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

    Automotive Engineering
    Mr. Richard Burden: If he will make a statement on the prospects for automotive engineering in the United Kingdom. [71592]
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Stephen Byers): With £3 billion of new investment and the creation of 6,500 new jobs announced in 1998, and with yesterday's announcement by Vauxhall that it will locate its European centre of research at Luton, it is clear that the overall prospects are good.
    Mr. Burden: I welcome the announcement by Vauxhall of the investment in Luton. Does not that show that it makes sound business sense for motor manufacturers to invest here in the United Kingdom? Against that background, would not it also make sound business sense for BMW to confirm production of a new model range at Rover in Longbridge? My right hon. Friend visited the plant a few weeks ago and I welcome the positive attitude that he has shown to that possibility. Will he confirm that Government assistance to back such investment by BMW would in no sense be a bail-out, but would be investment to transform the plant and ensure that motor manufacturing remains here in the European Union?
    Mr. Byers: I compliment my hon. Friend on the role that he has played in representing the interests of his many
    522
    constituents at the Longbridge plant in Birmingham. I was pleased to visit the Longbridge plant with my hon. Friend a few weeks ago to discuss the situation with management and representatives of the work force.
    The House will know that BMW is at present reviewing the position regarding the development of a new medium-sized car. I am confident that Longbridge is in a strong position. Provided that skills can be raised and improved productivity achieved—and also that BMW is prepared to make a substantial investment in Longbridge—the Government will do all that we can to assist the plant financially, to save the 14,000 jobs of people directly employed there, and to save the jobs of the many tens of thousands of people in the west midlands economy who depend on Longbridge.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will the Secretary of State accept that the automotive engineering sector is a vital part of the manufacturing element of the United Kingdom economy? Does he also accept that added social costs at a time of globalisation and increased competitiveness across the world are very dangerous to the sector, which is already highly competitive? Will he also have a word with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and suggest that he should not adopt such a hostile attitude to the motorist, who sources so much employment in this country?
    Mr. Byers: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is denying what is happening in reality. Yesterday, Vauxhall announced its new research and development centre here in the United Kingdom, and last month Nissan announced an extra 800 jobs in Sunderland. Those companies are looking world wide and choosing to invest in the United Kingdom. This is a good place to do business, and the Government are taking the steps and putting in place the measures to ensure that it will remain so.
    Jacqui Smith: Does my right hon. Friend share my concern about the comments that have appeared in a national newspaper calling for the withdrawal of support from the Longbridge plant, presumably with a consequent loss of jobs and investment there? Will he assure me that he will continue to give positive support to the west midlands and to the Longbridge plant? Will he call on the Opposition also to condemn the comments in that newspaper, which they usually support?
    Mr. Byers: The Opposition have been notable for their total silence on the question of support or otherwise for Rover at Longbridge. Not a word has been said—apart from by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), who speaks on these matters for the Opposition and who sought to denigrate Longbridge in a debate a couple of weeks ago. I regret the words that he used on that occasion.
    I can however confirm that there is no question of the Government bailing out Longbridge. We are prepared to support the plant, to help to improve productivity and raise skill levels there, and to work towards leveraging in much more money from BMW. If we can secure that, the prospect for Longbridge is bright, and I look forward to visiting the plant in the not-too-distant future, when its future is secured.
    Mr. John Redwood: The Secretary of State should withdraw his last remarks about Longbridge.

    523
    The Opposition have made it very clear that we want a strong motor manufacturing industry in Britain, and we have supported the case for strong manufacturing in the west midlands.
    Does the Secretary of State accept that the problems experienced by Rover and other motor manufacturers stem largely from the high value of sterling, which is the result of this Government's policy? That has meant that it is one fifth dearer to make things in Britain than in France or Germany. Will he confirm that stability of exchange rates is crucial to the euro scheme? Does not that mean locking Britain into an uncompetitive exchange rate that will make it too dear to make things in Britain?
    We welcome the odd piece of good news, but the overall background is one of factory closure after factory closure and job loss after job loss. The Secretary of State does not care, and does not seem to realise the consequences of the Government's actions. Does he now accept that the Government's change of gear on the euro is a crash of gears for British industry?
    Mr. Byers: The right hon. Gentleman talks about a single piece of good news, which Vauxhall's decision yesterday certainly was. However, it was not the only one. Last month, Nissan created 800 jobs in Sunderland. Last year, Honda announced investment of £500 million in Swindon, creating 1,000 jobs. In addition, Peugeot has announced 900 jobs in the past three months, Vauxhall has announced an additional 1,000 jobs at Ellesmere Port and Toyota has invested £180 million at Deeside, which will create 310 jobs. That makes nearly 4,000 new jobs in the past 12 months.
    The right hon. Gentleman allows prejudice to rule over fact, and he cannot see the good news. He should listen to the managing director of Vauxhall, who has said that if the Government were to adopt the policies proposed by the right hon. Gentleman on the single currency, Vauxhall would not consider further investment in the United Kingdom. He should talk to the managing directors of Nissan, who say exactly the same. That is the reality that the right hon. Gentleman chooses to ignore because he is not prepared to recognise that our future lies in Europe. Business believes that it does, but for prejudiced reasons, the right hon. Gentleman will not recognise it.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: My right hon. Friend needs no lectures from that lot opposite about the manufacturing base because 40 per cent. of it went during the 18 years of Tory Government. They shut nearly every shipyard in the country, and they closed every coal mine in Derbyshire. And Deadwood walked through the Division Lobby with the rest of the Tories to close down the pits.
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman tends to get carried away. I thought we might have a good kick-off this morning, not an abusive one. Please use appropriate language when referring to Members of the House.
    Mr. Skinner: I did not think you had caught on, Madam Speaker.
    Madam Speaker: I am wide awake this morning.
    Mr. Skinner: I only got "Deadwood" from the Tory paper, The Sun, when the right hon. Gentleman stood for the leadership.
    524
    If BMW starts to throw its weight about and fails to honour the pact agreed with the Transport and General Workers Union and other unions by saying that Rover is worthless, will the Secretary of State tell BMW that we will take Rover back—just as we did when we nationalised Rolls-Royce—so that we can run it for the public benefit?
    Mr. Byers: I have to say that that is not one of the options being considered by the Government. To be serious, however, the work force at Longbridge showed their clear commitment to the future of the car industry by voting last autumn for radical changes to their working practices. We all want BMW to show a similar commitment to Longbridge.

    Transport Costs
    Mr. Christopher Gill: What assessment he has made of the effect upon the competitiveness of British industry of (i) United Kingdom transport costs and (ii) those relative to those of continental Europe. [71593]
    Madam Speaker: I am going to ask the hon. Gentleman to read out his substantive question so that it will be recorded correctly.
    Mr. Gill: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question was correctly recorded in the Vote a fortnight ago, but it has been altered subsequently. It should read: "What assessment he has made of the effect upon the competitiveness of British industry of United Kingdom transport costs relative to those of continental Europe."
    The Minister for Energy and Industry (Mr. John Battle): The Government recognise that transport costs can be a significant factor in the competitiveness of some sectors, and comparisons have been made. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister set out the Government's strategy for supporting economic growth through an improved and more efficient transport system in his White Paper, "A New Deal for Transport", which was published last year, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have read it.
    Mr. Gill: The House will have noted that totally inadequate response. It can hardly have escaped the Minister's attention that 2,000 truckers massed outside the House of Commons yesterday to try to draw the Government's attention to their problems—problems that will not be solved by the integrated transport system. The difficulties are occasioned by the fact that truckers pay so much more for fuel and excise duty in the UK than their counterparts pay on the continent. Is the Minister aware that truck drivers can fill their tanks for £200 less per tankful of diesel on the continent than they must pay in the UK? Is he further aware that the continental hauliers against whom the British trucker is competing can employ two east European drivers for the price of one British driver? What is he going to do about that particular problem? The truckers will not be fobbed off by the pathetic answer the Minister has given.
    Mr. Battle: The hon. Gentleman, and the industry as a whole, might look to issues wider than the direct costs—indeed I know that the industry does so—because the

    525
    overall tax burden on the haulage industry is less than the European Union average. The industry here pays lower corporation taxes, lower employment taxes and lower social costs than it would in any other European country.
    I know about the demonstration that took place outside the House yesterday, and I note that the director general of the Road Haulage Association Ltd is none other than Mr. Norris, the former MP for Epping Forest. I seem to recall that, as Minister for Transport in London, he contributed to the disintegration of transport policy—remember his lines about those dreadful people who travel on public transport? Our Labour Government are introducing policies to integrate public road, rail, and vehicle transport in this country. It was the Opposition, when they were in government, who undermined the competitiveness of British industry; we are setting it on the right road.
    Mr. Barry Sheerman: My hon. Friend will hear a lot of special pleading as we run up to the Budget, but will he bear in mind the fact that we have an effective haulage industry in this country? The industry is competitive and very good logistically, and I hope that he will not take too much notice either of the question put by the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) or of the demonstration yesterday.
    Mr. Battle: I appreciate my hon. Friend's remarks and should like to point out that we have a good working relationship with the haulage industry. The industry endorsed our intentions to improve enforcement throughout the industry, through improvements in the efficiency of enforcement agencies and by considering the introduction of modern information technology systems to allow better co-ordination. The industry has been constructive in helping us to formulate proposals for hauliers in a competitive regime that will be fair and honest and will lead to reduced congestion, improved delivery times, efficiencies and profitability. That is the whole point of an integrated transport policy. The haulage industry realises that; it is only the Conservatives who have not yet caught on.
    Mr. David Heath: Is the Minister as alarmed as I am to hear Conservative Members calling for tax harmonisation? Does he recognise that many small haulage operators are facing a difficult period, with competition from continental European operators who are coming into Britain and taking British haulage jobs? Will he consider whether, without abandoning the quite proper environmental basis for Government policy, he can reach agreements with other European countries on fuel tax convergence, to ensure that we have a fair playing field for this important industry?
    Mr. Battle: The hon. Gentleman puts the point well, but I cannot speak for the contradictions that emerge from the Conservatives. I agree that it is important that the rules of the European Union be applied equitably and fairly throughout the whole of the EU and are applied to all on a level playing field. We shall do our best to ensure that that happens.
    I would add that it is right that there should be a balance between the amount paid by the industry in dues and environmental responsibilities. We cannot unlink those
    526
    responsibilities; the industry realises that taking its environmental responsibilities and its social obligations seriously is an important part of building and maintaining a competitive edge nowadays. I cannot understand why Conservative Members hanker after a single instrument all the time; they seem to be so locked in the past that they have not caught up with the agenda.
    Mr. Denis MacShane: Is the Minister aware that trucking companies on the continent admire the flexibility of their counterparts in the United Kingdom? They admire the fact that, because of the national health service, United Kingdom companies do not have to pay extra social costs and they would welcome the corporation and other taxes that apply in this country. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath)—if I may go off message briefly—is quite right: we need harmonisation of these duties in Europe. If the Conservative party is now officially the party of harmonisation, I, for one, welcome it.
    Mr. Battle: Until 9 March, there is a kind of ministerial purdah preventing comment on tax and changes in duties. I must admit—in all honesty and in the privacy of this quiet room—that I do not know what is in the Budget. Changes in fuel duty will obviously be a matter for the Chancellor, but I am sure that he will take notice of all representations made to him—including those from hon. Members.
    Mr. Jeffrey Donaldson: In developing an integrated transport strategy for the United Kingdom, the Minister will be aware of the tremendous burden of the transport costs that apply to businesses in peripheral regions, such as Northern Ireland. Will the Minister clarify what consideration has been given to peripheral regions of the United Kingdom in developing an integrated transport strategy?
    Mr. Battle: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. If he reads "A New Deal for Transport", which was published by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, he will find that rural areas and the regions—Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland—feature in that report.
    It is important to ensure that "integrated" means the whole of these islands. We must have systems that work, not just for road but for rail. There will be an announcement today about our attempts to sort out the mess in the rail industry that we inherited from the Conservatives. We must ensure that road, rail, public and private transport and the haulage industry are integrated properly. That means having a decent system: ensuring that roads are maintained properly and so on and that the regions and outlying and rural areas are not discounted from the equation. It is not just an urban integrated transport strategy, but a strategy for the whole of Britain.

    Physical Sciences
    Mr. Ian Stewart: What plans he has to increase the budget for research in the physical sciences. [71594]
    The Minister for Energy and Industry (Mr. John Battle): The allocations of the science budget to the separate research councils following the comprehensive spending review provision of an additional £700 million over the next three years were announced on 27 October 1998. That increase compares with the last settlement of the previous Administration, which resulted in a real-terms reduction in spend. Spend on the physical sciences for the years beyond 2001–02, like all other areas of science, will be reviewed in due course.
    Mr. Stewart: Technical and engineering-oriented universities such as Salford will welcome this settlement—particularly as the physical sciences and engineering have done better from the comprehensive spending review than from 18 years of Tory rule. It was difficult for universities to train graduates and post-graduates because of the state of disrepair that the Conservatives permitted during their period in Government.
    Will the Minister join me in calling on all fields of science to work in partnership to make the most of cross-disciplinary projects and the joint infrastructure fund in order to advance knowledge in the United Kingdom? That fund—comprising £300 million from the Government and £300 million from the Wellcome Trust—is much appreciated. I hope that the Minister will ensure also that there is proper balance in the distribution of that fund throughout Britain.
    Mr. Battle: I agree with my hon. Friend's approach: yes, it is important that we adopt new cross-disciplinary strategies. However, it is important to stress that the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council budget will increase over the next three years by £86 million, from the already high figure of £380 million. For example, funding for maths will rise by 17.5 per cent. and funding for chemistry by 7.5 per cent. The £600 million joint infrastructure fund to which my hon. Friend referred may be used by science institutions in all fields to upgrade laboratories and other buildings. Bids are welcome.
    My hon. Friend mentioned cross-disciplinary activity. I believe that Salford university, Salford city council, local education, medical, industrial and social bodies and my hon. Friend are all involved in the Gemysis project. That is an example of how new technology can blend the traditional science disciplines with the wider world. If others follow Salford's example, we shall move forward much faster.
    Mr. David Chidgey: That is all very encouraging, but I am sure that the Minister is aware that this country devotes a lower proportion of investment to research into civil aviation than do any of our European Union competitors. Will he take the good news further and confirm that his Department will not cut, and indeed will maintain, the budget for the civil aviation research and development scheme?
    Mr. Battle: We are considering CARAD's budget in detail and sympathetically. CARAD is being supported. Since we came to power we have substantially helped the aerospace industry with launch aid to British Aerospace
    528
    and Rolls-Royce. That was significant investment in research and development projects, so the aviation sector cannot claim that we are not backing it fully.
    Mr. Ian Pearson: While I welcome the boost in research funding, is my hon. Friend aware that less than 1 per cent. of research council funding is devoted to the "D" part of R and D, or that only a paltry 2.5 per cent. of overall Government R and D funding is devoted to industrial development? In all friendliness, I tell him that that Tory legacy is simply not acceptable and is damaging our long-term competitiveness. What will he do about it?
    Mr. Battle: I would not like my hon. Friend to think that the science budget was all. The increase of £1.4 billion was intended to underpin the science base, but the comprehensive spending review has enabled the Department to increase by 20 per cent., to £220 million, the innovation budget, the aim of which is precisely to help to move ideas out of laboratories and into workshops. That will help a range of schemes to enable ideas to be turned into practical, productive, economic work.
    Mr. Christopher Chope: Is not the key issue the fact that the Minister for Science, Lord Sainsbury, is seen to be biased towards the biosciences rather than the physical sciences? Yesterday's decision by the public health committee of the Labour-controlled Local Government Association to recommend that 26,000 schools ban GM foods reveals that it is unwilling to trust the science Minister, whether he is involved in a blind trust or any other sort of trust. That also demonstrates how important it is to have a science Minister who can serve on Cabinet sub-committees dealing with these subjects.
    Unlike Lord Sainsbury, the Minister for Energy and Industry is not tainted by conflicts of interest and is directly accountable to this elected House. Why does he not ask for his old job back? If he asks to be science Minister again, we will support him.
    Mr. Battle: This Government's top priority has always been and will continue to be to ensure that GM crops and food do not threaten environmental health or public safety. We shall proceed with care and caution on the basis of the best available scientific advice. Scaremongering and spreading rumours, as the Conservative party has done in recent weeks, is most unhelpful. The attempts of Opposition Members to impugn the integrity of my noble Friend Lord Sainsbury demonstrate that when a team is losing badly its last line of defence is to go for the man, not the ball—and that is exactly what Opposition Members are doing.

    Small and Medium-sized Businesses
    Ms Helen Southworth: What measures his Department proposes to foster an entrepreneurial culture among small and medium-sized businesses. [71597]
    The Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry (Mr. Michael Wills): The recent competitiveness White Paper sets out 75 new commitments to help British businesses succeed, and fostering an entrepreneurial culture lies at their heart. The Department is participating

    529
    in the development of a national campaign for enterprise to create a more entrepreneurial culture. For existing small and medium enterprises, there will also be an enterprise fund to assist business growth. The Department continues to build on the extensive range of services offered to all businesses through the Business Link network.
    Ms Southworth: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Will he welcome the exciting and innovative initiatives taking place in my area? Warrington Business Connection, which is led by the local authority, will in April provide the opportunity for 5,000 small and medium businesses to meet, create networks and trade not only in the north-west or even in Britain, but internationally in many different marketplaces. Will he welcome also the newly formed Skills Forum, a public-private sector partnership in Warrington, based around identified business need to support and develop skills in the area? I welcome the prospect of my hon. Friend's coming to Warrington to see that Warrington means business and is effective.
    Mr. Wills: I am delighted to welcome that news from my hon. Friend, and I shall be delighted to visit Warrington and see it for myself, as soon as I receive an invitation.
    Mr. Peter Brooke: Does the Minister agree that entrepreneurs are entrepreneurs are entrepreneurs, and that what matters far more than encouraging entrepreneurs is not discouraging them?
    Mr. Wills: I am very happy to agree with that.
    Liz Blackman: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry visited my constituency fairly recently and saw an enterprising small firm that managed to get into the niche market of carbon fibres, capitalising itself on the way. It has now reached a point where it wants to grow on. What help and support do the Government offer firms that want to move from the small to the medium sector?
    Mr. Wills: We are providing a range of support through the Business Link network. If my hon. Friend writes to me with details of the firm, I shall be happy to provide specific details for the area.
    Mr. Brian Cotter: Is the Minister aware that the cost to the smallest businesses—those with five employees or fewer—of introducing the working families tax credit will be £25 million? Does he agree that that is not encouraging for new entrepreneurs? Has he made representations to that effect to the Treasury, and if not, why not?
    Mr. Wills: We are introducing a range of measures that we hope will help low-income working families. We are proud of those measures and we will continue to pursue them. As regards helping small businesses, we have a range of measures. The costs to which the hon. Gentleman refers must be seen in context. We want small businesses in this country to prosper, and we are confident that we have the measures to enable them to do so.
    Mr. Barry Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that an entrepreneurial business could take a
    530
    hard knock if its locality suffered the loss of assisted area status? Will he assure me that he will fight hard to keep assisted area status for my constituency, bearing in mind that 4,000 aerospace workers, who are the very spirit of the entrepreneurial British approach, want that status kept, as do the people who work with great enterprise in Deeside industrial park? I am sure that my hon. Friend will fight hard for my people.
    Mr. Wills: My hon. Friend is a famous champion of his constituency and his views are well noted. As he knows, the assisted areas map is under review. We shall report the results to the House in due course.
    Mr. Tim Boswell: Will the Minister concede that his extremely bland new Labour responses sit ill alongside the additional burdens that he is imposing on small and medium enterprises through the Employment Relations Bill that he is currently considering in Committee with us? Those burdens fall on top of the burdens of cost and book-keeping imposed by the national minimum wage and the working time regulations.
    Has the Minister noted the recent press report that South Korea, a country in real economic difficulties, has responded to them by going through its 16,000 regulations and abolishing approximately half of them—this at a time when the British Government have scrapped 20 regulations and imposed 2,400 new regulations? Is not that the wrong kind of productivity?
    Mr. Wills: We need no lessons from the Opposition, who introduced 45,000 regulations while they were in government—a record that we are striving not to emulate.
    As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Employment Relations Bill promotes a range of family-friendly policies. We are proud of them and we do not regard them as a burden on business. We regard them as fostering a spirit of partnership. We are promoting a new spirit of partnership in the workplace, which was sadly lacking from the measures introduced by the previous Government. Far from increasing burdens, we believe that our measures, seen in the round, will decrease the burdens by tackling the crippling cost to business of absenteeism.
    According to an estimate by the Confederation of British Industry, that cost was £25 billion in 1996. A new spirit of partnership in the workplace will help to reduce it.

    Rover Longbridge
    Mr. John Austin: What action he has taken to ensure continued production at Rover Longbridge. [71599]
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Stephen Byers): I am in close contact with both Rover and BMW. I have also spoken personally to the new chairman of BMW, Dr. Milberg. I am pleased to tell the House that he has confirmed that BMW will proceed with the planned investment at Longbridge for the new Mini. I welcome that decision.
    In addition, BMW is reviewing its medium car strategy. As part of that review, the Government will carefully consider any approach from BMW for assistance that will help to secure the long-term future of the plant, and will

    531
    help Rover to achieve the world-class performance that it needs to achieve if it is to operate successfully in this competitive, global marketplace.
    Mr. Austin: I welcome my right hon. Friend's support. Will he also commend the Rover work force at Longbridge for their positive contribution to ensuring continued production at the plant? Does he share my view that the ground-breaking partnership deal struck in December was struck between recognised trade unions and the board, and should be unaffected by any recent changes in the board? Does he also agree that the loss of 14,000 jobs at Rover Longbridge, and of up to 80,000 in the supply and service industries, would deal a devastating blow not just to the west midlands but to the British economy as a whole? Does he agree that, in a global market economy and given the inevitable rationalisation of the motor car industry, the victors will be countries that support domestic producers?
    Mr. Byers: This is clearly a time of uncertainty for the 14,000 people who work at Longbridge, and for the many more people in the west midlands who depend on Rover Longbridge for their contracts. It will be a period of change. In the autumn, the work force voted for change, demonstrating their commitment. The Government want to ensure that those workers can be partners in change, not victims of change. We shall do all that we can to support them, and to help BMW to decide where the medium car is to be produced; but I must repeat that there is no question of the Government's bailing out an unsuccessful industry. We are prepared to give financial support to the improvement of skills at Longbridge so that productivity can increase, on condition that that support levers in substantial extra investment by BMW. We believe that partnership approach is the best way in which to secure the long-term future of Longbridge, and of Rover in the United Kingdom.
    Miss Julie Kirkbride: I welcome a great deal of what the Secretary of State has said. As he may know, the Longbridge plant is in my constituency as well as that of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden), and I should be grateful if, when he intends to visit it again, he would do me the courtesy of telling me.
    I associate myself with what was said by the hon. Member for Northfield, but also ask whether the Secretary of State will have the decency to accept that part of the problem at Longbridge has been caused by the Government's economic policy and the ruinously high exchange rate that operated during the early part of the Government's term of office, when Rover was unable to sell its cars abroad and was uncompetitive in the home market where it had traditionally sold them. Sadly, that will continue, because foreign car companies have bought forward sterling and will therefore be able to continue to undercut Rover in its home market.
    In view of the Government's partial culpability in regard to the present crisis, may I urge the Secretary of State to encourage his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be generous? There is a perfectly reasonable precedent in the investment in Longbridge that took place under the last Conservative Government.
    Mr. Byers: I can understand why Conservative Members try to score political points, but we should look
    532
    at the facts. The hon. Lady referred specifically to exports and alleged that the car industry faces particular difficulties in that respect because of the rate of sterling. A fact: car exports from the United Kingdom last year were the highest ever. A fact: United Kingdom car industry production was the highest for 24 years. United Kingdom sales are the highest since 1989. That is the reality of the situation. Conservative Members do not like to have the facts drawn to their attention. Those are the facts and here is another one: 6,500 new jobs have been created in the car industry in the past year under this Government, after years of neglect by the Conservatives.
    Dr. Lynne Jones: I am pleased that the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) associated herself with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden), but it is a pity that she did not dissociate herself from the calls of her former employer, The Daily Telegraph, to shut down the Rover operations at Longbridge. Despite the strength of the pound, which is a problem for Longbridge, Rover managed to increase its sales in Europe last year, largely due to the success of its higher range models. Such production is set to continue with the highly acclaimed Rover 75. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if the investment in the small and medium car range goes ahead, the prospects for Rover capturing its share of that market—at home and abroad—are good?
    Mr. Byers: I agree with my hon. Friend. I have no doubt that the prospects for Rover, particularly at Longbridge, will be good, provided that we can achieve an approach based on partnership and can work together. The Government are prepared to do their part—not through a bail-out, but through targeted assistance—and, provided that BMW can recognise the benefits that it will receive from Rover Longbridge and investment in that plant, I am sure that we can work together to provide employment for the 14,000 people who currently work there. Such an approach would provide opportunities throughout the west midlands and secure the future of Longbridge, so ensuring that we can maintain that plant as a vital part of the west midlands economy.
    Mr. John Redwood: In the middle 1990s, Rover was profitable, BMW was proud to acquire the Rover name and the factories, and BMW management thought that Britain was the best place in which to invest, anywhere in Europe, to build new cars. Under the Government, Rover is a loss-making venture and BMW is threatening to take its investment elsewhere; it is even contemplating not using the Rover badge for the medium car, but substituting a new BMW model.
    I hope that the Secretary of State will accept that Conservative Members want a successful motor industry base in Britain. We were proud of the achievements by companies from all around the world which began to establish that base in the early and mid-1990s. Will he tell all those worried people who live anywhere near a Rover plant, and whose livelihoods depend on it, either directly or indirectly, the answers to some very simple questions? Do he and the Government believe that they can persuade BMW to use the new mid-range Rover saloon, the Rover 35, to replace the existing models, or does he think that we might lose out to a BMW model? Does he think that he can persuade BMW to manufacture that model in Longbridge or anywhere in the west midlands?

    533
    How many job losses does the Secretary of State think will result from the plans that BMW is beginning to develop? When does he expect to receive a proper application for grant from BMW? Will that grant application be for the Mini alone, or does he expect it to cover the medium-sized saloon? Will he want any conditions about such a saloon if the grant application relates only to the Mini in the first instance? What guarantees will he want about the number and location of jobs, if and when those grant negotiations get under way?
    Mr. Byers: We have just witnessed the gross irresponsibility of opposition. There is no question of debating such detailed, commercially sensitive information on the Floor of the House. The right hon. Gentleman knows that, when he was a Minister at the Department of Trade and Industry, he would not have debated these issues openly at this particularly sensitive stage.
    The reality is that yesterday Vauxhall decided to locate its research centre in the United Kingdom. Ten years ago, when the Conservative Government were in power, that company walked away from the UK. It would create great difficulties for securing the future of Longbridge if the Government were to adopt the Conservative party's policies on the single European currency. To rule out entry for 10 years would be seen by companies such as BMW as a condemnation of the future of industry in this country. The right hon. Gentleman would be aware of that if he thought about it. He should make the link, and should listen to the leaders of big business who are telling him and his party that they have got the policy wrong.
    We are committed to our policy on the single currency, because we believe that it will secure the future for our people. We shall continue the negotiations at Rover Longbridge. They are progressing well, and I hope that in weeks rather than months they will achieve a successful conclusion.

    National Minimum Wage
    Mr. John Healey: What assessment he has made of the likely impact of the national minimum wage on wage levels from 1 April. [71600]
    The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Ian McCartney): The introduction of the national minimum wage on 1 April will increase the wage levels of some 2 million low-paid workers throughout the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Healey: My hon. Friend referred to 2 million people across the United Kingdom, but is he aware that 77,700 people in South Yorkshire currently earn less than £3.60 an hour? What would he say about the potential benefits of the national minimum wage to the thousands of people in South Yorkshire who, for too long, have been working at the rough end of the labour market?
    Mr. McCartney: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I pay tribute to him for his activities inside and outside the House in defending and promoting the business case as well as the social justice case for the national minimum wage. On 1 April, many workers in his constituency and in the surrounding areas will receive pay rises of about 50 per cent., and following the introduction of the working families tax credit in October, those with
    534
    families could receive in their pay packets the equivalent of a pay rate of £7 an hour. The Government, along with industry, are committed to eradicating low pay and to giving people decent pay and dignity in the workplace.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the Minister tell the House what plans the Government have to increase the minimum wage? Companies will have to budget for a minimum wage of £3.60 an hour from 1 April. Should they expect a rise in the minimum wage every year in line with inflation, or is it still the Labour party's intention to increase it to a much higher level in the next few years?
    Mr. McCartney: The real issue, which the hon. Gentleman would of course dodge, is whether the Tories will fight the next election on a pledge to cut the minimum wage. The Government will implement the minimum wage on 1 April at the levels set out. I pay tribute to British business, because companies are, of their own volition, implementing the minimum wage in advance, so more than 200,000 workers are already receiving it. Those companies do not want to follow the Tory policy of low pay, no pay. The Government are implementing the minimum wage with the full support of British industry.

    Home Shopping
    Dr. Alan Whitehead: If he will assess the impact of home shopping upon the competitiveness of UK retailing. [71602]
    The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Dr. Kim Howells): The retail sector is a dynamic one. I have placed in the Library of the House, for the information of hon. Members, a copy of a recent paper prepared by my Department on the performance of the retail sector, which I hope will be useful. However, it would be very difficult to make the specific assessment requested by my hon. Friend, not least because of the difficulty of obtaining information on the value of electronic trading, which is an increasing and important element of home shopping. I have commissioned research to help to assess the impact of electronic commerce on retailing, and I intend to publish the results before the summer recess.
    Dr. Whitehead: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. My particular concern is with home grocery and household shopping. I have spoken to a number of major retailers with stores in my constituency, and it is apparent that such developments could be either a boon to elderly people in particular or a disaster for all my constituents. Is my hon. Friend aware that various routes to home shopping have been trailed by the major retailers? Is he further aware that the mode that eventually prevails will have profound consequences for competition and customer protection? Is my hon. Friend undertaking activity to ensure that consumers and competition are protected as such developments take place?
    Dr. Howells: I welcome the question, because we will all be affected greatly by e-commerce and shopping on the internet in future. It could change social habits; I may not be able to bump into the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) in shops in the future, as we

    535
    have done in the past—usually in a panic just before Christmas. Currently, home shopping sales stand at about £9 billion or about 6 per cent. of total retail sales, of which e-commerce comprises only about £100 million. That is calculated to grow by 2002 to about £700 million a year. That will still account for a small percentage of total retail sales, but it is an indication of the way in which the sector will explode in the future. It is right and proper that we should talk to retailers, customers, cities and towns about the implications for the future of shopping in this country.

    Competitiveness White Paper
    Mr. Geraint Davies: What assessment he has made of the impact the competitiveness White Paper will have on encouraging an entrepreneurial culture in the UK. [71603]
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Stephen Byers): The need to foster a culture of enterprise in the United Kingdom was a central theme of the White Paper.
    I will shortly publish an implementation plan which will set out how we intend to introduce the various measures contained in that White Paper.
    Mr. Davies: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the success of the entrepreneurial renaissance in Britain depends on pupils and students being equipped to make the leap from good ideas to successful products? In this respect, will he applaud the activity of the New Addington education action zone in Croydon in fostering business links and providing mentoring to equip our pupils for the future? Will he commend to the House the provisions of the competitiveness White Paper in linking up our centres of learning to the business community?
    Mr. Byers: I am delighted to hear of the success of the New Addington education action zone. In one of my previous Government posts—as Minister for School Standards—I was involved at an early stage in discussions with my hon. Friend about the proposals from that part of his constituency. I am pleased to hear that that zone is progressing well.
    A number of proposals within the White Paper will promote a culture of enterprise. I am keen to get away from the poverty of ambition that has held far too many people back for far too long in the UK. I believe that we have positive proposals to ensure that that will no longer be the case. As Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, I look forward to their implementation in the months and years ahead
    Mr. Graham Brady: About four weeks ago, the Prime Minister was reported to have said in a speech in Bristol that European Union directives had increased social costs on business by far too much, and that that was damaging competitiveness. Will the Secretary of State list those directives that he and the Prime Minister would like to see removed?
    Mr. Byers: We should always review the burden on business, which is one of the reasons why, 10 days ago, we decided to alter the original proposals for the regulations concerning the introduction of the national
    536
    minimum wage. As a result, we have cut the costs of business by £200 million. That was only the beginning, and I am sure that we can take steps in future to help lift the costs from business.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that all examples of entrepreneurial zip are not necessarily to be welcomed? In connection with the minimum wage, there is some indication that some employers are attempting to decrease hours so that they will not have to meet the increased payments to their work force. Will that matter be examined carefully and reviewed, and will such a review lead to action in future?.
    Mr. Byers: The National Minimum Wage Act 1998 has been drawn up in such a way as to limit any opportunities for the type of abuse to which my hon. Friend refers. Clearly, one of the reasons why the Low Pay Commission has been kept in being is to ensure that we can review the Act's workings and operation. If there are specific examples of such abuse, I would urge him, in the first instance anyway, to draw them to the commission's attention.
    Mr. John Redwood: How does the Secretary of State have the gall to present a competitiveness White Paper when everything that the Government do makes it dearer to make things in Britain and to do business in Britain? The Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry actually called for more regulation in a recent interview in The Birmingham Post.
    Will the Secretary of State accept that he is to competitiveness what Lord Sainsbury is to organic farming and Brussels is to the London art market? Does he not agree that the Brussels tax plans will kill London as an art market? I hope that he does not find that amusing. Will he guarantee that he will stop any new tax on the British art market coming from Brussels? Does he agree that such a tax would take the business out of London to New York? Will he give a guarantee—yes or no?
    Mr. Byers: The right hon. Gentleman may be slightly confused. The issue that is being debated today in Europe is not a tax, but a royalty for artists. He should be aware of that.

    National Minimum Wage
    Mr. John Heppell: If he will make a statement on the action he has taken to raise awareness of the national minimum wage among businesses and employees. [71605]
    The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Ian McCartney): We are committed to informing businesses and employees about the national minimum wage and how the rules work. It is essential for as many workers and employers as possible to know their rights and obligations. My Department is already issuing preliminary guidance and preparing detailed guidance for release once the National Minimum Wage Regulations 1999 have been debated. There is a live national minimum wage helpline for guidance on individual cases and a

    537
    website. We will be backing that up with other publicity measures over the coming weeks, which will be announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
    Mr. Heppell: I thank the Minister for that response and welcome his earlier comments about how well business is receiving the national minimum wage. However, what measures does he plan to have in place to ensure that people who are employed by the small number of unscrupulous employers who try to disregard the regulations on the national minimum wage have the confidence to speak out about the fact that those regulations have been broken, without fear of discrimination in the workplace?
    Mr. McCartney: First, I can give an absolute guarantee that there will be a new, day one right for employees to claim the national minimum wage and not to be sacked or disciplined. For those who want to act on behalf of another worker to claim that right, there will be another new, day one right—the right not to be sacked or disciplined for claiming the minimum wage on behalf of that individual.
    Secondly, we are changing the law on the burden of proof to ensure that the employer has to prove that he has paid the minimum wage once a complaint has been made. Employers are working with the Inland Revenue and Contributions Agency for the fair and effective implementation of the minimum wage. A significant number of employers are on side because they are sick and tired of being undercut not just on the quality of
    538
    goods and services, but by the downward spiral of wages. That is why the minimum wage is as popular among employers as it is among low-paid workers.
    Mr. John Bercow: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a survey of 350 small and medium enterprises in my constituency, from Buckingham to Aston Clinton and from Long Crendon to Wing, shows that those companies are only too well aware of the imposition of the national minimum wage and are profoundly hostile to it?
    Moreover, given the importance of learning from the successful experience in other countries, will the hon. Gentleman today pledge that he will conduct a full study of the legislation that was introduced in the United States—the Regulatory Flexibility Act 1980 and the Small Businesses Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 1996—and send me the result of his homework before the Easter recess?
    Mr. McCartney: The hon. Gentleman is in danger of being done under the stalker legislation because he been at me about the same question for the past three months. He seeks me here, he seeks me there, he seeks me everywhere. I have already given him a commitment about that in Committee. If I can find time, I will gladly read the documents that he wishes me to read, but the most important documents that I will read and have read are the National Minimum Wage Regulations and the National Minimum Wage Act 1998. Overwhelmingly, small business supports the minimum wage. I am looking forward to its introduction on 1 April. Perhaps if I give the hon. Gentleman a commitment to read that document, he can give me a commitment that, at the next election, he will campaign for the retention of the national minimum wage.

Points of Order
12.30 pm
Mr. Roger Gale: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. On Monday afternoon, you were gracious enough to allow the Home Secretary to make a statement to the House on the leak of the Stephen Lawrence report. At the end of the statement, the Home Secretary said:
"The whole report will be published in full to Parliament on Wednesday, as planned; but it was and remains plainly contrary to the public interest for there to be selective and premature disclosure of a judicial inquiry."—[Official Report, 22 February 1999; Vol. 326, c. 23.]
I entirely endorse those sentiments—as I believe that you do, too.
The Home Secretary published the report yesterday. Again, you were gracious enough to allow him to make a statement to the House. The report and the appendices were then made available to Members of Parliament and to the press. A copy of the appendices currently resides in the Library.
About an hour ago, I went to the Vote Office to request a further copy of the report and the appendices. I was astonished to discover that, early this morning, the Home Office had given instructions that the appendices should be withdrawn.
I went to the Library to inquire whether any reasons for the withdrawal had been given. The Library, with its usual efficiency, established for me that, apparently, the appendices had been withdrawn, on the Home Secretary's instructions, because they contained confidential information that should not have been published.
It would appear that the Home Secretary may have permitted to be published, and to be placed in the public domain, material that could prejudice a re-trial of those believed to be guilty. If that is so, it is a very serious matter indeed and calls into question the Home Secretary's position.
Has the Home Secretary indicated to you that he wishes to come to the House to make a statement, to say why he withdrew that document this morning, without notice to the House?
Sir Norman Fowler: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I have only just heard about the issue—which is a very important one, as the appendices and the information in them have been heavily reported in the media. To put the matter at its mildest, if the document has been withdrawn for a reason, the House and also the media will need some indication of why that has been done and which parts of the appendices have been withdrawn.
Much of the information is already in the public domain, and much of it is germane to the debate itself. Many hon. Members will speak in the continuing debate on the Lawrence report on the basis of the information
540
given. We need urgent guidance from the Home Office on exactly what is happening, and on why the document has been withdrawn.
Madam Speaker: I understand that volume II of the Lawrence report, which contains the appendices, has been withdrawn from the Vote Office. My understanding—I have not made direct inquiries because, as I am sure the House will appreciate, I have not had the opportunity to do so—is that the volume was withdrawn because it contained some inaccuracies, but is to be replaced very soon.
As the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) and the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) will be aware, the report is the responsibility of the Department. I trust that the Department will ensure that the replacement is made available as soon as possible. The House can be certain that, as soon as I leave the Chair, I shall use my best endeavours to ensure that that is done.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The brutal gunning down and murder of the Ayatollah Muhammad al-Sadr in Najaf last week is roughly the middle eastern equivalent of the murder of Thomas à Becket, and is creating great difficulties in not only Iraq but the whole Shi'ite world. It has been widely said in the Arab press that that act was not the responsibility of the Iraqi regime, whose interests would hardly be served by such a public murder, but has to do with opposition groups financed by the west. That is what is being said, rightly or wrongly. Have you had any request from the Foreign Office to make a statement in response to what is so widely thought and believed, rightly or wrongly, in the Arab world?
Madam Speaker: I am not aware that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is seeking to make a statement today.
Mr. James Gray: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I had hoped to bring to the notice of the Leader of the House a serious breach of clause 79 of the ministerial code of conduct, which relates to the long-standing tradition of the House that Ministers should inform Back Benchers whose constituency they are going to visit. The right hon. Lady visited my constituency last Tuesday, but the first notice that I had was an article in the Malmesbury Standard. By coincidence, on the same day the right hon. Lady answered a parliamentary question from me listing the constituencies that she had recently visited and failing to list mine. Would it be appropriate for you to remind Ministers about that important clause?
Madam Speaker: I had hoped that we were sufficiently far into this Parliament for all hon. Members to be able to resolve such matters between themselves and not raise the issue in the House. I expect all Members of Parliament, including Ministers, to have the courtesy to inform others when they visit their constituencies.

Welsh Affairs
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pope.]
12.36 pm
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Alun Michael): Just over two months from now, the first elections to the National Assembly for Wales will mark the biggest ever change in Welsh government. That delivers one key promise made by Labour in 1997, but in looking forward to the exciting time ahead, it is important to take stock of what else the Government have achieved in the short time since May 1997. We can celebrate St. David's day on Monday safe in the knowledge that a Labour Government are delivering on the key pledges that we made to the electorate when we asked for their trust in the general election. The six pledges that we made to the electorate in Wales struck a chord because they represented the real priorities of ordinary people: proper jobs for young people and the long-term unemployed, smaller class sizes, shorter waiting lists for the national health service, swift action on youth offending, creating a sound economy and greater democratic control of Welsh institutions.
Those remain the people's priorities. Since taking office as Secretary of State for Wales, I have undertaken a programme of open and inclusive public meetings around Wales. At a meeting in Aberystwyth last Thursday, questions rained in from Plaid Cymru, Liberal Democrats, Labour party members, Cymdeithias yr laith Cymraeg, students of politics, trade unionists, councillors and ordinary members of the public. Those meetings have given me an opportunity to hear at first hand about the issues that concern people at national and local level. The issues that our key pledges addressed remain at the top of the agenda: jobs, education, health, economic stability, law and order, and, underlying them all, the need to combat poverty and social exclusion.
On 6 May—two years and five days after the general election—we will elect the National Assembly for Wales, which will face real challenges and real opportunities.
Mr. Barry Jones: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the outcome of last Saturday's ballot and wish him well in the important work that he has to do for the people of Wales. When will we know the outcome of the review of the assisted areas in Wales? Will he take on board my constituency's urgent need to be assured that it will not lose its status? The aerospace industry in particular is looking to him for a positive outcome.
Mr. Michael: I am well aware of the needs of my hon. Friend's constituency and his passionate advocacy of the needs of its industries, some of which I have had an opportunity to visit with him. I understand that he has had a constructive meeting with the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), on those important issues. He will be aware that we want an outcome to the assisted area status review as quickly as possible. Work is going on, but there is more to be done before the Government will be able to announce the way forward.
Devolution presents the chance not just to set up a new political institution, but to establish new and better ways of working. I am determined to ensure that the National
542
Assembly for Wales will not mimic the traditions of Westminster and Whitehall, which have often seemed alien, aloof and distant to us, never mind to ordinary people. The Assembly must lead a partnership in Wales that draws in and mobilises all the positive forces in Welsh society—from local government, from the voluntary sector, and from the two sides of industry.
I firmly believe that the National Assembly will reinvigorate government in Wales, which atrophied under the Tory viceroys of the 1980s and 1990s. That is not only my view. When we advertised externally for new middle managers, we received more than 1,000 applicants for little more than a dozen jobs. Many of the successful applicants said that they would have been less likely to consider working for the Welsh Office had it not been for the prospect of the National Assembly.
It is crucial that everyone in Wales, wherever they live and whatever their political opinion, should be able to make their voice heard in the Assembly. I am confident that we will achieve that. In the Assembly, we will create a modern democratic institution for the people of Wales; one of which we will all be proud.
That institution, like the Welsh Office, will be judged by what it delivers. I am bending all my efforts to preparing the ground for the Assembly to succeed. It is a major challenge, given the state of Wales when the Tories were swept out in 1997. Let me focus first on our pride and joy—and our biggest challenge—the NHS in Wales.
We promised to bring down NHS waiting lists and to tackle underfunding. We have made a start, and we will fulfil our pledge, although I would be the first to admit that we underestimated the horrendous scale of the problems bequeathed to us by our predecessors.
We have already invested £20 million in bringing down waiting lists, which have fallen by almost 4,700 since August 1998, and by allocating more than £1 billion in additional funding to the NHS over the next three years—an increase of more than 6.4 per cent. per year—we have shown that we are serious about moving towards our goal. However, the problems of the NHS are not just about underfunding; they also involve structure and philosophy.
The Government have transformed the malign and destructive approach to health and the provision of health services that we inherited. Since May 1997, we have moved to replace the divisions of the internal market with a new collaborative approach to service planning and provision and devolved decisions to local communities. The Health Bill will abolish GP fundholding with its inherent discrimination, drive up the quality of health services and promote the development of integrated services by breaking down the barriers to effective partnership. We have produced proposals for improving the health of the people of Wales and the measures that we and our partners should take to deliver our plans. In December I announced my plans to create a single health service in each part of Wales and to reduce the number of trusts in Wales by nearly half. That will improve standards of clinical care and release £7 million from bureaucracy to be reinvested in patient care. We have made the recruitment and retention of nurses a priority and improved their pay and conditions.
Those changes have replaced the division and confrontation of the Tory years with policies that promote co-operation and integration. It is only a start, however, and I am determined to move quickly into the next crucial

543
phase of our reforms of the NHS. Having grasped the difficult nettle of reorganising NHS trusts across Wales and creating a single health service, I will be making an announcement on the future for Cardiff and the Vale of Glamorgan in a few days time to put in place the final piece of that particular jigsaw. I am also about to announce the future role and composition of community health councils in Wales.
Let me again stress the clarity of our vision: a single model of integrated health services across Wales, with acute mental health and community services working together, service planning devolved to local communities through local health groups and the national health service working in partnership with local government and others. Our distinctive vision to improve care and raise standards of health has been widely welcomed and the progress being made in establishing local health groups is really good news.
Much remains to be done, however. It is still only a start and there are other nettles to be grasped. Let me be clear. The Tories left the NHS in a parlous state. We have to put right their neglect. One of my predecessors, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) believed that the hidden hand of the internal market could be left to run the health service in Wales. His legacy was an NHS and a Welsh Office shorn of the expertise and experience necessary to run a £2.4 billion service. It also left health authorities in Wales with funding and service problems which have to be resolved. I am determined to tackle those problems. I am deeply unhappy with a situation in which the Welsh Office is making loans to Welsh health authorities to cover operational deficits that must be repaid from future years' resources. That situation is intolerable and it must be sorted. I promise the House that it will, indeed, be sorted.
The same Secretary of State, pursuing his bizarre policies of devolution of blame, stripped out management expertise and NHS experience from the Welsh Office. No wonder there is a mess. We are now acting on an expert report by Sir Graham Hart. Through open competition, we are recruiting staff to strengthen the professional team in NHS Wales at director level.
In parallel with that internal strengthening of capacity, I can announce today that I am commissioning a major stocktake of the NHS in Wales, which I want to be available for the Assembly when it assumes its powers on 1 July. The first dimension of the stocktake is a review of the financial health of the NHS in Wales and the quality of service delivery. Following a recent meeting with the chairman and senior officers of the Audit Commission, I will explore in detail, in the next few days, ways in which the commission can assist with the review. The commission has already expressed its enthusiasm for this approach.
The second dimension is a review of the present arrangements for long-term planning in Wales, which includes the contributions that can be made to this process by all the key stakeholders—professional, managerial and public. In the next fortnight, I shall meet the Welsh Office team and then the top team from every NHS trust and health authority in Wales to discuss the project, respond to questions and ensure that its importance is fully understood.
544
I am sure that hon. Members will accept that it is right to go beyond our election promises and seek to tackle the most deep-seated problems of our public service. That is what I intend to do. The same applies to education.
In our general election campaign, we promised to cut class sizes for five to seven-year-olds. We have done so, as part of a new crusade for higher educational standards throughout Wales. We are well on our way to meeting our pledge that no five, six or seven-year-old will be in a class of over 30 pupils by the end of this Parliament. This year, we have provided earmarked funds to allow an extra 270 teachers to be employed, releasing 23,500 infants from classes of over 30. We will invest a further £34 million over the next three years in order to fulfil our pledge.
More generally, we have set about reforming our whole education system. We inherited a system buffeted by too many policies ill-suited to the needs of Wales. We have moved quickly to establish a clear strategy for the future. That includes the first ever education White Paper for Wales, "Building Excellent Schools Together", which sets out the Government's proposals for raising standards in Welsh schools.
We are investing so that our young people can receive the education that they deserve. Next year, there will be an additional £70 million for local authority education budgets, with even larger increases over the following two years. The scale of the investment will make a real difference and the fact that it is over three years will allow schools and authorities to plan for the future and to use the resources to best effect.
A further £140 million will support the professional development of teachers. I have announced a major initiative to support and restore schools and youth music—the orchestras, bands and choirs that are the doorway to opportunity for so many of our young people. The overriding purpose to all of the investment is to raise standards, which is absolutely central to our agenda for Wales. The evidence from examinations and assessment is that we are making encouraging progress, but we have a long way to go to reach the demanding targets that we have set.
We will achieve those targets only if pupils develop the key skills of literacy and numeracy. Good language skills are fundamental to all learning and to a child's success in later education and throughout life. We have already targeted work on literacy in primary schools—early results are encouraging and that work will continue—but I now want an equally sharp focus on numeracy, and we recently announced a £2 million programme aimed at ensuring that all schools reach the numeracy standards of the best.
Education is not only about schools or about building a sound basis for a modern economy, although it is true that without a dramatic improvement in our skills in Wales we will not be able to compete in the knowledge-based economy of the new millennium. Education is also about enhancing the life chances of the most dispossessed in our society. That truth was brought home to me on the individual level as a youth worker in Cardiff 20 years ago and was reinforced as I saw young people's chances of a job and a decent life destroyed by the Thatcher Government. That is what made me angry enough to stand for Parliament. I am absolutely determined to make sure that neither the Welsh Office nor

545
the Welsh Assembly let down those young people and that is why I was proud to be part of the Labour team which put the new deal in place.
Mr. Paul Flynn: My right hon. Friend will recall that under the previous Government certain schools in Wales, often the most prosperous and in the most favoured areas, received extra financial help and other schools, which were sorely in need, were neglected. Will he ensure in his allocations to schools that that shortfall is made up in favour of the schools in deprived areas?
Mr. Michael: I am happy to confirm that it is our policy to combat unfairness and neglect and to be fair to all schools, especially by recognising the problems with which they seek to cope. Some schools have tackled problems with great fortitude and courage, but they have not been able to match the finances available to other schools. I mentioned the money that I have put into schools music and it is noticeable that some schools in better-off areas have been able to maintain their involvement in schools music, but schools in worse-off areas, which face the pressures that my hon. Friend mentioned, had to let it slip. It is very important that opportunities should be fully available to every child in every school and that the inequalities are tackled.
I was especially delighted to be able to announce earlier this month that—as part of the record increase of £844 million for education and training in Wales over the next three years—there will be a major boost for further education. More than £120 million of extra funding will be available for further education, bringing Welsh spending on FE to more than £200 million each year. That will allow the number of students at further education institutions to rise by at least 28,000 by the academic year 2001–02. Together with an increase of 8,000 students in higher education, that will more than meet Wales's share of the target of 500,000 extra students announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I was pleased to announce those figures at Coleg Glan Hafren in my constituency, where changes in the way that further education opportunities and sixth-form education are offered have increased the proportion of youngsters staying in post-16 education and training from one third to almost a half in the catchment area. Those figures have been maintained in recent years.
I mentioned new opportunities for young people. Our promise was to take 250,000 young people off the dole and put them into work. On that pledge, too, we are well on the way to success. The new deal is one of the great success stories of this Government—in Wales as throughout the country. Less than eight months after the election, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (started the new deal for 18 to 24-year-olds in the Swansea and west Wales pathfinder district. In April 1998, that was extended to the whole of Wales. By November 1998, nearly 3,700 young people in Wales had already been placed in real jobs through the new deal and more than 13,000 Welsh youngsters had started the new deal.
The new deal for young people is the cornerstone of our efforts to combat the hopelessness of life on the dole, but it is only one part of the Government's commitment to welfare to work. Since the end of June 1998, the new deal for those over 25 has offered support through subsidised employment or full-time study to those who
546
have been unemployed for two years or more. That complements the existing provision available through the Employment Service, training and enterprise councils and FE colleges. In less than six months, more than 4,300 people in Wales had joined the schemes, while the new deal for lone parents had attracted 2,500 parents, with nearly 900 of them either obtaining jobs or increasing their working hours.
I recently announced the location of a second tranche of employment zones in Wales, which will start operating in April 2000. Those zones will target help at communities with some of the highest rates of long-term unemployment in Wales. The new zones will enable us to build on the work of the prototype zone in north-west Wales, which by December 1998 had provided help for more than 500 people, 65 of whom had found work.
I should like to underline the fact that, as ever, the numbers and figures that I mention refer to individual people, their families and communities. So it is important to bring these points home to the House.
Mr. Ian Bruce: Are not the employment zones an acknowledgement by the Government that there is a difficulty with the new deal? It is not that the new deal is not accomplishing a lot of good in many constituencies, but that people are not taking up the subsidised jobs. If the Secretary of State is admitting that there is a difficulty, I welcome the fact that the Government are learning from their mistakes.
Mr. Michael: The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong, which is not unusual. The employment zone approach is entirely separate. The first such zone that I referred to was started in north Wales, and paralleled the launch by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of the prototype for the new deal in south Wales. We have looked at what works and are building on that. We are serious about this matter and, unlike the hon. Gentleman, are not interested in trying to score cheap political points.
The new zones, selected on the basis of unitary authorities with a high share of unemployed people aged 25 and over, will provide support for up to 3,000 people over a two-year period.
Mr. Bruce: It was a serious question.
Mr. Michael: I get a bit sharp when members of the Conservative party start talking about unemployment. Given the unemployment that the previous Government caused in Wales and the hopelessness that they created in our young people, I think that we are entitled to be angry. We are doing something about those problems, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will start to take a constructive interest.
The next of our key pledges was to cut by half the time from arrest to sentencing for persistent young offenders—another area in which the previous Government failed. We have kept that pledge through the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. I am proud to have been associated with that key piece of legislation in my previous role at the Home Office. It is a key piece of legislation for every community in Wales.
The 1998 Act has introduced far-reaching changes to the youth justice system and goes far beyond the knee-jerk reactions to offending that characterised the last

547
Administration. It will help build safer communities, reform youth justice to nip things in the bud, and reduce offending by young people. It will speed up the criminal justice system and lead to a long-term improvement in the performance of the criminal justice system and public confidence in it.
The 1998 Act states explicitly that the principal aim of the youth justice system is to prevent youth offending. One of its key provisions is the setting up of crime and disorder reduction partnerships in every local authority area, which will bring together local authorities, the police, the probation service, health authorities and others. The partnerships will develop local crime reduction strategies, to be in place by April 1999.
I am pleased that two Welsh partnerships, at Swansea and Gwynedd, have been selected as pathfinder sites to be visited by the Home Office task force.
Mr. Nigel Evans: The Secretary of State is talking about law and order, a matter that is important in Wales and throughout the United Kingdom. Will he say whether, since the general election, there are more bobbies on the beat in Wales now, or less?
Mr. Alan W. Williams: Fewer.
Mr. Michael: Fewer: the hon. Gentleman should get his grammar right. I know that we have moved on from education, but I wish that Opposition Members would improve the standard of their contributions.
The Government are backing the legislation with a crime reduction programme for England and Wales costing £250 million. The programme will give grant aid to evidence-based research projects capable of being replicated elsewhere. I assure the House that I will be tireless in my efforts to make sure Welsh communities lead the way in developing such new approaches.
Moreover, I am determined that partnerships will develop across Wales. Schools such as Dwr y Felin in Neath and Holyhead comprehensive in Ynys Môn have shown how young people can be part of the solution, not just part of the problem. In Merthyr Tydfil, the Safe Merthyr project has had stunning results. In Wrexham, neighbourhood watch has teamed up with young people in an award-winning partnership. And at the accident and emergency unit in Cardiff, Professor Jon Sheppherd and the whole medical team are helping to cut violence by working with the police, with the organisation Victim Support, and with the City council. I have asked every health authority and health trust in Wales to pick up on those lessons and put them into practice. Under the Assembly, I believe that these innovative approaches will become the norm.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: The right hon. Gentleman and I have had many debates on home affairs over the years, and we have often been on the same side. What application does he envisage of the weird and dangerous principle being propounded by his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary of interning people who may at some future point be dangerous?
Mr. Michael: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point that cuts across issues affecting the health service as
548
well as community safety. The Home Secretary will take the lead on the issue, but the dilemma we face is quite simple. Some individuals are identified as having severe personality disorders. I have seen the prognosis on some of those individuals, and the documents state that they cannot be treated under mental health legislation, but are very dangerous. That occurs with some of the most serious sex offenders as well as people who commit violent offences.
The difficulty is that the prognosis that people cannot be treated ends one part of the story for the health service, but the other part is that the criminal justice system cannot lock up someone to protect the public from him or her until that person has committed an offence. There is a gap between the two systems, into which falls the identification of a serious risk to both the public and the individual concerned.
That is the problem that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is seeking to tackle. It is difficult to balance the protection of the public with the liberty of the individual, and the problem has been left untackled for many years. My right hon. Friend, our colleagues at the Department of Health, and I, when it comes to health matters in Wales, will seek to tackle the problem, and the House will have to grapple with the balance between the principles of public protection and individual freedom. The problem will not go away, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) for raising it. I look forward to debating it with him further in future. I am sure that he will agree that it is a serious problem and that we need to tackle it.
The Government are determined to break once and for all the vicious cycle of drugs and crime, which wrecks lives and threatens communities. Police forces estimate that around half of recorded crime has some drug element to it, and there are serious issues to be tackled in Wales. The Welsh drug and alcohol misuse strategy "Forward Together" has been reviewed in the light of the new UK strategy, and a report on the implications for Wales has been provided to Keith Hellawell, the UK anti-drugs co-ordinator, whom I met recently to discuss the Welsh dimension.
Following the review, I can announce my intention to relaunch the Welsh drug and alcohol strategy to reflect many key elements of the UK strategy, in particular its emphasis on tackling the social causes of substance misuse. It will promote the adoption of the partnership approach and build on the good work already done.
In our key pledges, we promised to provide sound economic management for our country, and that we would not, in doing so, raise income tax rates. As a Government, we have fulfilled that pledge. Inflation is low. Government borrowing has been cut by £20 billion. Long-term interest rates are at their lowest for 40 years. Yet, for the next three years, we will be able to provide massive new resources for health and education in Wales, as in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Mr. John Smith: Before my right hon. Friend moves on from management of the economy, will he join me in welcoming the Prime Minister's statement earlier this week on preparations for a single currency? That statement went down extremely well with Welsh business and commerce. The devastation caused to our primary industries by the Conservative party over two

549
decades has made Wales the region of the United Kingdom most dependent on trade with the European Union. The people of Wales will view the Opposition's policy of ruling out the single currency for 10 years with absolute disbelief in the run-up to the Welsh Assembly elections.
Mr. Michael: I agree with my hon. Friend. Despite the Opposition's attempts to spread confusion, the Prime Minister's statement was widely welcomed, particularly in Wales, by both business and farmers, on whom the policy will have a considerable impact.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: The Secretary of State mentions the substantial additional resources that the Treasury has put at the Welsh Office's disposal as a result of the economic management of the past two years. Will he give an assurance that the Treasury will be forthcoming with the matching funds that are needed to ensure that Wales can get the full benefit of objective 1 money, if we succeed in obtaining objective 1 status when the decision is taken next month? Is he prepared to put his own neck on the block in delivering that, given that, during the recent election campaign, he said that he could have such an influence on Government Departments in London?
Mr. Michael: I am delighted that the right hon. Gentleman is at last willing to lead with his chin in the House, as he does in the newspapers. Such an election ploy is obvious when it comes from his quarter, and it appears to be the only ploy that Plaid Cymru currently has, other than generally rubbishing the achievements of the Labour Government.
Mr. Wigley: Answer the question.
Mr. Michael: The right hon. Gentleman knows the answer—it is straightforward. When we have a decision from Europe, there will be discussions involving Treasury colleagues, in which we shall consider the way in which the UK Government will fulfil their obligations and enable Wales to draw down the finances available under objective 1 status, which we are satisfied that we shall be able to achieve.
Mr. Wigley: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Michael: The right hon. Gentleman must be patient. He is not usually patient, as was shown when he rubbished the Government's attempts to get objective 1 status for Wales. He said that a Labour Government would not succeed in obtaining objective 1 status, but we did succeed. The right hon. Gentleman has not yet apologised for his misrepresentation but, in the fullness of time, he will have to do so.
Mr. Wigley rose—
Mr. Michael: Does the right hon. Gentleman want me to give way again?
Mr. Wigley: Yes, I do want the Secretary of State to give way. Does he accept that, months after Cornwall had made its application for NUTS 2 area designation and after the application was in from South Yorkshire, the Welsh Office were miles behind and nearly missed
550
the boat? Had it not been that in March last year, at the last minute, the Welsh Office woke up to that fact, Wales would have totally missed objective 1 status. The danger now is that we shall miss the ability to make use of that status unless the Secretary of State wakes up and gets the Treasury on side. We in Wales are looking for an absolute commitment, not "ifs" and "buts" or "we shall see in two months time when the election is over". We want a categoric assurance and we want it now.
Mr. Michael: Listening to that artificial rant, I thought that Rod Richards had rejoined the House of Commons, for the right hon. Gentleman is singing a Tory tune. He knows that the content of his remarks is as artificial as the tone in which he made them.
Mr. Wigley rose—
Mr. Michael: The right hon. Gentleman should listen for a moment. He knows that questions about how the money will be delivered and how the UK Government will deliver on their responsibilities cannot be asked until the details have been received from Brussels.
Mr. Wigley: Of course they can.
Mr. Michael: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman should read the comments of Professor Kevin Morgan. In contradiction of the press release that was wandering around yesterday suggesting that there was a problem—no doubt it was inspired by someone close to the right hon. Gentleman—Professor Morgan confirms that the Welsh Office is playing the process absolutely right. The Welsh Office played the provision of evidence for objective 1 status absolutely right, which is why we are on the verge of winning it. While we are on the subject, what happened to the case of champagne that the right hon. Gentleman promised Welsh Office Ministers? It does not appear to have arrived yet—although, in the interests of objectivity, perhaps it should be delivered to you, Madam Speaker, rather than to Welsh Office Ministers.
I say in all seriousness to the right hon. Gentleman that he must not talk Wales down or try to undermine the position of the Welsh Office in negotiations with Ministers in other Departments and with Europe. We shall do the job for Wales, I promise, and no rant of his will improve our position. I ask him to think seriously about the comments he makes and to contribute to debates a little more responsibly than he contributed to this morning's Western Mail.
Mr. Wigley: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Michael: Of course I will give way.
Mr. Wigley: I am grateful. Of course, I keep my promises—and I will provide a crate of champagne that the right hon. Gentleman and his predecessor can share when Wales gets objective 1 money. I ask only for an equal promise and commitment that the Treasury will provide matching funds.
Mr. Michae:: As I said at the outset, I recognise the right hon. Gentleman's election ploy of asking a question that he knows will be answered in the fullness of time

551
as a result of the discussions that we will have with our colleagues in Government. I promise the right hon. Gentleman that we will fight Wales's corner as strongly within the United Kingdom Government as we will fight it in Europe. I give that pledge to the right hon. Gentleman and the House in all seriousness. I accepted this job and chose to stand for the position of First Secretary to the Assembly in order to fight Wales's corner, and I promise the right hon. Gentleman that I will deliver.
Mr. Alan W. Williams: I congratulate my right hon. Friend and his predecessor on winning objective 1 status for Wales. He has presented a patient, long-term argument, and I admire my right hon. Friend for now pressing for matching funds. Having listened to the ranting and raving of the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), it comes as no surprise to learn that Caernarfon has the highest unemployment in Wales. That is what ranting and raving does: it destroys jobs. We want the quiet, tactful diplomacy and the hard work that my right hon. Friend will bring to his task.
Mr. Michael: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. I do not wish to get involved in a personal debate with the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), but he is correct in saying that serious work must be done in Government. I pay tribute to my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), and to the junior Ministers, for playing their role in completing the day-to-day work so that we may now hope to receive objective 1 status shortly. We then face the serious task of transforming the Welsh economy. We have created a national strategy for Wales in which we are engaging every sector of the economy. That is a serious job, and I look to Opposition Members, as well as to my right hon. and hon. Friends, to show unity in fighting the cause for Wales rather than creating divisions within Wales.
Mr. Richard Livsey: We have heard some rather ranting rhetoric in the past 10 minutes. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is most important to work now on projects for objectives 1 and 2 status? Communities in Wales must work very hard to ensure that they attract objective 1 funding and so create more employment in Wales.
Mr. Michael: I agree with the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey), who makes a positive contribution to the discussion. Much work is being done at present to develop the strategy, which will be open for consultation as soon as it is completed. It has been an open and participative process. I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman that organisations and bodies throughout Wales should consider submitting applications, not just for objective 1 status, but in all areas where we are offering support—whether it is sustainable development through the strand of funding that I launched when I visited the hon. Gentleman's constituency, or through the strand of social inclusion.
On that point, I refer the House to two themes that are drawn from all that I have put before it today: partnership and social inclusion. They underpin a great deal of what the Government are seeking to achieve in Wales. We are
552
working in partnership with local government, the voluntary sector, business and trade unions. The Welsh Office is no longer a fortress ruled by an out-of-touch and alien Tory high command, but a team that looks outward for inspiration, ideas and assistance in creating a new and more prosperous Wales. The National Assembly will be in a strong position to build on those achievements.
Promoting social inclusion is at the heart of my policies for Wales and informs all of the specific strategies that we have developed for Wales. Our economic strategy, "Pathway to Prosperity", is about tackling low incomes and spreading prosperity to the valleys and west Wales. The "Building Excellent Schools Together" and the "Learning is for Everyone" strategies for education are about tackling the skills and qualifications deficits that keep people out of mainstream opportunities. The "Better Health, Better Wales" strategy is about finding radical new ways of tackling the appalling health problems that afflict those who live in our poorest communities.
As well as that crucial mainstream work, we are investing in targeted strategies for the most vulnerable groups and the most excluded communities. I particularly want to highlight the social inclusion fund to which I have allocated £48 million over the next three years. We shall use that money to stimulate new approaches to fill gaps in service provision and make more effective use of mainstream resources to push forward our onslaught on social exclusion.
Soon, I shall consult the Welsh Local Government Association about how best to use those resources to tackle the most pressing issues, with a specific commitment and priority to reduce the risks of social exclusion among young people in Wales.
Our aim is to make a difference to the prospects of everyone in Wales, including those at the bottom of the heap, and I have absolutely no doubt that it will be at the top of the Assembly's agenda. Success means finding new approaches and doing what we are doing, but in better and smarter ways, so that we can invest in what works, in partnership with agencies. That will be central to the work of all public agencies in Wales.
I am grateful for this opportunity to report on some of the Government's major achievements in Wales and the work ahead. There have been achievements and progress on many fronts. In future, we must build on the work towards winning European Union objective 1 funding for a major part of Wales. Our policies also include support for enterprise and small businesses; assistance to farmers at a time of crisis and efforts to add value to our agriculture; and measures for the environment, sustainable development and equal opportunities.
There is also a range of wider issues on which we are delivering more than we ever dared hope, such as incorporation of the European convention on human rights into UK law, the minimum wage, reform of the House of Lords and much more. Such matters affect the quality of life and future hope for people in Wales.
I should also mention transport, which we debated at length in the Welsh Grand Committee at Aberaeron this week. Returning from that meeting, I had to stand on a Sprinter train for the 50 miles between Neath and Newport because of the cancellation of the InterCity service. I suspect that if that had occurred before the debate, the points made by hon. Members of all parties

553
about rail services would have been a great deal stronger and more heated. That was a salutary reminder of how much work is still needed to make good the damage done to our transport system by 18 years of Tory Government.
At least I was in good company with the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath and officials as well as members of the public, who made it clear that their patience and good humour should not be taken for granted—they want the problems sorted out. That is why I am delighted that the Deputy Prime Minister, backed by the Prime Minister, is leading the transport summit, to demonstrate how important it is to drive forward change and improve transport services.
We have made great progress but we have much to do. I am pleased to say that the National Assembly for Wales will inherit a live and active agenda with many challenges, but also with the foundations, the flexibility and great opportunities to deal with the issues of greatest concern to the people of Wales.
1.18 pm
Dr. Liam Fox: Any hon. Members who had entered the Chamber halfway through the Secretary of State's speech might have thought that they were entering a domestic dispute, given the language used by the right hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley). However, I have some sympathy with the Secretary of State when he is accused of being almost late in making an application. In English, we have a phrase for "almost late"—it is "on time". Some parties with no experience of government would do well to take on board the fact that Ministers tend to work closely to set timetables.
I congratulate the Secretary of State on his spectacular and commanding win at the weekend, which I am sure will boost his authority in his own party no end. Interestingly, he began by saying that he hoped that the new, all-inclusive, cuddly and winceyette politics of devolved government in Wales would not mimic the traditions of Westminster. He is, of course, in a unique position: I doubt whether other Members could appear on television saying that they believed that they had less support than their opponent in an election but that none the less they would win, and subsequently be proved right. That is certainly a departure from the democratic traditions of this place.
I hope that the Secretary of State will depart from tradition and give some straight answers. I was disappointed that when he was asked a perfectly straightforward question by my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), he chose to concentrate on a grammatical point rather than answering. However, I am not sure whether "fewer" was his answer or his correction, since he would have been correct in either case. Perhaps he would clarify that later.
I hope that this will not be the last debate of its kind in the House, and that, as we move towards the establishment of the Welsh Assembly, we will remember in this place that our responsibilities extend well beyond the borders of England, to the whole of the United Kingdom. All hon. Members will continue to take an active interest in issues in Scotland and in Wales, even in issues that relate to devolved powers, because as a Union Parliament we have a duty and a responsibility to all our countrymen, irrespective of where they live and under what form of government.
554
We have a second duty, which is to Parliament. All of us in the House will be asked to raise the taxes that will be spent through the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament. Surely we have a right to scrutinise how that money is spent. In debates such as this in future, as those who are responsible for raising revenue, it will be our duty to ask the questions that should be asked about how that revenue is spent. We must remember that that is an absolute democratic principle.
The Secretary of State made great play of the economy and the wonderful transformation brought about not only in Wales, but in the rest of the United Kingdom by the Labour Government. He seems to have a rather short memory. Only a week ago, the Governor of the Bank of England predicted that growth would be downgraded yet again to between 0 and 0.5 per cent. in the next quarter. That has serious implications for the future of prosperity and jobs, especially in Wales.
The latest CBI survey confirmed that Wales had been hurt more than other parts of the UK in recent times. It stated:
"General business optimism has declined more rapidly in Wales than anywhere else in the UK, although export optimism has fallen much less sharply. Output has fallen markedly, with similar falls expected in the next four months, in addition to 1,000 further job cuts forecast between the final quarter of last year and the first quarter of 1999."
Mr. John Smith: Do not talk us down.
Dr. Fox: We must consider what is actually happening in the economy, not fantasy economics or how we wish the economy was functioning.
As the survey by British Chambers of Commerce reported:
"Welsh manufacturers have suffered their worse declines in sales and orders compared to all other regions. Service sector firms are not that far behind their manufacturing counterparts, particularly in export market sales. Confidence in the manufacturing sector is, not surprisingly, lower than elsewhere."
Why should that be? Why should confidence be falling more quickly in Wales than elsewhere? Those are questions that Ministers should tackle seriously. Cheap sedentary interventions such as that from the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) will not help to provide jobs and prosperity.
Mr. Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman consider it appropriate for a non-Welsh Member of Parliament to open for the Opposition in the debate by talking our country down? I ask him to think carefully about what he is doing, before he does any more damage.
Dr. Fox: I come to the House as a Member of a Union Parliament and as a spokesman for the official Opposition in a constitutional arrangement that is accepted by both sides of the House. I will not be lectured by a Government Back Bencher about my right to speak on any issue affecting any part of the United Kingdom. That is the constitutional settlement that we have. If the hon. Gentleman does not believe in it, he should go and sit beside the nationalists, because that is their view, not the view of his own party.
The figures for Welsh manufacturers in the last part of 1998 were the lowest in the UK. One third of firms said that UK sales were down; two thirds of firms said that

555
UK orders were down; one half of firms said that exports were down; and two thirds of firms said that export orders were down.
We cannot deal with problems unless we accept that they exist. Again I ask why Wales should be in that position, compared with other parts of the UK. The problems in Wales also exist in other parts of the country, but they seem to be exacerbated in Wales for some reason about which Ministers do not yet seem clear.
Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my hon. Friend agree that Wales is particularly susceptible to problems with exports to Europe because last year the Government had interest rates too high, which made Welsh exports uncompetitive? Now, the Government seem content that the euro has been undergoing a competitive devaluation, with interest rates foolishly kept too low—we are talking about 1 per cent. a week since the euro was introduced. Surely the Secretary of State should be making vigorous representations to his colleagues in the rest of Europe to ensure that they do not devalue the euro and stop Welsh exports from going into their markets.
Dr. Fox: I do not think that any political party in the House would be particularly well served if we involved ourselves in a debate about the worth or otherwise of competitive devaluations of currencies. Let me, however, make the point that I do not intend to be competitive in comparing one part of the United Kingdom with another, or one specific region with another. If things are worse in Wales than elsewhere, perhaps we should ask why that is. Is it—this is a genuine question—because the Welsh economy depends more on the manufacturing sector than on the service sector, and, if so, what measures can be taken to alleviate the burden? A declining economy in any part of the United Kingdom is bad for the United Kingdom as a whole; and, if a sector is performing badly in one part of the UK, sooner or later that sector will be affected in another part of the UK.
Prosperity and long-term jobs can be created only if a country's share of world trade—gross domestic product—is increasing; and that can happen if products are of desirable quality, and are sold at a price that people are willing to pay. That means that we must not involve ourselves in excessive regulation. Part of the problem that is affecting manufacturing industry in this country is caused by excessive regulation—the red tape and restriction that are being created partly by the Government's agenda, and partly by European initiatives.
In signing up to the social chapter, the Government are importing back-door European interventionism. They have made major supply-side reforms, and I welcome their conversion to that idea, because their action has made our economy far more competitive. Britain has increased its share of world GDP since 1990, and is one of only two European countries to have done so. We must not throw those reforms out of the window.
Mr. Flynn: We are all trying to cope with the hon. Gentleman's dazzlingly original ideas. He says that he wants fewer regulations. After the Tory pension mis-selling scandal, which resulted from a relaxation of regulations, how will he cope with the new style of mortgage mis-selling by a new breed of mortgage brokers
556
and other operators who have created serious problems, and will create more serious problems in the future, by introducing disreputable ways of selling, in particular, personal equity plan mortgages and mortgages based on investment trusts and endowments?
Dr. Fox: A discussion of that issue seems about as attractive as a debate on the competitive devaluation of currencies, and it would take us some distance away from the issues that we are debating. The hon. Gentleman has, however, made the general point that all regulation is bad and total deregulation is good. Some regulations are worth while and sensible; what is bad is over-regulation and restriction, and that is what we want to avoid in the economy.
The Secretary of State was careful to mention only income tax, but increasing the tax burden on individuals reduces demand, and increasing the tax burden on businesses is a disincentive to investment. In the long term, such action will reduce the economic prospects of Wales. Wales has already experienced a number of tax increases since the Government came to office. One example, which those in many parts of Wales will appreciate, is the introduction of the £90 tax on corner shops to pay for the new Food Standards Agency. Dangerously, a wide range of taxes are now reducing output. Manufacturing is flat in some sectors, and agriculture is in recession. The Government do not seem to want to accept the reality of what they have done.
I would welcome further clarification of the points that the Secretary of State made in response to the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) on objective 1 status. The letter from the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, which has been quoted this week, states:
"For Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, cover from Structural Fund spending must be found within the respective blocks, determined on the basis of the Barnett formula."
I accept that that position has long been accepted by both main parties, but it would be helpful if the Secretary of State—rather than maintaining an entirely neutral position, which he seemed to do in his speech—said that the Government would look favourably on such extra spending.
Mr. Michael: I am happy to comment on that letter, which was written some considerable time ago and describes the situation as it exists. The situation has never arisen where a proportion of a unit—in this case, of Wales—has received objective 1 status. For example, the highlands and islands form a minuscule part of the overall population, GDP and income covered by the Scottish Office. Therefore the issues that we have to discuss have never arisen before. That is all that the letter said. Indeed, I was able to confirm that point with my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary, who is the author of the letter. She entirely agrees with me that it has been quoted out of context, unhelpfully and, incidentally, without checking its relevance to today's discussions.
Dr. Fox: I am grateful for the Secretary of State's intervention on that point. To paraphrase him, the letter merely restates the position that has existed for some time, and in no way suggests that the Government would not look favourably, at a suitable point, on matching funding. I hope that that is a reasonable interpretation. Under the Conservative Government, that was always the position

557
of the Treasury in relation to Welsh spending, and I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for clarifying that. It is extremely useful in dismissing the fear and smear tactics from nationalists, who are trying to drive a wedge between the Welsh Assembly and the Treasury at Westminster.
Mr. Wigley: I note with considerable interest the closeness of the two Front Benchers on that issue, and no doubt the people of Wales will note it as well. Will the hon. Gentleman therefore give a categoric assurance that his party's policy is that—if Wales gets objective 1 status, as we all hope, following the announcement that is expected shortly—the money coming to Wales should include an element over and above what is generated by the Barnett formula? The proportion of the population in Wales that would receive the increase for the United Kingdom through objective 1 funds would be greater than the one seventeenth used in the Barnett formula. Indeed, the Barnett formula is irrelevant to this matter, because additionality has to be shown in respect of these projects.
Dr. Fox: The right hon. Gentleman will not be surprised that, at this point in the Parliament, I am not willing to commit my party to detailed spending plans, but I will say that we stand on our record and we were willing to match funding. It is unhelpful for businesses and for individuals planning economic activity in Wales if scare stories are begun for party political reasons, which may increase economic instability. It is not in anyone's interests to get a few extra votes at the price of reducing prosperity or increasing unemployment in any part of the United Kingdom. I am on record as saying how much I dislike the tactics of nationalists, in Scotland and in Wales. At least I am never disappointed at their consistency.
The Secretary of State spent some time talking about the Government's plans for health. He was extremely clever and selective with the figures that he chose and started with the end of 1998 rather than May 1997, when the Government came to office. Since the election, another 5,000 people have been added to waiting lists in Wales—an increase from about 68,000 to more than 73,000. Furthermore, the Government themselves have admitted that the number of people waiting to get on the waiting list has risen even more quickly.
Instead of tackling the real issues, the Government have fiddled the figures. Patients are being transferred from the main waiting list to subsidiary waiting lists, which do not appear on official returns to the Welsh Office and are therefore missed off the waiting list statistics. Patients are now made to wait longer before they get on the waiting list, thereby cutting the figures, but not cutting the problem. It makes life easier for the bureaucrats, but no less difficult for the patients. That is where the real debate lies.
Some hospitals have even been forced to introduce waiting lists for the waiting lists, which is nonsense. We cannot deal with the problem unless we are willing to admit that the problem exists. Changing the basis on which the figures are calculated does not help those who are waiting for treatment in our hospitals. It is a dishonest way of doing business, and we should put an end to it.
The Government talked about changing the culture in the NHS. My working life as a general practitioner was spent in the national health service. There has long been
558
a need for a change in culture in the NHS across the whole of the United Kingdom. The present culture is biased too heavily towards hospital consultants and not enough towards primary care.
Our ability to fund increases in health provision is linear at whatever gradient we can manage, whereas medical science's ability to provide treatments increases exponentially, so the gap between the two will increase. We must deal with that problem honestly, and the best way to do that is to ensure that resources are directed at the closest level to general practitioners. As we change the health culture back from fundholding to a new model, we will move towards a culture in which power will be exercised by hospital consultants and decisions will be taken away from GPs, who are closer to the patient.
Mr. Win Griffiths: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman—or is he right honourable? [HON. MEMBERS: "Right honourable."] He is just an hon. Gentleman at the moment, but he is no doubt looking forward to advancement. What he said is completely untrue. Purchasing in Wales will be done by local health groups, which will be made up of GPs, local authority social services, voluntary groups and other medical practitioners. The hospital trusts will be the servants of the local health groups. That is the model for the future.
Dr. Fox: I am perfectly aware of the collective model that is being established, but it none the less moves influence away from individual general practitioners. The hon. Gentleman put the issue in a wider context. It moves power from GPs, and therefore from the patients. We shall see over time how well the model works, but I fear that the culture being established will not allow us to use any finance available in the health service to best advantage.
This will be the last debate on Welsh affairs before devolution. It is useful to work out where we are in that process. We must consider the position of concordats, the structure of government to be established and the political culture in which it is developing.
Concordats raise important questions. Throughout the devolutionary process we were told about dispute resolution mechanisms. We were told that concordats will be the way in which we do business and that it will be a new, inclusive way of going about the process of government. I should like to ask the Secretary of State a hypothetical but extremely important question. If a Minister establishes a concordat, would it be legally possible on the ground of reasonableness for someone to seek a judicial review of that concordat?
Mr. Michael: That issue was discussed yesterday in the Standing Committee considering the transfer of powers. The problem is whether we deal with matters as possibilities or as likelihoods and realities. The nature of concordats is such that neither we, the Scottish Office nor others in government believe that they would be open to judicial review. It is possible that something outrageous could admit the possibility of judicial review, but I mean that only in the sense that one cannot rule anything out totally. This is not a fruitful avenue for the hon. Gentleman to pursue, as it is not a real likelihood or option.
Dr. Fox: I was not asking the Secretary of State whether he thought that there could be a successful

559
judicial review of any concordat—I was asking if it was possible to seek judicial review of a concordat. I take what the Secretary of State has said to mean that that is possible, so we may see constitutional positions adopted not by this House, but by judge-made law. It is important to take that into account in terms of devolution.
The Secretary of State for Scotland has said that he does not think that judicial review is legally possible, but we have long maintained that it is. Were we to have nationalists who wanted to seek division, it would be entirely possible for them to try to get a judicial review of concordats, and to try to get judge-made positions that they could not get through a democratically elected House in Westminster.
Mr. Michael: The hon. Gentleman must accept that this is an academic point, in the worst sense of the word. It would be difficult to rule anything out in terms of seeking judicial review; one can seek judicial review of almost anything. The issue, surely, is succeeding in obtaining judicial review. If the likelihood was that judicial review would be sought successfully, that would be a significant point in debate. However, if the likelihood is so remote that it is merely an academic possibility, the matter should not take up too much of our time. It is in that sense that I have answered the question. In practice, the matter is not open to judicial review—although it is a theoretical possibility. However, it is not one on which it is worth spending much time.
Dr. Fox: As part of our constitutional debate, we have uncovered the fact that we are not sure how a new instrument will operate, and what checks it will be subject to. We will find out in due course. The Secretary of State is basing his grounds for reasonableness on the fact that he believes that the Welsh Assembly and the Government in Westminster will be of the same political colour. That may not always be the case, in which case the concordat would become an entirely different instrument. A question mark has been put down about the operation of this new part of our constitutional architecture. We will see whether it proves to be a benefit or a hazard to constitutional stability.
We must consider also whether the structure of devolution will always guarantee a properly devolved system. The relationship between any devolved body and local government—and how we ring-fence the powers of local government to make sure that those powers are not taken upwards from local government to the Assembly—has been mentioned. The proposal that the Assembly should take control of sixth-form education suggests that there is every possibility of the Assembly seeking to increase its role at the expense of local government—an anti-devolutionary mechanism. That seems to be entirely the opposite of what the Government have said, and it is entirely the opposite of what I would like. The Secretary of State must consider the matter in terms of his order-making powers. We must consider how we protect the power of local government and ensure that these are not taken upwards to the Assembly, thereby moving local government further away from the people.
The Secretary of State omitted to mention a vital part of the debate to which we hope the Minister will refer
560
when he winds up. How do the Government see the role of the Secretary of State for Wales? How do they see the job being delineated in future? How do they see the relationship between the Assembly or the First Secretary and the Secretary of State for Wales? What do they believe the relative balance of powers should be?
Those are important issues for the Union Parliament to discuss. As the Government of Wales Bill has been passed, it would be interesting to know what the Government's wider thinking is on those issues. We need to look at the political culture within which devolution is developing. That was best illustrated by the Secretary of State's election last week. Having told us that we have to have a new inclusive, non-Westminster, more democratic culture, the Labour party opted for an electoral college with union block votes—unions that were not obliged to consult their members. That was in sharp distinction to the Prime Minister's election to the leadership of his party.
The Transport and General Workers Union and the Amalgamated Engineering and Electrical Union backed the Secretary of State without a ballot, and Unison, using one member, one vote, backed his opponent. It is legitimate to ask why one member, one vote was not used. Although that is an internal matter for the Labour party, it is interesting for what it tells us about the political culture of the new Labour Government. The answer is rather simple: the Prime Minister does not love the trade unions, but he would rather have them than trust his members to come up with the solution that he wants.
Lord Hattersley has said that Nicolae Ceauçescu did not live in vain because his legacy is being carried on by a Prime Minister who decides what he wants the outcome of an election to be, and then decides what the structure should be that can deliver him that result. That says much about the culture of new Labour.
Mr. Michael Fabricant: Does not my hon. Friend find it ironic that a party that has claimed that it is in favour of proportional representation seems to believe in first past the post when it comes to the trade union block decision?
Dr. Fox: Nothing that the Labour party does would surprise me when it comes to rigging any form of electoral system. It seems that it has abandoned OMOV—one member, one vote—for OLOV: one leader, one veto. That seems to be the deciding system in the party.
That is a sad development because I am sure that many of the small proportion in Wales who voted for devolution believed that they would get a more democratic system and, as the Secretary of State said, a break from the old political taboos. The Labour party quickly returned to them when it thought that it was in its short-term interest to do so.
We leave the debate with a Secretary of State leading a party whose members did not want him. He leads his party into Welsh elections that his London headquarters are trying to manipulate. They are condescending, manipulative and cynical. They fail to understand the consequences of either their political or their constitutional actions. Economically, medically, educationally and in so many other ways, they have failed Wales.

ROYAL ASSENT
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Act:
Social Security Contributions (Transfer of Functions, etc.) Act 1999.

Welsh Affairs
Question again proposed, That this House do now adjourn.
1.48 pm
Mr. Ted Rowlands: The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) began his speech by referring to the hope and aspiration that the Welsh day debate would continue. I also hope that that will happen. Let us briefly remember the origins of the Welsh day debate. It was a substitution for a Welsh Office and Secretary of State for Wales in the 1944 to 1948 period. It was offered as an alternative to the appointment of a Secretary of State and a Welsh Office.
If my memory serves me rightly, the first debate was replied to for the Government by the then President of the Board of Trade, Mr. Hugh Dalton. I was looking forward to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry replying to the debate. I was particularly looking forward to the previous Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), answering a Welsh day debate. Nevertheless, I hope that we will continue to have one. I hope that the business managers realise that it is wanted. It is only in the past 30-odd years that the Secretary of State for Wales has been present for such debates. Before that, they took place without one.
As we look forward to the future of the National Assembly and to a United Kingdom devolved, we should do so without carrying too many myths about the past, particularly the past performance of the British state. In many Welsh circles these days—not only in nationalist circles, but in wider ones—the British state is talked of pejoratively. I should like to make a case in defence of the British state's past performance, at various times, in serving the Welsh nation and the Welsh economy.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis) is not in the Chamber. In the most recent Welsh local government finance debate, he made the case against the British state. He said that the parlous condition of the Welsh economy
"has something to do with the construction of the British state … The problem can be traced back to Wales's ridiculous over-dependence on heavy industry, the failure to introduce a more varied industrial base".
If it had not been for that ridiculous over-dependence on heavy industry, the communities whom I represent—and whom my predecessors for the past 100 years or so represented—would barely have existed. They certainly would not have been able to develop their rich character, or to make the rich contribution that they have made to the whole idea of a Welsh identity. More important, however, was the hon. Gentleman's reference to
"the failure to introduce a more varied industrial base".—[Official Report, 11 February 1999; Vol. 325, c. 502.]
As we embark on the new and exciting constitutional changes that the House has approved, let us remind ourselves that it was a British state and a British central Government who, in legislation from this place, created something that did not exist previously in Wales: a Welsh manufacturing and industrial society.
There was no Welsh manufacturing or Welsh industrial society until the late 1930s. Such a society barely existed until after the second world war. We were not a factory

563
or manufacturing society. A complete absence of the skills necessary for that type of society was one of our major problems and one of the major causes of the depression and the problems of the inter-war years.
Welsh manufacturing society was initially created by a British state and a British Government, legislating from this place. Their redistribution of industry to Wales—not from other parts of the world, but from Birmingham, Coventry, Oxford and the Greater London area—created the Welsh manufacturing base. If nothing else, let us dispel some of the silly myths about the failure of the British state.
Of course, at various moments in history individual Governments have failed Wales. However, the British state created in Wales a fundamentally varied industrial base—as the hon. Member for Ceredigion used the term—that did not exist previously. Moreover, it achieved it by using the centralised powers of central Government, of the British state and of the House.
Mr. Wigley: Surely the hon. Gentleman is being incredibly complacent in his attitude. As a result of the cumulative policy of successive Governments since the post-war period, Wales has the lowest income per head of any country or region in Britain. An immense amount needs to be done. Surely that is not something of which we can boast.
Mr. Rowlands: The right hon. Gentleman takes a selective view of Welsh history. He should recall the state of the Welsh economy after the collapse of our basic industries—coal and iron—in the 1920s and 1930s, and how the economy was reconstructed. I am saying only that the British state made a major contribution to that reconstruction.
I accept that at various times the British state has not been able to match that achievement, and I shall deal with the current situation later in my speech. At times, Governments have of course failed us and failed Wales. However, if the right hon. Gentleman asks where Welsh manufacturing industrial society began, the answer is that it began in a deliberate policy established by British Governments and passed in legislation by the House.
There would not have been a Welsh manufacturing base were it not for central Government exercising power in redistributing industry and in using the other redistributive instrument available to them—public expenditure. Those two elements have played an important role. They were the core of the practical, centralised socialism that was an example of the joined-up government that it is now popular to talk about. As a signed-up member of the process for the past 40 years, I am not prepared to hear it rubbished, as it now is, from a variety of quarters.
Dr. Fox: Does the hon. Gentleman also think it worth pointing out to those who seek to break up the United Kingdom that it is because that Welsh heavy industrial base was allied to other manufacturing and defence capabilities in the United Kingdom, not least an allied defence force, that all parts of the United Kingdom are free today?
Mr. Rowlands: We have made a fantastic contribution to rearmament programmes at various times through the
564
steel and iron industry. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will read my book when it comes out. He will find, however, that Whitehall had an enormously bilious view of the capacity of Wales to assist in the wartime effort. War, not the Government of the day, revalued our greatest resource—our people and their skills.
I have common ground with the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) in that considerable damage has been done to the rebuilt Welsh economy in the past 20 years by deindustrialisation and the erosion and collapse not of our coal and steel industries—although that happened as well—but of the manufacturing base that had been created by post-war Governments. The charge against the Conservative party relates to the decade or more when the number of people in employment fell in Wales while it was growing elsewhere. That led to the serious problems that we now face, with the remorseless increase in the number of workless households and the serious social consequences that have flowed from that. Those consequences are reflected in the recent survey that revealed the deprivation in communities.
My worry and horror is that deindustrialisation is not yet complete and we may be in for another bout of it. The Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), has a particular concern about Ystradgynlais. Anyone who represents communities such as mine will be desperately worried about the impact of the closures that such places are facing. Anyone who knows about the problems of the European or global steel industry will be deeply concerned about the potential impact on our society.
Many interesting things are going on in our economy. In the past two years we have created more than 15,400 new manufacturing jobs, but we have lost about 17,600. The number of people in employment has stalled. That is a challenge to current policies and it will certainly be a challenge to our new National Assembly and economic powerhouse.
The challenge to our existing policies comes because we depend so heavily on the new supply side of the economy that we have devised—training and education. My hon. Friend the Minister knows how much I support our efforts, locally and beyond, on the new deal, training and education to create a better educated, more talented and more highly skilled society, because we believe that that will make people more employable. If we depend heavily on that, we must get our policies right. I am worried that we are likely to produce a large number of educated but unemployable people. I hope that my hon. Friend will take another hard look at the education and training advisory group report, which got the priorities and the balance of the training and education programme wrong. We must ensure that our training and education programmes meet the needs and demands of the Welsh economy in the near future.
My second point relates to the broader macro-economic scene. Historically, the communities that I represent have been far less worried about inflation than about deflation. Deflation has been their curse as it creates unemployment. Banks and bankers have been major contributors to deflationary policy. That is why during the past 18 months to two years I have not shared the Government's enthusiasm for creating an independent Bank of England. I was even less enthusiastic about the creation of an independent European bank that might hold our destiny in its hands.

565
Welsh economic history shows that Wales is not saved from our British bank, nor does its salvation—despite the usefulness and importance of objective 1 status—rest in Europe. Wales requires a macro-economic policy based on growth and expansion. Jobs and employment need to be at the centre, not at the periphery of economic policy. That is one of the lessons of Welsh history.
At present, the great danger and threat to our economy and to jobs in Wales is not inflation or price stability. Price stability means that small manufacturers and enterprises in my community are not making surplus profits and capital to refinance and invest. We already have price stability and so has Japan, but it has been demonstrated that price stability does not create growth or jobs. The last thing that we need is deflation or deflationary policies of any kind or character. That is the bitter understanding and memory of the communities that we represent.
We welcome the new National Assembly and its economic powerhouse. We have had the slogan "education, education, education". I offer the new Assembly the slogan, "jobs, jobs, jobs".
2.2 pm
Mr. Richard Livsey: This is the closest date to St. David's day—the last St. David's day this century is on Monday. It is a time to reflect and to look forward. In the words of an old song: "What a difference a day makes". In this context, what a difference a century makes.
Our predecessors in the House of Commons would be astonished that it has taken so long to achieve their cherished dream of a measure of home rule for Wales. The 20th century has not been dominated by radical politics in the United Kingdom, and to testify that, it has taken the entire 20th century for Wales to achieve a measure of devolution. Even now we are only just putting our toes in the water. What Gladstone, Lloyd George, Tom Ellis, Keir Hardie, Mabon and many others would have made of such slow progress I shudder to think, but a Welsh Assembly—not a parliament—is at least in sight.
As the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) said, the milestones of the century in Wales have contributed to the delay. They include the emigration of our young people around the world and the loss of tens of thousands in the first world war, among them the flower of our youth—on the fields of Flanders and northern France they fell. That was followed by the 1926 general strike and unemployment; lock-outs and poverty; the second world war; the hopes born in 1906 and 1945; the creation of a more comprehensive Welsh Office and, in the 1960s, a Secretary of State for Wales; the fiasco of the 1979 referendum and the dark years of the 1980s and 1990s when for 18 years a Welsh Assembly seemed all but impossible; the triumph of the 1997 referendum and the yes vote; a Wales Bill on the statute book; and next May, our very own Welsh Assembly. All that has occurred in the space of 100 St. David's days.
Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman said that Wales was putting its toe in the waters of devolution. Is it still his party's policy to give the Assembly tax-raising powers, and would he like that to happen without a fresh mandate from the Welsh people via a referendum?
Mr. Livsey: I know that the hon. Gentleman will not like the word, but we are federalists and believe in
566
tax-varying powers for the regions and countries of the United Kingdom, as well as primary legislative powers. That applies to Wales as much as anywhere else. That has been our policy for a long time.
Mr. Evans: What about a referendum?
Mr. Livsey: In what sense?
Mr. Evans: Would it be Liberal Democrat policy to seek tax-raising powers for the Welsh Assembly without consulting the Welsh people via a separate referendum?
Mr. Livsey: We will put these matters in our manifesto, and if we are elected to power they will be part of our reform programme for the Welsh Assembly. It is up to the electorate of Wales to decide whether they approve.
Those catastrophes and lost hopes of the past 100 years are still, in a sense, there. Sadly, Lucas-SEI decided only last month to close its manufacturing operation in Ystradgynlais in my constituency, which will cause 750 employees to be laid off. They received only four hours' notice, which is really more like something from the first quarter of the 20th century than the verge of the 21st. The work is being transferred to Poland, and the work force in Ystradgynlais trained the Polish workers. That is more or less the equivalent of digging one's own grave and falling backwards into it.
The takeover by TRW of the Lucas Varity corporation, of which the managing director, Victor Rice, will get a cool £17 million—a sum, incidentally, that could keep the Ystradgynlais plant running for another two years—is a disgrace and a scandal. I hope that the Minister will ask the Secretary of State if he will take the opportunity, when he visits the United States soon, to go to the TRW headquarters in Cleveland and ask whether some work can be transferred to Ystradgynlais.
The task force, in which Ministers, local councillors and I have been involved, is there to produce a solution to this terrible problem. Every avenue must be explored.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Hain): I was in touch with TRW in America yesterday, to discuss the future of the Ystradgynlais site. I pay tribute to the work that the hon. Gentleman has done on behalf of the work force there, and look forward to working in partnership with him to solve the problems that have been created.
Mr. Livsey: I thank the Minister very much indeed for those remarks. I am sure that the people of Ystradgynlais will also be grateful. We are all working extremely hard to ensure that the problem is solved. The plea by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney for jobs, jobs and more jobs is absolutely correct. We can train as many people as we like, but if the right kind of employment is not there, we will not produce jobs for people in our communities. Whole families have been sadly affected by the proposed closure and we need to find solutions that involve real employment.
There is a huge slump in farming in Wales. The farm management survey shows that the net income of the disadvantaged area farms in 1998–99 is forecast to be a mere £48 for the whole year. In the severely disadvantaged areas and the lowland beef and sheep areas,

567
farmers are at present earning the equivalent of £2.20 an hour. That looks pretty stupid in comparison with the proposals for the national minimum wage, which I support. Those figures are calculated on the basis of a 40-hour week. That problem has to be solved, and quickly.
Our family farms are in terminal decline and unless much more attention is paid to that, I am afraid that there will be an exodus from the land. Help could be given immediately by ensuring that payments such as hill livestock compensatory allowances are made immediately. That would assist the cashflow of farmers in a desperate situation. The Office of Fair Trading report, which will be published shortly, about the pricing policies of supermarkets is important, but there is no accountant on the body considering the issue and it appears to concentrate on groceries rather than the problems in the meat chain that directly affect the farming community.
We also face the problems of Agenda 2000 and CAP reform. Changes are now being made to the original proposals for Agenda 2000. The national envelope and co-financing are problems that I am sure that the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones), has been studying in the past week in the Council of Ministers meeting in Brussels on CAP reform. I am alarmed to note from yesterday's Western Mail suggestions of changes to the original Agenda 2000 proposals from a maximum of direct support to farms of £70,000 to a maximum of £3,700. If that goes through, it spells disaster. What impact would it have on the Welsh Office's agriculture department budget, which has reached £300 million of support for farming in Wales? I have noted references in Welsh Office documents to sums of more than £200 million. That could mean a substantial reduction in support for the farming industry from the Welsh Office, much of it European money.
We have discussed the objective 1 situation and the question of matched funding at length, and I shall not go back over that ground, except to remind the Secretary of State that the Lucas factory is only 200 yards from an objective 1 area. That is a problem in its own right, because the people of Ystradgynlais cannot benefit directly from objective 1 money. I know that the Minister is trying to do something about that and I am sure that he will work hard to obtain additional funding for the upper Swansea valley.
Powys and parts of east Wales are in dire need of objective 2 funding and I have been promised before that those areas will get it. However, the question of matched funding arises again. I was in Brussels last week and I discussed the issue of European structural funds with some of the Eurocrats. It was stressed to me that grass roots projects were an important method of obtaining objective 1 and 2 funding. It is not top-down action that is required, but local communities coming forward with proposals. That is an important way to tackle the problem.
How will Wales look on St. David's day in 2000? St. David's day is a special day in the calendar, when the daffodils emerge from the bud on every hillside and in every garden, and in every lapel. However, St. David's day is also a genuine sign of the gathering spring. It is a time of hope, singing and poetry, as every schoolchild in Wales knows. One has only to visit a primary school in Wales on that day to be greeted by the spirit of St. David.
568
By this time next year, Wales will have had its National Assembly for almost a whole year, including the first elections, a new First Minister, the first ever Cabinet for Wales and a Committee structure that I hope will be founded on true democratic principles, perhaps including one member, one vote.
I do not believe that the Government of Wales model will be as radical as some people think. There will be welcome change, but not a revolution. Will it be the personalities or the parties that will reign supreme? There is no lack of characters in Wales and I am certain that many will emerge in the new Assembly. Many are likely to be women, and that will be a change for the better. In fact, the personalities are likely to prove more influential than the political parties.
Time will put the Members of the Assembly on a steep learning curve. It will not be long before they come to realise what they cannot do, as much as what they can do. Let us hope that in a year's time they will not be too frustrated. Secondary legislative powers may sound superficially attractive, but in 12 months' time they may be seen as no big deal! Balancing the books will also be a frustrating experience and priorities will demand hard choices. I can envisage cries next March for primary legislative powers and tax-varying powers, just like Scotland.
Building up new traditions in our Assembly will be a challenge. I make a firm prediction that the deep sense of fairness in Welsh society will mean that the twin values of liberty and social conscience will be much to the fore. I hope that tolerance and inclusiveness will underwrite those values. That does not mean that the traditional fiery Welsh radicalism will not have its place, but it will be fashioned into a more egalitarian democracy suited to the 21st century.
The proportional system of top-up seats should give us political representation that is a truer reflection of people's views in Wales. Wales is nothing if not a community of communities, so the proportional system of top-up seats should therefore be welcomed. Let us hope that we see the end of machine politics. There is a danger that if the power of the Executive is misused, people will feel excluded from the Assembly process. The Assembly's Committees, both subject and regional, will be vital. I am hopeful that with an enlightened leadership the disparate views that characterise Wales will begin to be welded into a more cohesive force for good. Wales is too small a country for us to fall out among ourselves.
In particular, we desperately need vision and leadership. Every Committee in the Assembly must have its strategies worked out in 12 months' time. The Education Committee must have set its targets and the Health Committee's recipe for tackling the many problems in Wales must be in place. The Economic Development Committee must have developed its strategies for better job opportunities and wealth creation. The Rural Affairs and Agriculture Committee must have its plan to revitalise our family farms and the rural economy. We may even be considering an integrated transport policy that may provide a solution to join up north and south Wales.
We should know by next year where we want to go as a nation and how we are going to get there. The next years will be spent in engaging the participation of the people of Wales to build a new Wales, with a more caring and

569
entrepreneurial society in which young people can gain skill and jobs in a quality environment, the old know that they will be cared for properly, and where music, sport, the arts and all kinds of recreation are an everyday experience. We will not reach that state in one year, but by next March the signposts will be there to a Wales where it is not always necessary to leave to gain recognition, because it can be achieved at home in our own country. Is that idealism? Yes. Is it possible? Yes. On St. David's day 2000, there will be new stars on the horizon and more than a few poets celebrating the rebirth of our nation.
2.19 pm
Mr. Don Touhig: I first spoke in this Chamber in the annual St. David's day debate on 2 March four years ago, and I speak now in the final such debate before the historic Welsh Assembly elections. However, I hope that there will be many more St. David's day debates in the years to come because, as we move forward to a historic change in the way in which our country is governed, we must not lose sight of the fact that, in Britain and Northern Ireland, there are four nations but one country. The Parliament of all the nations of Britain and Northern Ireland is, by the consent and desire of the people, here in Westminster.
This Government have delivered on their pledges to the peoples of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to bring about devolution. I welcome that. We have done it in the face of stiff resistance from the Tory Opposition, but we recognise that, if we are to release the potential of all our people and give them a new vision for a new century, we must put in place a modern system of Government to demonstrate a renewed confidence in being Welsh, and in being British.
In my darkest moments, I sometimes think that the one thing that unites all of us who are Welsh is a lack of self-confidence. We lack self-belief, and feel that we cannot achieve things. Some say that that is due to the melancholy in our natures, to the dark, brooding and often romanticised element of what it is to be Welsh. That element may make for wonderful poetry and help to define us, but we must not let it blind us to the future.
Wales is a small country on the edge of a great continent. We may be at the margins of Europe geographically, but there is no reason why we should not be at the heart of Europe economically, socially and culturally. Moreover, I believe that the Welsh people recognise that all our interests can be best served by truly being part of the larger political unit that is the United Kingdom. Not for us the narrow argument of the nationalists, who want a separate and isolated Wales. The people of Wales will not be looking to the nationalism of the 19th century to find the answers to the problems of the 21st century.
I support devolution, and am certain that the Assembly will provide the basis for greater accountability and transparency in decision making. Devolution gives us a chance to put an end to the quango culture, which allows decisions affecting the lives of people throughout Wales to be made by people meeting in secret behind closed doors, who spend millions of pounds of taxpayer's money and yet remain unaccountable for what they do.
Devolution is an opportunity to put a stop to the over-centralisation of decision making which was the hallmark of 18 Tory years. It will help breathe new life
570
into local government, with the Assembly forging a new partnership with councils and with Parliament in Westminster. Many of my councillor friends who were sceptical about devolution are now excited and enthusiastic about the prospect. As the main service providers, they can see many potential benefits of an effective partnership between local authorities, the Assembly and the Government in London.
Partnership right across Britain is one reason why the creation of the Assembly does not mean the break-up of the Union. The purpose of devolution is to create a better system of government for the Welsh people, not to cut us off from the rest of Britain. Indeed, the overwhelming majority of people in Wales do not regard the creation of an Assembly as an opportunity to go down the separatist path.
The referendum gave one clear message: the people of Wales are not yet convinced of the benefits of devolution, and it is no good hiding the fact that the jury is still out. The big challenge for us all is to make devolution work and to show the Welsh people that it has considerable benefits for them.
One key area in which we must make devolution work is in meeting the economic challenge. The Assembly must help provide the motivation, and be the powerhouse to transform the Welsh economy. It must, as my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) said, create jobs to bring about lasting prosperity. It is as a result of the policies pursued by this Labour Government—the Government of all Britain—that the Welsh people will gain.
Labour's vision is of a Wales where social justice is put before separatism, where investment in education and the reskilling of our labour force is at the top of our priorities. We are not going to compete in the world economy of the next century if we have low wages and a low-skilled work force, with an industry desperately lacking investment and less productive than our competitors. We need a Wales where we tackle poverty and social exclusion by creating opportunities and providing work, so that people are not left to depend on benefits; a Wales in which we recognise that decent, affordable housing is as much an investment in our people's health as money spent on hospitals.
This year of 1999 is truly a year in which Labour will deliver on its pledges—to extend democracy by means of the Assembly, and to tackle poverty root and branch. We want to begin by helping people on benefit who can and want to get work to be given that chance. However, we must recognise that it is no use moving people from poverty on benefit to poverty in work. That is why we need a national minimum wage.
When it is introduced in April, the national minimum wage will benefit tens of thousands of people across Wales, many of them women. The minimum wage, linked with the working families tax credit to be introduced in October, will guarantee low-paid families with a full-time worker at least £190 a week, with no tax to pay on earnings below £220. That, together with the reduction in employees' national insurance contributions due in April, will be of considerable benefit to families on low or middle incomes.
All those measures to help the poor in Wales have been opposed by the Tory Opposition. Is it any wonder that no Conservative Members of Parliament represent Welsh constituencies?

571
There is much more that we must do to tackle the culture of poverty in Wales. Children and old people are the most vulnerable, and are often locked in a cycle of poverty from which it is almost impossible to escape. That is why, from April, child benefit is to be raised by a record amount of £2.95 for the eldest child. There will be equivalent increases for poorer families with rises in family premium, income support and jobseeker's allowance.
Building on the package of measures already announced for pensioners, from April eye test charges will be abolished, and all pensioners will have a minimum income guarantee of £75 a week for a single pensioner, and £116 for pensioner couples.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said when he opened the debate, the new deal has been a great success in Wales. Thousands of young people are now in work and being given opportunities, where before they had no hope and no chance. Supporters of the Welsh nationalist party in my constituency have labelled the new deal slavery, but we are creating opportunities. From April, those opportunities will be extended to people over 25.
On top of that, the Government have cut business taxes to an all-time low to encourage investment. At the same time, they have put a massive £1 billion extra into health in Wales and £850 million into education.
If the other parties had been told before the general election that, in two years, we would do half as much as I have described, they would have called us fantasists and claimed that we would be unable to achieve anything at all. So let me remind the House what the Government have achieved in those two years.
Class sizes have been cut. Hospital waiting lists are down. Handguns have been banned. There are new rights for people at work. The national debt has been reduced from £28 billion to £8 billion. Interest rates have been cut to their lowest long-term rate for 35 years. Value added tax on fuel has been cut to 5 per cent. Extra money has been devoted to breast cancer screening. Councils have been allowed money from the sale of council houses to build new homes and improve existing ones. The largest hospital building programme in our history has been launched. The biggest-ever child care programme is under way. There has been legislation to raise standards in schools. The Bank of England has been given independence to set interest rates. There has been a massive shake-up in the criminal justice system—I could go on.
In a couple of days, we shall be celebrating St. David's day, our saint's day. After two years of this Labour Government, there is much to celebrate, for Wales and for Labour in Wales. Working in partnership with the Assembly that will be elected on 6 May, the Government will take forward the policies that I have talked about this afternoon, for the benefit of all the people in Wales. The policies that concern them are investment in health and in education and training. They want job opportunities, safer streets, better public services—those are the priorities of the people whom I represent. They are the policies of the Labour Government in Westminster, and they will be the policies of the Labour party that will run the Assembly.
572
The people of Wales will respond to Labour's vision for the 21st century—partnership within the United Kingdom—rather than the narrow nationalism of the 19th century. They do not want to operate at the margins of politics, like the increasingly desperate Tory party. They do not want the publicity without responsibility of the Liberal Democrats. The people of Wales consistently rejected the separatist agenda of the nationalists. They reject policies that benefit the few, not the many, as advocated by the Tories. They have certainly rejected the Mickey Mouse tactics of the Liberal Democrats.
We are approaching the biggest shake-up in the government of Wales. We can make that change with confidence and without fear. The people of Wales will look to Labour—the real party of Wales—to make an historic process work.
2.30 pm
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I wonder why the hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig) left the Green party free of his venom.
It is often said that, when political parties unite, they do so for a serious cause. There is no doubt that all the political parties in Wales—notwithstanding the long spat between my right hon. Friend the Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) and the Secretary of State—have worked together to try to obtain objective 1 status for west Wales and the valleys. I have rarely seen such a concerted effort, and I have worked closely with members of the ruling party in north Wales to secure that all-important designation, which would be a tremendous social and cultural boost for Wales.
The underlying principle that should guide us in considering objective 1 status is the impact that it could have on economic and social cohesion. We must consider additionality: significant improvements have been made in demonstrating additionality at national, regional and local level. However, there is a need to ensure that mechanisms are in place that fully demonstrate the transparency and improved measurements of the concept.
Complementarity—the relationship between structural and domestic funds—has never been adequately addressed. A grey area remains over, for example, the differences between the European regional development fund, the European social fund and the European agricultural guarantee and guidance fund. Matters still require to be ironed out in that complicated area, and we should all consider them more often than we do, standing, as we are, on the threshold—possibly—of obtaining objective 1 status.
The Secretary of State referred to partnership—a buzz word in politics, but an important feature of structural fund policy in Wales—which will be a prerequisite of policies related to objective 1 status. I have the privilege of representing a constituency that falls into two unitary authority areas—Gwynedd and Conwy. Both would benefit substantially if objective 1 status came to Wales. Mindful of the time constraints, I shall today talk only about Conwy county borough council, which covers what was previously Aberconwy borough council and part of Colwyn Bay borough council.
The area has suffered greatly over the past 12 or 13 years. Aberconwy qualified fully for objective 2 designation 10 or 12 years ago, but lost out. I visited Brussels, and a number of members of the Commission

573
confirmed that there was no shadow of a doubt that the area qualified on all basic criteria. Alas, however, it did not happen. Over the past 10 or 12 years, the area has undoubtedly suffered. I do not doubt that the luck of Merseyside—good luck to that area—in obtaining objective 1 status was an active disincentive to inward investment into Conwy.
Conwy has the lowest gross domestic product in Wales, the lowest-wage economy in Britain and a low rate of inward investment. It is incredible but true that only 18 new jobs were created between 1994 and 1997. Yet the area gains no assistance from designated status.
The economy in Conwy depends on jobs in the tourism, public and agricultural sectors. Changes in tourism and agriculture are putting significant pressure on the viability of businesses in both sectors. The economy of Conwy desperately needs to diversify to strengthen its base if it is to be socially and economically sustainable. Recognition of the county's problems, and its inclusion in the west Wales and valleys sub-region which has the prospect of obtaining objective 1 status, is a tribute to all who have striven in partnership to have Conwy and Denbighshire included in that designation.
Led by the county borough council, partners are developing a county-based development strategy based on the themes of competitive business, countering social exclusion and balanced development. That strategy will be integrated into the broader west Wales objective 1 strategy, providing a clear framework from 2000 to 2006. I hope that that will help the area to overcome its structural problems.
The strategy will seek to create a balance of indigenous and inward investment, a matter that has, of late, much concerned the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs. A report has been prepared, and the Committee, of which I am a member, took evidence from many areas on inward investment and indigenous expansion in parts of the UK and beyond.
A full range of support services will be developed for existing and potential small and medium enterprises. Perhaps simplistically, I believe that we do not pay enough attention to SMEs, which, if my figures are correct, account for 90 per cent. of employment in Wales. The stark fact is that, if every SME created one more job, there would be hardly any unemployment in Wales. We must concentrate on that sector, and—although I hope that I am wrong, and that LG will come on line—there are lessons to be learned from putting too many eggs in one basket. It takes creative thinking to expand SMEs and to create an atmosphere of expansion. However, we would do well to target that area as the benefits would be considerable.
The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) said that the difficulties of the agricultural sector, and the knock-on effects that they have on the whole community, have extremely serious ramifications for his rural community. The same is true of Conwy. It is essential that the quality and value of agricultural produce from Conwy—and from all of rural Wales—should be maximised locally. Objective 1 status can assist us in that area.
The Welsh Office has recently confirmed that the new development authority will have a far more extended agricultural brief, and that is welcome. I hope that we may see such things as a substantial chilling plant for meat in
574
mid-Wales, which could serve Wales and beyond. We lack that at present, and it is an area on which we could concentrate. We should add value locally to meat—the new prepared foods such as lasagna and other meals that are very popular nowadays. By producing such food locally, we would add value to the product. We have a good product, and we should add value as locally as we can to the point of production.
There has been an historic lack of both investment and investment opportunity in Conwy. Several barriers need to be brought down. I am very pleased that Conwy has been included in the European objective 1 designated areas; it is critical that people now concentrate fully on the way ahead and on drawing up plans in good time. If the county of Conwy is to succeed, it is important that projects are proposed as soon as possible, partners found and all potential European and other funding effectively sought.
I could repeat that message on behalf of Gwynedd, but I am mindful of the time constraints and aware that several other hon. Members want to speak. Last year, as part of a delegation from the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, I visited Inverness and the highlands and islands of Scotland. The problems of those areas were not dissimilar to Gwynedd's problems—the feeling of remoteness and declining economic activity in a rural setting. The visit was most instructive, because it brought home starkly to me the potential benefits of objective 1 status, if properly used—opportunities for small businesses to expand, and for a hard-pressed agricultural sector to expand and diversify to meet the challenges that will inevitably flow from Agenda 2000.
I also learned of the utmost importance of matched funding. I was told that, because of the effective drying up of matched funding, little use had been made of objective 1 structural funds in the preceding 18 months. In other words, because of the absence of matched funding, the European funds could not be drawn down; the process was at a standstill. Members of Parliament from the north of Ireland have told me of their similar experience of stop-go—when matched money is not available, everything is put on hold. Because any scheme under objective 1 lasts for only a given period of time—six years—if we fail to do our level best to get as much as possible out of objective 1 status, money is wasted. We have all seen the prosperity that has been created in Ireland, largely because of objective 1 funding. Many of us trumpet Ireland's economic success: now, at long last, there is net immigration of Irish people to Ireland, as highly qualified youngsters come back to the good jobs on offer in an economy that appears to be booming.
I do not care greatly that, by raising this important subject, I risk incurring the venom of Ministers—not that venom rests comfortably in the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), who is sitting on the Treasury Bench. There are, and will be, serious difficulties if matched funding is scarce: we need a greater commitment from the public sector and, more important, from central Government, especially for the long term. Consideration for matched funding should be agreed at programme level, not by project; and there should be further exploration of the global grants system and far greater co-ordination of domestic funds, with better clarification of the rules governing private sector involvement.

575
I mentioned the general concordat—to use a word of the moment—between the political parties during the campaign to secure objective 1 status. When the Government submitted the plans to Brussels, opposition parties were asked not to rock the boat, lest that should in some way damage the chances of obtaining objective 1 status. I found it offensive when the Secretary of State said that my party, of all parties, was creating difficulties. Far from it—we did everything that we could to assist and we shall continue to do so. In that vein, I shall ask the Minister one or two questions; I trust that, in that vein and in this context, he will find my questions helpful. I shall find it helpful if the answers are forthcoming.
I have campaigned for objective 1 designation for a long time, as have other right hon. and hon. Members. On each and every occasion when the Secretary of State for Wales, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have been asked to give an assurance on the subject of matched funding, they have fallen silent, despite their having, rightly, trumpeted the fact that the Government have done everything that they can to secure objective 1 status. There is now grave concern because, without adherence to the principle of additionality and, of course, securing matched funding from additional Treasury money, the whole campaign could come to nothing, like a handful of sand seeping through one's fingers. I am not encouraged by the Government's predisposition to hide behind the Fontainebleau accord—for example, to deny the farmers of Wales proper agri-monetary compensation. The whole question of matched funding has a similar flavour and I am greatly concerned, as is my right hon. Friend the Member for Caernarfon.
In his opening speech, the Secretary of State referred to a recent press release. Professor Kevin Morgan and other members of the Institute of Welsh Affairs have expressed their concern sensibly, not in a headline-grabbing manner. They say that at stake is as much as £1.8 billion between 1999 and 2006, and they quote a letter that they received from the Economic Secretary to the Treasury. The hon. Lady was asked how much matched funding would be available, to which she replied:
"If Western Wales and the Valleys were to qualify for Objective 1 status after 1999 I can give no assurance that all the additional receipts (assuming that the total allocation to Wales did, in fact, increase) would be reflected in an increased public expenditure allocation".
She added:
"For Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, cover for Structural Fund spending must be found within their respective blocks, determined on the basis of the Barnett formula."
That is an extremely worrying response.
The Secretary of State was probably right to say that we do not yet know what decision will be made; however, if we do not yet know but such a negative response has already been forthcoming, questions must be asked. It behoves all of us across the political spectrum to ask the appropriate questions and not to leave them until some future date. Why cannot the questions be asked now? More important, why can they not be answered now?
Professor Morgan says:
"The realignment of the Wales funding map that has now been approved in Brussels is only the first stage in this crucial battle. Two more battles need to be won, the first in Brussels and the second in
576
Whitehall … Brussels has since been convinced that the GDP of the new west Wales and the Valleys region is below 75 per cent. of the EU average. So there is a strong case for the Treasury in London to approve Public Expenditure Survey cover for new funds. Assurances need to be sought by our political representatives that this will be the case. Failure to secure PES cover from the Treasury will mean that up to £1 billion will come from the existing £7 billion Welsh Office block grant. The economic and political implications of this could be disastrous. The Objective 1 victory would be a cuckoo's egg."
I call on the Minister to give a full, frank and straight answer to that vital question. Failure to do so will mean that, once again, the Government can be summarised best as a Government who are always ready to raise hopes and expectations, but who are unable to deliver.
I strongly urge Welsh Office Ministers to contact the Treasury and obtain a full, clear and unequivocal answer to the question. All the hard work that has been done throughout Wales and across all the political parties might yet come to nothing unless that assurance is available. I would go so far as to say that, if the additional moneys are not available, the Welsh Office will have let down the people of Wales, because the Treasury will have denied the Welsh Office. The current devolution proposals, good as they are, will not affect that betrayal.
2.50 pm
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I also wish to return to the subject that caused such a conflagration in the House two hours ago. I hope that my remarks about objective 1 funding and its effects on Wales do not re-ignite that tinderbox.
We all accept that it is crucial to secure objective 1 and matched funding. However, no one should be cheering about the prospect of achieving objective 1 funding because one does not get it for nothing. It is like compensation for mine workers. Someone might think, "Isn't it wonderful: I'm getting 50 per cent. compensation from the National Coal Board for having pneumoconiosis", but it is terrible because that person has pneumoconiosis. The same deduction applies to objective 1 funding: we will receive it because Wales has economic pneumoconiosis. Our gross domestic product levels are so low that we require the maximum rate of European grants to help us put the economy back on a sound footing.
I understand why objective 1 funding causes such excitement. There are two reasons: first, because the timing is so critical relative to the commencement of the Assembly; and, secondly, because objective 1 funding is the jam on the bread for the Assembly's public spending capabilities. We have the Barnett formula and the three-year comprehensive spending review programme—which will begin in a few short weeks on 1 April—and objective 1 funding is a way of going beyond the limit.
If we ultimately secure objective 1 funding and there is no real problem with the provision of matched funding, there could be lots of jam on the bread for the Welsh Assembly. Therefore, the prospect stirs a certain amount of interest. If the figures that we have heard bandied around are correct, in theory, it might mean up to £500 million a year extra in public expenditure for different kinds of infrastructure in Wales for each of the seven years from 1 January 2000. Bearing in mind the fact that the Welsh Office's comprehensive spending review budget is £7 billion, an extra £500 million—if it is as much as that—amounts to an 8 per cent. increase. That is a pretty substantial increase to have running for the next seven years.

577
That £500 million is the top whack figure—it might be £450 million or £400 million if things go reasonably well but not perfectly. I understand that £300 million a year in European money would be provided for seven years, which we would expect to be matched—perhaps not pound for pound—by British Treasury sources. If that European funding were matched two thirds of a pound for a pound, it would mean that the additional £300 million would be matched by perhaps £150 million to £200 million in Treasury money, which would total £450 million or £500 million. If my calculations are not correct, the Minister will no doubt set me straight at the close of the debate. It is natural for people to want to examine the subject in considerable depth.
I mentioned that the timing of receipt of objective 1 funding is crucial. We all know why that is so. The three-year public expenditure programmes of the Welsh Office, which begin on 1 April this year—and will be inherited by the Welsh Assembly a month later—will continue for three years until 2002. Objective 1 funding should have been determined by then—perhaps at the European Union Council of Ministers meeting in March—and, if we are to receive it, will begin on 1 January. That will be some seven or eight months after the Assembly has taken charge of the bulk of Welsh Office powers. That funding will certainly stir the pot and be an integral and dominant part of the early activities of the Welsh Assembly.
The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) referred to the interesting reply given by the Economic Secretary to the Treasury. We could debate for at least all of today—and probably on several other occasions—whether that response was a bit of a downer or left the door open for the Treasury to agree to matched funding. Let us try to view the matter positively. It is a chicken and egg situation. There is no way that the Treasury will say, "Here's an extra £200 million a year for the next seven years, provided Europe gives you objective 1 funding at the March Council of Ministers meeting". Unfortunately, it also works the other way. There is no way that the European Commission will agree to confer for fun the objective 1 funding designation—as though it were referring to a map—in the March Council of Ministers meeting.
The EC will confer objective 1 status only if it receives some sort of serious signal from the British Government that matched funding is being negotiated and is on the way. The Government must demonstrate that they are agreeing the details and taking a serious approach to securing the whole package. If there is no matched funding, there will be no objective 1 status. If there is no objective 1 status, there is no point in having matched funding.
We must somehow address that chicken and egg situation. The resolution of that problem should not be left until the early weeks of the new Assembly when Assembly Members will be finding their feet. We must sort it out before 7 May and the elections to the Welsh Assembly. The more clarity that we can lend to that chicken and egg situation, the better.
I think that the Secretary of State said earlier—I repeat the point now—that the Welsh situation is unique as regards objective 1 funding. It is not a problem in Northern Ireland, Scotland or England: it is only a problem in Wales. Scotland and Northern Ireland have received objective 1 funding before, so it is programmed
578
into their three-year public expenditure programmes that start on 1 April. Wales has never had objective 1 funding. Although it is true that Cornwall and south Yorkshire have never received objective 1 funding, it is possible within the big block of public expenditure in England—comprising the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the Department of Trade and Industry and several other blocks—to rob Peter to pay Paul. However, it is not possible to rob Eddie to pay George—as we now say—within the Welsh block because almost all areas of Wales that are not objective 1 designates are objective 2 or objective 5b areas and will continue to receive European assistance.
The European Commission will not allow the British Government to take funds away from areas with objective 2 entitlements—which is the next level down in European grant—and give them to objective 1 areas by switching around expenditure within the Welsh block. That will not be allowed because it will infringe the additionality rule. Europe will not allow the British Government to tell the Welsh Office now—or the Welsh Assembly in the future—"Take it from Cardiff, Newport, Powys, Wrexham, Deeside, and so on, and give it to the objective 1 areas", when the Government are also claiming that the eastern strip of Wales along the English border remains sufficiently lacking in prosperity to require a lower level of European assistance.
Wales does not have the flexibility of the English block to take money from wealthy areas—such as the home counties—in order to provide matching funding in Cornwall and south Yorkshire, for example. That is not possible in Wales because of our double poverty gap problem. In other words, the whole of Wales is 18 per cent. behind England and, within Wales, the areas that we hope will receive objective 1 funding are another 10 per cent. behind the Welsh average. Therefore, they are 28 per cent. behind the British average or standard of living evaluation in England.
We must somehow solve that problem during a critical period of constitutional change. The House of Commons was devised to debate and resolve that sort of difficulty. There will not necessarily be any answers today because we have a few months to go, but we need maximum clarification of that issue.
The Welsh economy is undergoing a serious period of change, so objective 1 funding is critical. There is nothing we can do using objective 1 funding that we cannot do under the programmes of assistance provided by the present designations of 2, 5b and 3. However, the objective 1 category offers more money and a higher maximum rate of grant and encourages long-term planning and projections because the funding is available for seven years. The maximum rate of grant is higher. However, the essence is the same as that of the programmes that have been running for the past 10 years.
We must get away from the classic methods of regional development that we have used since the days of the big pit closures in the 1960s and 1970s. The aim of objective 1 funding is not to provide additional sheds and roads or to give the building industry grants to construct large highways or extrude vast quantities of 25,000 sq ft advance factories all over Wales. We have too many factories lying empty. We must find a way to fill the factories that we have with activities, rather than build more. We live in a world of surplus in such facilities, and we must modernise our products, processes, management

579
and skills, improve training and upgrade apprenticeships. We must increase research and development and seed capital and widen access to venture capital.
Objective 1 funding is oriented towards those aims rather than providing static factors such as bricks and mortar and highways. It is concerned with how to make the economy more dynamic by improving access and the part of the infrastructure that will lead to faster economic growth.
We shall need that growth, because recent closures have revealed that this winter has been a difficult period for the Welsh economy. The closure of Lucas-SEI in Ystradgynlais in the constituency of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) is a symptom of a widespread malaise in the Welsh economy of dependence on the middle level of technology in electronic assembly or automotive components which is coming under huge pressure from the shift towards eastern Europe. Factory facilities such as the Lucas-SEI plant in Ystradgynlais can be shipped to Poland where the workers are paid wages that are, perhaps, one sixth of the prevailing rates in Wales.
American factories have faced similar problems since the signing of the North American Free Trade Agreement, because wage rates in Mexico and north America have roughly the same relationship as wages in eastern Europe do to those in western European areas such as Wales. Low to intermediate technology assembly line skills are gained with tremendous speed, and for the past 20 to 30 years, through no fault of our own, Wales has specialised in those skills and in automotive and electronic components, without housing the headquarters of the firms that are using design skills to upgrade and plan the next generation of products.
We have been developing the assembly line skills that are now at risk because the pound is relatively high and the next wave of European Union expansion points eastward to low labour cost countries. That sector will be under huge pressure unless, for any reason, the pound comes down sharply.
New and exciting economic prospects are opening up in sectors in which it is very difficult for us to compete, such as software and the globalised market for what are known as traded services. Those arise from huge mergers between, for example, merchant banks, which suddenly want 150,000 sq ft office blocks so that they can house their whole human resources department, finance office or back-office operation in one city. At the moment, for various reasons, Welsh cities are not seen to be as exciting as Dublin, Edinburgh or Barcelona, and we cannot therefore compete in the globalised traded services office market.
We are losing out in manufacturing and we are not at present in a position to gain in other sectors because we do not have the necessary software skills. The Republic of Ireland targeted software 10 years ago. It trained people in those skills and then succeeded in attracting inward investment. I am not saying that Wales should target software—we could target something else—but Ireland demonstrated what could be done with objective 1 funding, and that is one reason why its gross domestic product has overtaken that of Wales and, on some measures, that of Great Britain. I hope that, with the Assembly, Wales will be able to do the same.
580
I am looking forward to finding out how we can creatively use objective 1 funding to provide a more secure future for everyone in Ystradgynlais and other communities throughout Wales where there are job losses in intermediate technology.
3.4 pm
Sir Raymond Powell: I want to put it on record that in the election of the Secretary of State for Wales last Saturday, the Labour party conducted itself fairly, and both candidates should be congratulated on their conduct during the whole campaign. It was an historic election because the winner will be the principal person in Wales with great responsibilities.
I worked with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State when we were in the Whips Office and when he was a shadow Welsh Minister. I know from personal experience that he has great talent and ability and that he is definitely a workaholic. When he came into the Whips Office he always had a bundle of papers under his arm. I have seen many hon. Members with such bundles and I always wondered whether they were for show or whether they actually read the documents, so I brought a bundle of papers to the Chamber today to try to impress people that I, too, read.
This week, hon. Members from all parties who represent Wales have had the gigantic task of reading documents and attending Committee sittings to consider statutory instruments dealing with the disqualification of Members. That needs to be carefully considered because Lords will be allowed to stand for election in Wales, even though they cannot stand for election to this place. Members leave this place to go to the other place and now we are affording Lords the opportunity to stand for election to the Welsh Assembly.
Mr. Evans: I find the hon. Gentleman's point inconsistent, and it is the second time that he has argued it this week. Why should Members of the House of Commons be able to stand for election to the Welsh Assembly and retain their seats here, while he would deny that chance to Members of the House of Lords?
Sir Raymond Powell: To be frank, I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman because of the responsibilities that will be involved. Only yesterday, when we were discussing in Committee the functions that we shall hand over to the Assembly, it was pointed out that Members of Parliament will have enough work to do here without going to the Assembly.
Mr. Llwyd: One of the main criticisms of the other place is that it is undemocratic because its Members do not stand for election. Surely it is welcome that they will now be able to put their head above the parapet and stand for election somewhere else.
Sir Raymond Powell: Yes, but they will be standing for election to a Welsh Assembly, and the number of Lords left without a seat when we disqualify them within the next couple of months will mean that hundreds of Lords might go to Wales, looking for seats in the 60-seat Assembly. That is my great objection.
I have another objection. Roaming around Wales, we hear whispers from many members of all parties, and I have been given to understand that a prominent Welsh

581
nationalist who is a Member of the House of Lords has already been promised a place as the president of the Assembly—the Presiding Officer. I do not know by whom because no one has been elected in Wales yet. If that is true, a Lord will not only be elected to the Assembly, but will be the Presiding Officer of an Assembly controlled, in all probability, by the Labour party. There would be something wrong if we allowed that to happen. I hope that people are listening to the party in Wales and to the debate today and have realised that we should not tolerate such a situation in Wales.
Mr. Llwyd: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for generously giving way a second time. He may correct me if I am wrong, but I understood from the Standing Orders for the Welsh Assembly that the Speaker or the Presiding Officer—whatever that person is called—must come from the majority opposition party. If that is the case, what is the hon. Gentleman's worry?
Sir Raymond Powell: Let us wait and see what happens. I would not want the Welsh Assembly to have a Presiding Officer who did not enjoy the support of all Members. I would not want that for the Welsh Assembly or for Parliament.
I am speaking of my concerns on Welsh day, and I suppose that you would share some of them, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if we were speaking of Scotland. When we debated the Government of Wales Bill and also the Scotland Bill, I noticed that one hon. Member sat in the Chamber on his cushion through all the debates, taking note of every word that was uttered by every hon. Member. He wrote an article recently about what will be left for Scottish and Welsh Members of Parliament to debate. That is a question that we should consider.
My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) sat on the Committee yesterday that dealt with 506 pages of concessions, options and responsibilities that are to be given to the Welsh Assembly. Other hon. Members and I sat on another Committee on Tuesday which made representation of the people in Wales different from the election of parliamentary candidates.
That brings me to an important matter that affects my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths). The document that we debated on Tuesday dealt, among other things, with polling stations. We accepted the proposal that all constituency polling stations that were used during parliamentary elections should be used for the election of Welsh Assembly Members and councillors.
In the Bridgend county borough council area, a number of polling stations are to be closed to save the funding that would be necessary to keep them open. I protested on Tuesday and received an assurance from the Secretary of State that he would take up the matter. I understand that in today's press the closure of the polling stations is announced.
The existing six polling stations in the area are to be reduced to one. That will cause considerable difficulty for many of our electors in an area such as Nantymoel in the Ogmore valley, which is very hilly. The majority of people living there are elderly and cannot climb the hills. It is time that we understood that polling stations—such as the ones in which we were elected to Parliament—are
582
usually sited near homes in order to get the electorate interested enough to vote. That will be even more crucial on 5 May—
Mr. Win Griffiths: On 6 May.
Sir Raymond Powell: I am glad that my hon. Friend corrected me—I would not want voters to turn up on the wrong day. In the elections on 6 May, people will be voting not only for Members of the Welsh Assembly—that will be an historic election throughout Wales—but for local councillors. However, councillors have decided to reduce the number of polling stations. Perhaps they do not want people to vote for them, but I am sure that candidates for the Welsh Assembly, who have worked hard to be selected, would expect all the polling stations to be open.
A few weeks later, some time in June—I do not remember the exact date—there will be European elections and community council elections. The Ogmore constituency has within it 22 community councils, each with a mayor and councillors, so those elections are important to the local community. That is why the council should take the decision to allow all the polling stations to remain open.
Another domestic issue that is causing concern in my constituency is the campaign that has been waged for years for the reopening of a station at Llanharan. That would serve the population of Bryna, Llanharan, Llanharry and an extensive surrounding area. The weight of public opinion and the thousands of signatures in support of the campaign that have been sent to British Rail, and which I shall pass on to the Secretary of State, should persuade him to support the moves to have the station reopened.
I do not want to take up too much time and prevent my hon. Friends from speaking in the debate. When I listened to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales speaking today, I realised that there is compassion in him. That was evident when he became justifiably annoyed by the remarks of the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley). My right hon. Friend spoke about the suffering of the families of people—male and female members of society—who are unemployed, and the problems that they face when they lose their jobs. I recall the difficulties that we have experienced in the Ogmore constituency since 1979. For instance, all our mines were closed when the Thatcher Government started closing all the mines and demanning the steel industry. Ten thousand workers were deprived of their jobs at the Margam steel works, and 8,000 miners lost their jobs. In the Ogmore constituency alone, 20,000 people were made unemployed in four years. Such people could not secure new jobs even in 10 years; but we endured 18 years of Tory government. We have suffered ever since, and we have not yet recovered.
Is it any wonder that people such as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and other Labour Members, are now eager to implement the policies that they promised the electorate that they would implement? I do not want to go into the details of what we have achieved during the time—nearly two years—during which Labour has been in government, because my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig) has already done so. I listened carefully to his speech, to that of my right hon.

583
Friend the Secretary of State and to other speeches that have been made today, all of which referred to what we have already achieved.
Not enough has been achieved, however, and not enough will have been achieved until everyone has a job and my constituents have no problems in obtaining jobs. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State should consider renewing schemes that were introduced years ago, before the invention of training and enterprise councils. TECs seem to restrict what we can do to encourage new employment.
In Ogmore and Bridgend we had a take-up scheme, which worked differently from TECs. It was a wide and varied scheme, creating 650 training places for adults and 250 places for young people. After two years in training, 95 per cent. of young people were given jobs. Why? Because of the diversity of jobs provided by the scheme. It was described as a community enterprise scheme, and it is time that the Government readopted it. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will consider that. The scheme was well known in Wales and well known to the Government, and at the time it proved so successful that the Government decided that they must change it. As a result, Ogmore lost 650 adult places and 250 places for young people.
Even at this late stage, we should reconsider implementing the Government of Wales Act 1998. We have gone through the procedures determining whom we should disbar, and other procedures determining what functions are to be devolved. Most hon. Members will remember the local government reorganisation that took place in 1974, as a result of which representatives were elected as shadow representatives for 12 months. Five local authorities in Bridgend were merged into one, Ogwr borough council, and it was essential for their councillors to be in at least a shadow position for 12 months.
During the last few years, we have experienced a different kind of local government reorganisation, and unitary authorities have been established. The same has applied: councillors have been in a shadow position for 12 months. How on earth can we expect Assembly Members to take over all the responsibilities that the Government of Wales Act confers on them, and to implement those responsibilities overnight? The election is on 6 May and they have until June to start working legally as an Assembly. That is unfair and unjust.
Mr. Win Griffiths: I understand what my hon. Friend is saying, but I think that there is a difference between local government reorganisation and the creation of the Welsh Assembly. Local government reorganisation involves the merging of four or five administrations, but the overall administration will be the same, and, as we know from all the work that was done on the Government of Wales Act, they have done a superb job for us. Given the quality of the Labour candidates—members of my hon. Friend's family, for instance— I have every confidence in their ability to assist in the creation of the Assembly.
Sir Raymond Powell: As one who had close connections on the Front Bench, was well acquainted with the Act and made a great contribution to it, my hon.
584
Friend would know far better than I whether the newly elected Members will be in a position to serve. One person who will be a great asset, and will probably not have to wait for 12 months, is Janet Gregory—my daughter. She is absolutely marvellous. Of course, I could not have said anything different. She was bound to follow her father, although she has not listened to him since the day when she was born. I hope that she will be elected; she has a very good name.
I must now conclude my speech. Another intervention and another drop of that orange squash, and I will be off. I do not know whether anyone put gin in it! In any event, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on an historic occasion. I hope that although by this time next year we shall have a Welsh Assembly, we shall continue to have Welsh debates in the House of Commons.
3.28 pm
Mr. Denzil Davies: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Sir R. Powell) will have many more opportunities to regale us and interest us, even after devolution. I do not know whether this will be the last Welsh day debate, but, in any event, the House of Commons will still be the final arbiter—the final fund, as it were—in regard to money for the Welsh Assembly. It will also determine the level of public expenditure for areas outside the remit of the Assembly. I believe that all parties in the House have agreed to that system of financing, which will be annual. The Treasury will negotiate, following which—in theory at least—the estimates will have to be dealt with by the House.
Presumably, that could have been arranged differently. There could have been a charge on the Consolidated Fund, along the lines of—I hate to say this—the system of contributions to the European Union, which do not have to be dealt with by the House. Similarly, judges' wages need not be dealt with by the House: their salaries are not cut, for reasons that are fairly obvious in the administration of justice.
We could have chosen a different system; but all parties agreed that there should be an annual system, so we must not complain about the fact that it must come back to the Treasury and, indeed, the House, and that the House must debate it in some form or other.
Sadly, we are again debating Welsh affairs when the Welsh economy is not in very good shape, which is a source of great concern to us all. I have been a Member of the House for a long time and I am not talking my own country down. Every year for the past 18 years—although I do not think it was the case in 1979—Wales has been the poorest country, region or area in Britain and its level of gross domestic product is fairly close to that of Northern Ireland. That is not something to be happy about, but it is the reality that we face.
I represent a constituency where almost 30 per cent. of the employed work force still works in production and manufacturing. Manufacturing industry is under pressure because of the global economic situation and global deflation. It is also under pressure, I am sorry to say, because the Bank of England put interest rates up when it did not need to do so. At that time, of course, the Bank of England thought it was living in a world of inflation, and central bankers take a long time to change their orthodoxy.
I am not sure whether the central bankers have changed that orthodoxy, but we are living in a world of deflation. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that one

585
of the virtues of the present Government's tenure is that long-term interest rates are at their lowest for 40 years. That is a mixed blessing. Japanese interest rates are at their lowest for 40 years as well, but that is a consequence of deflation, and that is also the case in this country. If prices are falling, which they are not yet, interest rates fall, too, but one should not necessarily welcome that. We are living in a world of deflation and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) said, that is having an effect on manufacturing industry in particular, which seems to have far less ability to increase prices than service industries.
We have talked about devolution and the Welsh Assembly. One consequence of devolution is greater transparency in respect of the amount of money and public expenditure that goes to the devolved areas and the amount of taxation and public money that is produced by those areas. Years ago, the Treasury would set its face against producing budgets for various regions and countries in the United Kingdom. It would argue that the United Kingdom was a unified state—a single market, to use the language of Brussels—with a single currency, no trade barriers and complete freedom of movement of capital and labour: the ultimate in political, economic and monetary union.
Quite apart from the difficulty of doing so, the Treasury would say, "Why do we need to produce budgets for Wales, the north-west of England and Scotland, because we are living in a unified economic and monetary state?" There was also the difficulty of finding the figures. All that has changed because of the political pressures of the past 20 or 30 years and through the use of computers, which can store so much more information. We are now in a position to produce devolved budgets, or budgets for devolved areas, showing the amount of money that goes into the area and the amount produced by it. That transparency will become more and more relevant as the budget of the Welsh Assembly and of Wales has to be considered.
The figures show that the position of Wales is not good and we should not go into the Welsh Assembly with some starry-eyed idea of the prosperity of the Welsh economy. Figures for Government expenditure—not only that of the Welsh Office, but of other Departments—and for the tax base in Wales from the past few years show a massive fiscal deficit, and we might as well face that.
The fiscal deficit is probably about £5 billion or £6 billion. One could argue a little about the figure, and it is never possible to be completely precise, but let us round it down to £5 billion. About £10 billion or £11 billion is raised in taxation, and there is about £16 billion of public expenditure, including the £7 billion that will go to the Welsh Assembly. That is the order of the deficit that has to be financed.
Let us be clear about the fact that that £5 billion comes from the United Kingdom—the London Government, or the dreaded British state, as some people call it. We can call it what we may, but that money comes from the centre—the dreaded Treasury, which, apparently, will not give us any additionality money on top of the £5 billion.
The £5 billion can be broken down into regional budgets, but it does not come from Scotland, I am sorry to say. It does not come from Northern Ireland. I do not know how much of it comes from the north of England. It must come from the more prosperous areas of England.
586
The English will be providing the £5 billion that is necessary to fund the Welsh economy. They are doing so now, and have been for the past few years. There is nothing wrong with that in a unified state, but we must be clear about where the money is coming from. It probably comes from the home counties.
Mr. Hain: Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is one reason why the economics of separatism, which are pursued by the nationalists, are pure fantasy?
Mr. Davies: That is what I am trying to say, in my less dramatic way. They are, indeed, pure fantasy, because Wales could not possibly sustain a borrowing requirement of £5 billion: it could not possibly borrow that kind of money. We would either have to raise taxation—which we could not do, because we do not have the tax base—or cut public expenditure. Without that £5 billion, the Welsh economy, certainly in terms of public expenditure, would lie somewhere around the level of Slovakia, or one of the other countries that have left the Soviet empire. That is the reality, and it is better for the Welsh Assembly to face it.
Dr. Fox: The right hon. Gentleman is arguing that the taxes that finance the block are levied across the United Kingdom as a whole and under policies set by this House. Does he therefore agree that it is logical to retain in this House a mechanism for scrutinising how that money is spent?
Mr. Davies: Logical or not, such a mechanism will be retained. That is the reality of devolution. These days, we are apparently all in favour of transparency, which is the vogue word. There will be transparency. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State negotiates with the dreaded Treasury, the figures will be on the table and will show quite clearly the payment of £5 billion a year, which comes from the Exchequer to the Welsh economy.
Some people in Wales—certainly among the chattering classes—believe that there is an escape from all that reality in Europe. I do not want to discuss Europe in the way that it has been discussed in some interventions, except to say that those people seem to think that Europe can provide a substitute for the £5 billion, which the English are providing for the Welsh economy.
I predict that one of the first acts of the Welsh Assembly will be to acquire expensive premises in the rue de la Loi, not too far from the Charlemagne building—although its name may have been changed since asbestos was found in it. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) will know it well, because he spent some time in Brussels. Expensive premises, flying the red dragon banner, will be acquired. People will get on the Brussels cocktail circuit and acquire influence, and perhaps other things as well, in the process.
We have heard about the Institute of Economic Affairs and we have heard about Professor Kevin Morgan and such people. They are also financed by the English money that comes in. No doubt there will be an attempt to escape into Europe, but there is no escape in Europe from the position of the Welsh economy.
I return to the £5 billion deficit and take my cue from the references to the single currency. If the budget deficit was related to GDP—which is about £30 billion, or

587
perhaps more in the past year—Wales could never qualify for the single currency. With a £5 billion deficit and a GDP of £30 billion, Wales has a budget deficit of more than 15 per cent., so it does not meet the criteria set out in the Maastricht treaty. Even if we round the figure down to 15 per cent., we have to remember that Greece has a deficit of 8 per cent. and cannot get into the single currency. On that score alone, there is no escape in Europe from the reality of Wales being part of the United Kingdom.
We have rightly talked a lot about objective 1 status. It is not easy to find out how much money comes to Wales from the various European funds. I have excluded from my estimates any payments under the common agricultural policy, because I cannot work that figure out. I have also excluded any notional expenditure that Wales makes into Europe, because Britain is a net contributor. Perhaps they balance each other out—I hope so.
I estimate that, over the past five years, Wales has received about £300 million a year from European Union structural funds—under objectives 2 and 5b—and Community funds such as RECHAR and various other odds and ends. That is a lot of money, but set against the £5 billion a year that comes from the British Union it is a mere drop in the ocean.
If the assorted ranks of Plaid Cymru had all been present for the debate, rather than just the reasonable hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), they would no doubt have jumped up and shouted at me about the cohesion fund. The Republic of Ireland receives payments from the cohesion fund because its GDP is lower than that of the United Kingdom. As Wales is not treated as a separate nation state in the Council of Ministers, we do not receive such funds. However, let us add the cohesion funds, which would be about the same as Ireland receives—
Mr. Rowlands: They have been abolished.
Mr. Davies: I do not know whether they have been abolished—I think the Spaniards would have something to say about that—but I am talking about the past five years. Perhaps they will be abolished. If we had qualified for cohesion funds in the past five years, we would have received £150 million—this time I have rounded the figure up. However, we would have lost the £5 billion. We do not receive the cohesion funds because we are a member of the British Union, whose GDP is too high. Leaving that aside, let us add the £150 million of cohesion funds.
We have been told that the next six years will be bonanza years, because there will be objective 1 money. I hope so. I have heard the figure of £2 billion, but I do not know whether that will survive the meetings in Berlin this weekend—let us hope that it does. If my mathematics are not too bad, that comes to £330 million a year over the next six years. What would happen to objective 2 and 5b assistance if we received objective 1 money? I have no idea, but presumably it would be slightly less. If it were halved, and we received £2 billion-worth of objective 1 assistance plus a little objective 2 money, we would get £500 million over the next six years. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Brecon and
588
Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) seems to be nodding. He understands these matters, because he goes to Brussels and talks to people.
Mr. Livsey: Occasionally.
Mr. Davies: Not too often, I hope.
Plaid Cymru wants to trade in the British Union and get the European Union—
Mr. Llwyd: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Davies: I have at last managed to provoke the hon. Gentleman to intervene.
Mr. Llwyd: I have not intervened before, because quite frankly this is fag packet economics. I can think of several amounts that the right hon. Gentleman could take into account. For example, every large company operating in Wales pays tax outside Wales. That is a huge figure, and there are many such others. I should be delighted to argue these points with him at another time, but at the moment he is, with respect, talking fag packet, unrealistic rubbish.
Mr. Davies: I am glad that I managed to provoke the hon. Gentleman. I was hoping that the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) would be here, because he would have got on his feet much sooner. Over the years, the nationalists have tried to knock these figures down—there have been various articles in the Western Mail and other worthy publications—but they have never managed to do so. It is quite simple: if Wales has the lowest income per head in the United Kingdom, obviously expenditure must be greater than the tax raised. The nationalists used to talk about defence expenditure, but they have gone off that now.
Mr. Llwyd: That is a good point.
Mr. Davies: Indeed. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not mention defence expenditure.
That is the position we are in, and £500 million against £5 billion is a small sum.
I have always thought that Welsh day debates, the Welsh Office, which was established in 1964, and now the Welsh Assembly, were introduced to preserve Welsh identity. There is also the democratic element, and the notion that the Welsh Office can runs things better than the Department of Trade and Industry or the Home Office. However, underlying all that is the need for institutions in Wales to preserve national identity—I think that is the vogue word. They are required even more now because we live in a world of global capitalism and global economics, in which the driving force of economics breaks down loyalties in communities, between individuals and between nation states.
The Welsh Assembly will exist partly to preserve Wales's national identity. I hope that it does not become a national whingeing Assembly where we are always attacking the Treasury, the London Government and the British state, and where we whinge about what more we should get, such as increased powers of taxation when there is no tax base. I hope that it does not become a place where we talk about devolution being a process and not an event, and about wanting more powers.

589
If we go down that road, we shall not be able fully to utilise the Assembly as a bulwark of the Welsh national identity and to improve Welsh democracy and the Welsh economy. We will be able to do that only if we recognise the realities of Wales's parlous economic condition.
3.47 pm
Mr. Desmond Swayne: I apologised to Madam Speaker earlier, and I now apologise to the House, for not having been present at the opening of the debate. My plans were made before we adopted the extraordinary arrangements for Thursdays in this part-time Parliament. The Speaker is well aware of my views on that, and I have been ruled out of order more than once for having drawn attention to them, so I shall not go down that road again today.
Several Labour Members have referred to the parlous state of the Welsh economy—or at least to the relatively less-well-off state of its economy. I want to draw attention to the regional trends survey published by the Confederation of British Industry on 9 February, which states:
"General business optimism has declined more rapidly in Wales than anywhere else in the United Kingdom … Output has fallen markedly, with similar falls expected in the next four months, in addition to 1,000 further job cuts forecast between the final quarter of last year and the first quarter of 1999."
Mr. Win Griffiths: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman's previous arrangements prevented him from being present for the opening speeches, but surely, at the very least, communications within his party should have enabled him to check with the shadow Minister with responsibility for constitutional affairs, because that report was mentioned at length in the opening speech from your side of the House. It is old news, and we have heard it before. It would have been much better for you to address your constituents elsewhere.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. They are not my constituents and it is not my side of the House.
Mr. Swayne: The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths)—from the party of spin—will know that these messages bear repetition. Indeed, the more they are repeated, the more likely it is that the message will be received and recorded.
There has been a significant rise in the rate of home repossessions because of unpaid mortgage repayments—an increase of 1,000 last year. In addition to the problems in the Welsh economy, there are problems for the agricultural sector. The problems of Welsh agriculture are not new. In recent years, as a result of those problems, my family withdrew from farming at Whitland on the border between Carmarthenshire and Pembrokeshire to farm in New South Wales. Although the problems have been compounding for years, it is now true that farmers in Wales have never been poorer, and they face new problems. We know that the arrangements under discussion for reform of the common agricultural policy will pose new challenges and problems to Welsh agriculture.
I wonder whether Ministers and hon. Members recognise the potential problems facing agriculture as a consequence of the increase in charges to be levied by the
590
meat hygiene service, and the potential devastation that that may do to many livestock markets. There are huge challenges for agriculture and industry in Wales.
The right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) referred to the fiscal deficit; the huge challenge facing the Welsh economy in the coming years will compound that fiscal deficit. The single European currency was mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman. The problem that the Welsh economy will face is that it runs counter-cyclical to the average European economy. Its peaks and troughs are at a different time from the average European cycle.
The European central bank is insulated from any lobbying by the regions of Europe that will be adversely affected by its interest rate policy. Indeed, Governments that make representations will stand to be fined under the existing treaty structure. Counter-cyclical economies, such as that of Wales, will find that their fiscal deficits will be exaggerated. In times of inflation, the rate of inflation in Wales will be exaggerated, and at times of unemployment, its unemployment rate will be exaggerated by the interest rate policy pursued on behalf of the European norm.
It was instructive that the right hon. Member for Llanelli drew attention to fiscal deficits, which are seen as a way around the differential effects on regions which suffer disadvantages, as Wales would. There would be an expectation that the fiscal deficit would grow, and be required to grow, so that Wales could be compensated for the adverse interest rate policy by receiving a much larger fiscal inflow from the rest of the EU.
The problem is that the arrangements to do that are not in place in Europe, as they are in the United States. A state in the United States suffering adversely as a consequence of the policies of the Federal Reserve—for example, running a recession when the rest of the economy was in boom—would expect to receive a considerable increase in federal funding to ameliorate the effects. That is not in place in terms of any single currency that we might enter. Therefore, the full brunt of the adverse consequences of the interest rate policy will be felt in terms of unemployment in Wales.
That is a challenge with which the leadership in Wales and Welsh Members of Parliament must come to terms, and about which they must make representations to the Government. Given the Government's ability to take representations from this House, I suspect that the best way of getting through to Alastair Campbell might be to ring The Sun poll on the issue. They can do so by dialling 0660 100 721.
Mr. Win Griffiths: All the hon. Gentleman has said so far is purely speculative—it is right out of the Brothers Grimm. By quoting The Sun, he merely strengthens the view that he is producing one long fairy tale for Wales.
Mr. Swayne: I am surprised to hear The Sun treated with contempt by Labour Members, who have placed such faith in its strictures in the past. However, that advance from them is welcome. It is wise to speculate on these matters. There is that branch of Christian ethics which takes literally the Lord's command to consider only the troubles that are sufficient for each day, but it behoves us, as politicians, to consider the consequences of the policies announced this week.

591
The challenges posed by the state of the economy in Wales must be set against the expectations created by Labour during the general election campaign and the pledges that Labour made on a series of problems. On transport, it was expected that there would be a significant improvement in Wales. We must set the White Paper, "Driving Wales Forward" against the reality.
Yesterday, as I came to the House, a bus from Pontypridd was unloading lobbyists on behalf of British truckers, who were complaining about the fact that, in Wales, filling a 220-gallon heavy goods vehicle tank costs £200 more than on the continent of Europe. That disadvantage must be set against the high-sounding phrases from "Driving Wales Forward" which, in some respects, might drive Wales to a standstill.
I wish to refer to the A5; a road with which, as a former schoolmaster in north Shropshire, I am familiar. As a consequence of the White Paper, we have seen the abandonment of the Bethesda bypass, the Corwen bypass, Halfway bridge and Pont Padog.
Mr. Llwyd: I know that the hon. Gentleman is no expert on Welsh affairs, but Pont Padog is in my constituency and is being done now.
Mr. Swayne: I stand corrected. In south Wales, with respect to the A470—again, a road I know well, having contested Pontypridd in 1987—and the A479 at Talgarth, there has been a considerable scaling down of projects.
On education, there have been some modest increases in the amount of money available. However, while the headline figures sound higher, the actual amount that local education authorities will spend is more modest. That must be set against the vast increase in the bureaucratic intrusion in schools—a mistake started, and now thankfully admitted, by the Conservative party. However, that is compounded by the Government's arrangements.
I quote as an example literacy hour. Everyone approves of literacy hour. It is a good thing, but the way in which it has been imposed, and the strictures and requirements that arise from it, mean that it will inevitably affect other parts of the school day. It becomes less attractive when one learns that the visit by the parish priest or vicar to a school has been curtailed or excluded as a consequence of literacy hour.
Mr. Hain: Could the hon. Gentleman explain how he thinks the literacy hour is being applied in Wales?
Mr. Swayne: The literacy hour, imposed or required in schools, has in some cases—I am aware of one—led to the ending of the vicar's visit to a school.
Mr. Hain: If the hon. Gentleman knew anything about education in Wales, he would know that we have not imposed a literacy hour on schools in Wales.
Mr. Swayne: The effect of Government policy with respect to the literacy hour has led to those consequential changes. If that is an acceptable form of words to the
592
Minister, I will be satisfied, but that must be seen against the failure, or—what is the word?—the sluggishness in delivering on class sizes.
Mr. Win Griffiths: While the hon. Gentleman was searching for the word, I thought that I might ask him to let us know whether that vicar was unable to go to a school in Wales, or in England.
Mr. Swayne: It is my son's school. He came home and told me that the vicar was excluded. I do not see that there is any difference in principle between a literacy hour in rural England and one in Wales, but, irrespective of that, what we have not seen is the reduction in class sizes that was promised.
I have always regarded the fixation with class sizes as misplaced on the ground that the relationship between class sizes and standards has always been somewhat tenuous. However, the problems will come home to roost when schools at the margin—small rural schools—find that, as a result of having to comply with the requirement to keep classes below 30, they have to acquire an extra member of staff, which will make those schools economically unviable. Pressure will then be mounted by education authorities to close the schools. I strongly suspect that parents who might have wanted class sizes below 30 and who have to make a choice between schools with classes in excess of 30 that were nevertheless local to them, and having no school at all, will choose the former rather than the latter.
Some 233 fundholding practices exist in Wales, accounting for almost 1,000 general practitioners. Those practices treat more than half the Welsh population—some 57 per cent. There is a marked lack of enthusiasm among GPs for the new collective arrangements. Of course, the governing party has made it clear that that was part of its programme and it has a mandate to do that, but it also has a mandate—it sold its policy on health with this commitment—to reduce waiting lists. There has not yet been the decline in waiting lists that we could have duly anticipated, given the hype that the governing party attached to it.
The 1.7 per cent. increase in the allocation for police forces for 1999–2000 should be set against the 2.5 per cent. increase in England. It ill behoves the Government to trumpet their success in law and order when police forces in Wales are now marginally smaller than they were when the Government came to power.
I have drawn attention to several problems or challenges, depending on the way in which one looks at it, particularly in respect of economics. Those challenges will require clear and decisive political leadership. What confidence can we have that that political leadership will be in place?
Wales is to be subjected to a new and novel form of government. I chose my words carefully—I said, "subjected". Only a majority of less than 1 per cent.—0.6 per cent.—of the electorate in Wales voted for the changes. Indeed, less than a quarter of the Welsh population voted for the arrangements that were set out in the White Paper.
As a consequence, the Government, in humility, announced that they would be sensitive in the arrangements that were put in place. That pledge was made by the Prime Minister on the day after the

593
referendum and repeated in some respects by the then Secretary of State for Wales, the right hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies). He said:
"the referendum results showed a marked difference in views between both north Wales and south Wales and between east Wales and west Wales … I am conscious that we need to do a lot more work to bring Wales together. We must address genuine concerns and I acknowledge the fact that we must listen and continue to listen".—[Official Report, Welsh Grand Committee, 18 November 1997; c. 12.]
Some of us on the Conservative Benches have wondered throughout the process precisely what the sensitivity consists of. The arrangements that have been put in place strike me as somewhat insensitive.
The pledge in paragraph 3.33 of the White Paper—that Wales would remain an integral part of the United Kingdom—did not appear in the Government of Wales Bill, despite the fact that amendments were tabled so that it would. Now it is an Act, it contains no such provision, but what it does contain is the arrangement by which more power can be granted to the Assembly on the basis of statutory orders and a 90-minute debate in the House, with no provision by which powers can be restored and moved the other way. What we have is a ratchet effect by which the Assembly's powers might grow at the expense of the House. That does not strike me as representing the sensitivity that was required in respect of the referendum result.
We understand, and have understood for some months, that the Secretary of State for Wales is also to be the First Secretary of the Assembly—the emperor is also to be the consul. The character of that Assembly is still entirely opaque. The Government of Wales Act 1998 makes it clear that the Assembly might adopt a Cabinet system of government, but there is no requirement for it to do so, so Wales faces considerably uncertain times.
Given the demand for clear political leadership and vision, the most striking deficit in respect of the Welsh government arrangements is the voting system that has been put in place to supply Members of the Assembly. Voters will have two votes. The first will be cast in a first-past-the-post ballot, in the same way as votes are cast to elect Members of the House. In addition, voters will cast a second vote. The seats allocated on the basis of the second vote will be calculated by an extraordinary method.
For each electoral region, the number of votes cast for a particular party will be added up and divided by one more than the number of seats that that party has already won under the first-past-the-post arrangements in that electoral region. Explain that to the ordinary voter and try to persuade him of the connection between casting his vote and delivering a Member of Parliament from out of the sausage machine. I defy hon. Members to try fairly to explain such a system to ordinary voters. Confidence in the democratic system rests precisely on the ability to explain the operating electoral system.
Dr. Julian Lewis: If I understood my hon. Friend correctly, he was saying that the system will result also in two rather different types of Member of Parliament. Am I right in thinking that the effect of that
594
will be that whereas some Members of Parliament will be accountable and responsible to their constituents, other Members of Parliament will lack that same type of link?
Mr. Swayne: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. It is unfortunate that Wales is to become something of a social experiment in those matters. We will have to wait to see how the system works. Currently, it is unclear.
The system is worse than I have described it, because of the way in which parties have gone about selecting their candidates for the second ballot. There is a perception—in these matters, perceptions are very important indeed—that there has been a stitch-up. The perception is compounded by the arrangements that the Labour party has made for the election of its own leadership candidate. It is a tribute to "people's democracies" that that election system should have been designed to deliver the desired result. The desired result was indeed delivered.
We shall have to await the outcome of the arrangements to discover whether they will provide the leadership and vision that is capable of delivering solutions to the problems that I mentioned earlier. I have grave doubts that they are so capable. I hope that I am wrong.
4.12 pm
Mr. Gareth Thomas: The debate has focused, quite understandably, on issues of the Welsh economy. I shall take a different course, however, and deal briefly with two matters. The first is our priceless national asset in Wales—the Welsh language and its future role, particularly in the National Assembly for Wales. Secondly, I shall deal briefly with some aspects of the constitutional future, and the relationship between the National Assembly and this place.
I should like first to say a few words about the economy in Wales. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) that the Assembly's priority has to be jobs, jobs and jobs. I agree entirely also with the Secretary of State that we have to combat social exclusion in Wales and improve the performance of the Welsh economy. There is an expectation that the European Union structural funds that we hope will be coming to Wales will be of assistance to us. I also believe that the Secretary of State's position on additionality is entirely understandable and realistic. It would be wrong to put the cart before the horse, or for the Treasury to make any firm commitments on additionality.
The economy is a very real issue in my constituency. We have grave concerns also because of job losses in the adjoining constituency of Conwy. The Minister will be aware that, yesterday, job losses were announced at Hotpoint, Llandudno Junction. I hope that the Secretary of State—when I meet him next Tuesday, with a delegation from Conwy—will be prepared to discuss the issue, and how we might mitigate the effects of those job losses, which are a blow to the local economy.
Today is very near to St. David's day. It is always appropriate that we should have pride in the Welsh language. The Welsh language belongs to all the people of Wales, regardless of whether they speak Welsh. I welcome the fact that the language is not the political football that it might have been many years ago. I believe that the Welsh Language Board has in the main done good work. I believe also that, although the language should

595
not be a political issue, politicians—particularly politicians elected to the Assembly—should be prepared to ask sometimes awkward questions about how money is spent on policies designed to support the Welsh language.
I should like more money to be spent on community-related activity to foster the Welsh language at the grass roots level. I represent a constituency in which the Welsh language is spoken widely, by ordinary people. There is genuine popular demand for services in the Welsh language.
I am aware of one recent case in my constituency in which a Welsh-speaking family—ordinary, working-class people—wanted to send their child to a Welsh-medium school. She is suffering from a very serious hearing impediment, which means that she has special needs and at school will require intensive speech therapy. However, she may not be able to receive speech therapy in the Welsh language. Although the matter is being pursued through the normal channels, it supports my view that, although much progress has been made in improving the status of the Welsh language, much has still to be done. I am of course aware that we have to tread sensitively and practically.
I should like to make two specific points on the language issue as it will affect the National Assembly for Wales. Given the fragmented nature of the Welsh political identity, it is a major political achievement that we stand at the threshold of huge political changes in Wales. There is an expectation that the Assembly will improve Wales's economic performance, although we do not know how realistic is that expectation. There is an expectation also that it will improve the profile of Welsh culture and of the Welsh language.
I should be grateful if the Minister could reassure me on two points. If those who are able and willing to speak Welsh publicly in Assembly sessions are to have confidence in doing so, a good quality translation facility should be available. Assembly Members also should have confidence in the accuracy of translations. It may surprise hon. Members to learn that I have recently fallen foul of that expectation.
As right hon. and hon. Members will know, at the beginning of this week, the Welsh Grand Committee met in Aberaeron. I delivered a speech in Welsh, but was much surprised and frustrated, not to say rather annoyed, to learn that the translation that was provided for Hansard—this is not a criticism of Hansard, incidentally—was very inaccurate in many respects. The matter is being pursued through the Chairman of the Welsh Grand Committee. However, we must have confidence that we shall have a good-quality translation, or the Welsh language will not be used as much as it should be.
The proceedings of the National Assembly will be reported. There is perhaps a misunderstanding that the verbatim report, at least the one in Welsh, will not be available for some days after a speech has been delivered. Hon. Members have been lobbied on the issue, and I should be grateful if the Minister could clarify the precise position. I realise that there is a difference between
596
preparing the final bound text and a draft of speeches, but, if Members are to use the Welsh language publicly, they should not have to do so under such a hindrance.
Mr. Evans: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, with the use of new technology, there is absolutely no reason why transcripts could not be put on the internet within a matter of hours, rather than Members having to wait days for printed texts?
Mr. Thomas: I agree entirely. As I said, I should like some clarification from Ministers on the issue.
It will be interesting to see how a Welsh debate, such as this one, will be conducted in 10 or 20 years. We are in a time of great constitutional change, and it is not clear where it is taking us. I am rather sceptical about the idea of a Europe of the regions. There is considerable loyalty to the idea of the British state, even among those who strongly support the need to preserve Welsh political and cultural identity through the Assembly.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) said, we have to accept the fact that there are big fiscal transfers from England to Wales. However, we are in a time of change. The penny has not quite dropped in this place about the procedural consequences of devolution. I am not entirely confident that the Government have got it right on the role of oral questions to the Secretary of State for Wales or the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs. I hope that the Committee will continue in more or less its present form, taking a cross-cutting brief examining all aspects of primary legislation and policy that affect Wales.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Carmarthen and South Pembrokeshire (Mr. Ainger) and I recently had the privilege of attending various meetings with colleagues from Scotland, Northern Ireland and the Federal Republic of Germany at the invitation of the German Government.
Mr. Rowlands: I have never thought that the Welsh Affairs Committee did enough on the block grant. Should not that be one of the centrepieces of its future work?
Mr. Thomas: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that remark. I entirely agree that that would be a worthwhile area of study.
The Germans are very interested in what is going on in the United Kingdom. I was told by a member of the German Foreign Ministry that devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would make us a more normal country in European terms. That is a telling remark. Our regime is over-centralised. I welcome the trend towards devolution. I do not share the scepticism of those who maintain that there is no demand for devolution in the English regions. That will come. Although our system of quasi-federalism is asymmetrical and will cause problems, there is no reason why we cannot have a more rational constitution. We need some joined-up thinking on the constitution as well as on social policy.
One of the apocryphal incidents ascribed to Dewi Sant, or St. David, our patron saint, is the time when the ground rose up beneath his feet when he was delivering a sermon somewhere in mid-Wales. That is a striking symbol that makes us think of raising awareness, raising standards and raising horizons. The Assembly has a crucial role in raising standards across Wales. As a patriotic Welshman,

597
I regret to say that we are too often seen as a mediocre country in many respects. We need a crusade to raise standards across the board—in education, local government and all walks of life, including industry.
4.23 pm
Mr. Alan W. Williams: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas). I agree with virtually everything that he said.
I hope that this annual debate continues after the establishment of the Assembly, because it gives us a free agenda to speak on any aspect of Welsh affairs, including constituency issues. I learn a lot every year from the contributions of my hon. Friends and, occasionally, from Opposition Members.
I should like to focus most of my remarks on constituency issues. There has been a generally gloomy feeling to the debate, with everyone describing the problems across Wales and in their areas. I shall start with the gloomiest aspect, but I hope that there will be some optimism in the second part of my speech.
The most difficult aspect of the Welsh economy is the crisis in agriculture. I do not know where its origins lie but, in the past year, farmers' incomes have dropped by about 40 per cent., having already suffered a 40 per cent. drop the previous year. There is deep despondency about the future.
I keep reassuring farmers that things will get better and that next year cannot be as bad as last year. One of the problems was that prices in September and October fell catastrophically. The problems in Russia and south-east Asia and the high pound may have been contributory factors, but the catastrophic drop has not been properly explained. During the past year, interest rates have fallen from 7.5 to 5.5 per cent. I am confident that, over the next three or four years, they will drop to 5, 4 or 3 per cent., and below, as we prepare to join the European single currency. With that will come a fall in the value of the pound, which will help to restore competitiveness, putting up the price of imported goods, enhancing our exports and creating more demand for agricultural products.
The other element of despondency in agriculture relates to the negotiations in Brussels on reform of the common agricultural policy. I have felt for 20 years and more that the CAP drastically needs reform. It does not deliver what it was constructed for. It is a wasteful policy, because three quarters of the resources go to the richest 25 per cent. of farmers. Rather than supporting small, poor farmers, it gives million-pound subsidies to millionaire farmers—the barley barons and others. I hope that the discussions in Brussels result in a fairer and better-targeted CAP, moving away from production support towards the environment, thereby moving away from supporting rich farmers to supporting small farmers. There is deep anxiety throughout rural communities about the results of the negotiations, which we await over the next few days.
I am pleased with the progress being made on unemployment. I see the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) in his place. I am aware of the severe blow in Ystradgynlais, where 700 jobs will go because of the Lucas closure. There are odd black spots, but unemployment in Britain has dropped by 40 per cent. in the past two years. In my constituency, there were
598
1,855 people out of work in December 1996 and 1,224 in December 1998. That is a one third reduction. We are making excellent progress on reducing unemployment. The useful research papers produced every month by the Library on unemployment in individual constituencies show that my constituency has the sixth lowest level of unemployment in south Wales and the lowest in south-west Wales. The figure is currently 4.3 per cent. I am reassured by the fact that it is half what it was 10 years ago, so we are making outstanding progress.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig) said, thanks to the new deal, youth unemployment has halved and long-term unemployment has fallen by 57 per cent., so we are tackling unemployment head on.
The biggest problem in my area is low pay, something that is endemic in the Welsh economy, particularly in west Wales and Gwynedd, which have very low per capita incomes. The income per capita in Wales is 83 per cent. of that in Britain, but in west Wales and the valleys it is only 71 per cent. of that in Britain. That is partly due to low pay. The Government's legislation on the minimum wage, which will take effect in April, will provide a massive boost for my constituents as 15 per cent. of employees in Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr earn less than £3.50 an hour. The minimum wage of £3.60 an hour for people over 25 will directly benefit more than 3,000 people in my constituency—the poorest people in work. It will also provide a foundation for other wages. It is a wonderful, socially progressive measure providing for the redistribution of income and it will be a great monument to our Labour Government.
The other major topic of today's debate is objective 1 funding, which has been mentioned by many hon. Members. Objective 1 funding, if it is achieved, will provide a one-off opportunity, but for only six years. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) said, it is sad that Wales is in a deep depression and that our income per capita is so low that we need to apply for objective 1 status. However, it will provide a once-in-a-generation opportunity to pull out of the bottom league, stop being the poorest region in Britain and start motoring ahead.
I should like to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), the previous Secretary of State, and to the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), who is not in his place. I should also mention my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths). During the past 12 to 18 months, the Front-Bench team has done a great deal of hard work putting together the statistics and presenting the case, not ranting passionately like the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), but in a cool, rational and diplomatic fashion, using the force of argument rather than the argument of force. We are grateful to the Front-Bench team for all its good work so far and we hope that, in March, we shall finally achieve objective 1 status.
I wish that there were more reports of the work of the task force under Hywel Ceri Jones, which was an imaginative and forward-looking idea. It involves about 160 working parties in different parts of Wales. Over the next 12 months to five years, they will have the enormous

599
responsibility of drawing up hundreds of schemes involving the infrastructure, businesses and skills and training to equip us for long-term economic advancement.
Mr. Evans: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the inconsistency of his argument? He began his speech by saying how wonderful Wales was doing and how great things were, but he then said that it needed objective 1 status as things were so bad. The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. Is Wales doing well or is it not?
Mr. Williams: I am not surprised by the hon. Gentleman's intervention. It is an example of the superficiality of most of his remarks from the Opposition Front Bench. Let me explain my analysis. Eighteen years of Conservative Government left Wales in a desperate plight at the bottom of the regional league. My own area has only 71 per cent. of the income per capita of Britain. After 18 months under Labour, we have moved forward. As I said, unemployment has fallen by a third in my area and the new deal has given new hope for young people and the long-term unemployed. The minimum wage will also help, as will forthcoming measures involving child benefit, education and health. The picture is changing, but we cannot repair 18 years of damage in 18 months.
We need objective 1 support to regenerate the Welsh economy. I am very hopeful that we will achieve that. I mentioned some of the projects that we need. However, there appears to be a misconception, especially in rural areas, about objective 1 funding. In some farming communities, it is said that when Ireland achieved objective 1 status there were suddenly great times and that the money was there to be enjoyed—that it was money for nothing going directly into people's pockets. That is not the purpose of objective 1 funding. It is money not for today, but for long-term investment in the infrastructure to provide roads, industrial estates, water supplies, sewerage, gas and so on. It is to help businesses finance research and development and innovation.
Let me quote one example. The Science and Technology Committee has been looking at innovation in engineering and physical sciences—a sector in which Britain does not stand comparison with Germany, Japan and the United States. Newer ideas include science parks and technology transfer in an attempt to provide a middle tier between universities and industry. Objective 1 money could be used to further that. Wales has some notable academic institutions with excellent departments. We need to expand research and development and innovation. It is important also to provide skills training for those who are out of work or between jobs and further and higher education for young people. We need a multiplicity of courses to provide the skills for tomorrow's industries.
Mention has been made of matching plans and where they should come from. My feeling is that, if 75 per cent. of the money comes from Europe under objective 1, it is nothing to find the other 25 per cent. For instance, if I wanted to spend £20,000 on my house—not that I want an extension—and I was told that I could get £15,000 free of charge from the local authority, or wherever, and that I had to spend only £5,000 of my own money, I would soon find a way of raising £5,000. It does not make much difference whether the money comes from the Treasury, the Welsh Office or local authorities as it is all taxpayers' money and we are all taxpayers.
600
The Secretary of State will have to put the case to the Treasury. As my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas) said, we must not put the cart before the horse. First, we must get objective 1 status and then we must open negotiations with the Treasury on how it can help us—in addition to the Barnett formula—to raise those matching funds.
If the Treasury will not help, the Welsh Office block grant will be under pressure. We want money to improve the health service, education and other services. I am reluctant for the Welsh Office to be squeezed for the extra £100 million, or whatever the sum may be. I would rather that the funding came from local authorities. Our manifesto said that we would get rid of council tax capping and allow local government to set its own budget, restoring a freedom that exists in virtually every other part of the world.
Mr. Llwyd: I agree that an element of partnership is desirable, but let us be honest: local authorities are already under severe financial constraints and will not be in any position to contribute substantially, although they might make a nominal contribution. Even if all the council house receipts were available, that would not amount to very much.
Mr. Williams: I disagree fundamentally. It has taken 20 years to happen, but the ratio of local government expenditure that is raised locally is down to about 10 or 12 per cent. in Wales, with 90 per cent. coming from the Welsh Office in the standard spending assessment. That is unhealthy for local democracy. Rather than taxing and spending nationally, I would prefer local government to be allowed to spend what it deems appropriate on education, highways and all the other services. Certainly, the bulk should come from the Welsh Office, but there should be that freedom.
A poll carried out in Milton Keynes recently, and published in The Guardian last Tuesday, demonstrates the public acceptance of that view. We can learn certain lessons from England. The poll shows how people value their local authorities. The Government guideline was for a 5 per cent. increase in council tax, while the council in Milton Keynes wanted a 10 per cent. increase. The council balloted people on whether the increase should be 5, 10 or 15 per cent.
The results were very revealing. There was a higher turnout than in any council election: 45 per cent. as opposed to only 26 per cent. in the most recent council elections. Of those who voted, 23.6 per cent. voted for a 15 per cent. rise; 46 per cent. for 10 per cent.; and 30 per cent. for 5 per cent. That was in Tory middle England, as it were, although the council and the parliamentary seats are now Labour. Seventy per cent. wanted an increase of 10 per cent. or more, knowing that it would be spent on their local services. I think that people in Wales are very much of that frame of mind. If they see the benefit of services locally, they will vote to pay for them.
If any of the objective 1 money that we hope will be available within the next year or so were not used, we would lose a one-off opportunity and deny the advantage to our children and grandchildren. We must use it all, and if local authorities need to get involved in raising the matching funds, they should play their part.
4.44 pm
Ms Julie Morgan: This is the last St. David's day debate before devolution and the Welsh general election. I hope that this annual debate will continue to take place so that Welsh Members who are not going to the Assembly will still have the opportunity to raise the wide-ranging issues that we have discussed today.
We do not yet know what impact constitutional reform will have on the Chamber. My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas) raised the issue of the future of Welsh questions. I know that the Procedure Committee has started to consider that. I cannot see how Welsh questions can continue in the same way if we are holding the Secretary of State accountable for the powers that remain to him. That is an unknown quantity, as is the future of the Welsh Affairs Committee, which I hope may be found a role in pre-legislative scrutiny, especially of the way in which Bills affect Wales.
We are moving into the unknown. That is an essential part of change and of the process of devolution. In addition to devolution and the setting up of the Assembly, reform of the House of Lords is bound to result in a second Chamber with more legitimacy, which in turn is bound to affect the workings of this Chamber. For the Welsh Members who will remain here, it is a time of change and uncertainty, but, for those of us who have been committed to and campaigned for devolution for many years, it is a time of great excitement. This is a day to celebrate what we have achieved.
Many people have said that we have unrealistic expectations of devolution, but I unashamedly have great expectations and look forward with tremendous excitement to the first meeting of the Assembly in Cardiff, with politicians from all over Wales coming together and starting to sort out the problems that the Government have already begun to address. I hope that we will be able to start building up forward-looking, strong, healthy communities, bringing power closer to the people and giving them a greater chance to sort out their own affairs, with women and men playing equal roles, which is an important issue for the Assembly.
Mr. Huw Edwards: Is not it a great credit to our party that the twinning process that we introduced last year has produced such an outstanding range of women Labour candidates, who will be in the Assembly in a few months?
Ms Morgan: I could not agree more. The difference between the Assembly and the House of Commons is that there will be a much more representative group of people there than I see here today. I think that the style of conducting business there will be different, and more productive, because a much wider cross-section of the population will be involved. The beginning of the new democracy is an opportunity to look afresh at our constituencies, for example, and to see what we want to change and what the Assembly can do to help that change. The economic issues have been well covered today, so I shall concentrate on other issues.
The publication of the Stephen Lawrence report yesterday has made us all aware of the extent of racism in Britain. That applies equally in Wales. The objective statistics for Cardiff show that young black men are many
602
more times likely to be unemployed than their white peers. South Wales police have announced sharp increases in the number of reported racial attacks, as has Cardiff and the vales race equality council, Race Equality First. When I was a councillor, I knew of Asian women who were afraid to leave their houses and walk on the streets of Cardiff because of the abuse they received from groups of youths.
I hope that the Assembly will be the inclusive body that people say it will. To me, inclusivity means including black people in decision making and in consultation. I am pleased and proud that the Labour party has a black woman candidate, Councillor Cherry Short, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards), and we will win that seat on 6 May. It is a great credit that we have a black candidate for the National Assembly who will win her seat.
The Stephen Lawrence report recommended an immediate review of racism awareness training in the police force and other agencies. The setting up of the National Assembly is an opportunity to ensure that anti-racist strategies are in place from the beginning and that a programme is introduced so that all its employees have such training. I also believe that the members elected to the Assembly should have anti-racist training. I hope that those hon. Members who leave here for the Assembly will help to ensure that that happens.
Dr. Julian Lewis: I am a member of a religious minority, the Jewish community, which experienced before the war persecution and prejudice similar to what the coloured community experiences now. I have some slight reservations about going as far as the hon. Lady in her proposals for anti-racist training for all sorts of groups before it is established that there is a problem in those groups. Otherwise, there is a danger that one might create resentment and a problem, where no problem exists.
Ms Morgan: The evidence put before the House yesterday undoubtedly shows that there is a problem. Members of Parliament, as the law makers, should also have anti-racist training. When we first come to the House, we have no opportunity to access the type of training that is provided automatically in many jobs, including training in equal opportunities and disability awareness. We lose out because of that, and I hope that Members elected to the Welsh Assembly—a fresh start and a new opportunity—have the chance to experience such training.
The Equal Opportunities Commission and the Commission for Racial Equality will still be the responsibility of the Department for Education and Employment, although both have regional offices in Wales. It is essential that a strong link is made between those bodies and the Welsh Assembly, so that they can all promote equal opportunities.
I am a member of the Welsh Refugee Council and we have recently seen an unprecedented increase in the number of cases with which it deals. The numbers have increased from a handful in 1994 to almost 200. That is due partly to the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 and also because south Wales contains established communities from countries such as Somalia, Sudan and Iraq. The new proposals in the Immigration and Asylum Bill are likely to increase the number of asylum seekers

603
coming to Wales and it is essential that we have a cohesive and practical response. I hope that, in the Special Standing Committee, the Government will reconsider the cashless system that they propose for all asylum seekers. That system is already in place for asylum seekers who apply in-country; the experience of the Welsh Refugee Council is that it is stigmatising and creates major problems for daily living. The council is also concerned that asylum seekers should have a say in where they are placed in the country so that they have access to community support, health facilities, translation facilities and education in English as a second language. We need a comprehensive, on-going programme so that refugees who settle in Wales can become full and equal citizens.
The National Assembly should give everyone living in Wales the opportunity to become full and equal citizens. The essential test will be the difference that it makes to people living in difficult circumstances. The Assembly must make a difference to people such as the lone parents with small children struggling along on a council estate in one of the valleys or on the outskirts of Cardiff, where the local shop has closed because of competition from out-of-town supermarkets. We must try to make a difference to people such as that, and success or failure will be a test of the value of the Assembly.
An inclusive Assembly will also include the voluntary organisations that make such a tremendous contribution to the life of Wales. Countless people spend their time enriching their communities, for no payment. I want to mention organisations such as Mewn Cymru, which speaks for black women, and BAWSO, which has set up a refuge for black women.
As long as I have been involved in politics, organisations such as that have always been knocking on the door, trying to get in. The Assembly should start off with a place already available for such bodies. Any concordat or consultative process must take advantage of such groups, and the Assembly should include people from all the different minority groups and voluntary bodies. I have mentioned only a few of them, but there are many in Wales.
Mr. Lembit Öpik: Does the hon. Lady agree that the Assembly should not rely on those organisations to do its work? They are not a cheap alternative, and the Assembly cannot use them to escape its social responsibilities. Sometimes I feel that that is what the Government do.
Ms Morgan: There is no question of the organisations being used to do work that should be done by the Government, the Assembly or local authorities. The point of establishing strong links with the voluntary organisations is to take advantage of their knowledge and expertise. They are eager for that to happen, and their knowledge will enrich the Assembly's programmes and policies. As a result, we will have a rich and inclusive Assembly.
When we have this debate this time next year, the Assembly will be up and running, and I hope that it will have started to deal with all the matters that have been raised today. I believe that the Assembly represents a tremendous step forward, and I look forward to hearing, this time next year, about some of the things that are happening there.
4.58 pm
Mr. Martin Caton: I want to concentrate on a particular matter that has arisen in my constituency, although it may have ramifications beyond the borders of Gower.
Earlier this week, Barclays bank got some positive publicity for funding research by the Groundwork Trust into the relationship between communities and their environment. That research was all good green stuff, and scored lots of brownie points for the bank's environmental credentials. However, a very different picture has emerged of the bank's attitude to a community determined to live in harmony with its natural environment, rather than to impose itself upon that environment.
About 10 days ago, a representative of the High Court's sheriff office visited the community, a settlement called Holtsfield, and told the residents that he wanted to check six of the wood-built chalets, in preparation for evictions any time in the next few months. The sheriff office was acting on warrants taken out by a property development company called Elitestone, which is bankrolled by the bank that likes to appear to care about communities and the environment.
This story is not even the traditional tale of capitalism putting profits before people. It started out as that, but there is no way that the 14-acre site can give Elitestone enough of a return to enable it to repay the £750,000 that it owes Barclays. As far as I can see, the evictions of six families will be driven by the malice and vindictiveness of the director of Elitestone. Barclays knows that—I have told the bank so myself—but it refuses to pull the rug from under him.
I should explain briefly the recent history of Holtsfield. It is a unique part of the heritage of Gower, a group of 27 chalets at the upper end of the Caswell valley on the edge of Bishop's Wood nature reserve. The chalets are situated in woodland around a central field. They are highly individual and picturesque, and they complement wonderfully their beautiful natural setting. One has a turf roof, and its electricity is supplied by a wind generator.
Originally built between the wars for holiday purposes, the chalets became homes for blitz refugees during the second world war. In subsequent years, they were increasingly occupied permanently. In 1990, in recognition of the quality of the settlement and its historic importance, Swansea city council designated it a conservation area. At present, 60 people live there, 24 of them children. Some of the adults have lived there for more than 40 years, and they include pensioners, the warden of the nature reserve, an architect, a merchant navy sailor, a nurse, a teacher, the manager of a care home, a photographer, a wood turner, an artist, a sculptor, a potter and a geologist.
Almost all the children have spent their whole lives there. They attend the local school, and the teachers say that they make a special and valuable contribution. This is no transient, hippy community, as the property company has tried to paint it. It is a group of people who have found a way of living that impacts as little as possible on an environment that they treasure and that they are determined to sustain.
Holtsfield is a real community. People there do not lock their doors when they go out—indeed, some of the chalets have no lock. People there look after one another. The community is not isolated from the wider community, and it makes a valuable contribution to the village in which

605
it is set—Murton, which adjoins Bishopston. That contribution has been repaid by the support that the community has received from the residents of those and other surrounding villages since Holtsfield came under threat.
The threat began nearly 10 years ago when the freehold ownership of the field changed hands. Until then, the chalet dwellers owned their chalets, but were granted individual licences by the freeholders. In September 1989, the freehold was bought by Elitestone Ltd. with money borrowed from Barclays. Within months, the director of Elitestone had made clear his intentions to force the residents out of their homes, and to build a housing estate on the site.
For almost 10 years, some of the people of Holtsfield have lived under threat of losing their homes and the special way of life that they love. It was Elitestone's applications to build, first, 39 houses, and then 15, that led to Swansea—I was a member of the council at the time—designating Holtsfield a conservation area, thus refusing to allow any major new development.
Elitestone sought to challenge that decision by appealing to the Welsh Office, but when conservation status was supported by the Welsh Office, the company challenged the decision further by seeking judicial review right up to the Court of Appeal in London. Elitestone lost every time. The Welsh Office got it exactly right when it dismissed the appeal, stating:
"Holtsfield, in its distinctly Arcadian setting, forms an integral part of the countryside in contrast to the suburban character indicated on the illustrative drawing of the proposed development."
As well as trying to change the site's planning status, Elitestone was also acting directly against the residents. The company claimed that chalet dwellers had no legal rights, and that their right to occupy their homes was granted by the renewal of licences at the freehold owner's complete discretion. A series of letters followed, demanding that residents move and surrender their chalets to Elitestone. Other letters demanded large sums of money. Residents, through their excellent solicitor, held that they had tenants' rights, and that the licences were, in fact, tenancies.
In April 1991, the residents received the first summonses for possession of the land and, for the next four years, legal wrangling, court cases and appeals overshadowed the lives of all the families at Holtsfield, ending with the devastating and absurd decision of the Court of Appeal, in July 1995, that their homes were temporary mobile structures. Many of those temporary mobile structures had been there for more than 50 years, and some people had lived in them for 40 years.
As a last resort, the residents applied, in desperation, for leave to appeal to the House of Lords and, at the same time, tried to meet and negotiate with the director of Elitestone. However, he was having none of it and, instead, applied for possession warrants for four of the chalets. On 19 October 1995, the county court bailiff arrived to serve the notices. He was met by the residents and more than 300 local supporters who came to show their solidarity—I was there that day. The bailiff was not, however, prevented from serving the notices.
At 7.30 am on 22 November 1995, the sheriff, his men and a private security firm appointed by Elitestone arrived on Holtsfield and, with excessive aggression and damage to property, proceeded with the evictions. The residents
606
attached themselves to their homes with chains—indeed the local vicar did the same thing to show his outrage—but they offered no other resistance. I arrived just after the evictions were completed, but saw the damage and, what was worse, the distress, especially that caused to the children. That 7.30 am raid took place despite the High Court sheriffs promise that there would be no evictions until after the children had gone to school at 9 am.
The six families, waiting now for their evictions, know only too well what they have to expect and they dread it. However, they are not prepared to walk away from their homes and their way of living. Thankfully, in January 1996, the residents were granted leave to appeal to the House of Lords and the county court recorder refused to hear any further applications for eviction until the House of Lords decision was known. For a time, there was some respite. To highlight their plight, some of the residents marched all the 250 miles to London to arrive on 20 March 1997—the date of the House of Lords hearing.
On 1 May, they received their judgment and it was good news: full Rent Acts protection to the test-case residents, and acceptance that their chalets were proper homes and proper fixtures. That ruling was extended to cover most of the other chalets by a subsequent court ruling. However, not all the residents were protected because some had not lived on Holtsfield long enough; about eight chalets were not protected and Elitestone is now gunning for six of them.
Why is that, and why does Barclays bank still back the company? Any hope of development has gone out of the window; it is prevented by the conservation area status and the security of tenure of the majority of the chalets. Have the residents behaved badly or unreasonably? Far from it, they have offered to pay Elitestone a reasonable rent and have tried to negotiate with the company through their solicitor. It is Elitestone that refuses to talk. I can identify only revenge and mean-mindedness as the reasons for the attempt to make those families homeless.
Barclays should have pulled the plug on Elitestone a long time ago, on the basis of the bank's own environmental and ethical policies; it should pull the plug now on the basis of sound financial management. There is no profit to be made at Holtsfield, only the potential for a lot of heartache. Barclays holds a legal charge against Holtsfield. If the bank stops propping up Elitestone, it will become the landlord of that community, with the chance to put its fine words about communities and the environment into practice. Failing that, we must consider a solution that includes compulsory purchase, and I know that the local authority and a housing association are exploring that possibility with the residents. I hope that the Welsh Office and, subsequently, the Welsh Assembly will be as helpful as possible in terms of finance for that approach if that should be the outcome. I hope that everyone will recognise that what we have in Holtsfield is special and sensitive; it must not be replaced with some off-the-shelf social housing alternative.
The Government need to consider the issue of speculative land purchase where people's homes are involved. The people of Holtsfield have had the sword of Damocles hanging over their heads for almost 10 years; that should not be happening to them and it should never be allowed to happen to anybody else.
5.10 pm
Mr. Huw Edwards: I apologise for not being present for the early part of the debate as I had a dental appointment. It is a privilege to contribute to the debate: the last to be held this century and the last under the present constitutional arrangements. There was no equivalent debate last year as we were considering the Government of Wales Bill, which will change fundamentally the context in which we debate many issues.
Yesterday and the day before, we passed the orders that transfer responsibilities from the Secretary of State to the National Assembly for Wales. It is significant to note not only what was transferred, but what was not. Main policy areas that will not be transferred to the National Assembly include macro-economic policy, social security, the justice system, prisons, the police and the fire services, the national lottery, labour market policy and defence. I think that there will always be a role for this debate, for the Welsh Grand Committee and for the Welsh Affairs Select Committee, in examining those policy areas that impact upon Wales but are not the responsibility of the National Assembly.
I mentioned defence, which has some significance in Wales and in my constituency. There is considerable concern at present about the future provision and development of ammunition in this country. The royal ordnance factory at Glascoed in my constituency manufactures ammunition and employs about 400 people. However, the factory and the future of those 400 workers are under threat due to the recent decision by the Ministry of Defence to purchase propellant from South Africa rather than from a royal ordnance factory in Scotland. I have a duty to represent those employees in this place and express my concerns about the actions of the Ministry of Defence in passing responsibility for producing propellant to another country. Although South Africa is a friendly country, there is a strong case, under a sustainable defence policy, for producing our own armaments in Britain rather than being overly dependent on imports.
The factory employees in Glascoed have worked extremely hard during recent conflicts. They produced the ammunition needed in the Iraq and the Falklands wars, and it would be a great tragedy if their jobs were jeopardised. I know that the Defence Select Committee is considering the matter, so I shall say no more at this stage. However, I think it is important to raise the subject.
Another issue of particular importance, not only to Wales but to my constituency, is farming. I am grateful that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently visited my constituency and a local farm at LLanbadoc near Usk. The farmer, Nigel Bowyer, is a young man with a family. He says that he has been losing money on his farm for the past two years, partly because he is a lowland farmer.
To their credit, the Government have produced an emergency aid package for farming. However, it does not apply to lowland farmers to a great extent. We can be truly proud of recent developments in agriculture: the success in lifting the beef ban in Europe, the emergency aid package, the review of hill livestock compensatory allowance payments and the brutal honesty with which the Minister for Agriculture has recognised the problems in the industry and given a commitment to farmers to do all in his power to work on their behalf.
608
However, some problems remain. Recent Welsh Office figures show that there has been a 41 per cent. drop in farm incomes this year. There is concern about the Agenda 2000 programme and the need to protect the small family farms that are so characteristic of Wales. The beef ban in Europe has been lifted, but we have not resumed beef exports. Milk prices have fallen, and there is concern about the funding of the Food Standards Agency, which the Government are reviewing at present.
When my right hon. Friend came to my constituency with a senior officer from the Welsh Office agricultural division, we drew their attention to the complicated forms that many farmers must fill in these days. We also pointed out that, if farmers make inadvertent mistakes in completing those forms, they can be heavily penalised. Payments that should be made to them are often delayed for an unreasonably long time because they have made unintentional mistakes. Of course we accept the importance of achieving accuracy and avoiding fraud, but when those forms were compared to equivalent forms from Ireland, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his officials acknowledged that the forms from Ireland had a more customer-friendly approach, so I ask Welsh Ministers to consider that issue.
Environmental payments have been a concern to hon. Members. We applaud the developments in tir gofal but significant additional resources could be invested in agri-environmental schemes.
The local authorities can play a greater role in agriculture. My authority in Monmouth is a major landowner and owns the local livestock markets, but it would be the first to admit that it has not regarded agriculture as part of its economic development strategy in the past. The emphasis has been on manufacturing. It is to the authority's credit that it is now considering the future of agriculture in Monmouth and examining economic development strategies that will work in the interests of what is the major industry in my constituency.
To its credit, Monmouthshire county council recently organised a seminar on organic farming. We were all surprised by the tremendous number of farmers who expressed an interest in attending and seeking advice on possible conversion to organic farming.
We shall have objective 1 status in Wales. Hopefully, objective 2 will also apply to eastern Wales, the area that I represent. I am grateful that the Welsh Development Agency, in incorporating the work of the Development Board for Rural Wales, will be considering infrastructure projects for agriculture.
Following the report of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, I have advocated the need for a large-scale freezing facility for Wales. There is not such a facility in the whole of the United Kingdom. Although that would be a commercial project, objective 1 or 2 funding could be used to develop that facility, which would be of use to farming communities, not only in Wales, but in the south-west of England.
One of the Government's most significant announcements in the past 18 months is the national strategy for carers, which was announced in the House two weeks ago by the Secretary of State for Health. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has assured me that his Department is currently consulting local authorities, voluntary organisations and the health service to develop the Welsh version of the national

609
strategy for carers. I acknowledge that that will be the responsibility of the National Assembly for Wales when it is established in a few months.
Last year, I introduced a ten-minute Bill to give carers and the people for whom they care a statutory right to be assessed for respite care. Although my Bill does not appear to have been fully incorporated into the national carers strategy, I am grateful for the strategy's recognition of respite care.
I have been in contact with carers in my constituency who will be greatly heartened by the Prime Minister's foreword to the national carers strategy. He referred to the work that carers do as extraordinary
"not in ways which make headlines, but in ways which really matter".
He said:
"Carers devote large parts of their own lives to the lives of others—not as part of a job, but voluntarily. And often in addition to working themselves. For the sick, the frail, the vulnerable and the elderly, carers provide help and support in ways which might otherwise not be available."
Carers in my constituency will acknowledge the concern and support that my right hon. Friend has expressed for them.
I pay particular tribute to the Crossroads scheme in my constituency, in Chepstow and Caldicot and in Monmouth. I recently spoke at its annual general meeting and outlined the significance of dementia, which will be a growing problem in Wales. According to the Alzheimer's Disease Society,
"dementia is perhaps the major health and social care challenge of the next century".
It will affect one in 20 people over the age of 65, and one person in five over the age of 80. Half the people in residential care who are over 80 have dementia. By 2040, when some of us, hopefully, will be in our 80s, if we survive that long, there will be 1.2 million people aged over 65 with dementia. Dementia currently affects more than 700,000 people in the United Kingdom, including 40,600 in Wales. According to the Office for National Statistics, it is estimated that in 1996 there were almost 7,000 people with dementia in the Gwent health authority area.
Many people with dementia are cared for in their own homes by their relatives. Two thirds of people with dementia continue to live in their own homes, including a substantial number who live alone. Many are cared for by family members, who in many cases are elderly themselves. That imposes a tremendous burden on those people.
It is to the Government's credit that the national carers strategy has been established. As a society, we must determine our social priorities. The needs of those suffering from dementia and other chronic conditions pose an immense challenge because our response is dependent on so much voluntary provision, especially the contribution of the vast army of informal carers, most of whom are women.
The challenge that faces us with dementia is not insurmountable. It can be met with the right commitment of statutory and voluntary services in the context of a Government policy that is creative and compassionate. Much of our approach to the care of the elderly has been constrained by negative stereotypes of elderly people being
610
dependent. Professor Richard Titmuss, the outstanding professor of social policy in Britain, argued that far from being a burden, an aging population represents the triumph of a successful welfare state in reducing premature mortality and improving standards of health and social care.
Our aging population is a celebration, not a burden. I pay tribute to the Chepstow and Caldicot Crossroads, Crossroads schemes throughout Wales, the Carers National Association and all the voluntary organisations that work so hard on behalf of carers and the people whom they care for.
This is the last Welsh day debate before the tremendous constitutional change that we will witness in the next few months. I send my best wishes to all those who will be standing for election to the National Assembly. Opposition Members have spoken of two different types of Assembly Members. It is to the Government's credit that we have established a fair electoral system that will ensure fair representation.
I look forward to working with the Assembly Members. I know that in my constituency they will probably represent different parties, including the Opposition. I look forward to working with those people to ensure that the people of Wales will be better served by having a democratically established Welsh Assembly.
5.22 pm
Mr. John Smith: I apologise to the House for the fact that I was not able to be present for the whole debate. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards), I have not been to the dentist, but, as a dutiful Welsh Member of Parliament, I have been serving on the Committee considering the Greater London Authority Bill. There are parallels between carrying out my duties and going to the dentist.
This is the first full Welsh affairs debate that we have been able to hold since the general election in 1997. We are approaching the second anniversary of the new Labour Government. I shall outline briefly the way in which the new Government have affected my constituency, the Vale of Glamorgan.
In many respects, the Vale of Glamorgan is a microcosm of Wales and of the United Kingdom.
Mr. Win Griffiths: There are no mountains.
Mr. Smith: There are hillocks, but not too many mountains. The Vale of Glamorgan is a beautiful constituency and an interesting one, made up of the traditional urban port town of Barry, which was built on coal at the turn of the century, at the core of the constituency; the agricultural area to the west, in Cowbridge and the seven villages, which is heavily dependent on the agricultural industry; and the suburbs of the east, Sully, Dinas Powys and Wenvoe, many parts of which are travel-to-work areas of Cardiff. Each of those areas is experiencing different problems.
Before the Government were elected, Mr. Lord, the biggest blight—
Mr. Griffiths: We are not in Committee.
Mr. Smith: I do apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have been in Committee all afternoon.

611
Before the general election, the Vale of Glamorgan experienced some of the worst problems in the country, and the worst of all was poverty. My constituency is generally considered to be one of the more affluent parts of Wales, but nothing could be further from the truth. It contains, or has contained, some of the poorest communities in Wales. In north-east Barry, for example, net disposable income per household, including all non-housing benefits, is less than £60 a week. That is less than the amount that some hon. Members would think nothing of spending on a meal, but it must pay for clothing, shelter, warmth and food for entire families. That is the legacy of nearly 20 years of Tory Government and misguided policy. It has ruptured our community, and has delivered poverty to our doorsteps—poverty that rests side by side with some of the most affluent villages in Wales.
In a radius of five miles, some people are living in poverty, while others have some of the highest incomes in Wales. The final judgment on whether our Government succeed or fail rests on whether we deal with that. I was delighted to hear my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State describe what we have already achieved in less than two years in regard to health and education, and, most important, the eradication of poverty. Our strategy is to help those who are able to work to escape their circumstances—to use work as a mechanism to empower those who can work, and to release resources for the support of those who cannot, including the carers to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth referred.
We must be able to redirect scarce resources, and I believe that, in the society in which we now live, we must do that in the way in which the Government have decided to do it: through work. I am delighted that, on 1 April, nearly 110,000 people in Wales will benefit directly from our minimum wage proposals—a higher proportion than in any other part of mainland Britain. The reason for that is sad. Under 18 years of Conservative rule, Wales, which had been one of the highest-wage economies in the United Kingdom, became one of the lowest-wage economies. That is why so many of our people will benefit from the minimum wage, which, combined with the working families tax credit, will enable many members of the community to which I referred at the outset to escape from poverty by means of work.
The task will be easier for my constituency, because, by and large, the work exists as long as it pays people to work. In far too many Welsh communities, the work does not exist. We need economic strategies to ensure that everyone in the country has an opportunity to seek employment. Even if the employment is badly paid and unskilled, at least people will have the dignity of being in work and receiving a minimum wage and tax credits allowing them a decent standard of living as we approach the millennium. That is the main issue on which this Government of ours will be judged, and I am delighted that we are moving in that direction.
We have delivered on our promises, especially our promise to establish a Welsh Assembly, which is one of the most important. There is not long to go before the Assembly starts its work and it could make a huge
612
difference by providing the other side of the coin—economic success, which is what we need to eradicate poverty in Wales.
The record over the past 20 years has not been good and our primary industries, which were based on mineral extraction and metal manufacture, have been decimated. Whole tracts of those industries disappeared and their production, which was primarily for domestic consumption, has declined. However, there has been diversification in manufacturing industry—because of our efforts as a people, against the odds and despite the Conservative Government. We still do not have enough skills, and we are not at a high enough standard, but we are in a good position to able to build a prosperous future based on a diverse manufacturing industry. That bodes well for the Welsh Assembly, as long as we adopt a strategic approach to the exploitation of our country's assets to the benefit of all, not one sub-region as opposed to another.
We need to build on that, which is why I was disappointed that the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), condemned and talked down Welsh industry and Welsh manufacturing performance. That was particularly galling because he is not a Welsh Member, but represents a constituency that is in direct competition with Wales for jobs and investment.
Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman has told the House that he is a member of the Greater London Authority Bill Committee. Was he born in London?
Mr. Smith: Absolutely not, but I have not been talking down London or the Bill. I have been talking them up, at every opportunity. That is what I would expect from a responsible spokesperson for Her Majesty's Opposition speaking on Welsh affairs. Although the Opposition do not have a single seat in Wales, they have a right to speak in the debate, but, for goodness' sake, talk our country up, not down.
I refer to several local points. We have had tremendous success in education, transport and other matters, but we must ensure that the mechanisms are in place to make sure that the extra expenditure that we invest in those areas goes where it should. I say to my hon. Friend the Minister that the additional transport grant for rural bus services is superb, but there is evidence that bus companies receiving those grants are not providing the essential extra rural services for which they are being paid. That needs to be addressed. Shamrock Coaches, which provides services in the rural part of my constituency, has let passengers down and is being paid for it.
There has been tremendous investment in "education, education, education", but there is a backlog of repairs and maintenance because of the scandalous neglect of school buildings. We have extra money and I know that it is going into schools, but I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to consider the fact that some schools, such as Cowbridge comprehensive, are falling down. They present a physical danger to students. Are there contingency resources to deal with specific problems, when there is danger to children because of neglect over two decades?
The best way to empower people is through work, skills and knowledge. There have been reports that the number of mature students applying for places in higher education

613
may be decreasing. Will the Minister tell us whether there has been a decline in the number of such students in Wales, and whether he is addressing that issue?
Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for bearing with me on this important occasion.
5.35 pm
Mr. Nigel Evans: It is a wonder that the Standing Committee considering the Greater London Authority Bill felt able to do without the skills and expertise of the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) for a short while so that he could come to the Chamber to make that wonderful contribution. I had better be careful, because irony does not come across in Hansard.
The next few months will be an exciting time in Wales. We will have the new Cardiff Arms Park in the millennium stadium—I am sure that it will be called the new Cardiff Arms Park in the tradition of new Labour. We look forward to the rugby world cup being held in Wales. We want the opportunity to show Wales off at its very best. I hope that the stadium will be ready in time—the Minister may tell us about that—because it would be dreadful if it was not.
I understand that one of the duties of the new Welsh Assembly will be to promote sport whenever and however it can. After the first two home internationals, one of its greatest challenges will be to do something to help the Welsh team to achieve the victories that they should be gaining. If it can do that, that would be one of its greatest successes.
Mr. Win Griffiths: What does the hon. Gentleman expect after 18 years of Tory Government?
Mr. Evans: We had more victories when the Conservatives were in power than we have had in the past couple of years. We do not take credit for those victories, and I am sure that the Labour Government will not take credit for the recent defeats.
The hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan said that my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) should not have led for the Opposition in the debate because he was not born in Wales and is not a Welsh Member of Parliament.
Mr. John Smith: To put the record straight, that is not the point I was making. I did not question the right of the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) to make that contribution: I questioned the nature of his speech because he talked down Wales, which I felt was wrong.
Mr. Evans: I am sorry that my hon. Friend did not ask the hon. Gentleman to write his speech for him, so that his contribution would have been more positive. What he said was ridiculous. My hon. Friend is a Member of the United Kingdom Parliament and has the right to speak about Welsh affairs or about anything else to do with the United Kingdom as he feels appropriate, just as the hon. Gentleman has the right to speak on the Greater London Authority Bill to which he is making useful contributions based on his knowledge of London.
614
The Conservatives speak as the second party in Wales: at the last election, as we gained 100,000 more votes than the Liberal Democrats and twice as many as Plaid Cymru.
Mr. Llwyd: How many seats did the Tories gain?
Mr. Evans: Irrespective of that, we had more votes. It is a great shame that the hon. Gentleman is the only member of Plaid Cymru present. The nationalist party has four Members of Parliament. This is the only St. David's day debate we have had in two years, yet only one Plaid Cymru Member is present for the winding-up speeches, and only two have been present during the debate.
The leader of the Conservative party in Wales, Rod Richards, is relishing the opportunity to promote the cause of common-sense policies in the Welsh Assembly. At least we know that Rod Richards will be elected to the Welsh Assembly, whereas there is enormous doubt about whether the Secretary of State will win a seat. Many Labour Members secretly hope that the Secretary of State is not elected to the Welsh Assembly.
Mr. Llwyd: Two of my colleagues were busy elsewhere today, and it was unfair of the hon. Gentleman to make such cheap points. Secondly, Rod Richards would not understand a policy of principle if he fell over it.
Mr. Evans: That was a devastating intervention: I shall have to be careful in future, although I am sure that all the hon. Gentleman's colleagues were not at the dentist. This is the St. David's day debate and I should have thought that members of the so-called national party of Wales would make the effort to come here to contribute on behalf of Wales and their constituents.
We look forward to the Welsh Assembly elections on 6 May, but I am not sure that the Secretary of State is looking forward to them. He still has some fences to be fixed, and last Saturday's result was a denial of democracy for Wales. The Secretary of State has no credibility in Wales as a result of the rigged electoral college and the fixed trade union block votes. That was old Labour fixing at its worst—and a denial of one member, one vote in many of the unions—to deliver in Wales the Prime Minister's man, not the people's man.
Mr. Edwards: How is the leader of the Conservative party elected? How many Conservative party members voted in that election?
Mr. Evans: The leader of the Conservative party was endorsed by the entire membership of the party on one member, one vote. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Secretary of State will put himself before the entire membership in Wales for similar endorsement? He will not do that because he knows that the membership in Wales was 2:1 in favour of the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan). The members did not want the Secretary of State—they wanted the hon. Member for Cardiff, West, and the rigged voting denied them their choice.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Some time ago, the Labour party abandoned the block trade union vote for use at Labour conferences, and yet it has allowed it to continue for the

615
choice of Labour leader in Wales. Why does Labour have a higher regard for democracy at the Labour party conference than in choosing the Labour leader in Wales?
Mr. Evans: It is not a matter of right or wrong—it is what system will deliver what the leadership wants. At party conferences, the Labour leadership takes away union power. When it chooses the leader of the Labour party in Wales, it uses the block vote to deny the membership of certain unions an opportunity to vote individually. They were consulted—sort of—but, in many cases, the result was ignored. In one union, the vote was split 60:40 in favour of the Secretary of State, but 100 per cent. of the union's vote went to the Secretary of State. That was a complete denial of democracy.
In today's edition of the Western Mail, an editorial—entitled "Way out of touch"—talks about the "arrogance and insensitivity" of the London Labour machine "reaching new heights". The report states that the hon. Member for Cardiff, West, having had the audacity to complain about some irregularities during the election, has been told to "stop whingeing".
When anybody talks about what is wrong, they are told that they are talking Britain, Wales or the Assembly down. When the hon. Member for Cardiff, West complains about irregularities, he is "talking the election down" or "talking the Labour party down". That is ridiculous. The report states that Labour has labelled the hon. Gentleman a "ballot whinger". He has every right to feel dismayed, not only about the result, but about the way in which the election was held.
I am delighted to see the hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig) in his place. On the subject of democracy, he spoke about the Welsh referendum result and said that the jury was still out on the Welsh Assembly. He is right. With a turnout of 50.1 per cent.—49.7 per cent. voting no and 50.3 per cent. voting yes, so that only one in four of the Welsh electorate supported the proposals—of course the jury is still out. People will look carefully at how the Welsh Assembly develops over the next few years in deciding whether to give it their support. We will have the first test on 6 May—the turnout of the electorate.
Mr. Touhig: I note what the hon. Gentleman says. Yes, the jury is still out, but will he commit his party, as we commit ours, to making the Welsh Assembly a success, so that we will be able to say to the Welsh people, "It has been good and has been proved to be valuable for Wales"?
Mr. Evans: We are fielding candidates throughout Wales. We want to get as many candidates elected as possible. They will go to the Welsh Assembly not to grind it to a halt, but to ensure that the Assembly works in the best interests of the people of Wales. I guarantee that that is exactly what we here in Westminster want: we want the Assembly to be a success for the people of Wales, now that we know that it is going to be a reality.
Mr. Swayne: How does my hon. Friend react to the contrast between Labour Members, particularly the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan), putting such great faith in, and setting such store by, the Assembly and building expectations—at one stage I thought it was
616
expected to become the Assembly for the new Jerusalem—and the squalid fix in relation to the leadership election?
Mr. Evans: That is absolutely correct. Expectations of the Welsh Assembly have been raised to such great heights that it cannot hope to fulfil even 10 per cent. of what the Labour party has said it will be able to achieve. Contrast that with the way in which the elections were held, or the squalid way in which the referendum in Wales was held a week after the referendum in Scotland. [HON. MEMBERS: "Squalid?"] I will tell hon. Members why it was squalid.
We were told that the people of Wales would not be able to cope if the referendum were held on the same day as that in Scotland because they would get confused as to what was being offered, with a Parliament in Scotland and an Assembly in Wales. There could be no other reason why they were held on different days—other than to bounce the people of Wales into a yes vote following a victory in Scotland, which we always knew would be delivered.
The absurdity is that, on 6 May, people will vote in local elections in Scotland and Wales. In Wales, they will also vote for the Welsh Assembly—not only for constituency candidates, but for those on the regional list. If people in Wales can get their minds around the d'Hondt system and how the closed-list system will work, they could certainly have got their minds around having their referendum on the same day as the people of Scotland. Of course it was a gross insult to the people of Wales to pretend that they could not cope with that.
Mr. Öpik: The hon. Gentleman said that he felt that the Welsh Assembly would not deliver even 10 per cent. of the expectations that have been raised by the Government. Is it therefore fair to assume that he expects the Welsh Assembly to fail?
Mr. Evans: No. There is no expectation that the Welsh Assembly will fail because we will work to ensure that it is a success, but the jury is still out. The hearts and minds of the three out of four people in Wales who did not vote for the Welsh Assembly need to be won over. Had the hon. Gentleman been here for the four hours of the debate. he would have heard my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring say that we would work to ensure that the Welsh Assembly, now that it is established, would be a success.
The problem is that we are not allowed to question devolution as a principle because that would be a great heresy. We hear the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan say that we are talking Wales, devolution and the Assembly down, but if, in the Chamber of the House of Commons at Westminster, we cannot talk about the problems that the Assembly might face where can we discuss them?
The hon. Member for Ogmore (Sir R. Powell) spoke about the one and a half hour debates we had yesterday and the day before in Committee, in which we debated very complex issues. It is a great shame that those debates, on essential issues, could not have been held on the Floor of the House. Indeed, it is a great shame that the St. David's day debate is being held—I cannot understand why—on 25 February, not on 1 March. The debate is being held not

617
on a Monday, when all hon. Members would be at Westminster, but on a Thursday, at the tail end of what has become, these days, our part-time week.
Mr. Alan W. Williams: Speak for yourself.
Mr. Evans: Let us not go into that.
Democracy is denied when statutory instruments are scrutinised only in Committee, and only for an hour and a half.
In the past two days in Committee, we dealt with a number of anomalies. I asked the Secretary of State whether it was possible, for example, to lift the ban on beef on the bone in Wales, but not in England. The Secretary of State told me that, yes, that could happen. It is amazingly anomalous when people can cross the border—
Mr. Nick Ainger: This is the same speech.
Mr. Evans: It is the same speech, but the important fact is that an anomaly is not being dealt with. It is amazing that people could buy beef on the bone in Wales and ship it back to England. That anomaly has to be dealt with, as the same one could arise in relation to genetically modified foods or prescription charges.
Yesterday, we were told that prescription charges could be lower on one side of the Severn bridge than the other. Differentials in taxation are important. My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) spoke about the lobby at Westminster, only yesterday, by hauliers from Pembrokeshire and other parts of the United Kingdom.
Mr. Ainger: They were from Pontypridd.
Mr. Evans: Yes, they were from Pontypridd. However, the more important point is that, because of taxation differentials, hauliers are filling up with cheaper fuel in Calais or in Belgium and coming to England for a couple of days. We will have to sort out any anomalies that could be caused by the establishment of the Welsh Assembly, but there is currently no structure in the Assembly for doing so.
Sir Raymond Powell: The hon. Gentleman mentioned my speech and statutory instruments. We should make it clear that any hon. Member serving on a Committee considering a statutory instrument who feels that, after an hour and a half, that scrutiny should continue, should ask for the sitting to be adjourned. We should have done that on Tuesday, after a full debate. I agree with the hon. Gentleman's comments—we should have had a fuller debate. However, hon. Members themselves should have asked for an adjournment. Perhaps it would have been wise also for the Chairman to advise hon. Members that they could do so.
Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman has been an hon. Member long enough to know exactly what would have happened. It is pointless trying now to address that specific issue. The point is that an hour and a half was allotted, and that is all that we would have got. It is a denial of democracy for there not to be proper scrutiny of
618
statutory instruments—ever more of which are being passed by the House, and ever fewer of which are being debated on the Floor of the House. Nevertheless, I am glad that the hon. Gentleman accepts the principle of the matter. Perhaps it is a matter on which we can make progress, on a cross-party basis, so that we might make Parliament more effective.
My hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring dealt in his speech also with concordats and judicial review. Today, it was enlightening—perhaps the first chink in the blind—to learn that there might be judicial reviews of concordats. Yesterday, the Secretary of State told me—as the Secretary of State for Scotland told my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin)—that there would not be judicial reviews. Today, we heard that such a judicial inquiry might be successful. The problem is that the matter generally has not been properly thought through or tested.
During the passage of the Government of Wales Act 1998, the Opposition raised the issue of concordats. Time after time, the issue was dismissed or brushed aside. Ministers said, "Don't worry; things will be all right." Every aspect of the Government of Wales Bill was considered under the best case scenario. The worst case scenario was never taken up. When the Assembly becomes a reality later this year, there may be many worst case scenarios that we have not allowed for.
Mr. Win Griffiths: Maybe, maybe not.
Mr. Evans: The former Minister says, "Maybe not." Why were no precautions put into the legislation from the start to ensure that the system would be able to cope in the event of the worst case scenario coming about? Part of the problem is that everything was viewed through rose-tinted spectacles.
Reference has also been made to the fate of the Members of Parliament at Westminster after devolution becomes a reality. They cannot all sit on the Greater London Authority Bill Standing Committee. They will have to look for other things to do around the House. There has been much speculation about whether the St. David's day debate will continue and whether the Welsh Grand Committee or the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs will be wound up. I hope that they all continue. This is a United Kingdom Parliament. We must have the opportunity to discuss Welsh affairs as often as possible. I hope that there will be a consensus throughout the House on ensuring the continuance of those functions and on trying to make them more effective. The Assembly will look for advice, guidance and support from the Westminster Parliament from time to time. We should be able and available to give such advice.
Dr. Julian Lewis: In the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, I asked the outgoing permanent secretary of the Welsh Office whether she believed that there would be a Secretary of State for Wales in the Cabinet in 10 years' time. She refused to answer in the affirmative.
Mr. Evans: That is one of the great unknowns. If the permanent secretary was not able to give such a guarantee, perhaps there is a secret agenda that goes beyond the Secretary of State's hope of becoming the First Secretary, to the winding up of the role of Secretary of State

619
for Wales. I suspect that that would mean that there was no Welsh Office Question Time, no Welsh Grand Committee and no Select Committee on Welsh Affairs. I wonder what would happen to all the Welsh Members of Parliament here at Westminster. We have to address that.
Several hon. Members have mentioned rural affairs, which is a vital subject for Wales. Farming is one of the most important industries in Wales. The hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Mr. Williams) said that the incomes of farmers had declined 40 per cent. this year, on top of a 40 per cent. decline last year. I was with him in Carmarthen when the farmers turned up for their rally. I remember the hot reception that he got. After another 40 per cent. decrease in their incomes this year, they have every right to shout. The Farmers Union of Wales is talking about the dire consequences of the current perilous state of farming and of some of the proposed changes to the common agricultural policy. If those changes hit farming in Wales yet again, the situation will be even worse than it already is, if that is possible.
I have had several representations since this debate was announced. One was from David Jones, the prospective candidate for Conwy, who asked for the decision to give the administration of Llandudno hospital to Gwynedd health trust to be reversed, leaving it instead under Conwy and Denbighshire trust. He has already handed in a petition with more than 300 signatures. Is the Minister prepared to make an announcement on that? Will he take heed of the 300 people who signed the petition?
The hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr also spoke about local government capping. I found his remarks incredible. He said that the people of Wales were prepared to pay extra council tax. Of course, we are talking about a stealth tax. We have heard much about the fact that the Government have not increased direct taxes but, goodness me, they have certainly increased every other tax.
Council tax has suffered severe increases in the past two years. Last year's increases varied between 9.5 per cent. and 14 per cent. when inflation was running at between 2.5 per cent. and 3 per cent. People's wages were not increasing at the same rate, so where were they supposed to find the extra money? We have already heard that this year's increases will be between 8 per cent. and 12 per cent. It is an enormous hit—a stealth tax on people who were told that there would be no tax increases.
In addition, there is a problem with council fraud throughout Wales. In one Labour-controlled local council, more than half the local councillors are currently under investigation. What does the Minister propose to do to clean up local government in Wales?
The Government talk about education, education, education, but they introduced tuition fees of £1,000 and abolished student grants. I do not see how that will advance education. The director of the education department in Powys wrote to chairs of governors and head teachers in Powys. He said that the settlement appeared generous, but continued:
"You will note however, from my report that this is certainly not the case and it is clear that inflationary pressures, the need to fund additional pupils and the additional costs of the recently announced teachers' pay increase will, in reality, mean that the budget settlement is one of virtual standstill."
620
I would much welcome the Minister's response to that statement as it was made not by a politician, but by the director of the education department at Powys.
Mr. Livsey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Evans: I am sorry, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that we are approaching the end of the debate and I have to make progress.
I am sure that the Minister is as alarmed as I am to hear reports of another four cases of meningitis in Wales. What positive action is being taken with the Bro Taff health authority and the two charities in south Wales that are involved in disseminating information to provide extra resources and to ensure that parents are aware of the risks of meningitis? No one would wish panic to spread throughout Wales, but suitable action must be taken. I am sure that the Minister is aware that a new blood test can identify meningitis within 30 minutes. Is the Department monitoring that to see whether it could be utilised in Wales?
My conclusion from today's debate and what has been going on in Wales in the past 12 months is that agriculture is in crisis; people are waiting longer for health treatment; and there are fewer bobbies on the beat. When I asked the Secretary of States for Wales about that, he simply made a grammatical correction to my question. He could not care less that there were fewer policemen on the beat; he was only interested in making a debating point. Manufacturing jobs are in deep decline and confidence in orders from the United Kingdom and from abroad is depressed. The proposals for devolution have not been thought out. I believe that they could be a recipe for conflict and paralysis and that the anomalies that I have identified could make Wales a laughing stock.
Wales was promised that things could only get better. They have not; they have got worse for many people. Wales deserves better than the present Government, who are besotted by spin and style but have no substance whatever. The people are the victims. They are paying higher stealth taxes, higher council taxes and fees for students' education. They are suffering lost grants, worse pension fund rates and poorer services. We want fair play—chwarae teg—for Wales, and that is what the Conservative party will deliver to the Welsh people in the Welsh Assembly.
6.4 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Hain): We take no lectures from the Conservatives about democracy. They trampled over the democratic wishes of the people of Wales for 18 long and bitter years. I know what the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) means about speaking with irony in the House when he says that Rod Richards talks common-sense policies: a contradiction in terms if ever there was one.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State offers his apologies, as he has had to leave the debate early for a long-standing speaking commitment at the coastal forum in Cardiff: an important conference to be addressed by the European Commissioner for Transport, Mr. Neil Kinnock.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan) that this is a Welsh day debate in which we can celebrate the Labour Government's historic

621
achievement of devolution for Wales. I assure my hon. Friends the Members for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig), for Ogmore (Sir R. Powell) and for Cardiff, North, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), that there is absolutely no reason not to continue to have annual Welsh day debates.
I think that we will need these debates more than ever; but if the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) insists on speaking at them, there will be a problem, as he attacked us for imposing a literacy hour in Wales, which we have not done, and for dropping from our roads programme a road that is being built at this very time in north-west Wales, as the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) informed him.
In less than two years, there have been dramatic changes to the political landscape in Wales. By the summer, we will have a devolved National Assembly for Wales, speaking for Wales for the first time and giving the people of Wales a real voice. We will create a new democracy that is participatory, open and inclusive of all the groups in Wales that were denied a voice under 18 years of Tory rule. We will empower women's groups, voluntary groups, trade unions, business and many others.
I strongly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North, who said that one of the most exciting things about the National Assembly for Wales is that, because of the lead that Labour has given, we will have for the first time equality for women in the government of Wales. That will be an historic achievement. The Labour Government, and not any other party, delivered that. I acknowledge a little bit of help from the Liberals and from Plaid Cymru in the referendum, and I defer to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy, who has exhibited in this debate the non-ranting face of nationalism.
Our Labour Government is leading Wales to a confident future. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli that we do not want to have a whingeing Assembly. With decisions being made in Wales, the option of blaming London for everything will disappear and we will resolve our own priorities.
The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) made a cogent and interesting speech, apart from his rather limp series of points about the economy. Let me remind him that there has been a 27 per cent. fall in unemployment in his constituency since the general election. The contrast between his speech and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney was striking, because the latter made a powerful case for exactly the opposite economic strategy to that pursued under the Thatcherite Tories: one of active government. He included a timely plug for his forthcoming book. I can testify, having chaired a packed lecture by him in Neath, where he spoke for an hour and a half on the industrial history of Wales—the theme of his book—that it will be a riveting read.
In "Pathways to Prosperity", we set out a serious economic agenda for Wales. I strongly agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli that there remain serious weaknesses in the Welsh economy that we have inherited, largely as a result of decades of Tory neglect. Manufacturing accounts for 28 per cent. of output in the Welsh economy and the Labour Government recognise its importance. We are working closely with
622
manufacturers to tackle the problems created by a worldwide decline in output and the high pound, which again we inherited from the Conservative Government. I remind the Opposition that the pound is now roughly at the level that we inherited, having gone up to cure the consumption boom that the Tories created in the run up to the general election.
Mr. Oliver Letwin rose—
Mr. Hain: I am sorry, but I do not have time to take interventions. One of the central messages of "Pathways to Prosperity"—and it was graphically illustrated in the devastating and savage closure of Lucas in Ystradgynlais, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey), although three quarters of the plant's workers came from my constituency—is that any notion that we could continue to flirt with the strategy of the previous Conservative Government, and seek to attract manufacturing jobs into Wales on the basis of low labour and other costs, has been swept aside. If anybody ever believed that we could attract jobs to Wales through low costs, that has been swept aside by Lucas's decision, at short notice, to switch production to Poland and Slovakia, where wages are a quarter of what they are even in the upper Swansea valley, where people were being paid £170 a week—a low wage by anybody's standards.
Wage costs are much lower in east European countries and we cannot compete on low cost alone. We have to turn the Welsh economy into a high-quality, high-skill, value-added economy that is at the leading edge of technological development and scientific innovation. I agree with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Mr. Williams) about the application of objective 1 funds to his constituency and other valley and west Wales constituencies. If we can use that enormous investment to drive up the standards of infrastructure, skills, scientific development and engineering—the latter has been neglected for far too long—we will turn the Welsh economy into a world-class economy. The links that my hon. Friend mentioned between higher and further education and business are crucial to that task.
Over the past 20 months, we have developed a strategy of partnership with business in Wales. It is striking that when I talk to people from the business community, as I do in my capacity as industry Minister, they tell me how much they enjoy working with this Labour Government, because we listen and are approachable, in contrast with the Conservative Government whom the business community had to suffer, along with everyone else in Wales, for so long. That partnership extends beyond business to the trade unions, voluntary groups and, indeed, to everyone in Wales.
We have also had much success in bringing down unemployment, which has fallen by 15,000 since the general election. My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore is right to say that we need to do more, and I assure him that we will look at the training scheme in his constituency which he said is so successful. Our new deal to bring thousands of young and long-term unemployed people off welfare and into work with high-class training or full-time study is an enormous success. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) that this Government should empower people who have been trapped in despair on the dole for

623
so long. The success of the new deal is there to be seen. Some 13,000 people have come off the dole. We have created nearly 4,000 real jobs and some 3,000 employers have been involved. I wish to pay especial tribute to my parliamentary colleagues in Wales for the way in which they have supported the new deal, and I single out my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, who has attended every event that I have been to on the new deal in his constituency.
We have put in place a new strategy for the valleys, and next week we will announce a new initiative to promote extra investment and to encourage companies to locate and expand in the excellent locations that exist in the valleys. In addition, I can tell the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy that we have a food strategy that adds value to Welsh agriculture: by merging the agency responsible for promoting Welsh food with the economic powerhouse that is the Welsh Development Agency, we have given it a central place in the WDA's economic strategy.
We are also tackling poverty by means of the national minimum wage. The Conservatives fought the legislation for that throughout its passage through Parliament, and sought to deny some of the lowest-paid and poorest citizens and workers in Wales their elementary rights and opportunities. I can tell Conservative Members that £3.60 an hour is a fantastic boost for many workers in my constituency, who have earned wages as derisory as £1.80 or £2 an hour.
Mr. Evans: The Deputy Prime Minister said that "any fool" knew that the minimum wage would involve a "shake-out" in labour. How many jobs does the Minister think that the introduction of the minimum wage will cause to be lost in Wales?
Mr. Hain: None.
Mr. Evans: Does the Minister disagree with the Deputy Prime Minister?
Mr. Hain: My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister did not say that. The fears that Conservative Members spread for week after week in the years running up to the general election—and subsequently during the passage through the House of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998—have been shown to be unfounded. The minimum wage will be introduced with the support of business, both large and small. It will also enjoy the support of the 100,000 workers in Wales who will benefit from it. Moreover, the introduction of the working families tax credit will benefit more than 70,000 working families. Some of the lowest paid and poorest people in Wales are benefiting from the activities of the Labour Government.
We are delivering objective 1 funding for Wales, including west Wales and the valleys. Plaid Cymru has constantly taunted and criticised Welsh Office Ministers for not being up to speed or ahead of the game in that regard. I realise that it is very tough to be in opposition when the Government are so popular and successful, but Plaid Cymru should acknowledge our success in respect of securing that funding.
Mr. Llwyd: I certainly did not taunt the Minister: I asked a few questions that I thought were reasonable.
624
After the decision to award objective 1 funding is made public, we in turn will make public some documents that will prove what my right hon. Friend the Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) said earlier.
Mr. Hain: I do not accept that. The rant from the party's leader earlier showed that Plaid Cymru is still at it.
The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire said that the Government should press very hard to obtain objective 2 funding also. We are working hard to that end. The Lucas plant in the hon. Gentleman's area is situated 200 yards from the objective 1 boundary, and there is no prospect of changing that boundary. However, there is a prospect that we can get investment up the Swansea valley, which will benefit the communities hit so hard and savagely by that plant's closure.
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Can my hon. Friend cast any further light on the timing of a decision on matching funds for objective 1, which will solve the chicken-and-egg problem that I and many other hon. Members identified earlier?
Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend made some important and valid arguments about objective 1 funding and its matching equivalent. However, the problem is more complicated, and also involves the question of public expenditure survey funding. When we have secured a decision from the European Union about the exact amount that Wales will be able to draw down, the problem that my hon. Friend described will have to be addressed, and the important points that he has made will be borne in mind.
During the past 20 months, we have pursued policies that are distinctive, but not separatist. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn that we can be Welsh, but British too. Devolution is not about separatism, but about giving Wales a democratic voice for the first time, and about decentralising power.
Mr. Letwin: I had some difficulty in following the Minister's reply to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan). Would I be correct to summarise him as having said, "We have no money, and we are not sure that we will be able to do what the hon. Gentleman asked?"
Mr. Hain: No, that intervention was too clever by half. The hon. Gentleman should have listened to what I said. He may study it in Hansard tomorrow, when, I am sure, it will make sense even to him.
We have pursued a distinctive policy on education, promoting partnership between further education and sixth forms to give pupils and others more choice. We have invested £50 million in school budgets this year, 95 per cent. of which has gone straight into school budgets. We shall invest another £70 million in school budgets in the next year.
I am disturbed by emerging reports that some local authorities plan not to put their full share of that £70 million into the education budget, or that they plan to retain a proportion centrally, which will leave schools with insufficient funds to meet pay and price increases, let alone the development of provision. At least five local authorities are apparently considering those options, and I am prepared to name them if we find that the funds do

625
not go into school budgets. I have made clear our expectation that their share of the £70 million should go to education, with the vast bulk of it included in delegated schools budgets. We shall monitor budgets closely to ensure that that happens, and a report will be made to the National Assembly, which I should expect to take a close interest in any authority that does not give a high priority to schools and education in its budget decisions.
Mr. Livsey: Powys has no intention of not supporting fully the additional money, but the number of schools in rural constituencies means that there are a lot of head teachers. The settlement is understandably skewed, but that is not taken account of in the budget, which is why some authorities are finding it difficult to balance the books on their education budgets. That is not to say that they will not pay the money due to their education budgets.
Mr. Hain: The formula for the money's distribution has been agreed with the Welsh Local Government Association, of which Powys county council is a member. Consequences flow from that.
Another distinctive policy is our decision to put an extra £3 million into rural bus subsidies this year, with an extra £2 million for the coming year, either for urban services or for extra services in rural areas. That is having a major effect on provision for those who have no access to a car.
Mr. Edwards: The additional money for rural bus services has been very welcome in Monmouthshire, but may I refer my hon. Friend to Monday's debate about the problems of school transport and the way in which many local authorities have had to reduce free transport provision for certain children because of financial constraints? Can he assure me that he will review that policy?
Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend pinpoints an important problem that affects virtually all of us. The cuts imposed by the previous Conservative Government on local authority budgets hit school transport. Our provision of £70 million should allow local authorities at least to start reversing those cuts, if not restoring them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Caton) spoke movingly, and with socialist passion, about the predicament of his constituents in Holtsfield. If he makes a representation to the Welsh Office on their behalf, we shall consider it very carefully.
My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards) commented on the delay in payments to farmers. The Welsh Office recognises the problem, and we shall invest £16 million in computer systems over the next three years to ensure that payments are made speedily and on time. I agree that the forms that farmers must fill in are incredibly complicated, perhaps too much so. To the hon. Member for Ribble Valley I say, yes, the new national stadium or millennium stadium, the new Cardiff Arms Park, will be open on time and I am sure that Wales will win the rugby world cup in it.
I accept the remarks about good-quality translation made by my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas), and I recognise that it is of concern that the translation of his speech in the Welsh Grand Committee in
626
Aberaeron was not of sufficient quality. The matter needs to be addressed by the House authorities, but no doubt one of the reasons for the problem is that we are in the early stages of the Welsh language being spoken in the Welsh Grand Committee. The delay originally envisaged in the translation and reproduction of speeches made in Welsh in the Assembly is far too long; my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recognises that and he will make an announcement soon.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North asked about the role of Welsh questions, the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs and Members of Parliament representing Wales in the House of Commons. Procedure in the House is a matter for the House and its authorities, but we accept the need for further debate in Parliament as devolution becomes reality, so that hon. Members can understand its implications and any limitations on the issues they can raise. We are discussing with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House how best to approach such a debate, which would also have an impact on Scotland and Northern Ireland.
The Select Committee on Procedure is examining the consequences of devolution, and substantive changes are a matter for the House to decide. The Government's memorandum to the Committee suggests that any changes at Westminster should be allowed to evolve as experience of devolution develops. That includes the role of the Welsh Grand Committee, the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs and probably Question Time as well.
I agree strongly with the passionate points my hon. Friend made about the evil of racism, which was highlighted by the Lawrence report. That report dealt mainly with London, but it applies in Wales as well. Perhaps because we have only a small ethnic minority community, we in Wales are extremely complacent about the problem of racism. However, four years ago there was a racial killing in my constituency: Mohan Singh Kullar was killed in the middle of the caring cohesive community of Cimla. That just shows that the strategies about which my hon. Friend spoke and which the Government support must be implemented as a matter of urgency.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Hain: No—time is marching on and I want to conclude my remarks. In 70 days, we shall have the general election for Wales, and we in the Labour party will be working for victory. We have a radical manifesto; we have already delivered on a long list of promises and we shall make further pledges to the people of Wales. We shall guarantee free bus travel for pensioners—a promise that we shall keep. That will liberate some of our poorest pensioners, who do not have access to a car, from the misery of being trapped at home, unable to travel freely. They will be able to travel right across Wales, this year on half fares and, in the next two to three years, free.
We pledge that no one in Wales will wait more than six months for out-patient treatment, or for more than 18 months for in-patient treatment. We are creating thousands of extra education and training opportunities for young people in Wales, and we have pledged to create 36,000 additional places in further and higher education for students in Wales. We are providing more than £1 billion extra for the national health service in Wales, and an extra £850 million for education and training over the next three years under a Labour-controlled Assembly.

627
On 6 May, voting Labour will give Wales a real voice for the first time—a voice for jobs, a voice for education, a voice for health, a strong voice in Europe and an effective voice in London. For far too long under the Tories, Wales was forgotten, ignored and neglected. Now, under Labour, we can shape our own future and make our own history by standing up for Wales, for our families and for ourselves and voting for Labour to run our National Assembly, because Labour is the real party of Wales.
6.29 pm
Mr. David Jamieson (Lord Commissioner to the Treasury): I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That, at the sitting on 1st March, the Speaker shall put the Question on the Motion in the name of Mr. William Hague relating to the Corporation Tax (Instalment Payments) Regulations 1998 not later than half-past Eleven o'clock or one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings thereon, whichever is earlier, and the said Motion may be entered upon and proceeded with, though opposed, after Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS (JOINT COMMITTEE)
Ordered,
That Mr. Colin Burgon, Rosemary McKenna and Mrs. Diana Organ be discharged from the Select Committee appointed to join with a Committee of the Lords as the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and Mr. Brian White, Mr. Ivan Henderson and Mr. Harold Best be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

Au Pairs
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
6.30 pm
Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: I thank the Speaker's Office for helping me to secure this debate tonight on the employment of au pairs.
The date 16 February should go down as a day when the House showed its effectiveness and the Government demonstrated their disorder. Those who write off the power and influence of this place should listen to this debate.
I have correspondence regarding a written question inquiring about the Home Office's intentions vis-a-vis au pairs. In answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), said:
"With effect from 1 April, overseas nationals living in the United Kingdom as au pairs will be subject to the National Minimum Wage provisions."—[Official Report, 16 February 1999; Vol. 325, c. 654.]
As that announcement hit the presses, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry made a different statement. He told the world:
"people working and living as part of a family (for example au pairs) will be exempt"
from the minimum wage legislation. The Secretary of State showed in a previous existence in the Education Department that he had something of a mental block when it came to arithmetic, but even someone who cannot remember his seven times table must surely realise that an inter-departmental responsibility requires communication between Departments. The problem for au pairs—which spurred this debate in the first place—was created by the complete shambles of Government policy in this area. The Government showed how little they understood the problem when they suggested that it could be solved by application of the minimum wage and the working time directive.
We can have no confidence in the DTI announcement. Although the Government have given an assurance that the minimum wage legislation will not apply in the related case of paper girls and boys, that has been flatly contradicted by senior European Union officials. The Minister who will respond to this debate does not have responsibility for those matters, but I ask her to secure from the Government a clear statement that they are confident that their exemption of au pairs from the minimum wage and the working time directive will not be overturned in future by the European Commission. It is clearly determined to overturn the ruling in respect of paper girls and boys.
There are about 25,000 au pairs in this country who came to Britain under a scheme that has been running for 50 years. In recent years, there has been a marked change in the nature of the au pair. One is far more likely to find a male au pair than a Swedish au pair in Britain today. The original scheme brought many au pairs from Scandinavian countries. However, as employment opportunities have opened up in the European Union, au pairs have increasingly come to Britain from eastern Europe.

629
The previous Government recognised the change in society and allowed men as well as young women to come to this country as au pairs. Far from being the luxury of an affluent family, the au pair is often a necessity for a working family. If the minimum wage regulations had been passed—as the Government tried to achieve until the last moment—many working mums would have had to leave their jobs. That outcome would have defeated one of the objectives of the Department for Education and Employment: to enable more of those with young children to find at least part-time work and afford child care in the home.
We must not forget the large number of au pairs who attend adult literacy courses, certainly in areas such as Guildford. They pay the full cost of those courses, which enables local councils, despite recent savage Government cuts, to continue to provide adult literacy education at lower cost to those who live in the local community.
This debate is about much more than the role of paid employees. It concerns a cultural exchange in which young people come here to learn English, which gives them a passport to jobs around the world, and to learn about our country and, hopefully, go home and spread the good word. It is a personal exchange in which the ties between a family and an au pair can last for many years after the terms of engagement have expired.
That is why the previous Government were particularly anxious to support and build on the au pair scheme at a time of great change. That is why they cut red tape, enabled the countries operating under the scheme to switch from Scandinavia to eastern Europe and allowed men to become involved in the scheme. This Government have so far signally failed to come up with any answers to the problems facing the au pair scheme today, and we must be in no doubt that those problems are the wider reason for this debate.
There must be a problem with the au pair scheme when I hear of an au pair who was made to work from seven o'clock in the morning until nine o'clock at night, five days a week. It is a requirement of the scheme that au pairs should not be put in sole charge of children, and such cases completely contradict the scheme's purpose and intentions. There must be a problem with the scheme when an au pair arrives back on Christmas eve at the home where she has been staying to find her suitcases on the pavement and nowhere for her to go. There must be a problem when, in her first employment, an au pair receives a scalding mark from an iron on the back of her hand and, in her next job, she is sent up ladders to wash windows. There must be a problem when a case comes to my attention of an au pair who was sent out on cleaning contracts, earning £5 an hour for the person with whom she was living, when the typical au pair earns £50 a week.
This is, above all, an issue of child care, and that is why I welcome the Minister's interest. If those au pairs are not being properly treated by the families with whom they live and whom they assist, it is ultimately the children who will suffer in those families, with much greater and wider consequences. I emphasise that those are isolated cases. There are many thousands of examples of the au pair scheme working effectively and building links between this country and other parts of Europe.
I shall make a number of practical suggestions as to how the scheme could be improved. I have in my hand a guidance information note published by the Home Office.
630
It was revised by the Government shortly after they came to power. It says that, if au pairs stay in this country for more than six months, they will
"normally be required to register with the Police."
That is the system that the Government inherited but, last August, they did away with that requirement. I am told by responsible people who work in that area that the Government's action has led to a significant increase in the scale of problems that they are encountering. I urge the Government to reconsider the relaxation of that rule.
There should be a registration system to protect au pairs and to ensure that they abide by the terms of the scheme. There should be no incentive for anyone to distort the au pair scheme into a system whereby people can illegally gain entry to this country.
In 1996, the previous Government set up a complaints helpline for those who find employment through employment agencies. That scheme was intended to cover au pair agencies as well. It is noticeable that, in the revised leaflet produced under the present Government, there is no mention of that complaints hotline. I suggest to the Minister that the Government would do well to publicise both to families and to potential au pairs the availability of that helpline, so that au pairs who find themselves in trouble will have somewhere to turn to, and families who might otherwise contemplate taking advantage of the situation know that the girl or boy in their care has a means of making a protest about the conditions.
The source of au pairs has switched from a part of the world where people are typically as affluent as in Britain to a part of the world—eastern Europe—where there is a great deal of poverty and deprivation. Many of those who come to this country do not have the standing, nor does the scheme have the history, that would tell them that advantage is being taken of them. Rules and regulations developed under the previous Government need to be adjusted to take account of the new circumstances.
Without wishing to impose regulations and bureaucracy on the au pair scheme, I suggest that some simple form of check-up on the whereabouts of au pairs might involve them giving information about the hours per week that they have been asked to work during their employment. Such a form could be handed in at the end of the period of employment, thereby removing any pressure that might jeopardise their position.
Those who come to Britain as au pairs have no formal training. They may have experience in their own families, but they have had no training that would raise them, for example, to the status of a nanny. In severe cases, where it has been found that families have persistently infringed the terms of the scheme and taken advantage of someone who has come to help the family, I suggest that some follow-up should be considered. That might be by local social services under the terms of the Children Acts or by some other means.
It is unacceptable that young people who come to Britain on a cultural exchange should be exploited and used as household skivvies. That must stop. It may be possible to draw up a register of such cases, limited as they are.
Above all, we should build on the good standard developed by responsible agencies and responsible families. There is far too much regulation of business,

631
which is extremely burdensome, as I am sure my hon. Friends would agree. However, there is a case for self-regulation of child care, which is the subject of the debate.
I should like to draw a parallel with the year-out organisations. My last Adjournment debate last summer was on the topic of gap-year students and the development of guidelines that would ensure that they got a fair deal from the organisations with which they set up their gap-year programme. It is fortuitous that, this morning, I held a meeting with the senior gap-year organisations, in which we formally constituted a new association of gap-year organisations, among whose aims is to develop quality standards and clear guidelines to assure school leavers and others seeking a gap year that they will get the best possible deal. I pay tribute to the Minister and her officials for their help in developing that initiative. I have no doubt that, with additional help from the Department and through their own efforts, the year-out organisations will succeed in issuing guidelines and developing standards.
In the course of that meeting, we debated whether au pair agencies should be included as year-out organisations. Many of those coming to Britain as au pairs want a year out before they go on to university, or between university and the real world of work. There must be a distinction between organisations that are primarily in the voluntary sector, and send people from this country overseas, and au pair agencies. There is, however, a role model that au pair agencies could follow. With, I hope, the help of the Department, I shall be inviting the senior agencies to a meeting to establish whether a self-regulating body can be set up. In the past, agencies could be affiliated to the national organisation for all employment agencies, but I am told by experts that that system is far too expensive.
What could a self-regulating body achieve? It could certainly ensure the existence of a test of suitability. It could be said that there are not enough tests to establish that those who come to this country to look after children have the right attributes. We can all think of recent tragic examples in which people have been misplaced, with very sad consequences. A self-regulating body could provide for feedback to ensure that best practice is followed, and that those who work with families have not just a helpline to Government but another route by which they can improve their circumstances. It would enable the agencies to develop standards, and, in time, to establish a "kite mark" to distinguish the best and most responsible agencies from the one or two fly-by-night organisations.
I have heard of organisations that are placing advertisements in eastern Europe, offering what appear, in terms of the local currency, to be lucrative opportunities in this country. Only when the young people concerned come here and discover the costs of living in this country, and the terms and conditions under which they are expected to work, do they realise that they are being taken for a ride—and by then it is far too late.
The cost of a typical au pair placement is about £150, barely £1 a day for the term of the placement. I do not think that is enough for parents to pay in order to ensure the welfare of their children. A small increase could be secured if some cheap organisations were excluded as a result of higher standards. There is still considerable
632
competition among the agencies, which, until a few years ago, were governed by a licensing scheme. It would be in the interests of child care, as well as those of families, if the best organisations felt able to charge a little more for giving a great deal more in terms of service and safety.
The United Nations convention on the rights of the child demands that children be protected from abuse and neglect. That is why I am so pleased that a Department that is already taking responsibility in regard to nannies is also taking an interest in au pairs, with the aim of ensuring that children eventually receive what they expect. Let us not forget, however, that this is a cultural exchange. If, after the shambles of the last fortnight, the Government finally get their act together, we can be sure that, as a result of that cultural exchange, the country's reputation will also be safeguarded. We can be sure that many more thousands will go home speaking well of Britain and their experiences here, and will continue to do so throughout their working lives.
6.50 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Ms Margaret Hodge): I am replying to the debate on behalf of three Departments, which have responsibilities for and an interest in the important issues that have been raised. The Home Office has responsibility for the immigration rules, which govern au pairs. The Department of Trade and Industry regulates the employment agencies, and therefore the au pair agencies, and has responsibility for the national minimum wage and employment rights. My own Department is responsible for the regulation of child care and for the national child care strategy.
Those Departments have an equal interest in the issues that have been raised by the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn), so he may want to know why there are not three Ministers in the Chamber to listen to the debate. The reason is efficiency and effectiveness of resources. I am a London Member and, on a Thursday at the end of parliamentary business, it is logical for me to reply to the debate.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing these matters to the attention of the House. They are important for children, for the young people who are au pairs and for the families who employ them. Some issues transcend the traditional party political divides, so I am happy to deal with the serious points that he raised. However, it is one of the ironies of life that I, and many Labour Members, have spent years arguing that there is a proper role for the Government and for the state, at central and local levels, to provide a proper framework of support for parents.
The Conservative party, of which the hon. Gentleman is a member, has argued for a long time that the interests of children and families are a private concern for parents and families with the state intervening only at times of crisis, when the child is at risk of abuse. I am delighted that he has performed a U-turn, which he accuses us of doing and which I hope I can persuade him we did not do.
However, I am pleased that we have found political agreement on this important issue in respect of the role of the state in supporting families. The hon. Gentleman will agree that we have to ensure that, in providing a framework of support to families and children, we do not create a nanny state that interferes too much in the concerns of families.

633
Part of the shambles to which the hon. Gentleman referred stems directly from the problems that we have inherited because of actions specifically taken by the previous Government. Under the Conservative Government, we experienced the extensive deregulation of employment agencies, including au pair agencies. Until 1995, those agencies had to be licensed. Applicants had to publish a notice of their intention to establish an agency and the former Department of Employment, which had responsibility for these matters, would consider whether they were fit persons to trade. Matters considered included previous convictions for theft or dishonesty, and that was appropriate in respect of the au pair agency trade.
Three Members of Parliament took responsibility for deregulating employment agencies. Two—the previous Members for Tatton and for Enfield, Southgate—are no longer Members of the House and the other, who is not in the Chamber, is the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine). One could argue that those disappearances from the House are associated with the deregulation of au pair agencies. It is hard to envisage a more motley crew of Conservatives, and they are colourful in their diversity and division rather than because they represent a broad church within the Conservative party.
In 1995, licensing was swept away and, instead, a power of prohibition was established. That gave the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry the power to apply for an order to prevent individuals from trading as employment agencies for up to 10 years. Since we came to office, we have not hesitated to act where appropriate. Recently, the DTI secured a 10-year maximum ban against the proprietor of a schoolteacher agency. He was acting improperly, and not in the interests of children, in the employment of supply teachers.
I am delighted to inform the hon. Gentleman that the Employment Relations Bill will ensure a better framework of support through the re-regulation of some aspects of employment agencies, and hence au pair agencies. We want to improve the standard of protection for the clients of agencies, whether they are the workers or the parents who employ them.
The legislation that we inherited is inappropriate. In the Employment Relations Bill, we have made the first steps towards modernising the framework that governs the industry. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has made clear our intention to consult in the near future on a comprehensive overhaul of standards. Existing standards provide only for au pairs to be told who is responsible for meeting their return fares. The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), is giving careful consideration to ensuring that agencies do not arrange placements for au pairs if they are required to pay their fare to or from home out of money payable by the family with whom they live.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that the Government had made a massive U-turn a couple of weeks back on the national minimum wage in relation to au pairs. I contend that our approach was sensible and practical. During the consultation process on the implementation of the national minimum wage, we considered the likely impact of our proposals on people such as au pairs, and what the best answer would be for that group. Our decision on whether au pairs fell under the definition of workers as defined in the National Minimum Wage Act
634
1998 was a logical and proper interpretation of the Act in relation to that group of young people. It was not a U-turn—just good, practical common sense.
Mr. St. Aubyn: That is the point. It was such common sense not to include those young people in the minimum wage legislation that the Government should never have proposed to do so in the first place.
Ms Hodge: We could argue about that all night, but I suggest that it was during the implementation of the national minimum wage legislation that we considered this group of people and took the appropriate steps. It was not a U-turn, because we did not implement the legislation and then withdraw that provision.
This group of young people are not workers as defined by the 1998 Act because they work as if they were members of the employer's family. Foreign nationals in the United Kingdom under the au pair scheme who undertake light household duties or child care and are treated as members of the host family clearly fall within this category.
We have provided in regulation 2(2) of the national minimum wage regulations a limited exemption from the provisions of the 1998 Act for such work, provided that the worker is treated as a member of the employer's family, particularly for the provision of accommodation and meals, and the sharing of tasks and leisure activities.
Our approach will enable au pairs living as a member of the family to continue to undertake work for their host family, and it will also prevent exploitation through low pay for those workers who do not enjoy the benefits of family life. The hon. Member for Guildford asked whether the measure could be challenged in the European courts. That is not my direct departmental responsibility, but I undertake to ensure that he receives a full answer.
It being Seven o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
Ms Hodge: I will deal now with how we see the role of au pairs developing. It is amusing that the word "au" could be an abbreviation of the Latin word "aurum", and is the chemical symbol for gold. Gold is one of the four oldest words in English, so it may that au pairs have been with us for some time.
Certain rules regulate the way in which au pairs can be treated. They must be unmarried, young—between 1727—and without dependants. As the hon. Gentleman suggested, they come to the UK to learn English, for cultural exchanges, to live as a member of an English-speaking family and to have opportunities to study. The scheme is open to young people from a limited and named range of countries. A maximum of five hours work can be done a day, in return for a reasonable allowance and with two days free per week. There is also a maximum period in which they are allowed to stay in country.
The fact that we now have male as well as female au pairs was not as a result of a great liberal move by the previous Government, but in response to a court case in relation to a Swedish au pair. As well as the rules, guidance is produced by the Home Office, suggesting the

635
sort of work that au pairs should do, that they should have a room of their own and that they should have an allowance of up to £35 per week.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether there should be new regulation for au pairs, as they involve child care issues. My Department has recently undertaken wide-ranging consultation on the regulation of early education and day care. On 12 January, I announced a four-point plan for taking forward some of the issues that the consultation raised. We were aware of the strong lobby for a register of individual nannies and child care workers, but we felt that that was not appropriate, as it would not bring the security and benefits that families want. The benefits would not be commensurate with the bureaucratic burdens that such a move would impose.
The Department has begun work with the nanny agencies to draw up a voluntary code of practice to complement the revised regulations for the employment agency industry that are being drawn up by the Department of Trade and Industry. When the work is complete, agencies will be recognised as working to new, higher standards and parents using the agencies will be reassured that certain checks will have been carried out on nannies before they are submitted for jobs.
At this stage, there are no plans to include au pairs, who are not normally trained in child care, in the scheme. However, I am happy to assure the hon. Gentleman that we will look at the issue as we learn from our experience in running the scheme. However, some of his suggestions were incredibly bureaucratic, cumbersome and over-regulatory, would intervene enormously and would diminish the cultural exchanges and the flexibility of the current scheme. I am sceptical about some of his suggestions.
The hon. Gentleman referred to information and support for au pairs. There is a leaflet on immigration requirements for entry to the UK under the au pairs scheme. I know that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary would be happy to include in that leaflet information on where advice on au pair rights might be sought. That might include the Department of Trade and Industry helpline, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I undertake to ask the Home Secretary to look further both at what is incorporated in that leaflet and how it is distributed—whether there should be greater access to it at points of entry into the country and through au pair agencies.
Au pair agencies will give advice to both the au pair and the employer about their respective rights and responsibilities. We probably have to make more clear and publicise better the fact that, if people have complaints about the agencies through which they secure employment or, indeed, the services of an au pair, they should complain to the employment agency standards inspectorate at the DTI, which will not flinch from taking action.
The agency may be committing an offence in the situations that the hon. Gentleman described of au pairs working excessively long hours or being exploited. The agency must not knowingly place an au pair in a situation that is contrary to the terms of entry that govern the au pair scheme.
Mr. St. Aubyn: I am sure that the Minister is aware of the difficulties of proving that point. That is why one
636
has to consider that it is ultimately the parents in those families, who have created the situation and who clearly know what is going on, who must in some way be made responsible for their actions.
Ms Hodge: A system that would require form filling by au pairs and some policing of parents would be an absolute nightmare and incredibly difficult to execute properly. It would not serve its purpose. The best thing that we can do is have a greater spread of information. Au pairs always have the right to change the family for whom they work, but they choose to come over to this country and, as with all such life choices, that involves some risk.
Like anyone else living in this country, au pairs have full access to the criminal justice system, so au pairs who believe that they have been wrongly treated, or mistreated, should report that to the police. Such a report would be fully investigated in the same way as any other offence.
The hon. Gentleman talked about reporting to police stations. The current system is that only visa nationals who come in as au pairs—those from four countries—are required to report to the police. There is no enormous benefit in the police knowing where the au pairs are. I am not clear how that would improve the opportunities for au pairs, protect them or ensure that they were not exploited.
Mr. St. Aubyn: Clearly, the scheme was more rigorous until August last year. There is no evidence that it was a huge burden on the police. It is a point of contact for au pairs. It is a point where their welfare can be checked, but it also means, as I have said, that the police know who the au pairs are and which au pairs are extending their stay within two years. That will ensure that the terms of the scheme are not abused by people who are seeking unlawful entry to this country.
Ms Hodge: I still think that the bureaucratic burden of such a scheme outweighs the benefits. What is probably better is to ensure that, in the leaflet, we publicise a range of agencies to which au pairs can go, from citizens advice bureaux to FRES—the Federation of Recruitment and Employment Services—and that there is a better distribution of the leaflet, so that au pairs have access to that information. I genuinely believe that that would be a more appropriate, less bureaucratic way forward.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the good work that he has been doing on the gap year and a voluntary code of practice. I have said that we will return to that issue when we see how our voluntary code of practice in relation to nanny agencies develops.
As part of the national child care strategy, we are setting up a national child care information line to provide printed information for parents on a range of issues. That will give a signposted service, referring callers to local contact points, other national organisations and helplines.
As part of the four-point strategy that I announced in early January, we are drawing up guidance for parents—first, on the employment of nannies in their homes—which we shall issue in April. Furthermore, by the end of next year, we should be issuing more general guidance for parents on a range of child care issues. We shall ensure that

637
we incorporate in that guidance—which is being prepared for us by the Daycare Trust and the National Early Years Network—some ideas on guidance on au pairs.
The rights of children were at the heart of the hon. Gentleman's speech. I agree with him about those rights, which are behind every decision that the Government take on children being cared for by both formal and informal carers. He raised many important issues in the debate, and
638
I congratulate him on having secured it. I hope that he will be satisfied that we are taking seriously some of the proposals that he made, and I look forward to working with him in the future, to ensure that we provide the best start for our children.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes past Seven o'clock.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Departmental Cash and Running Costs Limits
  Miss Begg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what changes he proposes to make to his Department's cash limits and running costs for 1998–99. [71118]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the cash limit for Class X, Vote 1 will be increased by £468,000 from £885,816,000 to £886,284,000.

  This is to enable the Tate Gallery to use the proceeds of £1,900,000 from the sale of its store at Acton to finance the remaining conversion works at their new store at Southwark and the relocation of library and archive facilities to Millbank; to provide for increases in provision of £97,000 for the Public Lending Right to maintain the rate per loan at 2.07 pence; £215,000 for works on occupied Royal Palaces and state monuments in line with end year flexibility as announced by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 14 July 1998, Official Report, columns 131–36; £80,000 to English Heritage and £135,000 to the Royal Parks for the costs associated with public consultation on a memorial garden for the late Diana, Princess of Wales; £23,000 to the Library and Information Commission for the cost of movement of transfer values for staff into the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme; £120,000 and £450,000 in gross running costs for the transfer of provisions for refunds of VAT on contracted out services from net receipts to Appropriations in Aid; to provide for a reimbursement of £189,000 on payments made to the Inland Revenue for assets accepted in lieu of tax; to provide for a transfer of £15,000 from the Inland Revenue for services provided by the Museums and Galleries Commission on pre-eminent quality testing and to provide for a reduction of £97,000 in the requirement for the Department's contribution to the Council of Europe's Audiovisual Eureka in Brussels and the European Audiovisual Observatory in Strasbourg.

  The increases will be offset by transfers, savings or charged to the Reserve, and will not, therefore, add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Internet (Public Libraries)
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport at what cost to(a) the Government, (b) libraries and (c) local authorities, connections to the Internet for public libraries have been made. [72083]
  358
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  [holding answer 24 February 1999]: The Government have pledged £70 million of National Lottery funding to train public library staff and create digitised material which will support the development of the Public Libraries Network. In addition, £6 million of pump-priming investment in the network infrastructure is being provided over two years (1998–99 and 1999–2000) through the DCMS/Wolfson Challenge Fund. Information on the costs incurred by libraries and local authorities is not held centrally.

  Speedway
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations he has received about the broadcasting of speedway events. [73114]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  I have received three representations on this subject since May 1997.

  Turner Collection of Scientific Manuscripts
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the whereabouts of the Turner Collection of scientific manuscripts. [73115]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Following Keele University's sale of the Turner collection, the exact present location of the collection is unknown. The disposal raises important issues about the future operation of the export licence system, which I am now considering.

  Centre for Young Musicians
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations he has received about the future funding of the Centre for Young Musicians; and if he will make a statement. [73113]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  I have received several representations, each from the Centre for Young Musicians, regarding future funding. Government funding for the Centre is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment.

  Talk Radio
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will take steps to enable Talk Radio to become a member of the European Broadcasting Union. [73246]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  This is entirely a matter for the European Broadcasting Union.

  National Minimum Wage (Tourism Industry)
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations he has received regarding the effect of the national minimum wage on the tourism industry. [71614]

  Janet Anderson
  I have received representations on this subject from a number of companies and associations in the tourism, hospitality and leisure industry. I understand the Low Pay Commission (LPC) had a good and productive dialogue with many representatives of the
  359
  tourism industry. This is reflected in the recommendations the LPC made. All the industry's major representative organisations were included in the recent consultation exercise about the draft regulations which will implement the National Minimum Wage.

  Brit Awards
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list those Ministers in his Department who were present at the recent Brit Awards in an official capacity, indicating the organisation acting as their sponsor or host. [73495]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  My hon. Friend the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting and I attended as guests of the British Phonographic Industry.

  School Playing Fields
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many planning applications for the sale of school playing fields have(a) been considered and (b) been objected to by the Sports Council since 1 January. [70980]

  Mr. Banks
  [holding answer 15 February 1999]: Since 1 January 1999 the English Sports Council has considered 26 planning applications in respect of school playing fields and objected in 6 cases.

  Rank/Grade

  Complement December 1995

  Complement December 1996

  Complement December 1997

  Complement December 1998

  Actual December 1998

  ACC

  1

  1

  1

  1

  11

  Superintendent

  12

  12

  12

  11

  11

  Chief Inspector

  25

  26

  26

  26

  26

  Inspector

  10

  10

  10

  10

  16

  Sergeant

  9

  9

  9

  9

  10

  Constable

  9

  9

  9

  9

  16

  EO1

  —

  1

  1

  1

  1

  EO2

  —

  3

  3

  3

  2

  AO

  —

  9

  9

  9

  9

  AA

  11

  12

  12

  12

  11

  Pers Secretary

  1

  1

  1

  1

  0

  Typing Manager

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Typists

  10

  10

  11

  11

  11

  Total

  66 2(X)

  103

  103

  104

  3115

  1 Also covers B Department

  2Figures for the civilian staff complement are not readily available.

  3Includes officers temporarily seconded to assist with particular investigations.

  Action for Community Employment
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many Action for Community Employment worker posts are attached to pre-school playgroups in Northern Ireland; and if she will make a statement on future funding for ACE workers employed by pre-school playgroups. [71489]

  Mr. Ingram
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Training and Employment Agency under its chief executive, Mr. Ian Walters. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  RUC (Complaints and Discipline Department)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will estimate for each of the last four years for which figures are available the principal items of expenditure from the total annual budget of the Complaints and Discipline Department of the Royal Ulster Constabulary; and how many officers and staff were employed and at what salary grades. [69656]

  Mr. Ingram
  The main expenditure for the Complaints and Discipline Department of the Royal Ulster Constabulary is on staff costs. Other expenditure would include accommodation and supplies e.g. Stationery, and are dealt with on a force-wide basis.

  The personnel costs for both police and civilian support staff are estimated as follows:

  Year

  £ million

  1997–98

  4.5

  1998–99

  4.8

  Note:

  Costs for the previous two years are not readily available.

  The personnel costs include salaries, allowances and ERNI.

  The numbers and grades of officers and support staff are as follows:

  Letter from Ian Walters to Mr. Roy Beggs, dated 23 February 1999:
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked me as Chief Executive of the Training and Employment Agency to reply to your question about pre-school playgroups supported through the Action for Community Employment (ACE) programme.
  At 31 December 1998, the latest date for which figures are available, 118 ACE schemes were delivering programmes for children aged under 5, the majority of which were playgroups. The number of ACE participants directly involved with these schemes was 444.

  361
  The Minister, Mr. McFall, has set up a dedicated team of officials drawn from the Training and Employment Agency, the Department of Health and Social Services and the Department of Education. The team is undertaking a survey of the contribution which existing schemes currently make to their local communities.
  The team is also providing advice and assistance to ACE schemes which decide to make the transition to New Deal and the replacement for ACE, Worktrain. ACE schemes are being encouraged to become involved in the delivery of these new programmes so that their expertise is not lost and they can continue to serve the community. Approximately one third of ACE schemes are already members of the consortia which are delivering New Deal.
  I hope that you find this information useful.

  £

  Department

  Land and buildings

  Vehicles plan and machinery

  Furniture and equipment

  Total

  NIO

  Department

  362,000

  —

  —

  362,000

  Probation Board for Northern Ireland

  —

  —

  109

  109

  Juvenile Justice Board

  —

  735

  —

  735

  Forensic Science Agency of Northern Ireland

  —

  —

  36

  36

  Northern Ireland Prison Service

  1,400,000

  6,330

  —

  1,406,330

  Police Authority for Northern Ireland

  377,000

  752,985

  —

  1,129,985

  DANI

  Rivers Agency

  —

  177,967

  —

  177,967

  Forest Service

  425,596

  32,963

  —

  458,559

  Northern Ireland Fishery Harbour Authority

  12,000

  —

  —

  12,000

  Fisheries Conservancy Board

  —

  2,000

  —

  2,000

  Breen Farm

  14,000

  —

  —

  14,000

  Livestock and Meat Commission

  580,000

  —

  —

  580,000

  Agri-Food Development Service

  740,000

  27,505

  —

  767,505

  DED

  DED HQ and IDB

  8,654,000

  8,000

  —

  8,662,000

  Training and Employment Agency

  2,000,000

  38,000

  36,000

  2,074,000

  Industrial Research Technology Unit

  10,000

  1,000

  —

  11,000

  Ulster Sheltered Employment Ltd.

  —

  —

  6,000

  6,000

  Enterprise Ulster

  —

  —

  2,000

  2,000

  Construction Industry Training Board

  —

  —

  14,000

  14,000

  DFD

  —

  2,500

  —

  2,500

  DHSS

  Core Department

  2,592,000

  —

  10,000

  2,602,000

  Social Security Agency

  —

  —

  1,000

  1,000

  Health and Social Services Trust

  No breakdown available

  321,000

  Northern Ireland Services Agency for the Health and Social Services

  No breakdown available

  8,000

  Northern Ireland Blood Transfusion Service

  No breakdown available

  5,000

  DOE

  Core Department

  3,196,137

  —

  —

  3,196,137

  Water Service

  690,715

  390,784

  —

  1,081,499

  Roads Service

  604,715

  98,391

  —

  703,106

  Environment and Heritage Service

  —

  7,879

  —

  7,879

  Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland

  —

  200

  —

  200

  Rate Collection Agency

  —

  650

  1,139

  1,789

  Fire Authority of Northern Ireland

  —

  39,770

  461

  40,231

  Northern Ireland Housing Executive

  123,998,000

  4,000

  —

  124,002,000

  Laganside Corporation

  1,235,000

  —

  —

  1,235,000

  Northern Ireland Transport Holding Company

  3,350,533

  26,000

  —

  3,376,533

  Total

  152,264,100

  Departmental Asset Sales
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list the items sold by her Department, its agencies and associated public bodies from those listed in the National Assets Register of November 1997; if he will give in each case the amount of money realised; if she will estimate the total cash raised from such sales to date; and if she will make a statement. [704171

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The information is not readily available in the format requested (by item). The following information was available from the Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland Departments, with the exception of The Department of Education for Northern Ireland who could answer the question only at disproportionate cost.

  Disabled People (Access)
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what directions she has given to her officials in the Road Service of the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland to comply with best practice with regard to the needs of disabled people in the implementation of pedestrianisation in Belfast; [70723]

  (2) what steps she is taking to ensure that the standards with regard to vehicular access for disabled people to the centre of Belfast match those recommended by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions; [70721]

  (3) what representations she has received from the Disabled Drivers Association regarding the proposals for pedestrianisation of parts of central Belfast; and what plans she has to meet representatives of the association. [70722]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Roads Service under its chief executive, Mr. W. S. McCoubrey. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from W. J. McCoubrey to Rev. Martin Smyth, dated 18 February 1999:
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked me to respond to your 3 recently tabled Parliamentary Questions about the Department's proposals to restrict vehicular access to Belfast city centre.
  First, you asked what steps the Secretary of State is taking to ensure that the standards with regard to vehicular access for disabled people to the centre of Belfast match those recommended by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR). Whilst the DETR has not published standards with regard to vehicular access, guidelines are contained in its Local Transport Note 1/87, "Getting the Right Balance". I can confirm that the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland has taken these guidelines into account when formulating its proposals for Belfast city centre.
  Secondly, you asked what directions the Secretary of State has given to Roads Service officials to comply with the best practice with regard to the needs of disabled people in implementing the Department's proposals for restricting vehicular access to the city centre. The Secretary of State has not given any directions to officials on this matter. However, 2 Departmental Ministers were involved in the consultations between the Department and groups representing the disabled prior to the formal publication of the proposals.
  Thirdly, you asked what representations the Secretary of State has received from The Disabled Drivers' Association regarding the Department's proposals and what plans she has to meet representatives of the Association. The Disabled Drivers' Association wrote to the Secretary of State on 13 January 1999 asking her to examine the Department's proposals and to meet representatives of the Association to discuss the matter. In her reply, the Secretary of State advised that she was aware of the Department's proposals and indicated that the forthcoming public inquiry (to be held on 23 February 1999) will provide an ideal opportunity for all interested parties to air their views about the Departments proposals. The Secretary of State has no plans to meet representatives of the Association.
  I trust the above information is helpful.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to her answer of 11 January 1999,Official Report, column 1, if she will list the expenditure not included in her answer incurred (a) by
  364
  task forces and review bodies, (b) by focus groups, (c) on market research and (d) for publications and publicity; and if she will list the bodies which incurred the expenditure. [71029]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The information for the Northern Ireland Departments is as follows:

  £

  Market Research

  Publications/Publicity

  (a) Task Forces and Review Bodies

  NIO

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Review

  0

  6,480

  NI Drugs Strategy Review

  20,497

  2,190

  Independent Commission on Policing

  0

  33,782

  Criminal Justice Review Group

  14,000

  8,000

  DED

  Review of Training Centres and FE Colleges in NI

  16.000

  7,341

  DENI

  Youth Service Policy Review Group

  8,460

  24,471

  DHSS

  Policy Development and Review Unit

  0

  1,089

  (b) Focus Groups

  DED

  Organisation of the Unemployed (New Deal Focus Group)

  1,260

  0

  NI Euro Preparations Forum

  0

  301

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to her answer of 11 January 1999,Official Report, column 1, if she will list the expenditure not included in her answer incurred by (a) her agencies and non-departmental public bodies and (b) the Central Office of Information for relevant work carried out for her Department. [71028]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  (a) The information for the Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland Departments is as follows:

  Amount (£)

  Public Opinion Research1

  295,350

  Television radio newspaper advertising2

  5,140,390

  Direct mail3

  413,146

  1 The information for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  2 Includes a figure for the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland, which was not previously available.

  3 The information for the Police Authority for Northern Ireland and the National Museums and Galleries of Northern Ireland could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  All figures exclude the Department of Health and Social Services and the Education and Library Boards as the information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  (b) £20,734 on media monitoring for the Northern Ireland Information Service.

  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list in real terms the annual percentage change in spending in Northern Ireland between 1996–97 and 2001–02 on(a) education, (b) health, (c) transport, (d) housing, (e) police and (f) local government. [71398]
  365
  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The information requested is contained in the following table:

  Annual percentage change in expenditure on previous year in real terms1

  Estimated

  Plans

  Outturn 1997–98

  outturn 1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–2001

  2001–2002

  (a) Education (including Culture & Recreation)

  -0.9

  0.3

  3.2

  4.2

  1.4

  (b) Health (including Personal Social Services)

  4.2

  3.4

  2.5

  4

  2.6

  (c) Transport (including Roads)

  -4.9

  2.2

  -6.3

  -0.3

  3.4

  (d) Housing

  -6.2

  -13.8

  -3.2

  -3.6

  -1.8

  (e) Police2

  1.3

  -3.8

  -2.5

  -3.8

  -2.9

  (f) Local Government3

  -8

  3

  -2.5

  0.3

  0.9

  1 Adjusted by GDP deflator series. Figures exclude the "ring-fenced" allocations for Welfare to Work, Chancellor's Initiative and EU Peace and Reconciliation programme.

  2 Police Authority for Northern Ireland (PANI) Grant.

  3 Central Government support to District Councils. Excludes local authority self-financed expenditure.

  Pedestrianisation (Belfast)
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many objections her Department has received to the proposed pedestrianisation of parts of Belfast; from whom they have been received; and what are the main grounds for objection put forward by each objector; [71552]

  (2) what instructions she has given her officials in the Roads Service of the Department of the Environment in respect of requests for meetings from organisations of disabled people to discuss the access needs of disabled people in the implementation of pedestrianisation in Belfast. [71554]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Roads Service under its chief executive, Mr. W. J. McCoubrey. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from W. J. McCoubrey to Mr. Eddie McGrady, dated 22 February 1999:
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked me to respond to your two recently tabled Parliamentary Questions about the Department's proposals to restrict vehicular access to Belfast city centre.
  First, you asked what instructions the Secretary of State has given to officials in Roads Service in respect of requests for meetings from organisations representing disabled people to discuss the access needs of disabled people in implementing the Department's proposals. The Secretary of State has not given any such instructions. In the 3-year period prior to publication of the Department's proposals Departmental officials held a number of meetings with organisations representing disabled people in an endeavour to reach agreement. The Minister, Lord Dubs, and his predecessor each attended one of these meetings.
  Secondly, you asked the Secretary of State how many objections her Department has received to the Department's proposals; who they have been received from; and what are the main grounds for objection put forward by each objector. The Department published its Notice of Intention to make the proposed legislation restricting vehicular access to Belfast city centre on 17 June 1998, allowing 28 days for objections and other representations. During the prescribed period 31 objections and 6 letters containing general comments were received. Since then a further 43 representations have been submitted. The objections have been received from a wide range of organisations and individuals, including political representatives. The main ground for objection is that the Department's proposed legislation does not include an exemption to
  366
  permit Orange Badge holders to drive into and park in the streets within the pedestrian priority area. Other grounds for objection are that:
  taxis will not be allowed access to the city centre;
  the proposed seating and shelter provision for disabled people within the pedestrian priority area is inadequate;
  other modes of access to the city centre do not exist;
  parking spaces have not been set aside for the exclusive use of Shopmobility Belfast users;
  the distance between the proposed disabled parking bays and the shops is too great;
  an alternative 2-tier Orange Badge system is required to cater for the needs of people who are disabled and those who are more profoundly disabled;
  an overall review of the Orange Badge system is required.
  I trust the above information is helpful.

  New Deal
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many New Deal places have been offered in Northern Ireland, broken down by industry; and how many have been taken up in each month to date. [71412]

  Mr. Ingram
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Training and Employment Agency under its chief executive, Mr. Ian Walters. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Ian Walters to Mr. Malcolm Moss, dated 23 February 1999:
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked me as Chief Executive of the Training & Employment Agency to reply to your question on New Deal.
  The latest information available on the numbers of Employment Option vacancies offered by employers and placements, broken down by industry, are shown in the attached table. Out of the total of 1,749 vacancies 784 have been filled and decisions are awaited from employers on 1,800 submissions. (A submission is the referral of one New Deal participant for one vacancy. New Deal participants are often submitted for more than one vacancy).
  In addition, 1,668 New Deal participants had moved into unsubsidised jobs.
  Information on the uptake of Employment Option vacancies by sector each month is not currently available. A new computer system is being installed which will make this information more readily available.
  367

  Employment option vacancies and placements by sector

  Vacancies

  Placements

  Agriculture and Horticulture

  91

  62

  Forestry

  1

  1

  Fishing

  2

  —

  Mineral Oil Processing

  1

  —

  Production and Distribution of Electricity/Gas/Other Forms of Energy

  15

  13

  Water Supply Industry

  2

  —

  Metal Manufacturing

  10

  5

  Extraction of Minerals NES

  3

  1

  Manufacture of Nonmetallic Mineral Product

  31

  12

  Chemical Industry

  9

  5

  Production of Man-made Fibres

  4

  1

  Manufacture of Metal Goods NES

  18

  4

  Mechanical Engineering

  47

  18

  Manufacture of Office Machinery and DP Equipment

  15

  6

  Electrical and Electronic Engineering

  54

  25

  Manufacture of Motor Vehicles and Parts Thereof

  26

  16

  Manufacture of Other Transport Equipment

  4

  1

  Instrument Engineering

  4

  2

  Food/Drink/Tobacco/Manufacturing Industries

  50

  20

  Food/Drink/Tobacco/Manufacturing Industries

  11

  6

  Textile Industry

  40

  11

  Manufacture of Leather and Leather Goods

  1

  —

  Footwear and Clothing Industries

  24

  10

  Timber and Wooden Furniture Industries

  36

  18

  Manufacture Paper and Paper Products, Printing/Publishing

  39

  19

  Processing of Rubber and Plastics

  9

  4

  Other Manufacturing Industries

  13

  5

  Construction

  190

  102

  Wholesale Distribution x Dealing in Scrap/Waste

  41

  23

  Dealing in Scrap and Waste Materials

  6

  2

  Commission Agents

  2

  —

  Retail Distribution

  247

  109

  Hotels and Catering

  137

  49

  Repair of Consumer Goods and Vehicles

  20

  8

  Other Inland Transport

  23

  11

  Supporting Services to Transport

  4

  2

  Miscellaneous Transport Services and Storage NES

  2

  2

  Postal Service and Telecommunications

  4

  1

  Banking and Finance

  11

  2

  Insurance x Compulsory Social Security

  7

  3

  Business Services

  106

  41

  Renting of Movables

  11

  3

  Owning and Dealing in Real Estate

  4

  1

  Public Administration/National Defence/Compulsory Social Security

  30

  9

  Sanitary Services

  24

  12

  Education

  43

  29

  Research and Development

  3

  —

  Medical and Other Health Services: Veterinary Services

  41

  12

  Other Services to the General Public

  67

  33

  Recreational Services and Other Cultural Services

  67

  23

  Personal Services

  84

  42

  Domestic Services

  15

  —

  Total

  1,749

  784

  Note:

  These figures are based on the latest information available and are subject to audit.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if all Departments are Year 2000 compliant; and if she will make a statement on the progress of the Year 2000 bug-busters in Northern Ireland. [71529]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I refer the hon. Member to the quarterly statements made in the House by the President of the Council. These statements cover the whole of the United Kingdom. The President of the Council is due to 368
  make a further statement in March to update the House on progress towards compliance. Information on the compliance situation in each department is laid before the House each quarter and is published on the internet.

  The take up of Year 2000 bug buster training by small and medium sized companies in Northern Ireland has, since its launch on 16 October 1998, been extremely reassuring and compares very favourably with participation levels in the rest of the United Kingdom.
  369
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many Year 2000 bug-busters have successfully completed their training; and how many are currently employed to tackle the problem in Northern Ireland. [71544]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  At 15 February 1999, 883 employees of Northern Ireland companies had successfully completed bug buster training with a further 293 due to complete training by the end of February 1999. There are 6 accredited providers appointed to deliver the Government's bug buster programme Northern Ireland. Approximately 65 local companies are offering solutions to Year 2000 problems.

  Computer Science Students
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many students are studying for computer science degrees in Northern Ireland colleges; and how many of these are studying(a) business information systems and (b) programming; and how many computer science degrees have been awarded in the past five years. [71560]

  Mr. McFall
  Students enrolled on first degree and postgraduate courses in Computer Science at Northern Ireland institutions 1997–98:

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Total

  First degree

  1,006

  90

  1,096

  Postgraduate

  274

  355

  629

  Total

  1,280

  445

  1,725

  Information on the number of these students studying (a) business information systems and (b) programming is not readily available.

  Students gaining higher education qualifications in Computer Science at the Northern Ireland universities:

  1993–941

  1994–952

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Postgraduate

  n/a

  207

  3144

  333

  445

  First Degrees

  208

  220

  220

  250

  238

  1 From returns made directly by the universities which relate only to the awarding of first degrees.

  2 Information from 1994–95 onwards is taken from the Individualised Student Record collected by Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA).

  3 In 1995–96, it appears that students receiving interim awards on linked Postgraduate Certificate, postgraduate Diploma and Masters courses were not recorded by the University of Ulster.

  Paramilitary Violence
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) if she will publish for the week ended Saturday 13 February the number of(a) punishment beatings and (b) punishment shootings which took place in Northern Ireland, indicating how many in each category were committed by (i) Loyalist and (ii) Republican groups; [72551]
  370
  (2) if she will publish for the week ended Saturday 13 February the number of violent incidents involving paramilitary groups which took place in Northern Ireland, indicating how many involved (a) Loyalist and (b) Republican groups. [72550]

  Mr. Ingram
  During the period 7 February to 13 February, there were 5 shooting incidents and 4 bombing incidents. The number of casualties as a result of paramilitary-style attacks during this period are as illustrated below:

  By Loyalist

  By Republican

  Assaults

  7

  1

  Shootings

  5

  0

  Total

  12

  1

  Notes:

  1. Figures may be subject to minor amendment in the light of further information becoming available.

  2. The bombings cannot as yet be attributed to any grouping.

  3. All 5 shooting incidents relate in this instance to paramilitary-style attacks (as illustrated in the table).

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Electronic Transactions
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on his progress in developing a modernised commercial regime for electronic transactions. [71606]

  Mr. Wills
  The Government are committed to developing the UK as the best place in the world for trading electronically and to helping many more small businesses exploit the opportunities of electronic commerce, with the goal of tripling the number of SMEs wired up to the digital market place from 350,000 to 1 million by 2002. The White Paper "Our Competitive Future: Building the Knowledge Drive Economy" set out a wide range of actions to help achieve these goals. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be publishing an implementation plan for the White Paper shortly.

  Social Chapter
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate his Department has made of the annual cost of the social chapter's (i) parental leave directive, (ii) works councils' directive and (iii) part time workers' directive to British business. [71607]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  Impact assessments for all these measures have been presented to Parliament. European Works Councils were estimated to cost £18 million per year. Measures to implement the Parental Leave Directive are estimated to cost £36 million per year. The costs of the Part Time Work Directive are likely to be small. We expect the benefits of all these and other social partnership measures to far outweigh any costs by combating unregulated absenteeism. For example, survey evidence from the CBI suggests that the annual cost of sick absence in the UK could be as much as £25 billion.

  Insolvency
  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will introduce measures to
  371
  ensure that companies with strong potential for long-term growth are not forced into insolvency because of short-term difficulties. [71608]

  Mr. Byers
  I have recently set up a review to consider existing procedures for business rescues and what more can be done to enable fundamentally sound business to survive short-term difficulties. It will report by the end of July.

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has for helping entrepreneurs whose businesses fail through no fault of their own. [71619]

  Dr. Howells
  As announced in the Competitiveness White Paper, officials are considering whether insolvency law (and particularly bankruptcy law) and practice inhibit enterprise. An initial report will be made to Ministers by the end of April 1999, which will consider what changes might be made to current law and practice.

  Science and Engineering
  Mr. Plaskitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has for encouraging young people to enter careers in science and engineering. [71610]

  Mr. Battle
  The Government have developed and supported a wide range of initiatives:The Public Understanding of Science, Engineering and Technology programme, to raise general awareness of these subjects.
  A unit dedicated to Promoting SET for Women.
  I recently announced £1.5 million support for the promotion of engineering, with £425,000 p.a. allocated to Quinco, the engineering community's new five year campaign.
  We continue to support SETNET which aims to ensure that information on promotional schemes for school children to consider careers in science, engineering and mathematics is accessible to teachers and potential industrial sponsors.

  Employment Relations Bill
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment his Department has made of the impact on small businesses of the measures included in the Employment Relations Bill; and if he will make a statement. [71611]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  Businesses of all sizes will benefit from the measures in the Bill. Decent minimum standards protect responsible employers from being undercut by less responsible employers. The culture of partnership we are encouraging should raise employee commitment and thus promote greater staff retention, reduced absenteeism and greater productivity.

  Offshore Wind Power
  Dr. George Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the prospects for offshore wind power generation. [71612]

  Mr. Battle
  I launched a consultation paper on incorporating offshore wind energy into future non-fossil fuel obligation arrangements at the British Wind Energy Association's conference in Cardiff on 2 September 1998. The responses which have been received are being assessed by my officials. Meanwhile, the Crown Estate have announced the arrangements they have made with 372
  developers to undertake wind speed measurements on five potential offshore windfarm sites. I expect to launch a consultation on future new and renewable energy policy shortly.

  Transco
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what response he has made to the Ofgas report into anti-competitive practices by Transco; and what measures he proposes to assist and protect public gas transporters. [71613]

  Mr. Battle
  This report is a matter for the Director General of Gas Supply, who has since made and announced an Enforcement Order on Transco. The Competition Act 1998 will from next year provide tough new powers for the investigation and prohibition of anti-competitive agreements and abuse of market power, exercisable by the sectoral regulators (including the DGGS) concurrently with the Director General of Fair Trading.

  The Government have also conducted a review of utility regulation the main conclusions of which were set out in our response to consultation, "A Fair Deal for Consumers: Modernising the Framework for Utility Regulation", published in July 1998. We are committed to legislating on utility reform as soon as Parliamentary time permits.

  Sports Viewing Rights
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement about the ownership of sports viewing rights. [71615]

  Dr. Howells
  The sale of broadcasting rights is one way in which sport can generate the income that it needs in order both to publicise and encourage participation in sport and to secure finances to help improve facilities.

  Assisted Area Status (Lancaster)
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of Lancaster's application for assisted area status. [71617]

  Mr. Wills
  The Government are considering carefully the needs of all areas, including Lancaster, under the current review of the Assisted Areas.

  Parental Leave Directive
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement about the costs to employers of the administration of the parental leave directive. [71618]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  We have published our estimate of the costs to employers of parental leave in the Regulatory Impact Assessment for the Employment Relations Bill. We will be consulting on the details of the parental leave scheme in the draft regulations which we will publish before the Summer. We aim to keep employers' administrative costs to a minimum and will make a further assessment of these when the details are settled.

  Business Regulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what deregulation or better regulations his Department plans to help businesses compete more effectively with those of other nations. [71620]

  Dr. Howells
  The Competitiveness White Paper in December set out 75 commitments to help British business compete more effectively. Specific regulatory measures include:an effective modern competition framework;
  removal of obstacles that stand in the way of electronic commerce;
  reform of telecommunications regulation; and
  seeking the removal of remaining barriers on trade in future international trade negotiations.

  Dubelle Foundation
  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures are being taken to investigate the activities of the Dubelle Foundation. [71621]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department of Trade and Industry does not comment on the affairs of an individual company in relation to possible investigations.

  National Minimum Wage
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the impact of the minimum wage on the competitiveness of British industry; and if he will make a statement. [71622]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The introduction of the national minimum wage will enable companies to compete on the basis of the quality of the goods and services they provide not just on price based on low pay. The minimum wage will help to improve productivity. It will create a better rewarded and more committed workforce, which will encourage investment in training, reduce staff turnover and help raise productivity.

  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has for monitoring compliance with the national minimum wage. [71631]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  Inland Revenue officers will be responsible for ensuring compliance with the national minimum wage and that work will be monitored by means of a service level agreement with my Department. More generally, we have asked the Low Pay Commission to monitor and evaluate the introduction and impact of the national minimum wage.

  Trade Liberalisation
  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what approach he intends to take in pursuing international trade liberalisation. [71623]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Government seek actively to work with the EU and with the UK's major trading partners, through such mechanisms as the Transatlantic Economic Partnership and the Asia-Europe meeting, to encourage the reduction of barriers to trade in overseas markets. In particular, the Government share the European Union's support for a comprehensive new Round of trade 374
  liberalisation negotiations to be launched at the World Trade Organisation's next Ministerial meeting, to be held in Seattle, USA in November-December this year. A comprehensive Round offers the best chance of ensuring real gains for all participants, including developing countries.

  Libya (Sanctions)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the outcome of his meeting with representatives of the British Libyan Interest Group to discuss the effects on trade between Britain and Libya of economic sanctions. [71624]

  Mr. Wilson
  I have not met representatives of the British Libyan Business Group. However, DTI Officials recently met the BLBG Secretariat to listen to their views and will continue with that dialogue. Officials keep me fully informed.

  Genetic Material (Patenting)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will set out his responsibilities in respect of issues relating to patenting of genetic material. [71625]

  Mr. Battle
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has responsibility for the Patents Act 1977 and associated Rules, and for making any amendments to this legislation which, for example, may be required to implement the European Directive (98/44/EC) on patents for biotechnological inventions. This legislation is administered by the Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks who has responsibility for granting patents under the criteria specified in this legislation. Rights granted can be challenged before the courts.

  Competitiveness White Paper
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has for the implementation of the measures proposed in the Competitiveness White Paper in the areas of new technology. [71626]

  Mr. Battle
  The Government have appointed an Implementation Manager, as promised in paragraph 5.10 of the Competitiveness White Paper. We will publish the Implementation Plan for the commitments including developing new technologies we gave in the Competitiveness White Paper shortly.

  Manufacturing (West Midlands)
  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to improve competitiveness in manufacturing in the west midlands. [71627]

  Mr. Battle
  The Government's support to help improve the competitiveness of West Midlands manufacturing companies is extensive, focused mainly through the 10 regional Business Link partnerships. The West Midlands Regional Supply Office also provides specialist help in linking purchasers with suppliers and supply chain development with a particular focus on a number of industrial sectors.
  375
  Specific initiatives to improve manufacturing performance in the West Midlands include:
  The World Class Supplier—Accelerate Project. This programme is designed to improve the competitiveness of automotive component manufacturers and is supported by many of the region's major manufacturing companies. The project aims to assist over 3,000 SMEs through establishing 40 networks with the aim of safeguarding 26,000 jobs and levering £10.3 million investment.
  The West Midlands Manufacturing Challenge is helping companies improve by offering a free analysis of their position undertaken by a manufacturing specialist who identifies areas for improvement. To date it has assisted over 750 companies and aims to support 2,000 by the end of this year. One firm which used the programme reduced delivery times by 3 weeks and another increased productivity by 50 per cent.

  Car Purchasing (EU)
  Mr. Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps his Department has taken to make it easier for United Kingdom consumers to buy cars from elsewhere in the EU. [71628]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department seeks to ensure that all infringements of EC competition law which restrict imports of cars into the UK are vigorously pursued by the European Commission. We welcome the establishment of manufacturers' hotlines which will make it easier for consumers to purchase cars elsewhere in the EU. We have placed a list of the numbers for use of UK consumers in the House of Commons Library.

  EU Structural Funds
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement about reform of EU structural funds. [71629]

  Mr. Wills
  The discussions between Member States and the Commission on the reform of the Structural and Cohesion Funds will continue until the March 1999 deadline set by the Cardiff Council last June.

  The UK is negotiating for an outcome that is fair and affordable to all future and existing Member States, particularly the UK.

  Unsolicited E-mail
  Ms Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures he intends to take to tackle the costs to business of unsolicited e-mail known as spam. [71630]

  Mr. Wills
  The Government are aware that unsolicited email is a potentially difficult area for business. There are several industry initiatives aimed at tackling this problem. Most Internet Service Providers (ISPs) have installed systems aimed at combating unsolicited email, and the London Internet Exchange (LINX) is producing a set of best practice guidelines for ISPs on this subject. In addition the Direct Marketing Association is working on an email preference scheme, to operate in a similar way to the conventional mail preference service but with global rather than national coverage. Such initiatives will be aided by the draft Electronic Commerce Directive which would require all unsolicited commercial communications by email to be indicated as such. The 376
  Government will monitor the effectiveness of these approaches and consider whether any further action is required in the light of their impact on the problem.

  Rover (Longbridge)
  Ms Stuart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the contribution of the partnership between unions and management at Rover Longbridge to the continuation of motor car production at the plant. [71616]

  Mr. Byers
  I have been most impressed by the positive response of the Unions and the management at Rover to the challenges now facing the company. There is no doubt that the agreement reached last year to introduce flexible working patterns and to reduce costs has played a significant role in helping to secure the Mini investment.

  Superphenix Fast Reactor
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if British Energy has retained the shareholding inherited from the Central Electricity Generating Board in the holding company NERSA in respect of ownership of the Superphenix fast reactor in France. [69603]

  Mr. Battle
  The shareholding was retained in Magnox Electric plc at the time of British Energy's privatisation, and is now held by BNFL.

  Energy Charges
  Dan Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to remove the right of(a) water, (b) electricity and (c) gas suppliers to make standing charges payable by (i) pensioner households and (ii) households receiving income support; and if he will make a statement. [71054]

  Mr. Battle
  Clearly it is essential that special care should be taken to ensure that vulnerable groups of customers have access to reliable, affordable, water and energy supplies. That is why this Government have vigorously taken forward work on modernising the framework for utility regulation. The Government's review of water charging in England and Wales raised concerns about the effect of high standing charges on low income, low water users such as pensioners living alone. The Government will consider further how these effects can best be mitigated within the new framework proposed in the Water Industry Bill now before Parliament. Also, we are encouraging the regulator for gas and electricity to review the Social Dimension in his Action Plan, with a view to determining what further initiatives can provide effective help to the fuel poor.

  Standing charges have been the usual means of utility companies making a charge for the fixed costs of providing a service which do not vary according to the level of usage. Such costs generally include meter reading, accounting and billing, maintenance of infrastructure, and provision of emergency services, although there is no requirement for these costs to be recovered by means of a standing charge.

  With the spread of competition in the gas and electricity markets, many customers already have a choice of who should supply them with these important utility services.
  377
  Soon, that choice will extend to all such customers. Some gas and electricity suppliers recognise that standing charges are either not popular or appropriate for every individual customer, and have decided to offer different terms which exclude any standing charge. Customers will be able to choose what is best for their own particular needs.

  It is our objective that all groups of customers should benefit from increasing efficiency by receiving quality service at the best possible prices.

  Military Exports (Bahrain)
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many licences have been granted since 1 May 1997 for the export of arms to Bahrain; and if he will provide details of the arms covered by each licence and the declared purpose. [71301]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 15 February 1999]: 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 2 May 1997 and 29 January 1999, 45 Standard Individual Export Licences (SIELs) and 26 Open Individual Export Licences (OIELs) were issued covering the export to consignees or end-users in Bahrain 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.

  Individual licences issued between 2 May 1997 and 29 January 1999 covering the export to Bahrain of goods on the Military List

  Rating

  Number of SIELs issued covering Number of goods with this rating

  Number of OIELs issued covering goods with this rating

  ML1

  14

  1

  ML2

  8

  0

  ML3

  12

  0

  ML4

  1

  2

  ML5

  5

  7

  ML6

  1

  0

  ML7

  0

  1

  ML8

  0

  1

  ML9

  0

  1

  ML10

  0

  4

  ML11

  5

  11

  ML13

  3

  2

  ML14

  0

  1

  ML15

  0

  2

  ML18

  0

  1

  ML21

  0

  2

  ML22

  0

  2

  PL5006

  3

  0

  PL5017

  3

  1

  PL5030

  1

  0

  This information does not cover any Media OIELs that may have been issued during this period. Media OIELs authorise the export to all destinations of protective clothing, mainly for the protection of aid agency workers and journalists, when working in areas of conflict.
  378
  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.

  Details of the military equipment for which licences are granted will be given in the Government's annual report on strategic export controls for the relevant period.

  As regards the additional information requested about the stated end use, this could be compiled only by examining the original case papers for each of the licences concerned, and this together with any inquiries necessary under the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, would entail disproportionate cost.

  In addition, goods on the Military List may have been exported to Bahrain 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.

  Military Exports (Indonesia)
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if he will list(a) the licence applications for military exports to Indonesia which have been refused in the past five years and (b) the reasons for the refusals; [71923]

  (2) if he will list the export licence applications for military exports to Indonesia which have been refused in the past five years. [72017]

  Dr. Howells
  The Export Control Organisation's computer databases have been interrogated and the following results were obtained. In the calendar years 1994 to 1998, 21 applications for Standard Individual Export Licences (SIELs) and one application for an Open Individual Export Licence (OIEL) were refused 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. The entry in the relevant legislation under which the export of goods is controlled is known as their rating. Applications for individual licences may cover a range of goods with various ratings. Where this is so, the application is included in the total for all of the relevant ratings.

  Number of applications for SIELs refused in each calendar year covering the export to Indonesia of goods on the Military List

  Rating

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  ML1

  1

  2

  3

  3

  1

  ML2

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  ML3

  3

  0

  1

  0

  0

  ML4

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  ML5

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  ML6

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  ML7

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  ML14

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  ML15

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  PL5002

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  PL5017

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  PL5018

  3

  0

  1

  0

  0

  PL5021

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total number of applications

  5

  3

  4

  8

  1

  379
  The single application for an OIEL was refused in 1996, and covered goods with the ratings ML4, ML11, ML14 and ML24.

  This information does not cover any applications for Media OIELs that may have been refused during this period. Media OIELs authorise the export to all destinations of protective clothing, mainly for the protection of aid agency workers and journalists, when working in areas of conflict.

  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.

  The decisions to refuse these applications were taken in accordance with the criteria applied at the relevant times.

  Renewable Energy
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when his Department's review of renewable energy will be published. [72300]

  Mr. Battle
  I plan to publish a paper on my review of renewable energy policy shortly which will analyse the status and prospects for renewables and present policies for developing renewables further.

  Milk
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to receive the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on the supply of raw milk in Great Britain; and if he will make it his policy(a) to publish that report and (b) to undertake a public consultation on its recommendations before he makes a decision on them. [72310]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 22 February 1999]: The Monopolies and Mergers Commission (MMC) is required to deliver its report on the supply of raw milk in Great Britain to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry by 26 February 1999. The Secretary of State is required to publish all monopoly reports, and will announce what action he intends to take, if any, when he publishes the report.

  Hallmarks
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if articles of the 10 carat gold standard hallmarked in Ireland may be placed on the market in the United Kingdom; and what assessment he has made of the consequences for British competitiveness of such marketing. [72589]

  Dr. Howells
  Following the amendments to the Hallmarking Act 1973 which came into effect on 1 January, the United Kingdom, in accordance with Article 30 of the EC Treaty and European case law concerning the free circulation of goods, has permitted articles of precious metal hallmarked in Ireland to be marketed here without further hallmarking by a UK assay office. I can confirm that this would include articles of 10 carat gold.
  380
  Manufacturers can have articles of gold hallmarked by UK Assay Offices to standards of fineness including 9, 14, 18 and 22 carat (375, 585, 750 and 916.6 parts per thousand respectively) as well as new "pure" standards of 990 and 999 parts per thousand. Given that there is no reason to believe that UK consumers are likely to prefer the 10 carat standard over any of the standards of fineness available here, I do not believe that UK manufactures are likely to be placed at a competitive disadvantage as a result. It is generally agreed that a proliferation of standards is not in the interests of consumers and the United Kingdom seeks to give a lead in this matter by not introducing further standards into the UK hallmarking system. However, DTI will look very carefully at the position in the light of future experience.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if all the European Economic Area states have amended their laws to permit articles hallmarked in the United Kingdom to be sold in their states; and if he will make a statement. [72590]

  Dr. Howells
  Only those EEA States which have a mandatory requirement for hallmarking under their law and have in the past required imported articles to be re-hallmarked in their country before being placed on the market they would need to amend their laws to permit articles hallmarked in the United Kingdom to be placed on their markets without further marking. The DTI is obtaining up-to-date information from the Commission about which countries have now made the necessary changes to their legislation. I will write to the hon. Member as soon as the information is available and will place a copy of the reply in the Libraries of the House.

  In any event, it should be noted that the legal position concerning the free circulation of goods in the EU Member States is set out in Article 30 of the EC Treaty and European caselaw. Notwithstanding whether a Member State has amended its national legislation the Treaty and caselaw will have effect and under these provisions I understand that UK hallmarks should be accepted throughout the European Community. The other EEA States (i.e. Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein) are governed by the EEA Agreement (1992).

  Electronic Publishing Industry
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will publish the report sponsored by his Department on the electronic publishing industry. [73946]

  Mr. Wills
  The Report, The Advance of Electronic Publishing, which examines the barriers and drivers of the electronic publishing and content industries, was published today. Copies are available in the Library of the House. It can also be accessed on the Internet at www.isi.gov.uk/new/advance.html.

  European Airlines (State Aids)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received on state aids to European airlines; and if he will make a statement. [71595]

  Dr. Howells
  State aid to the airline industry is a matter for my right hon. Friend of the Minister of Transport.
  381
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who has overall responsibility for State aid policy, has not received any representations.

  I understand that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport has received 6 representations in all; 2 from members of the public, 3 from MPs on behalf of constituents and one direct from the hon. Member herself.

  Benefit Payments (Post Offices)
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many post offices have had the new Benefits Agency/POCL system installed to date; how many remain to have the system installed; how many have had the system installed in each week throughout the period of installation to date; and how many will have the system installed in each remaining week of the implementation period. [73031]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Post Office tell me that at present 204 post offices have been automated and are paying Child Benefit by Payment Card as part of a limited trial of the new Benefits Agency/Post Office Counters system; 18,610 post offices remain to have the system installed; the system was installed in the 204 post offices in the trial in 1997 at the rate of 20 offices per week; and national roll-out of the system to every post office, which will only commence once final acceptance trials have been completed, is scheduled to take place at a rate of some 300 post offices a week.

  Dounreay
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to reach a decision regarding the future of the PFR Reprocessing Plant at Dounreay; what consultation he will carry out prior to reaching that decision; when he expects to receive options studies from the UK Atomic Energy Authority with regard to this decision; if he will place a copy of the option studies in the Library; when he plans to announce his decision; and if he will make a statement. [72334]

  Mr. Battle
  A comprehensive review by UKAEA of the options for handling PFR and other fuels awaiting treatment at Dounreay is nearing completion. I await UKAEA's formal proposals which will be subject to full and careful scrutiny in due course. I also intend to consult relevant Government advisory bodies and allow sufficient time to give proper consideration to the issues before making a decision. In accordance with the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, the relevant facts and analysis of the facts important in framing the Government's decision on this issue will be published when we announce our decision.

  Au Pairs
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to what extent the cost of board, lodging and similar incidentals is taken into account in the regulation of the terms and conditions applying to the employment of au pairs; and if he will make a statement. [71976]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I have been asked to reply.
  382
  Under the Immigration Rules, overseas nationals living in the United Kingdom as au pairs live as part of the family. The recommended weekly allowance is kept under review.

  Vaux Brewery
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions he has had about the future of Vaux Brewery; and if he will make a statement. [73260]

  Mr. Byers
  I am aware of the importance that many in the region attach to the future of the Vaux brewery in Sunderland. I am also aware of reports that Vaux is looking to sell its brewing interests. I am conscious of my hon. Friend's personal interest in this issue and would be happy to meet him to discuss his concerns.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Early Education (Three-year-olds)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer of 1 February 1999,Official Report, column 483, what plans he has to measure the present participation rate of three-year-olds in early education in Southampton in order to measure progress with his target to double that rate. [71980]

  Ms Hodge
  The Government's target is to double the proportion of three-year-old children in free early education places to 66 per cent. across England by 2001–02; a target participation rate will be set for each Local Education Authority which will enable us to meet that national target. The present participation rate and plans for expansion will be described in each Local Education Authority area's Early Years Development and Child Care Plan.

  Education Expenditure (West Sussex)
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the effects of the 1999–2000 revenue support grant on the provision of education services in West Sussex. [73129]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The revenue support grant settlement for 1999–2000 for West Sussex includes an underlying increase of £15.5 million or 6.1 per cent. in the education standard spending assessment, after allowing for local authority changes of function. This is sufficient to meet the pressures faced by education services in West Sussex if, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has urged it to do, the County Council uses all of the cash increase in the education SSA to support education, especially schools.

  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the provision of capital funding for schools in West Sussex in 1999–2000. [73130]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  An allocation of £3,329,969 was announced through the Annual Capital Guideline on 16 December 1998.

  Announcements on the Class Size and New Deal for Schools allocations for 1999–2000 will be made shortly.

  Grammar Schools (Ballots)
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if additional funding will be made available to local education authorities to cover the administration costs of running ballots on the future of grammar schools; and if he will make a statement. [73188]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The responsibility for administering ballots on the future admission arrangements of grammar schools will not fall to local authorities. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has appointed Electoral Reform (Ballot Services) Limited to act as the ballot administration company. The Department for Education and Employment will reimburse the costs incurred by the company in providing this service.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Immigration Consultation Papers
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the responses his Department received in respect of the consultation papers on(a) the Control of Unscrupulous Immigration Advisers, (b) the Review of Appeals and (c) the White Paper, Fairer, Faster and Firmer, indicating how many were (i) in favour and (ii) opposed to (1) a single tier of immigration appeals, (2) a presumption in favour of hearings on the papers rather than oral hearings for appeals, (3) the introduction of a charge towards the cost of an appeal against a refusal of an application for entry clearance as a visitor, (4) including the legal profession in a statutory regulation scheme for immigration advisers, (5) cash payments rather than benefits in kind being made to asylum seekers, (6) the dispersal of asylum seekers to accommodation throughout the United Kingdom without their consent, (7) magistrates hearing bail applications, (8) administrative removal for overstayers rather than deportation and a right of appeal and (9) the removal of a right of appeal against a decision which does not result in the applicant having to leave the United Kingdom. [70383]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Disability Discrimination Act 1995
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the impact on his Department' s policies of the goods and services provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to be implemented in October 1999. [71273]

  Review

  Actual report date

  Anticipated report date

  Comments

  Review of the law relating to bribery corruption

  31 July 1998

  Review of arrangements for confiscation of criminal assets

  1 November 1998

  Review of community fire safety

  3 November 1997

  Interdepartmental review of the treatment of vulnerable and intimidated witnesses

  10 June 1998

  384
  Mr. Straw
  We have already done much work to ensure that the Department's policies meet the needs of disabled people and that we comply with our legal requirements. We shall continue to do so, not only by complying fully with new duties in the Disability Discrimination Act but by aiming to exceed them where appropriate.

  We have promulgated within the Department the guidance "Policy Appraisal for Equal Treatment" which the Cabinet Office issued to all Government Departments in November 1998, and which was signed jointly by the Home Secretary, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment and the Minister for Women. All ministerial submissions on new policy initiatives or significant policy changes are now assessed for any adverse impact not only on disabled people but on any minority or disadvantaged group.

  Different areas of the Home Office have different requirements. Two examples of good practice where specialist provision is available are the Immigration and Nationality Department Public Inquiry Office at Croydon, which includes interview booths being wheelchair accessible and fitted with induction loops, the provision of hand rails, special access arrangements for callers with disability, low level pay phones and adapted toilet facilities.

  The Passport Agency provides, among other things, staff trained in sign language, textphones, the Typetalk service provided by BT and the Royal National Institute for the Deaf, literature in alternative formats and Braille stickers to identify a passport.

  My hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), the Under-Secretary, chairs a Working Party on Electoral Procedures which considers disability access to electoral services of all kinds.

  Consolidated and enhanced guidance which includes advice on national access standards will be issued shortly to all returning officers.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what(a) reviews, (b) task forces and (c) advisory groups have been established by his Department since 1 May 1997; what costs they have incurred to date; and what reports they have published. [71509]

  Mr. Straw
  A list of the reviews, task forces and advisory groups established by my Department since 1 May 1997 are listed in the table. Terms of reference have been given where a report date cannot be specified.
  385

  Review

  Actual report date

  Anticipated report date

  Comments

  Strategic review of national police training

  October 1998

  Interdepartmental review of police pensions

  Reported by way of a consultation paper on 31 March 1998

  Review of prison nursing services

  Subsumed into the review of long-term future of prison health care

  Review of prison service drug strategy

  Subsumed into the review of long-term future of prison health care

  Future of prison service review of long term health care

  Report completed in September 1998

  Announcement expected in March 1999

  Review of prison investigation strategy

  New procedure expected to be implemented by Summer 1999

  Review of sex offences

  Outcome expected to be announced in December 1999

  Working party on electoral procedures

  Due to report in Summer 1999

  Review of local civil protection in England and Wales

  21 July 1998

  Review on the interdepartmental working group on preventing unsuitable people from working with children

  25 January 1999

  Review on the control of unscrupulous immigration advisers

  Draft clauses for statutory regulatory scheme contained on the Immigration and Nationality Bill introduced on 9 February 1999

  Review on the control of unscrupulous immigration advisers

  Draft clauses for statutory regulatory scheme contained in the Immigration and Nationality Bill introduced on 9 February 1999

  Review of immigration and asylum appeals

  Consultation paper issued on 13 July 1998. Draft clauses for new system of immigration and asylum appeals contained in the Immigration and Asylum Bill introduced on 9 February 1999

  Review to consider permanent UK-wide counter terrorism legislation

  17 December 1998

  Review of measures to deal with protection of communities from known sex offenders who pose a continuing risk

  Measures announced in the Crime and Disorder Act on 31 July 1998

  Review of anti-social behaviour

  Measures announced in the Crime and Disorder Act on 31 July 1998

  Review on measures on community safety

  Measures announced in the Crime and Disorder Act on 31 July 1998

  Prisons—Probation Review

  Consultation paper published in August 1998

  Outcome expected to be announced shortly

  386 387

  Review

  Actual report date

  Anticipated report date

  Comments

  Review of welfare services to the courts

  Consultation paper published on 29 July 1998

  Outcome expected to be announced shortly

  Lord Chancellor's Department, Home Office and the Department of Health

  Review on the United Kingdom's position under various International Human Rights Instruments

  Originally expected to complete in 1998. Outcome now expected to be announced shortly

  Foreign and Commonwealth and Home Office

  Review of the Prison Service's Quantum Project

  Outcome expected to be announced shortly

  The Prime Minister's task force on the active community

  Initially announced by the Prime Minister on 26 March 1998 and subsequently. The subject of a speech he made on 21 January 1999 in which he announced the establishment of a working group under the Chairmanship of Lord Warner. The question of a separate task force remains under review

  Task force on youth justice

  Measures announced in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998

  To encourage and develop active citizenship and social responsibility amongst young people. Established in June 1997 and wound up in July 1998

  Ministerial task force on relations between Government and the voluntary, volunteering and community sectors

  To oversee, monitor the implementation of the compact between the Government and the voluntary sectors

  Advisory Groups Advisory board on restricted patients

  To provide the Home Secretary with advice to assist with decisions about those patients subject to special restrictions set out in Section 41 of the Mental Health Act 1983 whose potential risk to the public safety is considered to be particularly difficult to assess

  Advisory panel for the Youth Facilitator Programme

  To advise, promote and contribute to training networks and support facilitators via the programme advisers

  Older Volunteers Initiative Group

  To provide advice, support and ideas on how to support and encourage volunteering by older people provide

  Race Relations Forum

  To advise the Home Secretary on issues affecting ethnic minority communities

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate Complaints Audit Committee

  To satisfy itself as to the effectiveness of the procedures for investigating complaints and to draw the Immigration and Nationality Department's attention to any weaknesses, and to report to the Secretary of State

  I have also established a number of Non-Departmental Public Bodies to which I have not referred, but which provide regular advice and information to my Department. Details of these can be found in "Public Bodies 1998".
  388
  Details of costs incurred are generally subsumed within the Departmental running budget and are not held centrally. This could, therefore, be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Christmas Day Trading
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans the Government have to prevent or control the opening of shops on Christmas Day. [72606]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Shops may choose their opening hours, except on Sundays if they are over 280 square metres in area. The restrictions affect Christmas Day but only when it falls on a Sunday. We have no plans to change the present law.

  Female Prisoner Accommodation
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list all accommodation for female prisoners and females on remand showing(a) location, (b) nominal capacity, (c) actual number of

  Female prison population in England and Wales by establishment, 31 December 1996–31 December 1998

  31 December 1996

  31 December 1997

  31 December 1998

  Establishment

  All females

  Remand

  CNA

  All females

  Remand

  CNA

  All females

  Remand

  CNA

  Askham Grange

  118

  0

  130

  119

  0

  130

  123

  0

  130

  Brockhill

  151

  5

  159

  118

  54

  159

  141

  86

  145

  Bullwood Hall

  123

  0

  125

  140

  0

  140

  127

  0

  140

  Cookham Wood

  146

  0

  120

  130

  0

  120

  155

  0

  120

  Drake Hall

  224

  0

  281

  225

  0

  281

  231

  0

  295

  Durham

  44

  1

  49

  46

  1

  47

  93

  0

  44

  East Sutton Park

  86

  0

  94

  88

  0

  94

  90

  0

  94

  Eastwood Park

  117

  56

  135

  152

  60

  255

  252

  90

  255

  Foston Hall

  0

  0

  0

  121

  0

  134

  130

  0

  130

  Highpoint

  74

  0

  207

  202

  0

  207

  197

  0

  208

  Holloway

  576

  298

  517

  502

  273

  517

  505

  265

  517

  Low Newton

  41

  25

  36

  73

  23

  49

  65

  33

  49

  New Hall

  207

  58

  207

  341

  77

  327

  347

  93

  327

  Risley

  142

  109

  155

  146

  99

  155

  161

  112

  155

  Send

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  79

  0

  80

  Styal

  246

  2

  245

  279

  2

  284

  278

  2

  412

  Winchester

  79

  0

  66

  83

  0

  82

  92

  0

  82

  Total

  2,374

  554

  2,526

  2,765

  589

  2,981

  3,066

  681

  3,183

  Average projected female population in England and Wales, 1999–2001

  Date

  All females

  Remand

  1999

  3,200

  700

  2000

  3,400

  700

  2001

  3,500

  700

  Prisoner Releases (Home Detention Curfew)
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what advice has been issued to prison governors concerning the arrangements for probation supervision of persons released on home detention curfew. [72357]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Prison governors have been advised that, where a prisoner is due to be subject to supervision by the Probation Service upon his or her discharge from custody, supervision will commence on the date that the prisoner is placed on home detention curfew. The duration of the supervision is unaffected by the home detention curfew, as the date that the supervision ends is set at the three quarter point of sentence less the period spent on home detention curfew, in accordance with the requirements of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.390
  inmates on 1 January (i) 1997, (ii) 1998 and (iii) 1999 and (d) the forecast number of inmates on 1 January (x) 2000 and (y) 2001. [72306]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The information requested for the female prison population and certified normal accommodation (CAN or uncrowded female prison capacity) is for the last day of the month and is given for the appropriate month ends in the table. The available information on the projected female prison population by alternative scenarios is given in table 1 of Home Office Statistical Bulletin 1/99 "Projections of long term trends in the prison population to 2006" published on 20 January 1999, a copy of which is in the Library, and on the Home Office Web Site: http://www. homeoffice. gov. uk/rds/index. htm.

  The table listing average projected populations gives figures for the central scenario, higher and lower scenarios. No projections are available by individual Prison Service establishment.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what home circumstances reports have been requested in respect of potential release on home detention curfew where prisoners have convictions for(a) sexual offences, (b) arson and (c) offences of violence. [72369]

  Mr. George Howarth
  No prisoner can be placed on home detention curfew without a home circumstances report from the Probation Service, whatever the prisoner's convictions. The Prison Service may also ask the Probation Service to comment on other issues of concern as appropriate, for instance due to the nature of the offence. The only cases where it is not necessary to obtain a home circumstances report are where it is apparent at an early stage in the assessment process that the prisoner is clearly unsuitable for home detention curfew.

  No offender required to register under Part I of the Sex Offenders Act 1997 will be assessed for home detention curfew other than in exceptional circumstances. If the offender is considered for home detention curfew, a rigorous enhanced risk assessment will be undertaken, including consideration of the proposed curfew address.

  391
  In addition, such an offender would be placed on home detention curfew only following authorisation by the Director General of the Prison Service.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of the prisoners released on home detention curfew on or after 28 January 1999 are subject to supervision. [72352]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The information requested is not yet available. I will write to the hon. Member when it has been collated.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what prison risk assessment on inmates eligible for release on home detention curfew is carried out prior to a request for a probation home circumstances report; and if any advice has been given to clarify procedures. [72358]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Advice on the risk assessment of inmates eligible for the home detention curfew scheme is given in Prison Service Order 6700, a copy of which is in the Library. Before comments from the home probation service are requested, (a) the prisoner will have been asked to provide details of his or her home address, (b) information on the prisoner's suitability will have been sought from a member of prison staff in daily contact with the prisoner, and (c) the member of staff conducting the initial risk assessment will have reviewed the documentation available to determine whether there are any particular issues on which the Probation Service should be invited to comment.

  If it is decided from this review of the documentation that the prisoner is clearly unsuitable for home detention curfew and that information from the home probation service would add nothing to the assessment, the reviewing officer can forward the assessment to the governor for confirmation of this decision without the involvement of the home probation service. The decision not to seek input from the home probation service must be confirmed by the governor.

  Prisoner Discharges (Mental Hospitals)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate(a) the number of prisoners discharged to the care of mental hospitals in each of the last three calendar years, (b) the average length of each discharge and (c) the numbers of prisoners discharged to each receiving hospital; and if he will make a statement on the financial arrangements between prisons and hospitals for such discharges. [72609]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The latest relevant available information relates to numbers of prisoners transferred to hospitals as restricted patients and is as follows:

  Table 1: Numbers of prisoners transferred to the care of mental hospitals as restricted patients in years 1995 to 1997

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Transferred from prison to hospital after sentence1

  249

  264

  251

  Transferred from prison to hospital while unsentenced or untried2

  473

  481

  494

  All transfers from Prison Service establishments

  722

  745

  745

  1 Transfers from Prison Service establishments under section 47 of the Mental Health Act 1983 with restrictions under section 49

  2 Transfers under section 48 of the Mental Health Act 1983.

  392
  These figures do not include transfers to hospital where the prisoners are not admitted as a restricted patient or where prisoners are immediately admitted to hospital following discharge from prison at the completion of sentence.

  Discharges of prisoners to hospital are for an indeterminate amount of time. This means that it is not possible to calculate the average length of each discharge. It is, however, possible to tabulate at the end of each year the number of transferred prisoners who have been held in hospital for different periods of time.

  Table 2: Restricted patients detained in hospital at the end of the year who had been originally transferred from Prison Service establishments by period spent in hospital

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Unsentenced or untried

  Under 3 months

  111

  91

  99

  3 to 6 months

  34

  25

  42

  over 6 months

  39

  53

  89

  All sentenced or untried

  184

  169

  230

  Patients transferred after sentence

  Under 2 years

  176

  161

  152

  Over 2 to 5 years

  94

  97

  94

  Over 5 to 10 years

  55

  56

  66

  Over 10 to 20 years

  44

  57

  66

  Over 20 years

  11

  11

  11

  All patients transferred after sentence

  380

  382

  389

  All patients detained who were originally transferred from Prison Service establishments

  564

  551

  619

  The table relating to the numbers of prisoners discharged to each receiving hospital in the year 1995 to 1997 is lengthy so a copy has been placed in the library.

  The Prison Service meets the costs of a prisoner's health care inside prison walls itself. That would include any assessment or treatment for mental disorder. If a prisoner needs to be admitted to an outside hospital for treatment for mental disorder, either while in prison custody or on release, the costs of such treatment would be borne by the NHS.

  Au Pairs
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what restrictions on hours of work apply to au pairs; and if he will make a statement. [71969]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Under the Immigration Rules, overseas nationals living in the United Kingdom as au pairs may help in the home for no more than five hours a day, with two days off per week, in return for a reasonable allowance.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to issue updated guidance on the employment and status of au pairs. [71968]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  There are no plans at present to change the immigration status of overseas nationals living in the United Kingdom as au pairs or to change the guidance.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the immigration status of au pairs; and if he will make a statement. [71967]
  393
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Under the Immigration Rules, an au pair must be unmarried, aged between 17 and 27 and without dependants, and come from one of the designated countries. They may stay in the United Kingdom for up to two years, living as part of an English speaking family and learning the language. They may help in the home for more than five hours a day, with two days off per week, in return for a reasonable allowance.

  Offenders (Mental Illness)
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of those people convicted of crimes in England and Wales in(a) 1998 and (b) each of the previous two years had previously been admitted to National Health Service mental illness hospitals and units with a main diagnosis of schizophrenia psychoses. [72290]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The information requested is not available centrally. National Statistics about convicted offenders do not categorise in terms of the past mental and psychological problems of offenders.

  Information is available on offenders who are admitted to hospital under the provisions of mental health legislation. In 1997, the number of mentally disordered offenders admitted to hospital under a court order, or by direction of the Home Secretary restricting their discharge, was 1,074. Most of these admissions related to patients with a diagnosis of mental illness or mental illness with another disorder (986 in total). Schizophrenia psychosis is a form of mental illness, but the statistics do not record diagnoses to this level of detail.

  Reconviction rates for restricted patients are available. The reconviction rate for standard list offences within two years of discharge for patients discharged between 1977 and 1993 was 12 per cent., with the rate for those with a diagnosis of mental illness being 7 per cent. Standard list offences consist of all indictable offences and some of the more serious summary offences.

  Sexual Abuse Offences
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to ensure that police statistics on sexual abuse offences identify the nature of the relationship between victim and offender. [72050]

  Mr. Boateng
  At present, the data are not collected centrally. However, work is in hand through the National Strategy on Police Information Systems, which will allow offender-victim relationships to be examined centrally in due course. Ad hoc information has previously been collected and published in publications such as "Victims of violent crime recorded by the police England and Wales 1990–1994" by Lorraine Watson, which was published in July 1996; a copy is in the Library.

  Severe Personality Disorder
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to include(a) paedophiles
  394
  and (b) hebephiles within his proposed criteria for assessing people with severe personality disorder; and if he will make a statement. [73151]

  Mr. Boateng
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made it clear in his statement to the House on 15 February 1999,Official Report, columns 601–13, that a consultation document will be published later in the spring on the options for the new framework within which indeterminate reviewable detention powers for dangerous severely personality disordered individuals will operate. The powers will be available whether or not someone was before the courts for an offence. Sexual deviancy alone does not constitute a mental disorder. However, assessments of both dangerousness and severe personality disorder would certainly take account of previous known criminal behaviour whether of a paedophiliac, hebephiliac or any other nature.

  Deportation
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what factors he takes into account when considering whether a prisoner released from a life sentence will be deported. [72936]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Immigration Rules require that, before a decision to deport is taken, full account must be taken of all relevant factors. These are listed in paragraph 364 of HC 395 Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules and include age; length of residence; strength of connections with the United Kingdom; personal history; domestic circumstances; compassionate factors; previous criminal record and the nature of any offence of which the person has been convicted and any representations received on the person's behalf. These factors would be taken into account in deciding whether a person released from a life sentence should be deported.

  Police (Chelmsford)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers there were in the Chelmsford Division of the Essex Constabulary on(a) 31 March 1997, (b) 31 March 1998 and (c) the latest available date. [72889]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information requested, which has been provided by the Chief Constable of the Essex Police, is set out in the table:

  Essex police—Chelmsford 'C' division

  Number of police officers1

  31 March 1997

  209

  31 March 1998

  208

  31 January 19992

  207

  1 Full-time equivalents

  2 Latest available

  Police (Essex)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers there were in the Essex Constabulary on(a) 31 March 1997, (b) 31 March 1998 and (c) the latest available date. [72890]
  395
  Mr. Boateng
  The information is set out in the table:

  Essex Police

  Number of police officers1

  31 March 1997

  2,961

  31 March 1998

  2,929

  31 March 1999

  2,925

  1 Full-time equivalents.

  Firearms (Licensing)
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary plans to reinspect the police forces covered in the 1993 study into the administration of firearms licensing to ensure that the deficiencies noted in the conclusions of that study have been rectified; and if he will make a statement; [72335]

  (2) what action has been taken to implement the conclusions of the 1993 report of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary into the administration of firearms licensing; and if he will make a statement. [72336]

  Mr. Boateng
  Since 1993, Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) have reported on 10 of the 12 firearms licensing departments covered by the 1993 report on the administration of firearms licensing. Forces were generally praised for their adoption of the recommendations of the report and for other measures to improve the functioning of the licensing system. Other forces have also been inspected on this matter as part of the regular inspection process. All inspection reports are published.

  Following the tragic events at Dunblane and subsequent legislation, HMIC have concluded that recommendations in the 1993 report have been largely overtaken by events. HMIC do not therefore intend to pursue the recommendations of the report further but will continue to look at all aspects of police administration, including firearms licensing, during their inspections. The Government have made clear that they intend to keep the issue of firearms controls under close scrutiny to see what further measures, if any, might be needed to protect public safety.

  British Horseracing Board
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met the British Horseracing Board; and what was discussed. [73131]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Home Secretary last met the Chairman and Chief Executive of the British Horseracing Board on 28 October. I last met them on 23 February. We discussed a range of issues relating to the future financing of the horseracing industry in this country.

  The Tote
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the future of the Tote. [73132]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Not at present. The Steering Group which is conducting a Review of the Tote has not yet reported to Ministers.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  East Timor
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the aid projects that her Department is currently supporting in East Timor, indicating those projects with a gender dimension. [72662]

  Clare Short
  We are supporting the preparation of a programme to develop the capacity of civil society in East Timor. Particular care is being taken by the design team to address gender issues. We are also supporting the Water and Sanitation Programme of the International Committee of the Red Cross in East Timor. All quality humanitarian and development projects must take account of the gender dimension. £300,000 has been made available in the current financial year.

  DFID are watching closely the political developments in East Timor and is considering what further assistance we can provide to the East Timorese people.

  Al-Shifa Factory
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations she has received concerning reports that the US bombing of the Al-Shifa factory destroyed drug supplies. [72661]

  Clare Short
  Correspondence dated 11 November and 1 December was received on this subject from a Member in another place. This was copied widely and reported in the media. Subsequent representations have been received from Members of this House and from members of the public including a letter dated 29 December 1998 from the acting Head of Mission of the Sudan Embassy in London.

  North Korea
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps she is taking to alleviate the famine in North Korea. [73281]

  Clare Short
  Details of the Government's humanitarian assistance to North Korea were set out in my answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck), 11 February 1999,Official Report, column 340.

  Democracy-building Projects
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the democracy-building projects her Department has supported in(a) Uganda and (b) Indonesia. [73279]

  Clare Short
  (a) Uganda: since May 1997 we have supported the following democracy-building projects in Uganda:

  Project

  Amount committed £

  Support to Parliament (ongoing)

  312,375

  Support to Local Government Elections (ongoing)

  250,000

  Support to Women Politicians (ongoing-preparatory)

  40,000

  Election Observers (finished)

  40,000

  397
  There are also some small democracy building elements to our portfolio of projects in Uganda aimed at supporting the implementation of the Beijing Platform for Action for Women, to which we have committed £500,000.

  (b) Indonesia: I recently approved a contribution of up to £1 million to support a free, fair and inclusive election in Indonesia. Most of this will be channelled through the United Nations Development Programme and will support voter education, electoral administration and election monitoring. We are also supporting a three-year project implemented by the International Labour Organisation to develop workers capacity to organise and administer trade unions, and to represent workers interests effectively in consultations with employers and government.

SCOTLAND

  Departmental Policies
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what systems he has in place to ensure that policies being developed by his Department are subject to a crime impact(a) assessment and (b) audit and are not likely to lead to enhanced criminal opportunities. [72670]

  Mr. McLeish
  [holding answer 24 February 1999]: The normal management of the Scottish Office's wide-ranging responsibilities ensures a corporate approach to crime reduction. This is demonstrated in the report "A Safer Scotland: Tackling Crime and its Causes", published on 9 February 1999, which brings together the Scottish Office's policies on health, education, employment, housing criminal justice and other matters which have an impact on community safety and crime reduction. Internal Scottish office Groups on Crime Prevention and other relevant policies ensure that the opportunities for criminal acts are minimised.

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

  Forestry Commission
  Mr. Savidge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what changes are proposed to the cash limit for Class XIII Vote 10, Forestry Commission, for 1998–99. [73923]

  Mr. Dewar
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the cash limit for Class XIII Vote 10 for 1998–99 will be increased by £3,900,000 from £47,425,000 to £51,325,000.

  Education Expenditure
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of total(a) central Government and (b) local authority expenditure on education for (i) 1994–95, (ii) 1995–96, (iii) 1996–97, (iv) 1997–98, (v) 1998–99 and (vi) 1999–2000, expressed in 1997–98 prices. [72757]
  398
  Mrs. Liddell
  The information is as follows:

  £ million (1997–98 prices)

  Central government

  Local authority

  1994–95

  1,308

  2,481

  1995–96

  1,311

  2,423

  1996–97

  1,316

  2,364

  1997–98

  1,277

  2,319

  1998–99

  1,290

  2,368

  1999–2000

  1,375

  2,457

  As from July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Radioactive Waste
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to receive the update of the Committee on the Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment to their 1995 report on the Potential Health Effects and Possible Sources of Radioactive Particles Found in the Vicinity of the Dounreay Nuclear Establishment; and if he will place a copy of the report in the Library. [72333]

  Mr. Galbraith
  My right hon. Friend expects to receive advice from the Committee on the Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment shortly. The Committee itself publishes the advice it gives to the Government. A copy of the Committee's Report will be placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Legal Aid
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total amount of legal aid granted in Scottish civil appeals to the House of Lords in each year of the last 10 years. [72555]

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

  Total amount of legal aid paid in House of Lords cases

  Year

  £

  1988–89

  36,238

  1989–90

  8,217

  1990–91

  47,127

  1991–92

  43,607

  1992–93

  44,553

  1993–94

  55,069

  1994–95

  30,073

  1995–96

  6,136

  1996–97

  33,000

  1997–98

  109,000

  From 1 July 1999 legal aid in Scotland will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Fatal Accident Inquiries
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his policy on the(a) production of and (b) charging for fatal accident inquiry transcripts. [73189]

  Mr. Dewar
  The arrangements are prescribed in the Fatal Accident and Sudden Deaths Inquiry Rules, 1977. A transcript of the evidence in a Fatal Accident Inquiry will be extended only if the Sheriff so directs or if
  399
  requested within a period of three months of the Sheriff's Determination by any party who has an interest in the Inquiry.

  Where the Sheriff has requested a transcript of the evidence the cost of transcription is met by the Scottish Court Service and interested parties may obtain copies at a cost of £1 per page for the first 10 pages and 30p per page thereafter. Where an interested party has requested a transcript they are responsible for the full cost of transcription.

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

  Leukaemia
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each year between 1974 and the latest available date, the incidence of leukaemia ICD(9) 204 to 208 in children aged 0 to four years in Dumfries and Galloway (i) in total, (ii) by electoral ward and (iii) by sex; and how many cases would have been predicted in Dumfries and Galloway during that period on the basis of national rates for these diseases. [72329]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The table shows numbers of incident cases of leukaemia in children aged 0–4 years resident in the Dumfries and Galloway Health Board area in each of the years 1974–96, and the numbers of cases which would be expected on the basis of incidence rates for Scotland as a whole. Because of the small number of cases overall it is not possible to provide figures broken down by electoral ward without jeopardising the confidentiality of individuals.

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

  Observed and expected cases of leukaemia in children aged 0–4 years in the Dumfries and Galloway Health Board area in 1974–1996

  Males

  Females

  Observed

  Expected

  Observed

  Expected

  1974

  0

  .39

  0

  .18

  1975

  0

  .34

  0

  .28

  1976

  2

  .49

  1

  .24

  1977

  0

  .23

  0

  .23

  1978

  1

  A6

  0

  .18

  1979

  0

  .23

  0

  .33

  1980

  0

  .41

  0

  .23

  1981

  0

  .37

  0

  .13

  1982

  0

  .21

  0

  .27

  1983

  0

  .29

  0

  .25

  1984

  1

  .40

  2

  .24

  1985

  0

  .24

  0

  .16

  1986

  0

  .30

  0

  .19

  1987

  0

  .35

  0

  .53

  1988

  0

  .41

  1

  .27

  1989

  0

  .42

  1

  .27

  1990

  0

  .39

  0

  .33

  1991

  0

  .33

  0

  .22

  1992

  1

  .46

  0

  .30

  1993

  0

  .38

  0

  .25

  1994

  0

  .49

  0

  .36

  1995

  1

  .43

  0

  .17

  1996

  0

  .33

  0

  .14

  Total

  6

  8.38

  5

  5.76

  400
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many cases of infant leukaemia (ICD(9)) 204 to 208 in children aged 0 to one year)(a) were reported in Scotland in each six-month period from 1974 to the latest available date and (b) would have been predicted during that period on the basis of average rates; and what assessment he has made of the reasons for discrepancies between the two. [72331]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The table sets out the information sought. Geographical variations and time trends in the incidence of cancer are monitored continuously by the Scottish Cancer Intelligence Unit (SCIU). Trends in the incidence of infant and childhood leukaemia in Scotland and other European countries are being evaluated in the European Childhood Leukaemia-Lymphoma Incidence Study (ECLIS), which is co-ordinated by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, and in which SCIU is participating. As will be seen, the total number of observed cases over the period is consistent with the number expected.

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

  Observed and expected numbers of leukaemia in infants aged less than one year in Scotland in six month intervals of time from January 1974 to December 1996 Both sexes

  Year

  Month

  Observed

  Expected

  1974

  January to June

  1

  1.06

  July to December

  0

  1.06

  1975

  January to June

  1

  1.02

  July to December

  0

  1.02

  1976

  January to June

  0

  1.00

  July to December

  3

  1.00

  1977

  January to June

  1

  0.92

  July to December

  0

  0.92

  1978

  January to June

  1

  0.94

  July to December

  1

  0.94

  1979

  January to June

  0

  0.99

  July to December

  0

  0.99

  1980

  January to June

  2

  1.02

  July to December

  0

  1.02

  1981

  January to June

  2

  1.03

  July to December

  2

  1.03

  1982

  January to June

  0

  1.00

  July to December

  0

  1.00

  1983

  January to June

  1

  0.98

  July to December

  0

  0.98

  1984

  January to June

  3

  0.96

  July to December

  0

  0.96

  1985

  January to June

  0

  0.98

  July to December

  1

  0.98

  1986

  January to June

  0

  1.00

  July to December

  0

  1.00

  1987

  January to June

  3

  0.98

  July to December

  3

  0.98

  1988

  January to June

  3

  1.00

  July to December

  1

  1.00

  1989

  January to June

  0

  0.97

  July to December

  2

  0.97

  1990

  January to June

  1

  0.96

  July to December

  1

  0.96

  1991

  January to June

  0

  0.99

  July to December

  0

  0.99

  1992

  January to June

  3

  1.00

  July to December

  0

  1.00

  1993

  January to June

  2

  0.96

  July to December

  1

  0.96

  401

  Observed and expected numbers of leukaemia in infants aged less than one year in Scotland in six month intervals of time from January 1974 to December 1996 Both sexes

  Year

  Month

  Observed

  Expected

  1994

  January to June

  0

  0.95

  July to December

  1

  0.95

  1995

  January to June

  1

  0.91

  July to December

  1

  0.91

  1996

  January to June

  3

  0.88

  July to December

  0

  0.88

  Total: 1974–1996

  45

  45

  Source:

  Cancer Surveillance

  Brain Cancer
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each year between 1974 and the latest available date, the incidence of brain cancer ICD(9) 191 in children aged 0 to four years in Dumfries and Galloway (i) in total, (ii) by electoral ward and (iii) by sex; and how many cases would have been predicted in Dumfries and Galloway during that period on the basis of national rates for these diseases. [72330]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The tables show numbers of incident cases of malignant tumours of the brain in children aged 0–4 years resident in the Dumfries and Galloway Health Board area in each of the years 1974–96, and the number of cases which would be expected on the basis of incidence rates for Scotland as a whole. Because of the small number of cases overall it is not possible to provide figures broken down by electoral ward without jeopardising the confidentiality of individuals.

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

  Observed and expected cases of malignant brain tumours in children aged 0–4 years in the Dumfries and Galloway Health Board area in 1974–96

  Males

  Observed

  Expected

  1974

  0

  .10

  1975

  0

  .18

  1976

  0

  .15

  1977

  0

  .10

  1978

  0

  .03

  1979

  1

  .08

  1980

  1

  .13

  1981

  0

  .05

  1982

  0

  .11

  1983

  0

  .19

  1984

  0

  .13

  1985

  0

  .16

  1986

  0

  .05

  1987

  0

  .24

  1988

  0

  .16

  1989

  1

  .11

  1990

  0

  .08

  1991

  0

  .20

  1992

  0

  .11

  1993

  0

  .08

  1994

  0

  .16

  1995

  0

  .11

  1996

  0

  .05

  Total

  3

  2.79

  402

  Females

  Observed

  Expected

  1974

  0

  .08

  1975

  0

  .10

  1976

  0

  .10

  1977

  0

  .08

  1978

  1

  .13

  1979

  0

  .05

  1980

  0

  .10

  1981

  0

  .08

  1982

  0

  .11

  1983

  0

  .22

  1984

  0

  .13

  1985

  0

  .11

  1986

  0

  .11

  1987

  0

  .08

  1988

  0

  .14

  1989

  0

  .14

  1990

  0

  .22

  1991

  0

  .08

  1992

  0

  .14

  1993

  0

  .08

  1994

  1

  .19

  1995

  0

  .06

  1996

  0

  .14

  Total

  2

  2.66

  Source:

  Cancer Surveillance

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Road Safety Strategy
  Mr. Bradshaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he plans to launch the road safety targets and strategy for the period up to 2010. [69408]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  It is now intended to publish the road safety strategy and targets later this year, in order to reflect the findings of the ongoing review of speed policy. It may be necessary to issue provisional guidance in the interim, which we are considering.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the Road Safety Strategy will be announced. [71077]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 15 February 1999]: It is now intended to publish the road safety strategy and targets later this year, in order to reflect the findings of the ongoing review of speed policy. It may be necessary to issue provisional guidance in the interim, which we are considering.

  House Building
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of(a) the number of new house building starts to be made in 1999–2000 by (i) private developers, (ii) registered social landlords and (iii) local authorities and (b) the number of existing empty homes to be brought back into use in 1999–2000 by (x) private owners, (y) registered social landlords and (z) local authorities. [72318]
  403
  Mr. Raynsford
  The estimate of the number of existing empty local authority homes in England that local authorities propose to bring back into use in 1999–2000 is in preparation.

  The Department does not forecast new housebuilding starts, nor the number of empty dwellings that will be brought back into use for other tenures.

  Departmental Policies
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what systems he has in place to ensure that policies being developed by his Department are subject to a crime impact(a) assessment and (b) audit and are not likely to lead to enhanced criminal opportunities. [72751]

  Mr. Prescott
  [holding answer 24 February 1999]: Government Departments work closely on policy development and in those areas where my Department is involved it supports fully the Home Office's aim to reduce crime and the fear of crime. Our research programme monitors and evaluates the effects of new policy and other initiatives.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he plans to reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton of 12 November 1998. [73108]

  Ms Armstrong
  I wrote to the hon. Member on 18 February 1999, in reply to his letter of 18 January. As the hon. Member is aware, the Department has no trace of his original letter of 12 November.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Dr. George Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list for each of the English regional development agencies the current estimate of(a) their total budget on a per capita basis and (b) the percentage of the budget attributable to their administrative function. [73004]

  Mr. Meale
  The budgets for 1999–2000 for each of the English regional development agencies will be announced shortly. The budgets for 1998–99 cover administration resources only, and are as follows. It is not meaningful to express these figures in per capita terms.

  Agency

  £

  North East Regional Development Agency

  520,000

  Yorkshire and the Humber Regional Development Agency

  529,000

  North West Regional Development Agency

  327,000

  West Midlands Regional Development Agency

  384,000

  East Midlands Regional Development Agency

  406,000

  Eastern Regional Development Agency

  350,000

  South East Regional Development Agency

  461,000

  South West Regional Development Agency

  411,000

  Total

  3,388,000

  Centre for Young Musicians
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he plans to transfer responsibility for the Centre for Young Musicians to the Greater London authority. [73112]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I am considering with colleagues the future provision for the Centre for Young Musicians.

  The Greater London Authority will be a strategic authority which will address London-wide issues and will, with the co-operation of the responsible statutory authorities, have the powers to co-ordinate and assist with the provision of specialist services which may need to be delivered on a London-wide basis. The Authority will have discretionary powers to pay grant to assist in the provision of such services.

  We would expect the Centre for Young Musicians, which is a centre of excellence for the encouragement and training of young musicians, recruited from across the whole of London, to fall into the category of organisations which the GLA may choose to assist in this way.

  London Transport
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list London Transport property(a) assets, (b) rights and (c) liabilities. [73258]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  As at 31 March 1998 London Transport's assets were as follows:

  Assets

  Tunnels (including Jubilee Line Extension)

  305 kilometres

  Railway carriages

  3,886

  Track

  1,093 kilometres

  Bridges

  978

  Drainage Pumps

  700

  Underground stations

  245

  Escalators and lifts

  372

  Power stations

  2

  Sub-stations

  131

  Bus stations and stands

  63

  Bus shelters

  6,370

  Note:

  These figures are currently being updated for 31 March 1999.

  Property held by London Regional Transport and that of any subsidiary company is held subject to the provisions of the London Regional Transport Act 1984.

  Rights and liabilities attached to such property will arise from either the instruments by which that property is held or the enactments under which property was acquired for the statutory purposes of London Regional Transport or any subsidiary of London Regional Transport.

  To identify and list each and every right and liability connected with property assets held by London Regional Transport would incur disproportionate cost, however, general information about the management of such property can be obtained from the London Transport Annual Report 1997–98.

  Aside from property, LT has other assets and liabilities relating to staff contracts, small fixed assets and so on. Again, these could be listed only at disproportionate cost.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his estimate of the level of expenditure on education by local government area for each of the years(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97, (c) 1997–98 and (d) 1998–99, expressed in real terms at 1997–98 prices. [72758]

  Ms Armstrong
  The requested information has been placed in the Library of the House.

  The information available on education expenditure by local government area relates to expenditure by local authorities. The changes in responsibility of local education authorities, reorganisation and concomitant boundary changes, means that expenditure by local authorities on education may not be directly comparable across the years in question. In particular, net current expenditure on education in 1997–98 did not include expenditure on the under five's education which was financed by the nursery voucher scheme. This produces, for most authorities, an apparent 'trough' in expenditure in that year. In addition, the level of expenditure on education by an authority across the years will be affected by changing pupil numbers.

  The all-England totals in £ million not including capital expenditure

  Year

  1997–98 prices

  1995–96

  20,991

  1996–97

  20,811

  1997–98

  20,625

  1998–99

  21,334

  Northern Line
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations have been received by his Department on the standard of service on the Northern Line of the London Underground; and if he will make a statement. [73155]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Over the last six months my Department has received a number of representations relating mainly to the standard of services on the Northern Line including 8 letters from Members of Parliament and 44 letters from the public.

  Disruption on the Northern Line did increase over recent months; however when the new fleet of trains is in service, the reliability of the line should improve considerably. It is expected that a full Northern Line service will be provided completely by new trains by Autumn 1999.

  National Air Traffic Services
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to meet UK airlines prior to taking any policy decision on the future of the National Air Traffic Services. [73184]

  Dr. Reid
  We concluded a public consultation on our proposals for National Air Traffic Services Ltd. on 31 January 1999. The responses received are currently being analysed and we are grateful to a number of UK airlines for their detailed responses. These have provided 406
  us with a clear understanding of the thinking of NATS' main customers as we consider how best to deliver our policies for the future of NATS.

  Pelican Crossings
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many(a) adults and (b) children were (i) injured and (ii) killed on pelican crossings in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available. [73186]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The information requested is shown in the following table:

  Child/adult casualties on Pedestrian crossings1: GB 1988–97

  Casualties

  Child

  Adult

  Year

  Killed

  Injured

  Killed

  Injured

  1988

  9

  755

  39

  1,445

  1989

  7

  689

  39

  1,424

  1990

  8

  758

  48

  1,552

  1991

  2

  679

  59

  1,274

  1992

  9

  699

  40

  1,298

  1993

  6

  659

  48

  1,197

  1994

  8

  637

  41

  1,197

  1995

  3

  620

  27

  1,140

  1996

  1

  623

  48

  1,098

  1997

  6

  610

  32

  1,124

  Total

  59

  6,729

  421

  12,749

  1 Casualties include those on Pelican, Puffin or toucan crossings at the time of an accident, but exclude pedestrians on a refuge, central island or on zig zag markings on the approach/exit of a crossing.

  Congestion Charges
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to paragraph 2.7 of "Breaking the Log Jam", how many and what proportion of responses to "Developing an Integrated Transport Policy—an Invitation to Contribute", supported the view that congestion charges would be valuable and effective. [73183]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Department's publication"The Government's Consultation On Developing An Integrated Transport Policy: A Report" contains a tabular analysis of the comments made by respondents on a number of demand management measures, including congestion charging and a levy on private non-residential parking. In each case a majority of those referring to those two measures were in favour. Copies of the report were placed in the Library at the time of publication, in July 1998.

  Eurostar (Wheelchair Access)
  Dan Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what steps he has taken to ensure that the Eurostar Channel Tunnel rail service is more widely available to wheelchair users; [73508]

  (2) when he expects provision to be increased on the Eurostar Channel Tunnel rail services for wheelchair users. [73507]
  407
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Eurostar trains were designed and built to be fully wheelchair accessible. Each train provides accommodation for two people to travel in their own wheelchairs. In the first 6 months of 1997 (the latest period for which figures are available) out of over 20,000 wheelchair spaces offered (120 spaces every day on 60 services), only 400 were taken up. Eurostar therefore have no plans to increase current levels of provision.

  Heritage Notifications
  Ms Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress he is making in reviewing the current heritage notification arrangements in London. [73593]

  Mr. Raynsford
  My hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts and I have today issued a consultation paper proposing a number of changes in the current handling of listing building consent applications in London. Since the abolition of the Greater London Council, English Heritage has been working with the London Boroughs to build up their expertise in handling these applications. As a result, we now feel able to propose a significant reduction in the number which will in future need to be notified to English Heritage. This will enable decisions to be issued more quickly. However, certain changes, for example those to Grade I and II* buildings, will still need to be sent to English Heritage. Copies of the consultation paper have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  This consultation is the first stage in a wider review of heritage notifications promised in the Modernising Planning policy statement by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning in January 1998 as one of a range of initiatives being taken to improve the effectiveness of local authority planning services. My officials are now talking to English Heritage about the notification arrangements outside London with a view to drawing up further consultation proposals for speeding up this aspect of the planning process.

  Greater London Authority
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will set out the transitional arrangements proposed for financing the Greater London authority and the functional bodies in 2000–01 and for financing their predecessor organisations. [73921]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Subject to the passage of the Greater London Authority Bill, the Greater London Authority will assume its responsibilities on 3 July 2000. Special arrangements will be needed to cater for this start part way through the financial year. We shall therefore begin discussions with interested parties on the broad framework of transitional arrangements. Under these, the Secretary of State would set a budget and precept for the GLA, including the functional bodies, as if they were in existence for the full financial year 2000–01. He would receive precept income from the London Boroughs. That income, together with redistributed business rates, revenue support grant and other grants would be paid to the predecessor organisations in respect of the period up to 3 July, and to the GLA in respect of the remainder of the year. Following consideration of the broad framework, there will then be further discussions on the detailed application of the transitional arrangements.

  Genetically Modified Crops
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to the oral answer by the Minister for the Cabinet Office of 10 February,Official Report, column 308, on biotechnology and genetic modification of crops, what action Her Majesty's Government have taken in pressing (a) the European Commission, and (b) other EU institutions for enhanced statutory control; and if he will make a statement on the policy of Her Majesty's Government in respect of current (i) United Kingdom and (ii) Community legislation on those matters. [72179]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 22 February 1999]: The main instrument governing the release into the environment of GMOs is the EC Directive 90–220. This is currently undergoing revision following the publication of a Commission proposal in February 1998. The proposal seeks to make a number of significant changes to the Directive such as strengthening provisions on environmental risk assessment and monitoring, streamlining some procedures, ensuring greater transparency and better labelling requirements, and providing for the consultation of EU ethics and scientific committees.

  The UK is taking a leading role in negotiations in the Council on the revision, though progress depends on the priority given to the dossier by the EU Presidency. The European Parliament adopted its Opinion on the revision of the Directive on 11 February, which also proposes tougher controls on the release of GMOs.

  While negotiations on the revision of Directive 90–220 continue, European Environment Ministers agreed unanimously last December to use the flexibility within the existing directive to introduce new requirements for risk assessment and monitoring, based upon new texts which are likely to form part of the revised directive. The UK already requires such risk assessments to be carried out before a consent may be granted, and the Government are currently considering how the monitoring requirements may be introduced.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the terms of reference and membership of the Cabinet Committee on food standards; and if it will consider the adequacy and content of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and of Directive 90/220 of the European Community concerning rules for the growing of genetically modified crops. [72220]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 22 February 1999]: The terms of reference of the Ministerial Group on Food Safety are:
  "To co-ordinate Departmental consideration of issues arising from the establishment of a Food Standards Agency and other aspects of food safety, and to make recommendations to the Ministerial Committee on Home and Social Affairs (HS)."
  Its composition is:
  President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Chair)
  Secretary of State for Education and Employment
  Minister for the Cabinet Office

  409
  Secretary of State for Scotland
  Secretary of State for Health
  Secretary of State for Northern Ireland
  Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
  Secretary of State for Wales
  Chief Secretary, Treasury
  Minister of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions
  Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry.

  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury and Chief Whip will also receive papers and may attend as necessary.

  However, matters relating to biotechnology and genetic modification are discussed collectively in the Ministerial Group on Biotechnology and Genetic Modification, whose terms of reference are: "To consider issues relating to biotechnology, in particular those arising from genetic modification."

  The Group's composition is:
  Minister for the Cabinet Office (Chair)
  Minister of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions
  Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office
  Minister of State, Cabinet Office
  Minister of State, Department of Health
  Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
  Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry
  Economic Secretary, Treasury
  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office
  Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office
  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office,
  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office
  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry
  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Welsh Office
  The Chief Scientific Adviser also attends.

  The Ministerial Group will consider the adequacy and content of Directive 90–220. Consideration of the Environmental Protection Act is, however, not on the agenda.

  The revision of Directive 90/220/EEC has, in addition, been considered in detail by European Scrutiny Committees in both Houses.

PRIME MINISTER

  Hospitality
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Prime Minister what guidelines he has established for the use of No. 10 Downing street for hospitality funded by non-Government sources; and if he will list those occasions on which such hospitality has been offered since May 1997. [71160]

  The Prime Minister
  Ministers under this and previous Governments have been allowed—at their own or party expense—to host non-official or party receptions or functions in Downing street, as set out formally by this Government in paragraph 63 of the Ministerial Code.
  410
  Since 1 May 1997, 22 political functions and 15 charity events have been held at 10 Downing street. All have been held in accordance with the rules set out in the Ministerial Code.

  Departmental Policies
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Prime Minister what systems he has in place to ensure that policies being developed by his Department are subject to a crime impact(a) assessment and (b) audit and are not likely to lead to enhanced criminal opportunities. [72721]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 24 February 1999]: I refer the right hon. Member to the answer given by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), to the right hon. Member on 24 February 1999, Official Report, columns 311–12.

  Genetically Modified Food
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will invite Lord Phillips to conduct an inquiry into the Government's handling of GM food. [72688]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 24 February 1999]: I am entirely satisfied that the issue of genetically modified foods is being correctly handled and therefore see no need for an inquiry.

  Queen's Awards
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to carry out a review of the Queen's Awards for Export, Technological and Environmental Achievement. [73924]

  The Prime Minister
  On 15 December 1998,Official Report, column 460, I informed the House that there is to be a review of The Queen's Awards. His Royal Highness The Prince of Wales has been asked by Her Majesty The Queen to take charge of the review. The Prince of Wales is to chair a committee made up of business persons and senior Government officials. Their report will come to me, as it is on my recommendation that the Awards are made by The Queen. The members of the Review Committee are:
  Amir Bhatia OBE, Managing Director of Casley Finance Ltd, Chairman of the Simpler Trade Procedures Board, and member of the National Lottery Charities Board.
  Sir John Browne, Group Chief Executive, BP Amoco plc.
  Sir John Collins, Group Chief Executive, The Vestey Group, Chairman, National Power PLC and Member of the Prime Minister's Advisory Committee for The Queen's Awards.
  Sir Tom Farmer CBE, Chairman and Chief Executive, Kwik Fit Holdings plc.
  Carol Galley, Co-head, Merrill Lynch Mercury Asset Management.
  Graham Hawker CBE, Chief Executive, Hyder plc and Chairman of Business in the Community (Wales), Deputy Chairman of the Welsh Development Agency and Member of the Court of the Bank of England.
  The Right Honourable Lord Hurd of Westwell CH CBE, Chairman, British Invisibles and Member of the Prime Minister's Advisory Committee for The Queen's Awards.
  John Monks, General Secretary, Trades Union Congress.
  John Rose, Chief Executive, Rolls Royce plc and a Member of the Council of The Prince's Trust.

  411
  Sir Michael Scholar KCB, Permanent Secretary, Department of Trade and Industry, and Member of the Prime Minister's Advisory Committee for The Queen's Awards.
  Sir Dennis Stevenson CBE, Chairman of Pearson plc.
  Sir Richard Wilson KCB, Secretary of the Cabinet and Chairman of the Prime Minister's Advisory Committee for The Queen's Awards.

  The Prime Minister's Advisory Committee for The Queen's Awards assists me in advising Her Majesty The Queen on the annual making of Awards. The Government have asked that the review should take account of their wish to encourage enterprise and innovation, as set out in the Competitiveness White Paper published in December 1998. The terms of reference of the Review are as follows:
  "To review the operation of The Queen's Awards Scheme; and, having regard to:
  the purpose of the Awards, which is to recognise outstanding achievements of UK businesses;
  the benefit of ensuring that the Awards are up to date and provide the best possible incentive for UK businesses;
  the wish of the Government to encourage enterprise and innovation; and
  the need for assessment of achievement to be effective, economical and fair, and based as nearly as possible on objective judgment;
  to make recommendations."

  The recommendations of the Review are to be made in time for any resulting changes to be implemented for the Awards in the year 2000.

  The Review is open for consultation to trade associations, businesses and the general public until 7 April 1999. All representations to the Review Committee about the current operation and future shape of The Queen's Awards should be addressed to:

  The Secretary

  The Queens Awards Review

  151 Buckingham Palace Road

  London SW1W 9SS

  E-mail: queens-awards-review@lond05.dit/gov.uk

DEFENCE

  Gulf War Syndrome
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many ex-service people have been diagnosed as suffering from Gulf War Syndrome to date. [64996]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  There is no central record of the health of UK Gulf veterans, either for those still serving or for those who have left the Armed Forces. However, just under 3,000 of some 53,000 UK Service personnel who deployed to the Gulf in 1990–91 have so far sought a referral to the Ministry of Defence's Medical Assessment Programme (MAP), which was established in 1993 to provide as full a diagnosis as possible to veterans who are concerned about their health. A paper describing the clinical findings from the first 1,000 patients examined at the MAP was published in the British Medical Journal on 30 January this year. A copy of the paper is available in the Library of the House. The latest scientific evidence suggest that UK Gulf veterans report more illness than other comparable groups, but does not support the existence of a unique illness or syndrome.

  Female Chartered Engineers
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many female chartered engineers by discipline there are in the regular element of the(a) Royal Navy, (b) Army, (c) Royal Air Force and (d) Royal Fleet Auxiliary; and what proportion they represent of the total number of chartered engineers in each service. [70706]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  There are 357 Chartered Engineers in the Royal Navy of whom one is female. She is a member of the Institute of British Computer Science.

  There are 371 chartered Engineers recorded in the RAF of whom two are female. The specialisms of the females are civil engineering and electrical engineering.

  For the Army the information is not held centrally and can be produced only at disproportionate cost.

  Multiple Myeloma
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) of 21 January 1999,Official Report, column 531, if further research on the incidence of multiple myeloma among nuclear test veterans will be funded; and if Dr Sue Rabbitt Roff s data will be used. [72770]

  Mr. Spellar
  My hon. Friend's question is opportune since I have today given my approval to the funding of a study into the incidence of multiple myeloma among nuclear test veterans of the UK's atmospheric nuclear test programme in the 1950s. The work will be undertaken by the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) on lines similar to those which applied to the two earlier studies published in 1988 and 1993.

  The study will be conducted under the guidance of an oversight committee whose membership will include eminent independent experts together with a representative of the MOD's Surgeon General's Department.

  The NRPB will wish to consider all the available relevant data and the results of this study, which will be peer reviewed and published in a suitable scientific journal, should be available by the end of next year.

  RN Aircraft Accidents
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Royal Navy personnel have been killed in aircraft accidents in each of the last five years. [72933]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Six Royal Navy personnel have been killed in aircraft accidents in the last six years. The details are:1994=1. A Lieutenant in an off-duty private aircraft accident in Cornwall.
  1995=2. A Lieutenant and Sub-Lieutenant in an on-duty accident in a RN Gazelle helicopter in the Wye Valley on the Welsh border.
  1996=2. A Lt. Commander and a Chief Petty Officer (Air Engineering Artificer) in an on-duty Sea Harrier accident in Somerset.
  1997=None.
  1998=1. A Lieutenant in an on-duty RN Lynx helicopter accident in the Singapore Straits.

  No RN personnel have been killed in 1999 in aircraft accidents.

  Armed Forces Personnel Administration Agency
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to set targets for the Armed Forces Personnel Administration Agency for the year 1999–2000. [71898]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 24 February 1999]: It is my intention to announce targets for the Armed Forces Personnel Administration Agency (AFPAA) before 1 April 1999, for the year 1999–2000.

  Defence Site Sales
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many sites have been disposed of in each of the last three years other than to the highest bidder. [72929]

  Mr. Spellar
  In our efforts to achieve best value for money for the sale of surplus property, it is our normal practice to accept the highest bid made for the site. However, there are occasions when the conditions attached to the highest bid cannot be accepted, or the financial standing of the bidder is assessed to be such that the bid would not be substantiated. There are also occasions when our professional judgment leads us to conclude that on balance of risk, a lower bid offers the best return to the taxpayer.

  The specific information requested is not held centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Female Pilots (Army)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many female pilots are currently serving in the Army; and how many are in training. [72939]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  There are currently nine qualified female pilots serving in the Army, all but one of whom are occupying flying appointments. In addition, a further six women are currently undertaking pilot training.

  REME Depot, Stirling
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the discovery of mustard gas at the REME depot in Stirling; and if he will list other toxic chemicals found on site. [72752]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 24 February 1999]: The issue of the potential of Mustard Gas at the Forthside site came to light during a remediation contract which had been let by Stirling council for the removal of radioactive materials on the site. Excavation works uncovered a glass phial (now known to date from the 1940s), as well as a small quantity of Small Arms Ammunition.

  Analysis of the glass phial by the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) determined that it was of a type found in a gas sample kit used for instructional purposed during the last war. The phial contents were found to be water. DERA, however, could not rule out the possibility that Mustard Gas at some concentration could have been present in the phial at some stage. A second phial was found on 23 February and this will be subjected to the same analysis and review. EOD inspections are being undertaken when appropriate but the likelihood of many more discoveries is considered to be a low risk.
  414
  This concern prompted a further inspection, which has concluded that the risk of additional similar discoveries is low.

  Surveys carried out at the site identified that some of the land was contaminated with heavy metals (lead and cadmium), phyto-toxic metals (copper, nickel, zinc and chromium), radioactive material (radium) from former luminising activities, and small quantities of petrol and lubricants consistent with past use of the site. A full list of chemicals detected on the site is as follows:

  normal background levels of Arsenic

  occasional detectable levels of Mercury

  background to highly significant levels of Copper

  background to highly significant levels of Zinc

  background to highly significant levels of Lead

  traceable quantities of Nickel

  traceable quantities of Cadmium

  traceable quantities of Poly-Aromatic Hydrocarbons

  184 mega becquerels of Radium.

  Defence Animal Centre
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people are currently employed by the Defence Animal Centre; and what was the figure at its inception. [71901]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Animal Centre. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Squadron Leader P. C. Marks to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 25 February, 1999:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the number of people currently employed by the Defence Animal Centre (DAC), and the number of people employed at its inception, as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as acting Chief Executive of the DAC.
  I can confirm that the DAC became a Defence Agency on 1 June 1993. The number of people employed was 224 (as at 31 March 1994), as reported in the first DAC Annual Report and Accounts. The number of people currently employed by the DAC is 190.
  If you require any further information, please do not hesitate to contact me.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date the Defence Animal Centre published its report for the year 1998–99; and what was the cost of production of the report. [73023]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Animal Centre. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Squadron Leader P. C. Marks to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 25 February 1999:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the publication of the Defence Animal Centre (DAC) report for 1998–99 as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as acting Chief Executive of the DAC.
  I can confirm that the Annual Report and Accounts has not yet been published and therefore I cannot give the cost of the publication. The report is due to be laid before Parliament before Parliament rises for the summer recess.
  If you require any further information, please do not hesitate to contact me.

  Army Technical Support Agency
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date the Army Technical Support Agency published its report for 1997–98; and what was the cost of production of the report. [72820]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Army Technical Support Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Brigadier A. D. Ball to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 25 February 1999:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the Annual Report and Accounts for 1997–98 for the Army Technical Support Agency (ATSA), as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the ATSA.
  The Army Technical Support Agency's Annual Report and Accounts for 1997–98 were laid before Parliament on 20 November 1998. We subsequently received 1,000 copies of the Report from The Stationery Office Limited at a cost of £4,595 (VAT exempt).
  I hope that you find this information helpful.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to set targets for the Army Technical Support Agency for 1999–2000. [71908]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The Army Technical Support Agency, in common with other Defence Agencies, will be set Key Targets for 1999–2000 before the end of April 1999.

  Royal Hospital, Haslar
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to fix a date to receive a parliamentary delegation jointly with the Minister of Health, in relation to the Royal Hospital, Haslar, as requested by the hon. Member for Gosport. [73024]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The meeting has been arranged for 1700hrs on Monday 8 March 1999.

  Defence Analytical Services Agency
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will set targets for the Defence Analytical Services Agency for 1999–2000. [72816]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  I aim to announce the performance targets for 1999–2000 for the Defence Analytical Services Agency to Parliament by the end of April 1999.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Food and Drinks Industry (Promotion)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to promote an increase in (i) the total sales and (ii) exports of the British food and drinks industry. [71604]

  Mr. Morley
  My right hon. Friend the Minister takes every opportunity to draw attention to and promote the innovativeness, high quality and safety of British produced goods in general. The Government, particularly through their export assistance agency, Food From Britain, provide on-going support to assist the British food and drinks industry to expand its export markets.

  British Frozen Food Federation
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the British Frozen Food Federation; and what issues were discussed. [72728]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 24 February 1999]: Neither my right hon. Friend the Minister nor his ministerial colleagues at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food have yet had the opportunity to meet with the British Frozen Food Federation.

TREASURY

  Pensions (Tax Reliefs)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has to introduce a common system of tax reliefs for different types of pension plan as part of the stakeholder pension proposals; and if he will set out the age-related contribution limits which apply to the existing tax reliefs for pensions. [70013]

  Ms Hewitt
  A common system of tax reliefs for different types of pension schemes already exists. Where schemes are tax approved, contributions qualify for tax reliefs (within limits), the investment build-up is tax free, and part of the benefits may be paid as a tax free lump sum while pensions are taxable. We propose extending the same system of reliefs to stakeholder pension schemes.

  The age related contribution limits that apply to the existing pensions tax reliefs are as follows:

  Maximum Percentage of Earnings1

  Age

  Personal Pensions

  Retirement Annuities

  35 or less

  17.5

  17.5

  36–45

  20

  17.5

  46–50

  25

  17.5

  51–55

  30

  20

  56–60

  35

  22.5

  61–74

  40

  27.5

  1In the case of personal pensions, earnings for limits purposes are capped at £87,600

  ECOFIN (Brussels)
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the outcome of the ECOFIN held in Brussels on 8 February; and if he will make a statement. [70533]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Chancellor attended the Economic and Finance Council—ECOFIN—of the European Union in Brussels on 8 February 1999.

  There was a discussion of both expenditure and resources under Agenda 2000. The goal of budgetary stabilisation by 2006 was widely supported. The Presidency issued Presidency conclusions on Agenda 2000.

  The Commission and the Chairman of the Economic and Finance Committee presented draft Opinions on the Stability programmes of Italy and Portugal, and the Convergence programmes of Sweden and the UK. The Council adopted the Opinion on Italy with some minor amendments. The Council also adopted the Opinions on Portugal, Sweden and the UK.
  417
  There was an orientation debate on the Broad Economic Policy Guidelines to inform the full debate scheduled provisionally for the 10 May ECOFIN.

  Ministers also discussed four draft directives: the European Company Statute; the Takeovers Directive; the Winding-up of credit institutions; and the Winding-up of insurance companies directive.

  Financial Services Authority
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will list all life offices fined by(a) the Life Assurance and Unit Trust Regulatory Authority, (b) the Personal Investment Authority, (c) the Financial Services Authority and (d) other statutory financial regulatory bodies since the Financial Services Act 1986 came into force, stating (i) the nature of the offence, (ii) the amount of the fine, (iii) the date it was imposed and (iv) the value of any costs awarded against the firm; [70928]

  (2) if he will list all fund management firms fined by (a) the Investment Management Regulatory Organisation, (b) the Financial Services Authority and (c) other statutory financial regulatory bodies since the Financial Services Act 1986 came into force, stating (i) the nature of the offence, (ii) the amount of the fine, (iii) the date it was imposed and (iv) the value of any costs awarded against the firm. [70927]

  Ms Hewitt
  Details of the fines imposed on fund managers and life offices have been placed in the Library. The Financial Services Authority has no power to fine directly regulated firms.

  Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative
  Ms Southworth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the expected reduction in total public expenditure on servicing debt for (i) those countries which have reached the completion point and (ii) all countries within, the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative for(a) 1998, (b) 1999, (c) 2000, (d) 2001 and (e) 2002. [71390]

  Ms Hewitt
  Only two countries have reached completion point under the HIPC initiative: Uganda and Bolivia. The IMF has not produced estimates of the expected reduction in total public expenditure on servicing debt for Uganda, or for other countries within the HIPC initiative. Their estimate of the expected reduction in total public expenditure on servicing debt for Bolivia (in $ millions) is as follows:

  Year

  £million

  1998

  4.5

  1999

  15.4

  2000

  17.9

  2001

  20.6

  2002

  6.8

  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will press for the inclusion of Malawi in the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative. [71394]
  418
  Ms Hewitt
  The IMF does not currently consider Malawi to be eligible for debt relief under the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) initiative. However, should Malawi's debt burden become unsustainable, the UK would press strongly for Malawi to be considered for immediate HIPC relief.

  Ms Southworth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the policy of the new Government in Germany towards debt relief for those countries included in the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative. [71391]

  Ms Hewitt
  The UK welcome the German debt initiative, which in many ways reinforces the Chancellor's Mauritius Mandate of September 1997. The UK and new German Governments share similar approaches to the issues of debt relief and development in the world's poorest countries.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Terms of Reference of the Fundamental Review of the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative have been agreed; and if Her Majesty's Government will seek the integration of internationally agreed poverty reduction targets in a reformed HIPC Initiative. [72193]

  Ms Hewitt
  The IMF have not yet set the Terms of Reference of the forthcoming HIPC Review. The UK has taken the lead in pressing for the link between debt relief and poverty reduction to be a key focus of the review, and to be looked at by an external evaluator.

  Inland Revenue Staff
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many staff were employed in Inland Revenue Special Compliance Offices in(a) 1990 and (b) each year since 1993; and what was the turnover of staff in each year. [71787]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The information for 1990 is not available from Special Compliance Office records. Special Compliance Office was formed in 1993 when Enquiry Office, Special Office and the Board's Investigation Office were integrated. Staffing figures for the previous sections are not available.

  "Man year usage"

  Leavers

  Starters

  1993–94

  501

  30

  33

  1994–95

  454

  50

  74

  1995–96

  430

  98

  85

  1996–97

  425

  52

  52

  1997–98

  423

  98

  94

  1998–99

  1426

  290

  290

  1Estimated

  2To date

  "Man year usage" does not equate to staff in post at any one time. The list includes all grades, covering investigators, accountants, managers and clerical support. "Leavers" includes people moving to different jobs in the Revenue, retirements and resignations. "Starters" are mainly recruited from the rest of the department, although we have recruited accountants and clerical staff directly into Special Compliance Office.

  Euro
  Mr. Radice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps the Government intend to take(a) to allow firms based in the UK to make VAT payments in euros and (b) to allow Customs and Excise and the Inland Revenue to receive payments in euros; and if he will make a statement. [71951]

  Ms Hewitt
  Customs and Excise have accepted payment in euro of VAT and other taxes and duties since the introduction of the euro on 1 January 1999. Both Customs and the Inland Revenue have made the necessary internal accounting arrangements to accept euro payments by any method made available by the banks, and have set up euro accounts with the Bank of England.

  House Prices
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of house price inflation since 1997 and the likely trend in 1999–2000. [72316]

  Ms Hewitt
  Alternative indices have shown different rates of house price inflation over the past two years, but it seems clear that real house prices have shown significant increases.

  Transfer Pricing
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he plans to publish the guidance relating to the clearance procedures and the approach of the Revenue regarding transfer pricing under the legislation brought into effect on 1 July 1998; what advice he has issued to large companies with connected subsidiaries around the world; and if he will make a statement. [72315]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The new transfer pricing legislation (Schedule 28AA to the Taxes Act 1988) is specifically allied to the advice on transfer pricing in the Transfer Pricing Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and Tax Administrations published by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. These Guidelines establish internationally accepted rules for transfer pricing and provide multinational taxpayers with considerable assistance in making an accurate return in relation to arrangements with affiliates around the world.

  Additional guidance has been provided by the Inland Revenue in two articles in its Tax Bulletin. The first, dated October 1998, gave advice on funding arrangements and confirmed that existing clearance procedures (as described in an article in Tax Bulletin in June 1995) would continue. It also explained record-keeping requirements. The second article, dated December 1998, explained the application of the general penalty provisions in transfer pricing cases.

  As announced on Budget Day last year, legislation will be introduced in the forthcoming Finance Bill to govern Advance Pricing Agreements (APAs) between taxpayers and the Inland Revenue. APAs enable taxpayers to agree in advance with the Inland Revenue how complexities in applying the arm's length principle to cross-border transactions which cannot be fully clarified by reference to the published guidance are to be clarified. Draft clauses and a draft Statement of Practice were issued for consultation on 17 December 1998.
  420
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the number of businesses which will be affected by the new rules on transfer pricing which were announced in the 1998 budget; and what will be the average cost per business. [70688]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 15 February 1999]: The new transfer pricing legislation is designed to ensure that arm's length prices are used in calculating the tax effects of international transactions between associated businesses. It will impact on those businesses at the larger end of the spectrum of UK multinational groups and UK subsidiaries of foreign parents. It is estimated that there are between two and three thousand of these.

  The average initial compliance cost per business is estimated to be in the range £11,000 to £27,000. The average recurring compliance cost is expected to be much less.

  Household Statistics
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the number of adults who live in households where there is at least one child aged under 16 years and also at least one higher rate taxpayer. [71195]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 22 February 1999]: It is estimated that there will be about 1 million households amongst couples and lone parents with at least one child under 16 and at least one higher rate taxpayer in 1999–2000.

  Export Guarantees Committee
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the functions of the Export Guarantees Committee, indicating the departments and agencies represented, the chairmanship and the number of times the committee has met since 1 January 1998. [71961]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Export Guarantees Committee (EGC) is an inter-departmental committee that considers the political, economic, financial and commercial factors that relate to markets where the Export Credits Guarantee Department (ECGD) might provide support under the Export and Investment Guarantees Act 1991. The Committee is chaired by the Treasury; other members come from the ECGD, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Department for International Development, the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Bank of England and the Financial Services Authority.

  Since 1 January 1998 the EGC has met 4 times, and conducted other business by written procedure.

  Minimum Wage
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the number of people who will benefit financially in the first year from the introduction of a national minimum wage in(a) the Northern Region, (b) Teesside area and (c) the constituency of Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East. [72174]

  Ms Hewitt
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Director of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.
  421
  Letter from Tim Holt to Dr. Ashok Kumar, dated 25 February 1999:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question on the number of people who will benefit from the introduction of the national minimum wage (NMW).
  The precise information you requested is unavailable. However, estimates of the proportion of people who are currently earning below the proposed NMW for (a) North East Region and (b) Teesside TEC area and (c) Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland Parliamentary Constituency are provided in the attached tables. It should be noted that the tables are based on the latest available information from the 1998 New Earnings Survey (NES) and the Labour Force Survey (LFS). It provides an historical position against 1998 values of the proposed NMW and makes no judgment on whether its introduction will have any effect on the number of jobs.
  The preferred method for assessing the coverage of the proposed NMW is to present adjusted NES and LFS data for the number of employees earning less than the proposed NMW rates. This method adjusts for the fact that the NES is based on a one per cent sample of employees in the PAYE system and is therefore likely to under-represent relatively low paid staff earning below the tax threshold, in particular those who work part-time. It is not possible to use this method for small areas, and information solely from the NES, has therefore been provided for Teesside and Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland.
  The extent of the bias in the NES data may be estimated for the North East by using the adjusted NES and LFS data for all employees. This suggests that the estimate of the overall proportion of full-time employees aged over 21 years earning below £3.50 could understate the true position by as much as 5 percentage points. However, it is unlikely that the occurrence of lower paid jobs is uniform across the region, and so it would be wise to treat this figure as broadly indicative rather than as a precise estimate. I am unable to provide the bias for employees aged 18 to 21 years because the sample size is too small for a reliable estimate to be produced.

  Employees, whose pay for the survey period was unaffected by absence

  Hourly pay excluding overtime and shift pay (£)

  Percentage aged 18 to 21 on all rates earning less than £2.90

  Percentage aged 22 and over on adult rates earning less than £3.50

  Teesside TEC area

  9.4

  7.5

  Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland

  1—

  1—

  1Denotes that a reliable estimate is not available

  Source:

  New Earnings Survey, April 1998

  Number and percentage of employees aged 18 to 21 earning less than £2.90 per hour; Adjusted estimates

  North East: a reliable estimate is not available.

  Number and percentage of employees aged 22 and over earning below £3.50 per hour; Adjusted estimates; Spring 1998

  North East

  Lower Range

  Percentage

  10.2

  Number (Thousand)

  89

  Central Estimate

  Percentage

  11.1

  Number (Thousand)

  97

  422

  Number and percentage of employees aged 22 and over earning below £3.50 per hour; Adjusted estimates; Spring 1998

  North East

  Upper Range

  Percentage

  12.0

  Number (Thousand)

  105

  Sources:

  New Earnings Survey, 1998 and Labour Force Survey (Spring 1998).

  The adjusted estimates are produced in line with an article "Towards reconciliation of NES and LFS Earnings Data" by David Wilkinson in Labour Market Trends; May 1998 pp223–231.

  EMU
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will deposit in the Library a copy of the ECOFIN agreed report on Information Requirements in Economic and Monetary Union; and if he will make a statement. [72286]

  Ms Hewitt
  A copy of this Report, which was endorsed at the 18 January ECOFIN, has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the additional cost in a full year to the Exchequer of raising both rates of child benefit by £1; and by how much the net cost to the Exchequer would be reduced if the marginal increase was taxed at 40 per cent. for(a) recipients of child benefit who are higher rate taxpayers and (b) recipients of child benefit who either live as husband or wife with a higher rate taxpayer or pay higher rate tax themselves. [71196]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 22 February 19991 Estimates for the full year cost for 1999–2000 are given in the table:

  £ million

  Cost of raising both rates of child benefit by £1

  600

  Yield from taxing all child benefit, including £1 increase, at 40 per cent. for

  (a) child benefit recipients who are higher rate taxpayers

  40

  (b) lone parents who are higher rate taxpayers or couples where there is a higher rate taxpayer

  450

  Reduction in net cost by taxing £1 increase in child benefit at 40 per cent. For

  (a) child benefit recipients who are higher rate taxpayers

  less than 5

  (b) lone parents who are higher rate taxpayers or couples where there is a higher rate taxpayer

  35

  British Rebate (EU)
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his policy towards the British rebate in the EU budget negotiations. [72908]

  Ms Hewitt
  Despite the abatement, the UK remains a significantly larger net contributor to the EC than a number of other member states whose capacity to pay is greater. In these circumstances weakening the abatement would be unfair. The UK has made clear in the current Agenda 2000 negotiations that it would not accept any such unfair outcome.

  Financial Services and Markets Bill
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the scope of regulated activities under the draft Financial Services and Markets Bill. [73881]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Financial Services and Markets Bill provides for the scope of regulated activities to be set out in secondary legislation. This will make it easier to respond to developments in the financial services industry.

  The Treasury has today issued a consultation document with draft orders under the Bill. The deadline for initial comments is 30 April. We are consulting on this legislation well in advance so that we have the longest possible time to get it right.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what criteria will be used to determine the eligibility of grandparents for the working families tax credit child care subsidy. [63199]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 11 January 1999]: The child care tax credit within the Working Families Tax Credit will help with up to 70 per cent. of the parent's costs of eligible child care. The same criteria for eligibility will be applied to all child care providers. Eligible providers will include registered childminders, registered nurseries and after school clubs.

  Russia and Brazil (Current Borrowings)
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if(a) Russia and (b) Brazil have fully met the terms and obligations associated with their current borrowings from (i) the IMF, (ii) the World Bank and(iii) other Government-funded financial institutions. [70299]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 10 February 1999]: Both Russia and Brazil have fulfilled all their financial obligations in servicing their current borrowings from all the institutions referred to. Failure to comply fully with loan conditionality has in both cases, however, led to the suspension or limiting of financing from some sources.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the contribution of the United Kingdom to(a) Russia and (b) Brazil via (i) the IMF, (ii) the World Bank and (iii) other Government-funded financial institutions. [70300]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 10 February 1999]: The table details the outstanding loans disbursed to (a) Russia and (b) Brazil by the IMF, the World Bank and other multi-lateral institutions.

  £

  (a) Russia

  (b) Brazil

  International Monetary Fund

  11.7 billion

  2.9 billion

  World Bank

  2.2 billion

  0.6 billion

  Bank of International Settlements

  n/a

  2.57 billion

  European Bank for Reconstruction and
  Development

  11.0 billion

  n/a

  Inter-American Development Bank

  n/a

  10.3 billion

  European Investment Bank

  n/a

  38.2 million

  1Loans and equity

  424
  The table uses exchange rates as of close of trading 11 February 1999.

  The table uses exchange rates as of close of trading 11 February 1999.

  The primary source of IMF resources is subscriptions (quotas) from member countries. The UK quota is equivalent to 5 per cent. of the total quotas. This subscription is not public expenditure, but constitutes part of the UK's foreign exchange reserves.

  In the case of Russia and Brazil, the UK and other major shareholders also provided bilateral loans to the IMF, respectively through the General Arrangements to Borrow (GAB) and the New Arrangements to Borrow (NAB). The NAB and GAB are mechanisms that enable the Fund to borrow from selected members when supplementary resources are needed to deal with an impairment of the international monetary system, or an exceptional situation that poses a threat to the stability of the system. To date, the UK has lent the IMF £117,248,801 under the GAB for Russia, and £200,465,904 under the NAB for Brazil. These loans are not public expenditure, but constitute part of the UK's foreign exchange reserves.

  The World Bank, the EBRD, and the IADB finance their loans principally from borrowings on the international capital markets. They also derive resources from the capital subscriptions of members, and from accumulated earnings (mainly from their loans). The UK shareholding at the World Bank is 4.5 per cent., at the EBRD 8.5 per cent., at the IADB 1.0 per cent. and 17.8 per cent. at the EIB (through the Loan Guarantee Reserve). A certain share of BIS moneys is underwritten by the UK treasury. This is not public expenditure, but we do hold contingent liability. Currently, we are underwriting £240,310,674.

  BP
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many shares the Government hold in BP; and if he will make a statement. [69722]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 11 February 1999]; None.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he has taken to relocate staff in(a) his Department and (b) the agencies for which he is responsible to the regions of the United Kingdom with the highest levels of unemployment; and what plans he has further to decentralise the location of his Department and its agencies. [70457]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 15 February 1999]: There are currently no plans to move Departmental or agency staff to regions with the highest unemployment levels and no plans to decentralise.

  Pensions
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the average annual contribution made to personal pension plans by(a) standard rate and (b) higher rate taxpayers. [70695]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 15 February 1999]: The information is in the table.
  425

  £

  Average contribution to personal pension schemes in 1996–97

  Basic rate taxpayers

  900

  Higher rate taxpayers

  4,200

  Notes:

  1. Estimates are based on the Survey of Personal Incomes for 1996–97 and other survey and administrative information.

  2. Includes contributions to retirement annuity contracts, but excludes free-standing additional voluntary contributions, "minimum contributions" by DSS to appropriate personal pension schemes and contributions made by employers.

  3. Covers contributions made by employees and the self-employed.

  4. Includes basic rate tax repaid to scheme administrators in respect of contributions made by employees to personal pensions under net contribution arrangements.

  5. Figures are rounded to the nearest £100.

  Cheque-cashing Companies
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on the activities of cheque-cashing companies in respect of the provisions of the Cheques Act 1992. [71657]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 16 February 1999]: The Treasury has from time to time received letters from MPs and members of the public on cheque cashing companies.

  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what regulatory mechanisms apply to the activities of cheque-cashing companies. [71658]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 16 February 1999]: Cheque-cashing companies are unregulated.

  Unemployment (Cambridge)
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many young people aged between 18 and 24 years were out of work and claiming benefit in the Cambridge travel-to-work area who had been unemployed in excess of six months, at (i) April 1997, (ii) April 1998 and (iii) October 1998. [72365]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 22 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. Andrew Lansley, dated 25 February 1999:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question on those claiming benefit in the Cambridge travel-to-work area (TTWA).
  The information you have requested is derived from the monthly claimant count of people claiming unemployment-related benefits (i.e. Jobseeker's Allowance or National Insurance credits). Essentially, all people who were claiming these benefits on the count day are counted.
  The date you have requested for those aged 18–24 in the Cambridge TTWA is given below and are not adjusted to take account of seasonal factors.

  Cambridge TTWA: Claimant count for over 6 months

  Age 18–24

  April 1997

  384

  April 1998

  216

  October 1998

  168

  National Statistical Service
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he intends to establish the new independent national statistical service; and if he will make a statement on the degree and nature of the independence that is proposed. [72025]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 22 February 1999]: The Government produced a Green Paper "Statistics: A Matter of Trust" last year which provided options as to how best they might seek to enhance the integrity, both actual and perceived, of official statistics. They will be bringing forward their plans in this area as soon as they are finalised.

  Citizens Advice Bureaux
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has to permit citizens advice bureaux to provide financial advice. [72363]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 22 February 1999]: Citizens Advice Bureaux already play an important role in advising and assisting consumers on financial matters. When the Financial Services and Markets Bill has been enacted, I hope that they will be able to work with the Financial Services Authority, which we propose should have a public awareness objective, to improve consumer education on financial services generally. However, the giving of personal financial advice is a regulated activity which requires, and will continue to require under the new bill, authorisation.

  Fuel Duty
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the Treasury's environmental appraisal on the effects of the policy to increase fuel duty by six per cent. per annum in real terms. [72293]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 22 February 1999]: The Pre-Budget Report, published on 3 November 1998, included an environmental assessment of the Government's environmental tax measures to date. The road fuel duty escalator, over the period 1996 to 2002, is estimated to reduce annual carbon dioxide emissions by between 2 million and 5 million tonnes of carbon in 2010. It is also estimated that the 2010 urban road transport emissions of oxides of nitrogen and particulate matter will be reduced by 1 per cent. and 1.2 per cent. respectively.

  Petrol Prices
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to require petrol retailers to display at the pumps the amount of tax paid on a litre of fuel. [72328]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 23 February 1999]: No.

  Transport (New Technology)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has to provide fiscal incentives to use new technology in transport. [71112]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 24 February 1999]: In his last Budget, several measures were announced by the Chancellor in keeping with the Government's commitment to reduce pollutant emissions, including a

  427
  freeze on duty for road fuel gases, a £500 reduction in vehicle excise duty for lorries that meet a low emission standard, a £50 reduction in vehicle excise duty for the smallest, cleanest cars and an increase in the duty differential between conventional diesel and ultra low sulphur diesel.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many tax payers paid income tax at the rate of 40 per cent. in(a) 1996–97 and (b) 1997–98. [73123]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The latest estimates, based on the 1996–97 Survey of Personal Incomes, for the number of taxpayers paying some income tax at the higher rate are 2.08 million for 1996–97 and 2.30 million for 1997–98.

HEALTH

  Domestic Violence
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library copies of the responses to the requests to local authorities to report their activity on tackling domestic violence. [70534]

  Ms Jowell
  The responses of the local authorities on their activities on tackling domestic violence were summarised in a report by the London Research Centre, "Tackling Violence Against Women". This report which was jointly funded by the women's unit in the Cabinet Office and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions was placed in the Library in November 1998.

  Neurological Services
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when his officials will commence work on drawing up a compendium of good practice on the commissioning of neurological services; and when it will be published. [72564]

  Mr. Hutton
  Subject to resource availability next year, a compendium of good practice on the commissioning of neurological services is currently being considered for development in 1999–2000.

  Occupational Therapy
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many schoolchildren by(a) age and (b) health authority are awaiting the services of an occupational therapist at the Sunderland, Hartlepool and Durham Hospital Trusts following a recommendation from an educational special needs assessment; and what was the average waiting time in the last year for which figures are available. [72322]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information is not held by the Department. The health authorities involved should be able to provide the information requested for their own areas.

  Asthma (Children)
  Mr. Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the number of children under 16 years of age suffering from asthma in(a) England and Wales and (b) Sheffield Health Authority area. [71965]
  428
  Mr. Hutton
  There are no comprehensive data on the number of children with asthma. On the basis of all the information available, it has been estimated that "the prevalence of asthma sufficiently severe to require regular medical supervision is from 4–6 per cent. in children". This estimate is quoted in "Asthma: An Epidemiological Overview" (Central Health Monitoring Unit, 1995), which brought together a broad range of the best statistics on asthma in England. Copies are available in the Library.

  According to the report of the Health Survey for England 1997, 23 per cent. of boys and 18 per cent. of girls aged 2 to 15 years had been diagnosed at some time in the past as suffering from asthma. Copies of this report are also available in the Library.

  The equivalent figures for the Sheffield Health Authority area are not available centrally. Information on the number of children suffering from asthma in Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Mentally Ill (Homelessness)
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has obtained as to how many people discharged from mental illness hospitals in England in the last year after a main diagnosis of schizophrenia psychoses, having been proved vulnerable homeless, subsequently became voluntary homeless. [72581]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Caesarean Sections
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what clinical guidelines his Department has given to obstetricians in assessing when a caesarean section is appropriate. [72537]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department does not issue clinical guidelines. The Department is funding the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists to carry out a national audit of caesarean sections in order to develop caesarean section audit criteria for particular groups of women.

  Learning Disabilities Strategy
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he intends to publish a strategy for people with learning disabilities. [72520]

  Mr. Hutton
  Our White Paper "Modernising Social Services" published in November 1998 set out our strategy for the development of social services for all client groups including people with learning disabilities. They will also benefit from wider developments such as the proposals in our National Health Service White Paper and Public Health Green Paper, and the Welfare to Work strategy. We have recently completed a review of learning disability hospital reprovisioning plans, are currently carrying out a survey in 24 local authorities and their matching health authorities and are awaiting the results of an evaluation of different types of residential provision for people with learning disabilities. We will then consider what, if any, further action needs to be taken in the light of this work and advice from the Learning Disability Advisory Group set up last November.

  Mother and Baby Units (Mentally Ill)
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has for mother and baby units for the mentally ill. [72521]

  Mr. Hutton
  Health authorities are required to assess the health needs of their population and arrange for the provision of adequate services. This should include the needs of mothers with a psychiatric illness.

  Long-term Nursing Care
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he intends to publish his plans for long-term nursing care. [72592]

  Mr. Hutton
  We have already set in hand a number of initiatives to improve long-term care services—particularly those set out in our White Paper "Modernising Social Services". We also await the report of the Royal Commission on Long Term Care of the Elderly, due very shortly.

  Gamma Hydroxy Butyrate
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) deaths and (b) hospital admissions have resulted from the abuse of gamma hydroxy butyrate in (a) the North West and (b) England in each of the last 10 years. [72900]

  Ms Jowell
  Between 1988 and 1997, one death is mentioned on the death certificate (in 1995) as being due to the abuse of gamma hydroxy butyrate (GHB) in England, none in the North West. Figures for 1993 to 1997 are provisional.

  Figures for hospital admissions from the abuse of GHB are not identified separately in the information that is available centrally.

  NHS Charges
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to increase charges in the NHS; and if he will make a statement. [73880]

  Mr. Denham
  We shall shortly lay before the House regulations to increase National Health Service Charges in England and Wales from 1 April 1999. There will be a cash increase in the charge of 10p, (1.72 per cent.) from £5.80 to £5.90 for each quantity of a drug or appliance dispensed. This means that prescription charges will fall in real terms.

  The cost of prescription prepayment certificates will rise to £30.80 for a 4 month certificate and £84.60 for an annual certificate. These offer savings for those needing more than 5 items in four months or 14 in one year.

  Prescription charges are expected to raise some £377 million for the NHS in 1999–2000.

  Charges for elastic stockings and tights, wigs and most fabric supports supplied through the Hospital Service will be increased similarly.

  The maximum patient charge for a single course of dental treatment begun on or after 1 April 1999 will increase from £340 to £348. Only about 1 in every 1,000 courses of treatment will attract the new maximum charge.
  430
  The increases are below the current rate of inflation as measured by the Retail Price Index for January 1999, 2.4 per cent.

  We will also be laying regulations to increase optical voucher values. Increases range from 2.5 per cent. to 18 per cent. with most help targeted towards people with serious sight problems who are prescribed the most complex, expensive glasses.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will lay regulations to increase charges in Scotland by the same amounts. Similar arrangements will apply in Northern Ireland.

  Details of the revised charges have been placed in the Library.

CABINET OFFICE

  Genetic Modification
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office (1) on how many occasions(a) Ministers and (b) officials of his Department have (i) spoken with and (ii) received representations regarding genetic modification from Cathy McGlynn of Bell Pottinger; [72060]

  (2) on how many occasions (a) Ministers and (b) officials in his Department have (i) spoken with and (ii) received representations regarding genetic modification from Dave Hill of Bell Pottinger; [72064]

  (3) on how many occasions (a) Ministers and (b) officials in his Department have (i) spoken with and (ii) received representations regarding genetic modification from Mr. Stan Greenberg of Greenberg Research. [72247]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  [holding answer 23 February 1999]: I and my officials are in regular contact with representatives of all those with an interest in biotechnology—including environmental groups, consumer groups and biotechnology companies. It is not the normal practice of governments to give details of specific meetings with private individuals or companies.

  British Business (Regulations)
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what estimates the Government have made of the cumulative impact on British business of changes in the degree and level of regulation since 1 May 1997. [71609]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  Since the election, we have regularly published Command Papers listing all the regulations which have been introduced within the previous six months. We have also published Compliance Cost Assessments to accompany all new regulations with an impact on business. Since last August that requirement extended to the Regulatory Impact Assessment which better focused on benefits as well as costs.

  The cost of new regulations, as reported in Compliance Cost and Regulatory Impact Assessments, provides a helpful snapshot of the initial burden imposed by new regulations. However, the type and incidence of the burden imposed by each regulation can be quite different

  431
  and the costs cannot be added together so as to produce a figure which, on its own, has any real meaning. The Government do not therefore publish cumulative figures.

  However, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his Pre-Budget Report, asked the Better Regulation Task Force to examine the relationship between regulations and productivity. The Task Force will shortly offer initial findings on the impact of regulations on business start-up, success and growth and will publish a full report in the summer.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  National Insurance
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the cost of extending entitlement to jobseeker's allowance to national insurance(a) class 2 contributors and (b) class 4 contributors. [70434]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 11 February 1999]: The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is as follows.

  It is possible to provide information only in respect of those who claim contribution-based Jobseeker's Allowance but fail to qualify because they are class 2 contributors. It is estimated that the cost of extending contribution-based jobseekers allowance to this group is around £15 million per year.

  Year 1

  Year 2

  Year 3

  Average reduction in numbers receiving contributory bereavement benefits

  Less than 5,000

  20,000

  40,000

  Average increase in numbers receiving Income Support

  Less than 5,000

  Less than 5,000

  10,000

  Average increase in numbers receiving Housing Benefit

  Less than 5,000

  Less than 5,000

  Less than 5,000

  Average increase in numbers receiving Council Tax Benefit

  Less than 5,000

  Less than 5,000

  Less than 5,000

  Notes:

  1. Estimates use information from the 1995–96 Family Resources Survey, the Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry and forecasts from the Government Actuary's Department concerning the number of women affected by the proposed changes.

  2. Estimates assume that a constant proportion over time of those affected by the proposed Bereavement Benefits move on to each of the means-tested benefits.

  3. Estimates across means-tested benefits cannot be summed to provide an estimate of the total number of people affected by the changes.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his Department's total expenditure on purchases of(a) vehicles, (b) computers and (c) properties, since 1 May 1997; and if he will make a statement. [72811]

  Mr. Timms
  The information is in the tables.

  £

  Departmental total

  Expenditure on purchases from I May 1997 to 31 March 1998

  Vehicles

  3, 7,331.67

  Computers

  16,506,705.25

  Properties

  0

  Expenditure on purchases from 1 April 1998 to 31 January 1999

  Vehicles

  2,365,947.68

  Computers

  12,242,485.77

  Properties

  0

  432
  There will be a further group of class 2 contributors who do not currently claim Jobseeker's Allowance, for example because they know that they would not qualify for benefit through either the contribution or income-based route. The figure provided will therefore underestimate the total cost of extending contribution-based Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA) to all class 2 contributors.

  Notes:

  1. Estimate based on JSA 1 per cent. sample of claimants, linked to the Lifetime Labour Market Database.

  2. Estimate rounded to nearest £5 million.

  3. Estimate is for Great Britain.

  Widows Benefits
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the numbers of individuals who will lose entitlement under his changes to widows benefits and the numbers who as a result will claim means-tested assistance. [72190]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 22 February 1999]: Precise estimates of this kind are not available. The estimates that follow give our best estimate of the numbers who might be affected but are subject to a wide range of uncertainty. They are based on survey data and the circumstances of those present in the survey may differ from those affected by the policy change. Estimates are rounded to the nearest 10,000.

  Private Sector Resource Initiative
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security on what date the transfer of the Department's estate as part of the Private Sector Resource Initiative was agreed; and if he will make a statement. [72812]

  Angela Eagle
  The decision to transfer the ownership and management of the Department's estate and to procure a private sector supplier of serviced accommodation, via the PRIME (Private sector Resource Initiative for Management of the Estate) initiative, was first announced on 28 June 1996.

  All the projects that we inherited, and which involved the outsourcing of work, were reviewed and tested against the Government's new strengthened criteria for involvement of the private sector to ensure that they would work and that they were fair to customers, taxpayers and staff alike. PRIME fully passed this test and we agreed to proceed with the project in support of our commitment to modernise the delivery of Social Security.
  433
  The announcement was made on 31 July 1997, Official Report, columns 591–94, by my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Social Security.

  A contract was formally signed with the preferred supplier PPM (Partnership Property Management), now Trillium Group, at midday on 24 December 1997 and the property transfer was effected on 1 April 1998.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportions of written parliamentary questions for answer on a named day have been given substantive answers on that day in the current session. [73122]

  Mr. Timms
  In the current Parliamentary year we have received 360 Parliamentary Questions for answer on a named day, of these 331 (92 per cent.) were given a substantive answer.

  This Department aims to give a holding reply to no more than 10 per cent. of all Parliamentary Questions for answer on a named day. However where detailed work has to be carried out by the Department's analytical branches or the Government's Actuary Department a full response cannot always be provided in the time allowed.

  Bereavement Benefits
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list by income decile the numbers of(a) gainers and (b) losers, and the average amount gained or lost, from the proposed changes to bereavement benefits. [73262]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is not available.Notes:

  1. Information on current Widows' Benefits recipients is not available by income decile because the sample sizes involved are too small to allow a robust analysis. Moreover, estimating the position of Bereavement Benefits recipients would require estimates of the future distribution of income.

  2. In modelling income-related benefit effects, it is necessary to make broad assumptions about take up levels (which differ for each of Income Support, Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit). Consequently, these assumptions do not directly relate back to individuals in different parts of the income distribution.

  Benefit Claimants
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the number of benefit claimants who do not have a bank account. [73015]

  Mr. Timms
  Estimates of the number of benefit claimants who do not have a bank account vary widely. The various sources of information available suggest the figure to be in the region of 10–20 per cent.

  Benefit Payments
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of(a) the transaction costs of benefit payment and (b) the costs of paying benefit using the current method if paid through automatic credit transfer. [73029]
  434
  Angela Eagle
  The transaction fees payable by this Department, to the various agents who supply benefit payment services, are commercial in confidence and cannot be disclosed.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what proportion of housing benefit claims are processed within 14 days; and what were the proportions in each year since 1992; [73034]

  (2) what proportion of housing benefit claims were processed within 14 days (a) in each year since 1992 and (b) at the latest available date. [73261]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is not available in the form requested. Such information as is available is set out in the table.

  The percentage of new claims to housing benefit determined within 14 days of receipt of all necessary information in Great Britain

  Year

  Percentage

  1992–93

  not available

  1993–94

  not available

  1994–95

  80

  1995–96

  82

  1996–97

  78

  1997–98

  79 (most recent year)

  Note:

  The data will include estimates for non responding authorities.

  Source:

  Local Authority Administrative Returns.

  Means-tested Benefits
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assumption about the value in real terms of means-tested benefits in 2025 has been made in the forecast in paragraph 17, chapter 1, of Cmd 4179. [73016]

  Angela Eagle
  Our aim, over the long-term and as resources allow, is to increase the Minimum Income Guarantee in line with average earnings. The forecast in paragraph 17, chapter 1, of Cm 4179 assumes that the level of income-related benefits is increased in line with average earnings (assumed to be 1.5 per cent. per year above the growth in prices) from April 1999 onwards.

  Benefit Payments (Post Offices)
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what is the expected completion date of the installation of the Benefits Agency/POCL project; [73018]

  (2) what assessment he has made of how Benefits Agency staff judge the new Benefits Agency/POCL system; [73030]

  (3) if he will list the savings which have resulted directly from the Benefits Agency/POCL project; and if he will indicate how these savings are measured; [73032]

  (4) how many transactions using the new Benefits Agency/POCL system have been (a) single benefit claims, (b) two benefit claims, (c) three benefit claims and (d) four or more benefit claims; [73017]

  (5) what is the average amount paid to date to the ICL-led consortium for each transaction using the new Benefits Agency/POCL system. [73033]
  435
  Angela Eagle
  The working plans assume that all post offices will be automated by the end of 2000.

  An approach has been developed to assess the impact of the payment card and the supporting customer accounting and payment systems on the operation of DSS benefits and Benefits Agency offices. This will capture data on staff awareness, perception and satisfaction, which will begin to become available from the middle of this year.

  The trial of the payment card is estimated to have resulted in savings in benefit fraud of £68,000 during the period September 1996 to December 1998. The parallel introduction of the order book control service has separately resulted in savings in fraud of £1.4 million during the period May 1997 to December 1998.

  Savings are measured using system-produced data on volumes of payment card transactions and volumes of order books recovered as a result of barcoding.

  To date 750,000 payments of child benefit have been made via the payment card as part of a limited trial. No other benefits are presently involved in the trial.

  Commercial information such as the value of transaction charges is confidential.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  European Youth Parliament
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if the Committee will investigate whether the Chamber of the House could be made available to members of the European Youth Parliament for use when the House is not in session. [72549]

  Mrs. Roe
  I have to advise my hon. Friend that the Chamber of the House cannot be made available for this purpose. The Parliamentary Education Unit have recently started a programme of "Pupil Parliaments" for schools on six or seven Fridays each year in Committee Room 10, and any proposals from the European Youth Parliament for similar facilities would be considered by my Committee in the context of this programme.

WALES

  TECs
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the training provided by TECs; and if he will make a statement. [72037]

  Mr. Hain
  TECs contract with a variety of training providers for the delivery of youth and adult training programmes. In so doing, they must ensure that the training delivered meets the specifications for the various programmes that are set out in the TEC Contract and Operating Manual and the related planning guidance. They must also ensure that it complies with their contractual obligations in respect of accuracy of payments claimed for programme delivery, quality assurance and Health and Safety provisions. TEC performance in all of these respects is closely monitored by the Welsh Office 436
  and subject to the annual performance review; and, when cases of non-compliance with contract have arisen, appropriate remedial action has been taken.

  The content of the training provided is specified by the various industry lead bodies and the qualifications awarded on the completion of training are routinely subject to audit by ACCAC, the qualifications assessment body for Wales.

  The effectiveness of the training programmes in achieving their objectives is also subject to evaluation. Such evaluations are usually undertaken by the Department for Education and Employment on an England and Wales basis and the reports are routinely published. They influence both the subsequent design of programmes and the way in which they are delivered locally via the TECs through the identification of best practice.

  However, whilst these arrangements have provided reasonable assurance that the training delivered has accorded with its intentions, they have not provided any clear indication of the relative standards of training offered by different training providers. Evidence of compliance with training course requirements does not necessarily represent evidence of a good learning experience for the trainee. The quality assurance arrangements provide a limited assurance in this respect, but they are insufficiently independent of the parties involved in training delivery to provide an objective assessment of the standard of training achieved.

  It is for this reason that the Government have enacted legislation to enable the Office of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector to inspect the quality of training provision in Wales. The Office of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector will use a framework for inspection which is similar to that used by the Training Standards Council in England and which has been subject to consultation with TECs, training providers and ACCAC in Wales. Inspections will begin in the next financial year and it is intended to cover all providers of Government-sponsored training within a five year cycle. The Inspectorate's reports will provide the first independent assessment of training standards in Wales; and I will expect both the TECs and the training providers concerned to use these reports constructively in the interests of continuous improvement.

  Following the transfer of functions this issue will be a matter for the National Assembly.

  Higher and Further Education
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the number of (i) higher and (ii) further education students in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [72035]

  Mr. Hain
  Provisional figures, as at 1 December 1997, indicate that the numbers of students studying at Welsh institutions were 95,546 for higher education and 137,660 for further education.

  Following the transfer of functions, this issue will be a matter for the National Assembly.

  New Deal
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many New Deal graduates have found permanent jobs; and if he will make a statement. [72036]
  437
  Mr. Hain
  Although there can be no guarantee of permanency, all jobs accessed through the New Deal are real jobs.

  The latest data published by the Department for Education and Employment show that some 2,700 young people had left the "New Deal for 18–24s" in Wales to enter unsubsidised work and more than 1,000 others were in a subsidised job under the Employer Option.

  I am very encouraged by this impressive start to the "New Deal for 18–24s" and, in particular, to the strong support being provided by employers in Wales, over 2,900 of whom have signed agreements to offer opportunities under the New Deal.

  Welsh Arts Council
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on progress for appointing a new chair for the Welsh Arts Council. [72768]

  Mr. Michael
  Interviews to select a successor to Sir Richard Lloyd Jones have taken place and I hope to announce a decision shortly.

  Following the transfer of functions, this issue will be a matter for the National Assembly.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many patients in each health authority area were waiting for NHS treatment in December 1998 for(a) six months and under, (b) six to 12 months, (c) 12 to 18 months and (d) over 18 months; and if he will make a statement. [72756]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  Data for the number of patients awaiting in-patient or day case treatment for up to 6 months are not centrally available. Data for the number of residents of each health authority area who were waiting for up to 12 months, 12 to 18 months and over 18 months at 31 December 1998 are given in the table.

  Number of residents in each health authority who were waiting for in-patient or day case treatment at 31 December 1998

  Health authority

  Up to 12 months

  12 to 18 months

  Over 18 months

  Total

  Gwent

  11,981

  1,356

  467

  13,804

  Bro Taf

  13,949

  2,114

  1,775

  17,838

  Dyfed Powys

  12,254

  996

  260

  13,510

  North Wales

  15,058

  733

  212

  16,003

  Morgannwg1

  9,471

  541

  197

  10,209

  Wales1

  62,713

  5,740

  2,911

  71,364

  1These figures incorporate revisions to the data from Morgannwg Health Authority and so differ from those published in the Welsh Office Statistical Release SDR 7/99 on 13 January 1999

  Following the transfer of functions, this issue will be a matter for the National Assembly.

  Welsh Assembly (Freemasons)
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what advice he has received from Commissioners on a requirement for elected members to the Welsh Assembly to require disclosure and declaration if they are Freemasons. [R][73187]
  438
  Mr. Michael
  The National Assembly Advisory Group, established by my predecessor, advised that Assembly Members should have to register membership of the Freemasons but the Standing Orders Commissioners have now submitted draft standing orders which do not include a requirement on Assembly Members to register membership of the Freemasons.

  I have invited comments on the Commissioners' report; in so doing, I have indicated that I am minded to incorporate the views of the National Assembly Advisory Group, that such membership should be a registrable interest, into the standing orders in their final form.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Working Time Directive
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which categories of the Department's officials will be subject to the Working Time Directive. [71834]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The Working Time Directive applies to all FCO staff.

  Imperial Measurements
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current state of negotiations regarding the extension of the derogation at European Union level for use of imperial measurements; which voting procedure will apply at the Council of Ministers; and which countries have already declared voting intentions. [72529]

  Dr. Howells
  I have been asked to reply.

  On 15 February the European Commission published a proposal to, inter alia, extend until 31 December 2009 the period during which imperial units of measurement may be used optionally as supplementary indications of quantity alongside but no more prominent than the primary indication in metric units. The proposal is subject to qualified majority voting in the Council of Ministers and co-decision procedure with the European Parliament.

  At a Commission working group in Brussels last year Member States indicated that they would support the proposal unopposed.

  EU Common Foreign and Security Policy
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 26 January 1999,Official Report, column 212, how many reports or proposals each group has produced since 1 May 1997; and if he will list them. [72321]

  Ms Quin
  Common Foreign and Security Policy Working Groups meet on a regular basis. After each meeting the Council Secretariat produces a report of the Group's discussion, which is sent to all Member States.
  439
  Since 1 May 1997 the Common Foreign and Security Policy Working Groups have met as indicated:

  Working Group

  Number of meetings since 1 May 1997

  Administrative Affairs

  13

  Africa

  27

  Armaments Policy

  8

  Asia

  31

  Central Europe

  20

  Consular Affairs

  5

  Conventional Arms Exports

  15

  Communications

  9

  Drugs

  11

  Global Disarmament

  21

  Eastern Europe and Central Asia

  21

  Euro-Mediterranean

  13

  Human Rights

  23

  Latin America

  17

  Law of the Sea

  3

  Mashraq/Maghreb

  17

  Middle East Peace Process

  24

  Middle East/Gulf

  19

  Non-proliferation

  15

  OSCE

  31

  Policy Planning

  5

  Protocol

  3

  Public International Law

  8

  Security

  19

  South East Europe

  18

  Terrorism

  17

  United Nations

  18

  Western Balkans

  40

  Luxembourg Compromise
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate he has made of the number of occasions on which member states of the European Union have made use of their non-Treaty veto, established by the Luxembourg Compromise. [72287]

  Ms Quin
  No formal records are kept by the Government or the Council Secretariat of the occasions when Member States have invoked the Luxembourg Compromise.

  The United Kingdom has invoked the Luxembourg Compromise twice, in July 1978 and May 1982.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what response he gave and when to the letter of the Chief Minister of Gibraltar in January asking Her Majesty's Government to reject the Spanish proposals for joint sovereignty; and if he will publish his reply. [72210]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 22 February 1999]: I replied on 28 January to a letter of 27 January 1999 to me from the Chief Minister of Gibraltar. Official Ministerial correspondence of this sort is confidential and not normally published. But I can say that I underlined that our commitment under the 1969 Constitution, that we will never enter into arrangements under which the people of Gibraltar would pass under the sovereignty of another state against their freely and democratically expressed wishes, remained steadfast.

  Ministerial Visits (Caribbean)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which Ministers from his Department have visited Caribbean countries since May 1997; and if he will list the Ministers and the countries they have visited. [72631]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The answer which the Prime Minister gave to the hon. Member for North Shropshire, (Mr. Paterson) on 3 February 1999,Official Report, columns 643–45, included a comprehensive list of all Government Ministers who have undertaken individual official visits to Latin America and independent Caribbean countries since 1 May 1997. No Foreign and Commonwealth Office Minister has visited an independent country in the Caribbean region in an official capacity since that answer was given.

  For ease of reference the following visits have taken place to independent Caribbean countries by Ministers of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office since May 1997.

  Antigua and Barbuda
  The Rt. Hon. Robin Cook MP

  Bahamas
  The Rt. Hon. Robin Cook MP
  Baroness Symons

  Cuba
  Baroness Symons

  Jamaica
  Baroness Symons

  Trinidad and Tobago
  Baroness Symons.

  European Council
  Mr. Savidge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the forthcoming business in the Council of the European Union for March; and if he will list the major European Union events for the next six months. [73879]

  Ms Quin
  I refer my hon. Friend to the table.

  Monthly forecast of business

  March 1999

  Venue

  Event

  4

  Brussels

  Political committee

  8–12

  Strasbourg

  European Parliament Plenary

  9

  Brussels

  Social Affairs Council

  11–12

  Brussels

  Environment Council

  12

  Brussels

  Justice and Home Affairs Council

  13–14

  Reinhartshausen

  Foreign Ministers (Informal)

  15

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  15–16

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  22

  Brussels

  Political Committee

  22–23

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  24–25

  Berlin

  Special European Council

  26

  Brussels

  K4 Committee

  22–23

  Brussels

  European Parliament Plenary

  29

  Brussels

  Transport Council

  29–30

  Berlin

  Asia-Europe Foreign Ministers

  30

  Brussels

  Fisheries Council

  The following subjects are likely to be discussed:

  4

  Brussels

  Political Committee No agenda yet available

  8–12

  Strasbourg

  European Parliament Plenary No agenda yet available

  441
  9 March—Brussels—Social Affairs Council
  Dialogue with acceding countries on social issues
  Directive on employee involvement in the Societe European Political agreement
  Decision on the Standing Committee on Employment Adoption
  Code of Conduct on cooperation between authorities in the case of transnational hiring-out of workers and combating benefit fraud and illegal work
  Adoption of Resolution
  Proposal for Directives on the organisation of working time Progress report from the Presidency
  11–12 March—Brussels—Environment Council
  Proposal for a Council Directive on end-of-life vehicles Common position
  Amended proposal for a Council Directive establishing a framework for Community action in the field of auto policy
  Common position
  Community strategy on climate change
  Council conclusions
  Preparation of the 7th session of the Commission on Sustainable development (CSD) (19–30 April 1999)
  Council conclusions
  Proposal for a Council regulation allowing voluntary participation by organisations in a community eco-management and audit system
  Policy debate
  Proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 88/609/EEC
  Policy debate
  Incineration Directives
  Policy debate
  Commission report on progress in accession negotiations in the environment sector
  Commission report
  12 March—Brussels—Justice and Home Affairs Council (possible)
  Adoption of the agenda
  Europol, pension fund
  Europol activities report 1998
  Europol: draft Council act adopting the rules governing the transmission of personal data by Europol to 3rd states and 3rd bodies
  Europol: draft decision of the Council instructing Europol to deal with forgery of money and means of payments
  Europol: preparation of the taking-up of activities
  EURODAC: draft Council act drawing up a protocol extending the scope ratione personae of the Convention concerning the establishment of "EURODAC" for the comparison of fingerprints of applicants for asylum
  Drugs: decision on MBDB
  Joint position on the EU-Convention on organised crime
  Draft explanatory report on the Second Protocol to the Convention on the protection of the European Communities financial interests
  Convention on Mutual Legal Assistance in criminal matters
  Questions relating to the transition from the Maastricht to the Amsterdam treaty with regard to conventions
  Revision of the Conventions of Brussels and Lugano
  Information on some ongoing activities in the field of internal market and consumer protection
  Preparation of the meeting with CEEC's and Cyprus
  Definition and integration of the Schengen Aquis (information by the Presidency)
  Any other business
  442
  13–14 March—Reinhartshausen Foreign Ministers (Informal)
  No formal Agenda
  15 March—Brussels-ECOFIN
  AGENDA 2000
  Financial Framework
  Institutional agreement
  Report on own resources
  (poss.) Stability and Growth pack: Examination of stability ad convergence programmes
  Report of the European Court of Auditors for the financial year 1997
  Presentation of report
  Recommendation on discharge and statement of assurance Follow up to Vienna European Council
  Duty Free Sales
  (poss.) Taxes
  Taxation of interest income
  Interim report on the discussions with third countries
  Energy Taxation
  Progress report
  (poss.) Euro 11
  Multilateral monitoring and coordination of economic policy
  15–16 March—Brussels—Agricultural Council
  No agenda yet available
  22 March—Brussels—Political Committee
  22–23 March—Brussels—General Affairs Council
  AGENDA 2000: Preparation of Special European Council (24 and 25 March, Brussels)
  (poss.) Enlargement
  Common Strategies
  Mediterranean Policy
  Situation/Prospect of TEP negotiations
  EU-Latin America Summit
  Progress of preparations
  EU-ASEAN relations
  Preparation of meeting Foreign Ministers (25 March)
  ASEM
  Preparation of meeting of Foreign Ministers (30 March) Western Balkans
  European security and defence policy
  24–25 March—Berlin—Special European Council
  Agenda not yet available
  24–25 March—Brussels—European Parliament Plenary
  Agenda not yet available
  29 March—Brussels—Transport Council
  Land Transport
  Proposals for Council Directive amendments: Policy debate
  Proposal for the amendment of: Directive 92/106/EEC and 96/53
  Political agreement
  Communication on the organisation of working time in the sectors and activities excluded from Directive 93/104/EC
  Policy debate
  Commission report on the use of buses and coaches of up to 15 metres in length
  Council conclusions
  Possible agreement on the transits lorries through Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria
  Political agreement on the draft text

  443
  Air Transport
  Mandate for the revision of the Warsaw convention on uniform rules on the transport of cargo in international air transport
  Agreement on the granting of the mandate to the Commission
  Proposal for a Regulation amending Regulation 295/91
  Adoption of the common position
  Commission report on air transport and environment
  Debate
  All Transport Modes
  Report on a proposal for the amendment of Decision I692/96/EC
  Debate
  Global navigation satellite system (GNSS)
  Commission proposal expected at the beginning of 1999—Debate
  Negotiations between the EC and Switzerland on land and air transport
  Conclusion of the agreement
  Political agreement on the implementation of the agreement
  29–30 March—Berlin—Asia-Europe Foreign Ministers
  Agenda not yet available

  March-August 1999

  Venue

  Event

  March 1999

  4

  Brussels

  Political Committee

  8–12

  Strasbourg

  European Parliament Plenary

  9

  Brussels

  Social Affairs Council

  11–12

  Brussels

  Environment Council

  12

  Brussels

  Justice and Home Affairs Council

  13–14

  Reinhartshausen

  Foreign Ministers (Informal)

  15

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  15–16

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  22

  Brussels

  Political Committee

  22–23

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  22–23

  Brussels

  European Parliament Plenary

  24–25

  Berlin

  Special European Council

  26

  Brussels

  K4 Committee

  29

  Brussels

  Transport Council

  29–30

  Berlin

  Asia-Europe Foreign Ministers

  30

  Brussels

  Fisheries Council

  April 1999

  8

  Brussels

  Political Committee

  12–16

  Strasbourg

  European Parliament Plenary

  13

  Luxembourg

  Consumer Affairs Council

  15–16

  Stuttgart

  Euro-Med Foreign Ministers Conference "Barcelona III"

  16-18

  Dresden

  ECOFIN (Informal)

  19–20

  Luxembourg

  Agriculture Council

  20

  Brussels

  Political Committee

  22

  Luxembourg

  Telecommunications Council

  23–25

  Mecklenburg

  Environment Ministers (Informal) (TBC)

  24–25

  Luxembourg

  NATO Summit

  26

  Luxembourg

  Political Committee

  26–27

  Luxembourg

  General Affairs Council

  29

  Luxembourg

  Industry Council

  29–30

  Brussels

  K4 Committee

  May 1999

  3–7

  Strasbourg

  European Parliament Plenary

  6–7

  Berlin

  Political Committee

  6

  Brussels

  EU-ACP Ministerial meeting

  7–9

  Mecklenburg

  Environment Ministers (Informal) (TBC)

  10

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  10

  Bremen

  WEU Council

  10–11

  Berlin

  Trade Ministers (Informal)

  11

  Brussels

  Energy Council

  17

  Brussels

  K4 Committee

  17

  Brussels

  Political Committee

  17–18

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  17–18

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  444

  30 March—Brussels—Fisheries Council
  Proposal for Council regulation laying down the detailed rules and arrangements regarding community structural assistance in the fisheries sector
  Policy debate
  Proposal for a Council regulation establishing a list of serious infringements in the context of the control system (Regulation (EEC) 2847/93) applicable to the common fishery policy
  Policy debate
  Proposals to amend Council regulation (EC) 850/96
  Final adoptionl
  Proposals opening and providing for the administration of autonomous community tariff quotas for certain fisheries products
  Final adoptionl
  Proposal for a Council Regulation on the collection of basic fisheries data
  Presentation by the Commission and initial debate
  European Calendar: March-August 1999
  This calendar is primarily concerned with European Union matters, but certain other relevant events are also included. Events and dates quoted are based on the information available on the date of issue.
  445

  March-August 1999

  Venue

  Event

  18

  Brussels

  EEA Council

  18

  Brussels

  Co-Operation Council with Russia

  18–19

  Weimar

  Culture Ministers (Informal)

  20

  Brussels

  Research Council

  21

  Brussels

  Development Council

  25

  Brussels

  Joint ECOFIN and Labour and Social Affairs Council

  25

  Brussels

  Social Affairs Council

  25

  Brussels

  Political Committee

  27

  Brussels

  Youth Council

  27–28

  Brussels

  Justice and Home Affairs Council

  31

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  30 May-1 June

  Dresden

  Agriculture Ministers (Informal)

  June 1999

  1

  Dresden

  Agriculture Ministers (Informal)

  3–4

  Cologne

  European Council

  7

  Luxembourg

  Education Council

  8

  Luxembourg

  Health Council

  10

  Brussels

  Political Committee

  10

  Luxembourg

  Fisheries Council

  10–13

  European Parliament Elections

  14

  Luxembourg

  ECOFIN (possible)

  14–15

  Luxembourg

  Agriculture Council

  14–15

  Brussels

  K4 Committee

  17

  Bonn

  EU-Japan Summit

  17–18

  Luxembourg

  Transport Council

  18–20

  Cologne

  G8

  21

  Luxembourg

  Internal Market

  21

  Bonn

  EU-USA/Canada Summit

  21–22

  Luxembourg

  General Affairs Council

  22

  Luxembourg

  Labour and Social Affairs Council (possible)

  24–25

  Luxembourg

  Environment Council

  25–29

  Rio de Janeiro

  EU-Latin America/Caribbean Summit

  28

  Luxembourg

  Culture Council

  29

  Brussels

  Political Committee (possible)

  July 1999

  2–3

  Oulu

  Industry and Research Ministers (Informal)

  6–7

  Savonlinna

  Culture Ministers

  8

  Hameenlinna

  Political Committee

  9–10

  Oulu

  Labour/Social Affairs Ministers (Informal)

  12

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  16

  Brussels

  Budget

  16–18

  Helsinki

  Environment Ministers (Informal)

  18–20

  Savonlinna

  Culture/Audiovisual Ministers (Informal)

  19

  Brussels

  Political Committee

  19–20

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  20–23

  Strasbourg

  European Parliament Plenary

  22–23

  Helsinki

  K4 Committee

  August 1999

  No Council Business

  Chechnya
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 9 February 1999,Official Report, columns 211–12, on Chechnya, how many rescue attempts were reported in respect of the hostages employed by Granger Telecom prior to 6 December 1998. [73256]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Two Chechen clans linked to Chechen Telecom were reportedly searching for the hostages a week after the kidnap. The Chechen authorities announced that they were planning operations around 24 October to free all hostages in Chechnya, following an unproductive ultimatum to kidnappers. Similar Chechen 446
  anti-kidnap operations were reported in late November 1998. On 25 November the Chechen Security Service claimed publicly that it had "operational information" on the hostages and was close to resolving the case.

  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, on Chechnya, when his Department made contact with Granger Telecom following receipt of the Interfax report of 6 December 1998. [73254]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  FCO officials faxed a copy of the media report of 6 December to Granger Telecom, for information, before 1300 on Monday 7 December.

  United Nations Payments
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he has taken to ensure that the United States of America pays its outstanding payments to the UN. [73252]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Ministers and senior officials have raised UN finance with both the Administration and Congress, urging prompt payment of US arrears. The European Union has taken similar action. We continue to promote the EU' s proposals for UN financial reform including tougher penalties for non-payment of UN dues.

  Regular budget, international tribunals, and peace keeping operations combined—Outstanding contributions as at 31 December 1998

  Member State

  Pre 1998

  1998

  Total

  United States of America

  783,878,060

  510,285,618

  1,294,163,678

  Ukraine

  207,284,595

  10,793,155

  218,077,750

  Russian Federation

  125,938,478

  7,311,045

  133,249,523

  Japan

  0

  98,379,789

  98,379,789

  Belarus

  53,153,899

  2,110,833

  55,264,732

  Brazil

  27,218,622

  19,449,061

  46,667,683

  Yugoslavia

  14,308,804

  769,274

  15,078,078

  Iraq

  11,420,613

  1,114,100

  12,534,713

  Iran (Islamic Republic of)

  8,143,596

  3,130,328

  11,273,924

  Argentina

  288,000

  9,793,615

  10,081,615

  Germany

  0

  9,362,249

  9,362,249

  Saudi Arabia

  672,048

  7,512,898

  8,184,946

  Georgia

  6,422,921

  740,949

  7,163,870

  Poland

  6,793,858

  134,315

  6,928,173

  Libyan Arab Jamahiriya

  5,561,625

  375,374

  5,936,999

  Kazakhstan

  4,847,286

  958,195

  5,805,481

  France

  0

  4,947,253

  4,947,253

  Israel

  1,004,279

  3,863,382

  4,867,661

  Azerbaijan

  4,140,008

  135,895

  4,275,903

  Indonesia

  2,264,880

  1,692,154

  3,957,034

  Spain

  0

  3,878,454

  3,878,454

  Venezuela

  726,898

  2,870,959

  3,597,857

  Republic of Moldova

  3,077,449

  81,498

  3,158,947

  Peru

  1,837,945

  1,039,743

  2,877,688

  Latvia

  2,592,256

  103,179

  2,695,435

  Italy

  0

  2,692,674

  2,692,674

  Portugal

  147,452

  2,474,136

  2,621,588

  Tajikistan

  2,470,391

  103,053

  2,573,444

  Uzbekistan

  2,370,934

  110,187

  2,481,121

  United Arab Emirates

  1,765,806

  296,083

  2,061,889

  Croatia

  1,886,813

  109,335

  1,996,148

  Armenia

  1,580,711

  310,889

  1,891,600

  Turkey

  1,067,089

  666,568

  1,733,657

  Lithuania

  1,046,067

  520,234

  1,566,301

  Nigeria

  1,402,832

  161,086

  1,563,918

  Bosnia and Herzegovina

  1,436,710

  64,734

  1,501,444

  Greece

  382,852

  942,628

  1,325,480

  Democratic P. R. of Korea

  1,206,388

  71,710

  1,278,098

  Kyrgyzstan

  1,157,597

  22,724

  1,180,321

  Turkmenistan

  1,139,988

  31,992

  1,171,980

  Liberia

  1,095,854

  26,222

  1,122,076

  Estonia

  1,027,112

  53,592

  1,080,704

  Chile

  777,870

  205,298

  983,168

  Somalia

  948,057

  12,196

  960,253

  Syrian Arab Republic

  818,101

  115,094

  933,195

  Bulgaria

  817,501

  89,236

  906,737

  Guatemala

  614,493

  233,819

  848,312

  Netherlands

  0

  790,791

  790,791

  Comoros

  770,025

  12,196

  782,221

  Austria

  0

  773,879

  773,879

  Qatar

  635,162

  67,009

  702,171

  Cuba

  539,310

  153,757

  693,067

  Ecuador

  485,006

  176,433

  661,439

  Philippines

  6,707

  572,958

  579,665

  Sao Tome and Principe

  546,694

  12,196

  558,890

  Belgium

  0

  546,342

  546,342

  South Africa

  0

  532,657

  532,657

  448
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the countries owing payments to the UN, together with the amounts outstanding at 16 February. [73251]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The most recent complete data published by the United Nations, as at 31 December 1998, shows 178 Member States with unpaid contributions, including 135 owing contributions from before the start of 1998 (our normal definition of arrears). Total outstanding contributions from Member States, including 1998 assessments, were $2,031 million. The details are given in the table.
  449

  Regular budget, international tribunals, and peace keeping operations combined—Outstanding contributions as at 31 December 1998

  Member State

  Pre 1998

  1998

  Total

  Dominican Republic

  310,063

  204,427

  514,490

  Congo

  474,805

  39,054

  513,859

  Romania

  271,302

  174,180

  445,482

  Guinea Bissau

  416,322

  12,196

  428,518

  Gabon

  362,794

  53,005

  415,799

  Algeria

  163,124

  252,468

  415,592

  Yemen

  279,368

  119,481

  398,849

  Sweden

  0

  379,040

  379,040

  Trinidad and Tobago

  346,006

  28,438

  374,444

  Cambodia

  354,573

  13,377

  367,950

  El Salvador

  324,527

  28,399

  352,926

  Nicaragua

  311,951

  25,975

  337,926

  Costa Rica

  219,080

  116,462

  335,542

  Afghanistan

  280,140

  47,827

  327,967

  Honduras

  268,640

  51,421

  320,061

  The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

  304,505

  11,900

  316,405

  Guinea

  279,132

  36,038

  315,170

  Mongolia

  292,106

  18,202

  310,308

  Niger

  286,173

  24,107

  310,280

  Rwanda

  286,141

  23,984

  310,125

  Democratic Republic of the Congo

  206,948

  102,999

  309,947

  Vanuatu

  287,408

  12,196

  299,604

  Burundi

  286,450

  12,196

  298,646

  Dominica

  286,153

  12,196

  298,349

  Djibouti

  286,136

  12,196

  298,332

  Gambia

  285,658

  12,196

  297,854

  Sierra Leone

  279,535

  12,196

  291,731

  Central African Republic

  266,714

  23,984

  290,698

  Panama

  244,080

  33,348

  277,428

  Mauritania

  264,974

  12,196

  277,170

  Czech Republic

  0

  262,724

  262,724

  Sudan

  155,397

  103,564

  258,961

  Cameroon

  76,549

  179,787

  256,336

  Seychelles

  232,118

  24,107

  256,225

  Cape Verde

  235,822

  12,319

  248,141

  Togo

  206,663

  23,984

  230,647

  Vietnam

  206,607

  22,779

  229,386

  Madagascar

  199,981

  26,437

  226,418

  Lebanon

  170,561

  41,506

  212,067

  Tunisia

  145,652

  65,906

  211,558

  Haiti

  186,211

  24,107

  210,318

  Equatorial Guinea

  196,967

  1,394

  198,361

  Saint Vincent and Grenadines

  169,587

  12,196

  181,783

  Malaysia

  0

  181,673

  181,673

  Bolivia

  171,591

  5,626

  177,217

  Kuwait

  0

  163,829

  163,829

  Grenada

  148,078

  12,137

  160,215

  Luxembourg

  0

  155,711

  155,711

  Pakistan

  48,327

  101,590

  149,917

  Zimbabwe

  39,573

  104,975

  144,548

  Mali

  139,749

  4,367

  144,116

  Maldives

  135,901

  1,680

  137,581

  Swaziland

  108,357

  26,134

  134,491

  Burkina Faso

  130,681

  2,814

  133,495

  Lesotho

  105,604

  24,065

  129,669

  Senegal

  104,181

  8,694

  112,875

  New Zealand

  0

  110,127

  110,127

  Solomon Islands

  108,462

  1,658

  110,120

  Uruguay

  264

  107,335

  107,599

  Belize

  104,361

  1,680

  106,041

  Mauritius

  0

  100,897

  100,897

  Bahrain

  76,260

  23,837

  100,097

  Marshall Islands

  87,125

  2,736

  89,861

  Mexico

  0

  89,776

  89,776

  Oman

  56,395

  32,801

  89,196

  Antigua and Barbuda

  60,474

  24,065

  84,539

  Slovenia

  18,159

  65,922

  84,081

  Morocco

  8,847

  68,702

  77,549

  Kenya

  54,531

  15,673

  70,204

  Cöte d'Ivoire

  42,479

  27,353

  69,832

  Bhutan

  61,488

  1,680

  63,168

  Saint Lucia

  55,955

  3,174

  59,129

  Papua New Guinea

  43,091

  9,283

  52,374

  450 451

  Regular budget, international tribunals, and peace keeping operations combined—Outstanding contributions as at 31 December 1998

  Member State

  Pre 1998

  1998

  Total

  Guyana

  49,388

  2,817

  52,205

  Chad

  50,802

  50

  50,852

  Brunei Darussalam

  5,969

  41,657

  47,626

  Ethiopia

  34,551

  9,548

  44,099

  Uganda

  13,415

  28,320

  41,735

  Barbados

  20,117

  17,916

  38,033

  Bahamas

  15,394

  21,282

  36,676

  Albania

  23,169

  7,374

  30,543

  India

  0

  30,172

  30,172

  Mozambique

  23,644

  2,910

  26,554

  Lao People's Democratic Republic

  23,202

  1,657

  24,859

  Samoa

  20,354

  1,680

  22,034

  Fiji

  17,827

  3,425

  21,252

  Myanmar

  8,892

  9,508

  18,400

  Jordan

  2,127

  15,417

  17,544

  Suriname

  11,067

  5,771

  16,838

  Malta

  1,688

  13,509

  15,197

  Thailand

  0

  15,085

  15,085

  Jamaica

  1,712

  12,782

  14,494

  Sri Lanka

  0

  14,364

  14,364

  Eritrea

  5,849

  2,241

  8,090

  Egypt

  0

  7,309

  7,309

  Namibia

  736

  5,868

  6,604

  Angola

  0

  5,176

  5,176

  San Marino

  193

  4,455

  4,648

  Cyprus

  0

  3,392

  3,392

  Palau

  925

  1,142

  2,067

  Andorra

  0

  1,989

  1,989

  Ghana

  0

  1,533

  1,533

  Botswana

  0

  1,481

  1,481

  Paraguay

  0

  1,394

  1,394

  United Republic of Tanzania

  0

  1,194

  1,194

  Australia

  0

  1,015

  1,015

  Zambia

  0

  808

  808

  Nepal

  0

  658

  658

  Malawi

  0

  571

  571

  Republic of Korea

  0

  509

  509

  Finland

  0

  426

  426

  Saint Kitts and Nevis

  0

  312

  312

  Micronesia

  0

  258

  258

  Ireland

  0

  206

  206

  Denmark

  0

  166

  166

  Benin

  0

  98

  98

  Norway

  10

  52

  62

  Hungary

  0

  58

  58

  Singapore

  0

  53

  53

  Iceland

  0

  23

  23

  Liechtenstein

  0

  1

  1

  Bangladesh

  0

  0

  0

  Canada

  0

  0

  0

  China

  0

  0

  0

  Colombia

  0

  0

  0

  Monaco

  0

  0

  0

  Slovakia

  0

  0

  0

  United Kingdom

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  1,312,667,529

  718,269,143

  2,030,936,672

  Falklands
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions have been held with the Chilean Government concerning the continuation of flights to the Falklands by Lan Chile after 31 March. [73247]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  This is a commercial matter for discussion between Lan Chile and the Falkland Islands Development Corporation. We have, however, expressed our regret to the Chilean Government over their decision 452
  to ask Lan Chile to suspend flights to the Falklands and said we do not believe this to be justified. We welcome assurances by Lan Chile that they will honour their contract with the Falkland Islands Development Corporation, which expires on 31 March. We hope that they will continue to fly to the Falklands thereafter.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations Her Majesty's Government have made to Chile concerning its formal recognition of the Argentine claim to the Falklands. [73248]
  453
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We are aware of Chilean statements of support for the Argentine position on the Falklands in recent years. We have made clear to the Chilean Government that we have no doubt abut British sovereignty over the Falklands and have called on them to recognise the right of the Falkland Islanders to determine their own future.

  Iran (Russian Technical Adviser)
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of reports that Russians are working on Iran's nuclear, chemical and biological programmes. [73250]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Russia has extensive commercial relations with Iran, including in the nuclear energy field. Russia's obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) forbid her to assist any other country's nuclear weapons programme. Its commitments under the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) and the Biological and Toxins Weapons Convention (BTWC) would prevent assistance to the development of chemical or biological weapons. Iran is also a party to the NPT, CWC and BTWC. We have detailed contact with both Russia and Iran on non-proliferation issues. As with other countries, we take up with them directly concerns we have of non-compliance with their obligations under such conventions.

  Russian Foreign Minister
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the dates on which Ministers have(a) contacted and (b) been contacted by the Russian Foreign Minister since 1 November 1998. [73249]

  Ms Quin
  Contacts between Ministers and Russian Foreign Minister Ivanov are frequent. This continues the pattern established when Mr. Primakov was Foreign Minister. Over the last two weeks alone, the Foreign Secretary has been in contact with Ivanov or Deputy Foreign Minister Avdeev on an almost daily basis concerning the Rambouillet peace process and other international issues. Our contacts since 1 November 1998 are therefore far too numerous to itemise case by case.

  Belgrade (Embassy Staff)
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British Embassy staff remain in Belgrade. [73275]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Eleven British Embassy staff remained in Belgrade following the withdrawal of non-essential staff and dependants on 19–20 February. Staff were withdrawn due to concern about security in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) as the deadline for the conclusion of the Rambouillet Peace Talks approached.

  Yemen
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what advice the Government have given to British nationals working in Yemen following the threat made by the group calling itself The Army of Suicides, Group Number 66, Bin Laden Militant Wing. [73185]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The safety of British nationals is of paramount importance to the Government. We monitor closely all potential threats to British interests in the UK and overseas.

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office travel advice is updated regularly. Currently, we advise against all travel to Yemen. British nationals resident in Yemen are advised to consider whether their presence in Yemen is absolutely necessary, and if not, to leave. If they choose to stay, they should review their security arrangements; be extra vigilant; and stay in close touch with the British Embassy in Sana'a or the Consulate General in Aden.

  Arms Sales (Annual Audit)
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to publish the first annual audit of arms sales; and if he will make a statement. [71596]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) on 8 February 1999,Official Report, column 81.

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

Royal Assent
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Act:
Social Security Contributions (Transfer of Functions, etc.) Act.

Afghanistan:Funding of NGOs
The Earl of Sandwich The Earl of Sandwich asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why they have restricted the funding non-governmental organisations in Afghanistan.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the Government are maintaining their support for humanitarian assistance programmes of non-governmental organisations in Afghanistan where these can be delivered in an effective and principled manner by local staff. We believe that there are serious threats to the security of expatriate staff, and obviously we must organise our funding for NGO activity accordingly.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, does she recognise that the aid agencies already take Foreign Office advice on security seriously, and that this new policy is unfair and makes an unprecedented link between security and funding? Does she agree that the policy is causing unnecessary delays when there is a continuing humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I cannot agree in this instance with the noble Earl. Noble Lords will be aware of the serious situation in Afghanistan. During 1998 there were a number of developments which have had a direct and indirect impact on aid operations, including fatal attacks on UN personnel and other security incidents and a deteriorating human rights situation. All expatriates, but in particular British and US expatriates, have been specifically targeted. This is not a matter of the general kind of risk which NGOs and other members of international organisations take when they go into a conflict situation. This is a matter of a specific and targeted risk. The Department for International Development and the Government feel strongly that we cannot continue to support the funding of NGO organisations in Afghanistan where the lives of
1234
individuals may be put at risk. However, we continue to support humanitarian programmes where they can be delivered by local staff.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, does the noble Baroness accept from me that during the period of the Soviet conflict in Afghanistan between 1980 and 1990 NGOs were funded by the British government under circumstances at least as dangerous as those which obtain today under the Taliban regime, and that those circumstances did not prevent courageous NGO workers, both British and Afghan, from performing extraordinarily useful tasks under conditions that were often difficult and dangerous? Does the noble Baroness agree that the conditions in those days were rather more dangerous even than those which obtain today?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I think I said in my answer to the supplementary question from the noble Earl that many members of NGOs and international organisations continue to work in difficult and dangerous situations. However, in this particular situation there has been a specific threat to expatriates. We have adopted a carefully considered position given the knowledge and information available to us. It is not the first time that we have reached this conclusion. We came to the same conclusion at one time in Sierra Leone. However, the NGOs at that time agreed with our stance and pulled out. Some years ago in Cambodia the same thing happened. It has also happened in Chechnya. I cannot agree with the noble Viscount.
Viscount Craigavon: My Lords, have other countries with NGOs like ours taken a similar decision? Has there been consultation with the European Union on these matters, as sometimes happens?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, there has been consultation with the European Union. In fact the European Union reached a common position on this matter while the UK held the presidency. We have agreed a number of clear objectives, including trying to promote stability and development for the whole region; looking at issues concerning respect for human rights; and the need to provide effective humanitarian aid. There is also a strategic framework within which UN organisations are working. However, not all organisations have adopted the same position as the UK, although it is important to stress to the House that the UN has withdrawn its personnel—those personnel have not returned—and there are other countries which have adopted the same position.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, on the broader front, can the Minister say whether the US sanctions are still in place; whether sufficient leverage is being exerted; and what are the current dividing lines between the individual members of the six plus two initiative?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I am not entirely sure what the noble Viscount means when he talks about dividing lines. The UN special envoy visited the region last October, when he met the Taliban leader. It was an

1235
extremely successful meeting which diffused the tension between the Taliban and Iran. The focus then shifted to a proposed meeting between the six plus two group of neighbouring states, plus the UN, Russia and Afghan factions. However, what the focus of the meeting should be, which factions should attend and the agenda for the meeting have still to be agreed. As to US sanctions, I will come back to the noble Viscount on that matter.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, given the remarkable and vital work done on the ground by the dedicated NGOs in Afghanistan—work that cannot be done from afar—why, since November, have Her Majesty's Government stopped the aid on condition that expats do not go in? What are the government policy guidelines for suspending or restricting aid to a particular country?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, as to the last point of the noble Baroness, she may wish to look at the announcement made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development on 8th December, which set out very clearly the Government's position on this matter. Since then we have issued criteria to NGOs about the kinds of programmes and projects we are prepared to fund. We are in the process of allocating that funding, on a six-month basis, which will be reviewed at that time.
Our funding has not stopped. In 1998 our commitment in Afghanistan totalled £8.5 million, which was channelled through the UN, the International Committee of the Red Cross and some NGOs.

Genetically Modified Food
3.14 p.m.
Lord Taverne Lord Taverne asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to improve public understanding of gene technology applied to food.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Donoughue): My Lords, the Government are committed to providing consumers with the information they need to be able to make an informed choice about genetically modified food. This is being achieved by various means, including publishing information on the MAFF website; up-dating and producing new explanatory booklets and brochures on biotechnology and the safety assessment of GM foods; and co-funding a mobile exhibition on food biotechnology organised by the Science Museum.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, does the Minister realise that, despite the valiant efforts of Mr. Jeff Rooker and the Prime Minister, the Government seem to be losing the battle against the scaremongering which has been whipped up about genetically modified food by some sections of the press? Will the Government perhaps encourage the Royal Society, and all those who care about science, to face head on the often unscrupulous propaganda of Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, whose increasingly anti-science bias and blanket
1236
condemnation of biotechnology, rather than judging each case on its merits, is likely to do more harm than good to the causes of health and the environment?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for what he has said about my colleague in another place. I do not believe that we are losing the battle. It is not an easy battle. To modify an old aphorism, in the newspaper circulation war the first casualty is truth. We shall continue to put the arguments in favour of genetic science; we shall also bear in mind the genuine public concerns. We have in place a regulatory mechanism which will support that, but we are currently looking to see whether it is necessary to strengthen it further.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, does the Minister agree that we need to differentiate between the gene transfer within the species, which is the natural process of evolution, and the gene transfer across the species, which negates the presently accepted Darwinian theory of evolution and must therefore be of extreme danger to the natural world?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I have taken a decision not to be drawn down any scientific paths such as that. Unlike the noble Earl, I do not feel myself to be a master of them. I am aware of the distinction and we obviously share his concern.
Baroness Young of Old Scone: My Lords, can the Minister assure us that notice is being taken of the clear, scientifically-based evidence which is beginning to emerge from organisations such as English Nature of the environmental implications of genetically modified crops? I declare an interest in that I chair English Nature. Can the Minister further assure us that the very real, scientifically-based evidence of the impact of genetically modified crops on the wider environment will also be clearly explained to the public?
Lord Donoughue: Yes, my Lords, I can give that assurance. We share those concerns. We welcome the advice we have received from English Nature and others. No genetically modified crops are currently under commercial development. Field trials are taking place and we shall assess what they tell us. We are certainly conscious of the environmental implications of these developments, and we wish to be reassured on that issue before full-scale commercial development is allowed to take place.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, does the Minister accept that many of the problems he faces do not stem from the wickedness of the newspapers and scare stories but from the memories which many of us have of assurances on Thalidomide? We had assurances on Thalidomide, and we now see people walking around with little hands sticking out of their shoulders. There was the rather patronising attitude towards my noble friend Lady Mar when she began to suggest that there were problems with the use of organophosphates, which were regarded as total nonsense; and we have seen the pictures of Mr. Gummer ramming hamburgers down his child's

1237
throat—no doubt on expert advice—to demonstrate that no danger at all arose of the transfer of mad cow disease. Does the Minister believe that, while it is important that we get the truth one cannot take for granted, given the experience of many cases over a period of years, everyone will accept expert advice without question, rather like the noble Lord who has taken up the cause of battering Greenpeace?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, it is true that we operate against the historical background of all of the episodes which the noble Lord described. Above all, the BSE experience is one which understandably has led the public to be very suspicious of developments in these fields and to be reluctant to accept reassurances from industry that benefits commercially or from scientists. Well, I must assure the noble Lord that Ministers come to this job with that background. It is why in this House I have always listened carefully to the noble Countess, Lady Mar. Ministers have children too. We are aware of the dangers but we can proceed only on the basis of rational evidence. The noble Lord referred to the newspapers. They are exploiting those genuine fears and are scaremongering, which is unhelpful to all.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether there is yet a statutory obligation on those who are selling food in the marketplace to indicate that there are genetically modified ingredients in the food they are selling? If that is not the case, would it not be logical for the public to be offered a choice?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, the position on information is that we pressed for and secured in the European Union the new regulation of last Autumn which makes compulsory the labelling of genetically modified foods on sale. That still requires backing by regulation, which we expect to be introduced quite soon, having carried out consultation. We are also looking to extend it to catering establishments, including schools and day-care premises.

Territorial Army: Disaster Relief
3.22 p.m.
Baroness Cox Baroness Cox asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will support an enhanced role for the Territorial Army in rapid relief response to natural and man-made disasters.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Gilbert): My Lords, our Armed Forces play an important part in disaster relief in support of the appropriate civil agencies. The Territorial Army makes a significant contribution to this. Natural and man-made disasters always require a very rapid response. Reservists have civilian jobs and may be less readily available at short notice than regular personnel. In the
1238
first instance, therefore, we tend to deploy regulars to help with emergencies. Where we can make use of the TA, we certainly do so.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that positive and encouraging reply which I totally endorse. Is he aware of a recent report published by the Fontmell Group entitled Overseas Disaster Relief: Nobody's Baby, which is critical of the Government's perceived lack of commitment to disaster relief and is also concerned about lack of co-ordination on the ground, which has caused loss of life and a waste of resources? Will he therefore consider sympathetically one of the recommendations in that report that the Territorial Army reserve forces may be used more effectively by utilising their very real expertise, commitment and eagerness to support NGOs at critical stages of disaster response?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Baroness. Yes, I am aware of the report. In fact, I have a copy on the Dispatch Box in front of me. The Government accept several of its suggestions but not all of them. We certainly agree that there is a need for the response to emergencies to be better co-ordinated. We are making a good deal of progress in that direction. It is fair to say that, with the setting up of DfID, we had some initial problems. We are getting those out of the way. Co-ordination between the Ministry of Defence, the Foreign Office and DfID is now extremely good. The report referred to the Government's commitment to these matters. I think the whole House would wish to be aware that, whenever we deploy the West Indies guard ship, the personnel have special training in disaster relief before they go out. They go out with special supplies on board and they have a Royal Fleet Auxiliary equipped with special supplies in case there are catastrophes in that part of the world. At the moment, HMS "Westminster" is on humanitarian patrol off Sierra Leone.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I should perhaps declare an interest as a former director of Oxfam and a continuing member of the Oxfam Association. I noticed that the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, referred to support for NGOs. Can the Government assure the House that, in taking forward this interesting idea, if it is to be taken forward, either with regulars or territorials, it is most important to do so in close consultation with those NGOs that have been bearing the brunt of the immediate front-line response to disasters of this kind; and, if I am allowed to say so, often doing it very well?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I would certainly endorse what my noble friend said about the role of NGOs and their invaluable contribution in these situations. Of course Her Majesty's Government would be happy to discuss these matters with them. But I do not want to raise any hopes that the Government are thinking of setting up a special disaster relief organisation within the Armed Forces with that exclusive responsibility.

1239
There are all kinds of problems, as I am sure the noble Baroness and the noble Lord understand, that stand in the way of that suggestion.
Lord Renton: My Lords, bearing in mind that early last year the Government declared an intention to reduce the size of the Territorial Army but made it clear last night that they were not going to do so, can the noble Lord give your Lordships specific figures as to what the Government envisage will be the size of the Territorial Army in the few months ahead?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, it would be rather difficult for me to give the noble Lord precise figures for the few months ahead. We started off with a nominal strength of about 60,000, which was never met. If the noble Lord has studied the several debates we have had on the subject, he will recall that we based our study on operational requirements which gave a figure of 25,000 for the Territorial Army; and as a result of a series of ministerial decisions we increased that to the order of 41,000.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, before one considers an enhanced role for the Territorial Army, or for that matter for the Regular Army, it is necessary to review very carefully our training facilities within the United Kingdom. Does the noble Lord agree that those facilities are under pressure at the moment due to certain maldisposals of Army land? Will he take steps to ensure that the training facilities in this country as well as in Canada, because we are now going that far, are adequate to perform these duties?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right to say that we train in Canada. In fact, various elements of Her Majesty's forces have for many years trained from time to time in areas far more remote from this country than Canada. I am not quite sure what the noble Lord is alluding to in respect of the disposal of Ministry of Defence land. If he would write to me about any case he has in mind, I should be happy to try to respond to him.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, would my noble friend agree with those NGOs which say that, repeatedly, what has been absent is a unit at the site of the emergency to co-ordinate the activities going on there, unless, they say, the French happen to be present? Does my noble friend agree that that could be achieved quite simply with a single battalion headquarters?
Lord Gilbert: I am not sure that I follow all my noble and learned friend's points. The essence of emergency relief is that it must be rapid. Rapid response is most easily made available through the regular forces of this country.

European Parliament Elections: Gibraltar
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch asked Her Majesty's Government:
In the light of the decision of the European Court of Human Rights on 18th February, whether they will introduce emergency legislation to allow Gibraltarians to exercise their democratic right to vote in the forthcoming European Parliament elections.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, we shall be taking all available steps to secure extension of the EP franchise to Gibraltar, in the light of the decision of the European Court of Human Rights. However, we can do so only by amending the 1976 EC Act on direct elections. That will require the agreement of all member states. Her Majesty's Government will seek such an amendment in the current negotiations in Brussels on establishing common principles for EP elections. We shall not be introducing emergency legislation because the UK does not have the power unilaterally to extend the EP franchise to Gibraltar through its domestic legislation.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, those of us who have supported Gibraltar on this matter will be extremely disappointed by the Minister's reply. I have read the judgment carefully. The vote was 15:2 that not only was the United Kingdom guilty, but that the remedy was a matter for the United Kingdom—not Spain, and not other European countries. Therefore, will the Government move quickly and without delay to bring in and secure for the people of Gibraltar the right to vote in the forthcoming European elections? Does the Minister agree that my noble friend Lord Bethell was absolutely right in his amendment and was supported by many Members of this House?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: No, my Lords, I cannot agree. The arguments deployed by Her Majesty's Government over this case were largely the same as those deployed by the Conservatives when they were in power. That is the legal advice.
The noble Baroness is right. It is the obligation of the United Kingdom Government to comply with the judgment. But the way to do that is through amendment of the 1976 EC Act. To do otherwise through domestic legislation would put us in breach of that Act. If the noble Baroness is so keen on this, I point out that there were 13 years when her party was in government after that Act was passed when they might have taken that kind of action. Her Majesty's Government are moving swiftly. We shall table the amendments next week in Brussels, and we are briefing all our posts in Europe accordingly.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, whatever the faults of the previous administration in this regard and the doubt as to who is legally right, the Government or the noble

1241
Lord, Lord Bethell, will the Minister give an undertaking that the matter will be raised in a forum within the European Union? If it is not accepted, it will be very clear who is guilty. It should not be left to an uncertain arrangement as a consequence of the negotiations that are going on behind the scenes. Let it be seen clearly who is guilty.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I hope that I have made it clear to the whole House that Her Majesty's Government will raise this matter in the discussions that we are having on the principles that bind us in relation to the way in which elections to the European Parliament take place. We shall also be briefing all our EU posts accordingly. The reason that this is important is that the obligations placed upon the United Kingdom Government, direct as they are, are also, by extension, placed upon our partners, and that includes Spain.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords—
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, however hard the Minister tries—
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I think that it is the turn of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, we on these Benches welcome the Government's eagerness to comply with the decisions of the European Court. We also welcome the strong support that the Official Opposition has given to that position. Will the Minister confirm that it is probable that efforts to bring about changes in legislation will not be in time for the next European elections. However, will the noble Baroness and the Foreign Office consider other ways in which, until elections occur with the full representation of Gibraltar, other steps will be taken to allow the concerns of the people of Gibraltar to be registered in this House, not least through the scrutiny committee on European legislation.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, regrettably, I agree. I do not think that the timetabling will allow any changes to be available in time for the European elections. No one is in any doubt that negotiations to secure the unanimous agreement of our EU partners will be extremely difficult. Having secured that agreement, if it is possible, we shall then have to go through a ratification process. In the meantime we shall have to consult about the ways in which we can do our best to take into account, as we always do, the feelings and wishes of our friends in Gibraltar.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, however hard the noble Baroness tries to pass the buck back to the previous government, the decision of the European Court of Human Rights was given this month. The court
1242
made it perfectly clear, and perhaps I may quote from the press release rather than the longer judgment, that,
"notwithstanding the transfer of competences to the European Community, Contracting States remained responsible for ensuring that Convention Rights were guaranteed".
That is straightforward. It is our responsibility. If the Government bring forward a Bill, we will expedite it through this House to make sure that the citizens of Gibraltar have their rights respected in June, so that the human rights convention, which the Government are always keen to obey, is followed. Is it not better to be in breach in a manner that Spain does not like, rather than continue to be in breach of the human rights convention?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am not passing the buck anywhere. I have stated a matter of fact in relation to what the previous government did. The noble Lord cannot gainsay that, however hard he tries. I have been very clear about the responsibilities: they are for Her Majesty's Government. The Government will shoulder those responsibilities unshrinkingly. We hope to do so next week, and we shall brief everyone accordingly.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, will the Minister—
Lord Merrivale: My Lords—
Viscount Waverley: My Lords—
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I think the feeling of the House is that the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, should be heard.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the Prime Minister is to meet his Spanish opposite number in the next couple of days? Will she indicate whether it is likely that Mr. Blair will raise this matter with Mr. Aznar? Will she also confirm that, whatever the outcome of those meetings, it is only the Foreign Office's opinion that domestic legislation will not work? The Foreign Office's opinion on this question has turned out more than once to be erroneous.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I can confirm that my right honourable friend is to see his Spanish counterpart, probably within the next 24 hours. It is very likely that these matters will be considered, although I have not seen an agenda or any briefing papers for the meeting.
I have spoken to the House, as did my noble friend Lord Williams, on the basis of legal opinion. At the risk of making the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, very cross indeed, I point out that legal opinion has been pretty consistent throughout. The difference now is that we have a judgment from the European Court of Human Rights which places obligations not only upon Her Majesty's Government—I have been very clear on that point—but also upon Spain and our other European partners.

Rating (Valuation) Bill
3.38 p.m.
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Financial Services and Markets: Joint Committee
Lord Carter: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I beg to move the Motion standing in her name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That this House do concur with the Commons in their message of 23rd February that it is expedient that a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons be appointed to report on the consultative document on the draft Financial Services and Markets Bill presented by Her Majesty's Command on 21st December 1998 and any further draft of the Bill which may be laid upon the Table of both Houses by a Minister of the Crown and to report by 30th April 1999.—(Lord Carter.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and a message was ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Health Bill [H.L.]
3.39 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Hayman.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Repeal of law about fund-holding practices]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 10, at end insert ("from 31st March 2000").
The noble Earl said: At the start of our Committee proceedings, perhaps I may say that regardless of the profound difficulties which we on these Benches have with many parts of the Bill, I shall be guided in what I say both today and on Monday by two principles. The first is that where we oppose, we shall oppose in a constructive fashion. It is no part of our purpose to wreck the Bill, nor will we do so. We will, however, seek to press those issues where we believe we are right and where we believe we can create a better Bill to a Division where necessary. That approach is consistent with the functions and traditions of your Lordships' House and will, I hope, be understood and accepted by the Government.
The second principle to which we shall try to adhere is brevity. I humbly suggest to the Committee that with the sheer number of amendments ahead of us during the
1244
two days, we shall assist ourselves by being as concise and punchy as is called for by the amendment we happen to be debating. I hope that other Members of the Committee will share that view.
Unfortunately, I cannot be as brief as I would wish with the first amendment, although I shall try. Its purpose is to defer by 12 months the date on which fundholding formally comes to an end. I propose it not in any kind of "die-in-the-ditch" spirit, nor in any way to frustrate the Government's intentions to establish primary care groups and primary care trusts, but to do precisely the opposite.
The Government have had over a year to prepare for the advent of primary care groups and in some areas the transition to PCGs is proceeding reasonably satisfactorily. But that is not the case in a great many other areas. There is an enormous number of obstacles still faced by PCGs and board members in attempting to establish the new structures.
The work involved is considerable. To start with, there is wide dissatisfaction over the question of PCG boundaries and at the moment no mechanism to allow for independent review of health authority proposals. The amount of money made available for the development of PCGs has been woefully inadequate. Many GPs and others have had to give up substantial amounts of their own time, without remuneration, to organise meetings, to discuss the new arrangements with health authorities and to set up steering groups. With PCG boards, the guidance on election arrangements and payments to PCG board members has resulted in appointments being rushed and a woeful lack of information about the time commitment that a board member will need to devote to his or her responsibilities.
Even at this late stage, many PCGs are still in the throes of negotiating their management budgets. Without those budgets, they will not, of course, be able to decide on anything; not their management structures, nor their activities, nor the responsibilities that they wish the health authority to delegate to them. The key issue in many areas is that the per capita level of support is far too low.
There is terrible uncertainty as a result among fundholding staff about their future employment. Where staff have been made redundant, the redundancy payments are often being met out of the pockets of GPs who have had to face the whole messy business of redeployment and redundancy of practice staff with precious little information to assist them.
Local services are being terminated early. We have assurances that contracts for the delivery of specialised services such as chiropody, dietetics and physiotherapy, as well as consultant-led clinics in GP surgeries, would not have to be brought to an abrupt end as a result of PCGs. But that is exactly what is happening in some health authorities where the edict has gone out to terminate those contracts before 1st April.
Guidance is being issued late and piecemeal. Even the revised standing orders and financial instructions for health authorities have yet to be distributed. There is still no information about the IT structures and reporting

1245
requirements that PCGs will be expected to implement. Many PCGs have not even got premises from which to work.
The simple fact is that the whole exercise in what is a major change for the NHS has been rushed. At local level, the NHS is simply unable to cope with the timetable that has been thrust upon it by the Government. The result is that many GPs are still, to put it at its mildest, unenthusiastic about PCGs because they see an underdeveloped idea being forced upon them at too rapid a pace, with grossly inadequate financial and managerial support. There is demotivation. They see nothing ahead of them but extra workload. Some of the work will take them away from patient care, without providing their patients with replacement doctors. The doctors are being put in the firing line to take the flak from patients and the public when the NHS finds itself unable to deliver the necessary care because of the woeful degree of under-funding.
My point is therefore a straightforward one. ft is to say to the Government: "Stop rushing. Stop making life impossible for doctors and patients all around the country. There is still time, if you choose to take it, to ensure that this important transition is made smoothly and to everyone's satisfaction". For that reason and that reason alone, I beg to move.
Viscount Bridgewater: I support my noble friend Lord Howe in his amendment. The PCGs will be much bigger units than anything equivalent which has been known before. They will be drawn from a diverse series of practices. The fundholders in the first wave are very different in character from many in the later waves of the practices. They will include many sole practitioners with little or no back-up. They will require a tremendous amount of training, to which my noble friend referred. The very size of the PCGs and their diverse nature throughout the country make it advisable that we delay this for a year, as my noble friend suggested.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I too support the amendment. The question of redundant staff is causing great anxiety to general practices which find that they have to dispense with their practice manager in order to go into the bigger unit where someone else will carry out the management. Funds do not seem to be available to meet the redundancies.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I too support my noble friend largely on the grounds that he has explained; namely, the problems faced by the participants in this enormous change. I was extremely grateful to the Minister for the meeting that she arranged with her team of civil servants who between them knew everything there was to know about the Bill. They were extremely helpful. The Minister even brought three civil servants down from the Scottish Office.
At that meeting I asked about the legality of the position given that arrangements both north and south of the Border were proceeding regardless of the fact that the Bill was only at the early stages of its passage through Parliament. We were told that much that was
1246
happening could be done without legislation, but that is not the answer. Not everything can be done without legislation.
This particular clause is essential to the Government's arrangements. It shows an extraordinary disregard for Parliament and is another example—we see more and more—of the Government being prepared to proceed with a scheme, an integral part of which is the abolition of fundholding, before they know whether or not the Bill will become law. For all we know, fundholding may be restored during the passage of the Bill. I understand why the Government are optimistic that it will not be, but they should not make that assumption. This is a very strange way in which to proceed. For that reason the amendment will increase the legality and credibility of the Government's actions and I hope that they will accept it.
Lord Desai: I am somewhat surprised by the very muted way in which the noble Earl moved his amendment. It reminded me of his party's policy on the euro. It does not like it but it does not want to say that and it will do it some other day. It would be nice if he argued that we should keep fundholding. As the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, said, perhaps he should have argued for the retention of fundholding. It might have been fun.
Earl Howe: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I remind him that it was a manifesto commitment of his party, and we do not wish to upset that.
Lord Desai: That is very good to know. If it has been known for some time that the Labour Party will remove fundholding and consultative papers have been issued, those involved should have prepared for it. It has not happened suddenly. Intelligent people should be able to take account of forthcoming events and make allowances for them. This has been known about for some time. Either it has been known for some time that the Labour Party will do it, and therefore adequate notice has been given, or the noble Earl does not like what we are doing. Either way I do not believe that he has an argument.
Baroness O'Cathain: Perhaps I may remind the noble Lord, Lord Desai, that running a rural practice in particular and a primary care group is not exactly the same as running a department of economics. At the moment the people on the ground who are involved in fundholding practices are being poached to set up primary care groups. Anecdotally, in one practice I know very well the person in charge of fundholding has been appointed chief executive or director—I forget the exact title—of the local primary care group. As a result there has been a problem back at the practice. She spends two days back at the practice and three days trying to set up the primary care group and is at her wits' end knowing that she is running out of time. We know that primary care groups are to be introduced and we accept that—at least I do—but I am sure that none of us in this Chamber wants the process to go off at half-cock so it is in a mess right from the start. Is it not

1247
better to ensure that the organisation, staffing levels and liaison with practices are correct before the scheme comes into being? For that reason and for many others I support my noble friend's amendment.
Lord Haskel: I ask my noble friend to reject this amendment. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, has just given my noble friend a very good reason for rejecting it. Her argument points to getting on with it rather than delaying it. PCGs are a very important part of the Bill. If we delay that, we would be delaying all aspects of the Bill. I advise my noble friend to reject the amendment and to get on with it.
Baroness O'Cathain: Perhaps I have misled the noble Lord. It takes a lot longer than five weeks, or whatever the period is, to do it. I suggest that there should be a longer running-in period. We should not get on with it now when there is still a state of confusion and in effect people are doing two jobs.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: We do not seek to delay. This is an important part of the Bill. Having listened to the argument and knowing a little about this, I believe that as laymen most people deal with the problems that have been spoken to during their lives. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, must be perfectly well aware of this, too. The point that has been put in so many ways is that this should not go off half-cocked. Why cannot this be dealt with? The case that has been put is genuine. To say that we seek to delay is a totally meretricious intervention. We do not seek to delay. We do not challenge the principle, but as a matter of common sense we want to try to make it work. The noble Baroness and the Secretary of State can deal with this matter in a perfectly sensible, proper way. Clause 52 states:
"(1) The preceding provisions of this Act are to come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by order appoint.
(2) Different days may be appointed under this section for different purposes".
Cannot the noble Baroness give the Committee an assurance that the Secretary of State will look at this with an open mind and not commit himself in advance to bringing in these provisions before it is right, proper and reasonable to do so? That is all I ask. Amendments to Clause 52 have been tabled but this is not one of them. I have only just thought of it while listening to the debate.
Baroness Berners: I support the amendment. Only a fortnight ago I spoke to my trust which told me of the difficulties that it was experiencing. Yes, it has known of this in advance and is working to try to get it to work, but the mere fact that it must be done in such a short time is causing no end of problems. I can assure the Committee that the pressures and the anxieties are very great.
Lord Peston: As a matter of principle, I am intrigued to hear the case put by noble Lords opposite. This is one of the great breakthroughs as far as concerns the future
1248
of the health service. My experience is that, when you have made up your mind to do something that is both sensible and will help to solve problems, the best thing to do is to go ahead and do it. I am not quite clear how the running of an economics department comes into this. When I ran such a department I never encountered any problem. I simply decided what needed to be done and it was done. I entirely accept that this is more complicated than that. But the fact remains that many of us regard this as an important step forward. As I understand it, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, is at least willing to consider that this may be an important step forward and does not oppose it. It follows that the best course to take is to go ahead and do it. The notion that somehow one should not do anything until Parliament has passed the relevant Bill into law is an entirely new one to me. I have attended here only a dozen years, but it is the first time I have heard it enunciated that the provisions of a Bill should never start to come into practice until the legislation has become law because it would be an insult to Parliament.
I attended on the Benches opposite for a great many years. I often did not like what I heard. However, on the whole when governments said that they were going to do something, one generally took the view that they would do it and we should prepare for it to happen. I am at a loss to know where the doctrine comes from that it would be unfair and insulting to Parliament to ask people to act before the Bill became law.
I know how reasonable and moderate the Minister is. She will be listening carefully to all the amendments. However, on this occasion, despite her desire to be helpful, I would advise her not to accept the amendment.
4 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: The noble Lord speaks from another dimension. He is an economics don. He can say, "This is this. Let's get on and do it". Whether or not it works does not really matter. I read economics some time ago. Economists get it wrong anyway. But the one thing about which they do not care is whether it will work in practice. It is theory.
We are concerned here with making the provision work. We are not in the dimensions of erudite economic theory. It is a practical problem. Delay it only to make it work.
Lord Peston: Since we are in Committee, I am allowed to intervene. Logically I do not see how one discovers whether something works in practice until one puts it into practice. The position is the exact reverse of what the noble Lord said. It may well be theory now but it is very good theory.
What I hope the Government wish—it is certainly what I wish—is that we put the provision into practice and make it work. I have a higher opinion of the medical people involved. I am firmly convinced that they will

1249
make it work. I hope that they will be willing to make it work—without having their mouths stuffed with money—because it is the right thing to do.
Baroness O'Cathain: Surely we need the assurance that we have the people on the ground to make it work. One of my great fears is that we do not have them.
Lord Monkswell: The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, seems to argue for our making the change, and as quickly as possible. She cited a case of a practice manager also being employed as a primary care group manager. Presumably within that primary care group there are other practices with practice managers. When the primary care group is set up, those managers will be redundant. They will no longer need to he paid by the National Health Service to provide that management function at the doctor practice level. The management function will be provided by one person at the primary care group level.
I exaggerate, but the system set in place by previous governments required a superfluity of managers for small groups. It is proposed that a smaller group of managers covers a larger number of people. Effectively, the money that we spend on the National Health Service will go into patient services, not management functions. The sooner we do that, the better for everyone involved.
Lord Skelmersdale: We have now had the second red herring of the afternoon in debate on an amendment which my noble friend Lord Howe wished to be brief.
Yes, the management decision has been made. The Government want to get on with it but they do not want it to end in a mess. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway is absolutely right. I readily understand that the Government will not accept the suggestion of a year's time, or 13 months. We want to know what date it will be introduced. Will it be introduced properly? Will it work? That is the only thing that matters.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, does not seem to understand that a practice with, say, five doctors will still require a very active practice manager on the premises. The practice will also have someone running a much larger group of practices. The practice manager on the premises of the five-doctor surgery cannot be paid at the same rate as previously where he or she has had a much bigger role. Many of those practice managers will either want the job of the overall practice manager (there will be only one) or they will become redundant. Very few will wish to see their salary halved or greatly reduced. That is where the redundancy money comes in. I hope that the Minister will reassure us that every effort will be made to ensure that the money required for the changes is available. The story I hear from general practitioners is that they are having great trouble obtaining the necessary funding to bring in the changes.
Baroness Hayman: I hope that I can be of some help to the Committee on this. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for the tenor of his introduction of the first amendment. I undertake to try to emulate his desire to
1250
be brisk and to the point. But this may not be the best amendment on which to start that process because I think that there has been some confusion in what the amendment would achieve on three separate issues.
One issue is the setting up of primary care groups which is outwith the scope of this Bill. That is going on at this moment. I shall return to some of the other issues raised. Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, that, as sub-committees of health authorities, primary care groups do not need any form of primary legislation. Therefore there is no question of taking powers in anticipation of legislation. Those primary care groups will be up and functioning by 1st April. I shall return to some of the issues raised by the Committee on ensuring that they function effectively and efficiently.
I refer to the implementation date for what will be set up within the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, referred to Clause 1. Perhaps I can reassure him that the terms for the setting up of primary care trusts—we shall address the Committee's attention to that in a moment—have been made quite clear. We want to spend time getting this right. They will not be set up before April 2000, so there is adequate time to undertake that task.
I believe that confusion has arisen on this issue. If the Committee were to agree to the amendment, it would not delay the introduction of either primary care groups or trusts. It would delay the abolition of fund-holding. We need primary legislation for the abolition of fund-holding. The reason why an interim and residual scheme has been introduced from 1st April of this year is precisely that we recognise that need. We cannot anticipate the legislation and we have to have a residual scheme available to those GPs who wish to avail themselves of the proposal until the Bill becomes law.
The issue is simply whether extending the existence of GP fundholding until April 2000 would assist in the process with which the Committee is concerned: to ensure an orderly and effective transition to primary care groups. I suggest that it would not. In essence it would be looking backwards rather than forwards. Our responsibility is to ensure that the change which has been agreed, which no one is questioning, works well.
I pay tribute to the large number of professionals and managers who have been working extremely hard to get primary care groups off the ground by 1st April of this year. I do not recognise the noble Earl's gloomy description of what is going on on the ground in primary care groups.
Obviously, it is a major undertaking, but already boundaries and governing arrangements have been agreed around the country. The pace of change is sensible; we do not expect everything to be achieved overnight. This year, £31 million have been allocated to health authorities to help them fund the preparations. The allowances paid to PCG hoard members are reasonable and consistent with those paid to other members of NHS bodies. A revised model of standing orders and SFIs were issued to health authorities last week.

1251
There is an issue around redundancies, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, referred, and there have been concerns about the transition of staff. Our aim is to avoid redundancies. We have set in place clear in-house arrangements to help achieve that. We have also required all health authorities to appoint an individual to co-ordinate this and other fundholder closure work. It is too early to predict exact numbers, but we are confident that most who formerly managed a fundholding scheme will secure posts in the NHS. The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, said that that was happening on the ground. Our policy is that redundancy costs chargeable to the fundholder, the allotted sum for fundholding staff, should be the same as those which can be reimbursed to GPs for GMS staff under the Red Book rules. This is equitable, but it does not preclude GPs offering enhanced redundancy terms. However, if they were enhanced that would have to be a practice expense.
I return to what the amendment would achieve. It would delay the abolition of fundholding; there would be a minority fundholding rump scheme. We believe that in recognising the achievements which fundholding GPs gained for some of their patients, and looking at the way in which many of them have taken the lead in setting up primary care groups, we will serve no purpose whatever in extending a scheme for a small minority of GP fundholders. If the Committee is concerned about ensuring that primary care groups from 1st April this year, and primary care trusts as they appear from April 2000 onwards, work effectively, we need an orderly and proper parliamentary approved end to the fundholding scheme as soon as possible so that everyone can divert their attention to the future. That is the reason why within the Bill we have made clear that as soon as it receives Royal Assent and becomes law we will wind up the scheme that has been put in place simply to cover a brief transitional period. I hope that on that basis the noble Earl will not press the amendment.
Earl Howe: I am grateful to the noble Baroness, although I am disappointed by her reply. The main point that I seek to make to her and to her noble friends Lord Haskel and Lord Peston is that the Government have not yet put in place arrangements for the orderly winding up of fundholding. That is the central issue. If they are unable to do so, it would be irresponsible to force the demise of fundholding with no safeguards for fundholder GPs and their staff.
With just over a month to go, PCGs have a vast agenda to complete in order to ensure that they are properly up and running. They must establish management structures and cost agreements; staff recruitment; accountability agreements with the health authorities; service agreements; develop investment plans; establish links with social services; design IT structures; and a whole lot more. Many PCG boards and health authorities are finding that an almost impossible hill to climb by 1st April. I believe that we need to be more sensible about it. My amendment does not mean that all fundholders must wait until March 2000 before winding up; it means that they do not have to wind up their fundholding arrangements by 1st April this year.
1252
I am grateful to Members of the Committee who have supported my amendment and I believe that it is appropriate that we should test the opinion of the Committee.
4.15 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 72; Not-Contents, 137.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Howe, E.

Annaly, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Astor of Hever, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Berners, B.

Lang of Monkton, L.

Bethell, L.

Leigh, L.

Blaker, L.

Long, V.

Blatch, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Boardman, L.

Lyell, L.

Broadbridge, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Burnham, L. [Teller.]

Mancroft, L.

Buterworth, L.

Merrivale, L.

Cadman, L.

Milverton, L.

Caithness, E.

Monson, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Morris, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Chandlington, L.

Naseby, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Norrie, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Davindson, V.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

De Freyne, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Reay, L.

Dundee, E.

Rees, L.

Elles, B.

Renton, L.

Erne, E.

Renwick, L.

Foley, L.

Rowallan, L.

Fookes, B.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Glanusk, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Haddington, E.

Sudeley, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Swinfen, L

Hayhoe, L.

Teviot, L.

Hemphill, L.

Wise, L.

Henley, L.[Teller.]

Wynford, L.

Higgins, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Calverley, L.

Addington, L.

Carlisle, E.

Ahmed, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Alderdice, L.

Carter, L.[Teller]

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Alli, L.

Christopher, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Ampthill, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Annan, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Avebury, L.

Craigavon, V.

Bach, L.

Crawley, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Berkeley, L.

David, B.

Blyth, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Borrie, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Brightman, L.

Desai, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Dholakia, L.

Brookman, L.

Donoghue, L.

1253

Dormand of Easington, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Dubs, L.

[Teller.]

Dunleath, L.

McNally, L.

Eatwell, L.

Maddock, B.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Emerton, B.

Methuen, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Ezra, L.

Molloy, L.

Falconer of Thoronton, L.

Monkswell, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Gallacher, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Geraint, L.

Peston, L.

Gilbert, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Goudie, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Rea, L.

Grenfell, L.

Redesdale, L.

Hacking, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Hardie, L.

Rix, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Haskel, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Hayman, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Shepherd, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Hoyle, L.

Simon, V.

Huges, L.

Stallard, L.

Huges of Woddside, L.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hylton, L.

Symons of Vemham Dean, B.

Ilchester, E.

Tenby, V.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Jendins of Putney, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Judd, L.

Thornton, B.

Kennet, L.

Thurso, V.

Kintore, E.

Tordoff, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Laming, L.

Uddin, B.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Lockwood, B.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Ludford, B.

Warner, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Waverley, V.

McFarlane of Llandaff, B.

Weatherill, L.

Wigoder, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Willams of Elvel, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.24 p.m.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 2:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
DIRECT FUNDHOLDING PRACTICES
(".—(1) The Secretary of State may, at his discretion—

(a) grant individual general practitioners leave to withdraw from any established Primary Care Trust;

(b) grant individual general practitioners leave to withdraw from the direct budgetary control of a Health Authority, or sub-committee thereof.

(2) Any general practitioner given leave under subsection (1) above shall take on powers, functions, and a budget as directed by the Secretary of State.").
The noble Earl said: The Committee stage of a Bill gives us an opportunity to examine some of the broad conceptual underpinning of the Government's health reforms as distinct from the kind of matters we have just been considering; that is, structure and practice which flow from the policies. The high hopes that all supporters of the health service must share for PCGs and PCTs are, for many of us, counterbalanced by deep doubts.
It is worth looking at a few aspects of the new arrangements. The Conservative government introduced reforms into primary care which were significant; but at the same time they were voluntary. GPs were able to choose whether or not to become fundholders; there was never any question of forcing them to do so. The present Government have adopted a different course. There is no longer a question of choice. Doctors must become part of a primary care group, and that PCG will be an entity which represents the interests of a great many more patients, doctors, nurses and clinicians than even the largest fundholding practice ever did.
Doctors were previously given a choice, and if they wished to be fundholders they were given their own budgets and a great deal of freedom in which to develop primary care services for their local area. The benefits of that freedom, as I said at Second Reading, have been clear and tangible. Now, GP fundholders' budgets are to be taken away from them and their freedom of action within a PCG will be largely governed by the policy of the PCG itself, together with the health authority.
The Government's stated aim in abolishing fundholding is to reduce inequalities in the delivery of primary care and to cut bureaucracy. Of course, those are laudable objectives. But will they be achieved? My first question to the Minister is: where is the much trumpeted figure of £1 billion of savings in bureaucracy to come from? As far as I can make out the only thing that the Government have done in that context is to cut the number of commissioning bodies. I accept that less paper is likely to flow in the form of invoices and so forth, but the PCGs and PCTs will still need managing and administering. That will be a much more complex task than fundholding and is bound to generate paper rather than the opposite.
Devolved budgets gave fundholder GPs an incentive to make savings and plough that money back into primary care services. Can the Minister say what incentive GPs will have in a PCG to make savings, knowing that any such savings will be swallowed up by less efficient practices within the same group? What are the levers that will encourage them to do that? I do not see them. Indeed, how robust will the accountability mechanisms be in level one and level two PCGs? Why, in the final analysis, should a GP do as he is told by the health authority?
Is the intention to withhold funding from any GP or practice which does not conform? Non-conforming GPs are bound to be a feature of the new arrangements. The sheer size of a PCG, let alone a PCT, which is likely to be much bigger, will make for unwieldiness in decision making. It will also make for much less of a facility to cater for local needs than has been the case under

1255
fundholding. The "accountability model"—as it is called—is weak. Meanwhile, at levels one and two it is the health authority's neck that is on the block.
If the Government really believed in flexibility, they would have set up flexible structures to match that aspiration. Instead, they have gone the other way. That is what lies behind my amendment; a power to leave a future Secretary of State with the flexibility, if he so chose, to introduce devolved budgets for groups of GPs, should that seem to be a sensible course in a particular health authority area. Such a provision would, of course, keep a power in reserve without the need for further primary legislation in the future.
That is the long and the short of it. It is, I hope, a modest proposal and not an offensive one. I look forward to the Minister's reply. I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Renton: Before my noble friend sits down—he has sat down but perhaps I may ask him a question. As we are in Committee, he will be free to answer. If a general practitioner is granted leave to withdraw from the PCT, would he, nevertheless, still be under an obligation to work within the National Health Service?
Earl Howe: Most certainly. The object of my proposal is to enable that to happen but to grant the GPs concerned more flexibility than they might otherwise have had. It would be a decision for the Secretary of State, though they would remain within the health service and subject to all the other disciplines of the health service.
Lord Clement-Jones: I am not sure whether a Bench can nail its colours to the mast. Be that as it may, whatever the appropriate metaphor, this seems to me the point at which I wish to indicate that, on these Benches, we support the broad thrust of the transition to PCTs. Indeed, the move towards PCGs that the Minister has indicated has already started.
Of course, all change is uncomfortable and one recognises that the amount of work, management and sheer worrying general practitioners currently have to do is enormous. Nobody underestimates the amount of work taking place to prepare for when PCGs come into operation. In addition, nobody underestimates the amount of work which needs to be done with the Bill to improve the provisions in terms of the constitution of PCTs and in relation to accountability, transparency, partnership and consultation. We shall be seeking to ensure that a great many additions are made to the Bill in that respect.
We do not support a command and control structure for the NHS as tight as perhaps the Government appear to he drawing it. I noticed in The Times the other day that the Secretary of State was talking about personally scrutinising the CVs of all trust chief executives. That is the route to a situation where the Secretary of State is responsible for every bedpan in the National Health Service. Quite frankly, I have no doubt that he does not wish to be responsible for every bedpan; it is bad enough being responsible for one!
1256
That said, there must be consent. Many of the amendments that we are considering today, which have been tabled by noble Lords of all parties, relate to the way in which the transition from PCGs to PCTs takes place. I believe that if that is run and constituted properly, the transition from, say, class 1 PCGs to class 2 PCGs and on into the PCT structure can be done in a proper, user-friendly way and mean that GPs are fully brought on board in the process. When I say GPs, I am not ignoring the other professions allied to medicine, a great many of whom have made a lot of representations on this Bill. However, I do not believe that trying to overturn this structure by a side-wind in this amendment is a sensible way to go. An opt-out for GPs by simply reconstituting fundholding by any other name is not in the interests of patients. It is certainly not the thrust of the proposals in the White Paper which we supported, and we do not believe that this amendment is the right way to go forward.
Baroness Fookes: I do not suppose one needs supernatural powers to imagine that the Minister's brief is marked "resist". Nonetheless, I support the amendment because I am sorry to see fundholding, as a concept, disappear. It has become clear to me over the years that all organisations are as much subject to fads and fashions as hemlines for ladies used to be. It is clear that fundholding is now last year's fashion. However, I would not wish the time to pass without saying that I believe this is a mistake on the part of the Government.
I believe that fundholding was showing itself to be successful. If it had been given time, in the end, by voluntary means, all GPs would have joined in and we would have had a very satisfactory position, with none of the objections currently raised against it. However, it is clear that the Government are prepared to go on to another form, another fashion, and we are unlikely to see fundholding retained. That is regrettable. I support the amendment which seeks to leave a little loophole for it to return at some other time.
Lord Haskel: I do not believe it is a matter of fashion. The noble Earl who moved the amendment did not address the main argument against fundholding; that is, that it makes for inequalities in the service. Patients want an equal service of a high level, not inequality of service according to where they live. That is why I believe that the move the Government are making is a desirable one to achieve that equality of service.
Lord Skelmersdale: I shall not pursue the "hemline" route pursued by the previous two speakers. However, I hope the Minister will recognise that this is a very unusual amendment indeed. Generally speaking oppositions resist like crazy giving extra powers to the Secretary of State, no matter what Bill is being discussed. In recent years they have been backed up by your Lordships' Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation. Indeed, we shall come to the arguments proposed by that committee a little later—probably not today, but on Monday.

1257
However, I would take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. The amendment does not give GPs an "opt-out", which I believe was the phrase he used. As my noble friend Lord Howe stated, it allows a future Secretary of State to take account of a developing situation, and this is, of course, a developing situation. We go on from groups, through their various stages, to trusts. It may be that in some parts of the country things are not working quite as fast or as well as the Government apparently expect. I cannot see any good reason why there should not be a reserved power for the Secretary of State to take account of that. It may be that my noble friend does not have quite the right "account-taking" amendment—if I may put it in that way. Nonetheless, if we have to go back time and time again to primary legislation, that must be wrong. Therefore, I support my noble friend, certainly in the premise behind his amendment, if not in the amendment itself.
Lord Warner: It seems to me that the amendment is based on a good deal of optimism from those on the Benches opposite who feel, clearly, that they will be back in government at some stage and will be able to use it, if agreed, to put into effect yet another attempt to bring back a version of GP fundholding.
It is perhaps worth recalling history. After all the efforts of the previous government to introduce GP fundholding and all the financial incentives given to GPs to become fundholders, we still ended up with only 50 per cent. or so of the population cared for by GP fundholders. Therefore, we still had a situation in which about 50 per cent. of the GPs in this country resisted those blandishments and were caring for their patients outside fundholding. Of those who had accepted fundholding, a good many did so with the greatest reluctance and felt that they were put under undue pressure to pursue that particular line. We must bear that in mind and the fact that fundholding was not the great triumph that it is presented as by those opposite. It was actually a very divisive approach to primary care for patients and it was rejected by very many of this country's GPs.
Lord Skelmersdale: I do not need to say, "Before the noble Lord sits down", because this is Committee. However, does he not accept that, by law, many GP practices were not allowed to become fundholders—I am referring to the smaller practices—and that therefore his figure of 50 per cent. is not terribly helpful in illustrating his case?
Baroness Hayman: The noble Earl said that this was a "modest" proposal and the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, said that it was an "unusual" amendment. Perhaps we shall have a new concept in your Lordships' House—that of the modest and unusual wrecking amendment. This amendment, just like the previous amendment on which we have just voted, goes to the heart of a very firm manifesto commitment which was repeated in our White Paper on the NHS.
I must advise the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, that I did not need a brief marked "resist" to know that I should resist this amendment as the manifesto is dear
1258
to my heart—it is not quite written word for word on it—and I know absolutely what we said in it about ending GP fundholding—and I know that we have not wavered from that. Therefore, I echo the words of my noble friend Lord Warner.
The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, kindly offered the Secretary of State—unusually, as he said—additional powers. A Labour Secretary of State does not want to have additional powers to recreate fundholding because we do not believe that it is the right way forward for primary care within the NHS.
As I have said, we have a clear commitment to abolish the internal market and GP fundholding in particular and to replace them with modern arrangements founded on the principles of co-operation and partnership. It is on those principles that our plans for primary care groups and primary care trusts are based.
The fundholding system, in which individual GPs were allowed to take on powers, functions and a budget, was in fact a centrepiece of the old internal market. We recognise that although some GP fundholders used those arrangements to deliver benefits for their patients, that was done (almost by definition) because they were available only to some patients and were therefore achieved at the expense of others. Abolishing that system is crucial to the delivery of our commitment to improve the quality of healthcare overall and for all patients.
Primary care groups, and in due course primary care trusts, will allow GPs and other professionals to work together to improve the health of, and to address the health inequalities in, their local communities. The arrangements will build on the experience not just of GP fundholders but of multi-funds, total purchasing and GP commissioning groups. They do so crucially without the competition embedded in the fundholding system and extend the influence of GPs and nurses across the full range of the health service.
It has been argued that the amendment would provide an alternative for those GPs who feel that they have been in some way coerced into a primary care group or that they will be coerced into a primary care trust when the Bill has received Royal Assent and primary care trusts are first set up. It is absolutely true that all GPs are members of a primary care group. However, in practice, that is little different from what has been a long-established practice in the health service. I refer to GPs being on the list of a particular health authority, from which they could not opt out. They were, by definition, party to its commissioning arrangements if they were not fundholders. In both cases, they are essentially geographically based and, short of moving into other areas, GPs have only marginal choice about the group to which they are attached.
However, GPs are, and will be, free to decide how actively they participate in the development of their primary care groups. We are looking to former fundholders to be among those leading the primary care groups forward. Many of them have demonstrated energy, enthusiasm and a commitment to patients in

1259
developing innovative services or commissioning arrangements. We want to harness those attributes. Many fundholders have responded to that challenge.
However, it is not only fundholders who have something to contribute. I refer to the nurses who will lead primary care groups and to the other GPs who, for clear and committed reasons of principle, did not want to be fundholders but who have been leaders in developing services in their own authorities.
We are convinced that we can extend good practice and innovation to all patients rather than start a process of levelling down. Success would be much more difficult to achieve if we were to allow the continuance or re-creation of islands of singleton fundholders. The new arrangements and the old systems are not compatible. Allowing the two to continue in parallel or, indeed, in competition for any substantial period would be a recipe for both confusion and bureaucratic excess.
As the noble Earl pointed out, we are looking to reduce bureaucracy in order to make savings for the health service. That will be achieved not only by using across the board the funds that sustained GP fundholding for a minority of the population so that they provide the funding for primary care group management for the whole population, but also by other measures such as encouraging co-operation and benchmarking across the NHS which can save a great deal of money, by abolishing extra-contractual referrals (ECRs), by moving to longer-term service agreements and by doing away with some of the enormously wasteful and frustrating paper-chases which were the consequence of the internal market.
The noble Earl also asked about the incentive framework to provide incentives for individual GPs within PCGs to make efficiency gains. Practices will be entitled to 50 per cent. of any savings they achieve against their indicative budgets. That entitlement will apply even if other practices in the PCG overspend in total. We have built into the system an incentive for the PCG as a whole as well as for the individual practices within it.
Primary care trusts will be established by the Secretary of State. Progression to trust status will be locally determined, based on local views. The Secretary of State will be able to establish primary care trusts only after local consultation. The views of the primary care groups, the local GPs and other professionals, as well as those of the wider community and of the NHS locally, will clearly be key considerations for the Secretary of State in deciding whether to establish a primary care trust. It is our assumption that the support of the relative primary care group would be required—and GPs have a majority on PCGs.
The Committee should note that this amendment would fundamentally undermine the changes which we are committed to deliver. Like the previous amendment, essentially it looks backwards and harks back to a discredited system rather than looking forward to making the new system work. I urge the Committee not to support it.
4.45 p.m.
Earl Howe: I suppose that we should be thankful for some small mercies in that at least the Government are not wavering from one of their manifesto commitments. I put it to the Minister that she has been guilty of at least a little loose terminology. This is not a wrecking amendment. I deliberately have not tabled any wrecking amendments to this Bill. The amendment seeks to grant a reserved power to this or any future Secretary of State. It does not prevent the Government ending GP fundholding and fulfilling their manifesto commitment.
I do not believe that the Minister covered my point about the Government's objective of saving £1 billion for the health service by cutting bureaucracy. I wonder whether she can comment on that and whether she still believes that that is an achievable target. It would be wonderful if it were, but I wonder whether the noble Baroness still believes that.
Secondly and specifically, does the Minister believe that devolved budgets will be possible at practice level within the primary care groups and primary care trusts? Setting aside the amendment for a moment, does the noble Baroness believe that that is a realistic proposal for the new structures that will be put in place? Before I decide what to do with this amendment. I wonder whether the noble Baroness could answer that point.
Baroness Hayman: I can say to the Earl, Lord Howe, that there will have to be some element of devolution here in the sense that there will be indicative budgets, as I suggested in my reply about the savings and the incentives for efficiency gains. In order that people can make proper comparisons and assess their own practice on matters like prescribing, it will be necessary to know at practice level how an individual practice is doing and to be able to make comparisons. So in terms of information that kind of devolution will have to go on in order to make the situation work.
It is very early in our deliberations to start bandying words and I would not wish to do so, but I have to say to the noble Earl that when we have a clear and unequivocal manifesto commitment to abolish fundholding and I see two successive amendments trying to recreate, either for a longer period or as a reserve power, that which we said in our manifesto we wanted to abolish and said very clearly that we were going to abolish—and we would be accused of ducking and weaving if we had put in some reserve power that we could pull back at a later time—it seems to me that we are undermining that fundamental manifesto commitment. I must make clear that we are not willing to do that. I do not quite understand what other manifesto commitments we were going back on, as mentioned by the noble Earl. Perhaps they will be listed later this evening, but I am not aware of any.
So far as concerns the billion pounds of savings, we are still looking to that target as well as to the target reductions, including those for health authorities, NHS trusts and GP fundholder management costs that were set in May 1997, with 84 further targets of £73 million

1261
in 1998–99, which were announced in 1997, and for cumulative savings to date that are already around a quarter of a million pounds.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: Could I ask the Minister for a little clarification on what she has said? First, she says that the aim is to reduce bureaucracy—I am quite convinced that this proposal will not do that—and she is also looking for savings in financial terms. The noble Baroness said that practices would be able to keep 50 per cent. of any money that they saved. Would she confirm that that will be irrespective of whether every practice saves more than expected and will there be no ceiling at all on how much practices can save? Further, will practices be able to save, for example, by not prescribing in the same budget something like beta interfon—because that is just too expensive and certain GPs and their partners even now object to prescribing something very expensive because it affects the budget? Will GPs be able to prescribe quite freely or will they be losing their incentive if they prescribe these expensive treatments?
Baroness Hayman: The issue about GP prescribing and how we ensure equal access for patients to a variety of treatments is a much wider issue, which I am sure we will come to later. However, through the National Institute of Clinical Excellence, the national service framework and then through the clinical governance arrangements we are making sure that the best quality advice is going out to all those who are providing health services so that they can be publicly accountable through their clinical governance and in the course of clinical governance for the quality of the service which will include access to drugs, for example, to which the noble Baroness referred.
As far as concerns the incentives for efficiency gains, practices will be entitled, as I said, to retain 50 per cent. of all savings they achieve against indicative budgets, but those savings are to be capped at £45,000, and they must be made through efficiency and not through reduction in services. I hope that is helpful.
Earl Howe: This has been a useful debate and I am grateful to the noble Baroness for answering the questions that I put to her. I would only say that if it had been my intention to wreck this Bill I would have given the Committee notice that I intended to resist Clause 1 as part of the Bill, and I would not dream of doing such a thing. With those comments, and reserving the right to bring this matter back at a later stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 [Primary care trusts]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 14, after ("may") insert (", only after a request from the doctors on the medical list of the Health Authority who would be covered by the specified area,").
The noble Earl said: This amendment addresses an issue which is of great concern to GPs and other health professionals: namely, the fear that when a proposal is made to establish a PCT, that proposal could go out to
1262
consultation and be approved without any prior backing from those who are most affected by it, in other words, the PCGs. Unless the PCGs support the establishment of a PCT and unless the collective view of the PCGs is formally canvassed in advance of the consultation, then it is almost impossible to envisage how a PCT could successfully come into being. It would also be hard to justify spending valuable NHS resources in putting the proposals out for full consultation.
Last Friday's circular from the Department of Health emphasised that progression to trust status would be locally driven and based on local views, but I believe we need to ask what that means. I do not think it is enough to say, as the circular goes on to do—and I am quoting here—
"It is our assumption that the support of relevant primary groups would be required".
I am not really sure what that means. The PCGs need to be actively in favour before the Secretary of State goes out to consultation, let alone takes a decision to give the green light to the PCT. Anything else would look very much like coercion, and we have had quite enough of that already. I beg to move.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: We seem to have two groups of amendments about consultation—am I right? I am not sure that they cover exactly the same ground, but I do not understand why there should be two groups. I noticed in the department's letter to the chairmen of health authorities, primary care groups and NHS trusts—and I was grateful to the Minister for sending a copy of that, because it was extremely helpful—that the department gives four criteria for the Government's arrangements for primary care trusts that need to be satisfied. The criteria are that they will have to put primary care professionals in the driving seat, that they will need to provide public accountability, support local public involvement and ensure probity regarding public funds and conflicts of interest.
The question for all concerned in agreeing to proceed with a trust seems to me that they will have to decide that what the Bill proposes, in terms of accountability, public consultation and funding arrangements and indeed in conflicts of interest, will in fact enable primary health care professionals to be in the driving seat, whether or not they will stay there when all these arrangements are put into play.
The move from primary care groups to trusts—the groups having been committed to health authorities and the trusts being self-standing—will be an enormous change and the relationship of GPs and others to the centre will change very much. It is a huge change and it seems to me extremely important that everybody concerned is happy about it. It is extraordinary that the Bill treats the matter of consultation is such a cursory way. Clause 2(4) says:
"If any consultation requirements apply, they must be complied with before a PCT order is made",
and swiftly sent through Parliament to set the whole thing in place. The Royal College of Nursing is very

1263
concerned about this, and rightly so. It wants to know what time will be allowed for consultation. However, I believe that we will deal with timing when we come to the next group of amendments, so the Minister may not wish to reply now in that respect. The universities are extremely concerned, especially those with medical schools and hospitals attached to them. I know one of them intimately and I am aware of the nature of the concerns. It seems to me that consultation of the sort suggested by my noble friend, or perhaps that proposed in the next group of amendments, is absolutely crucial.
In passing, there is one matter about which I am not clear. The reason for this may be my own thick head, but I am still not clear whether the Government are convinced that GPs who are independent contractors will maintain the freedom that is legally theirs right through the story of a trust to what I believe is the fourth stage. If the Minister could reiterate precisely why they are convinced, I would be happier.
This is not a party political discussion at all; we are trying to clarify the position and assess how we can get the system to work best for all those working in the health service. There are great questions about it and we really do need good answers from the Government.
5 p.m.
Lord Rea: On the face of it, it would seem that this is quite an eminently reasonable amendment. However, the noble Earl seems to forget that general practitioners are not the only people who will play a part in the primary care groups. As someone who has spent most of his professional life working as a GP, I believe that the move from primary care group to primary care trust may be thought to be beneficial by many people who are working in the PCG or indeed in the health authority. There may be a few GPs who are not too keen to move on, but it would be for the benefit of the people living in the PCG area to do so. I am sure that many GPs in every case will want to move on to PCTs, but there is just a possibility that, in some cases, a majority of them want to stay put and not move forward. I believe that it would be wrong simply to have a ballot of GPs. Indeed, I might be more inclined to back the amendment if everyone concerned in the primary care group was balloted. I do not think that the Government should necessarily accept any rigid formula here.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I rise briefly to oppose the amendments tabled in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and to speak to Amendment No. 16, which has been included in this group. The noble Lord, Lord Rea, has really made my main case for me; namely, that there are a large number of other health care professionals who should be involved in this process. I think it is a mistake to give individual doctors—or perhaps I should say GPs—such a pre-eminent role in determining whether or not you even begin to consider the formation or the institution of a PCT and whether or not it goes ahead.
1264
Amendment No. 16 follows more closely the circular in that it tries to put on the face of the Bill the necessity of having the agreement of,
"the Primary Care Group or Groups",
in the area which will form the PCT. Interestingly enough, it is our amendment in this grouping which has the support of the BMA.
Baroness McFarlane of Llandaff: Several Members of the Committee have already spoken about the inadvisability of naming just one profession. Although we accept the importance of the role of general practitioners, they are not the only professionals in the primary health care team. In fact, the Government—and the Minister again, today—have made explicit commitments to include community nurses in the driving seat of the reforms. Therefore, in their present form, it would be difficult to support Amendments Nos. 6 and 12. I believe that any requirements for consultation should be inclusive of all these professions in order to be effective.
We support Amendment No. 16. It is important not only to provide for the matters itemised therein but also to provide for the human resources element in which the professions work. That would include a human resource strategy for the whole of the National Health Service, including issues such as family-friendly employment and the issue of violence at work.
Lord Warner: I rise to oppose Amendments Nos. 3, 6 and 12 because, taken together, I believe that they are actually rather dangerous. Indeed, they would enable a smallish group of GPs to prevent the progression from primary care group to primary care trust, irrespective of whether most of the local health and social care professionals in the community in that particular area wanted to make such a progression. The good Benthamite principle of the greatest good for the greatest numbers is a very sound one and one upon which we should reject the amendments.
I should also like to remind noble Lords opposite that when the previous government sought to merge family health service authorities with district health authorities, a good number of GPs were opposed to such a move. I do not recall a great deal of enthusiasm for consulting local GPs on that move. Indeed, the will of Parliament was regarded as sufficient at that time.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: We do not want to play political football with this matter. I hope that the noble Lord will not address those on the Benches opposite him as if they are always wanting one thing while he wants another. That is not what we are about when we are examining a Bill, and this is one that we want to work.
Does the noble Lord really believe that you could proceed to form a trust with more than half of the GPs in the group being against operating within such a trust? The noble Lord, Lord Rea, was anxious about that and, therefore, thought that it was a pity to give them the

1265
chance to ballot on such a move. Does the noble Lord really feel it would not operate successfully?—because he knows about these things.
Lord Warner: The amendment does not put forward that particular proposition. This is all about health professionals at the local level working together on a co-operative basis. It takes a particular group of health professionals at that local level and almost encourages them to stand out against change if they choose to do so. In my view, that would not be a good contribution to the welfare of local people when we are talking about health professionals and social care professionals working together in the interests of their communities.
I made some remarks about the Benches opposite. I should point out that the amendment was moved by the Front Bench opposite as part of a group. Therefore, I believe one is entitled to respond on the basis that the party opposite is actually supporting the amendments. I was merely reminding Members of the Committee opposite of the changes which they introduced when they were in government. There was no consultation and no right of veto as far as concerns GPs when the FHSAs were actually merged with district health authorities.
Lord Clement-Jones: Thus far in the debate a clear distinction has been made between, if you like, the balloting proposals in the first three amendments of the group and the proposal contained in Amendment No. 16, which—to use a word employed by the noble Lord, Lord Rea—is much more inclusive. It is certainly not our intention to have an unnecessary and artificial block on progress into PCTs. We are trying to avoid a situation which is theoretically possible. If one looks at the guidance notes, they state:
"It is envisaged that proposals to establish a Primary Care Trust will be generated locally. The views of Primary Care Groups, NHS trusts and local communities will be taken into account in considering such a proposal".
That does not give the PCG the primary role. In a sense, if one is going to undertake all the consultation that is proposed, it seems rather fruitless to find at the end of the day that the PCG is not favourably disposed to moving towards a PCT. That is why we on these Benches propose Amendment No. 16. We seek to make sure that the sine qua non of the whole process is the PCG itself, which includes not only GPs but also professions allied to medicine such as nurses, community nurses and so on. Therefore it is a much more inclusive proposal. What we want to avoid is the theoretical possibility that GPs and other health professionals could be delivered, bound and gagged, into the new PCT system. We think that would be highly undesirable. The foundation of proceeding to a PCT must be to obtain the consent of the PCG. Those are our motives. They are entirely distinct from those which underlie the other three amendments in the group. We hope that the Government will look favourably on this provision as a mechanism for making sure that there is full consent and that all parties moving into PCTs are part of a constructive process.
Lord Walton of Detchant: Having heard the discussion, while I can understand and sympathise with
1266
some of the principles underlying Amendments Nos. 3, 6 and 12, I find it difficult to support those amendments. However, I believe that Amendment No. 16, to which the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has just referred, is one of considerable importance. I now pose the following question to the Minister. In her remarks a few moments ago the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, referred to wide consultation. That is an issue which I believe is mentioned in subsection (5) of this clause, to which I believe Amendment No. 17 refers. There are a number of important issues to which I should like to draw the attention of the Committee at a later stage. May I take it that it would be more relevant to discuss issues such as the interests of the universities and of other bodies when we reach Amendment No. 17?
Baroness Fookes: As I understand it, the principle underlying all these amendments, different though they may be, is that there should be agreement to participate in a primary care trust. It is absolutely vital that all those involved should be agreeable to this, and it should not be forced upon them. I am concerned that if the matter is left to consultation—which is a somewhat vague phrase—that could lead to something being imposed which is not welcome to the participants. I am rather taken with Amendment No. 6 because it provides for a secret ballot with a majority in favour of the proposal. I concede that perhaps it does not include the interests of others directly involved, but I think the principle of a secret ballot—perhaps involving all the people who will form the trust—is a wise and sensible proposal, rather than leaving the matter to the rather vague notion of consultation.
Lord Skelmersdale: Before the noble Lord, Lord Warner, spoke, I was about gently to chide my noble friend for being too prescriptive in his series of three amendments, Amendments Nos. 3, 6, and 12. As the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, and others have pointed out, there are many more people involved in the acceptance of all of these provisions than just GPs. I most certainly go along with that. I am not quite sure though why Amendment No. 16 is in this group, because I could support that straightaway without the slightest problem. The Secretary of State would make a grave error indeed if having slowly brought the PCGs through the various stages, he then enforced a trust upon them. I believe that would result in total and absolute chaos. I cannot go along with that.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Hayman: This has been a useful debate on this set of amendments. As the noble Lord, Lord Walton, said, I think it is a precursor for the debate that we shall have as regards some of the groups that we need to ensure are consulted. It has raised an issue that we shall deal with—to which the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, has just referred—namely, exactly how prescriptive one is on the face of the Bill in an area where there are a large number of different groups and interests who need to be consulted, and where the list in one geographical area and circumstance may not apply to another geographical area and circumstance. By

1267
listing everything, one runs the risk either of having legislation that goes on for pages and pages and pages, or leaving out important bodies that may need to be consulted. I refer to local circumstances in this regard. However, that is a general issue to which we can return. I shall deal with the specific amendment of the noble Lord. Lord Clement-Jones, in a moment because that is much more precise.
Lord Clement-Jones: I wonder whether the noble Baroness can answer a question. What she seems to be saying is that the whole consultation process has a large agenda and PCGs are simply part of that. But does she accept that the requirement for the consent of a PCG comprises something other than purely consulting with the wider community, the voluntary sector, carers and so on, all of which we shall debate when we reach the later amendments?
Baroness Hayman: The noble Lord is quite right to chide me on the relationship between a PCG and progression to PCT status. I shall certainly discuss that in a moment. I was just trying to deal with the more general issue which I believe will concern us at various stages in the passage of the Bill.
Perhaps it would be helpful to respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy. It is sometimes genuinely difficult to disentangle the role that GPs will play as commissioners of services, as providers of services as part of a level four PCT, and their services as general practitioners in the traditional sense and as independent contractors. I make it clear that in their role as general practitioners providing general medical services, the status of independent contractor will not be affected at all by primary care trusts. We recognise that it is the bedrock of general practice and that it is a major force for improving primary care. It is not the intention of the Government or of this legislation that it should be affected by the creation of PCGs or PCTs.
I turn to the amendments in the group. As has been acknowledged, the first three deal particularly with general practitioners in relation to the progression to primary care trust status. We have made it clear all along that GPs and community nurses have a key role in developing local services and in rebuilding some of the public confidence in the NHS as a public service accountable to patients and open to the public and shaped by their views. We recognise the important part that GPs have to play in the progress of primary care groups to primary care trusts and in developing and shaping the delivery of healthcare to meet the needs of whole populations. However, that needs to involve the whole community.
The Government's aim is for an establishment process that is locally driven and that takes into account all local views. We envisage proposals to establish a PCT being generated locally and any decision whether or not to establish a PCT will take into account the range of local views. Local doctors will, of course, have a view on that, but as has been pointed out by both the doctors who have contributed to the debate, they are not the only group of professionals or group within the
1268
community who will have a particular interest in the matter. Local PCGs will have a view on the matter—that is the issue which the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, addresses—but so too will local NHS trusts providing community services and many others, including (this is important) professional and patient representative groups.
The PCG has a pivotal role in this process, to which I will return in a moment when I deal with Amendment No. 16. It is our assumption that the support of the primary care group would be required by the Secretary of State before he approved a primary care trust. Not all proposals will go forward for consultation. It is proposed that health authorities will select which proposals are to proceed to consultation, and then to consideration by the Secretary of State. The Government intend to provide in directions that the health authority must select proposals made or endorsed by a PCG or NHS trust providing community services locally. So there is a power for ensuring that locally generated proposals from PCGs go ahead.
The issue we are addressing in these amendments is whether there is a veto in either body. But, on the positive and proactive side, there is some assurance that at least one of the local NHS bodies is signed up to a proposal before it triggers formal consultation.
It is argued that these arrangements will provide GPs with a significant opportunity to influence whether or not the PCG initiates proposals and if so, the scope of such proposals, and whether or not to support others put together independently. The amendments proposed put GPs—and this was illustrated in the debate—in a uniquely preferential position. It effectively gives them the right of veto over primary care trusts. That is not the way to go forward. For those reasons I suggest to the Committee that this group of amendments should not be taken forward.
I turn now to the wider proposal that a primary care trust should only be approved if it has the support of the primary care group. It is important to say at the start that it is no part of the Government's agenda to impose primary care trusts on the service. We believe that primary care trusts will bring benefits to patients, NHS professionals and local communities—and we are confident that people will recognise the opportunities they offer and will want them established—but we do not intend rushing headlong into primary care trusts. We want measured change, progression to trust status, driven locally, based on local views. That is why the Secretary of State will be able to establish a trust only after local consultation.
There is clear provision in Clause 2, inserting the new Section 16A(4) and (5), for the Secretary of State to impose consultation requirements in relation to the establishment of primary care trusts. The detailed arrangements for that consultation are rightly matters for secondary legislation. Comparable orders for establishing NHS trusts are set out in the 1990 Act.
The views of primary care groups, local GPs and other professions, as well as those of the wider community and the NHS locally, will be key considerations for the Secretary of State in deciding

1269
whether to establish a primary care trust. It is our assumption that the support of the relevant primary care group will be required. My honourable friend the Minister of State for Health made this clear to the chairs of primary care groups, health authorities and NHS trusts in a letter to them on the 19th February—which has been referred to by some Members of the Committee—a copy of which has been placed in the Library. We intend to establish PCTs in a way that is sensitive to local views, and primary care groups are key to that.
We believe that the amendment is unnecessary and that if it was inserted in the Bill it would be unnecessarily restrictive. For example, it is possible that if two PCGs join to form one PCT, one PCG with a non-GP majority might oppose, even though the great majority of GPs in both PCG areas want to go ahead. Clearly that is a complex and difficult situation to handle—and one which we would have to be very careful and sensitive about—but to put a restriction on the face of the Bill would be overly restrictive. I hope that the explanation I have given—that we would not envisage circumstances in which proposals would go ahead without the support of PCGs—is such as to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Before the noble Baroness sits down, did I understand her to say that the Government would be quite happy if a primary care trust was set up in an area where the majority of GPs in that area did not want it; that it would be imposed on the GPs. Did she say that?
Baroness Hayman: If I did, it was an error. It was not what I intended to say. We would have no intention of doing that. The example I was giving was the possibility of a majority of GPs wanting a primary care trust, but the organisation of the primary care group—or one of the groups which would be involved in creating the trust—might not be supportive and therefore stand in the way of the majority of GPs. I was trying to reassure the Committee that we look for local support for these organisations. A key to local support would be local professional groups, like GPs—but not exclusively—and primary care groups would have an important role. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is right to say that they will be key players and that their views would be a key consideration. My point is that writing that into the Bill may, in very rare circumstances, be unnecessarily restrictive.
Lord Clement-Jones: I thank the noble Baroness for that response. It seemed to warm up as it went along; the language became stronger and more reassuring as we proceeded. It may be that the language at the end was added later—I do not know—but certainly something like "we would not envisage circumstances" is useful language. But it is slightly contradicted—I obviously need to read Hansard—by the point the Minister made about the possibility of it being overridden. She gave the example of two PCGs going into a PCT, and so on. Therefore, I shall need to reflect on what the Minster has said.
1270
It is probably necessary—not only in terms of the Committee stage of the Bill but in terms of reassurance to PCG chairs and members—to amplify the letter of the 19th February. There are gaps in it and there has been some unhappiness concerning the language about,
"It is our assumption that the support of the relevant Primary Care Group would be required".
The Minister's current language of "We do not envisage circumstances where the consent of the PCGs concerned will not be required" is stronger and better.
Baroness Hayman: It was my honourable friend's language rather than my own which was written down in the advice. I was not trying to draw a distinction. I was trying to rephrase for him, in a way that the noble Lord might find more comforting, the assumption that is clearly set out in that letter. I take the noble Lord's point about the need to in some way clarify exactly what is involved in this. Perhaps he and I can both reflect upon this in the days to come.
Lord Clement-Jones: I thank the Minister for that reply. That is certainly the case. I do not think that I am alone in interpreting what she has said as more reassuring about PCGs than the wording in the letter. We need to reflect and come back to it. The Minister has given various reasons as to why it should not be on the face of the Bill—that it might create circumstances where that could not be overridden where that might be desirable, and so on. We need to think about it and come back to it on Report.
Earl Howe: This has been a useful debate. I realise that, when I introduced Amendment No. 3, I was guilty of not making it clear that I was speaking also to my other Amendments Nos. 6 and 12.
I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rea, and the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane of Llandaff, among others, about inclusivity. It is, I am sure, the Government's intention, and indeed the wish of most of the Committee, that in the consultation arrangements there should be that inclusivity. There is no question about that. My purpose in putting down the amendments was to test the Government's receptiveness to the idea that there should be prior approval from a key group of professionals who would be most affected by a move to PCT status.
The issue for GPs, as distinct from any other group of professionals, however important their role may be, is that, by moving from a PCG to a PCT, they are deprived of one very important factor, which is hands on control of the PCG under the current arrangements. Those current arrangements are ones which the Government have themselves granted to GPs. It is not as if they inherited those arrangements or anything else. They have quite consciously given GPs control of PCGs if they want it. No other group of professionals is similarly affected.
With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, it seems to me that under his amendment, Amendment No. 16, GPs could be delivered bound and gagged into a PCT unless there were some kind of formula in the voting arrangements. But that is a matter of detail.

1271
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. This has been a useful debate and no doubt we shall return to these matters at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Harris of Haringey Lord Harris of Haringey moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 15, at end insert ("to provide goods and services for the purposes of the health service.").
The noble Lord said: I wish to repeat the declaration of interest I made during the Second Reading debate. I was formerly director of the Association of Community Health Councils and am currently a non-executive director of an ambulance service trust. In the interests of brevity, to which the noble Earl, Lord Howe, referred earlier, I intend to speak briefly. I will not repeat my declaration of interest at subsequent stages.
We are now dealing with Clause 2. I wish to raise the issue of defining clearly the functions of primary care trusts. The Bill does not contain any details of the functions and it does not provide for regulations to define what the functions should be. Therefore, the only way these functions can be specified will be by the establishment orders which will be in the hands of the Secretary of State for Health.
I am conscious that primary care trusts will be publicly funded, as is set out in Clause 3(1). It is also intended to transfer NHS properties and facilities to them, under Schedule 5A, paragraph 1(4) and paragraph 21. Furthermore, under Schedule 5A, primary care trusts will have powers to dispose of land and property and, under Clause 4(1), they will be permitted to treat private patients and to charge for those services. It is critically important that we build into the Bill safeguards to ensure that public moneys and NHS properties are utilised primarily for the benefit of the NHS. I therefore submit that limits on functions are necessary.
It is arguable that the Secretary of State would not have powers to detail proper limits and safeguards in an establishment order, as by so doing the Secretary of State would be detracting from the functions permitted in primary legislation without there being an express power in primary legislation to permit the Secretary of State to do so. In any event, it would be more open to have these details in primary legislation than in individual establishment orders.
What I am suggesting in the amendment is that it would be helpful to have functions specifically detailed in the Act along with safeguards to ensure that the primary care trusts operate for the benefit of the health service. Furthermore, it will be important to ensure that they do not operate in such a way as to disadvantage NHS patients or other bodies providing health or social services. It is also clear in this context that consultation
1272
issues will be important. No doubt we will return to that point when we come to discuss other clauses. I beg to move.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I rise to speak to Amendments Nos. 5 and 24 and to Amendment No. 7 which stands in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Howe. Our amendments seek to put on the face of the Bill some description of what a PCT will actually do. They seek to set out not its powers but its functions. Amendment No. 5 amends Clause 2 and Amendment No. 24 amends Schedule 1. The two amendments are mutually supportive. Before I go any further, I should like to thank the Public Bill Office for ensuring that Amendment No. 24 was put in the right place.
Our objective is to make the purpose of primary care trusts plain on the face of the Bill. There is a prima facie case for doing that in such an important Bill which gives a totally new structure to the purchasing of care in the National Health Service. There is also the matter of transparency. Bills are there not only so that legislators and lawyers can understand what they are about. More and more ordinary folk and the people who stand in their interests want to know what Bills are about. Perhaps I may remind the Committee that the Bill is a series of amendments to an Act which is already almost 300 pages long. Every one of those pages has at least one explanatory note. Some of them have four or five. We are in very complicated territory. That is another reason for wanting to make the purpose of this new development clear on the face of the Bill.
Many pressure groups have seen the amendments and have written to support them for the reasons I have put forward. Perhaps I may also draw attention to the fact that in paragraph 15 of its report the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation states:
"If the House is of the opinion that Parliament does not have sufficient control over the creation of Primary Care Trusts, it may wish to consider amending the bill to include a statement of the purposes and objectives of PCTs".
The formula we have chosen is not the only formula one could choose. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, has approached this issue in a different way. We could have done so. We could have taken a number of different formulae in order to get the same point across. The formula is not what we are most interested in. We want to get a description of the purpose of a PCT on the face of the Bill. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to indicate that she has some sympathy for the purpose of the amendment, even if she does not think that the formula is the one we should have chosen.
Earl Howe: At Second Reading the Minister argued that to include a definition of primary care trusts on the face of the Bill was unnecessary and inappropriate. She argued that on two main grounds. The first was that it was inconsistent with previous legislation. The second was that it was undesirable because what the Government wanted to achieve was maximum flexibility in the way that PCTs could operate and develop in the future. I totally understand the argument about flexibility. But what I tried to convey at Second Reading was the simple point that it was right as a

1273
matter of principle for the House to be able to comprehend directly from the face of the Bill the broad structure of what it was debating; namely, primary care trusts. I still do not think that that is an unreasonable expectation for a measure of this importance.
Indeed, it is a view that is shared by the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee of this House, which suggested that,
"the House may wish to explore whether the primary legislation might provide a general framework for PCTs which will provide a statement of the purposes and objectives within which the regulation-making powers can be exercised".
That was a more than usually gentle hint from the committee. We should do well to take note of it. The amendment that I have tabled attempts to achieve that objective. I am not wedded to the wording, but I hope that the Government will not be dismissive of the principle behind it.
It is worth reflecting on the background. As the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee said, this part of the Bill contains a wide set of powers. We shall debate their scope later. It is important for the primary legislation to place the order-making powers into a properly defined context.
The Government have made it clear that they wish to see PCTs develop in imaginative new ways. One cannot possibly take issue with that. I do not believe that the presence in the Bill of what is by any standards a basic definition would inhibit the development of PCTs in any way whatever. So the scope for flexibility is still there.
Lord Clement-Jones: The enclosure with the Minister's letter of 19th February contains a whole page on the role of primary care trusts. Then the document immediately goes on to talk about their benefits. It is rather like a sales pitch. It speaks of better support to practices, better support to individual clinicians, better integrated services and better access. You then ask yourself where it relates to the role of PCTs. I mention this point merely to illustrate the necessity of being much more explicit in relation to functions. You have to turn another three pages before reaching the point where the letter states, in rather runic terms,
"The functions of level 3 Primary Care Trusts are similar to level 2 Primary Care Groups, although with more extensive powers and responsibilities".
We then refer back to the circular. My noble friend's amendment was drafted with reference to the circular, although in slightly more friendly and not such detailed language. It is that kind of issue that one is grappling with.
A provision is needed on the face of the Bill. The functions of the commission for health improvement are included in the Bill; surely it would be relatively straightforward to include the functions of the PCTs. The PCTs will have a far bigger impact on the lives of ordinary people than will the commission for health improvement, so there must be a double reason for including the functions of the PCTs.
Lord Rix: I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, were surprised when they arrived
1274
today and found that I had added my name to Amendment No. 24. I hope that they will accept my apology for not informing them beforehand. The functions of primary care trusts have particular relevance to people with a learning disability. I therefore stress the importance of heading (e) in the suggested new draft. It introduces a new function for primary care trusts to develop,
"particular services to improve the access to health of disadvantaged or vulnerable residents".
That function is important for two reasons. First, there is presently great confusion about responsibilities for local health services for people with learning disabilities. There is a danger that services may fall between primary care groups and mental health trusts. To that end I should welcome confirmation from the Minister as to where services for people with learning disabilities will be located in this tidal wave of reform. The foreseeable state of flux and uncertainty is a fragile basis for effective management of consultation, accountability and quality management over the next decade. This amendment would give greater priority to effective partnerships in services for people with learning disabilities, and indeed others who are disadvantaged by virtue of age, disability, ethnic origin or social factors.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Pitkeathley: I am agnostic about how these functions are to be spelt out. However, I too wish to speak in support of Amendment No. 24, and particularly heading (f), which refers to,
"The shaping of local health services to reflect local needs … which ensures the support of users and carers".
It reflects the absolute necessity of spelling out information in what is to be a major change in health services. It will have the utmost effect on users of the health service. How we do it is of less concern to me, but we must be sure that it is done.
Lord Walton of Detchant: I strongly support the principles underlying the reasons for tabling Amendment No. 24. One of my concerns, however, relates to the extent to which it is proper in primary legislation to lay down a whole series of individual clauses when it may subsequently become apparent that a number of points of considerable importance have been omitted. For example, heading (c) refers to,
"the promotion of healthier lifestyles".
Otherwise, however, the amendment says very little about preventive medicine and a whole series of other issues which might well be enshrined in such a statute.
Is it, therefore, right that such a complicated and detailed series of proposals should be on the face of the Bill? Or might not these definitions preferably be subject to secondary legislation? If I may be pedantic, in sub-paragraph (g) the phrase "best clinical practise" should have a "c" not an "s".
Lord Skelmersdale: Like the noble Lord, Lord Walton, I was wondering whether the Liberal Democrat Benches had perhaps been taking lessons from the Americans, but we shall leave that aside.

1275
I wish to make three brief comments on this series of amendments. First, I am sorry that we have lost our two professorial economists. When I was learning economics at a very junior level, one of the first things I was taught was to define the terms before mounting the argument. I therefore go along with the noble Lord, Lord Harris, in his amendment, and indeed the other amendments which seek to define exactly what we mean by primary health groups and primary health trusts on the face of the Bill as soon as we decently can.
However, one can go over the top. Ten years on the Front Bench opposite taught me to be very wary indeed of shopping lists; and what Amendment No. 24 provides is a shopping list. I am sure that, even if the Minister does not use those words, that is exactly what she will to tell the Committee.
Thirdly, I have the honour to be a member of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. I like to think that I do my homework fairly well and I pore over the various instruments that come before the Committee before each Tuesday's discussion. The idea of including a purpose clause in every statutory instrument pertaining to trusts fills me with total horror. It would be far better to have the provision on the face of the primary legislation; then we could all take it as read.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: A detailed list such that in Amendment No. 24 is not desirable. It would be even worse were it to include heading (j), which refers to,
"any other activities and functions which, from time to time".
It is already wide-ranging. Having provided a long list from (a) to (i), the amendment then adds anything else that we might like to name. I cannot support it.
Baroness Hayman: The noble Baroness has given my reply for me on Amendment No. 24. Perhaps I should try to be helpful to the Committee. The amendments propose in different ways to set out on the face of the Bill the purpose or the functions of primary care trusts. The amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey and that in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, attempt to define the purpose in broad terms. In contrast, the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, define the functions in more detail. In the contributions from the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, and the noble Lords, Lord Skelmersdale and Lord Walton, we had illustrations of the difficulties of putting down lists.
On the broad principle of a statement of overall purpose of primary care trusts, I have some sympathy with the arguments put forward. We will have to try to define them in fairly broad terms, but we ought to try to ascertain whether we can bring forward a suitable government amendment at Report stage. It would allow the face of the Bill to show what we see as the broad purpose and role of primary care trusts. I believe we can do that.
However, we get into more difficult territory when we try to define the functions in primary legislation rather than in secondary legislation. There was a
1276
commendable effort from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench and it broadly reflects the role that we envisage primary care trusts exercising. However, at the same time it illustrates the problems inherent in trying to define functions of that nature by primary legislation. For example, subparagraph (b) in Amendment No. 24 refers to hospital services "other than specialised services". We envisage that PCTs will be debarred through directions from commissioning some highly specialised services such as those for HIV/AIDS, or cystic fibrosis, or a number of tertiary services for children such as paediatric intensive care.
However, there are other services such as blue light ambulance services and population screening services where we may want to direct PCTs on how they exercise their commissioning function. We might require them to commission services through joint arrangements with other PCTs or PCGs.
Clause 2 allows PCTs to enter into such arrangements. The problem of definition has been referred to: what is a specialised service? Another problem of definition is that we all know exactly what is meant by "disadvantaged or vulnerable resident", but if we put it into the hands of the lawyers, after enacting it in primary legislation, we might all find NHS money going down the drain.
I am not doing this in any way to try to nit-pick or challenge a very good statement of what primary care trusts will do. I suggest to the Committee that it might be a wiser course if we try to bring forward an amendment at Report stage that deals with the broad role that we envisage PCTs taking on. I hope that the Committee will find it useful.
Reference was made to this being an issue raised by the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation in its report on the Bill. At Second Reading I indicated that we would want to look carefully and constructively at what the committee suggested. I welcome the committee's conclusion that the argument referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, whereby I proposed that the approach we had taken mirrored that in earlier NHS legislation was appropriate for the Bill and that in some ways the broad divide was acceptable. I intend to try to bring forward something that meets the points made by both the Select Committee and the Committee today.
It might be helpful if I referred to two other broad areas on which the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation made recommendations. One was in relation to pharmaceutical prices and profits. It stated that it would like to see an appeals procedure and also an affirmative rather than negative procedure for the powers in paragraph 36. We accept the underlying intention of that recommendation and will attempt to respond positively to it at a later stage in the Bill.
On the issue of self-regulation of the healthcare professionals, there was the comment that there might be a statement of criteria for the exercise of the power, and in addition to the arrangements already set out in the Bill for consultation, a summary of representations received on a draft order laid before the House before that order was considered. That is another

1277
recommendation that is positive and helpful. I hope I shall be able to bring forward government amendments on those two areas, as well as on the specific one at Report stage.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: While on these points, if we look at paragraph 15 of the recommendations of the report of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation and the preceding paragraph, paragraph 14, they state that Part II of the Bill makes similar provisions to those that we have just been discussing for Scotland.
I wonder whether the Government read it as the committee's intention that there should be a definition of the different primary care trusts for Scotland. I also wonder whether, in making the addition to the Bill which the Minister has just outlined, she would do likewise for Part II of the Bill. Perhaps the noble Baroness would consider it. I see the Minister sitting beside her. He may be able to help her in the matter.
Baroness Hayman: I will undertake to look at it. There is a parallel, as the noble Baroness rightly pointed out. If that parallel is one that ought to meet with an equal response, we will undertake to try to do so. Perhaps I may take it away and consider it in detail.
Earl Howe: Before the noble Lord, Lord Harris, decides what to do with his amendment, perhaps I may take this opportunity to thank the noble Baroness for giving constructive consideration to our debate at Second Reading and again in Committee today. I also thank her for offering to bring a government amendment forward at a later stage in the Bill. It is most helpful and I believe that the whole Committee will be extremely appreciative of the trouble she has taken to address the issues we have raised.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I add my voice to that of the noble Earl. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, and the noble Lord, Lord Rix. We were delighted to see his signature on our amendment. It is always a great honour in this Chamber.
We accept absolutely that the solution put forward by the noble Baroness is correct. I am grateful to her for her compliment on our drafting. We are not entirely surprised because we did our best to ground it on papers provided by Her Majesty's Government so as to make it difficult to oppose. However, we accept the solution she offered and look forward to the forthcoming government amendment.
Lord Harris of Haringey: I am grateful to the Committee for a helpful discussion. It was clear that a consensus was emerging from all sides about the need to see something on the face of the Bill defining the role and functions of primary care trusts. It was interesting that no Member of the Committee who spoke seemed wedded to the forms of words before us in the group of amendments.
I am a novice at all this. I understand that if my noble friend Lady Hayman says that she has some sympathy for the proposal, it should be regarded as good news.
1278
I look forward to seeing the amendment that she hopes to bring forward at Report stage. On those terms, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment in my name.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 5 to 7 not moved.]
6 p.m.
Lord Harris of Haringey Lord Harris of Haringey moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, line 1, leave out ("If any").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 8 which is inextricably linked with Amendments Nos. 10, 11, 14, 46, 47 and 48. Earlier today I had a conversation with my noble friend Lord Desai who was concerned to give me a lecture on grammar in case I did not make clear that all of these points were closely linked. This amendment brings us back to a discussion a few minutes ago about consultation. Clause 2 and Schedule 1 allow the Secretary of State to determine through regulation any consultation requirements on the creation of a primary care trust. The amendments in this group mean that clearer and more robust consultation requirements are written into the legislation to ensure that a thorough consultation process is followed whenever a primary care trust is created or—of equal importance—dissolved.
There may well be circumstances in which in a few years' time primary care trusts merge. That may turn out to be a controversial matter. It is important that the circumstances in which a trust is dissolved are also subject to proper consultation. The purpose of these amendments is to ensure that there is always a consultation requirement, and that consultations are thorough, inclusive and effective prior to the creation or dissolution of any primary care trust. In each area different local communities will contain different organisations with relevant interests. Despite the need for local flexibility, there is perhaps a core group of organisations which should be consulted in all circumstances: certainly, all NHS bodies whose areas fall wholly or partly within or adjacent to an area specified in the primary care trust order; all bodies who represent patients and NHS users within the specified area, including community health councils; all local authorities whose areas fall partly or wholly within or adjacent to the specified area; and relevant professional organisations and other bodies.
It is important to have greater clarity about the length of the consultation process. My experience over the years is that it is very difficult for local communities and organisations to be consulted properly unless there is adequate time for that consultation to take place. In particular, it is not simply a matter of small community organisations receiving a document and being able to respond very rapidly. They need time to consult their members. They may not meet very frequently. There must be an opportunity for proper discussion and understanding of the issues involved. This group of amendments provides that there should be a minimum of six months' consultation and that the outcome of that consultation should be published in all cases. The purpose is to ensure that there are equally robust

1279
consultation requirements in the event of both the creation and dissolution of a primary care trust. I hope that the Committee will accept the amendment.
Earl Howe: As the noble Lord, Lord Harris, points out, the Bill contains a provision for the Secretary of State to initiate consultation before a PCT order is made. What it does not do is make that consultation mandatory, unless I have misread the Bill; nor does it list those bodies which have to be consulted on a statutory basis. That is a cause for concern. In discussions that led up to the publication of the Bill complaints were made that significant bodies were not consulted at all or were simply informed of what would happen with no opportunity for participation.
I speak now to my Amendment No. 13 in conjunction with Amendment No. 25. The Committee will note that Amendment No. 25 contains a list of those bodies which appear to be right and proper statutory consultees. I accept the strictures of my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale (who is not in his place at the moment) that there is an antipathy to lists in any piece of legislation. But the list in Amendment No. 25 is not exclusive and contains those very major bodies which are unlikely ever to become superfluous to the consultation process. The key point is that the consultation process should be thorough and effective. Amendment No. 13 in my name will ensure that there must always be consultation. But other questions arise, one of which has been posed by the noble Lord, Lord Harris: how long should the consultation period last? That is an extremely important question. Will the outcome of the consultation be published? My amendment proposes that it should be.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I rise to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and speak also to Amendments Nos. 15 and 17 to which I have put my name together with those of my noble friends Lord Clement-Jones and Baroness Thomas of Walliswood and the noble Lord, Lord Rix. We support the amendments that impose an obligation to consult. We very much support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, which ensures that there is a minimum consultation period and that the outcome is published.
As to Amendment No. 25, we have some reservations about the listing. We do not see why bodies such as the BMA and the RCN at national level should be consulted on what is essentially a very local change, although it is important that their representatives at local level are consulted. We certainly believe that to be the case. Amendment No. 15 is linked to the earlier discussion about the process of transition from primary care groups to primary care trusts. We believe that it is vitally important that the Secretary of State is satisfied that the primary care group is ready both in terms of the medical provision that it makes within the area and in terms of its financial capabilities to take over the very much wider necessary responsibilities of a primary care trust. It is also important that it has sufficient maturity to take on the necessary accountability for that status.
1280
Amendment No. 17 makes clear that primary care trusts belong to their communities and should include other key partners in the consultation process in the delivery of health care services, such as universities which frequently train GPs and are also involved in the training of nurses and other professionals in the medical field. It is extremely important that they are part of the consultation process. Further, dentists appear to get only a very small look in. We believe that they should be consulted to a much greater extent than they are. As to other professionals allied to medicine, such as physiotherapists and pharmacists, it is important that when setting up a community body they are consulted. Finally, patients, carers and voluntary organisations should also be consulted. This underlies the rationale of our amendments. But in broad terms this is very much a question of whether, when one does something that affects the local community so intensely, there should be an obligation to consult widely within the area.
Lord Rix: I rise to support Amendment No. 17, and in particular paragraph (d) which seeks to involve patient and carer associations and voluntary organisations which are involved in health care delivery. As president of MENCAP I am concerned to ensure that people with learning disabilities are adequately represented on the boards of local healthcare bodies so that their needs are not overlooked in the planning, commissioning and delivery of services and the development of strategies to improve public health.
At MENCAP's conference last September the then Under-Secretary for Health Paul Boateng gave MENCAP assurances that people with learning disabilities would, with appropriate support, be represented on health authority boards throughout England and Wales. I shall therefore welcome today assurances from the Minister that this commitment will be honoured when the new structures are put in place, and that all the relevant consultation processes will be accessible to members of the community with a learning disability.
On a matter of information, in December, in conjunction with the Royal Society of Medicine, we are holding a major conference of universities, schools of medicine, the dental profession and allied professions—nursing and so on—to look at the delivery of healthcare for people with learning disabilities. I am happy to say that the response from all the bodies taking part has been encouraging.
Baroness Pitkeathley: While sharing the reservations of many Members of the Committee about lists, I add my support for the general principles of consultation. As we have heard, the consultation must be thorough and real and the outcomes reported back.
I remind noble Lords that consultation with user, carer, patient and consumer groups is different from consultation with well established statutory organisations. The requisite support in the form of

1281
proper information, through radio programmes, respite care or expenses, must be considered if the consultation is to be meaningful.
Lord Crickhowell: I rise to ask a question which I suspect will not be answered until we reach Clause 51. However, it seems appropriate to ask it now.
I confess that I have only recently considered the Bill in detail. I was abroad at Second Reading. I cannot see that the issue was addressed at that stage. I am genuinely puzzled as to why the transfer of responsibilities to the Welsh Assembly starts only at Section 13. It is a little strange that the power to set up trusts, and for consultation, is given to the Secretary of State and not to the Assembly. If one sets out a list—I refer to Amendment No. 25—one would be bound to add the Welsh Assembly. If the Assembly is not to set up the trust and organise the consultation, clearly it will have to be consulted.
It seems curious that we are in this situation. I may be wrong, but I do not believe that an explanation has been given on the selection of those powers which go to the Assembly and those which do not. They do not appear in the Explanatory Notes. I pose the question now in the knowledge that I may receive some brief indication. I shall return to the matter on discussion of Clause 51.
Lord Walton of Detchant: Having been critical of lists a few moments ago, I believe that the list set out in Amendment No. 17 is wholly appropriate. It seems to me crucial that those bodies should be consulted on decisions about primary care trusts.
The quality of general practice in this country has risen steadily since the institution of vocational training for GPs many years ago. While there is inevitably some unevenness in the quality of provision, the standard of general practice, I believe, is now the highest of any country in the world. I pay tribute to those who have been involved in this transformation.
The universities play a crucial part in the training of doctors. Through the academic departments of general practice, they play a crucial part in training future GPs, in contributing to vocational training and to the postgraduate and continuing training of those in general practice. The medical schools have become increasingly aware of the crucial importance of teaching medical students in the community in association with general practitioners and not just in the hospital environment. For that reason alone, I believe that it is absolutely vital that university participation should be written on the face of the Bill.
At Second Reading I referred to the parlous state of clinical academic medicine. That embraces the problems that are being encountered by academic departments of general practice. For that reason, I strongly support Amendment No. 17.
The same problems relate to Amendment No. 25 as to the list which attempted nobly to define the functions of primary care trusts. If the BMA is to be consulted, why not, for instance, the Medical Women's
1282
Federation? If the Royal College of Nursing is to be consulted, why not the Royal College of General Practitioners? One could add infinitely to the list.
Having given us an assurance that on the functions of primary care trusts she will come back with a government amendment at Report stage, I believe that the Minister and her colleagues are equal to the task of producing a satisfactory amendment to embrace the principles set out in Amendment No. 25. I hope that it is a matter she may be able to concede.
6.15 p.m.
Earl Howe: Before the Minister rises, perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Walton, that I deliberately made the list non-exclusive. He will note that the amendment refers to,
"such other relevant bodies as the Secretary of State shall determine".
Therefore it does not exclude other bodies.
Baroness McFarlane of Llandaff: I have difficulty with Amendments Nos. 17 and 25. Although I agree with the intent of Amendment No. 17, I believe that there are a number of important omissions. For instance, where would nursing be classed in the list which refers to,
"key partners in the delivery of NHS health care"?
Nursing is not technically classed as a profession allied to medicine. The listing in Amendment No. 25 falls into the trap that we have so often mentioned.
A robust requirement for consultation to take place would be preferable. Bodies such as the Royal College of Nursing are asking how long the consultation process will last and how local communities and organisations should be informed about the outcomes. They suggest a six-month period for consultation. That may seem somewhat long. They also suggest a requirement for the outcome to be published in all cases. They also inquire about the consultation before a PCT is dissolved.
Lord Rowallan: We must have a requirement on the face of the Bill that the voluntary sector is consulted before any PCT is set up. They were not involved in the setting up of PCGs.
I speak on behalf of the mentally ill. I declare an interest. I am a director of SANE and patron of Depression Alliance. I am concerned that only 33 per cent. of GPs have mental health training, and much of that is brief. The voluntary bodies do an enormous job in this field. Whatever else happens, we must make certain that they are involved in the setting up of a PCT.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I apologise to the Committee that when I raised the subject of universities I had muddled my groupings. I had not realised that the subject would be raised now. The noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, has introduced the matter in a more authoritative and able manner than I can.
Perhaps I may add what the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals has said; I expect that other noble Lords have received the information. It points out that in addition to their teaching

1283
responsibilities, university staff, including senior clinical academics, contribute substantially to patient care. It is university employees who provide 30 to 40 per cent. of consultant patient care in teaching hospitals. That is an important additional point, with which the noble Lord, Lord Walton, would probably agree. Those people do most of the science of clinical research which is essential to improvements in healthcare, as well as being major contributors to postgraduate training and continuing professional development.
I therefore believe that an amendment such as No. 17 is important, although I do not know whether that is the way in which the Government would wish to include the provision in the Bill. The CVCP points out that major implications for medical education and research arise from changes in service delivery. The way in which the trust will operate will be different and that will affect universities enormously. I do not believe that the committee should be regarded as just another group of people to be consulted. It is part of the system and I hope that the Government will take that on board, regardless of whatever they wish to do about Amendment No. 17.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: It is sad that my noble friend's amendment does not mention the dentists, but that Amendment No. 17 does. I am pleased that Amendment No. 17 specifies dentists. For too long there has been too big a division between the British Dental Association and the General Dental Practitioners Association, which represents many National Health Service dentists and should be consulted on a more regular basis. I was pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, made that point about dentists.
I was impressed by the comment made by the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, that nursing is a huge omission from Amendment No. 17. I believe that that must be corrected.
I am all for consultation, but I believe that a general power for consultation should be built into the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, said that consumer groups are the most important, but everyone considers their interest to be the most important. Everyone is important. The noble Baroness stated that some authorities are well geared to sending their replies quickly. I believe that consumer groups and voluntary organisations must become better geared so that the consultation process does not take so long as to hold everything up. I heard six months mentioned, and I would be horrified by that. When I had a position with a regional health authority, I saw years wasted in consultation, after consultation, after consultation. I should like to see a general obligation for consultation and to have a time limit. I do not know whether that should he set by regulation or appear on the face of the Bill, but procedures should not be held up for ever.
I was interested in the comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Rix—we are always interested in his comments—because dental healthcare for people with learning difficulties is a major issue. It is even more so now that dentists are not allowed to give general anaesthetics. Many of the patients he described are
1284
suitable only for treatment under general anaesthesia. They do not understand the treatment and that can be upsetting and frightening. There is therefore a requirement for consultation and for all special needs to be taken into account. I should like to see a more general power rather than it being spelt out in individual lists.
Lord Rix: I thank the noble Baroness for her kind words which are singularly appropriate. However, perhaps I may ask her a question. When I was young I was told that dentists wanted to be called "dental surgeons". I was told that "dentists" were people who just pulled out teeth—that was before the requisite qualifications were introduced. Perhaps the noble Baroness will clarify that point.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: A new Act was passed in 1921, after which dentists had to be qualified. Therefore, people wanted to call themselves "dental surgeons" in order to differentiate them from those who just put up a barber's pole and practised. I do not believe that any survive—certainly none still practises as far as I know! For that reason, we are all now proud to be called "dentists". The fact that dentists are also allowed to use the title "Doctor" has added a great deal to the professional standing.
Baroness Hayman: I am tempted to share with the Committee the fact that my grandfather was a dentist, but I am sure that he was properly trained. He changed his name by deed poll not when he first came to this country as an immigrant, but as a result of the 1921 Act when he had to register in order to give proof of the name under which he practised as a dentist. I am sure that such people have passed with the passage of time and no longer account for any difficulties.
We have had an interesting and useful debate which has highlighted some of the difficulties in drawing up, particularly in primary legislation, lists of those who must be consulted in any circumstances. If we added to the list the Welsh Assembly, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, we would go even more broadly than the RCN or the BMA as consultees on what are essentially local proposals.
As regards the Welsh Assembly, I understand that Clauses 2 to 12 amend the 1977 and the 1990 Acts. The Secretary of State's powers under those Acts will therefore be transferred to the assembly under the Transfer of Functions Order made under the Government of Wales Act. Therefore, the only provision which will be required in this Bill is one to the effect that the references in the Transfer of Functions Order to relevant provisions of the 1977 and 1990 Acts must be read as amended by the Bill. We will be introducing appropriate provisions to ensure that. Oh goodness, the noble Lord is going to ask me for even more detail!
Lord Crickhowell: I wish merely to express gratitude to the Minister. It shows the importance of such explanations being included in the Explanatory

1285
Notes because the situation is not otherwise obvious. It is the kind of explanation we will need in Bill, after Bill, after Bill, so perhaps a precedent can be set.
Baroness Hayman: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I thought that he was going to ask a supplementary question that I would be quite incapable of answering. We are on the case, so to speak, and the appropriate provisions will be introduced at a later stage.
In terms of the establishment of PCTs, consultation is mandatory. Clauses 16(4) and (5) have that effect. We must pay attention to two separate issues in tonight's debate. The first is the exception to consultation in certain cases of dissolution rather than establishment. Those are paralleled in other legislation. It will be undertaken only in cases where patient safety is at risk and would not be invoked in normal circumstances around merger or dissolution. It is important.
Although we want to have local consultation in the case of a dissolution, it would be wrong not to allow for exceptional circumstances, say, to vary an order. It might be amended, for example, from being a commissioning only Level 3 PCT to a commissioning and providing Level 4 PCT. We will make clear regulations as regards the responsibilities of the PCT if it proposed any significant change in the provision of services. Those would mirror the responsibility for the consultation which takes place when a significant variation of service is proposed for other NHS bodies.
We intend that the regulations will provide for exceptional circumstances when the requirements for consultation may need to be waived. It might, for example. appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary to dissolve a PCT as a matter of urgency. A similar power exists in connection with NHS trusts and is designed as a safeguard if patient safety is at risk. On the other hand, where a proposed change of a PCT order is a minor change—for example, a name or boundary change—we feel that full consultation is not necessary either.
We would not like to have an absolute requirement on the face of the Bill; it would limit the flexibility. It is argued that placing a requirement for consultation on the face of the Bill is too prescriptive. And specifying the bodies which may be consulted neither takes account of the fact that those who must be consulted may change over time nor that different bodies may need to be consulted for different PCTs, depending on the functions they propose to exercise. Requirements go beyond even who must be consulted, to the period of consultation and a requirement to publish results.
Clearly, we want there to be an adequate period of consultation—no one is suggesting that it should be a rushed and underhand process. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, pointed out, we cannot extend that period ad infinitum. The current usual period is three months and I suggest to my noble friend that that may be more satisfactory than six months. It is also another reason why setting out in regulations the requirements for consultation is the most appropriate and practical approach. It mirrors the approach for NHS trusts. It avoids raising a large amount of procedural and
1286
administrative detail on the face of the Bill. And it allows for some flexibility for consultation procedures to develop and change over time in response to changing circumstances.
The other amendments grouped with Amendment No. 8 indicate equal difficulties. I should like to make clear to my noble friend that we recognise the importance of patient and carer groups in terms of the consultation that should surround the creation of primary care trusts and the fact that they may not be geared up to respond as some of the professional bodies are that have full-time staff. But their views are crucial if these bodies are to respond appropriately to the needs of the communities. It is exactly the same argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, in regard to voluntary organisations and their specific role and interest in seeing the proposals go forward.
Equally, I recognise the fear that dentists are sometimes left out of the consideration when the contributions that they make—for example, to the care of those with learning disabilities—are considerable. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Rix, that I did not pick up his question earlier. There is no simple answer. Depending on the pattern of service locally and the services required by an individual, they may be of a specialist nature and therefore be regionally commissioned because there are regional specialist services available, or they may be at a primary care level, in which case a primary care trust that provided community services would do exactly that. We must look to the pattern of service being locally determined. I take the noble Lord's point that somebody at the commissioning level must make sure that the full range of provision is available for those with learning disabilities.
Perhaps I can say also that the contribution and importance of the interest of academic medicine and the universities is well acknowledged. We are not suggesting that, by omitting their names from the face of the Bill and the list of people who have to be consulted, they are not key players; that they do not have an important contribution to make. From my experience in central London, it would be inconceivable not to look to the academic perspective.
Lord Walton of Detchant: With the leave of the Committee, perhaps I can ask the noble Baroness a question which is of relevance to the universities. We had a great deal of debate when the National Health Service and Community Care Bill was under consideration in this Chamber. Eventually the government of the day conceded the right of universities to nominate members of health authorities and trusts. Do I take it that there is no such provision, following the repeal of certain sections, for university representation on primary care trusts?
Baroness Hayman: My understanding is that we are not talking about representation in terms of membership of trust boards. There is a recognition that not all the appropriate professional interests will be able to be represented at board level. It is important that at the executive committee level of the trusts and in their

1287
wider interactions with the local health community, account should be taken of other health service and academic bodies which are crucially important in the provision of both healthcare directly and in the training and education of staff. My understanding is that, because we are not talking about representatives on the boards, we are not in an analogous position to NHS trusts.
A significant number of interests need to be considered and balanced when we look at the consultation that will take place before the setting up of a primary care trust. We talked earlier about the negative possibilities of people being able to stop a primary care trust from going forward. Here we are looking at the positives and how we ensure that there has been proper consultation. Nothing that has been said in the course of our debate runs counter to the views of the Government as to how this should be approached locally. Our difference lies in the fact that we do not feel that it is helpful or possibly satisfactorily to put all the variations on the face of the Bill; that those are best left to regulations that will be laid. That is the established way in which this has been done in the past and I suggest that it is an appropriate way to go forward.
Lord Clement-Jones: With the leave of the Committee, perhaps I may interrupt the Minister. One question that has not been answered is when the regulations will be published. The Minister's thesis is that these matters are best left to regulation, but the content and timing of the publication of the draft is of crucial importance if people are to accept that as a substitution for primary legislation.
Baroness Hayman: I am grateful to the noble Lord. Perhaps he will allow me to take some advice and soundings on that. I do not have the answer immediately. It is an issue to which we could return at a later stage, at which time I can give him a better idea about the timetable for regulations.
Lord Rix: Before the Minister sits down, perhaps I can say that, unfortunately, when the noble Baroness speaks "off-mike" the tinnitus from which I suffer drowns out the drop in the voice level. If my question has been answered, I apologise. It related to representation of people with learning disabilities on health authority boards and so forth. That was the promise given to us at our conference by the then Under-Secretary of State, Paul Boateng. MENCAP is in correspondence with the department and I would be glad if the Minister would look at that correspondence and write to me at some time in the near future.
Baroness Hayman: I am happy to give that assurance to the noble Lord, Lord Rix. I am aware that there has been correspondence; I am not aware as to exactly what stage it has reached. But I would rather deal with the matter by writing to the noble Lord than chance my arm at the Dispatch Box. I apologise for going "off-mike". One is always torn between trying to be courteous and look at
1288
people when replying and the knowledge that in so doing one may stop them hearing what one is saying. I shall try to address the microphone in future.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thank the Minister for her response to our amendments. I also thank noble Lords who have supported us, particularly as regards Amendment No. 17. We are disappointed that she does not see a way of including in the Bill some broad obligation to consult which we, from these Benches, should like to see. However, we take courage from the fact that the Minister has given us an assurance that such an obligation will be mandatory within the regulations. I believe it is important that the regulations are published quite quickly. As the Minister has assured my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones, of that, we hope that it will be the case.
Amendment No. 15 was not covered in the Minister's response. I wonder whether she could deal with that now. That amendment concerns the process of transition between PCGs and PCTs and the readiness of PCGs to become PCTs. We should be grateful for a response.
Baroness Hayman: I shall attempt to do so. Perhaps the noble Baroness will let me flannel for a moment as I am trying to find the precise detail on Amendment No. 15. This is the issue about placing on the face of the Bill the criteria upon which the Secretary of State will base his decision of whether or not to establish a primary care trust.
We recognise the need for criteria for assessing the suitability of PCGs to progress to PCTs. We want a measured transition with proposals developed and taken forward in partnership with key stakeholders. We want to ensure that people progress to PCT status when they are ready to do so.
The amendment identifies suitable elements that we would clearly want to take into account when assessing the suitability of proposals for PCT status. They are all important issues. However, there may well be other factors which will need to be considered. We would expect to see, for example, a clear vision of how proposals to set up a PCT will benefit patients. The impact on existing services, both those that come within the remit of the PCT and wider services, would also be an important consideration.
Again, this is not a case of us trying to undermine the importance of the issues to which the amendment draws attention; but rather that we wish to retain a degree of flexibility. It may be, for example, that in the light of experience, over time, we shall need to bring in other criteria. It is for that reason that we suggest that we do not put the provisions on the face of the Bill.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thank the noble Baroness for that response. Again, we are somewhat sorry that she does not see her way to include in the Bill something slightly more specific. By this amendment, and Amendment No. 17, we aim to give the Bill some teeth. I am sorry that the Minister cannot see her way to include them in the Bill.
Lord Harris of Haringey: I welcome my noble friend's comments about the importance of consultation

1289
with users, carers, and patients. It is important, in considering such arrangements, that there is a tendency not simply to consider consultation with the professional groups and the established organisations in an area, but also to recognise the need to have discussions with users' and carers' organisations. I am slightly disappointed by my noble friend's suggestion that it would be inappropriate to put such provisions on the face of the Bill.
I should like to comment on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, concerning publication of regulations. It would be helpful if we were able to see such regulations before the Bill finally leaves your Lordships' House. Again, I am learning the code words. "Advice" and "soundings" do not seem quite as strong as "some sympathy". However, I certainly hope that it will be possible for us to have sight of the regulations to enable us to understand exactly how the Government's thinking is developing on this matter.
I was concerned by some of the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, regarding the speed with which consumer groups respond to consultation, and the fact that perhaps they need to get their act together in that respect. I believe it needs to be recognised that we are talking of small groups of people, who may be fairly vulnerable, operating in the community. It is simply not realistic to expect them to respond at the speed with which professional organisations or statutory bodies can, and expect to, respond.
Organisations of carers or patients may not meet more frequently than once every two months. It may be a complicated process for people to attend such meetings. Specialist care support and specialist transport may need to be arranged. It is simply not feasible for them to turn things round rapidly. Some of your Lordships may feel that three months is a fairly generous timespan in that respect, but it will not be adequate in some circumstances. I am conscious that the current Department of Health expectation, on many issues, is three months. It is remarkable how frequently those three months happen to cover the month of August or the Christmas period. That clearly makes it difficult for any organisation—even the more well-developed ones—to respond within the timescale concerned. I hope that my noble friend will be able to consider some of these matters again. However, in that context, and given the fact that perhaps we may be able to have sight of the draft regulations before we proceed much further, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 9 to 18 not moved.]
Lord McColl of Dulwich Lord McColl of Dulwich moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 2, line 12, at end insert—
("( ) Every Primary Care Trust, or other body exercising functions on behalf of the Primary Care Trust, shall make arrangements for securing that they receive from—

(a) medical practitioners, registered nurses and registered midwives, and

(b) other persons with professional expertise in and experience of health care,

advice appropriate for enabling the Primary Care Trust effectively to exercise the functions conferred or imposed on it under or by virtue of this or any other Act.").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that there is a statutory basis to require primary care trusts, or indeed other bodies acting on their behalf, to take advice from doctors, nurses, midwives and other healthcare professionals before commissioning decisions are taken. Under Section 12 of the National Health Service Act 1977, health authorities have a clear duty to involve healthcare professionals in decision-making. The wording of the amendment reflects the wording in that section.
It is not clear in the Bill what mechanisms will be used to ensure that primary care trusts seek professional advice when they are deciding on the commissioning of medical services. Doctors, nurses, and other healthcare professionals have, of course, the kind of detailed knowledge necessary to advise on the clinical elements of the service. Their guidance and support is essential if the NHS is to work properly.
A nursing sister, who has been running a busy ward for some years, really knows what she is talking about. To fail to collect the advice of these professionals would be a great mistake. One splendid ward sister noticed that the paper towels available in her ward were so rough that the only way they dried the hands was to knock the skin off and take the water with it. She started to investigate and found that if paper towels which actually absorb fluid were used, only one towel would be required as opposed to three of the rough variety. That saved a great deal of money. She did not have a degree in economics, but she did have sound commonsense.
Primary care trusts will need to seek advice from experts on many issues, including on the public health services which are provided by clinicians, and on pharmacy services and services provided by the professions allied to medicine and many others. Primary care trusts will be charged in particular with building relationships with local social service departments. In the area of public health, primary care trusts will have a duty to contribute to the health improvement programme and to commission services for the benefit of the public health of their populations as well as for the health of individual patients. It will therefore be of great importance for primary care trusts to have access to high quality public health services at all stages of the commissioning process. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: I am afraid that I must tell my noble friend Lord McColl that I resisted the temptation to put my name to this amendment because of the shopping list phenomenon about which I have already chided the Liberal Democrats this afternoon. If my noble friend had left out paragraph (a) and the word "other" from paragraph (b), I could certainly have gone along with the amendment for all the reasons that he gave. However, as the amendment currently stands, I am afraid that I cannot support it.
Baroness Hayman: Perhaps I may find a "third way" between the two noble Lords!
One of the key principles underlying the development of primary care trusts is to have stronger professional input. That will be achieved partly through professional representation on PCT boards and partly through the

1291
professional-led trust executive. My honourable friend the Minister of State for Health recently published the arrangements for the governance of PCTs.
However, that is not the be-all and end-all. There will be a need for wider professional involvement in shaping and reviewing local commissioning policy and service agreements. We recognise that that is slightly different from the shopping list of consultees on the face of the Bill. It is an on-going task and it is important to have appropriate professional advice. We must recognise the key role to be played by secondary care clinicians in that work and by those in academic medicine. We would expect PCTs to ensure their involvement through, for example, membership of project teams. Similarly, the wider constituency of professional and other stakeholders will be engaged through the process of health improvement programmes, reinforced and underpinned by the new duty of partnership.
I have some sympathy with this amendment, especially because I acknowledge that the 1977 Act contains a similar provision in respect of health authorities. Therefore, with the leave of the Committee, I should like to take the amendment away and to consider it with a view possibly to returning at a later stage with a similar amendment, perhaps slightly altered in form, which may appease the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale.
Lord Colwyn: I did not realise that my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes had left her place in the Chamber. I must take up her cudgel and agree with my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale because I should like dentists also to be mentioned in the list.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: I thank the Minister very much for her reply and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 2, line 27, at end insert—
("( ) Appropriate arrangements shall be made with a view to securing that a Primary Care Trust's functions are exercised with due regard to the principle that there should be equality of opportunity for all people."").
The noble Lord said: I do not want to disguise the provenance of this amendment and I am pleased that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, have put their names to it and to the linked amendment, Amendment No. 41, which relates to reporting on equal opportunities promotion.
Amendment No. 20 is fairly straightforward. It is clearly aimed at encouraging positive action in this area by PCTs. It is very much in the context of something commendable which has happened since this Government took office. I refer to the fact that they have placed much greater emphasis on reducing inequalities in health. That is reflected in their consultation paper on public health which explicitly recognised ethnicity as a factor associated with poorer health outcomes. Since then, the action report has been helpful in plotting some
1292
of the key areas for action. I have no doubt that that will be reflected in the Government's White Paper on public health, to which we all look forward greatly.
Surveys conducted by the Commission for Racial Equality, which in a sense is the provenance of this group of amendments, show that the ethnic minorities are concerned about access, outcomes and a variety of other matters related to inequality. We believe—this is particularly important and we have seen it only recently in other public services—that it is not good enough simply to be colour-blind; we must go out there and take positive action to eliminate inequalities. That is the only way to tackle some of these issues.
In 1992 the Commission for Racial Equality published a code of practice for primary healthcare services. However, it felt that the level of take-up by, and interest from, practitioners was not adequate and that there needed to be a statutory duty to promote equality if real action was to be taken by those working in the area, such as the primary care trusts. These provisions fall very much within the overall general principles of the CRE as enunciated in its proposals for reform of the Race Relations Act. Public bodies should have a general duty to work for the elimination of racial discrimination and for the promotion of equal opportunities. This amendment is clearly in line with the CRE's existing proposals. In a sense, the CRE has now followed up that long-standing set of proposals with its leadership challenge—an interesting challenge to all of us in public life—on the active promotion of equality. The CRE expects political parties, public bodies and others to promote that challenge. The health service should be no different. Indeed, it should be better than other institutions at doing that.
I strongly commend the approach set out in the amendments, which simply seek to impose a general duty to promote equality of opportunity. There is, in fact, a parallel. The Welsh Assembly has such a duty. That is provided for in the Government of Wales Act. There is, therefore, a precedent for this. It is with great pleasure that I recite precedent because we often hear from the Government Front Bench the argument, "Oh no, we have done this for years", so I say, "Well, we've done this for a year", so I very much commend this approach.
It is often very easy to insert words into Bills but I really believe that inserting such a provision into this Bill would kick-start something at local level. It would be absolutely four-square with the duties of a PCT and it would be a valuable signal, particularly in the current climate. I beg to move.
Lord Astor of Hever: I rise to support Amendment No. 20. The needs of ethnic minorities must he addressed. The primary care trusts must ensure equality of access to patient care for all those who need it. An equitable service requires sufficient information, training and resources to cater for all sections of society. The Royal National Institute for the Blind has collated clear evidence that people of African descent have a higher risk of developing glaucoma. The primary care trusts will need to recruit, train and retain staff who are able to communicate effectively with ethnic minorities

1293
and those who do not have English as their first language. Such appropriate arrangements should ensure that access to high quality patient care is equitable for all.
7 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I am wondering whether the wording is right. Of course I go along with what the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has said: the principle should be equality of opportunity for all people. In this case, is he talking about all patients? Obviously the opportunities for staff and patients are different. It is a bit bland and sounds rather like a formula. I wonder whether it could be made more precise.
Lord Clement-Jones: I thank the noble Baroness for that intervention. Of course it is fairly general and of course it applies not only to employees. Indeed the principle itself applies not just to ethnic minorities but also to gender balance and other aspects. If one started writing a more detailed principle, one might then be accused of making lists, I suspect. One has to he careful about this. This is a commonly accepted formula. If there is a better way of putting it I would very much welcome that. This is, as I say, a general formula, but it puts the onus on the trust to act in a positive way. It is not simply a passive approach.
Baroness Hayman: I am grateful to those Members of the Committee who have spoken and to the noble Lords who tabled these amendments which, importantly, raise the issue of equal opportunities within the National Health Service. I would say to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, that we have to tackle within the health service both the issue of equality of access to services, to which these amendments were predominantly directed, and the issue of equal opportunities for staff members within the NHS. Although the amendments to this Bill may not be the appropriate way forward for ensuring that, and we must have a much wider programme to tackle both issues, both are important. Perhaps on the latter I might say, because it is important to make absolutely explicit the commitment in public services in these areas, that we are committed to rooting out all racism within the NHS and to ensuring that both patients and staff are treated with respect and fairness.
In December of last year we launched a campaign to tackle racism and set existing NHS bodies tough targets in order to stamp out racist behaviour. We have also, very importantly, increased the representation of non-executive directors who come from an ethnic minority background on the boards of NHS trusts and authorities. We have also signed up the NHS to the Commission for Racial Equality's Leadership Challenge. So there is a programme of progress in those areas.
In introducing his amendment the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, put it firmly in the context of addressing inequalities in healthcare, and the noble Lord, Lord Astor, also referred to these areas. I think it is important that we identify within our new framework for measuring NHS performance fair access to services as one of the key dimensions against which the NHS will
1294
be assessed. We made clear in A First Class Service that all NHS bodies will be reporting annually on clinical governance, and within the ambit of clinical governance delivering on that commitment for fair access to services is very important. It is another opportunity to pursue that theme.
We intend to extend to primary care trusts the same drive to ensure that patients and staff are treated with fairness and respect, and we will need to look carefully to ensure that this permeates throughout the new arrangements. I am sure we shall expect to see it reflected in primary care trusts' annual reports, just as we see it now reflected, although there is no statutory obligation to do so, in the reports from NHS trusts.
It is an absolutely key theme of the Government that we should reduce health inequalities, and within the national priorities guidance issued for the NHS and for social services we made that absolutely clear. We have to make clear too that we recognise the diverse and sometimes differing health needs of different populations, to which the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, referred. Yesterday I was launching a campaign to encourage organ donation among the South Asian community, where the rates of kidney disease linked to diabetes and high blood pressure are much higher than among the ethnically European population but where in fact the rates of donation are much lower. It is important that we recognise the health needs of particular ethnic groups and make sure that they are addressed. Often at primary group or trust care level that will be the absolutely appropriate place so to do.
I should like the opportunity to consider further these amendments. We want to take forward a shared agenda with both Front Benches opposite on these issues. If I may, I should like to look at the best way to take the points forward and whether they can be accommodated in terms of amendments to the Bill. I am happy to give that assurance, if the Committee agrees.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Just on the wording, I have a dislike of bland expressions that do not mean anything and, with the greatest respect, I think that,
"equality of opportunity for all people",
is not a description of anything. Someone who is a surgeon may have an opportunity to become a promoted surgeon or whatever, but a patient does not necessarily have the opportunity to become a surgeon. If the wording simply said "equality of opportunity", that is what we are all talking about. I just wanted to justify my little intervention.
Baroness Fookes: I entirely agree with my noble friend. There is something not quite right about the phraseology, although I agree that the concept and principle behind it are fine. Are we not dealing with the patients, or the people in the community which the trust will serve, and will not staff already be covered by general legislation on equal opportunities?
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I hesitate to intervene, but I should declare that I am chairman of the sex equality group in the Houses of Parliament.

1295
I wonder whether the description given by the Minister of an equal opportunities policy within the health service actually came up to the target of being an equal opportunities employer, which is a good deal more than just showing respect to all different sorts of employees. There is a strict code attached to the designation.
Lord Skelmersdale: In her substantive response just now to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, the noble Baroness said she would like to take this away and look at it. Given that the beginning of the Bill amends the National Health Service Act 1977, in her consideration will she think about amending that Act to make it much more general than just primary care trusts?
Baroness Hayman: We have had a variety of helpful suggestions about what areas we should consider as regards amendment. I absolutely take the noble Baroness's point; I was trying to make the same point in a rather different way. We need a whole raft of actions if we are to behave satisfactorily in this respect. One small piece of legislation, as the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, points out, in a very narrow field may be an important point at which to start, but certainly not an end point. With the leave of the Committee, I shall take away all the suggestions that have been made and perhaps come back at a later stage.
Lord Clement-Jones: I thank the Minister for her replies. I understand that there could well be other, wider formulations which could usefully be introduced. However, I hope that we do not reach a situation where in a sense the best is the enemy of the good and that we do not try to invent some rocket when actually a bicycle would do. We are talking about primary care trusts and ensuring equality of opportunity, especially as regards access. But that should also encompass other matters.
It would be a shame if we were to spend hours labouring over a formula that would cover every single aspect when it could quite simply be determined for primary care trusts, which, after all, are the key component that we are talking about in this part of the Bill. Of course, it is essentially "access" that we are considering. I accept that a great deal is being done on the ground, but the issue about primary care trusts in particular is that there are many more of them. Indeed, you can reach down in a fairly controlling way into the NHS trusts, into health authorities and so on; but it will be more difficult to get into the practices of PCGs and PCTs. Therefore, my argument would be that it is more important to have this statutory duty for PCTs than it is for any other part of the health service simply because of the issue of management and control. I am delighted that the Minister has agreed to consider the amendment further. I look forward to the Report stage in that respect. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 2, line 27, at end insert—
("( ) Upon approval of proposals under subsection (2) in respect of a particular local authority area the local authority shall be entitled to exercise all the powers of the Secretary of State under section 97D of this Act.").
The noble Lord said: We are getting very close—I hope—to the witching hour of 7.30 when we may perhaps be able to take some refreshment. But I have considerable enthusiasm in moving this amendment. In doing so, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 22, as they fall into the same grouping. This is essentially about taking forward the report of the Health Select Committee of another place, which many noble Lords will have read with considerable interest before Christmas. The committee effectively argued—I thought extremely cogently—for greater integration than is currently envisaged in the Government's proposals as set out in the original White Paper. I quoted from the report on Second Reading, and make no apology for doing so again. The quality of the work being done by that Select Committee is of a very high standard. In paragraph 65 of its conclusions the committee said:
"We consider the current system for continuing health and social care to be very confused. Responsibilities are blurred, professionals face unnecessary problems, and users and carers are suffering because of barriers created by a structural division which is based on a ill-defined and arguably non-existent boundary".
Later, at paragraph 68, it said:
"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".
It is interesting to note how the Select Committee came to its conclusions. At the end of the day, members of that committee felt that the professions—and, indeed, the managerial evidence—were rather cautious. Their experience on the ground, especially when they went to Northern Ireland and saw how the system operates in practice there in a very integrated fashion—something that the NHS in England does not have—led them to think that it was highly desirable.
I recognise that this would be quite a challenge to an organisation which is already undergoing considerable change. But the former Minister of State was permanently talking about the "Berlin Wall" between social services and health services. If we are to have an effective integration, it seems to us that it cannot be done just by joint working and pooled budgets; indeed, we will actually have to go a step further. What we have tried to do—and, in a sense, this is perhaps a bit of a balloon debate on the subject—is allow for a situation, which may not be perfect, where, once PCTs come into operation for the whole of a local authority area, that local authority effectively assumes the powers of the health authority. Indeed, if a PCT gets to stage four or partially to stage three, it will be in the process of withering away in any event. Matters like public health would then rest alongside social services within the local authority.
I suspect that the Royal Commission on the long-term care of the elderly will also propel that movement. No doubt it will recognise that joint working, pooled budgets, and so on, will all help but that at the end of the day in order to get a coherent system of care, especially for the elderly, there will have to be a much greater level of integration than is envisaged in the Bill. Our contention is that there needs to be some mechanism whereby a local authority can take over the function of the health authority in those circumstances.
One of the issues that was addressed quite strongly in the report of the Select Committee was the democratic deficit. It is not just a question of the actual integration of care and the quality of care between social services and the health service; it is also a question of the democratic deficit in terms of the accountability of the health service. In the pre-1990 days there was an element of representation from the local community on health authorities. That accountability disappeared, and this is also an attempt to try to inject a much greater element of democratic accountability into the process. That was one of the aims of the Select Committee as set out in its recommendations. I commend the latter to the Committee.
It might be considered initially as quite a bold step. But when we consider the amount of work which will need to be done in any event over joint working, pooled budgets, and so on, why should we not take it a step further? This is only conditional; indeed, it is conditional on PCTs covering the whole of a geographical area and does not involve a rushing of the gate in any sense, because the PCTs will need to be formed and people will have to have fairly sophisticated management systems in those circumstances. Therefore, I hope that the Committee will carefully consider this proposal. It is not so outlandish. It is something which will inevitably happen, so why should we have to wait for another few years for further recommendations from perhaps a distinguished Royal Commission, or indeed a review or a report from another Select Committee, before we actually institute such changes? Such changes could be of huge benefit to those receiving a mixture of both social and healthcare at local level; indeed, let us face it, it often is a mixture. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: I rise with some reluctance because, from these Benches, I do not feel that we can support the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. I shall not go into too much detail in the interests of brevity, but I believe the kind of path that the noble Lord is inviting us to go down would lead to a lack of clarity in responsibilities. Indeed, it could lead to confusion in the rules surrounding propriety in the use of public money. In general, I think it is undesirable to transfer health functions to bodies which are not concerned with the management of health as a full-time business. Therefore, I am afraid I cannot support the amendments.
Lord Renton: I warmly support what my noble friend Lord Howe has just said. It would be very dangerous to pass responsibility and power to local authorities in these circumstances. With the health
1298
authorities, we are going to get a good deal of consistency across the country as regards administration of this scheme, just as we had under the former National Health Service. But if we are going to give overburdened local authorities these specialised responsibilities we shall not get an even pattern across the country. We could get a serious variation. I hope that the Minister will also resist these amendments.
Lord Skelmersdale: I touched on this matter on Second Reading—as the Committee will recall—speaking from my experience as a former health Minister in Northern Ireland. The system we are discussing only works there because you have one body, a health and social services board. There is a good argument for rolling the four boards into one, but I shall not go into that at this moment. However, if one side or the other is dominant—which is what I think these two amendments propose—one is in danger of coming across all the difficulties that my noble friend Lord Renton has foreseen, and has just stated.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I wish to make a couple of brief points in support of my noble friend. It seems to me to be quite sensible—this is a direction in which I feel we are bound to move at some point—that the commissioning of healthcare (that is, how the money is spent) is, as it were, united with the commissioning of social care under one authority. My noble friend has suggested that that should come under the local authority. I find that satisfactory for the following reason; namely, that in that way a democratic accountability would be introduced.
I was a member of a local authority and of a hospital trust at the same time. The most uncomfortable element of membership of the trust board was that I had no standing vis-à-vis the people to whom that health trust delivered services. There was no way in which I could go to them and ask, "What do you think about this?", because that is not the way it works. Had I done that, I would simply have been removed from the health board, as I am sure my fellow members would not have thought that that was a proper thing for a member of a board to do. The difficulties involved in the relationship between hospital trust boards and their surrounding communities should be an example to us of the advantages of placing the health service within a democratic context.
Baroness Hayman: I believe that the health service is in a democratic context, but it is within a national democratic context. Some of the contributions that have been made to the debate have recognised the importance of that point and of the maintenance of a devolved structure. They have recognised the importance of establishing mechanisms through local boards and through some of the provisions we have discussed today for ensuring that local decisions reflect the views of local communities. I have tried to be helpful to the Committee as far as possible. However, I shall adopt the strictures of those on the Benches opposite who have spoken against this provision and be firm in my rejection of the amendment.

1299
I do not do so because we in any way wish to downgrade the issue to which the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, spoke in detail; namely, to ensure that we dovetail services for individual patients, and that there is not some false divide between the care that is given by social services departments and the care that is given by the health service. Indeed the provisions that we shall discuss later in the Committee's deliberations under the partnership section of the Bill are designed to do just that and to go wider than a consideration merely of social services. We should consider the whole of local authorities' functions in order to achieve more effective co-operation between the NHS and local authorities. Those provisions have been widely welcomed.
However, the amendment we are discussing would have a much more far-reaching effect. It would allow local authorities to assume the functions of health authorities, effectively bringing local health services under local authority control. That is quite simply not the Government's policy for the health service. I recognise the point that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, made regarding the recommendations of the Health Select Committee. I shall discuss those in detail shortly. However, it is worth noting that that committee recognised in its report that its proposals had received little support from those who gave evidence to it. That included the Secretary of State, who made it clear in his evidence that he felt major structural reorganisation was both unnecessary and would be highly disruptive. Earlier in the afternoon we debated how disruptive change can be, even measured change in limited areas.
What we are trying to do is to allow an approach that does what both local authorities and the NHS have asked for; namely, to remove the longstanding legal barriers to joint working without imposing the turmoil of major upheaval. Provisions in the Bill will allow for integrated working where that would lead to better outcomes for patients and for clients. However, as regards the evidence that was given to the Select Committee, and the responses that we received to our Partnership in Action discussion document, it was made quite clear to us that the kind of major structural change that this amendment would involve would not be helpful. We can achieve the ends that we seek to achieve through the partnership arrangements. I urge the Committee not to pursue this amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones: I thank the noble Baroness for that not unexpected reply. I am not surprised at that response. When I introduced the amendment I did not seek to minimise the lack of support for the provision among those who gave evidence to the Select Committee. I believe that the Select Committee is composed of some pretty far-sighted people. I say that because I agree with them! They have looked several years ahead to consider the impact of joint working arrangements and pooled budgets. Some of them have had a long involvement in the health service. After taking evidence—even the negative evidence, as the noble Baroness has mentioned—it was their considered view that the provision would not be sufficient.
1300
I make my next point with all due deference to the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale. I appreciate his experience of the Northern Ireland situation, but he did not say whether he thinks that the standard of integrated care is higher in Northern Ireland as a result of the system that is adopted there. One can have this one way or the other. One can have the health service undertaking all these functions or local authorities undertaking them. We propose that they should be undertaken by local authorities. Our view is that after a period of time it will become quite clear that the mechanisms that are being set up under the banner of partnership, with the best of intentions—we fully support that intent—will not be sufficient to provide healthcare in the seamless way in which everyone in the voluntary and the health sectors is striving to achieve. Clearly, however, we have some way to go in the persuasion stakes. No doubt the campaign will continue—"la lutta continua". This is an area of considerable importance, and will continue to be so. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 not moved.]
Clause 2 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Primary Care Trusts]:
[Amendments Nos. 24 and 25 not moved.]
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: This may be a convenient moment to break for dinner. I suggest that we reconvene at eight o'clock.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.28 to 8 p. m.]
Baroness Sharp of Guildford Baroness Sharp of Guildford moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 42, leave out line 3.
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 26, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 27, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 and 36. Amendment No. 29 will be spoken to from the Official Opposition Benches.
These amendments concern the governance of the primary care trusts, In particular they are intended, first, to make the membership of the board of the primary care trusts more representative, both in terms of the healthcare professions and in terms of local voluntary organisations, carers and lay members of the community; and, secondly, to make selection of the chairman more democratic, so that the body chooses its own chairman rather than the Secretary of State.
We on these Benches are most anxious that the boards of the primary care trusts are not run by the medical profession for the medical profession but that they represent the broader community in which they are located. In particular we are anxious that they represent both those who are providing care and those who are receiving care. It is vital that the professions allied to medicine are included, as well as the voluntary bodies and the carers.
I shall run quickly through the different amendments. Amendments Nos. 26 and 30 are allied to Amendments Nos. 33 and 34. They make it clear that we would like to see the members of the trust choose their own

1301
chairman from among their own members, rather than having the chairman chosen by the Secretary of State. Amendment No. 27 argues that a majority of the members of the trust should not be officers of the trust. Amendment No. 28 lays down that the various members of the trust shall include lay members representing the local community. Amendment No. 31 lays down that, in addition to lay members, there shall be representation from members of the other healthcare professions and not just general practitioners. Such professions would include community and practice nurses, social services, dentists, pharmacists, physiotherapists and opticians. Amendment No. 32 concerns the range of skills that we would like to see represented within the primary care trust. It is especially important that patients and carers, and those who have been patients and carers, are represented on the primary care trusts as consumers of primary care. Amendment No. 35 again makes it clear that the regulations shall include not only representatives from the medical professions but also representatives from the professions allied to medicine and from the nursing and midwifery professions. Amendment No. 36 places an obligation on the Secretary of State to consult widely within the community about appointments to the primary care trusts. We are anxious to ensure that those selected are widely known and respected within their communities.
As I have said, Amendment No. 29 comes from the Official Opposition Benches. As far as we are concerned, it goes in the opposite direction. By laying down that a majority should come from the medical profession, the amendment does not exclude the possibility that the medical profession could dominate the PCTs, which we would be unwilling to see. I beg to move.
Lord Astor of Hever: I rise to support Amendment No. 28. There is real concern that older people are often discriminated against in the NHS because of their age. I hope that the Minister will see the wisdom of having at least one lay member on trust boards representing the interests of older people. Organisations working with older people are told time and again of instances where older people are suffering in certain conditions because they are old. As a result, old people are often too frightened to complain. PCTs will have responsibility for a greater number of treatments which primarily affect older people. I therefore hope that the Minister will support the amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones: Due to the rushed nature of our eating requirements, I did not appreciate that marshalled in this group of amendments was the one concerning older people, which is of considerable importance.
As many of us know—not only from our own experience but from the representations made to us—there is an increasing concern that people are being discriminated against in the NHS because of their age. Amendment No. 28, which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Astor, is, in our view, of considerable importance as regards ensuring that discrimination does not continue. It is specifically important that there
1302
should be older people on primary care trust boards. We shall be talking later about amendments which relate to old people, but there is no doubt that there is an enormous degree of concern, not only about access but about treatment. There exists, in a sense, a kind of rationing. In order to tackle that kind of problem, we should be very conscious of the kind of representation we have on the primary care trust boards. That representation should specifically include older people, who will well be able to appreciate the problems that older people face.
One could argue that there should be representation for every one of every type among the lay members, but I seek to make a special case for older people. They are massive consumers of healthcare—they face almost unique problems in the way in which they interface with primary care—and it is very important that they are not just, in a sense, passive users, but people who are able to drive forward primary care provision in a positive way by their representation on trust boards.
Lord Rowallan: I rise to support Amendment No. 28 because old people and children take an enormous amount of the budget of any national health service.
I am concerned about Amendment No. 31, which is grouped with Amendment No. 26. It contains another list and, as we have already discovered, anything containing lists is extremely dangerous. We should remember that there is a huge body of people in professions in the NHS which used to be laughed at. I refer to the alternative medicine brigade. There are now very large clinics in some areas which practise medicines such as acupuncture, osteopathy, reflexology, kinesiology and so on. It is beholden on us to remember that an enormous number of people want to go to alternative medicine practitioners as opposed to using the National Health Service proper. We must take some of those large practices into account as well. Therefore, I do not support Amendment No. 31, but Amendment No. 28 is good.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I support Amendment No. 28. I do so because the Government's claim that there is no age limit on appointments to any NHS body is a complete fiction. I meet people who tell me all the time that an invisible barrier is definitely there. I understand that there may be a problem with older people if there is a risk that they may develop senile dementia. None of us is immune to that. But to get round that, the appointments of older people could be made for a limited time and would be renewable only if the people were suitable. By that I mean that they remained mentally alert.
It is wrong and hypocritical when we hear that age is irrelevant that the first thing one puts on any application form for a National Health Service position is one's date of birth. Those looking at those forms then sift through them. I should like to know how many older people will

1303
be on NICE and so on. This amendment is required on the face of the Bill to make it clear that there should be an obligation to consider older people.
Baroness O'Cathain: I support Amendment No. 28 but I should like to look at the issue in another way. The amendment states:
"including lay members representing all sections of the community including older people".
Enough has been said about older people and I will certainly support that. But let us not forget people at the other end of the spectrum. I refer to younger people.
In our area we have a local patient support group. It has representatives who include a 17 year-old, a single mother with two children and a disabled person. It also includes several elderly people because that reflects the demographics of the area. It has worked like a charm, particularly for the 17 year-old and the 23 year-old. They have now had experience of working on a committee, of listening to people's views and of going to their sections of the community and feeding back information to the doctors and to the practice manager. It has revitalised the involvement of the community with the practice and has made people realise exactly how much work doctors do and how they need to he safeguarded against people who do not turn up for appointments. The young people are going to their friends and saying, "You can't make a doctor's appointment and not turn up". It is not the older ones who are doing that. The older ones represent people's needs in terms of access for disabled people, the requirement for hearing tests and so on. But it is the youngsters who are coming forward and stating the problems. I suppose they could even alert the doctors to where the drugs scene is becoming serious in the area.
If the Government really want to be an inclusive government, they ought to start now and consider including quite young people in these groups, if only for a limited period of time—perhaps three years or so. They will benefit, the groups will benefit and certainly the young people will benefit. Young people generally will feel that their views are taken into account. I do not want to put on the face of the Bill the words "including young people", but I hope that the Minister will take the point on board.
8.15 p.m.
Earl Howe: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 29 which ventures to take an opposite path to amendments tabled by the Liberal Democrat Benches in that it relates to the question of who should constitute the majority on the PCT board and proposes that that majority should rest with those who are professionally qualified. I do not think it is a contentious statement to make that if the NHS is to be asked to tolerate yet another period of adjustment, as it is, it is important that the changes are soundly based. A sound base involves our being very careful indeed that we take the doctors with us; indeed, not just doctors—of course not—but I single out doctors because, unless GPs feel that they own the new system, they will not respect it. Doctors will not want to feel dragooned into PCTs.
1304
Let us suppose that there is a proposal to convert a PCG into a PCT. What everyone understood from the original White Paper was that progress up the PCG ladder would be entirely voluntary, but it appears that that is not so. A proposal can he initiated by anyone in the PCG, by the local community health services or by a health authority. Let us suppose that the proposal goes out to consultation and the Secretary of State decides. If GPs do not like it there is no veto for them. A PCT is then established. The one thing that doctors will want to feel once they are in it is that they have a real measure of control and real responsibility for what the PCT does. If GPs see in PCTs a structure of decision making that erodes the degree of influence and responsibility that they enjoyed in a PCG, there is a risk that confidence in the system will evaporate. GPs will see it as an attempt to impose line management on them.
We have to remember that a general practitioner is an independent contractor. A doctor will not accept a system that threatens to interfere with the one relationship above all which counts for him—the relationship with his patient. Nor will he embrace a structure which lacks a sense of corporate feeling and identity. I believe that the Government's proposals for PCTs, which originally, it has to be said, looked like manna from heaven to many doctors, have had the gloss decidedly knocked off them by fears of this erosion of influence at management level. It is perfectly true that expressions of interest in PCT status have been quite numerous, but I wonder how many of those will develop into firm applications once people have reflected more deeply on the Government's proposals.
At Second Reading the Minister said that the Government wanted to build on what was best in the NHS that they inherited. But putting aside for one moment our disagreements about the merits or demerits of fundholding, one of its undisputed benefits was the way in which it put GPs in the driving seat and in so doing drove up standards of healthcare. That is the broad principle the Government say they want to preserve and carry forward in the new arrangements. I sincerely hope that they know what they need to do to make that objective a reality for doctors. If they do not achieve it, the risk to the NHS is substantial.
Lord Walton of Detchant: I have considerable sympathy with the objectives underlying both Amendments Nos. 28 and 29. On Monday last I spoke in your Lordships' House on trying to persuade the Royal Commission to oppose any principle that there should be a mandatory age of retirement for life Peers. It is seven years since I received a letter from the Oxfordshire health authority thanking me for my services and saying that, now I had reached a certain age and my honorary clinical contract had expired, I could visit the hospital for social reasons but could not use the clinical facilities.
We may bear in mind, for instance, the attitude of the United States Government. They have now decided that discrimination on grounds of age is illegal and is contrary to the US constitution. It is right that the Government should seriously consider the possibility of involving not only younger people but older people in

1305
many of the bodies concerned with the management of the National Health Service. As the noble Earl said, we should recognise the crucial importance of having a majority of members of the healthcare professions on these bodies. Therefore in a sense both of these amendments can be supported.
Lord Warner: I oppose Amendment No. 29. In the past I spent some time as a member of an executive council and of a family health service authority. I can still remember the rather gruesome meetings of the executive council, which were heavily dominated by healthcare professionals. It is to the credit of the previous government that they introduced a far stronger lay element into family health service authorities and other health authorities.
Having sat through debates in those health authorities, I have seen the major contribution that lay members have made to those bodies and how they have influenced the thinking of healthcare professionals. A proper balance is necessary in those kinds of bodies if the best interests of the public are to be served. Now, many health professionals would take the view that they prefer a situation in which there is a good balance and an even spread of committed people from the lay communities who contribute to healthcare policy and its delivery at local level. We should reflect on the experience of the past 10 to 15 years, when there has been a much stronger injection of the lay element into healthcare bodies.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I wish to make a slightly narrower point relating to the balance among professionals. Today I have received a rather angry letter from the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy, expressing disappointment that the professions allied to medicine are once again not specified in the Bill as being desirable members for trusts.
It is relevant to remember that among those other professionals physiotherapists are experienced in community healthcare, not merely in the delivery of services at GPs' surgeries. Therefore, along with those of a similar professional background, they make a large input in terms of the improvement of community services, which is likely to become part of the responsibilities of most PCTs. The point is that it is not until the most superior stage, as it were, of the development of a PCT that it apparently becomes possible for those professions to be represented on the board. I hope that the Minister can offer some reassurance on that matter.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I support the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Warner. I, too, remember the Inner London Executive Council, of which I was a dental member. At least 50 per cent. of its members were professionals. The dentists were told: "Unless you vote to support the doctors, we shall vote against you". It was worse than any trade union—not that I have ever been a member of a trade union. It was as closed a shop as anything that existed. Many of the London boroughs took an active part in telling Sir Keith Joseph that, whatever happened, he must do away with that built-in
1306
majority that was so wrong. I therefore support the view that there should be a balance. No one group should have a built-in majority so that it can pressure others into supporting a proposal that they would otherwise oppose.
Baroness Fookes: I should find it easier to evaluate all these amendments if I had some idea of the size of the body of which all these people would be members. Is it possible for the Minister to give us some better indication as to the likely range of sizes? All these matters are to be included in regulations of which, as yet, we have no sight.
Baroness Hayman: On the last point, I think I can help the noble Baroness. As I said earlier, the proposals for the Government's arrangements for primary care trusts were published at the end of last week. Copies have been placed in the Library. I shall go into more detail later as I realise there has been only a short period of time for Members of the Committee to examine the proposals and the balance that we are attempting to strike in membership of the hoards and primary care trusts.
The contributions to the debate indicate the need to strike a balance and some of the difficulties in so doing. We have heard cogently argued the reasons for maintaining a professional majority; there have been equally strong representations that a professional majority is not appropriate and that there ought, for reasons of probity and responsiveness, to be a lay majority. Later in my remarks I shall go into the detail of how we attempt to reconcile and achieve what we believe to be an appropriate balance, and also to see that there is the right balance between the professional groups and bodies concerned. Although GPs must be extremely important—and the PCG governing arrangements place GPs and nurses firmly at the forefront—when it comes to primary care trusts we are talking about a different animal, and different governance arrangements are appropriate.
Perhaps I may deal first with Amendment No. 26 and the linked Amendment No. 30, removing the power of the Secretary of State to appoint the chairman of the PCT board and putting in place election between the members of the board. That is not an appropriate way forward. It is a well-established principle that the Secretary of State appoints the chairmen of NHS bodies. It is a way of ensuring that those bodies can be held to account by the Secretary of State. I see no reason that that should be different for primary care trusts. As with other NHS bodies, the Secretary of State will ultimately be able to dismiss the chairmen if necessary. Not to have that arrangement would mean not having a proper chain of accountability from primary care trusts upwards to the Secretary of State and, via him, ultimately to Parliament.
We must bear in mind that each primary care trust will be responsible for large sums of money—at least £60 million. They will need to help achieve national priorities and develop and deliver local health improvement programmes. There has to be public confidence in the accountability.

1307
We have found that the system of chairmen being appointed by the Secretary of State and being accountable to him has worked well with other NHS bodies. There is no reason why it should not do so with primary care trusts.
We want those trusts to be firmly rooted in their local community, and responsive to the health needs and wishes of local people. That is very much in line with existing NHS bodies. However, it is why, in selecting a chairman, the Secretary of State will consider a range of factors, including experience, knowledge and the level of confidence that is commanded by the individual within the community. That gives us some reassurance that the arrangements will provide a sensible balance between accountability upwards to the Secretary of State and the involvement of local people, not just as chairmen but as non-executive members of the trust board in running PCTs. I urge the Committee to agree that we should maintain those arrangements.
I now deal with the issue of who should be included; who should he the lay members. I shall then come to the major issue of the balance on the board. It is important that we recognise the need to represent all sections of the community. Once we start specifying a particular group with needs, such as the elderly, who are major users of the health service, their needs are important and must be taken into account. The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, pointed out that there are other users at the other end of the age scale who also need to be represented. Representing the needs of children is not easy in an automatically representative way. The noble Lord, Lord Rix, talked earlier about the possibilities of people with learning disabilities being involved in the governance of trusts that provide services for that group.
I do not believe anyone would dissent from the broad aim of the amendment. We certainly wish lay members to be drawn from all sections of the community. However, we also want them to be not only from different age groups but also from different ethnic and racial groups and to represent different walks of life. As it stands, the provision allows lay members to be appointed who ensure that.
At present we make the appointments in line with the principles of the Commission for Public Appointments. In doing so, we have made clear that we have been trying to increase the representation of people from the locality of the NHS body concerned. We have published goals on the appointment of women chairmen and members of NHS boards and those from ethnic minorities and that a guaranteed interview scheme is operated for people with disabilities. Those are all measures to try to ensure that we have a wide spread of people.
Equally, there is no age limit to those who can become members. I heard what the noble Baroness said in relation to that. I have seen appointments of elderly members of the community to trusts within the department. Perhaps I could give the breakdown by age at present. Of those appointed at the moment, 7.5 per cent. are aged up to 39—not many representing the
1308
younger end of the spectrum. I remember that when I was younger I was always being asked to come onto boards because there were too many old people and they were trying to make the board younger. Pendulums swing and perhaps I shall now come into fashion in my later years to redress the balance in the other direction. Of those appointed at the moment, 66.5 per cent. are aged 40 to 59 and 26 per cent. are aged 60 and over. That is a substantial group already there.
8.30 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: Can the Minister tell us of those aged 60 and upwards, up to what age? How many are over 70 and how many are over 75?
Baroness Hayman: Off the top of my head, no, I cannot tell the noble Baroness. I shall make inquiries but I imagine that it diminishes as we go higher up the scale. However, your Lordships' House always teaches us that the contribution people make improves with age. I am sure that the same is true within the health service.
As regards the composition of boards in the future, on which the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, asked for enlightenment, we envisage a board of 11 members comprising a chair and five lay members. Membership will be open to local authority elected members. The chief executive, the finance director and three professionals will he drawn from the executive. One of the professionals on the board will he the director of clinical governance and there will need to be at least one GP and one nurse on the board, who must have the confidence of the rest of the executive.
If the chairman is a non-lay member, we envisage flexibility to appoint an extra lay person to ensure that the lay majority is maintained. It was the existence of the proposed lay majority that is challenged in Amendment No. 29. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, sought that a majority of the members should be members of a healthcare profession.
It is absolutely right that the board should have access to proper advice from healthcare professionals and they should provide the driving force for the board. But, equally, it is important to ensure that the trust is rooted firmly in the community that it serves, that it is publicly accountable and operates with the highest standards of probity. For those reasons we believe that the board should be properly balanced and that the non-officer members should be lay people to ensure the direct involvement of the community.
However, because we recognise that crucial role of the healthcare professionals, it is our intention to establish a trust executive which would have a clear majority of professionals who would take most of the day-to-day decisions and play a leading role in formulating policy on priorities, service developments and investment plans. Some of those professionals will then also serve as officer members on the PCT board. They will be there to guide the deliberations of the board and take part in strategic decision-making.
However, the board, with a majority of lay members, will be responsible for the performance of the trust, probity and the involvement of the local community.

1309
The executive and the board will need to work co-operatively and closely if the primary care trust is to be successful. We believe that in these arrangements we are putting the proper balance so that there will be a professionally-led service, in accordance with the highest principles of probity and governance, and at the same time with firm ties to the views, skills and aspirations of the community that is served.
Lord Clement-Jones: Perhaps I may intervene to ask the Minister a question. One of the issues that has come over to me strongly in the representations made on the Bill is the extreme unhappiness of some of the professions allied to medicine in terms of their input and their ability to input as full members of a PCG board and their inability to be members of that board.
The noble Baroness will correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that that will be carried through into tier three or the first tier of PCTs. Only when they reach the second stage of PCTs will there be a possibility of some of those professions allied to medicine which are currently excluded being included. One of the reasons for such amendments as Amendment No. 31 was to point out that the involvement of community pharmacists, physiotherapists and opticians was desirable as full board members. If there are no volunteers, obviously they will not be members of the board. But if they are active, involved members of the professions allied to medicine on a local basis who wish to take part in PCTs, why should they be excluded at the first level of PCT? Can the Minister address that point?
Baroness Hayman: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I recognise the issue that he raised. It is one that was put to me from representatives of the professions allied to medicine. I would not wish in any way to denigrate the contribution that they can make to PCTs and PCGs, without necessarily having full board membership. They may give the expertise and advice of pharmacists, physiotherapists and so on—the whole range of professions supplementary to medicine.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: Will the Minister also take this opportunity to reassure the Committee as to the reports in the press this week that the Secretary of State wishes to appoint the chief executives as well as the chairmen? Can she assure us that there is no truth in those reports? I am concerned that there should not be just a central government department appointing chief executives.
Lord Clement-Jones: For clarification, I was referring not only to boards but also to executives. One of the disappointing features is that one talks about professional input at executive level in the two-tier structure, but on that basis at level three (PCT) the professions allied to medicine do not get a look-in on the executive level either.
Baroness Hayman: I think I made clear that the arrangements for Secretary of State appointments related to chairmen and not chief executives. Those will be determined by the chair and lay members with input
1310
from professional members or the preceding primary care group. That takes into account the view put to us by professional groups about the importance of the chief executive commanding the confidence of the professionals. Finance director appointments will follow a similar pattern but with the chief executive also on the panel.
It has been pointed out that the membership of the trust executive will have a professional majority. As with primary care groups, a social services officer nominated by the relevant local authority will provide some of the interface and interconnection that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, sought earlier. The balance of professional members will differ between level three PCTs (commissioning-only) and level four PCTs (commissioning and providing). That is precisely to allow scope for other professional health service staff like professions supplementary to medicine to be fully involved at level four trusts. Therefore, in the provision of community health services professionals will be able to play a full part. We have allowed for a flexible structure at that level precisely for that reason.
As to level three, that is only a commissioning body. Where GPs have a particular role as gatekeepers and in committing resources, we believe that the argument in one of the amendments about those people being in the driving seat on the board has some weight. But when one comes to level four the Government recognise that it is absolutely essential not to neglect the role of professions supplementary to medicine. We envisage an executive of up to 10 clinicians with significant representation from general practice and a balance of local nurses and other community and public health professionals. There will, however, be some specialist tasks that may require particular professionals; for example a strategic role in respect of nursing.
I hear very clearly the view that PCT governing board arrangements should recognise the contribution that can be made by dentists, community pharmacists, opticians, physiotherapists and others. But we feel that if we impose a straitjacket on the PCT governing board arrangements it will be inconsistent with the fact that such a body will not have particular functions in respect of FHS contractors. It is important to ensure that we consult, as appropriate, dentists, opticians and pharmacists. We do not rule out the possibility of professions supplementary to medicine, or indeed midwives as distinct nurses, from being on the board at level four. The point is that if we begin to specify separate professions we will return to the "list" problem.
There are difficult balances to be struck between those who argue for a professional majority and for doctors to be completely in the driving seat. I point out to the noble Earl, who said that GPs were losing control of the progression towards primary care trusts, that PCGs and local NHS trusts that provide community services, or the health authority, must endorse a proposal before it can go to consultation. In practice we accept that PCGs will be the main generators of proposals. GPs are in the majority on PCGs and therefore will have a key role to play in progression towards primary care trust status. We feel that the need to balance the different

1311
elements is best met by the kind of mixed board to which we have referred with the professional executive below it.
8.45 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, we on these Benches are sorry that the Minister does not see fit to alter the arrangements over the appointment of chairmen given that the power of appointment of members of the PCT already lies with the Secretary of State. We feel that accountability is already there and that it would be a move towards greater democracy if chairmen were elected from among the members of the PCT. We are pleased to receive support from many Members of the Committee for these amendments, in particular Amendment No. 28 and for the other amendments that seek wider representation on the boards of PCTs.
I echo the words of my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones that there is considerable unhappiness among the professions allied to medicine about the current arrangements proposed by the Government. There is a very strong feeling that at present they are not properly representative of the wider community. It is vital that the PCTs command the confidence not just of the professionals but the wider community that they serve. We do not ask for a straitjacket but for arrangements that are properly representative. I take encouragement from the words of the noble Baroness that she will aim to secure wider representation and I hope that that will emerge in practice. We are not convinced that there are enough safeguards written into the legislation as it stands. Therefore, for the present we shall withdraw the amendment but reserve the right to bring it and other amendments back at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 27 to 37 not moved.]
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 43, line 24, after ("trust") insert ("or any other member of the trust or any person who has been a member of the trust").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 38 which is a narrow but nevertheless very important proposal. This matter, which appears to us to be somewhat anomalous, was drawn to the attention of these Benches by the BMA. If one looks at paragraph 11(3) of Schedule 1, it allows superannuation, allowance or gratuity to be paid to a primary care trust chairman or former chairman. The intention of the amendment is to spread that rather more widely. It seems to us to be rather peculiar that alone among those who serve on the board of the PCT the chairman is entitled to such superannuation, allowance or gratuity. The responsibility of board members will clearly be considerable. The prospective budget of PCTs appears to be about £60 million, so the responsibility of board members will not be inconsiderable. Therefore it is important that one considers the appropriate remuneration for members of the PCT boards. Superannuation is an important part of remuneration. Primary care groups have already been established without an appropriate level of
1312
remuneration or superannuation for board members. The BMA believes that that has been a significant disincentive to GP and wider professional involvement.
We ask that the department look again at the issues. It may not necessitate amendment to the Bill, but perhaps the department should consider the matter again after discussion. I beg to move.
Baroness Hayman: Many Members of the Committee will have felt sympathy with the concern expressed by the noble Lord to ensure a secure retirement for those who have served the NHS in these capacities. However, I cannot accept his suggestion. It is expected that members of primary care trusts will spend up to 16 hours a month on trust business, for which they will receive appropriate remuneration. While the contribution will be of considerable benefit to the primary care trust, the Government do not feel that it would be appropriate to make provision for the payment of a pension allowance or gratuity which would be a considerable further drain on NHS resources.
As regards pensions for chairmen of primary care trusts—this is a revelation to me—we cannot at present envisage the circumstances in which it would be appropriate to consider determining that those pensions should he paid. I think that I should declare a reverse interest. Although it has never been used, there is provision in other legislation to allow for the payment of pensions, gratuities and allowances to the chairmen and former chairmen of other NHS boards. We believe that it is right, should the need arise in the future, to maintain the capacity for chairmen of primary care trusts to be treated in the same way as all other NHS chairs. But since 1977 all other NHS chairs have never been made subject to that provision or had any pension provision made for them.
However, there is no provision, even in theory, for the payment of such pension allowances to members and former members of other NHS boards. It would be inappropriate to introduce that for the members of PCT trusts, who would be treated differently from their colleagues on other boards, and, in reality, were the provisions to be invoked, differently from the chairmen of other boards.
Lord Clement-Jones: I thank the Minister for that reply. It was intriguing in many respects. The sum total of the Minister's argument is that in the current context, whatever the provisions in the Act, the payment of pensions is purely theoretical: that the department takes away with one hand and the other. Her argument also demonstrates that with quite considerable ease the Government could provide power in the Bill to pay pensions—and it would not matter. They would not pay pensioners anyway, whatever the provisions. So the permissive power would be perfectly easy to grant.
We shall think about the matter and discuss it with those who propose the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Turner of Camden): I have to tell the Committee that if Amendment No. 39 is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 40 to 44 because of pre-emption.
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 44, line 23, leave out from ("and") to end of line 39 and insert ("details of the measures the trust has taken to promote economy, efficiency and effectiveness in using its resources for the exercise of its functions.
(2) A Primary Care Trust shall prepare such other reports or other information as required by the Health Authority in whose area the Trust's area falls or by the Secretary of State.
(3) A Primary Care Trust shall publish reports and information compiled under sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) at least within its area of operation.").
The noble Lord said: This series of amendments is designed to improve the reporting requirements of primary care trusts. The amendments are designed to tighten up the provisions in the schedule. I do not think that it requires huge explanation. Effectively we are tightening up the wording, making the provision mandatory.
Amendment No. 50 needs further elucidation, as do the amendments about best value. We have sought to insert some provisions relating to the duties on reporting on economy, efficiency and effectiveness which mirror the best value provisions under the local government legislation. We believe that the PCTs should be in no different position from local government in that respect.
PCTs are in a peculiar position. Many professionals and lay people remark on the fact that PCTs will be both provider and commissioner. They will commission in the sense of secondary healthcare and they will provide primary healthcare. That gives them somewhat of a conflict of interests. Therefore it is important that their reporting requirements should be clear. For that reason we believe that PCTs should present to the Secretary of State an annual account of services which they commission from themselves as providers. We believe that to be a reasonable check on what is a fairly considerable degree of power. It makes sure that PCTs are properly commissioning services from themselves, so to speak. To commission from themselves is a somewhat schizophrenic duty for PCTs.
In line with a number of our other amendments, we believe that the amendment promotes transparency and demonstrates the value more widely than is currently provided for in the Bill and is not inconsistent with current legislation.
Lord Astor of Hever: I speak to Amendments Nos. 40 and 42. In supporting the principle of open government, we believe that information about the work of PCTs should be made readily available to members of the public and interested organisations throughout the country. We therefore feel that it should be the responsibility of the Secretary of State to ensure that PCTs produce an annual report and that it be publicised. In that way the Secretary of State will take on additional responsibility in a similar manner to that of the DfEE in the publication of information relating to schools' performance.
1314
Access to relevant information is of great concern to the public; and publication should be the responsibility of the Secretary of State rather than individual PCTs. It is vital that any important information that is given to the public should be set out in a form which is accessible and easy to understand. If left to individual PCTs, there could be wide variations in the detail, quality and clarity of that information.
In order to have reports where clear comparisons can be made between trusts in one area of the country and another, the Secretary of State should undertake to publish the information in a consistent format. We are concerned that unless that approach is adopted, real improvements in patient care, which we on this side of the Chamber seek, will be obscured by inconsistent reporting. I look forward to the Minister's comments on that point.
On Amendment No. 42 we believe that it is important that information should be available to the public on the availability of drugs, treatments and other healthcare service treatments. This should contain, as a matter of public interest, details of whatever rationing decisions the PCT has had to make over the course of the year. First, that will be an additional step towards the acknowledgement of rationing, or prioritisation, within the health service. Secondly, it will be possible to observe whether the effects of NICE and CHIMP have been to increase the rationing process over time. Despite the Health Minister in the other place having recently made the astonishing statement that there is no rationing, a wide range of rationing decisions are currently being taken in the health service and there is a great variation from one area to another.
We do not believe that it is possible simply to end rationing. What we do believe is that there is an urgent need for a mature debate on the subject of rationing and priorities of the health service. The Government are damaging public confidence in our healthcare system by refusing to admit to this obvious fact. It is no good—as the Government are trying to do—simply to force doctors to carry the can for rationing decisions. Doctors should always make decisions on clinical priorities, but the framework should be set in a transparent environment and the public involved in the setting of the framework.
The Government claim that the introduction of NICE and CHIMP will alleviate the problem of regional availability. Even if that is the case, it is likely to result only in some operations or drugs being nationally available, with others becoming available in the private sector only. Having such information from PCTs set out by the Government on an annual basis will help to clarify which areas are experiencing most rationing.
9 p.m.
Baroness Hayman: This series of amendments deals with the reporting arrangements for primary care trusts and we support their general aim to ensure that there is transparency in the activities of those trusts. We believe that it is covered by the current provisions in the Bill.
As regards Amendment No. 39, the duties in paragraphs 16 and 17 of Schedule 1 are at least equivalent to requirements on other NHS bodies. The provisions do a number of things. First, they require the PCT to prepare

1315
and send an annual report on its activities to the local health authority and to the Secretary of State. This is consistent with the line of accountability that we want to see—and which is also reflected in the powers of direction in Clause 7—from PCT to health authority. But it also reflects the fact that PCTs are ultimately accountable to the Secretary of State. And the Secretary of State, too, will have an interest in maintaining the performance of PCTs.
Secondly, the provision (in paragraph 16(2)) is deliberately couched in a way that will allow flexibility as to what other reports and information they can require of the PCT. This further reinforces the ability of health authorities and the Secretary of State to hold PCTs to account. Clearly, though, this power will need to be exercised judiciously so as not to impose unnecessary burdens on PCTs. And health authorities' ability to request information will be subject to the Secretary of State's direction. We want proper accountability arrangements, but not a major paper chase or excessive interference in the running of PCTs.
Thirdly, we will set out in regulations the steps PCTs must take to publicise their accounts, annual reports and other prescribed documents. Clearly, ensuring effective publication and access to such information locally will be one of the areas we will want to consider for regulations. Equally, all NHS bodies will be required to report annually on clinical governance and that will apply equally to PCTs.
We consider that these provisions are extensive and flexible. We believe that, if anything, the amendment dilutes rather than strengthens the requirement to publicise key documents such as audited accounts and annual reports. I hope that I have reassured the Committee that the existing provisions deal with the issue.
Amendment No. 40 raises an important issue here about the balance between primary care trusts' powers and their duties and accountability. We want to establish primary care trusts as free-standing statutory bodies with the operational flexibility to tackle local service problems. We want primary care trusts to be innovative and make changes for the benefit of patients. However, with freedoms must come responsibility and proper accountability. Paragraphs 16 and 17 of Schedule 5A to the 1977 Act, as inserted in Schedule 1 to the Bill, are very important in this respect. They place a clear duty on primary care trusts to report on their performance to health authorities and the Secretary of State. Those two routes of accountability are very important.
Paragraph 17 further provides for this process to be transparent and open to public scrutiny. It is our intention that primary care trusts will be required, through this provision, to publish their audited accounts, annual reports and other documents that the Secretary of State may prescribe in regulations. As it stands, paragraph 17 confers a discretion on the Secretary of State to make regulations on the publication of these specified accounts and reports. However, it is our intention to require such publication. I am grateful to noble Lords for drawing attention to this point. I am considering their amendment which will have the effect of replacing the Secretary of
1316
State's discretion to make regulations as to the requirements to publicise specified reports and accounts with a duty on the Secretary of State to do so.
I assure the Committee that there is no ducking out of the need to impose requirements on primary care trusts in respect of publicising reports and accounts. We will take the necessary steps to ensure that that is so. However, we believe it is right that the onus to publish reports should rest firmly with the primary care trust. Placing this duty on the Secretary of State—as the noble Lord, Lord Astor, proposes—would undermine the accountability of primary care trusts. If they are to have their own powers and freedoms to exercise functions, they should also be expected to account for the performance of those functions. This is hardly a new principle—it is the way, for example, in which NHS trusts work. To accept the noble Lord's amendment would be to separate primary care trusts' responsibilities from their freedoms. We do not believe that that is a sensible way forward and we intend that the accounts and reports are published in a way that makes them accessible to interested parties locally as well as to national interests. Paragraph 17 is couched in such a way that the Secretary of State will be able to set out any necessary requirements to that end.
Perhaps I can deal with the issue of split functions of primary care trusts with which Amendment No. 50 deals. I understand the intention of the amendment but its approach is flawed. In relation to the problem raised of role confusion, primary care trusts will not enter into service agreements or NHS contracts with themselves.
Clause 3 inserts new provisions into the NHS Act 1977 relating to the funding and financial duties of primary care trusts. However, it is only part of the overall financial framework and associated reporting arrangements. In particular, the provisions need to be considered alongside the provisions of the new Schedule 5A to the 1977 Act as inserted by Schedule 1 to the Bill. Paragraph 16 of the schedule provides for each primary care trust to report on its activities in a form which the health authority, Secretary of State or both may specify.
Together those two provisions address the issues about which Members of the Committee expressed concern. As I said, primary care trusts will not enter into service agreements or NHS contracts with themselves. If a trust wishes to provide a service for the population for which it is responsible, it will simply provide that service; there will not be a contract and there will not be a purchaser-provider split.
At level four primary care trusts can either choose to provide a specific service to their population or commission that service by entering into an NHS or other contract with another body for that body to provide the service. In the sense that it is drafted in terms of commissioning, therefore, the amendment is flawed. Nevertheless, the intention is clear. We are sympathetic to the purpose of the amendment and the concerns that underlie it. The dual role of a level four primary care trust as both the commissioner and provider of services could give rise to a perceived conflict of interest, a real conflict of interest or a failure to achieve value for money. I can assure the Committee that we will be looking to primary

1317
care trusts to demonstrate value for money in any services that they provide themselves for the local population rather than commissioning another body.
Paragraphs 16 and 17 of the new Schedule 5A will require PCTs to report annually on their activities to their health authority in a form specified by the health authority, the Secretary of State or both. Paragraph 16(2) requires in particular each primary care trust to report on the measures it has taken to promote economy, efficiency and effectiveness in using its resources. Again, I can assure the Committee that we will expect level four primary care trusts to demonstrate that they are achieving all three targets in the services which they provide directly to the local population. I hope that that will reassure the noble Lord that the issues are being covered.
Amendment No. 42 is also a flawed amendment. In recording all treatments that have been requested by a patient, we are opening a large door and not recognising that not all requests—certainly the first requests made before discussion with a general practitioner—are for treatments which are effective or appropriate. Treatment is based on clinical need but clinicians also need to ensure that individual decisions are taken in the light of local service priorities, making sure that maximum benefit can be derived from the resources available.
Priority setting is a necessary part of decision-making in any healthcare system. PCTs will not change that; they will not put all the responsibility on general practitioners. But they will be expected to live within their budgets, just like any other part of the NHS. Nor will PCTs change the principle that decisions about a patient's health must be taken by the clinician and the patient. They will not prevent clinicians deciding what is best for their patient—whether, for example, to prescribe drugs or refer to hospital.
Allowing local priority setting is an important strength of the new system. It brings decision-making to a level closer to the patient so that services can be better organised to reflect their local needs and wishes. With unified budgets in PCTs they will be able to make choices about cost-effective patterns of services and be free to switch resources over time to support them. They will be free to redeploy savings to meet local needs and promote local development. Those and the other efficiency savings and the £21 billion extra resources that we are putting into the NHS over the next three years amount to a service that will be better equipped than ever before to meet clinical need.
The practical implication of adopting the amendment as it stands will be to place a significant extra bureaucratic burden on primary care groups and raise issues of patient confidentiality in a system where I do not believe it would enhance proper accountability or the reporting back on the activities of a primary care trust. I hope, in my remarks related to the others amendments, that I have reassured Members of the Committee that such provisions are on the face of the Bill.
Lord Skelmersdale: In her answer to this group of amendments the Minister, quite rightly—if I may say so without sounding patronising—relied heavily on paragraph 17 of the schedule. It starts with the word
1318
"Regulations" which immediately makes my eyes open and my ears prick up. Surely to goodness, by now, with the experience of the NHS trust, the Government and the department know exactly what they want the organisations within the health service to put into their reports to publish and to publicise. Therefore, why are regulations needed?
Baroness Hayman: I think that the broad areas are clear. However, there is change in reporting and what we need to know about. Clinical governance, for example, is an innovation in the health service. It is important that we have proper and transparent reporting on clinical governance arrangements. In the same way, I believe that the broad areas to be covered will be similar to those for other NHS bodies. As has been pointed out, PCTs, particularly at level four, are a new animal. It may be appropriate to ensure that the reporting arrangements recognise that and provide for transparency in those circumstances.
I am sure that we are quite a long way along the learning curve, but I am not sure that we are 100 per cent. there.
9.15 p.m.
Baroness Fookes: If transparency is to mean anything, it must also be very important to be able to make comparisons between the various trusts and how they are working. Therefore, it is important, if there are to be regulations, that there is some kind of uniform format or presentation for the key factors. Otherwise, it will be extraordinarily difficult to make comparisons.
Baroness Hayman: I accept the noble Baroness's point. We need a stronger national framework against which local decision making can be assessed. The guidance that comes out of NICE, the national service framework, will be backed up with local clinical governance arrangements reporting back on how an individual institution can be compared against another. Together with the national performance assessment framework with its various criteria, we hope that that will help us to improve and to provide more consistent access to high-quality services. It will provide exactly the kind of material for real comparison that will assist local people involved in the provision of services to improve their own service as against other people's. It will also assist local communities to assess what is being done for their locality as opposed to others.
Lord Clement-Jones: I thank the Minister for that curate's egg of a reply, for that is, perhaps, the best description of it. There were some helpful aspects of what she said. As I understand it, the Minister undertook to re-examine the wording at the beginning of paragraph 17 of the schedule in terms of "must" versus "may". That will, to a degree, go some distance towards tightening up that paragraph.
I also thought that her clarification on Amendment No. 50 was helpful in terms of the split function. Perhaps I am being a little churlish, but when she said that she was sympathetic to the purpose, I wonder how many parsnips

1319
that will butter. It is good to have the sympathy of the Minister on this point, but it is the concrete outcome which is important—
Baroness Hayman: I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me for intervening. There are always nuances in "sympathy" and "looking at", as we discovered earlier in the day. The point I was trying to make to the noble Lord was not that I would give him kind words but nothing in reality, but rather that we believe that the purposes to which we are sympathetic are already covered by the Bill as it stands. That is the reason for not needing the amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones: With the greatest respect, that reply worries me more than the original reply. If the Minister believes that it is already incorporated in the Bill, perhaps my eyesight is failing me. However, I shall look at the reply in Hansard.
This is a problem because regulations will provide for the kind of information which is provided. However, I seek some assurance about the precise type of information without restricting flexibility. However, members of local communities will want to know what a primary care trust is obliged to provide by way of information, and in particular the type of information we were talking of as regards Amendment No. 50 in terms of their conflict of interest, which the Minister acknowledged.
I fully accept that the amendment itself may be flawed. The intention is that people can see clearly what the trust is providing internally, so to speak, as opposed to outsourcing. That is of considerable importance. However, I do not see this in concrete terms. I can well believe that the regulations may well provide for that in due course in some shape or form, but we shall read Hansard carefully as the Minister's reply had to be something of a double-decker of a reply. We may well return to this on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 40 to 44 not moved.]
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 45, line 12, at end insert—
("( ) An order approved by the Secretary of State shall be laid in draft before both Houses of Parliament and shall be subject to approval by resolution of each House.").
The noble Earl said: Schedule 1(19) relates to the powers of compulsory purchase which may be vested by the Secretary of State in a primary care trust. It is a very considerable power. I do not know—perhaps the Minister can tell us—what other types of body, apart from local authorities (that is, of course, outside central Government) have that privilege conferred by statute. I doubt whether there are many. I should like to hear from the Minister a clear set of reasons why the Government feel that it is appropriate for a PCT to have that privilege.
I fully appreciate that the Bill does not confer a blanket power to acquire land compulsorily and that any application would be subject to individual approval by the
1320
Secretary of State. I also realise that—in theory at least, if not in practice—the power is already available to NHS trusts under the 1990 Act.
Can the Minister say under what circumstances the Secretary of State would be likely to grant approval for a purchase to be made compulsorily, if that is not too hypothetical a question? Paragraph 1 merely contains the phrase,
"for the purposes of its functions".
I cannot help observing that that is a bit of a joke because the Bill does not yet tell us what the functions of a primary care trust are! However, we do know that they could be very wide-ranging. The serious point is that by approving this part of Schedule 1 as it stands, we would be writing something of a blank cheque. That is why we need to hear something definitive from the Minister.
A fear that I have heard expressed by GPs is that compulsory purchase orders could be used by a primary care trust to purchase their surgeries if they did not want to agree to the proposals put forward by the PCT about the use of that surgery. That really would represent a significant threat hanging over the heads of GPs on virtually every decision that they made in their dealings with the primary care trust. That would be extremely regrettable. For all those reasons, I felt that it was right at least to throw into the ring the possibility that there should be parliamentary scrutiny if ever the question of a CPO should arise to ensure that those CPO powers are used both sparingly and responsibly. I beg to move.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I am bound to say that I share the doubts of the noble Earl. Compulsory purchase is used by local authorities. If, for example, a highways authority wants to purchase a piece of land for the construction of a roundabout—or a cycle path, as would be more likely these days—it may do so, but only after that has been subject to the process of a public inquiry. The local authority has to go through a long process in order to ensure that the compulsory purchase is justified and that everybody has been satisfied in that respect. I await the Minister's answer with a considerable degree of interest.
Baroness Hayman: I think perhaps I can give an answer to the Committee. I hope to give some reassurance on the fears of some of the GPs to whom the noble Earl referred. We would not expect this to be used in any way as a weapon of coercion against general practitioners or as a threat to confiscate their property. I have more difficulty in trying to envisage exactly the circumstances in which it would be necessary for these powers to be used for a primary care trust, but the clause does provide that ability to the primary care trust.
I should like to make it clear that consideration of any PCT to go down this route should be very much a last resort. The Secretary of State would expect that any order submitted for his approval demonstrated that every other possible solution had been explored. This could include the purchase of an alternative suitable site in the usual way. As the noble Earl acknowledged, the power of compulsory purchase of land for National Health Service purposes is not new. Such a power was

1321
approved for NHS trusts in the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990, and under that Act the Secretary of State is empowered to approve orders submitted to him by NHS trusts for the compulsory purchases of land. However, such orders approved by the Secretary of State are subject neither to affirmative resolution of your Lordships' House nor of another place.
This Bill does not seek to alter the existing arrangements for NHS trusts but to make the same provision for primary care trusts. It is not a power that would be used lightly. The use of compulsory purchase for land for NHS purposes is extremely rare but it is considered to be a necessary fall-back power to ensure that the NHS is able, where it is essential, to ensure that services are made available on a site that best meets the needs of the local population.
It is rare and perhaps may become even rarer now that we have set in motion other initiatives, such as health and education action zones, where partnership and working with other bodies is a key aim and where we seek to ensure that effective communications exist between all arms of local and central government. In this way primary care trusts and NHS trusts will perhaps earlier become aware of residual shared-land opportunities that can be accessed without the need for compulsory purchase. As the noble Earl pointed out, these powers are available to many government departments and to other public bodies.
Safeguards already exist to which objections can be made and which can culminate in the holding of a public inquiry. We do not believe it is necessary to subject primary care trusts' compulsory purchase orders to additional requirements. These would be powers that we think would be very rarely used. There are the back-up safeguards in terms of reference to the Secretary of State and that it would have to be demonstrated that every other possible solution had been explored. I suggest to the Committee that we do not need another layer of safeguard.
Earl Howe: I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. In the circumstances, I think she has provided as much reassurance as she was able to. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 46 to 48 not moved.]
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Primary Care Trusts: finance]:
[Amendments Nos. 49 and 50 not moved.]
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 3, line 45, at end insert—
("( ) For the avoidance of doubt, notwithstanding anything contained in this section, general practitioners shall not be cash-limited in respect of any drug or treatment prescribed by them for their patients which falls within the Part II expenditure of the Primary Care Trust to which they relate.").
The noble Lord said: This is a fairly straightforward issue. It is unashamedly a probing amendment, but it is a matter of considerable importance. We have a situation where doctors at GP level will potentially become the
1322
rationing instrument of the NHS. This could be a fairly invidious situation if the proposals for cash limiting prescribing costs goes ahead. The same issue was discussed on Second Reading and there were a number of contributors to that debate. If the national institute of clinical excellence is prescribing effectively what is best practice (which GPs and PCTs have to observe) but at the same time the drug budget of GPs is limited, the latter will become the rationers in those circumstances, especially as the year goes on.
If there had been a proposal to cash-limit every GP in the country under the previous government, I am pretty certain that the party opposite would have had something to say about it. I am not clear in my own mind about the motives behind this proposal. I do not find the Explanatory Notes particularly informative. Indeed, the latter seems to bring it in by a side wind (on page 16), as if it were something casually dropped in from April 1999, and so on. So it is a matter of considerable concern. The phrase I used on Second Reading was that GPs risk being caught between the hammer and the anvil. I believe that rationing does take place currently and, if it does so, it should be transparent. If we are not careful, we shall build up problems for ourselves at that level where there is insufficient flexibility.
The position at present, as I understand it, is that non-GP fundholders are not effectively cash limited. However, what can happen is that a health authority may take one of them to task after it has overrun its budget, which is perfectly proper. Indeed, explanations can be sought from GPs in those circumstances. But this is a very different proposition. Quite where the cash limits bite in terms of primary legislation and how it all works is not very transparent, hence the reason for tabling this amendment; namely, to try to flesh out precisely how it all operates. I am sure that the Minister will elucidate the position. I beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
Earl Howe: I rise to express my support for the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is absolutely correct to point out that there is doubt surrounding this matter in that neither the Bill nor the Explanatory Notes seem to indicate clearly whether the drugs budget will be cash limited. I suspect I know the answer because the Government have previously indicated that the NHS will be subject to a cap on the budget available for prescriptions. I would welcome the Minister's comments in that respect. If she says, as Ministers have said before, that no patient will be denied the drugs that they need merely because the primary care trust has run out of cash, then I should like to know how the Government intend to achieve that here.
Baroness Hayman: I hope that I can clarify the situation and explain to the noble Lord why the amendment is unnecessary. Neither the existing legislation nor this Bill provide for the prescribing costs of individual GPs or their practices to be cash limited. We have no plans to introduce cash limiting at this level. What we are trying to do, as the White Paper The New NHS explained, is to ensure that clinical and financial

1323
responsibility is aligned within health authorities at primary care group level and subsequently at primary care trust level. That will be achieved by bringing together within a unified budget the costs of hospital and community health services, GP infrastructure investment and the drugs and appliances prescribed by GPs and community nurses. That will enable individual clinicians to decide both the most appropriate treatment in individual cases in the light of clinical efficacy and costs and also to look at the whole range of provision that is available in the round rather than in separated budget streams.
Within the overall local cash limit provided by the unified budget, primary care trusts will be able to decide how much they spend on prescribing. Individual practices will have an indicative budget for prescribing, but this will not be a cash limit. It will be a tool to assist primary care trusts in comparing the prescribing activities of their constituent practices. Many times in this Chamber we have drawn the attention of noble Lords to the wide differences that exist in prescribing patterns, and the importance of ensuring best practice in that regard.
I recognise that in moving this amendment the noble Lord may be seeking to prevent the inclusion of overall prescribing costs within the unified budget. However, I suggest that would defeat the purpose of establishing the unified budget and introduce for prescribing a disjunction between clinical and financial responsibilities. It would destroy the integrity of the unified budget and undermine one of the key commitments in the White Paper. For those reasons I cannot support the amendment that has been put forward.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: The Minister said that there will be no restrictions in this regard at this level. At what level will the restrictions apply? Will she explain to me in simpler English what an indicative budget is? Will she tell us a little more about the unified budget? Her reply was the most unsatisfactory that I have heard all day. She appeared to be trying to imply that there will be no limit on what is spent on the health service, when every one of us knows that no nation in the world can make an absolutely unlimited commitment in this regard. Our health service is free at the point of delivery. I hope the Minister will clarify this matter a little further.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: When the Minister replies to that question, I hope that she can also answer a question for me. Doctors in Scotland have raised this matter. The funding position in this respect appears to me to be about the same there. They are concerned that if drug costs within a trust rise steeply, the money they will need to develop the infrastructure of their practices—for example, if they wish to develop new computer systems—will not be available. They fear that
1324
their practice costs—apart from drug costs—will be squeezed. Is it part of the Government's plan to make trusts and GPs do the rationing?
Baroness Hayman: I shall try to achieve greater clarity in my explanation than I obviously did earlier. I was not trying to suggest that there would be no cash limits at all for the health service. Obviously there are cash limits in terms of the budget that is allocated nationally to the health service which then filters down through health authorities and primary care trusts. There will be an overall cash limited unified budget for primary care trusts. That is quite clear. However, beyond that there is the situation—
Lord Clement-Jones: I am sorry to interrupt the Minister but there is a comparison here in a sense with the current situation. As I understand the position, if non-fundholding GPs overspend on their drug budgets, the health authority then passes the request for payment through to the central department which pays it. Is the Minister saying that that flexibility will not be available to PCTs because their unified budget is cash limited at that level, unlike the position with health authorities at present?
Baroness Hayman: As to what would happen if an individual PCT overspends in any one year—which I think is the circumstance to which the noble Lord is referring—there are well-established risk-sharing arrangements which provide temporary financial assistance. Those arrangements are effective and it is our intention that they would continue for PCTs. They would therefore be available to a primary care trust if it overspent on the unified budget. I hope that that solves that problem.
Turning to the cash limited overall figure and how that then filters down in terms of drugs expenditure overall, both within the PCT and at practice level, the indicative budget is the amount which the PCT would expect a practice to spend for prescribing in that year. It is important that we have an indicative amount because that allows the practices to look at the ways in which they are managing issues like drug prescription against which they can make savings which can be ploughed back into the individual practice, as we discussed earlier.
But an indicative amount does not represent a cash limit. Cash will be managed by the PCT as a whole by offsetting any overspend in one area with reductions elsewhere.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: As I understand it, the indicative budget does not have built-in provision for the prescribing of drugs like Viagra. I am not talking about Viagra for relaxation or pleasure, but I have known practices where it has been prescribed for someone who matches every requirement—diabetes, kidney failure, everything under the sun—and yet other partners in the practice are very concerned because that absolutely unthought of and unknown expense has arisen.

1325
If the drug was available more widely than just for these few really difficult cases, it would absolutely blow holes through the budget for this year, next year and every other year. What amount will be built into the indicative budget for such miracle drugs, as I suppose one could call them?
Baroness Hayman: That has to come as part of the overall budgeting which looks at developments that are likely to take place, not only for drugs but for any other extra potential demand on services. As the noble Baroness will be aware, when AIDS and HIV hit the scene, the costs at first incurred were not particularly drug costs but hospital admission costs. Later the situation developed into more of a demand on the drugs budget.
Of course there is no absolute certainty. We are providing within a unified budget some flexibility for meeting the sorts of demands which may arise. We hope that the establishment of more national standards and the horizon scanning to be carried out by the national institute for clinical excellence with regard to when new drugs will come on to the market will be allowed to feed into the process of forward budgeting. The reason for increasing the NHS budget as much as we have is a recognition that there will be extra demands on the service and on the new services we want to provide.
In-year indicative budgets can be varied during the year if unforeseen and new costs arise. As to risk, the PCTs will carry through their risk-sharing arrangements with other PCTs and health authorities. There will be no great difference in the problems caused by a demand which may suddenly arise—to which the noble Baronesses have rightly referred—in this set up than in any other. But there is more of an advantage in bringing them together and not artificially separating out drug costs from any other costs.
9.45 p.m.
Earl Howe: I am still a little confused. It seems that two options are available here. If the unified PCT budget is set at such a level as to cope with all calls upon it for prescription medicines, it will be much too high for general purposes. If that happens, it can lead only to wastefulness because GPs will not be as cost conscious as they should be. If, on the other hand, the budget is set at an otherwise realistic level, there is a risk of the money running out. So I am not quite sure which option we should expect.
Baroness Hayman: The risk is of the indicative money rather than the real money running out. The risk is that the indicative sum is not correct. Because it is indicative it will not be certain that it is right. It is important that we have an indicative budget because we want to encourage GPs and other primary care practitioners to prescribe sensibly and cost effectively for the benefit of all patients. PCTs will monitor prescribing by their constituent practices to ensure that they are clinically effective and cost effective and that the maximum benefit to patients is obtained from the funds available. Practices will monitor their own prescribing both for financial purposes, which has been
1326
the subject of this debate, and to further clinical governance. Bad prescribing can be not just under prescribing but incorrect prescribing. Primary care trusts will be provided with a range of budgetary and performance management information to enable them to compare the performances of their practices.
What we are doing in the form of the guidance that we are giving and the assistance that we are putting in through, for example, computer-based prescription decision support systems like PRODIGY, will encourage a responsible use of indicative budgets. But there is built-in the flexibility both between other areas of expenditure within the practice and within the primary care trust if drug costs are higher than are expected in the indicative budgets, and flexibility is also built in if the primary care trust overall overspends in terms of what can be done by the health authority to cope with that at end year.
Lord Clement-Jones: I thank the Minister for taking us through this area. I feel as though I have been through a seminar on NHS finance speak. I am not sure whether I should have opened the door marked "finance". Perhaps we should have had a two-hour debate on the subject.
I welcome some of the Minister's assurances. It is rather ironic that this is an absolutely crucial aspect for PCTs and GP practices, but nowhere is it set out in the Bill. In a sense the value of this debate has been to flush out the Government's plans in that respect and to understand some of the terms which they are using. Of course at GP level it is important for GPs to be financially prudent in the way they operate their practices. PRODIGY, NICE and so on will have a major impact on their practices. I welcome the fact that they are to be indicative budgets as opposed to fixed budgets. However, there is huge faith that, because in a sense the PCT will be 50 or so GPs in total covering 100,000 patients, the swings will match the roundabouts. When it comes to the next level, when we talk about the cash-limited unified budget, will it have the flexibility to meet all those needs? Some of those issues have arisen in this debate. I cannot say that the current system as described by the Minister has any advantage over the system that pertains at present, whereby the health authority has a greater degree of flexibility, as I understand it, than the PCT will have in the future.
Baroness Hayman: I understand the difficulties of definition in terms of prescribing costs. This is a new area and there will be a change when we introduce unified budgets. We plan to bring forward at a later stage a government amendment to refine the definitions of prescribing costs that will be included in the budget of a given health authority or PCT. Perhaps at that point we may return to this issue. If it is done at an earlier point in the evening, perhaps I shall be clearer in my seminar giving. Neither the existing clauses nor the government amendment will allow cash limits to be imposed on individual GPs and their prescribing.
Lord Clement-Jones: I thank the Minister for that final clarification and for the confirmation that this

1327
matter will be reconsidered on a government amendment, although the form of that amendment is not clear at this stage.
Although the unified budgets are to be cash-limited, the Minister qualified that by saying that if a body found itself with problems of overspending, there would be some mechanism that would mean that it would not suffer. It was not clear whether that was temporary and whether the overspend would eventually have to be paid back. It would be useful at a future date to clarify what that emergency mechanism would be and how paying back the overspend would be dealt with. Greater clarification by letter or in some other form to medical practitioners would be enormously helpful. If we are uncertain, let us think how much greater is the uncertainty outside this Chamber about a matter that is crucial to the welfare of GP patients. To that extent it has been valuable to open the box marked "finance". I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?
Earl Howe: The Committee can relax. I have absolutely no intention of opposing the Question that the clause stand part of the Bill. I merely wish to ask the Minister a couple of questions about the clause.
The first relates to the powers of the Secretary of State to earmark funds for particular purposes and to direct PCTs to apply those funds for those purposes. It is a way of ring-fencing money. Will those powers of direction have the force of law?
Secondly, given that the new clinical governance arrangements, and particularly the guidance from NICE, will send GPs and clinicians down the desired channels, in what kinds of situation might the Secretary of State direct a PCT to use its money in a certain way? In other words, in what kinds of circumstances will priority-setting at a national level override the priorities that are set at a local level?
My final question concerns the provisions relating to asset sales. As I understand it, the Secretary of State may give directions to primary care trusts to pay back sums to health authorities that arise from the sale of assets or other charges payable to the trust in respect of assets that it holds. Am I correct? If I am, does the Minister agree that that could create a perverse incentive? Trusts might be reluctant to make proper and efficient use of assets, knowing that any extra revenue they received could be clawed back by the health authority, which could then presumably use the money on anything that it liked.
Baroness Hayman: In response to the noble Earl's last point, I understand the issue that he raises about a perverse incentive. The clause also brings primary care trusts into the capital charging regime of the NHS and the payment of capital charges on assets owned by NHS bodies provides an incentive for efficient asset management.
1328
The noble Lord asked me whether when the Secretary of State makes directions under this clause they will have the force of law. Yes, they will. But the circumstances in which specific directions will be made would, I assure noble Lords, be exceptional: for example, the out of hours development fund and possibly particular funds that are allocated to deal, for example, with winter pressures over a difficult period. We would not look at those directions as a means of enforcing the national guidance on national service frameworks or the advice that came out of NICE. The mechanisms of spreading good practice, clinical governance and reporting back to the commission for health improvement are the way in which we will test how local bodies adopt national advice. It is not envisaged that these powers of direction would be used in those circumstances. There will be much more limited and focused areas where ring-fencing was considered necessary.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Primary Care Trusts: provision of services etc.]:
Baroness Sharp of Guildford Baroness Sharp of Guildford moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 4, line 44, at end insert—
("( ) If a Primary Care Trust plans to make any changes in the services that it provides or arrangements it makes for the provision of goods or services to another health service body, then in preparing or reviewing any plan under this section it must consult, or seek the participation of, community health councils and voluntary organisations and members of the public who reside within Primary Care Trust areas, or any other area where people may be affected by the changes, and such other persons as the Secretary of State may direct.").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment follows directly from our earlier amendments about consultation. If we are asking for wide consultation about the setting up of primary care trusts, it follows that any subsequent major change in the role of the primary care trust in the services it provides or the way in which it operates should also be subject to consultation. I beg to move.
Baroness Hayman: The Government's aim for an establishment process is, as I said earlier in the day, that it is locally driven, takes account of all local views and is open and transparent. We envisage such proposals as being generated locally and the decision whether or not to establish the PCT will take into account a range of views.
When a primary care trust moves to a primary care group, with primary care trust level four status as provider of services—which clearly involves a reconfiguration of services—that primary care trust cannot be established until there has been consultation by the local health authority. I can assure the noble Baroness that the requirements for consultation currently in regulations, where there is a proposed substantial change in services, will he maintained for such changes proposed by primary care trusts after they are established.

1329
We also intend that where a primary care trust proposes a significant change in the provision of services for which it is responsible, there will be consultation requirements. In other words, we will ensure that the requirement now placed on health authorities in the Community Health Council Regulations 1996 to consult where there is a substantial variation in the services in their areas will also apply to changes proposed by primary care trusts after they have been established.
I hope that that will reassure the noble Baroness that we intend to ensure, through regulations, that there is appropriate local consultation before a PCT is involved in a significant change of provisions of services.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thank the noble Baroness for her reply. We take note of her assurances that there will be wide consultation on such matters. In the light of the reassurances from her, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McColl of Dulwich Lord McColl of Dulwich moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 5, line 9, at end insert—
("( ) Charges may not be imposed by the trust in respect of accommodation where that accommodation is for the purpose of receiving NHS treatment.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is designed to ensure that no primary care trust that manages a hospital of any kind can levy charges for accommodation on patients who receive NHS treatment. It is to probe whether the Government are still prepared to rule out such charges, as the Secretary of State did in his 1998 conference speech. He specifically said, "No new charges". The Government may argue that such a provision is part of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 and that this subsection merely brings the present system into line with previous arrangements. However, this is not required. If the Government are serious about not introducing new charges into the health service, they should not require such contingency clauses. The only explanation for its presence is that there may be a plan to introduce such charges in a future Parliament. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones: We on these Benches are sympathetic to the thrust of the amendment. We believe that the position needs to be elucidated, particularly where PCTs have these kinds of institutions within their control. I suspect that this particular amendment gives rise to problems since it would prohibit charging for certain types of beds for which it would be legitimate to make a charge. The amendment may therefore be too broad, but as a method of probing government intentions in this area it is very helpful.
Baroness Hayman: Noble Lords seek to probe the Government's intentions in this matter. Our intention is to maintain the commitment given by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health that there would be no new patient charges in the lifetime of this Parliament. I reassure the Committee that these are
1330
not new charges; nor do we expect this provision to have any impact on the number of amenity beds within the NHS where patients who receive NHS treatment may be charged for particular accommodation in a single or small room when they wish to have privacy. Any bed can be used as an amenity bed provided that no other patient has a clinical need for it; in other words, the exercise of this charging power must be ancillary to core health service functions. Our intention is simply to put PCTs on exactly the same footing as NHS trusts by replicating the powers that apply to NHS trusts' income-generating activities. To do less would put PCTs at an operating disadvantage and prevent community trusts which had these arrangements in place from continuing such arrangements when those trusts became PCTs.
Equally, as a safeguard we propose that PCTs are subject to the same restrictions as NHS trusts over the use of these powers. A PCT will not be able to exercise this power unless it is satisfied that to do so will not interfere significantly with the performance of its functions or its obligations under NHS contracts. In some instances the PCT may need Secretary of State consent. The new Clause 18A(6) allows the Secretary of State to specify in directions the circumstances in which PCTs require his consent to exercise their charging and income-generating powers. Such directions could, for example, specify an amount or percentage of income above which his consent is needed. We intend that NHS trusts will also be subject to these directions through the new powers in Clause 9. This will give the Secretary of State power to give similar directions to NHS trusts. It is our intention that PCTs will have no more than the same freedoms and be subject to exactly the same restrictions as NHS trusts when exercising their charging powers. I hope the Committee is reassured that this provision is a very limited one.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: I thank the Minister. I take it that she refers only to pay beds, if I may use that old-fashioned expression.
Baroness Hayman: According to my understanding of that term, pay beds were beds in NHS hospitals where private patients were admitted. This amendment deals specifically with circumstances in which a patient is receiving NHS treatment but in an amenity bed so that the treatment is provided free but a small supplement is paid so that the patient can have privacy if a single room is available that is not needed on clinical grounds for another NHS patient. This deals specifically with amenity beds.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: I thank the noble Baroness for that reassurance and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McColl of Dulwich Lord McColl of Dulwich moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 5, line 24, at end insert—
("( ) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision enabling a Primary Care Trust to enter into one or more agreements for the provision of specialist medical services for any area which includes that specified in its PCT order.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment arises from the concerns of the Joint Consultants Committee with which we are in sympathy. Every primary care trust and NHS trust must establish formal mechanisms for joint working and planning of district-wide services; and they should establish multi-disciplinary cross-sectional groups for each specialty. But there is a lack of clarity and detail in the Bill on the way in which the health services will work at district and regional level, and how services commissioned by primary care trusts will fit into this process.
The Bill does not make clear how the formal mechanisms for joint working will be achieved, and how the existing procedures for commissioning which are not working adequately can be improved. What mechanisms will be in place to achieve an overview of planning of regional level services commissioned by these primary care trusts? What mechanisms will there be to involve hospital consultants in the decision-making processes of the PCTs?
With the advent of patient focused services, NHS services need to be planned and executed jointly between the various agencies involved in commissioning and providing healthcare. Although the Bill makes provision for functions of primary care trusts, there is no clear direction for joint working between all relevant local health and social services agencies. Arrangements for joint working should be made more explicit by specifying the fora in which those agencies will discuss, consult and jointly plan local services. Without that provision it will be possible for different health authorities to develop different models of consultation which may lead to variations in the cohesiveness of the services.
An example of joint working and planning of services is the local diabetes service advisory groups (LDSAGs), of which there are currently approximately 160. They comprise GPs, specialists, nurses, dieticians, chiropodists, patients and others, and advise the district on diabetic services. This model could be used effectively in other specialties such as coronary heart disease and cancer.
I became aware of some of the budget problems when I chaired a national working party some years ago examining the provision of services for disabled people. We found that amputees were taken to the disablement services by ambulance in groups of five and 10; and it would be some hours before they eventually arrived at the centre, probably at midday when it often occurred that the people they went to see had gone for lunch. They waited several hours and the ambulance then returned to take them on the long journey back. It was obvious that a private taxi service, or even an expensive limousine service, would have been much cheaper, and
1332
quicker so that the service could have been better for the patient. But to extract the appropriate part of the ambulance service budget for such use was impossible. They were two quite separate authorities which did not interact or co-operate.
How do the Government intend to break down those kinds of barriers; and how will the PCTs become involved in the joint working arrangements between the various agencies involved in commissioning and providing healthcare?
Some of the services which are not commissioned locally are commissioned by a lead health authority on behalf of other health authorities in the region. Some services are provided on a regional or supra-regional basis. We wonder what would be the effect of this Health Bill on those services and how the services will be protected.
Finally, what will be the role of the regional offices in commissioning regional services such as cardiac or renal surgery? I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones: The noble Lord, Lord McColl, explained the amendment extremely cogently, with his great knowledge of the theatre face, so to speak. Medical specialists are confused about how commissioning will work. In discussing the functions of the PCTs, the Minister and the noble Baroness touched on some of the specialist services, dealing not only with the definition but also with what they encompass and what the department intended the PCTs would be able to commission by way of specialised services. She mentioned in particular AIDS and HIV treatment and several other areas. However, other so-called tertiary services will not be in the purview of the PCT but within the purview of the NHS region.
It is a difficult problem, no doubt in the course of being resolved. The consultation paper was published some considerable time ago and there has been a lot of time to put the whole thing together. Any clarification which can be given at this stage will be helpful because there is not a huge amount of time for the matters to be resolved.
Baroness Hayman: I am certainly happy to give as much clarification as I can. I must confess to the Committee that on reading the amendment we believe that it dealt with the provision of specialist medical services by primary care trusts rather than the commissioning role. The noble Lord's explanation in introducing the amendment made it clear that he wished to deal with the commissioning of specialist services, which are an important and difficult issue.
The broad policy commitments were made clear in the White Paper, The New NHS, and regional offices are now reviewing existing collective health authority arrangements for commissioning specialist services. Health authorities standing outside such arrangements where it would be clearly appropriate for them to join will be required to do so. Additional new arrangements should be introduced only where there are agreed plans supported by the necessary data and funding flows have been identified.

1333
In preparation for the year 1999 to 2000, regional offices are paying particular attention to the commissioning of cancer services, paediatric intensive care and the soundness of plans for renal services. Regional specialist service leads will collectively peer review arrangements in the spring of this year in order to ensure a consistency of approach and to share best practice. The list of services to be commissioned, which was put out in HSC198/98, forms a working brief and will he further defined in discussion with the field, and the national specialist commissioning advisory group will provide advice as required. National priorities for action will be identified, but regional offices should now be agreeing an annual programme of work of which services they will review and how they will develop arrangements for commissioning newly identified specialist services.
Obviously regional offices will be accountable for ensuring that there are effective arrangements for commissioning these specialised services in each region. There are a number of ways in which such arrangements have been and could be established, but the principles are clear. Clear, too, is the principle that health authorities and primary care groups, and in due course primary care trusts, will be required to participate in them. The arrangements should be capable of commanding the confidence of the clinical units concerned while being held accountable to the health authorities and primary care groups on whose behalf they will be commissioning specialised services. Regional offices will need to ensure that there is clear quality control and assurance mechanisms in place while minimising bureaucracy wherever possible.
These are complicated areas, but I hope that the Committee will be reassured that work is going forward to ensure that the proper arrangement for these difficult areas of specialist commissioning is being taken forward.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: I thank the Minister for that reply and I shall certainly study closely what she said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 agreed to.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Harris of Haringey Lord Harris of Haringey moved Amendment No. 55:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause—
INSPECTION OF PRIMARY CARE TRUST PREMISES BY COMMUNITY HEALTH COUNCILS
(". After section 18A of the 1977 Act (inserted by section 4) there is inserted—
"Inspection of premises by community health councils.
18B. Community health councils may enter and inspect any relevant Primary Care Trust premises at such times and subject to such conditions as may he agreed between the council and the Trust or, in default of such agreements, as may be determined by the Secretary of State."").
The noble Lord said: This amendment deals with the issue of rights of inspection by community health councils of relevant primary care trust premises. As this
1334
clause inserts a new section into a National Health Service Act, and that clause enables primary care trusts to arrange a range of personal medical and dental services, health visiting and district nursing services, many of which might in the past have been provided by Community Care Trusts, and in addition the Bill will enable the primary care trusts to establish or take over a range of community hospitals, it is important that we look at the question of the rights of community health councils, on behalf of the public and the users of the service, to inspect premises.
Since their creation in 1974 community health councils have been able to inspect NHS hospitals and other healthcare premises managed by the health service. Indeed, Clause 20 of the Community Health Council Regulations 1996 specifically states that community health councils may,
"enter and inspect any premises controlled by a relevant Health Authority or relevant NHS trust at such times and subject to such conditions as may be agreed between the Council and the Health Authority or NHS trust".
My concern in moving this amendment is that it is not entirely clear what is the status of primary care trust premises under these circumstances. The amendment seeks to achieve the right of CHCs to enter and inspect such premises in the same way as they are currently able to enter and inspect other NHS premises. It would be anomalous not to provide for CHCs to do so. It would potentially reduce public confidence in the services provided and indeed in the reforms brought forward in today's Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Hayman: I hope to deal briefly and satisfactorily with the amendment moved by my noble friend. We are absolutely in tune with the intention of this amendment. Provision has been made in paragraph 27 of Schedule 4 to the Bill for the power of CHCs to which he referred. That gives powers to include primary care trusts among those bodies who may be subject to inspection by community health councils. Paragraph 27 provides for the amendment of the NHS Act 1977 to place primary care trusts in a similar position to health authorities and NHS trusts on a number of matters relating to CHCs. We will be consulting on amendments to the appropriate secondary legislation in due course.
In the light of that, I hope that my noble friend will not feel it necessary to have a provision on the face of the Bill. I am happy to give him a clear commitment that we will amend the community health council regulations to give effect to the proposal in his amendment. I hope therefore he will not feel the need to press it.
Lord Harris of Haringey: I am grateful to the Minister for her extremely helpful reply. I shall study in detail the section of the schedule to which she refers and ensure that I understand it. However, under the circumstances, and given that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 [Primary Care Trusts: trust funds and trustees]:
[Amendment No. 56 not moved.]
Lord McColl of Dulwich Lord McColl of Dulwich moved Amendment No. 57:
Page 5, line 39, at end insert ("other than the management of any acute hospital").
The noble Lord said: By preventing trustees of primary care trusts from managing any hospital, the purchaser/provider split is reinforced. If PCTs are allowed to manage hospitals, an inefficient situation is likely to emerge whereby the same body is responsible for the commissioning and delivery of care; indeed, not just primary care but hospital care also. The overwhelming consensus among health economists is that the purchaser/provider split has been good for our health service and resulted in an increased efficiency and better patient care.
Although the effects of the Bill are likely to be minor in the medium term with regard to the extent to which the split is compromised, the fact that it would be technically possible for a primary care trust to take over and run a major acute hospital has to be seen as a retrograde step.
The Minister may have already mentioned this topic when I was not in attendance, but perhaps she would comment on it. If the Government really do believe in the purchaser/provider split, and the benefits it brings to the National Health Service, how exactly will a PCT at level four enjoy the advantages of the purchaser/provider split? I beg to move.
Baroness Hayman: I was somewhat unclear about whether the amendment was seeking to restrict the trustees of primary care trusts from applying funds for the management of acute hospitals or for the benefit of patients in acute hospitals generally. If the former, the amendment is superfluous because charitable funds may not be used to substitute Exchequer responsibilities, which include the management of an acute hospital. I fear that perhaps we are a little at cross purposes. However, I am addressing the effects of the proposed amendment as I understand it to be. If the latter is the case, the restriction would be wrong. It would prevent the trustees from applying funds to provide a seamless service between the acute and primary care sectors and we would expect trustees for NHS trusts to apply funds held for any NHS purpose across this boundary, where appropriate.
Trustees are personally and severally liable for their actions. They have to apply funds for the purposes specified by donors. Applying funds for the management of an acute hospital would not be a proper use of such funds. Trustees must apply charitable funds in accordance with donors' wishes. It would be wrong for the amendment to restrict the trustees.
1336
In replying in those terms, I am conscious of the fact that I am not exactly meeting the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord McColl. However, I think I am speaking to the effect of his amendment because it deals with trustees.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: I thank the Minister for that. I think perhaps we need to redraft the amendment and make it clearer. That was our fault. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 6, line 11, at end insert—
("( ) An order under subsection (1) shall specifically exclude from appointment—

(a) any persons currently serving a term of office as a local authority representative, or

(b) any persons holding a contract of remuneration with any political party."").

The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 58, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 59.
There are two schools of thought about allowing overtly political appointees to serve on health boards, whether NHS trusts or PCTs. One is what I believe to be the Government's school of thought; that is, that the more local councillors who are appointed, the more "representative" the board is of the area it covers. The other point of view, which I hold, is the opposite; that is, that the politicisation of healthcare is inherently bad.
There is also a view, which I have heard the Labour Party articulate, that having local councillors on a trust board confers on it an additional democratic legitimacy. We heard a similar view put forward earlier today by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. I disagree with the whole premise underlying that view. What matters on any board is that it is properly accountable in practice to those it serves—and accountable within the NHS structure. A PCT board will be accountable to patients in terms of the way in which its services are delivered, but it will also be accountable to its health authority and ultimately to the Secretary of State for its overall performance and for the manner in which money is spent.
I believe very firmly that we should not confuse representation with accountability. Transparency can be achieved without introducing a spurious democratic underpinning. A trust is not a local authority. I shall be very glad to hear the Minister's comments on that.
The Department of Health's circular of 19th February spoke of the Government wanting PCTs to be,
"firmly rooted in the local community and to be responsive to local people's health needs and wishes".
"Hear, hear" to that, but it by no means follows that serving local authority representatives are the people best placed to articulate local views. I would rather exclude local councillors altogether and anyone in the pay of any political party.
I do not want to introduce any sour note into the sweetness and light of this Committee, but I am sorry to say that in the past we have seen very clearly how the Government have succeeded in engineering the

1337
balance of political appointments on NHS trust hoards in favour of the Labour Party. The statistics published a year ago relating specifically to local councillors showed that 84 per cent. were Labour; 3 per cent. Conservative, and 11 per cent. Liberal Democrat. However, it is not only the party imbalance that is offensive—although it is—it is the fact that the boards are being politicised. A non-executive director of a board should be chosen for his or her ability to make a contribution to that board and not for his or her political credentials. We need checks and balances in the system. Under the current proposals, the Secretary of State will appoint the chairmen and the five lay members of the PCT boards.
In the amendments I propose that appointments with an overtly political affiliation should be eschewed and that the Nolan rules should also apply as a further safeguard to bring the appointments into line with others in the public sector. I have also suggested that the Commissioner for Public Appointments should, for the first time, have the power to revoke any appointment in any case where there has been a breach of the rules on openness and accountability. I beg to move.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I rise to support Amendment No. 59, but to oppose Amendment No. 58. On these Benches, we believe that there is no reason why the Government should exclude from membership of a hoard of trustees those with a political affiliation who are serving in public office or those who are serving their party in an official capacity. It seems to us that many such people can serve as trustees extremely well. They should not be discriminated against in this way. However, we support the Opposition in Amendment No. 59 because we believe that it is right that the Nolan principles should apply here.
Lord Warner: I rise to oppose Amendments Nos. 58 and 59. Amendment No. 58 seems an unreasonable infringement of people's civic rights. It has nothing to do with political appointments. I recognise that Conservative Party headquarters has the winds of McKinseyism sweeping through it and there may be fewer people available to them from those sources to fill these appointments in the future. However, I would still defend their right to he eligible for appointment in the same way as I think members of local authorities, if they are suitable people, should be available for appointment. I suggest that the restriction on local authority members is totally inconsistent with Clauses 19 to 25 of the Bill and the encouragement of partnership between local authorities and the NHS.
On Amendment No. 59, I am mildly surprised at the source from which it is being moved. If this amendment had been in place pre-1997, I can think of a large number of people who would have made representations to the commissioner for public appointments, suggesting that he reviewed those appointments. I seem to recall that a Member of this House (who is not present) when she was a junior Minister went on public record as never having knowingly appointed a member of the Labour Party to a public body. We need to be a little careful in
1338
our approach and I suggest that we abide by the long-standing tradition of accepting appointments by Ministers as being in the public interest.
10.30 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: When it is implied that political appointments should be made all one way or all the other, that really began with the Wilson government: that was the very beginning. Until that time there was a fairly even balance of parties on all health authorities. I remember clearly that Lady Petrie, who had served absolutely outstandingly for many years, was heartbroken when she was put off whatever board she was on on a purely political basis. It was from that day on that when the government next changed, they did what the previous Labour government had done. This bad policy came from that time. It is now time that we started being more fair and appointed everyone on their merits, and only on their merits. This amendment, which says that it should be possible to remove someone if the Nolan standards are not being complied with, contains a desirable principle, because there are occasions when someone may have been appointed under false pretences. This would then be a protection.
Baroness Hayman: I am in a dilemma. I could enter into the general debate on the appropriateness of those who are members of local authorities serving on the boards of primary care trusts. That has been the thrust of the contributions that have been made so far. But it would be wrong of me not to remind the Committee that these amendments—and we are having the same problems here as we had with the one before—apply not to the members of the boards of primary care trusts but simply to the trustees of any charitable funds that are held by the primary care trusts. That is why I was somewhat bemused earlier. Now I understand what the problem is.
Clause 5(1) deals with trust funds and trustees, not with the membership of boards; and so I am not going to be tempted into argument over political balance. What I would like to make clear is our belief that it would be wrong to disqualify local councillors from membership of trust boards to which membership does not apply and even more wrong to disqualify them from being a charitable trustee, to which the amendment actually does apply. There are sufficient safeguards in charity law to protect the interests of donors to those charities and to exclude people who have particular criminal convictions, who are undischarged bankrupts, who have previously been removed from a trusteeship or who are under a company director disqualification order. Charity law imposes strict obligations on trustees to apply funds solely for the purposes specified by donors.
However, perhaps I may respond to the general issue. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health has already made absolutely clear that all public appointments made by him or on his behalf will be made in accordance with the key principles laid down by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. That commitment will also apply to the appointment of charitable trustees.

1339
We do want the process of appointing the members of primary care trust boards to be subject to those Nolan procedures. As with other NHS appointments, the posts will be advertised and made after a selection process involving an independent person on the board. Regional chairmen will then make recommendations to the Secretary of State.
The clear responsibility set out by the Commissioner for Public Appointments is that the ultimate responsibility for appointments rests with Ministers. That is why we do not believe, either in the specific of charitable trustees or in the general, that we should extend the powers of the Commissioner for Public Appointments so that he could overrule the Secretary of State. It is right that a decision made by the Secretary of State should not be revoked at the discretion of another individual. There are procedures of judicial review already in place to ensure that Secretaries of State use their powers properly. Moreover, in circumstances like those outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, where something totally inappropriate and against the Nolan procedures inadvertently happened, I am sure that the Secretary of State would wish to remove that person from membership.
However, some good has perhaps inadvertently come out of this misunderstanding. As I said, it is our intention that all public appointments made by the Secretary of State, or on his behalf, should be made in accordance with the key principles laid down by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. That will include appointments to PCTs as well as to the bodies of charitable trustees. Therefore, I can tell the Committee that we are going to take appropriate steps to ensure that these bodies are added to the list of bodies which, by Order in Council, fall within the jurisdiction of the Commissioner for Public Appointments. So perhaps we will have added a extra layer of safeguard for the trustees of charitable funds in the course of our debates tonight.
Earl Howe: I am extremely grateful to the Minister for answering in that very full way, given the embarrassing circumstances in which I find myself. I owe her an apology from these Benches because we have misplaced these amendments in the Bill; indeed, they clearly should have gone somewhere else. So I express many thanks to the Minister, and especially for what she said about the Government's approach to the Nolan rules. That is most helpful. I believe that that principle has generally found favour around the Committee.
I should like to say a few words to the noble Lord, Lord Warner, about my noble friend. Not only is she unable to be present here this evening but she is also extremely ill. I feel that I should say in her defence—as she made clear at the time that that remark, which the noble Lord referred to, appeared in the press—that it was not that she had been actively discriminating against the Labour Party: it was that whenever she made an appointment she took absolutely no account of what party the person was a member of. I felt that I should make that clear, as my noble friend did at the time,
1340
because the remark has been taken grossly out of context in quite the wrong way. I consider it my duty to defend my noble friend as she is not here to do so for herself. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 59 not moved.]
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Payments relating to past performance]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 6, line 21, at end insert—
("(3CC) The objectives referred to in subsection (3C) above shall not include Health Authority or NHS Trust performance with regard to waiting times for out-patient consultations or waiting lists for surgery.").
The noble Earl said: This amendment addresses an issue which relates once again to political interference in clinical decision-making. The waiting list pledge in the Government's election manifesto, which the Government kept on referring to as an early pledge—although quite what is early about it I do not know—seems to me a complete millstone around their necks. It is a millstone not only because waiting lists are a false indicator of patient need, but also because they are having to move heaven and earth to achieve the pledge to cut waiting list numbers by 100,000 below the figure that they inherited. The recent trends in the waiting lists for surgery have been downwards. However, as the official figures show, this has been achieved, at least in part, by increasing the length of time that patients have to wait to get onto the waiting list in the first place. That has been brought about by placing pressure on clinicians to hold fewer clinics and more surgical sessions. The result is that there are fewer hours in the day when they can see patients to determine whether they should go on the waiting list for surgery. That build-up is more serious than a build-up on the waiting list proper because urgent cases cannot be assessed or prioritised.
But waiting lists have also been cut by means of artificial diktats on routine operations. In many health service regions some operations are simply no longer available. I refer to operations for non-acute varicose veins, lipomas, sebaceous cysts and hernias, for example. Perhaps more seriously, we are seeing quick, simple procedures being performed ahead of more complex and often more serious operations. If you can improve the turnover of cases, the bare numbers recorded as "waiting" will, of course, fall. But what does that do to the principle that doctors and consultants live by, that clinical need should determine priorities? The priorities are being distorted in other ways too. However, my vow of brevity prevents me from cataloguing them. But the point is a straightforward one. It is truly bad when political imperatives from the centre come between the doctor and his patient. I beg to move.
Baroness Hayman: It is probably not the time of night to start arguing the toss with the noble Earl about the waiting list pledge made in our manifesto which we intend to keep and which I believe is of major importance to patients. I shall simply say that he is right to point out the increased demand for outpatient

1341
appointments but not right to suggest that this is caused by an irresponsible concentration on in-patient work. What we have seen is a vast increase in the number of referrals. There are more out-patient sessions and more out-patients being seen; there are more in-patients being seen; and more emergency cases are being treated. It is not a case of one section of work displacing another.
When we discuss "the waiting list for the waiting list" it is important to recognise that not everyone who attends an out-patient appointment will go onto a waiting list for an in-patient appointment—that happens only to about 50 per cent. of patients. Some of the biggest increases in out-patient waiting times have been in specialities such as dermatology which seldom occasion in-patient treatment. With the greatest of respect, I suggest to the noble Earl that he has grossly oversimplified the situation. That covers the general point.
As to the amendment, the aim of the clause is to allow the Secretary of State to introduce a scheme for rewarding those health authorities that make good progress against the targets and the objectives laid down in their health improvement programmes. I stress that they are laid down in the health improvement programme—which is very much a joint enterprise—rather than in some political diktat from the centre.
It is crucial that the Secretary of State is able to take into account the full and wide range of factors necessary to judge health authorities' success in improving the health of their local communities and tackling local health inequalities. The Bill must not therefore dictate which of the health improvement programme targets can be considered or constrain which objectives can be used.
The amendment, if accepted, would result in a loss of flexibility around the objectives against which that performance could be assessed. As such, it would undermine the ability of the Secretary of State to tailor a rewards scheme to support health improvement in the areas that he felt to be the most deserving of support.
I can reassure the Committee that the powers derived from this clause will not be used simply to reward the best performing health authorities. They will reward those authorities which make good progress against the targets of their health improvement programmes. That will mean that health authorities will be judged on their own relative performance and all authorities—including those starting from a low baseline—will be eligible. The scheme will not, therefore, simply allocate additional monies to those health authorities with the shortest waiting lists, and will not ignore those areas where waiting lists remain longer.
We wish to reward health authority success across the full range of health improvement programme targets. I hope the Committee will agree that it would therefore be inappropriate to include this sort of constraining detail on the face of the Bill.
10.45 p.m.
Earl Howe: Once again I thank the Minister for her very full reply. I shall study carefully what she has said. It is no part of my intention ever to over-simplify and therefore perhaps misrepresent an argument—I certainly
1342
would not wish to do that. Nevertheless, I still believe that the position is extremely serious. I shall be very surprised if we do not return to the matter on a future occasion. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford Baroness Sharp of Guildford moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 6, line 38, at end insert—
("(3G) Where the Secretary of State reduces the allotment to any Health Authority, he shall publish details of the reasons for the reduction."").
The noble Baroness said: The amendment is aimed at greater transparency. A month ago, in the general debate about the National Health Service, I spoke about the financial difficulties of my own local health authority, the West Surrey Health Authority. At present—as with much local government finance as well as with National Health Service finance—precisely how the total NHS budget is divided up between different health authorities is, for many people, a total mystery. The noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, a short while ago, spoke about the advantage of having a clear framework against which performance can be judged.
We would like to see more information in the public domain as to why decisions have been taken. A requirement to publish details of the reasons for any reduction in budget should ensure consistency of treatment between one health authority and another, and help to promote a greater understanding among the general public of the rationale underlying such resource allocations. I beg to move.
Baroness Hayman: I can quite understand the rationale behind the amendment moved by the noble Baroness. I would suggest to her that its import is not helpful. The amendment would mean that the Secretary of State would have to publish details of why he had clawed back some or all of the additional allocation awarded to a health authority on the basis of its past performance, where it had failed to deliver.
The aim of the clause as it stands is to allow the Secretary of State to introduce a scheme for rewarding those health authorities which make good progress against targets and objectives laid out in the health improvement programme, as I said when dealing with the previous amendment. As part of the process for selecting those health authorities to be rewarded, eligible authorities will be required to submit costed outlines of exactly how they propose to use the additional moneys and which elements of their health improvement programmes they wish to bring forward. It would not be sensible to include every detail of that on the face of the Bill.
I can perhaps reassure the noble Baroness that the intention to withdraw funds would arise only if they were misspent or not applied to the purpose for which they were agreed. I can perhaps further reassure her that the Secretary of State would make clear in letters to health authorities the reasons for any reduction in their

1343
allocations. There would therefore be an element of transparency. I hope that that will be enough to reassure the noble Baroness.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thank the Minister for her reassurance on this issue. In the light of her answer, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Directions]:
Lord McColl of Dulwich Lord McColl of Dulwich moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 7, leave out lines 3 to 28.
The noble Lord said: I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 62 and 64 which concern medical workforce planning. I should declare an interest. I have been closely associated with training junior hospital doctors for the past 40 years and I actually ran a training programme which attempted to solve some of these problems and on which the Calman training scheme was based. I should also declare an interest in that 20 of my relatives have been closely associated with the NHS over some years.
The purpose of these amendments is to try to move some way to restore the morale of junior hospital staff whose future in some specialties is becoming bleaker week by week. There is a desperate need for suitable and effective overall planning for the workforce in the National Health Service. Several groups have looked into the problems and needs of the medical workforce and they have made recommendations, but there is no process to ensure that those recommendations are approved and implemented.
National Health Service trusts must employ sufficient medical consultants in each of the relevant specialties to provide such services to meet the quality requirement in Clause 13 of the Bill. It is notoriously difficult to estimate accurately the workforce requirements for consultants in various specialties but there is a committee called the Specialty Workforce Advisory Group, known as SWAG, which does the best it can in estimating the requirements for new consultant posts. Unfortunately, it often operates in a vacuum in recommending the number of trainees because the evidence and the figures which it receives are often invalid.
With all the difficulties of the Specialty Workforce Advisory Group, it does its best to make sensible recommendations, but no mechanism is in place to ensure that the recommendations on the number of consultants that are required are acted upon. The colleges and the BMA have pointed out to me that the classic example of this at the moment can be seen in the obstetric and gynaecological scene where, this year, there will be 200 fully trained obstetricians and gynaecologists but only 50 consultant posts will be available. In the following year, that figure will go up to 250, and in the year after that, to 350. What an appalling waste. These people are being told that when they come to the end of their training this year they will
1344
not have a job. There is nowhere for them to go and they will be unemployed. Several have already been laid off. Each of the trainees has been in training for 20 years. Noble Lords will understand how demoralising that can be. The National Health Service is a monopoly employer: there is nowhere else for them to go. It is not possible to set up in private practice in obstetrics and gynaecology just like that; and emigration is increasingly difficult.
When recommendations were made about the numbers to be trained in obstetrics and gynaecology it was agreed, and assumed, that the increase in new consultant posts created every year would continue. It was increasing. However, during the past year it has decreased by 33 per cent. The situation is desperate. This is not a party-political matter.
The situation is desperate, also, because the quality of service in the obstetrics and gynaecological world is now deteriorating; 65 per cent. of all medical litigation cases are to be found in that specialty. Many trusts are faced with scores, if not hundreds, of outstanding legal cases which will cost the NHS many millions of pounds. That money has to come out of funds that should go towards patient care. The situation will inevitably result in fewer patients being treated.
There is a tremendous wish to reduce the number of people on the waiting list. We on this side of the committee have always said that the number is totally irrelevant. It is how long people wait that matters. If we did what we should do—namely increase the number of consultants by the extra 4,000 that are needed immediately—it would increase the number of people on the waiting list but the length of time they waited would be greatly reduced.
I am aware that there is no waiting list for obstetric cases—apart from the nine-month waiting list—so there is not quite the same demand to reduce the number of people waiting, unless one is in the business of population control. But we need 4,000 more hospital consultants. That figure is agreed by the BMA, the Colleges and the Department of Health.
The need for an expansion in the consultant grade is agreed. However, a different kind of job is being created which falls outside the approved training structure. Increasing numbers of sub-consultant grade doctors are being appointed. The NHS is wasting valuable resources by employing non-consultant career grade doctors who, unfortunately, are not able to provide the comprehensive service that patients deserve.
It is clear that the Secretary of State must have the power to act promptly. He could use some of the extra £21 billion, about which we keep hearing, that is to be given to the NHS for the next three years to create, this year at least, 200 consultant posts across the board. That emergency measure would tide the NHS over the present crisis. But the amendment that we propose, to give power to the Secretary of State to act in this field, is designed to help solve the problems of medical workforce planning in the long term. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones: I support the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord McColl, has raised a novel concept—

1345
not a declaration of interest but a declaration of relatives! I suppose I should declare that I have a nephew who is a registrar in obstetrics. In the recent debate that we held on the National Health Service the noble Lord was as cogent in his remarks on the shortage of consultants in the obstetrics area as he was today. As he explained, it does not stop there, it exists in other areas. The current situation is that trainees coming through will find at the end of their training that they cannot get consultants jobs. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Winston, raised the issue in his own areas of expertise. The problem exists right across the board.
One issue that concerns me is the speed at which the Government are assessing the issues arising out of the Calman training reforms and the New Deal. The Calman training reforms impose certain requirements in terms of accreditation and requirements on the consultants themselves. Also, the New Deal means that the training junior doctors are undertaking is more difficult because they spend fewer hours being trained. Then there arise issues such as whether, even at the end of accreditation, they will be trained to the same standard as those who are now consultants. There is a whole slew of issues which relate strongly to the question of consultant posts.
The answer that the Minister gave me a couple of months ago was that the assessment was taking place over a three-year period and there would be no interim report. That struck me as being a slow-boat-to-China type of approach to an important issue.
One of the key concerns throughout is that over a period of time the duties of consultants have changed dramatically. They are now the key pivotal persons throughout the care process, whereas before it was different. For example, when my late wife trained a whole hierarchy of people were in the hospital, such as junior housemen. They were obviously madly exploited, they worked one in two, but there was a continuous system of healthcare, through the junior housemen, senior housemen, registrars and so on. Now, effectively, the consultant is the only person who is really responsible for providing that round-the-clock care.
The issue of how many consultants there are and how they are trained in the health service is of great importance. That is why I have considerable sympathy with the concept of workforce planning, which needs to be grasped. I ask the Minister whether there is some way in which the evaluation of the Calman reforms, their impact on consultant posts and so on should be accelerated. It is getting to crisis proportions, as those who are consultants will say. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: On a different point, I have been struggling with the juxtaposition of the new Section 17 of the 1977 Act, as described in Clause 7, with Schedule 5A to the same Act, which is Schedule 1 to the Bill. The new Section 17 (1) states:
"The Secretary of State may give directions to any of the bodies mentioned in subsection (2) below".
That includes primary care trusts. A little further we discover that he cannot give any directions which may
1346
be given under paragraph 9 of Schedule 5A (Schedule 1 to this Bill). Paragraph 9 states:
"the Secretary of State may direct a Primary Care Trust … to make the services of any of its officers available to another Primary Care Trust, or to employ any person who is or was employed by another Primary Care Trust and is specified in the direction".
It seems to me that the two overlap to a horrendous degree. One wonders, taking these two together, what adjustment is being proposed. At some stage, probably not tonight because I suspect the answer is complicated, perhaps the noble Baroness would write to me on it.
Baroness Hayman: I am immensely grateful to the noble Lord for those final comments. The issue is extremely complicated. No Members of the Committee spoke to Amendment No.62, before the noble Lord rose. That amendment deals with those issues and interrelationships. I would have had to warn the Committee that, as it stands, taking out Section 16C, while repealing Section 13 in subsection (4) would wreck not only our proposals for primary care trusts, but basically the whole existing legislative structure of the NHS. No one who has spoken in support of the amendment today could have had that intention because it would be dramatic. There are complicated interrelationships here as the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale pointed out. Perhaps the best way to clarify the matter is to set it out in a letter to him. However, I urge the Committee not to accept Amendment No.62 as currently drafted because it would have far greater repercussions than first envisaged.
As to Amendment No. 64, we have heard some very eloquently expressed and strongly felt concerns, which I well understand, about workforce planning issues within the NHS, in particular the training of consultants and the effects of the Calman reforms. Some of the problems that arise, whatever workforce planning regime is adopted in the NHS, are related perhaps to the period during which decisions must be made because of the length of time required to train someone to reach consultant status and the changes that take place in terms of the service required. I do not minimise the effects that unsuccessful and flawed workforce planning can have on both trainees who look for appointment and the service as a whole—I have had experience of this—when there is a shortage of trained personnel to provide much-needed services. We all agree that there is a need to improve workforce planning arrangements, and the Government are taking a number of steps to that end. There are complex variables involved in the process. We must ensure that we are more successful than we have been sometimes in the past.
As the noble Lord, Lord McColl, points out, there is a particular issue related to specialist registrars in obstetrics and gynaecology and the flawed planning that has occurred in that specialty. In the past the noble Lord has argued very cogently—I have some sympathy with him—that there is a need for a more consultant-led service with the benefits that can bring not only in quality of service but in a reduction in litigation in obstetrics and gynaecology. Currently, a working group comprising NHS management and members of the medical and midwifery professions is considering the

1347
difficulties experienced by specialist registrars and issues related to the provision of quality service. That group will be reporting to Ministers shortly. There is perhaps hope of making some progress although it is a difficult area that involves a large number of people. The noble Lord, Lord McColl, made reference to emergency measures that sorted things out in the short term. I know only too well that because of the tenure of consultants the commitment to employ them within the NHS becomes a very long-term and expensive one. I do not minimise the very real problems that exist in that area.
I turn to the specific amendment that has given rise to the debate on workforce planning. I believe that it would be inappropriate for the Committee to accept it and allow directions to be made in matters of medical workforce planning. In any case, it is not something that should be set out on the face of an NHS trust establishment order. It is not a core function of that trust. We are working with NHS trusts and other NHS bodies to develop local workforce planning linked to service plans across sectors and professions.
We believe that the approach of co-operation, not diktat from the Secretary State, is the way forward. It could be interpreted that the amendment is intended to have the effect of requiring NHS trusts to employ as consultants all the trained doctors supplied through national medical workforce planning processes. I think that that is the wrong way to take the issue. Quality of service to patients must drive local planning, including workforce planning. The noble Lord is right to suggest that the quality of service is related to the availability of trained consultant staff. But I do not think that as a matter of principle any employer should be required to employ every person who has the appropriate qualifications, whether or not the needs of the service dictate that.
For those reasons I hope that the noble Lord will not press the amendment.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: I thank the Minister for that reply. No one suggests for one moment that all the people who are trained in a speciality should be guaranteed jobs. But we have a monopoly employer. What will happen to these people? All I seek is some rapid response mechanism. A rapid response is required.
Many other specialties have problems. We happen to have these statistics. There was a 33 per cent. reduction in the number of consultants appointed last year. That is the problem. That has to be corrected. It could be corrected now. I do not ask for more money. The Department of Health is proposing to take away £5.4 million from the budget of the obstetric registrar training scheme. With £5.4 million one can create 40 consultant posts immediately. We need a rapid response mechanism.
I know the problem. I do not criticise the Minister. If the noble Baroness went to the NHS Executive and said, "We need to appoint an extra 50 (or whatever number) of consultants this year", it would say, "No, we cannot possibly do that. We need notice of that"—and that
1348
would be a year or more. It does not react rapidly enough to crisis situations. The amendment seeks to create a mechanism whereby the Secretary of State can act to implement arrangements which have been agreed by the whole profession, the department and all the colleges. That is all I seek.
However, it does not look as though I shall achieve that. We shall return to the issue. Many in this Committee are prepared to fight tooth and nail to put the problem right.
Lord Clement-Jones: Before the noble Lord sits down, he spoke about the rapid reaction process. I support him on that. However, does he agree that one needs also to evaluate the Calman reforms more rapidly than at present?
Lord McColl of Dulwich: I agree entirely with that. I do not suggest that we rush headlong. We need to create these extra consultant posts immediately, but we need evaluation.
The noble Lord may think that we have a problem at present. However, the problem that we shall have in four or five years is enormous. We are continuing to create vast numbers of senior house officers. What will happen to them? We are in a terrible crisis. We need solutions. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 63:
Page 8, line 16, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Earl said: This is a probing amendment, but it is important. It picks up an issue identified by the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee of your Lordships' House.
Clause 7(2) of the Bill replaces Section 18 to the National Health Service Act 1977 and covers ways in which directions by the Secretary of State may be given to health authorities, special health authorities, primary care trusts and NHS trusts. These directions may be given in one of two ways: by regulations or by an instrument in writing. Some may be given only by an instrument in writing. Where regulations are made they will be subject to the negative procedure, but where the Secretary of State issues an instrument in writing this will not be subject to any parliamentary procedure.
My question to the Minister is the one posed by the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. With the wider powers of direction conferred on the Secretary of State by the Bill, on what basis will he choose one course of action rather than the other? The position is not straightforward, because not only are PTCs and trusts being brought for the first time within the scope of the direction-making powers, but we also have provisions in Section 126(3) and (4) of the 1977 Act which give a specific power to vary or revoke a direction and extend a power so that it may be exercised:
"in relation to all cases … or … subject to specified exceptions, or in relation to any specified cases and classes of case".
All that is rather baffling to the lay reader. How prescriptive does the Secretary of State intend to be? Which kind of direction or prescription will be subject

1349
to which kind of procedure? Which will receive parliamentary scrutiny and which will not? I beg to move.
11.15 p.m.
Baroness Hayman: I am grateful for the noble Earl's assurance that this is a probing amendment. If one took it alone it would severely disrupt the system of delegation of functions within the NHS as they have gone on for some time. It would leave the provisions of the new Section 17 about directions to NHS trusts in the exercise of their functions without any clear parliamentary scrutiny. I am sure that was not what he intended. Taken by itself, the amendment would substantially weaken rather than strengthen the degree of parliamentary scrutiny over the delegation of functions.
The amended Clause 18 provides that the delegation of certain functions to PCTs must always be subject to negative procedure rather than none at all; for example, the delegation of GMS regulations. In general, regulations made in relation to Part II of the 1977 Act—and GMS functions are Part II functions—would be subject to the negative procedure. We believe that that is entirely appropriate, given the nature of these functions. The amendment would break that relationship. We are ensuring that the correct level of parliamentary scrutiny is given in the areas where it is important that parliamentary scrutiny takes place. That will be done by the negative procedure, which the Select Committee found acceptable as a way forward. I hope that that somewhat clarifies the situation for the noble Earl.
Earl Howe: I am grateful to the Minister. It does somewhat clarify the position, although it is an extremely complicated set of provisions. That is why I tabled the amendment. I must do better in future; I must find a way of tabling a probing amendment which does not put the frighteners on the Minister or her officials. But this is the only way I know how to do it.
I shall study what the Minister has said, and in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Establishment orders]:
[Amendment No. 64 not moved.]
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Exercise of powers]:
Lord Harris of Haringey Lord Harris of Haringey moved Amendment No. 65:
Page 9, line 45, leave out from first ("the") to ("and") in line 46 and insert ("provision of services to NHS patients by the NHS Trust or by any other health service body,").
The noble Lord said: I am conscious that the hour is late and that Clause 9, at least for someone like me, is extremely difficult to follow. I trust therefore that Amendments Nos. 65 and 66 have the effects I seek.
As I understand it, Clause 9 amends Section 5(9) of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 and that places limits on NHS trusts' exercise of their charging or income generation powers. The changes that Clause 9 brings are to be welcomed in that they make it clear that the functions of NHS trusts will be to provide goods and services for the purpose of the health service. That is clearly progress.
However, in addition to fulfilling their obligations under NHS contracts, NHS trusts are permitted to provide services to private patients and to charge for those. Given, as I may have commented earlier, that NHS trusts are publicly funded and have had transferred to them significant NHS assets, it is important that they are not permitted to operate private health services in such a way as could disadvantage NHS patients or adversely affect the ability of other health service bodies to carry out their functions and obligations to the NHS.
It is my view that any private activities engaged in should be stated to be ancillary to the core functions of providing NHS services and in any event should not be provided in such a way as to be detrimental to the interests of the NHS patients. I believe that is the purpose of the amendments and I hope that that is their effect. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I thank my noble friend and fully appreciate the point that he makes in wishing to ensure that NHS trusts are subject to appropriate controls when carrying out charging and income generation activities, in particular the point that such activities should not interfere with the provision of services to NHS patients.
The Bill strengthens the commitment of NHS trusts to health services; that is why Clause 9 extends the current provisions in Section 5 of the 1990 Act. It ensures that the exercise of an NHS trust's charging and income generation powers should not, to a significant extent, interfere with any of its functions or obligations. That includes its primary function of providing services to NHS patients. But, importantly, it also includes other functions that would not be covered under this amendment—for instance, the trust's duties as an employer; its obligations under the new duties of quality and partnership; and any new functions under the partnership provisions such as providing social care.
As a further safeguard, Clause 9 enables the Secretary of State to specify in directions circumstances in which NHS trusts require his consent to exercise their charging and income generation powers. This power could be used, for example, to specify a level of income above which an NHS trust would require consent. Taken together, I believe these provisions are sufficient to enable the appropriate level of control over charging and income generation activities.
These amendments would subject NHS trusts' income generation and charging activities to the condition that they should not significantly interfere with the provision of services by any health service body to any NHS patient anywhere in the country. It is clear that such a condition would be impossible to implement in practice. For instance, how could an NHS trust in the south-west

1351
possibly determine whether its income generation activities would interfere with the provision of services to NHS patients in the north-east? On what information would it base such a decision? The same difficulty would arise for the Secretary of State when his consent was required. Furthermore, it is difficult to believe that such a requirement is needed.
It is important that the charging and income generation activities of an NHS trust do not interfere with the provision of services not only to its own patients but also to patients of other NHS trusts locally. That safeguard is implicit in the Bill as currently drafted. Clause 19 places a duty of co-operation on NHS bodies, making clear the requirements on NHS trusts and, indeed, other NHS bodies, to work together.
Clause 9 ensures that a trust cannot exercise its charging and income generation powers if that would interfere with its duty of co-operation. Furthermore, the Secretary of State's power to direct NHS trusts would enable the Secretary of State to take action, should such a situation arise.
In regard to a particular point raised by my noble friend, I would confirm that the powers concerned are, indeed, ancillary powers. They are there to enable a trust better to perform its core functions. On that basis, I hope that my noble friend will be satisfied that we have covered the position. I invite him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Harris of Haringey: I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply. In particular, I recognise the points he has made; namely, that this new clause strengthens the commitment of trusts to the NHS. I recognise the significance of the duty of co-operation. My concern remains that Clause 9(2)(a) talks about interfering,
"with the performance by the NHS trust of its functions or of its obligations under NHS contracts".
I think that I am grateful to him for the reassurance he has given that that is sufficient to cover the possible impact of activities on other parts of the NHS which are not directly related to the contracts of that particular NHS trust. In the hope that he will perhaps check this one more time between now and Report, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 66 not moved.]
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clauses 10 to 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Duty of quality]:
[Amendment No. 67 not moved.]
Baroness Sharp of Guildford Baroness Sharp of Guildford moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 11, line 7, after second ("each") insert ("Health Authority, Primary Care Group and").
The noble Baroness said: Clause 13 concerns the duty of quality. We on these Benches greatly welcome the proposals in the Bill to impose a duty of quality on healthcare authorities and to require them to set up procedures for monitoring that obligation.
Amendment No. 68 makes the point that the duty of quality should apply to health authorities and primary care groups as well as to primary care trusts and national health trusts. Amendment No. 73 makes the point that if health authorities and primary care trusts are included in the process, some of the bodies concerned will be commissioners of services rather than just providers of services. We see these as essentially tidying-up amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Hayman: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her welcome for the duty of quality that the Bill imposes on primary care trusts and NHS trusts to put and keep in place arrangements for the purposes of monitoring and improving the quality of healthcare they provide to individuals. It has been placed on NHS trusts and primary healthcare trusts because they are, and will remain, the main NHS organisations which directly provide healthcare to patients and their service provision will impact directly on individual patients.
Health authorities in England and Wales perform some functions which might be regarded as provision; for example, with regard to public health and communicable disease control. However, such matters do not make up the greater part of their role. We believe it is important that a duty in such a potentially complex area is kept as simple as possible. That is why we feel that it should apply to those organisations which have direct provision of patient care as a major part of their core enterprise. The duty, as it stands, will cover provision by NHS trusts, PCTs and specified SHAs. We will make it clear in guidance that the principles of clinical governance will, in addition, apply to any provision by health authorities and to services commissioned by health authorities, PCTs and PCGs. However, we do not believe that those aspects of its implementation need to be supported by a statutory duty such as we propose to apply to direct service provision by NHS trusts themselves.
The principles of clinical governance need to apply throughout the NHS and we are committed to working with NHS bodies and relevant professional bodies to ensure that that happens and that we support quality improvement throughout the service. I hope that the noble Baroness will accept that we are suggesting that the provision of the duty of quality is properly directed in the main at those who are, for their main function, providing rather than commissioning services.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thank the Minister for her reply. I do not think that we on these Benches are totally convinced that that is an adequate response to our feelings on these issues. However, we shall reflect on the matter and, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.30 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 69:
Page 11, line 7, after second ("trust") insert ("and private healthcare institution").
The noble Lord said: This is a fairly straightforward amendment. Several amendments similar in intent have been tabled and I have no doubt that other Members of the Committee will want to expand, perhaps at greater length, on the issues to which they relate.
Our amendments include Amendment No. 69, which relates to investigation; it does not relate to all the other aspects of the functions of the commission for health improvement. It also relates to the question of empty premises, under Clause 16, which it seeks to tidy up to ensure that the powers apply to private healthcare institutions.
Clearly, the amendments raise questions of definition, but the spirit behind all of them is pretty clear and I do not minimise their significance. There are over 200 hospitals in the private sector, comprising something like 10,000 beds. Therefore, bringing them within the remit of the commission for health improvement is not an insignificant step. However, the interface between the private healthcare sector and the NHS is already considerable, as we have seen and, in a sense, as we are seeing as the winter pressures continue. There is no doubt that the private healthcare sector has a considerable role to play as a safety valve—and a not unwelcome safety valve, in my view. In many other areas also, the private sector has a considerable role to play.
The current regime is rather patchy. Registered homes, registered as such under the Registered Homes Act, are subject to the regulation of local authorities. As we have seen from the social services White Paper, the Government plan to bring them within the regional commissioning mechanism. However, where healthcare and hospitals are concerned—I recognise that that may sometimes be difficult to define, but I do not believe that it is beyond the wit of the parliamentary draftsman to get it right, even if we do not!—the private sector should be brought within the remit of the commission for health improvement.
The private sector is very much behind this concept. It would certainly welcome a seamless system. After all, despite its name, the commission for health improvement is effectively an inspectorate. We on these Benches believe—I can see that others agree—that there should be consistency between the NHS and the private sector. We believe that patients, whether or not they choose to go in the NHS or in the private sector, should expect that degree of consistency.
The independent sector itself already subscribes in many ways to quality insurance schemes and it should not be too difficult for it to conform to the standards that will be set by the commission for health improvement. So we believe that this is a proposal with considerable merit. If it were to be adopted, it would be of considerable benefit, not only to those who choose to pay for private health insurance, but to the NHS itself when it uses the facilities of the private sector, which has been the situation over the past month or two. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 70 and in doing so I should like also to speak to Amendments
1354
Nos. 79, 80, 94, 95, 97 to 100, 102, 103, 104, 113 to 117 inclusive, 122 and 123. These are very important amendments and their purpose is to impose a duty of quality on independent hospitals and also to extend some of the functions of the proposed commission for health improvement to such hospitals.
My understanding is that this amendment commands widespread and cross-party support in your Lordships' House and I can tell the Committee that it enjoys the wholehearted support of the independent healthcare sector. The other point I should like to stress is that these amendments would serve the interests of all patients, both NHS and private. It would enable the commission to monitor and ensure the quality of the services provided in both healthcare sectors and to identify and promote best practice wherever it can be found.
As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has pointed out, independent hospitals and clinics are at present regulated under the Registered Homes Act 1984. The duty of monitoring and inspecting such hospitals and clinics is mostly delegated to district health authorities. Many districts have only one or two such hospitals and so it is hardly surprising that such inspections are known for their inconsistency—inconsistency of standards required, of process and of outcome. There are widespread concerns that district health authority inspections will become ever more erratic if and when parallel responsibilities for the inspection and monitoring of nursing homes are passed to regional commissions for care services.
If my intelligence is accurate, Ministers may be considering transferring the responsibility for the regulation of independent hospitals to regional commissions for care services. I have to say that this would be less than ideal: on a par, if I may say so, with sending tigers to the care of a cattery. Independent hospitals are part of the healthcare zoo. They may not all be tigers, but they are at the very least jaguars and pumas, not tabby cats and they should be regulated overall by an authority that has the technical healthcare expertise and the stature to ensure that a good job is done.
It is worth reflecting on the legislation that currently covers these hospitals. It was originally drawn up at the time when a nursing home was broadly considered to be a place of long-term convalescence for those recovering from bouts of illness or surgery. Nowadays I would suggest that most people consider a "nursing home" to be a residential home for chronically ill elderly patients requiring long-term nursing care. The old-style nursing home has turned into a fully fledged high-tech establishment, performing increasingly complex treatments and procedures which are now only rarely followed by long in-patient stays. Their regulation should reflect that change.
These amendments should also promote several other types of consistency: consistency of standards between NHS pay-bed units and independent hospitals; consistent standards when NHS and private care are provided alongside each other in independent hospitals, such as medium-secure psychiatric hospitals; and

1355
consistent standards of clinical governance, so that consultants have no doubt as to the standards expected in all their practice.
The independent healthcare sector has responded very positively and constructively to the Government's quality agenda on a voluntary basis. I understand that a great deal of work has been done under the auspices of the private practice forum of the Academy of Royal Medical Colleges. I believe that that work should now be consolidated with a consistent and reasonable regulatory framework that realises the Government's own published principles and objectives of regulation. The amendments have been cast so as not to inhibit consideration of related issues by the Health Select Committee in the other place. However, this does establish the principle that independent healthcare providers should be regulated overall by the national institution best suited to do the job, and to do it well. I therefore commend the amendments to the Committee. I beg to move.
Baroness McFarlane of Llandaff: I rise to express briefly by support for Amendment No. 69, and others, dealing with extending the duty of quality to private healthcare institutions. It appears to me that this is probably the most important part of the Bill, dealing as it does with the quality of care that patients receive. I believe that every patient has the right to receive the minimum standards of quality, care and safety, irrespective of the sector in which treatment is received.
I wonder whether the Minister could clarify for the Committee whether the primary care trusts will be able to commission services from the independent sector. In any event, as has been stated, the independent sector already makes a tremendous contribution to the total care of patients. There are 230 independent acute hospitals giving approximately 20 per cent. of all surgical procedures performed in the UK and a further 67 per cent. independent psychiatric hospitals. Twenty per cent. of NHS psychiatric patients are treated in specialist independent sector clinics, and 55 per cent. of NHS patients needing medium secure facilities receive their treatment in the independent sector. Therefore, as I said, it is important that every patient should have the right to minimum standards of care, irrespective of the sector in which treatment is received.
Baroness Berners: I should like to express my support for the amendment. It must be sensible to use all available expertise and specialised facilities for the good of the health of the nation, and to have one overall high standard maintained throughout the whole country by the proposed commission for health improvement.
Lord Warner: I rise to express puzzlement about the group of amendments tabled in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Howe. The part I am puzzled about is the reconciliation of this set of amendments with a statement by the shadow Health Secretary on 18th October 1988 when, on the "Dimbleby Programme", she said:
1356
"What I am saying is that the NHS can't do everything. There is now the question of whether or not we should expand that to include clinical services so that we get the private sector taking the risks, putting in the investment, paying the staff salaries"—
and this is the significant bit—
"doing all the rest of it, under contract to the NHS".
I interpret "doing all the rest of it" as including quality assurance for the private provider. As I understand the position, the Bill provides for a quality assurance programme—not regulation—for the NHS. My interpretation of the shadow health secretary's approach is that the private supplier of services would provide and fund its own quality assurance programmes. It seems slightly odd that the amendments now appear to ask the taxpayer to provide and fund quality assurance programmes for private suppliers. I should be grateful if the noble Earl could reconcile those two points of view.
11.45 p.m.
Earl Howe: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I do not think there is any difficulty here. I think what my right honourable friend was talking about on the programme the noble Lord mentioned was essentially an extended PFI scheme. There is no suggestion in these amendments that the taxpayer should have to fund quality assurance in the private sector. That is a matter that would have to be addressed when the time came if the principle was agreed by the Government. I do not see anything too horrendous in the thought that the private sector should pay for what it gets.
The point I sought to make through the amendments is it makes total sense, I believe, for there to be a unitary framework of regulation covering both the private and public healthcare sectors. That really does not relate to the point that my right honourable friend mentioned when she was trying to address the question of how we can meet demand for healthcare in the country, which is a separate issue.
Baroness Hayman: We have had a useful debate on a set of amendments which, if taken in total—if I may summarise the position broadly—would make the provisions in relation to the duty of quality and clinical governance and the role of the commission for health improvement, apply equally to the independent sector and to the NHS. I recognise the concerns that have been expressed about ensuring quality in the independent sector, in particular the concern about the protection of vulnerable groups of patients who for a variety of reasons look to that sector for their care.
It is quite apparent—I make no apology for this—that the Bill takes quality in the NHS as its starting point. It provides an overall quality framework which we can pursue in the context of a national managed service, setting standards through the national institute for clinical excellence and national service frameworks. It seeks local implementation through the duty of quality on providers in clinical governance. It improves and strengthens professional self-regulation and continuing professional development. It seeks national monitoring by the commission for health improvement, through the performance assessment framework that we talked about

1357
earlier and through the national patients survey. It is not easy to transfer some elements of this total package, which has been built and put together for a managed service, into the independent sector.
There are, however, certain areas in which there is a clear overlap. I think it was mentioned earlier that the duty of quality and the clinical governance arrangements in NHS trusts apply to an institution as a whole and therefore would apply to private practice and those in pay beds within those institutions. On an analogous point—in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane—primary care trusts can (as can health authorities) commission from the independent sector, although, as with health authorities, we would expect them to make maximum cost effective use of the NHS first. But when we are dealing with NHS patients being treated in private or non-NHS facilities, I think everyone recognises that there is a wide range of providers outside the NHS. They range from the straightforward, if you like, acute private hospital, right through to voluntary and charitable organisations such as hospices; a very wide range is covered. We have made it clear that when NHS patients are being treated within non-NHS institutions, the commissioning authority will ensure that the same standards of quality apply; there would be, for example, the ability for the commission for health improvement to look at the services provided within the independent sector.
As noble Lords have pointed out, that leaves us with the issue of the future regulation of the private and independent sector as a whole—particularly in the light of the new arrangements being made for the regulation of social services, a provision which brings this matter into sharp focus. We recognise that this is an issue which we need to address. I think the noble Earl pointed out that we have the present arrangements of regulation at health authority level, although I share with him some the concerns that have been voiced about whether that will be the most appropriate and effective way of regulation in the future.
I suggest to the Committee that we should recognise that we are at a time when the appropriate way forward is being carefully debated and studied. The Select Committee on Health in another place is currently addressing exactly these problems. The Government are committed to consulting on the regulation of the independent sector, which was covered in the social services White Paper. It is a subject on which we should listen carefully to a range of views. Some views have been expressed in the Committee tonight but, with respect to the Committee, we should go wider rather than simply take this legislative opportunity to transpose the system. As I have said before, the system is very much directed towards the nationally managed service that is the NHS, and it may not be appropriate to what the noble Earl categorised as the tigers and jaguars of the independent sector.
The purpose of the consultation, on which we plan to embark before too long, is precisely to explore, for example, better options than the current position of health authority regulation. I would suggest to the
1358
Committee that the right time to return to this subject is after the Select Committee on Health in another place has reported; after we have launched our consultation and had the responses to that; and when we have proposals for a way forward to deal with the very real issues that have been raised in the course of today's debate.
Lord Clement-Jones: I thank the Minister for her thoughtful reply. I am not quite sure that it demonstrates, perhaps not quite so much the urgency, but certainly the importance of the issue before us. She is absolutely right that the Select Committee on Health in another place is carefully considering the matter. I would hope that if the Select Committee does come to conclusions—and it is taking a very wide range of soundings in its deliberations—there would be a possibility of considering the matter afresh in another place when the time comes. It would be a massive lost opportunity if, when we were setting up the commission for health improvement, we failed to include the independent sector and then had to wait several years for legislative time to include the independent sector.
A number of noble Lords have underlined the question of minimum standards and whether or not patients are treated in the NHS or the private sector. I recognise the Minister's point that it is perhaps inappropriate to have a blanket coverage by the commission for health improvement right across all its functions in relation to the independent sector. That is why we limited our amendment to the investigation aspects. It may be that one could go slightly wider than that, but not a great deal.
I shall not withdraw the amendment at this stage because I believe the noble Earl wishes to speak. I shall come back to it after he has done so.
Earl Howe: I wish to ask a brief question. Do I understand that the Minister has excluded the possibility of amendments such as these being incorporated into the Bill during its passage through your Lordships' House? Is she suggesting that we should revert to the issue at a later stage, perhaps when the Bill is in another place, or is she saying that the Bill is not the right place to do it? I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that it would be a lost opportunity if the Bill were not used in some way to incorporate the kinds of provisions that we are seeking.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: If such a provision were to come forward, would it be self-financing by charging the private sector? It would be hugely expensive to introduce quality control for everything outside the National Health Service.
Lord Skelmersdale: Before the noble Baroness answers that question, it occurs to me that if the Government are unsure but are minded to go along with the way the Select Committee in another place is currently thinking, they could add this provision very easily to subsection (3) of Clause 13. In other words, it

1359
would be a delayed bomb on the statute book which could be operated at the Secretary of State's discretion.
Baroness Hayman: I certainly take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, that this should not be a burden on NHS expenditure. There are arrangements with the commission for charging and I think that any regulatory system should be self-financing, whatever way forward we choose to take.
In terms of the legislative opportunity, I was trying to make the point that, while one might be able to amend this Bill in a narrow respect, one would not be able to take a cohesive view about regulation, registration, quality standards and the complaints procedures within the whole of the private sector in the way that we have been able to take within the Bill a comprehensive view of quality within the NHS. If one took this legislative opportunity, one would by necessity be tackling the issue on a piecemeal basis. It is impossible for me to predict the future legislative programme after we have the results of the consultation which the Government are undertaking and the Select Committee report. But clearly we will have to follow through the implications of the social services White Paper about amending the regulatory process. We should not be consulting about the regulation of the independent sector unless we
1360
intended to take action upon that. With that rather oblique answer, perhaps the noble Lord will consider withdrawing the amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones: I thank the Minister for that further, helpful elucidation. Having spoken earlier about the need to integrate social services with healthcare, I should be the last to deny that there is an issue that needs addressing. Given what is in a sense an assurance that this is at the top of the Government's thinking and of significance, we may return to the matter in terms of receiving further assurances at a later stage, but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 70 not moved.]
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Baxi Partnerships Limited Trusts Bill [H.L.]
Bill committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee. House adjourned at midnight.
  NATO Dialogue with Mediterranean Partners
  NATO Dialogue with Mediterranean Partners
  Gibraltar: British Residents
  Gibraltar: British Residents
  EU Enlargement
  EU Enlargement
  International Conflict: Causes
  International Conflict: Causes
  Malacca Strait: Chinese Military Activity
  Malacca Strait: Chinese Military Activity
  British Council Grants to Artists Scheme
  British Council Grants to Artists Scheme
  Turkey
  Turkey
  Togo: Banning of Female Genital Mutilation
  Togo: Banning of Female Genital Mutilation
  Gibraltar: Fishing Agreement
  Gibraltar: Fishing Agreement
  Anglo-Spanish Ministerial Meetings
  Anglo-Spanish Ministerial Meetings
  European Union: Forthcoming Council Business
  European Union: Forthcoming Council Business
  Tax Exempt Savings Accounts
  Tax Exempt Savings Accounts
  The Mall: Closure
  The Mall: Closure
  Royal Parks: Concerts
  Royal Parks: Concerts
  Protection of Wrecks
  Protection of Wrecks
  House of Lords: Tendering Procedure
  House of Lords: Tendering Procedure
  Scottish Parliament: Brussels Office
  Scottish Parliament: Brussels Office
  Scotland: School Class Numbers
  Scotland: School Class Numbers
  Scotland: Primary School Teacher Numbers
  Scotland: Primary School Teacher Numbers
  House of Lords Reform
  House of Lords Reform
  Lay Interviewers for Judicial Office
  Lay Interviewers for Judicial Office
  Lords of Appeal in Ordinary
  Lords of Appeal in Ordinary
  Crown Prosecution Service
  Crown Prosecution Service
  Gun Owners: Insurance
  Gun Owners: Insurance
  Airguns: Licensing Policy
  Airguns: Licensing Policy
  Great Western Railway Line: Modernisation
  Great Western Railway Line: Modernisation
  Bilateral Aid
  Bilateral Aid
  Water Management
  Water Management
  United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA)
  United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA)
  Insulin Pens
  Insulin Pens
  NHS Charges
  NHS Charges
  Pupil Numbers in Maintained Schools
  Pupil Numbers in Maintained Schools
  DfEE Grants to LEAs
  DfEE Grants to LEAs