Sitting of 11 January 1999

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

    Welfare Reform
    Mr. Paul Clark: What recent representations he has received over his proposals for welfare reform. [63182]
    The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): We have received numerous representations on our recent proposals for reform towards our central aim of work for those who can and security for those who cannot.
    Mr. Clark: I thank my right hon. Friend for that response. I draw his attention to the issue of security in retirement years. My constituents' main concern is that they have sufficient pension rights for a secure retirement. Thirty thousand of my constituents in Gillingham and the Medway towns are aged over 65 and living on means-tested benefits to help to supplement their income.
    2
    What proposals does my right hon. Friend have to ensure that future pensioners will not have to rely on means-tested benefits for security in their later years?
    Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend is right: one of the scandals that we inherited is that many pensioners are living on such low incomes that they depend on income support and other benefits. Part of the rationale behind my proposals for reforming pensions, which I announced to the House on 15 December last year, is to ensure that people who work throughout their life will make a worthwhile saving towards their pension. The result of my proposals—particularly for those who earn £9,000 a year or less, for whom we have doubled the rate at which their pension will accrue—is that people who work throughout their life will retire on an income sufficient to raise them above benefit levels, a laudable aim which should have been achieved years ago.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, under his proposals for a minimum pension guarantee, those who suffer will be people who prudently save, because they will receive nothing from welfare, whereas those who spend everything will receive the maximum amount from the state? Does he think that it is fair for that to continue?
    Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman is on to a good point. If he read the pension proposals that I made at the end of last year, he would know that the Government are considering how we can improve that situation. Before Conservative Members get too excited, I point out that, for 20 to 30 years, people who have a small amount of money in the bank or a comparatively small occupational pension have discovered that they are not eligible to receive the help to which others are entitled.
    We have made it clear that we are prepared to consider measures to ensure that the minimum pension guarantee will be available to more people. We shall do so by examining what disregards might be appropriate for capital and income. The hon. Gentleman is right to

    3
    mention the problem. It has existed for many years, but the Government are considering it and are prepared to tackle it.
    Mr. Frank Field: My question is about the representations that my right hon. Friend has received—and more than 1,000 people have responded to the various Green Papers. Does he recall that his colleagues have given answers stating that those representations generally support the Government's objectives for welfare reform? Is he aware that many of those submissions also make substantial points of criticism? If we are to have a proper debate, should not the Government respond properly and publish a Green Paper on those criticisms and worries and on how they intend to counter them?
    Mr. Darling: I agree with my right hon. Friend that the Government should respond to criticism—they will—but I am wary of undertaking to publish Green Paper after Green Paper. The Government are anxious to ensure that we make progress and implement the reforms that people want. The consultation period for the pensions Green Paper, which is a matter very close to my right hon. Friend, finishes at the end of March. The Government will consider the representations that we receive and decide whether we need to publish a White Paper or whether we can proceed to legislation.
    On disability and bereavement benefits, I have made it clear that the Government want to legislate in this Session. The consultation periods on those benefits have just ended or will end this week. In each case, the Government will respond to all suggestions and criticisms and make it clear what representations we can and cannot accept, but I can assure my right hon. Friend that the consultation is genuine and helps to inform Government decisions.
    Mr. Archy Kirkwood: On 15 December, the Secretary of State said in his statement on pensions that, under the new Labour Government, Britain's pensioners were at least £140 a year better off. How is that increase made up?
    Mr. Darling: I was explaining that, as a result of the Government reducing VAT on fuel, introducing winter fuel payments—which are now being made—and making changes to the fuel levy, pensioners are better off by £140 a year. The Government made a commitment to current and future pensioners, and we are fulfilling that commitment.

    Lone Parents
    Dr. Brian Iddon: What plans he has for the training made available to lone parents. [63183]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle): The new deal for lone parents is the first attempt that any Government have made to help lone parents to join the labour market. We recognise that training can play a key part, especially for those who have never been in work or who have been away from the labour market for a long time. That is why lone parents have immediate access
    4
    to Government-sponsored training courses through the Employment Service, training and enterprise councils or further education colleges.
    Dr. Iddon: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. We have had joined-up thinking and joined-up talking, but the new deal executive board in Bolton would like joined-up action. By that, I mean that if we are to encourage lone parents to take advantage of the training opportunities, child care facilities need to be in place sooner rather than later. Will my hon. Friend comment on that?
    Angela Eagle: My hon. Friend is right, but he must also recognise that, when one is starting from a standing position, it takes time to set up the national child care strategy, valued at £455 million, which will be coming on stream. Lone parents are already taking up the opportunities that the new deal is offering.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: At the last Social Security Question Time, the Secretary of State said that there would be an element of compulsion in the scheme. I subsequently had some correspondence from Baroness Hollis, who said that there will be no compulsion. If the scheme is to work, there must be an element of compulsion. Are the Government saying one thing to this House and something else to the other place?
    Angela Eagle: No, I assure the hon. Lady that we certainly are not saying one thing to another place and something else to this Chamber. I think that she is mixing up the new deal for lone parents, which I emphasise is not compulsory, with policy work on the formation of the single gateway. As the hon. Lady and the House will know, pilot schemes will be established in July this year to set up a single gateway into the benefits system, and under those schemes an interview before one applies for benefits will be compulsory.
    Mr. Eric Pickles: Will the hon. Lady therefore tell us what the sanctions will be in respect of the compulsory element? Will there be a withdrawal of benefits, a withdrawal of benefits for a time, or a stiff note from the Secretary of State? Is The Sunday Times accurate in reporting that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Education and Employment are keen that the compulsory element should not only apply to the initial interview, but extend to the subsequent interviews?
    Angela Eagle: A Bill will be put before the House, the details of which can be considered, especially in Committee. However, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that attendance at an interview will be a condition for receiving benefit in the single gateway pilot areas.

    Benefit Reviews
    Mr. David Heath: If he will make a statement on the processes by which an individual is randomly selected for targeted review by the Benefits Agency. [63184]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle): Targeted reviews are made on claims to income support and income-based

    5
    jobseeker's allowance. Cases are not randomly selected. The national criteria are designed to identify claims where there is a high risk of the benefit in payment being incorrect.
    Mr. Heath: I am most grateful to the Minister for that reply. A constituent who is grievously ill and living in very difficult circumstances has been checked in respect of various benefits five times a year since 1993. I fully accept the need continually to review people in receipt of benefits where there are reasonable grounds for suspicion of abuse, but can it be right that an individual is randomly selected or targeted with such frequency when no adverse findings have been made?
    Angela Eagle: I think that I am aware of the case to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I certainly do not wish to discuss it across the Floor of the House. The best thing would be for the hon. Gentleman to contact me so that we can discuss the case in detail. It is highly unusual for someone to be checked so many times every year for that number of years. That is not meant to happen. There is meant to be no more than one check a year for each benefit received. Targeted reviews are intended to check incorrect applications of income support; the all-work test would apply to another benefit and so on, down the benefits system. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman's constituent has fallen foul of some of those tests. If the hon. Gentleman contacts me, we can discuss the matter in detail in a more private place.
    Mr. Eric Forth: Can the Minister confirm that the Benefits Agency security investigation service currently has enough money to discharge its duties? Will she comment on whether it is likely to achieve its targets this year?
    Angela Eagle: The right hon. Gentleman will know that we are doing a lot of work to put in place a comprehensive new framework to ensure that fraud is minimised, and that we are well aware of the importance of that framework. I can confirm to the right hon. Gentleman that we believe that all the fraud investigation work, part of which he mentioned in his question, is properly resourced.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: The Minister, in answering that question, should bear in mind the National Audit Office report last week, which said that, basically, the Government have made no impact on benefit fraud. More important, in answering the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), the Minister did not say whether the Benefits Agency security investigation service was properly resourced and would achieve its targets. Will she answer that question now?
    Angela Eagle: The targets have been set and we hope that the service will achieve them; otherwise, they would not have been set. However, I am certainly not going to bandy about speculation as to what will happen in future. We are confident that the service will be able to meet those targets. I might add that we take the National Audit Office report very seriously indeed, but the hon. Gentleman needs to be aware that it involves the year
    6
    1997–98, during which we inherited Tory policies on all these things. I ask him to look at what we do with fraud in the years ahead.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: The Minister will bear it in mind that the Government's response to that report was to say that things can only get better. Let me put that previous question another way: will the Minister now guarantee that the Benefits Agency security investigation service will have enough money to achieve the targets set this financial year?
    Angela Eagle: What I am saying to the hon. Gentleman is that we are resourcing fraud and all the many and comprehensive strategies—[HON. MEMBERS: "Resourcing fraud?"] We are adequately resourcing the fraud prevention strategies which we are now putting in place. We expect targets to be met. For example, just before Christmas we announced an extra £100 million for the verification project, which will enable all local authorities to do far more extensive checking on housing benefit and other benefit applications than ever before. The hon. Gentleman should wait and see what happens when we have been in government, so that we can get away from the inherited Tory legacy and start talking—[HON. MEMBERS: "You are in government."] We are in government, yes; but Conservative Members who pose about fraud need to reflect on the fact that the NAO report is a year in arrears, so that it covers some time when the Tories were in power.

    Retired People
    Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: What further measures are proposed to increase services and disposable income for retired people. [63185]
    The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): Through our Government strategy for older people, we are co-ordinating a number of cross-Government initiatives to ensure that the needs of older people are better understood and that their quality of life is improved. A consultation paper, "Building a Better Britain for Older People", was published on 23 November 1998. The paper sets out what has already been achieved and, above all, what needs to be done.
    Mr. Mackinlay: I acknowledge the initiatives taken by the Minister, and his Green Paper proposals, of which most hon. Members in the Chamber will be beneficiaries. I ask the Minister to agree that there is an immediate problem regarding the income of existing pensioners. Bearing in mind the appallingly low take-up of some income-related benefits, and bearing in mind the fact that the minimum income guarantee will depend on people getting income support, what will he do to spend energies comparable with those spent on combating fraud, on encouraging people to take up their entitlement, to ensure that they have an adequate income? Will he comment on Age Concern's report, which says that a modest but adequate income for retired people would be about £150 a week, and that only a quarter of pensioners are anywhere near that figure?
    Mr. Darling: On the latter point, the whole point of the Government's long-term strategy is to ensure that as

    7
    many people as possible retire on an adequate pension. That is the rationale that underpins our approach, which is set out in the Green Paper published on 15 December 1998.
    My hon. Friend is quite right. We have inherited a situation where far too many pensioners are living on a low income. We reckon that between 400,000 and 700,000 pensioners who might be eligible for income support or other benefits are not claiming. My hon. Friend knows that, last year, we ran a pilot project in nine areas to find out why those people were not claiming. We visited them; we telephoned them; we wrote to them—
    Mr. Mackinlay: What is the answer? [Interruption.]
    Mr. Darling: The answer is not a laughing matter. Many such people are living in very difficult conditions. It is clear that some who did not know that they were entitled to benefits are now receiving them. Others, for reasons that are not at all clear, are eligible for benefits but will not claim. We do not know whether that is because they do not want to claim or because they receive other family support.
    My hon. Friend asked me what action the Government will take on entitlement commensurate with that on fraud. We are planning to mount a take-up campaign later this year to encourage people to claim the benefits to which they are entitled. Take-up and fraud are equally important because every penny that is taken from the social security system through fraud is not available to those who genuinely need help.
    Mr. Steve Webb: The Secretary of State has pledged in the long term to link the so-called income guarantee to earnings rather than prices. Does he accept that, with two thirds of recipients already over the age of 75, the long term is a difficult concept? Will he therefore pledge to link the income guarantee to earnings at the earliest possible opportunity?
    Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman will recall that we said in the Green Paper that it was our intention to increase the minimum pension guarantee by linking it with earnings, consistent with prudent management of the economy. He will be aware that we have increased the money available under the present minimum pension guarantee so that the poorest pensioners receive the maximum possible help—£75 for a single person or £116.60 for a married couple. We are doing a great deal to help pensioners. On top of that, for the first time many pensioners are this winter receiving the winter fuel payment. The hon. Gentleman can shrug his shoulders at that, but it is real help going into the hands of every pensioner household—something that never happened under the previous Government. I understand the hon. Gentleman's reticence, because Liberal Democrats—at least down here in London—seemed to be against such a policy. I can tell him, however, that Liberal Democrats north of the border seemed to be in favour of it.
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: Although my right hon. Friend is rightly making pledges on the future of the basic pension, the second pension will be increasingly important in the next century. Will he guarantee that scandals such as that in the Bellings pension fund, from which a great deal of money was swindled seven years
    8
    ago—many people affected still do not know what they will receive—will not be repeated in the next century, when people will be dependent on what they have paid for, and should receive it?
    Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend raises an important point. Over the past few years there have been several pension scandals. It is particularly galling for employees to pay into a fund and then discover, for one reason or another, that the money is not available. There is legislation on the matter on the statute book. If it needs to be changed or strengthened, the Government will address the problem.
    Mr. Howard Flight: The Secretary of State referred to reductions in fraud. Will he confirm that the Government have not in any way backed down from their pledge to investigate, to the fullest extent, housing benefit fraud? What initiatives are the Government taking in pursuing the curbing of housing benefit fraud?
    Mr. Darling: On housing benefit fraud, which is not the subject of the question, but which, if Madam Speaker will allow me, I shall address—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I should not have allowed the question to be asked.
    Mr. Darling: The Government announced just before Christmas an initiative to invest about £100 million in ensuring that local authorities that administer the payment of housing benefit make far better and more efficient checks. The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) is right to say that housing benefit is prone to fraud; it has been for many years. We decided at an early stage to take action to cut such fraud by better checking of data. Local authorities are now able to check someone's entitlement with the Benefits Agency. We want better evidence before we pay housing benefit. The Government recently introduced another initiative whereby the Post Office will not redirect housing benefit cheques. That will prevent people from claiming housing benefit for one address while living somewhere else.
    I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the Government are taking action across the board on housing benefit and, indeed, on fraud generally. We are already beginning to see results. One of the reasons why the growth of social security spending in this Parliament is less than half that of the previous Parliament is that we are taking such initiatives to ensure that accurate payments are made and fraud is cut.

    Benefit Integrity Project
    Mr. David Rendel: When the benefit integrity project will be abolished. [63188]
    Mr. Andrew Dismore: If he will make a statement about the future of the benefit integrity project. [63201]
    The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Stephen Timms): The benefit integrity project will be replaced by a new system of review which will be sensitive to people's circumstances and fair, as it will

    9
    provide for awards to be increased as well as decreased in line with entitlement. We shall introduce the new system as soon as possible and expect to have it in place by April at the latest. Our priority is not to rush the change, but rather to ensure through consultation, in particular with the disability benefits forum, that the new system operates successfully.
    Mr. Rendel: May I be the first to congratulate the Minister on his promotion to his new position? We welcomed the news that the benefit integrity project was to be cancelled, but surely it is unnecessary to wait until the new system is in place. The Secretary of State said in his original announcement that the project had been a failure and that it had caused great anxiety to disabled people, so should it not go straight away? The benefit integrity project should be cancelled today.
    Mr. Timms: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his congratulations. We shall end the benefit integrity project as soon as we have a replacement that is acceptable. The Social Security Committee, which is chaired by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), has done some excellent work on the subject and has suggested—rightly, in my view—that the Department should be much more active in reviewing the benefit once it is awarded. It would therefore be a backward step if, as the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) suggests, we were to end all checking for a period and go back to the position that prevailed before last April, when nothing was checked at all.
    We want to continue checking, but to make sure that we have a new arrangement. We have had one meeting already with the working group of the disability benefits forum which has been set up to consider the matter. That meeting was extremely useful, and I am hopeful that by April, and possibly before, we will have a checking system that commands widespread support, as the benefit integrity project did not.
    Mr. Dismore: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend on his promotion. Many of my constituents with disabilities will welcome the Government's commitment to getting rid of the benefit integrity project. I look forward to its going in April, but there is some concern about what will replace it. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that whatever replaces the benefit integrity project aims at providing the right amount of benefit, which on review may mean benefits going up or down? Can my hon. Friend give my constituents an assurance that the Benefits Agency staff will be properly trained to administer the system fairly and effectively?
    Mr. Timms: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his congratulations and also for drawing attention to the widespread support for the Government's announcement ending the benefit integrity project. I can confirm that the emphasis of the new system will be on correctness—on making sure that the benefit paid is correct at the outset, and that it continues to be maintained correctly thereafter. That means that benefit payments will be increased if entitlement warrants it, and not simply decreased, as was overwhelmingly the case under the benefit integrity project. I agree with my hon. Friend that the training of
    10
    staff to administer the new system will be of paramount importance. We are considering carefully how we can make sure that we get it right.
    Mrs. Angela Browning: Does the Minister understand that the average number of cases going to appeal in my constituency show that three out of four people get the mobility component of disability living allowance under the benefit integrity project restored on appeal? What will the Government do about the people who lost their Motability cars and have now had that benefit legally restored, but can no longer find the money to put down the deposit on a car to replace the one that they lost?
    I welcome the Minister to the Front Bench and hope that he will give me a better answer than the Prime Minister gave to the same question in July. I circulated the Prime Minister's reply to my constituents going to appeal, and they were not at all impressed with his answer.
    Mr. Timms: I thank the hon. Lady for that part of her question which was good wishes and welcome. She makes a fair point that, under the arrangements put in place by the previous Government for the benefit integrity project, many reductions in benefit were overturned on appeal. I am pleased to tell her, however, that the rate of appeals that are upheld has consistently increased because of the steps taken by this Government to improve the evidence available to adjudication officers. Motability has put in place an arrangement that allows people to keep their cars while a reduction in benefit is under review. That has been a helpful measure. If it is established that someone is not entitled to the high Motability component, it is not appropriate to continue payment of that benefit and the car that goes with it.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: My hon. Friend will be aware that any period of doubt about disability payments is of great concern to those involved. It is tremendously important that the Department does everything accurately. Is he totally satisfied that the information technology available and the new systems coming on stream are capable of handling the detailed work that is essential to the fairness of such decisions?
    Mr. Timms: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the importance and sensitivity of those matters. We must ensure that we get them right. We undoubtedly need to introduce improvements in information technology and the Accord programme—the access to corporate data procurement project—on which we have embarked will enable us to do that. I am confident that increasingly we shall be able to offer the active, modern service to which the Government aspire in order to meet the aspirations of my hon. Friend's constituents and people throughout the country.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box and the announcement of the abolition of the benefit integrity project, which has been widely despised and has caused much stress to individuals throughout the country. Does the Minister have figures that show the administrative costs of running the project so far? What savings does he think have been

    11
    made, and will there be a ring-fenced budget for the training of staff, who will have to deal with extremely sensitive issues?
    Mr. Timms: I should be happy to write to the hon. Lady with those figures, which have been published and are readily available. I agree about the importance of training, and we are paying great attention to training for the new system. I am confident that we shall have the resources that we need to get that right so that our checking system commands widespread support, not least among disabled people and the organisations of and for disabled people. The benefit integrity project manifestly did not command that support.

    Pensions (Earnings Link)
    Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: What plans he has to re-link the calculation of the state old-age pension with average earnings. [63191]
    The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): As I announced in my statement on 15 December, the basic state pension will remain a contributory non-means-tested benefit, uprated, as we promised, at least in line with prices.
    Mr. Corbyn: Does not my right hon. Friend understand that many pensioners are rightly angry that the Tory Government broke the link with earnings in 1980 and that pensioners have subsequently lost at least £25 a week from their state pension? Does he accept that means-tested benefits and private pensions are more expensive to administer and less secure for pensioners? Is not the best way to raise the living standards of the oldest people in our society to raise the basic state pension in line with earnings, as the previous Labour Government did, to ensure that we eliminate poverty among the elderly?
    Mr. Darling: No, I do not accept that. Over the past few years, in addition to the basic state pension, many more pensioners have had rights to occupational pensions, private pensions and so on. If we were to uprate the basic state pension in line with earnings, in 2010 the cost would be £11 billion. That would do little for the poorest pensioners, while giving money to people who might not need it that much. As I made clear in my statement last year, our strategy is to do far more for poorer pensioners, who would have retired on benefits had it not been for the change of policy that I announced. As a result of our proposals, those who earn less than £9,000 will double the rate at which they accrue a pension. That is a better use of public funds. It will do far more for poorer people, who will see a real benefit and enjoy a decent retirement when they reach that stage.
    Mr. Peter Viggers: Can the Secretary of State confirm that, so modest and, indeed, so feeble are his proposals for pensions, that by 2050 there will be 8 million pensioners eking out an existence on means-tested income support?
    Mr. Darling: I do not accept that. Indeed, the pension proposals that I set out at the end of last year have been quite widely welcomed. The object of the exercise was to
    12
    ensure that people who had worked throughout their lives would retire on a pension above income support. That is not the case under the present policies, which we inherited and the hon. Gentleman supported. The Government's proposals mean that most people who work throughout their life will be able to enjoy a retirement in which they will have a decent income to enjoy the years that lie ahead of them.

    Pensioners (Poverty)
    Mr. Norman Baker: What measures he has taken to reduce poverty among pensioners. [63192]
    The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Stephen Timms): We have reduced VAT on fuel and introduced winter fuel payments to help pensioners with their heaviest quarterly fuel bill.
    As my right hon. Friend has said, we announced last month in the pensions Green Paper that, from April, we will introduce a new minimum income guarantee for pensioners of at least £75 a week for single people and £116.60 for couples.
    Mr. Baker: I hear what the Minister says, but is he aware that many pensioners in my constituency—in Seaford, Polegate and other places—genuinely doubt the Government's commitment to dealing with poverty among pensioners? Will he look seriously at Liberal Democrat proposals to increase the basic pension by £5 for those aged over 80 and by £3 for those aged over 75? Does he understand that my constituents want a fair deal for pensioners from the Government?
    Mr. Timms: I can reassure the hon. Gentleman about the Government's commitment. We made it absolutely clear in our manifesto that we would give priority to the poorest pensioners because that is the group which requires the most urgent action. The minimum income guarantee allows us to concentrate the extra help on those pensioners and offers to those on income support a substantial increase in their income from next April. We could not have achieved that if we had used the resources on the basic pension instead.
    Mr. John Bercow: Given the importance of avoiding or reducing poverty among carers who retire, will the proposed carer's pension take the form of a funded personal pension—which could be portable and flexible so that, when the circumstances of the carer changed, the value of the pension could change accordingly—or will it simply be a state-funded addition to the carer's pension?
    Mr. Timms: It will be provided within the state second pension. We have proposed that carers will be credited with contributions so that, in effect, they will gain about £1 a week in pension for each year of caring that they undertake. It will not be a funded scheme, but it is a huge step forward for carers, which has been widely welcomed and is long overdue.
    Mr. Quentin Davies: On behalf of those on the Opposition Front Bench, I warmly congratulate the Minister on his promotion.

    13
    Perhaps, under pressure from Conservative Members, the Government are at last making a little progress, given that the Secretary of State has at least half acknowledged to my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman) that means testing can be extremely damaging and extremely unfair. In that case, one might reasonably ask why the Government do nothing but extend its application to bereavement benefits, incapacity benefit, the minimum income guarantee and even to fuel payments and so forth.
    Does the Minister realise that the present system is so perverse that, if he were an independent financial adviser who suggested that people on small earnings should take out a personal pension or save money where the return would be substantially negated by the loss of means-tested benefits, he would be liable for criminal prosecution for mis-selling?
    Mr. Timms: I enjoyed that question. I am rateful to the hon. Gentleman for his congratulations on behalf of those on the Opposition Front Bench and I can reassure him that the progress that we are making is not as a result of pressure from him and his colleagues, although it is substantial.
    We acknowledged in the Green Paper that, under the present system, some of those who qualify for the minimum income guarantee achieve no benefit from their savings and that some people with modest second pensions do not qualify for the minimum income guarantee at all. A range of measures could help, such as some form of disregard on pensioners' income. In the Green Paper, we asked for people's views on the best way in which we can help. We want to give better rewards to savers and, unlike the last Government, we aim to present proposals—in this Parliament—to achieve that end.

    Disabled People
    Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: What representations he has received about his plans to reform benefits for people with disabilities. [63193]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley): Consultation closed on Friday 8 January. Two hundred and eighty-three responses have been received and are being analysed. Forty-seven of those responses came from Members of Parliament—including the Back-Bench Member for City of York!—but I assure the House that all will receive equal consideration.
    Mr. Thomas: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his well-deserved elevation.
    My hon. Friend will know from his own constituency experience that what many disabled people want is the opportunity to work. In meetings that I have held with disabled constituents, what has consistently come across is the often unavoidable additional cost that they would incur in obtaining work. I realise that it is early in my hon. Friend's term of office, but will he tell us what he intends to do about the problem?
    Mr. Bayley: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind congratulations.
    14
    The Government's policy is that work, for those who can work, is the best provider of welfare. We are removing obstacles to work for disabled people by introducing the 12-month linking rule and other measures, such as the disabled persons tax credit, to make it easier for disabled people to obtain employment. We are also working with the Department for Education and Employment on the £195 million new deal, and on creating a single gateway to provide a single point for advice on benefits and employment opportunities.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: I wish the Minister every success in his new post. Will he take seriously the real concern, alarm and anger felt by disabled people whose benefits are being cancelled on review? During my weekly surgery on Saturday, I was visited by a woman and her child, who has only one small finger on each hand and one small toe on each foot. The woman had been told that there was no need for any disability living allowance-related provision of any sort.
    The Government have announced that they will try to save £750 million on disability benefits. Will the Minister genuinely consider the problem, and recognise that many disabled people are greatly alarmed by the cancellation of benefits for what they see as no good reason?
    Mr. Bayley: The Government are addressing the problem, as my hon. Friend the Minister of State made clear a few minutes ago. Replacing the benefit integrity project will create a fairer system for assessing benefits. It will allow benefits to rise in appropriate cases, as well as allowing them to fall, as happened under the benefit integrity project.
    Mr. David Lock: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend on his promotion.
    When my hon. Friend considers benefits for disabled people, will he pay particular attention to the position of medical staff employed by the Department of Social Security? The anger of a number of my constituents whose benefits have been removed is shared by the general practitioner who has treated them year after year and knows their condition in detail, only to find that a doctor who has assessed them for perhaps 15 minutes has decided that they can do far more than they actually can. It may even be that a disabled person was too ashamed to admit the extent of his or her disability, or that the doctor happened to catch that person on a good day. In many instances, people can do a certain amount on one day, but much less on other days. When reforming the benefit integrity project, will my hon. Friend give thought to the key liaison between GPs and those doctors who see claimants on a one-off basis?
    Mr. Bayley: I thank my hon. Friend for his congratulations.
    The Government are aware of the problem and are considering it. My hon. Friend should be aware, however, that a GP may view his patients' disabilities in a different light from the doctor employed by the Benefits Agency, who has a responsibility to establish, on medical grounds, whether a person is entitled to the benefits that he is claiming. That is the basis on which decisions are made.

    15
    As my hon. Friend the Minister of State has just pointed out, it is our intention to ensure that the right decision is made as often as possible first time.
    Mrs. Theresa May: May I congratulate the Minister on his promotion to the Front Bench, although I should perhaps warn him that, at the rate the revelations are appearing in the newspapers, his rise may be even more meteoric than he expects?
    One of the key features of the Government's plans to reform disability benefits is a cut in the number of people who receive severe disablement allowance. Today, of those receiving that benefit who qualified after its introduction in 1984, more than two thirds qualified at the age of 20 or over, yet in future, no one aged 20 or over will qualify to receive the benefit because the Government say that, at that age, they will have had the opportunity to see whether work is a realistic option for them.
    Does the Minister accept that that would hit those disabled people in their early 20s who are still students or in training? Will he raise the age threshold to 25 to ensure that at least those young disabled people in higher education or training who are preparing themselves for the world of work are not hit or betrayed by that particular cut in disability benefits?
    Mr. Bayley: I thank the hon. Lady for the kind remarks at the start of her question. She will be aware that many people have made representations to the Department on the disability reform proposals. Consultation closed on Friday.
    The Government's approach is to improve benefits for those who are most severely disabled and for the poorest people. Our proposals for reform of severe disablement allowance will improve the benefit to young people by up to £25 a week. The other representations that have been made will, of course, be considered as we draft the Bill which will come before the House shortly.

    Housing Benefit
    Mr. David Kidney: When he expects to announce the results of the review of housing benefit. [63194]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle): We have announced a project to simplify the housing benefit rules and regulations and to improve the administration and delivery of the benefit. We are working in conjunction with local authority associations and further announcements will be made in due course. In addition, we have announced a small-scale pilot, which will examine the issues surrounding the under-occupation of social housing.
    Mr. Kidney: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does she agree that the housing benefit system established by the previous Government can sometimes operate as a severe disincentive to work because of the steep rates at which benefits are withdrawn when recipients find work? Does she also agree that the Government's policies to be introduced later this year—the range of new deal projects and the working families tax credit—offer a powerful incentive to work for those who can work? Therefore,
    16
    does she agree that it might be helpful if housing benefit could be changed this year, so that those changes could work with the grain of those other Government policies?
    Angela Eagle: My hon. Friend is right to point out that some severe work disincentives—what I call the hassle factor—are inherent in the current design of the benefit. People spend so long trying to get their housing benefit allocation right that they are reluctant to come off that benefit to try, say, a temporary job. In the review, we are looking to see how we can reduce the hassle factor and whether we can create more obvious incentives to make that often difficult move from benefit into work. I accept absolutely my hon. Friend's point.
    Mr. Edward Leigh: Following the answer that was given by the Secretary of State to my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight), will the Minister give a categoric pledge—an assurance—that there has been and will be no watering down in the campaign by the Government and local authorities to combat housing benefit fraud?
    Angela Eagle: Far from watering down the campaign to combat that fraud, we are gearing it up not only in the fraud strategy itself, but in our fundamental look at how the benefit is administered. As I said earlier, we have already announced £100 million extra to resource local authorities to enable them to check much more effectively how they administer housing benefit. The hon. Gentleman should await announcements on some of the changes in the simplification project, which I hope will tighten the gateways to that benefit and ensure that payments are right first time and stay right.

    Fuel Poverty
    Mr. David Winnick: What recent representations he has received over fuel poverty among the elderly on small incomes. [63195]
    The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Stephen Timms): We have no record of any recent representations to the Department principally about fuel poverty among the elderly, but, since January 1998, we have received 439 letters about winter fuel payments.
    Mr. Winnick: Does my hon. Friend accept that elderly people suffer much distress as a result of cold weather such as we have had today? What the Government have already done—what the Tories refused to do—is very welcome indeed, but could Ministers consider whether there could be a more flexible arrangement for cold weather payments? I and, I am sure, all Labour Members, feel that it is quite wrong that so many elderly people on small incomes should suffer such distress during cold weather when we should be in a position to help them.
    Mr. Timms: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that important subject. I agree that the introduction of winter fuel payments has been an important step forward. About £1 billion will be made available this Parliament. A total of 3.3 million payments were included in a computer run at the weekend, and we hope that the full 10 million payments will have been paid out by the end of next week.

    17
    My hon. Friend is right to say that the cold weather payments scheme is another important means of the Government tackling the problem. An interdepartmental group on fuel poverty, led by the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale), is considering a wide range of fuel poverty issues, including the arrangements for cold weather payments, and it intends to publish proposals in the spring.

    Pensioners (Benefit Refusals)
    Mrs. Jacqui Lait: What estimate he has made of the number of basic rate pensioners who have refused increased benefits to which they are entitled; and if he will make a statement. [63196]
    The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): We are committed to encouraging and helping more pensioners to claim their entitlements. The new minimum income guarantee will help in that respect. Estimates specifically of basic rate pensioners who are not claiming their entitlements, as opposed to pensioners in other circumstances, are not available.
    Mrs. Lait: In an earlier answer to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), the Secretary of State referred to the mystery surrounding the number of pensioners who refuse to apply for benefits. Has he never met pensioners in his constituency who are too proud to claim and believe that benefits are charity? Would not it be better for the Government to stop attacking the insurance principle and increasing means testing, and to allow those proud elderly people to feel that they have contributed sufficiently to be entitled to claim?
    Mr. Darling: I have been a Member of Parliament for only 11 years, but in all the time that I spent in opposition I never heard the Tory Government saying that they were against means testing. Indeed, I rather got the impression that they were in favour of it. When we made our announcement on pensions in December, we reinstated the insurance principle—the contributory principle—and we are making it absolutely clear that if people work throughout their life and pay their contributions they will get a decent pension in retirement. The reason for so many pensioners now having to rely on income support is that for the past 20 years the Tory Government did absolutely nothing to put pensions on a proper footing for the future.
    Mr. Vernon Coaker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the reasons why pensioners do not claim the benefits to which they are entitled has been the fact that over the past few years there has been continual talk of fraud in the system? People have been made to feel that they are somehow not entitled to the benefits that they can claim. The Government have introduced measures of success that include take-up rates. If we can encourage people to claim, and measure our success by criteria such as take-up rates, we will ensure that pensioners get the benefits to which they are entitled.
    Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend is right, and the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) raised an important point—at least in the first part of her question—because some current pensioners who are entitled to income
    18
    support are not claiming it because they feel that they should not be doing so, perhaps because they are too proud to do so. The whole point of the minimum pension guarantee was to ensure that the money we had available would go to the poorest pensioners. We are determined to ensure, by whatever means that we can, that as many people as possible who are entitled to that benefit receive it, so that they can sit at home and live in some comfort. That simply has not happened in the past.

    Means-tested Benefits
    Mr. Julian Brazier: What plans he has to reduce the number of families on means-tested benefits. [63197]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle): We are determined to do everything that we can to help those who can work to do so, which is why we want to modernise the structure of working-age tax and benefits; to create the right incentives for families; and to reward work while simultaneously providing security for those who cannot work.
    Mr. Brazier: The Secretary of State, in answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman), said that the Department was reviewing the impact of means-tested arrangements on pensioners' disincentives to save. Regardless of the outcome of that review, will the Minister confirm two points? First, will she confirm that the minimum pension guarantee will substantially increase the number of pensioners on means-tested benefits? Secondly, will she confirm that, under current plans, the minimum pension guarantee will substantially increase the number of those on small incomes who face strong disincentives to save?
    Angela Eagle: I fail to understand the sudden concern about means-tested benefits. The figures show that, in 1978–79, 4.9 million people in families were receiving income-related benefits. By May 1997, at the end of 18 years of Conservative rule, 11.6 million people in families were receiving those benefits. I think that that is where the problem lies.

    Child Care
    Mrs. Sylvia Heal: What plans he has to assist those parents wishing to work with the costs of child care. [63200]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle): Parents need access to affordable, good-quality child care to help balance work and family life successfully. We have already increased the help available for child care costs through in-work benefits, and the Government have introduced the Working Families Tax Credit Bill, which will provide for a much more generous child care tax credit.
    Mrs. Heal: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Is she aware, however, of the particular difficulty of lone parents in finding affordable good-quality child care? In the Rowley Regis ward of my constituency, one in seven families with children are lone-parent families who have

    19
    to pay, on average, £15 a day for private full-day child care. Will she tell me what help the Government will give to lone parents in my constituency to solve that problem?
    Angela Eagle: The help takes a variety of guises, the first of which, as I said earlier, is a new national child care strategy. That strategy will create many more child care places across the country, to ensure that affordable high-quality child care is available to all who need it. Secondly, the new child care tax credit, which is part of the working families tax credit, will replace the old Tory disregard—which was used by only 5 per cent. of people—and provide tax credits of up to 70 per cent. of child care costs. Therefore, not only will we make child care available across the United Kingdom to those who need it, but we will make it affordable.
    Miss Julie Kirkbride: The Minister might remember that, at the end of 1998, the Government produced a White Paper on the family which brazenly declared that, on balance, it was better that children were brought up in two-parent families than in any other form of family. Why then do the Government seek to discriminate against two-parent families in which the mother chooses to stay at home to look after the children? Under the Government's proposals, those families will
    20
    receive absolutely no help or money from the state, whereas all the other alternative forms of family will receive help with child care.
    Angela Eagle: The idea is to make work pay and to give extra help to those who are low paid, so that they can go out to work and support their family, and so that they are more better off than they could ever be on benefit. All our policies are focused on that very clear aim.
    Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe: It is clear that this Government are doing more on child care than the previous Government, who did nothing to address the problem. Will my hon. Friend consider the need to reassure single parents, especially mothers, who worry about what will happen when their children are ill? It is all very well having child care places, but the problems caused by a child's illness can act as a disincentive to going out to work.
    Angela Eagle: Our fairness at work legislation will incorporate the European directives on family policy, which will introduce parental leave and family leave to allow for such eventualities. The Government are committed to more family friendly employment policies and, increasingly, employers are realising that it is better to allow their labour force to balance work and family more appropriately than the Conservatives' policies allowed.

Yemen
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): Madam Speaker, with permission I should like to make a statement on recent events in Yemen. There have been three separate developments affecting British nationals in Yemen since the House last sat. On Saturday, and again this afternoon, I have discussed those events by phone with the Prime Minister of Yemen, Dr. Iryani.
The most recent event was the kidnapping on Saturday of Mr. John Brooke from the compound of the oil company for which he worked, in the Marib area of northern Yemen. Our ambassador was in contact immediately with the Yemeni Prime Minister and Interior Minister to insist on full consultation with us on any steps being taken by the authorities to secure Mr. Brooke's release. This afternoon I have expressed to Dr. Iryani our strong view that the release of Mr. Brooke should be achieved through mediation, and the Prime Minister of Yemen gave me an assurance that no force would be used without consultation with us.
We currently have in Yemen a team of police officers who are preparing an account of the previous kidnapping. Two of those officers are experienced in hostage negotiation. We have made their skills available to the Yemeni authorities.
We have also been in contact over the weekend with the Government of Yemen about the five British nationals who have been detained there. We understand that the five men were detained on 24 December. Our embassy in Yemen first heard of the arrest of unnamed British nationals on 29 December and immediately demanded access to them, including through a succession of meetings between our ambassador and Yemeni Ministers. However, access was not granted until last Friday, when our consul-general immediately visited the prison in Aden but was given access to only three of the five men.
On Saturday, I stressed to the Prime Minister of Yemen the vital importance to us of obtaining access to all five men under detention in order to reassure ourselves and their relatives that they are well and being properly treated. Dr. Iryani undertook to make immediate inquiries and on Saturday our consul-general was permitted access to one of the other two men. Access to the fifth man is still being denied on the ground that he has Yemeni-British dual nationality. However, this afternoon Dr. Iryani assured me that access to the fifth detainee will be granted today or tomorrow.
On Saturday, I stressed to the Prime Minister that if the five men are to be charged, those charges must be brought soon. They and their relatives are entitled to know why they have been arrested, and the five men cannot defend themselves against allegations until they are charged. If they are not to be charged, they must be released. This afternoon, I sought and obtained fresh assurances from the Prime Minister of Yemen that all five men will have access to legal advice, that any charges will be subject to due process of law in open court, and that consular staff will have the right to attend.
I now turn to the tragic events arising from the seizure of 16 tourists in southern Yemen. Twelve British nationals, two Australians and two Americans were
22
kidnapped by an armed group on 28 December. According to the Yemeni authorities, the kidnappers' key demand was the release of a number of Yemenis and foreigners arrested by the Yemeni authorities. As soon as we learned of the kidnapping, the British ambassador spoke to the Yemeni Interior Minister, Hussain Arab. He made clear our paramount concern for the hostages' safety. He pressed on the Yemeni authorities our strong wish that no precipitate action be taken which could endanger the hostages' lives.
The next day Yemeni security forces encircled the kidnappers and their hostages. There was a firefight, in which four of the hostages were killed. Three were British. I am sure that the whole House will join me in extending our deep sympathy to the families who grieve for those who were killed. The testimony of the survivors confirms more forcefully than any hon. Member can that all the hostages conducted themselves with the greatest courage and concern for each other.
There is still much confusion about how the firefight started and about whether hostages had been killed before the security forces intervened. At the request of the Foreign Office, a team of British police officers went to Yemen on 1 January. In close co-ordination with the visiting Federal Bureau of Investigation team, they are preparing a full account of what happened.
On Saturday, I expressed to the Prime Minister of Yemen the importance of full co-operation between our Governments in the investigation. We agreed that the best way for us to maintain sound bilateral relations was to work closely together in establishing the truth and in bringing the full truth into the open. It would be wrong to prejudge the police investigation or to anticipate what it may conclude about the handling of the rescue attempt by the Yemeni authorities. Let us be clear, however, that the primary responsibility for what happened rests with the armed gang who seized the hostages in the first place. Those responsible for seizing the hostages, and for the death of four of them, must be pursued and brought to justice.
I pay tribute to the British ambassador, Vic Henderson, to Consul-General David Pearce and to their small team. They have responded with professionalism and with total commitment to a succession of demanding events.
Two areas of public policy require to be reviewed in the light of recent events. The first relates to the travel advice issued by the Foreign Office. Our travel advice in relation to Yemen has for some time warned of the risk of kidnapping. Following the recent tragic deaths, our travel advice has been strengthened to advise
"against all non-essential travel to Yemen".
Following the recent kidnapping of Mr. Brooke, our ambassador has today met representatives of the British community to impress on them the need for heightened vigilance, and to discuss with them the implications for their safety of recent events. All British nationals are being encouraged to re-register urgently with the embassy.
Our system of travel advice is widely held up as a model of good practice by other countries. It already tends to the side of caution, although it is necessary that it should not veer to over-reaction if it is to retain credibility among the public. We are constantly looking for ways of improving distribution of that advice. We need to be sure that it is seen by anyone thinking of travelling to dangerous parts of the world.

23
I am therefore inviting tour operators and other members of the travel industry to the Foreign Office to discuss how we can further improve the distribution of our travel advice. We hope to develop with them a voluntary agreement on advice to clients booking holidays to countries where there is a risk. We would wish such an agreement to include a commitment to notify our consular division when tours are being organised to dangerous countries.
The second area of public policy that we must review in the light of recent experience is how we can improve our support to other countries in handling the seizure of hostages. I can announce that the Foreign Office will appoint a police expert with experience in hostage negotiations as a consultant to the Foreign Office on counter-terrorism work. Our intention is that he or she will travel abroad to discuss the training needs of foreign Governments, and to offer advice on their handling of hostage-taking.
We shall also launch a global series of seminars and consultations to share best practice in handling terrorist incidents with countries around the globe. Last November, we held such a seminar within the G8 to pool expertise on handling kidnap cases. Now we must make sure that the expertise pooled at that London seminar is shared more widely with countries outside the G8. These initiatives reflect the two principles that must guide the conduct of our consular duty: first, that the safety of British nationals is our paramount concern; and secondly, that only we can succeed in securing their safety from terrorism only by close international co-operation in defeating the terrorists.
The whole House will wish to record its condemnation of terrorism. Kidnapping is a crime. It is the same crime whether it is committed for financial gain or for political reward, and it is as much a crime under Islamic law as it is anywhere else. I invite all hon. Members to join me in sending the firmest possible message to terrorists that we are determined to protect the safety of our nationals and to be robust in combating terrorism wherever it occurs.
Mr. Michael Howard: The whole House was shocked by the attack on British hostages in Yemen. Our deepest sympathy goes out to the families involved in the tragedy. We are also deeply concerned by other events in that country, including the continued detention without charge of British citizens and the abduction of John Brooke.
On the events surrounding the abduction of the tour group, can the Foreign Secretary confirm reports that the families were being informed of events by the tour company rather than the Foreign Office? The tour group was abducted on 28 December. The rescues and killings took place on 29 December, and the Yemeni ambassador was not summoned to the Foreign Office until 31 December. If it is true that the families were informed by the tour operators rather than the Foreign Office, can the Foreign Secretary explain why that should be so?
On the detention without charge of British citizens, can the Foreign Secretary confirm that they were detained on 24 December and that the families were not informed until 29 December; and even then, again, not by the Foreign
24
Office, which was apparently informed by the families themselves of what had happened? If those reports are correct, how did the families know about the arrests before the Foreign Office? What explanation can the right hon. Gentleman offer for that?
On 17 December, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister whether the Government had taken
"all possible steps to safeguard British lives and property at home and abroad",
following Operation Desert Fox. The Prime Minister replied:
"We have done all that we can to safeguard British lives and property."—[Official Report, 17 December 1998; Vol. 322, c. 1102–03.]
Can the Foreign Secretary say what steps were taken, not now, but then? Do not the steps that he announced today give the lie to the Prime Minister's answer to my right hon. Friend?
The Foreign Secretary will be aware that on 31 December, I called for joint investigations into the circumstances surrounding the abduction of the British tourists and the events surrounding the subsequent attempts to release them. I pointed to the vital importance of establishing why the Yemeni Government acted in the way they did.
The Foreign Secretary referred to the team of British police officers in Yemen, but there are reports that it has not been granted the facilities necessary to participate fully in the investigation. Can he say what co-operation has been received from the Yemeni authorities and what part British representatives have been allowed to play in those investigations?
On 30 December, I wrote to the Foreign Secretary asking for a review of the way in which assessment of risk to travellers is made in the Foreign Office and the basis on which advice is subsequently provided. I have yet to receive a reply to my letter, but I welcome what he had to say about the steps that he has taken. Can he confirm that there will be a full review in the light of those steps, and that he will report to the House on the outcome of that review?
I also welcome what the Foreign Secretary said about terrorism. The whole House will join him without reservation in his condemnation of terrorism—but does he have the faintest inkling of how ill his words lie with the Government's continuing release of those convicted of the most despicable terrorist offences without any progress being made on decommissioning?
The last statement from the Foreign Secretary on the on-going situation in the Yemen was made on 29 December. Why has he not appeared on the media to deal with the issues in the past few days? The events have given rise, yet again, to serious questions about the way in which the Foreign Office has discharged its duties. Can the Foreign Secretary assure the House that, when they have come to an end, he will review all aspects of the way in which the Foreign Office has dealt with these events and publish the results of that review, so that public confidence in the Foreign Office under his stewardship, which must be at an all-time low, can be at least partially restored?
Mr. Cook: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his bipartisan support for condemning

25
terrorism. Of course, we would very much regret it if it were the case that any relatives felt that the Foreign Office had been slow in notifying them. It is not necessarily surprising that a competent and well-organised operator of that tour may have known of the relatives and next of kin before the Foreign Office, but I assure the House that I am confident that we were expeditious and competent in contacting relatives known to us.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked why relatives of the five people who were detained were not informed earlier. I told the House that we did not know of any British nationals detained until 29 December and we did not obtain any names from the Yemeni authorities until last week. We have made it clear that we expect clear, swift notification from the Yemeni authorities of any British nationals who may be detained by them. As for contact with relatives, we obtained access on Friday to see those detained. Three of them were visited that day and the relatives' lawyer was phoned by the Foreign Office on Friday to give the results of the visit. I cannot think of any swifter response by which to share with them the information that was available to the Foreign Office.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked what action was taken after the recent confrontation with Iraq which might have a bearing on the matter. Our travel advice was updated on 20 December to warn those who might be contemplating a visit to the Yemen of the rising tension in the area and the need to keep abreast of developments. It is the case that, at first, co-operation between the Yemeni authorities and the Metropolitan police was not as close as we would have wished. I am pleased to say that the word from the Metropolitan police officers in the Yemen is that they are now receiving satisfactory co-operation from the Yemeni authorities, who have shared with them the results of their investigation.
As I stressed to the Prime Minister of the Yemen—I am pleased to be able to tell the House that he fully agreed—the best way for us to ensure that this matter does not become a matter of greater contention in our bilateral relations is for both Governments and investigating teams to work closely together to establish the truth and bring the full truth out into the open.
Finally, we are confident that the way we develop our travel advice is correct; no one has suggested otherwise. We are equally confident that we have the best possible information on which to base that advice. The criterion is simple: it is to safeguard the British population—their safety is our paramount concern. However, we are open to helpful and constructive points as to how we might improve that advice. That is why we have sought dialogue with the travel industry—to build better consensus and understanding on the criteria employed in putting together the advice.
Lastly, I turn to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's attempt to turn this event into a party political occasion. I have to say that those remarks were more demeaning to him than they were damaging to the Government, and I think that on reflection at a future date he will wish that he had not made them.
Mr. Donald Anderson: The whole House will welcome the two specific initiatives taken by my right hon. Friend on the tourist industry and travel information and on the advice about dealing with
26
hostage-takers. As he said, it is of paramount importance that we have the closest possible co-operation with the Yemeni Government. Will he confirm that the Yemeni Government are now allowing the Metropolitan police officers to interview those hostage-takers who are in detention? What is his response to the reports in the British press at the weekend that over Christmas a camp was held in north London at which individuals were given military training that might be relevant to taking extremism and terrorism into areas such as the Yemen?
Mr. Cook: The Metropolitan police officers in the Yemen have not had access to the suspects currently under detention there. The issue is not clear cut and it is by no means clear that, if the roles were reversed and the police officers of a third country came to Britain to interview suspects whom we were holding under charges, we would necessarily grant such access to the investigating authorities of another power. Still, the Yemeni authorities have co-operated fully in passing to our police officers the results of the interrogation and also other parts of their investigation. At present, we are satisfied with the level of co-operation and I have pressed the Prime Minister of Yemen that we should maintain the fullest co-operation.
I have seen the reports about a training camp. The camp referred to was in north Wales, I think, rather than in north London—
Mr. Anderson: Finsbury Park.
Mr. Cook: There were also reports of one in Crowborough. There have been investigations into the matter. The training provided purports to be survival training and also martial arts. We have not established that there was any breach of British law during such training. However, we will watch closely to ensure that, if any offence is committed under the provisions of the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998 that prevent conspiracy to commit terrorism abroad, the Act is properly enforced.
Mr. David Heath: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his very full statement. Will he accept the strong support of Liberal Democrat Members for the action that he has taken in respect of Mr. John Brooke and our shared concern for Mr. Brooke's safe recovery?
Regarding the British detainees, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that three conditions must obtain if we are to ensure fairness of process? First, there must be full and free consular access to all the detainees. Secondly, they must be made clearly and unambiguously aware of the charges that they face. Thirdly, there should be no obstruction to the legal support to which they are entitled.
With regard to the tragic events in December, and looking back to previous events in Chechnya, I welcome the review that the Foreign Secretary has established about travel information. However, will he examine two specific points? First, is there a case for placing a clear duty of care both on tour operators and on employers before people are put into positions of danger, or before bookings are made?
Secondly, will the Foreign Secretary examine the ease of access to travel information for the ordinary citizen as opposed to the tour operator? Travel information appears

27
on the internet, but not with quite the ease of access that is provided by the State Department in the United States. It is important that the currency of such information be constantly maintained. The information on the internet today was last updated on 29 December. It does not take into account events that have occurred since that date, which might suggest to a member of the public that it was not current.
Lastly, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that every co-operation will be given to Dr. Iryani and the Yemeni Government in sharing expertise and information so that we can fulfil our commitment, which I am sure that the whole House shares, to stamp out acts of terrorism wherever they occur?
Mr. Cook: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions and his support for our activities in relation to John Brooke. We have pressed for consular access to all five detainees, and, following my most recent conversation with the Prime Minister of Yemen, I am confident that we shall soon be able to secure that access.
I have made it clear that if there are to be charges, they must be brought soon. It would be wrong to detain any of those men without charges being brought against them. If charges are not brought, they should be released.
I am pleased to say that the consulate in Yemen has suggested a lawyer for the five men. I understand from the Prime Minister of Yemen that the lawyer will be given access to the men, and we shall certainly insist on their having proper legal advice on how to conduct their defence against any charges.
The hon. Gentleman referred to a duty of care on travel operators and employers. We can consider that and I would not rule out any way of improving our advice on safety for British travellers and workers; but I doubt that such a duty of care would be easy to operate because, as events in Yemen have tragically shown, circumstances in a country can change unexpectedly and swiftly. Nevertheless, we are anxious that our travel advice should be fully known to operators, employers and members of the public. That is why it is available by phone and on Ceefax and an internet website. We are happy to consider any other way of distributing that advice and we shall consider that when we meet travel operators.
Mr. Roger Godsiff: I thank the Foreign Secretary for coming to the House and making a statement on the difficult situation in Yemen. I draw his attention to the fact that the families of the five British citizens who have been detained in Yemen were concerned and distressed because of the period between 29 December and 8 January when there was no access to the detainees and very little information was forthcoming about what was happening to them.
I thank the consulate service for the work that it has done since Friday in obtaining access to the men. Has my right hon. Friend had a full report from the service on the detainees' well-being? Has he emphasised to the Prime Minister of Yemen that there is a need for charges speedily to be brought and for a trial to be arranged—otherwise the men should be released?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend quite properly echoes the point that I have made twice—that the Yemeni authorities
28
must release the five men or charge them. Of course, they should be charged only if there is sound evidence on which the charges can be based.
I understand entirely the distress that must have been caused to relatives between 29 December, when they heard of the arrests, and 8 January, when we were able to share information with them. I can only say to the House and the relatives that we shared information with them on the very day that we obtained it. We had no information to communicate to them before 8 January.
The consul-general has visited four of the five men. My hon. Friend asks about their health. The consul-general reports that they appear fit and well and he did not see any evident points of ill-treatment. However, my hon. Friend is aware that one of those four has complained that he was ill treated in the first week of his detention. We are anxious to obtain access to the fifth person to reassure ourselves and his relatives that he also is fit and well.
Sir Teddy Taylor: While I fully understand that it is the Foreign Office's job to protect British citizens abroad, the Foreign Secretary must be aware of the danger of the Foreign Office acting as the emperor of the world when dealing with small and disorganised countries. He has this afternoon instructed the Government of Yemen to charge the five speedily or release them, but will he also make it clear that if, by chance, the five are found to have been involved in planning terrorism in another country, the Government will fully support that Government in dealing with them?
Will the Foreign Secretary also give a firm commitment that the British Government will do all in their power to make sure that any training establishment or organisation is dealt with? Although we appreciate that it is his job to help British citizens abroad, will he make it abundantly clear that if any of our citizens travelling abroad are involved in potential acts of terrorism, the Government will condemn them clearly and openly?
Mr. Cook: I plainly cannot make any comment that might be seen to have any bearing on whether or not there is any validity to the arrest of the five detainees, but on the general principle, British citizens travelling abroad are of course subject to the laws of the countries in which they travel. The objective of our consular support is to make sure that if they should be charged, they are dealt with fairly within the legal process of a country and that the legal process is fair and open to scrutiny, with adequate opportunity provided for British citizens to defend themselves. We shall continue to make sure that that consular duty is provided.
As for any links that may or may not exist with the United Kingdom, I remind the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) that last year we passed the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998, which made it a specific offence to conspire to commit terrorist offences abroad. Of course, we shall be vigilant in examining whether that may apply to any case at present or in the future.
Mr. Tony Benn: Has the Foreign Secretary received any evidence, official or unofficial, that any of the kidnappings might have been related to the Desert Fox operation? Is he aware that many people throughout the middle east regarded the bombing of Iraq

29
by America and Britain as terrorist in character? Will he confirm that when the Prime Minister saw Nelson Mandela in South Africa recently, Nelson Mandela strongly condemned the attacks on behalf of the South African Government?
Mr. Cook: My right hon. Friend invites me to go over a debate that we held at length before the House rose for the recess. In response to his suggestion that the bombing of Iraq was a terrorist activity, I say only that we are absolutely confident of the full legal base on which we operated, rooted in Security Council resolutions.
In response to the particular point on which my right hon. Friend pegged his comments, it is clear from the statement by the Yemeni authorities that the principal objective of the kidnappers was to secure the release of Yemeni and foreign citizens who had been detained by the Yemeni authorities. That demand was made by the kidnappers, and the Yemeni Government are clear that that was the motivation behind the hostage taking, and no other.
Mr. Keith Simpson: Can the Foreign Secretary confirm whether any of the British armed forces or security forces are involved on behalf of the British Government in giving advice to the Yemeni authorities in dealing with these kidnappings, given their tremendous expertise? I relate this in particular to the case of Mr. John Brooke, of Hardley Street in Norfolk. The Foreign Secretary will be aware that, given the recent tragedies in Yemen, Mr. Brooke's family and friends know that anything that is done or said can have a deep and immediate impact on Mr. Brooke's survival.
What advice is the Foreign Secretary giving to British companies that have British nationals based in Yemen, who are obviously very vulnerable to such kidnapping and ransoming?
Mr. Cook: The whole House fully understands the deep anxiety that must be felt by Mr. Brook's family and friends as to his position. We shall certainly do all we can to secure his safe release. With that in mind we have, in Yemen and through my phone calls from London, impressed on Yemeni Ministers that we wish his release to be achieved by mediation and negotiation, not violent confrontation. I am pleased that we have been given an assurance that before any military action was taken, there would be consultation with us during which we could express our concerns.
Two police officers currently in the Yemen with the British police team are skilled and experienced in hostage negotiation. I have urged the Prime Minister of the Yemen to allow them to provide advice, and I believe that the Yemeni authorities could be helped if they were to take advantage of the skills and experience of those two police officers.
On the other point that the hon. Gentleman raises, there are some 300 British nationals in the Yemen. Many of them are working for companies with experience in the Yemen, and with bona fide commercial interests there. We are urging them to adopt extra vigilance in the light of recent events, and we are seeking to update our register of British citizens in the Yemen. We very much hope that
30
those measures will succeed in defeating the attempts of others who may seek to emulate the events of recent weeks.
Mr. George Galloway: The shadow Foreign Secretary confirmed, not just today but over the weekend, his reputation for being unable to see a belt without hitting below it, and it greatly diminished him and the House.
Will the Foreign Secretary accept my congratulations on the statement that he gave the House today? It was a masterly statement, outlining a very fine set of steps, which I believe will improve our position. However, will the Foreign Secretary resist the temptation—which he has been offered here today—to conflate the holding of the innocent British hostage, Mr. Brooke, with the holding under Yemeni law of the five British citizens, whose mystery tour to Yemen may turn out to be a good deal more sinister than the shadow Foreign Secretary currently thinks it was?
Yemen is a poor third-world country, which happens to have the misfortune to be amidst the maelstrom of middle east problems and the rising tide of fundamentalism, without many of the state resources that ideally would be in place to deal with them. I hope that the Foreign Secretary will resist the temptation to equate the Government of Yemen with the terrorist gangs who are responsible for holding our British citizen, Mr. Brooke, at this time.
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend makes a fair point that the Government of Yemen are faced with a very serious challenge from fundamentalists and extremists, who certainly have demonstrated a willingness to use weapons and to use violence. I expressed to the Prime Minister of the Yemen our full support for him in combating terrorism.
Our legitimate interest as a Government is to ensure that, where our nationals may be caught up in events such as the seizure of the 16 hostages, we are fully consulted and their release is effected in ways that do not put their safety at risk. As I said in my statement, that should not cloud the fact that the prime responsibility for what happened to those hostages who, tragically, were killed, rests with those who seized them in the first place; and that our condemnation of terrorism throughout the world must apply very strongly to those who put their lives at risk.
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: As one who has travelled to Yemen many times, and who narrowly evaded being kidnapped some years ago—I believe in the late 1970s—I have some understanding of the tribal rivalries and the fact that, in that country, the Government's writ does not go much further than the foothills. What I find extraordinary is the fact that Foreign Office travel advice for that country—where anarchy rules so frequently, and where there has been terrorism consistently, for decades—was not substantially upgraded after the bombing of Iraq. Perhaps the Foreign Secretary can explain why. He needs to tell us why neither he nor the Foreign Office took action after what we knew would cause considerable difficulty in the Muslim world.
Mr. Cook: The hon. Member speaks from experience of the country, but he is wrong in what he says about the

31
travel advice. The entire first paragraph of that advice was rewritten to draw attention to the tensions in the region. However, I must tell the hon. Member that at present all the evidence is that the seizure of those 16 hostages was prompted not by anything to do with Iraq, but by the detention of alleged extremists and fundamentalists within the Yemen. It was a Yemeni seizure, but it was also a Yemeni issue. In that respect, our travel advice cannot in any way be properly faulted.
Mr. Keith Vaz: I thank the Foreign Secretary for speaking twice over the past three days with Dr. Iryani, the Yemeni Prime Minister, and for his personal intervention, which has created a very important dialogue at a very high level of the Yemeni Government. His approach, which is to work with the Yemeni authorities, is the right one. Will he consider appointing a special envoy, accountable to the Foreign Secretary, who can go to Aden in order to co-ordinate the various British agencies that are already there; or is he quite satisfied with the way in which matters have been co-ordinated in that country on our behalf?
Mr. Cook: In the present difficult circumstances, it would be unwise to express satisfaction. None the less, our ambassador and consul-general are doing an excellent job and receiving access to the highest level of the Yemeni Government. Our ambassador has spoken repeatedly to the Interior Minister and the Prime Minister of Yemen, and as my hon. Friend has rightly said, I have spoken twice in three days to the latter.
I am confident that our contact is at the highest level and working well. If, in future, we felt that a special envoy would have a role to play, appointing one would certainly be an option. We shall certainly take any option that will assist us in ensuring that we safeguard the rights and safety of British citizens.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: I welcome the part of the Foreign Secretary's statement on the appointment of a counter-terrorism hostage expert, on a retainer, to the Foreign Office; and the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has fence-built sufficiently to re-establish proper co-operation with the Yemeni authorities. Is not it a pity that we reached a point where that exercise was necessary?
Given that we have been sophisticated and robust in dealing with hostage-taking and terrorism in this country, and that Yemeni soldiers put their lives on the line to attempt to rescue the hostages, should not the Government's first reaction have been to defend and support the Yemeni Government in advance of any investigation into what happened, rather than allow the stream of criticism in the media with, seemingly, some official connivance?
Mr. Cook: We have been extremely careful in what we have said as a Foreign Office and a Government about these tragic events. None of us, as yet, is in receipt of the police investigating team's authoritative report on what may have happened. It is a matter of concern that an attempt—military action—to release the hostages was made without consultation with British authorities. We have very strongly expressed the view that we needed to
32
be consulted before any such action was taken, and that we did not want any action to be taken that would put the safety of British citizens at risk. We regret that we were not consulted, which is why I impressed very strongly on the Prime Minister of Yemen that we must be consulted before any similar attempt is made in the case of Mr. Brooke. I welcome the fact that efforts to secure his release are proceeding by mediation and negotiation.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Are reports that the kidnappers were calling for the release of the five arrested men true? Is there any link between Supporters of Sharia—the organisation in London—and the five men who are being held in gaol? If there were a connection—or not—would we, in certain circumstances, allow a British official to appear in court in Aden either in their defence or for other purposes?
Mr. Cook: If we were summoned by either the defence or the prosecution to supply an official to provide evidence that was relevant to court proceedings, we would of course make the most careful response and wish to help the legal process. We would certainly want to be of assistance, where it was relevant, to the defence.
My hon. Friend invites me to speculate on two points which may, or may not, turn out to be relevant to any future legal case affecting these five people. I shall decline the invitation to do so. I think that the whole House would agree that it would be wrong for us in any way to comment on that matter.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Can any British tourist, British Council employee or expatriate feel safe when, as soon as Ramadan is over on Sunday or Monday, there is the prospect of yet more missiles raining down on Baghdad? Once upon a time, nobody was more eloquent than the Foreign Secretary on the effects of cruise missiles. If that is to be done again, what will be the effect in the Arab world?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend's question, as I am sure he would be the first to concede, does not immediately relate to the events that we have been discussing today. In response to his point, may I say that there are no such plans? If there were to be any such event, there would be a full statement to the House and that would be the time at which to review the matter.
In the mean time, we are clear that our travel advice to all those going to countries in the region reflects such risk as there is. We are clear that that travel advice is correct, and with the travel industry, we wish to make sure that it is fully distributed and fully up to date. That is the immediate task on which we shall focus.
Mr. Tom Clarke: I thank my right hon. Friend for a typically comprehensive, competent and concerned statement to the House. With regard to his reference to the British police, will they be working and investigating separately or together with the FBI, which he also mentioned? When does he expect their conclusions, and to whom will they report?
Mr. Cook: I can assure my right hon. Friend that there is full co-operation with the FBI team, and both sides are sharing with each other the fruits of their investigations. I do not know precisely when they will report. We expect

33
the British team to return in the near future, but how long before it can submit a considered report is a matter for the team. The report will come to Her Majesty's Government and will be equally available to the Home Office and the Foreign Office.
Mrs. Maria Fyfe: May I add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend? Does he agree that after the tragic events in Yemen at Christmas, the impression has been created in some parts of the media that people set off to the wilder and more dangerous parts of the world on holiday with no more information than a few paragraphs in a travel brochure, but that in fact that is not the case? Responsible travel companies give full information to would-be travellers. They also up-date it as quickly as possible when they get new information from the Foreign Office. They warn travellers that there may have to be last-minute changes to travel plans and suggest a substantial reading list to travellers, so that they can be fully informed about the countries that they are to visit.
That being so, if there are any changes to normal practice arising from the review, can my right hon. Friend tell the House what plans there are to publish them so that travellers can continue adventure travel?
Mr. Cook: I agree with my hon. Friend that the company concerned is a responsible, established company that maintains full awareness of the travel advice from the Foreign Office. One issue that we are anxious to address in our dialogue with the travel industry is the fact that because we review our travel advice regularly, there may well be occasions where our travel advice changes between clients booking their holiday and departing on their holiday.
In our discussions with the travel industry, we want to make sure that those who book holidays to places where there may be risks are provided with a telephone hotline number or access to the internet website or Ceefax, so that they know where to look for changes in the travel advice and can check it before departure. We think that that is a right duty of care towards clients booking their holiday,
34
and we are anxious to ensure it through an agreement with the travel industry, so that all clients have up-to-date information at the time of departure.
Mr. Richard Burden: I agree with my right hon. Friend that our first thoughts must be with the families of the hostages tragically killed, the family of Mr. Brooke and the families of the men currently being held in Yemen. That is why it is important that we get to the bottom of what happened in the case of the hostages and insist that the men being held be brought to a fair trial or released.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should avoid the temptation, present in some sections of the media, for the matter to degenerate into some kind of anti-Yemenism? I do not ask him to speculate whether the following was the case, but if the Yemeni Government had been given information that British institutions or sites were under threat, the same sections of the media would be the first to criticise the Yemeni Government if they had taken no action. We owe it to a country with which we have long relations and which is attempting to establish, albeit imperfectly, a fledgling democracy, and to the Yemeni community in this country, not to allow an anti-Yemeni feeling to develop.
Mr. Cook: We have some legitimate concerns about recent events, which we have expressed to the Yemeni authorities. I have already highlighted two of those: first, that in the case of the first hostage seizure, military action was taken without consultation with us; and secondly, that we were not notified timeously about the people who had been detained by the Yemeni authorities on 24 December. None the less, I strongly endorse the general drift of my hon. Friend's question. It is important that everybody should recognise that the Yemeni authorities are faced with a serious terrorist challenge and that the people who are primarily responsible for the deaths that result from it are the terrorists themselves. That is why we are determined to work closely with the Yemeni Government to find all possible ways in which, together, we can defeat those terrorists.

National Health Service
4.21 pm
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): I should like to make a statement on how the national health service is coping with the recent sharp rise in the number of people falling ill.
First, on behalf of everybody in the country, I want to thank all the people working in the health service and local social services for the huge effort they have been putting in to ensure that everybody gets the treatment and care that is needed. They have done all that because there has been a surge in the numbers of people going to see their doctor, and an even bigger surge in the number of people calling ambulances and helplines and going to hospital. The sharp increase in the level of illness is confirmed by the increase in the number of people dying, which in some parts of the country has meant that families trying to arrange funerals face long delays.
The figures put together by the Public Health Laboratory Service from returns made by the Royal College of General Practitioners show that the present outbreak of flu and flu-like illnesses seems likely to be on the same scale as that which occurred in the winters of 1994 and 1996, although the figure may go higher. The figures reflect the increased number of people with flu-like symptoms who go to see their local GP. Until now, flu and flu-like illnesses have been worst in the west midlands and the north, but there have been sharp peaks elsewhere.
The demand for ambulance and hospital services has shown a much larger increase, with daily ambulance journeys almost doubling in some places. Both the Merseyside and the Greater Manchester ambulance services saw the demand for ambulances shoot up to more than 1,000 journeys a day, compared with an average of 500 to 600. For the London ambulance service, this new year was the busiest on record with more than 4,700 journeys, compared with a daily average of 3,000.
There have also been some tragic fatalities due to meningitis. I extend my sympathy to the families concerned. Parents are right to visit their family doctor to seek advice if they have concerns. In November, the chief medical officer advised general practitioners to refer suspected cases of meningitis promptly to hospital, and he will renew that advice.
The national health service is better prepared than ever before to cope with those illnesses, and in most places hospitals have coped well with the pressures that they face. In August, I asked the NHS to prepare itself, to strengthen emergency and ambulance services, to make best use of the beds available, to improve discharge arrangements and to prevent unnecessary admissions to hospital in the first place. It has done so. Almost 2,200 schemes are under way nationally, backed by the £159 million announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in the pre-Budget statement. Those include £750,000 to improve intensive and high-dependency care in London; £200,000 for one-stop clinics in Walsall; £175,000 for better home treatment and care in Leeds; £140,000 for a community-based phlebotomy service in Gloucestershire; and £45,000 to help prevent fractures among the elderly in Kent.
In August, we also announced that GPs could this winter, for the first time, offer flu vaccinations to all their patients over 75, rather than confine vaccinations to
36
particularly vulnerable groups. As a result, a third of a million extra doses have been given this year compared with last, and vaccine remains available.
We are tackling particular pressure points. Over the past week, those parts of the NHS that are suffering particular problems which could be helped by extra cash have been told that they can draw on the £50 million contingency fund, which is there for that purpose. In some places that will mean more high-dependency beds being provided to relieve pressure on intensive care beds.
The position today is that 35 adult intensive care beds are free and available for use. The situation seems to be easing, but it could get worse again if icy weather were to lead to a lot of falls, particularly among the elderly. The NHS cannot be complacent. It is not, and I am not.
I will not pretend that the NHS everywhere has coped as well as the public are entitled to expect. Such an increase in illness will always cause difficulties, but those difficulties have been made worse because of the serious underlying problems that we inherited. We inherited a rundown NHS with serious staff shortages. Many buildings are out of date, much equipment is old and unreliable, methods of working are not making best use of new technology—particularly information technology—and there are not enough staffed beds. The Government are getting a grip on the short-term consequences of those problems and are also laying longer-term foundations to build a modern and dependable NHS. Much of that work is already under way.
One of the causes of the shortage of nurses is the cuts that the previous Government deliberately made in the number of nurses going into training, which fell from 15,000 a year at the time of the 1992 general election to fewer than 13,000 when they left office, having fallen at one point to 11,700. If they had not made those cuts, there could have been an extra 11,000 nurses available to the NHS today. It takes three years to train a nurse, so the country is paying a heavy price for those years of Tory neglect.
This year, 15,500 nurse training places will be available and 2,500 more people are already in training compared with when we took over. As I have said before, we must also reform the system of nurse education and training, which the previous Government introduced in the 1980s. It has achieved some of its objectives, but its emphasis on the academic element has put off some potential recruits.
Many nurses, when they qualify, think that they lack the practical skills necessary on a ward. The transfer of responsibility to the education sector from the health service has broken the old links between individual hospitals and nurses in training, to the disadvantage of both. Many nurses and nurse managers recognise the need for change, so I hope to carry the profession with us—but reform there must be.
The previous Government refused, right up to the end, to recognise that there was a shortage of nurses. This Government recognise that reality and therefore training extra nurses is a major objective. We spelt that out in our evidence to the pay review body. This year, we also made it clear that the pay review body should give special attention to the pay of nurses in the lower grades. Like the nurses, we want reform of the present rigid grading structure and better career development prospects so that those vital staff have a modern, fair and flexible system for pay and promotion. I repeat my hope that the

37
independent pay review body will propose a settlement that is fair to nurses and midwives and which the Government will be able to implement in full.
We are also addressing the concerns of qualified nurses who have left the NHS. We want to attract them back, not only with better pay, but with family friendly shift patterns and a better and safer working environment. If we are to retain existing staff, recruit new staff and persuade former staff to return, we must provide them all with the modern buildings, plant and equipment that they need. We have already embarked on the biggest hospital building programme in the history of the NHS, and there is more to come. High priorities for more small-scale investment include the replacement of outdated and unreliable equipment.
Last September, the Prime Minister announced that the national lottery new opportunities fund would help to provide new and better equipment for the detection and treatment of cancer. He also announced that, from April, we would be investing £30 million to renew 25 per cent. of accident and emergency departments to make them better and safer for both patients and staff. Ambulance services will be given new control systems, new vehicles and new equipment. All those will help the NHS to cope better with winter pressures.
New methods of working will also help. We launched three pilot schemes in Newcastle, Preston and Milton Keynes to test NHS Direct, a nurse-led 24-hour helpline. The schemes have been a great success: providing advice and reassurance round the clock, they have been very popular with patients, and have had a positive impact in helping them to look after themselves and reducing unnecessary calls on other services. Over Christmas and the new year, NHS Direct pilots took almost double their usual number of calls—itself an indication of the upsurge in illness. After receiving advice from the nurse to whom they spoke, about half the patients with flu symptoms were able to look after themselves. That shows how the NHS is delivering new and better services, and it is being extended to the rest of the country.
With the special investment of £44 million that we have provided, NHS Direct has already been extended to the west midlands, where it took more than 1,150 calls in its first week of operation. By April this year, it will cover more than 20 million people in the west country, Manchester, south London, west London, Essex, Nottinghamshire and other places: over 40 per cent. of the population. That will provide a new and better service for patients and at the same time help people to avoid resorting unnecessarily to GPs, the 999 service or their local hospitals.
Finally, there is the question of beds. Under the last Government, the number of acute beds was reduced by 40,000 and the number of general beds by a further 23,000. In September I announced a review of beds in the health service—of the number of beds involved, the sort of beds and where they should be. Preliminary work for the review suggests, not surprisingly, that the health service needs more beds. Our extra investment in the NHS over the next three years will ensure that we can respond rapidly when we have the final report.
Then there is the question of intensive care and high-dependency beds. Soon after taking office, on the advice of the specialists in children's intensive care, I authorised a shift of extra funds from the paperwork of
38
GP fundholding to children's intensive care, and the concentration of the service in regional and sub-regional centres, with special arrangements for retrieval of very sick children by specially trained and specially equipped staff. As a result of the additional investment, the service can now provide up to 300 children's intensive care beds, very specialist new-born babies' beds and high-dependency beds. The new system has been working well, but recently there was an unacceptable delay in dispatching an ambulance from Nottingham to Rotherham. In the light of that experience, I have insisted that each children's intensive care unit, with its local ambulance service, must review its arrangements to ensure that it is possible to stabilise and transfer very sick children safely and promptly.
Intensive and high-dependency care beds are vital to the treatment of many people who have had operations, as well as accident and emergency cases. They demand huge resources. Intensive care is not just a matter of a bed and some specialist equipment. To care properly for one patient for one day in intensive care can require the services of around six specialist nurses as well as specialist intensive care doctors, anaesthetists and others.
Previously, the overall level and availability of intensive and high-dependency care has not had the attention that it deserves. That is why the Audit Commission is co-operating with the national health service and the Intensive Care Society to carry out a detailed study of the operation of intensive and high-dependency care in the NHS. I hope that that will provide a sound basis on which to plan for better services. I am also reviewing the role of the emergency bed service and of the national intensive care bed register. None of that is a criticism of the people working in those services—more than anyone else, they want the system to be modernised.
It has always been a source of pride in our country that, when difficulties crop up, people rally round to help and they have certainly done so on this occasion. I thank them all. In particular, I thank Dr. Ian Bogle, chairman of the British Medical Association, for his repeated advice to the public that normally healthy adults should use services in a considerate and responsible way.
From next April, for the first time in 20 years the NHS will operate on a budget entirely set by a Labour Government. It will benefit from the first stage of our £21 billion extra investment. In the meantime, I know that people realise that, when so many people suddenly fall sick, as they have in some places recently, it is inevitable that treatment and care cannot be as prompt as at other times. I want to ensure that we provide the people who work in the NHS with sufficient tools and resources to ensure that the impact is much less in future.
Over the past few weeks, nurses, doctors, midwives, health visitors, cleaners, kitchen staff, managers, porters, ambulance staff, laboratory scientists, therapists, pharmacists, telephonists, clerical, administrative and maintenance staff and social services staff have all performed wonders on our behalf when their own ranks have been severely depleted by the same illnesses that are affecting the rest of us. Many of them have kept on working while "under the weather" themselves. Many

39
have returned early from leave to help their colleagues. Others have cancelled leave that they planned to take. I thank them all. They have done us proud.
Miss Ann Widdecombe: Although I join the Secretary of State in his tribute to the many workers in the health service for the way in which they have coped with the emergency, I feel that my first question must be: what is new in the statement? What in the statement is going to make the slightest bit of difference to those who are now lying on trolleys, in fear and pain, waiting for treatment? The second question is: does he really think, with his complacent statement, that he is on the same planet as those people waiting for treatment?
Does the Secretary of State now agree, with the benefit of hindsight, with what I told him as early as last September—that money for winter pressures in our health service is far too little and too late when it is issued in November? Would it not be simple common sense to allow our hospitals to know how much they will receive much earlier in the year, so that they can plan exactly how the money will be spent?
Is it not the case, as the British Medical Association has been saying along with us, that the obsession of the Labour Government with their so-called early pledge on health service waiting lists has made the current crisis in our health service far worse than it need have been and distorted clinical priorities away from patient priorities? Will the Secretary of State tell the House how many hospitals were continuing to admit routine waiting-list cases while patients were lying in pain on trolleys in corridors, with many forced to seek the help of relatives and friends to provide basic nursing care?
The Secretary of State has, understandably, been telling patients not to use accident and emergency services unless it really is an emergency, but at the same time doctors have been telling worried parents not to take any chances if they suspect that their children may have even the earliest symptoms of meningitis. Is not there a breakdown of communication in the Department of Health?
Does the Secretary of State recall that in January 1996 the right hon. Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) and, indeed, the now Prime Minister, promised the public that a Labour Government would immediately set up a trolley task force? What has happened to that task force? Is it stuck on a waiting list along with some of the Government's other early pledges? It is no good the right hon. Gentleman telling us that he has set up an inquiry into beds, when what he promised was an inquiry into the excessive use of trolleys.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that he has cut nurse training by 3 per cent. from the levels that the Conservative Government had planned for 1997–98? He made much in his statement of what he suggested were our reductions. Will he own up to having cut 3 per cent. from our planned levels in his first year in post? His belated attempts last week to wriggle out of the blame for the crisis in our health service will impress nobody in the light of that cut.
How is the Secretary of State's wish list of nursing recruitment intended to be met? Will he acknowledge the use that is even now being made of the private sector, and
40
deduce from that that it is time to break down the ideological barriers that he continually sets up between the public and private sectors?
The Secretary of State mentioned 35 intensive beds. Where are they? Are intensive beds available in every region, or is there a concentration in particular regions? Why, in the national priorities guidance that he issued last year, is nurse recruitment not listed as a priority? Will he now, at last, abandon his ludicrous concentration on raw numbers on waiting lists in favour of waiting times, which are a far more accurate measure of whether people are getting a satisfactory service from the NHS?
I welcome the Secretary of State's good will on pay for nurses, but can he assure hard-pressed health authorities that he will make the additional money available and not expect it to come from patient care? Will he admit that it is time for a slightly more mature debate on the health service? [Interruption.] I am pleased that Labour Members are agreeing with that at last.
Does the Secretary of State agree that the problems in the health service have been there since its inception and that the extreme, and welcome, expansion of the health service, and the excess of demand over supply, have bothered every Government from Bevan's time onwards? Will he admit that the magic wands that he promised—or, to be fair, because he was not then a health spokesman, that the then Opposition promised—before the general election were not to be found?
Has not the time come for the Secretary of State to be more humble in his approach, when the nation knows that, although he went to the country with the slogan, "14 days to save the NHS", for the past 14 days he and his policies have flayed the NHS?
Mr. Dobson: I welcome the right hon. Lady's characteristic humility and lack of assertiveness. She asked what was new. I have presented the up-to-date facts, including the ones that she cited. I have given the House and, to the extent that our debate is covered, the people, the true and up-to-date position. That is something new, because, with Parliament not sitting, we did not have the opportunity to do that before.
The right hon. Lady seems to think that, because of the massive effort that people in the national health service put in to reduce waiting lists by 150,000 between April and November, they are somehow rendered incapable of dealing with emergencies and urgent cases in December. If the Opposition think that, they are barking up the wrong tree.
The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) has asked me effectively to ban all treatment of waiting list cases. However, as she is constantly ranting on, there are large numbers of people on the waiting list who have serious and life-threatening conditions. We have made it clear, as we always do, that it is up to clinicians to judge who should have priority, including, in some circumstances, who should have priority for intensive care beds.
The right hon. Lady asked about meningitis. Those who are offering advice on meningitis to the public have a dilemma. As I explained, the chief medical officer has advised general practitioners to rush children to hospital if they have any concerns or suspicions that those children may have meningitis. Conversely, the chairman of the BMA—on behalf of the profession generally, not on my

41
behalf—has said that healthy adults, who generally are not as susceptible as children to meningitis, should think twice before seeking treatment. I do not think that there is any difficulty with that advice. It is certainly not a matter of the Department of Health speaking with two voices. Moreover, it is a silly, stupid, petty and party political point to suggest that the Department is speaking with two voices.
The right hon. Lady suggested that there was something wrong with being concerned about trolleys. When we were elected to office, we discovered that the previous Government had, quite rightly, established an emergency services action team, the function of which is to examine emergency services, to try to sort out emergency services and to plan for the future—which is what we have done.
I have never ruled out the possibility of relying on the private sector to provide additional help if units within the national health service cannot provide it. About a month ago, the right hon. Lady was denouncing me for not allowing such private sector involvement; now, she is denouncing me for allowing it. It would be better if she tried to introduce a little consistency into her argument.
In a factual question, the right hon. Lady asked whether intensive care beds are available in every region. The answer is yes—or the answer was yes when the service provided me with the information. It is quite possible that, in one or another region, there will be a sudden burst of people coming into accident and emergency and the available beds will be occupied. However, I was informed that every region has some intensive care beds. I might add that, once we started examining the matter of intensive care beds, we discovered that the previous Tory Government had never known how many intensive care beds there were in the United Kingdom. We shall therefore take no criticism on the matter from Conservative Members.
The right hon. Lady produced a document entitled "Ten Measures to Help the National Health Service". However, none of the measures dealt with paying nurses, who never got a mention in the document. When she suggests that paying health service staff can be done only at the expense of patient care, she causes great offence to those who work in the national health service, as those who are paid in the national health service are those who are providing patient care.
The right hon. Lady talks about the national health service as if it faced some unique problems. All I can say is that every country in the developed world is concerned about the future of its health care system, and that all the Ministers from abroad whom I meet tell me that they are rather envious of our system because it is a lot more efficient and cost-effective than their commercial, semi-commercial and insurance-based systems, all of which spend a fortune on paperwork. Our national health service—except under the previous Government's ridiculous internal market—does not spend a fortune on paperwork.
The Tory party had better make up its mind about emergency planning for the winter. The right hon. Lady is suggesting now that we should have acted sooner on the matter. Why was it that, when we made all our plans last winter, they were described in an official Tory press release as a public relations stunt?
Mr. Kevin Barron: The nation will be grateful for my right hon. Friend's statement. Given the
42
years of neglect of the NHS, especially in nurse training, I am glad that we may now look forward to a future with more nurses looking after patients in the national health service. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, over Christmas, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) appeared to be more obsessed with opening up the private sector for NHS patients than with sorting out the problems of the NHS that the Tories neglected for decades?
Mr. Dobson: I certainly accept the points that my hon. Friend makes. We must try to ensure that the additional resources, in the various forms that I have described, are in place in the future. We must also try to make additional provision this winter for those areas that are suffering particular problems. That is what I authorised last week and those areas that can benefit from an immediate cash injection will get it, but many can not.
Mr. Simon Hughes: First, the Liberal Democrats join in the tribute to all those who work for the health service in both winter and summer. The Royal College of General Practitioners and the Public Health Laboratory Service have confirmed that there is no flu epidemic and that, although the numbers suffering from flu and flu-like illnesses have risen, they are not exceptional for a winter in Britain. In November, the Secretary of State said that unless we had exceptionally bad weather or a flu epidemic the NHS could face the winter with confidence. Just last week, the Secretary of State said that the NHS is in crisis. What changed in a month?
Secondly, I have to agree with the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and others who have said clearly to the Secretary of State for months now—as the Liberal Democrats have said for years—that the obsession with reducing waiting lists is a folly and should be replaced by concentration on reducing waiting times and improving the quality of treatment. Will the right hon. Gentleman now give up that Government obsession of last year and replace it with better targets for this year? Can he assure us that no one has waited on a trolley for a bed because that bed has been kept for someone from the waiting list initiative instead of for emergency admissions?
Finally, the Secretary of State tried to put much of the blame on to the Conservative administration of the health service, which certainly under-resourced it. With hindsight, does he agree that a Labour Government who came to power in May 1997, but did not commit additional resources to the health service until July 1998–14 months later—should share responsibility for the under-resourcing of the health service this winter? If winter announcements are made in November, four weeks before winter begins, anyone can see that they may be too late to be effective in a winter such as the one we are having. In December, the Minister for Public Health said that there is no rationing in the health service, but that does not appear to be true unless the Secretary of State can guarantee to the House that everybody who needs a bed will get one at the moment they need it.
Mr. Dobson: First, I do not believe that anyone has any great faith in the scientific accuracy of the Public Health Laboratory Service epidemic figures, including the people who assemble them—[Interruption.] For the

43
purposes of this discussion, I am prepared to accept them, but if the definition had not been changed two years ago we would now be suffering what used to be called a moderate epidemic. We are not yet suffering a huge epidemic of the sort that happens about once a decade. We have confidence in the national health service and its capacity to cope, because in most parts of the country it has coped very well.
Secondly, we have brought down not only waiting lists but waiting times. During the period in which waiting lists have come down, the average time that people waited for treatment has also fallen, as has the number of people waiting more than 12 months for treatment. Unlike the Tories, we are not content with keeping only our own promises; we have kept some of theirs, too. During all the time the Tories had a target of having no one wait for 18 months, they failed to deliver on it in a single month. We have delivered it, and we are reducing waiting times.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) seemed to suggest that the extra money that we provided for the NHS somehow did not come in until July last year. He should cast his mind back a little. We found money for winter pressures for the previous winter. From 1 April, we found £1.7 million extra for the health service, and we have found another £250 million on top of that. In case the hon. Gentleman has forgotten his election promises, let me remind him that that is roughly three times as much as his party promised to spend on the NHS.
Mr. David Hinchliffe: I join my right hon. Friend's tribute to those who work in the national health service, and I particularly welcome his reference to those who work in social services. What was new both this year and last was that the Government brought about much closer working relationships with social services, which, despite all the difficulties of recent weeks, have substantially improved their ability to care for people in their own homes on discharge from hospital. Have the Government had an opportunity to evaluate fully the impact of the winter pressures initiative either last year or so far during the current winter?
May I tell my right hon. Friend of my concerns about West Yorkshire, where there have been specific difficulties and pressures? I pay particular tribute to those who work in the area, but the difficulties relate to some primary care services that patients have been unable to access. I recognise that general practitioners work extremely hard and have every right to their Christmas holidays. However, people have presented themselves to accident and emergency units in several cases because they have been unable to receive advice from GPs. Given the NHS Bill that will come before the House soon on the abolition of competition between GPs, might we consider future arrangements for GP practices to work together over holiday periods to provide back-up provision that would prevent people from presenting themselves unnecessarily at hospitals?
Mr. Dobson: My hon. Friend raises some important points. I do not have all the detailed figures for every part of the country, but I can illustrate the extra sums going into providing care for people outside hospitals by mentioning the money that has gone to the West Kent
44
health authority, which serves the area represented by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald. That authority received £1.1 million for extra packages of home care, and a further £500,000 for further nursing home beds. I trust that those sums are working just as well this year as they did last year, when the right hon. Lady's party described them as a public relations stunt.
My hon. Friend referred to primary care services. In some parts of the country it appears that when general practitioners took holidays around Christmas and new year—not unreasonably; they are just like everyone else—there was a build-up of people seeking treatment. To be fair to GPs, many who realised that that was happening re-opened their surgeries. We must consider that problem carefully for next year. People go on about the millennium bug, but the millennium humans are even more important, and we shall have to make special arrangements to make sure that the NHS can cope with the extraordinary holiday period that we can expect next Christmas and new year.
Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I have heard a bit of window dressing today, and quite a bit of sensible evolution. Even more, I experienced a familiar flavour during the statement. What the Secretary of State did not have to contend with was demonstrating junior doctors. I dare say that the modest improvement to the hours of junior doctors is one of the issues that has led to the other difficulties that the health service is experiencing. Ever was it thus.
I urge the Secretary of State to reflect on two serious comments. I welcome his commitment to reconsider how Project 2000 is working in practice. Saying that nursing should be a graduate profession had much merit, particularly for nurses in the community and specialist nurses. However, it may have discouraged some and resulted in disappointment for others who think that they are pursuing academic training for what is ultimately a practical task. Will he consider carefully nurses' education for the necessary tasks?
Will the Secretary of State look again at the resistance to flexible and local pay? Insisting on monolithic pay scales for the tasks that nurses do is extraordinarily unrealistic. Nursing problems in Newcastle are not the same as the acute recruitment problems in Surrey and parts of the south-east. Being so resistant to flexible pay was an error.
Lastly, I urge on the right hon. Gentleman a spirit of realism. Many hon. Members have made this point. The despair in the health service is hard to explain, but I think that too many people believed the rhetoric of new Labour that all the problems would be over and that there would be a massive input of resources when, in fact, it is back to the day-to-day task of trying to meet people's infinite wishes when all the service can do is meet their health needs.
Mr. Dobson: The right hon. Lady made one sensible point and one daft one. She is right to say that we need to review nurse education and training, not because we want to shift away from the improvements and achievements that have resulted from some aspects of Project 2000, but because its disadvantages are beginning to outweigh its advantages. I want a system that keeps the advantages and dispenses with the disadvantages. I want to discuss that with those responsible for nurse training and for representing nurses, and with the NHS as an employer, so that we get it right this time.

45
On local pay, the most popular thing that I ever said to the Royal College of Nursing was that we would get rid of the daft system of topping up the last bit of pay by local bargaining. It drove everyone mad and gave no one any worthwhile money.
Mr. Barry Jones: May I say to my right hon. Friend, to his face and bluntly, that his stewardship has been very good and that he should not be fazed by attacks from Her Majesty's Opposition, who had 18 years to put right the many problems in our still great national health service? Will he give more detail of the new money that he and his ministerial colleagues have put into our health service since he took office? Will he and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales visit my constituency and the Deeside community hospital, Dobshill hospital and Penyffordd hospital to see the wonderful contribution of nurses in my constituency?
Mr. Dobson: I hope that my hon. Friend will not take offence, but I try my very best to get out of my office at least once a week to visit parts of the health service, and at the end of this week I am supposed to go to Swansea. I do not think that I will make two visits to Wales in one week, but I will bear it in mind, as I am sure will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. I share my hon. Friend's view that most people are reasonable folk and realise that all the things that were done wrong over 18 years cannot be put right in 18 months.
Mr. Julian Brazier: The Secretary of State telephoned me two days before Christmas to tell me that the number of beds at Kent and Canterbury hospital was to be halved and the accident and emergency unit run down. The unit was so busy that last week it even had a bed in one of the bathrooms. I was grateful for his courtesy in telephoning me, but words cannot describe the dismay felt by my constituents and many beyond the boundaries of my constituency. Can the Secretary of State tell me whether the pledge that his right hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health gave me in her answer to my Adjournment debate still stands: that no bed will be removed until it is clear that provision exists to cope with the need that exists?
Secondly, can he tell me what steps he will take to ensure that the whole of east Kent, in particular Canterbury, Whitstable and the small villages, which suffer from the worst congestion problems anywhere in the British isles, will have a proper 24-hour accident and emergency service?
Mr. Dobson: As I told the hon. Gentleman, who, to be fair, has campaigned vigorously for the Kent and Canterbury hospital, I have considered the services to be provided in that area, and have received advice from innumerable people and representations from even more. I think that I can at least claim credit for insisting on some substantial changes from the original proposals put forward by the people whom the Tory party appointed to run the health service in Kent. I have ensured special consultant back-up for the A and E service and that consultants are available for other specialist services in the area. I also gave the undertaking that I would keep a close eye on what was happening to bed numbers during the process of change to ensure that it did not go badly. If it looks as though things are going wrong, I am
46
prepared to step in and ensure that the bed reduction does not proceed as quickly, or as far, as presently agreed, let alone according to the huge changes that were originally proposed.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that decisions on health service expenditure and where the money goes are much more important than other statements that we hear from time to time in the House? His ability to spend £1.7 million, set against the prospect of spending more than £20 billion, suggests that this humble, old-fashioned Labour stalwart may be able to do a much better job than those handcuff experts on the Tory Benches and the Liberal Democrats, who believe that we can solve all the problems of the NHS by raising an extra penny on tax. Does he understand that we will shortly reach the defining moment of what is to happen to that money? If he wants more nurses, will he give an assurance that he will pay them—and other NHS workers—a lot more money? He will be measured by that and prospects for a future Labour Government will be much rosier if he manages to resolve that problem, so that we have more, better-equipped and better-paid nurses, and if he ensures that, unlike last time, they are given all the money in one fell swoop.
Mr. Dobson: My good and hon. Friend knows as well as I do that, compared with the £1.7 million that I mentioned, we will be finding more than £3 billion extra for the health service next year—an increase of 5.7 per cent., added to an increase for the health service in the country as a whole of £21 billion in the next three years. What is more, we have announced that as a three-year arrangement so that people in the NHS can do what they have always demanded, which is to plan for a longer period rather than living from hand to mouth from one year to another. I can assure my hon. Friend that I sincerely hope, as I have said on innumerable occasions, that the independent pay review body will bear in mind the evidence that we have given about affordability, the evidence that it has taken from the nurses and our evidence to suggest that it should pay particular attention to the pay of the lowest-paid nurses to make going into nursing more attractive, and will come up with an affordable settlement, which the Government will be able to implement in full.
Mr. Damian Green: The Secretary of State will be as alarmed as I am at news of the steady trickle of nurses in hospitals in east Kent who, over the past couple of weeks, in despair at his stewardship of the national health service, have resigned to become agency nurses. They will not be impressed by his attempt to lay the blame on anyone but himself, nor, I suspect, by the sneering tone that he adopted about the East Kent health authority in his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), given that only two weeks ago he wrote to my hon. Friend congratulating him on the authority's work on hospital reorganisation.
We have heard the pious hopes of the Secretary of State. Will he tell us what he is doing now to staunch the flow of nurses resigning from the national health service? That flow is increasing and is likely to increase as long as he maintains his complacent attitude.
Mr. Dobson: That question takes the biscuit, given the hon. Gentleman's party's record. There are 140,000

47
qualified nurses, trained at public expense, who are no longer in the national health service. The vast bulk of those nurses did not leave over the past fortnight in east Kent; they left over the past 18 years while the Tories were in government, treating them badly and running them down.
National health service staff constantly raise with me the matter of their being subjected to assaults and abuse. When I talked to a senior member of, admittedly in that case, the medical profession about the matter, he told me that they had given up talking to Tory Ministers about the problem, because they were told that nothing could be done about it and that that was the sort of society in which we now lived. The Government do not accept that; we are determined to change things. [Interruption.] That was what the man told me and I shall take his word for it.
We have taken a great deal of action and if Conservative Members do not believe me, let me point out that, not long ago, under the previous Government, someone in the east end was assaulted in a hospital—that person's place of work—and although the person who carried out the assault was successfully prosecuted, if the management had had their way and if there had not been a great row about the matter, they would have disciplined and sacked the person who was the subject of the assault for fighting back. That is the standard of concern that the Tories offered nurses when they were in power.
Ann Keen: I, too, welcome the statement from my right hon. Friend, as will all health workers. They are more than satisfied with his stewardship of the national health service. He is an extremely popular Secretary of State, who is not afraid to go into Marks and Spencer at any time of the day to do his shopping.
One result of the Tomlinson report was the large reduction in the number of beds in London. However, not only was the number of beds reduced, but the role of nurses was reduced by the report. The nature of nurses' work means that they must have good memories and all those nurses whom we want to return to nursing have good memories. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that he will do everything in his power to convince them that family friendly policies are in place, and that shift patterns will not be subject to diktat, as they were under the previous Government? Nurses were told to like it or lump it; they lumped it and they walked. We have much convincing to do to bring those nurses back, but I believe that with the current team we shall do so.
Regarding nurse education, we need highly qualified and highly skilled nurses to nurse in today's complex health care system. Under the previous Government, we in nurse education were evicted off hospital sites overnight and moved into higher education. Will my right hon. Friend seriously consider bringing some of that education back into hospitals, now that we once again have a national health service, not a business of trusts?
Mr. Dobson: I thank my hon. Friend for making those points. In relation to nurse education, one of the most harmful things, certainly in London and some of the other big conurbations, is that because nurse training ceased to be the responsibility of the national health service, the
48
hospitals disposed of huge amounts of accommodation designed for nurses. One of the reasons why it is especially difficult to recruit and retain junior nurses in London and other big conurbations is the absence of anywhere for them to live that is reasonably secure and close to the hospital, and that they can afford. That is one of the reasons why I have opened talks with the Housing Corporation to find out whether we can start to make special arrangements for nurses so that we can once again provide nurse accommodation. That problem was one of the products of shifting nurse education out of the health service and almost exclusively into the education system.
Dr. Julian Lewis: The Secretary of State has referred to long memories. Does not he recall that under the previous Labour Government, nurses' pay fell by 3 per cent. and that during the 18 years of Conservative Government, it rose by 70 per cent.? Does not he understand that people are becoming exasperated with him boasting again and again to the House about distributing millions here and billions there, while they open their papers and discover that he is admitting that the health service is in crisis? Does not that reveal that the Government's actions smack more of creative accountancy than caring services?
Mr. Dobson: No.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. That was a very good and brisk reply from the Secretary of State. I was about to remind the House that the statement has now been running for almost an hour. I want to be able to call every hon. Member who wants to speak, but I can achieve that only with the co-operation of the House. I do not want long statements; I want direct questions and good answers like that just given by the Secretary of State.
Mr. Robin Corbett: The extra money that my right hon. Friend has made available for improved co-operation between Birmingham health authority and the social services department of Birmingham city council is delivering the goods. It means that people who do not need to go into hospital can safely be kept at home and those who no longer need to be in hospital can safely be returned home. Will he provide more such funds?
Mr. Dobson: Yes.
Mr. Peter Viggers: Does the Secretary of State accept that the recent crisis impacted as seriously in the Portsmouth area as anywhere else? Local management at Queen Alexandra hospital in Cosham and St. Mary's hospital in Portsmouth appealed to family and friends to come in to help to feed and wash patients. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Queen Alexandra hospital has a waiting list of 11,000?
In those circumstances, how can the Government possibly contemplate the closure of the only tri-service military hospital at Royal hospital Haslar in my constituency, where 110,000 patients are treated each year and 27,000 patients are treated in accident and emergency? Will the Secretary of State agree that his Department and the Ministry of Defence will receive an

49
urgent deputation with representations from Gosport expressing deep concern about the proposed closure and will discuss the way ahead?
Mr. Dobson: At the time of the announcement, I said that I wanted to ensure that any change was not to the disadvantage of the national health service and the people that it serves in Portsmouth, and I shall stick to that.
Mr. Bill O'Brien: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, which demonstrates beyond any shadow of a doubt that the health service is safe in his hands. I welcome the distribution of the resources that he has outlined today.
In October, the Secretary of State assured me that the consultation procedure in the Wakefield health authority area would be in his charge and that he would call for a report. Will he urgently consider speeding up that consultation, which must be meaningful? I make that plea having received a letter from a constituent who advises me that when his wife took ill on Boxing day, no GP was available and they went to the hospital and had to wait two hours to see a doctor. His wife was admitted five hours later. The consultation process in Wakefield should be speeded up so that we can resolve the problems referred to me by my constituent. Will my right hon. Friend act urgently on those issues?
Mr. Dobson: I shall certainly examine, yet again, the state of consultation on services in the area.
Dr. Evan Harris: I was relieved to hear the Secretary of State draw back from seeking to blame influenza for the problems. It was ludicrous of him to seek to hide his bulky embarrassment behind a tiny virus. However, does he accept that front-line staff were affected by influenza and that it might be reasonable to vaccinate them through a decent occupational health service in the NHS? Why was that not done, and will he consider doing it in future?
Does the right hon. Gentleman further accept that the staff shortage was made worse by his decision last year to stage the nurses' pay award and that he is now reaping the whirlwind? It takes six years to train a medical student so, as the British Medical Association has today asked, will he reconsider his "short-sighted decision" to stage the vital increase in the number of medical students over seven years, and instead stage it over a shorter, more realistic period?
Mr. Dobson: First, I understand that the hon. Gentleman is a doctor, but there appears to be some theological disputation about the value or otherwise of giving flu jabs to usually healthy adults. Broadly speaking, I favour the idea, but I am told that many studies suggest that it is a waste of time and money and that it does not offer much protection. However, I am prepared to consider it, if I can be convinced that it is worth while.
I have forgotten the hon. Gentleman's second point.
Dr. Harris: Doctors' training.
Mr. Dobson: Oh yes. We have agreed to implement the Campbell report which recommended—let us not
50
underestimate this—a 20 per cent. increase in the number of doctors in training from 5,000 to 6,000. We are going ahead with it, but the increase needs to be staged. One cannot establish a new medical school overnight. They are rather expensive items—I assume the hon. Gentleman knows that if he went to one. Nor can one simply expand medical schools because they need additional staff, and those staff might be taken away from treating patients. The change has to be planned and carried out carefully, and it is.
Mr. Harry Cohen: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement and I welcome his acknowledgement of nursing shortages. Will he confirm that there are also serious and growing shortages among midwives? Does he agree that proper pay is important if we are to attract and retain nurses and midwives? Did he see the article by Will Hutton in The Observer yesterday, which pointed out that in the past decade, pay for nurses and midwives slumped from 85 per cent. to 76 per cent. of average earnings? Is not it time for a substantial above-inflation increase in pay for nurses and midwives?
Mr. Dobson: As I have said, I certainly want an increase that is fair to nurses and midwives and which is affordable. That is the necessary combination, and I should like that to be the case this year and in future. I also want the changes in grading and career structure which, I understand, the nursing and midwifery professions want, too. The two have to go together.
Mr. Graham Brady: Will the Secretary of State give the House his latest estimate of the increased number of pensioners now entirely dependent on the NHS following his Government's decision to withdraw tax relief for pensioners with private medical insurance?
Mr. Dobson: No, and in this respect I am exactly like the Government who provided the pensioners with the tax relief—they made no estimate before they gave it, and we have made no estimate in taking it away.
Mrs. Linda Gilroy: First, I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. I, too, congratulate people nationwide, but will he join me in congratulating especially the people at Plymouth Derriford hospital, which last week treated more emergency patients than it has ever done before and is currently admitting the equivalent of more than one ward of patients a day? That certainly deserves acknowledgement.
Secondly, I do not know whether it has been brought to my right hon. Friend's attention, but there was another outbreak of meningitis at the weekend, and two young people are currently in the Plymouth Derriford hospital. The parents of the 1,000 children at the local Coombe Dean school must be very worried. In view of the rather confusing information given by the Opposition, will my right hon. Friend put it on record once again that young and vulnerable people should have no hesitation about going to hospital or to their general practitioner for treatment?
Mr. Dobson: It is certainly the case that, in November, the chief medical officer issued advice to all GPs, saying

51
that they should take meningitis very seriously and refer children in particular to hospital if they suspected that they might have it. I would certainly be very happy to congratulate the people at Derriford hospital, and no doubt all over the west country.
My hon. Friend's area will be among those that will benefit from the next stage of the extension of NHS Direct, which will be useful in Plymouth, but may be much more useful in the expansive rural areas of Devon and Cornwall, where getting to treatment or getting treatment to come to the patient is quite difficult. There is a lot of evidence that NHS Direct means that reassurance and advice can be given over a telephone line, to the infinite benefit of patients who are a long way away.
Mr. Eric Pickles: Part of my Christmas recess was taken up in visiting a grievously ill friend in Oldchurch hospital. I saw there some very high-standard nursing, much of it delivered by agency nurses; but I also saw beds in corridors, and I also saw care being given in a dingy, decaying and appalling building. On my way to Oldchurch I passed Harold Wood hospital, whose accident and emergency unit was cancelled due to a decision of the Secretary of State. We were promised that we would get a new accident and emergency unit in Oldchurch hospital. That promise has not been realised; it continues to slip, so my constituents must continue to receive treatment in a substandard hospital. Will the right hon. Gentleman now give a commitment to release money, so that he can make good his promise?
Mr. Dobson: If Oldchurch hospital is substandard, it did not become substandard in the past 18 months; it has been substandard for a long time. That was one of the reasons why Sir Leslie Turnberg and his colleagues who participated in the Turnberg review of health care in London decided that a new hospital was necessary. We have given priority to the development of plans for that hospital, and I hope that, when they emerge, we shall be able to approve them and deliver to that area a first-rate hospital—something which has been lacking for a long time because of the previous Government's indecision.
Ms Ann Coffey: It seems that the Conservative party is suffering from collective amnesia. Will my right hon. Friend remind the House that it took the death of a child under the previous Conservative Government to initiate an inquiry into failing paediatric services in Greater Manchester? The present Government have put extra money into paediatric care, which has meant a new high-dependency unit and an extra theatre at the Royal Manchester children's hospital, which means that children's lives which otherwise might be at risk are now being saved—and those are not my words, but those of a consultant who works in the hospital. Is not that something to be proud of?
Mr. Dobson: Talking of pride, my hon. Friend should be very proud of the part that she played in the campaign that brought that development about.
Dr. Peter Brand: I did a clinical surgery in my practice on Boxing day and worked for the
52
GP emergency services on the bank holiday. I can assure the Secretary of State that I have worked over Christmas for more than 25 years, and that there certainly was not an unusual outbreak of unusual disease this year. As he illustrated, in three of the past five years we had a higher incidence of flu than we have now.
However, I agree with the Secretary of State that we have a crisis in the NHS, and that crisis is there because there is absolutely no flexibility in the secondary services. Ninety per cent. bed occupancy may look good to accountants, but it certainly is not useful if one is looking out for the patients. Will the Secretary of State either define what the NHS is for, so that it restricts its activity, or fund it properly?
Mr. Dobson: First, I pay tribute to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I know that only lawyers are called learned in the House, but I believe that doctors are learned as well, so I shall call him learned. I thank him for the service that, as he said, he has provided over Christmas for a very long time.
The intervening water may slightly isolate and protect the Isle of Wight and its population, but there have certainly been huge increases in illness in some localities, including in the south and east of this country.
It would take a long time to describe what the NHS is for, but by and large, it is to provide top-quality care for people who need it, when they need it, paid for by us all.
Dr. Howard Stoate: I phoned my local hospital in Dartford this morning to find out how it was faring. I was told that, apart from one exceptionally bad day last week, it is doing extremely well, and that that one bad day was made considerably easier by the winter pressures money, which has allowed it to draft in home care teams from social services in order that people may go home much sooner. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is illogical for Conservative Members to criticise us for our waiting lists initiative? When we took office, record waiting lists were rising by record levels. That represents record numbers of patients suffering record pain and anguish. My right hon. Friend surely agrees that that is entirely what the NHS is there for.
Mr. Dobson: I must admit that I am rather surprised at the extent to which the Tory party—and, apparently, the Liberal Democrats now—seems to think that exceedingly lengthy waiting lists are perfectly acceptable. We do not, and we are doing something about it. Those working hard in the Dartford hospital may be inspired by the thought that, under this Government, they are getting a new hospital building, and that building work has progressed rapidly. I hope that they will be able to make use of it fairly soon.
Mr. Tony Baldry: The Secretary of State talked of pressure points. Is he aware that, as a consequence of this year's local government settlement, Oxfordshire county council will have to make substantial reductions in its social services budget, which are bound to lead to an increase in bed blocking?
Would not it be better if the independent pay review body told the Government what pay was needed to enable the recruitment and retention of sufficient nurses, and the

53
Treasury found sufficient funds to meet that requirement, rather than the Treasury telling the independent pay review body what was affordable?
Mr. Dobson: The sinner who is saved is always welcome, I suppose.
Mr. Simon Hughes: Collectively as well as personally.
Mr. Dobson: I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) is speaking collectively. The independent pay review body is supposed to come up with a sufficiently attractive settlement to keep nurses in the profession, attract new people into it and encourage those who have left to return, as well as bearing in mind affordability. We made that clear by changing its terms of reference. In the past, the body has been leaned on by Governments. We have made its terms of reference quite clear; that was accepted by everybody. We think that the situation is more straightforward. Clearly, if a settlement were not affordable, it would not be any good to anybody.
Mr. John Austin: Conservative Members have referred to beds and trolleys in corridors. Is the Secretary of State aware that such instances are known universally throughout the NHS as Bottomley wards, as a result of the one fifth cut in acute and general beds under the stewardship of the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley), and the reduction, year on year, in nurses training places?
I welcome my right hon. Friend's recognition of the problems in recruitment and retention of nurses. Will he consider particularly not just the issue of nurses, but other professions allied to medicine and the need to tackle low pay in them? Will he ask the pay review body to look specifically at the use of discretionary awards and their discriminatory effect on gender and race in the NHS?
Mr. Dobson: It is too late for me to ask the review body to do anything other than deliver its final report to myself and the Prime Minister. However, I have taken what I think can be described only as fairly serious and strenuous steps to try to reduce discrimination on the
54
ground of gender and the quite disgraceful discrimination to which many black and Asian people have been subjected in the NHS. I am phenomenally proud of the health service, but its record on that score is quite deplorable. We are determined to change that, and we are changing it.
Miss Anne McIntosh: The Secretary of State is on record as saying that only non-urgent operations will be cancelled. Can he explain that to my constituents living in the northern part of the Vale of York, where operations for serious heart conditions, some of which are life-threatening, have been cancelled over the next six weeks? The official reason given by South Cleveland general hospital is that the only consultant heart surgeon there is going off on study leave for up to five or six weeks. Does the Secretary of State agree that such behaviour is totally unacceptable, and will he intervene to ensure that constituents who are expecting operations over that period will be treated?
Mr. Dobson: All I can say on the specific case is that I shall look into it. I have some sympathy with the hon. Lady's point, but she should later address the same question to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald who, as I understand it, was asking earlier that all work on waiting list cases should be brought to an end.
Mr. Simon Burns: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question that he dodged and weaved around during the debate on the Queen's Speech? Given that parliamentary answers and the national health service executive in Leeds have supplied the figures, how can the right hon. Gentleman claim that he has fulfilled his promise on waiting lists with respect to the people served by the Mid-Essex hospital trust, when on 31 March 1997, 104 people had been waiting 12 months or more for hospital treatment, and the November figures show that 1,194 people had been waiting 12 months or more? In every month of his stewardship of the NHS, those figures have gone up.
Mr. Dobson: The figures may have gone up there, but they have not gone up everywhere. They have been coming down over the past six months.

Points of Order
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have given you notice of my intention to raise a point of order, which I believe is a matter of some consequence to the House of Commons.
In The Times today, under the headline
"Betty Boothroyd set to quit early as Speaker"—
something that would be regretted by many of us—Ministers are quoted as opining on the matter. I do not know that it is the job of Ministers to opine in public on the matter of the retirement date of the Speaker of the House of Commons. That is a matter, rather, for the House of Commons.
Be that as it may, the article also states:
"Loyalist Labour MPs feel that she can be too lenient in giving Commons time to government critics, such as Tony Benn and George Galloway over Iraq."
I was telephoned yesterday by an experienced member of the Lobby, asking for my comment on the idea that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway) and for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) and I had been given favourable treatment by you, Madam Speaker, in putting a minority case on Iraq—which, incidentally, may be far from a minority case in the country as a whole. I refuted the idea that we had been treated favourably. I said that we had been treated fairly, and that is all that Members of Parliament can ask of a Speaker.
The tenor of the conversation suggested nothing about loyalist Labour Members of Parliaments having said any such thing. It was quite clear that the Government press office had said it. That is rather a different matter. The issue that I put before the House is whether it is acceptable that spin doctors of any Government should spin against the judgment of the Speaker of the House of Commons. A Speaker's judgment can be criticised only by substantive motion of the House, can it not? It is important that only a substantive motion of the House could criticise the judgment of the Speaker in such a matter. Frankly, it has become a question of the House of Commons versus Downing street and the sooner that that is faced up to, the better.
Two Parliaments ago, I had an Adjournment debate on the role of the Prime Minister's press secretary, who at that time was Bernard Ingham. It may be necessary for one of us to raise another Adjournment debate on that subject because this matter transcends party politics.
Mr. Tony Benn: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. May I contribute?
Madam Speaker: Why not?
Mr. Benn: I urge you, Madam Speaker, to consider the point that my hon. Friend has raised because, quite apart from any party advantage that may be gained, that practice has grown up over a long period with all Governments, going right back to the Government of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) and perhaps that of Harold Wilson. Information is conveyed to the public through the press and, increasingly,

56
Members of Parliament have to listen to the "Today" programme or watch the David Frost interview to find out what a Minister will say in the House later.
Given your historic duty not only to exercise the fairness from which I have benefited, but to protect the House, I urge you, Madam Speaker, to warn Ministers that it is an offence to authorise their press officers to make statements that should be made to the House. Will you also warn them that those press officers who criticise the Chair are in breach of a long-term practice? As my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) says, that can be dealt with only by a substantive motion in the House, which I once tabled much to my cost later, when I found it hard to catch the Speaker's eye.
Madam Speaker: I think that what is being expressed is not a point of order, but a point of view. I am sure that it will be noted in the appropriate places. There is a rainbow of views to be expressed in this House and, for as long as I am Speaker, those views will be heard.
May I refer to the earlier point made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)? I wish those who are interested to know that I have no intention to retire. When I come to that decision, this House will be the first to know.
Dr. Julian Lewis: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Can you advise the House whether the Government will make a statement on the allegations of breaches of company law by the former Paymaster General and on what the Government intend to do about those?
Madam Speaker: I have not been informed that a statement will be made on that issue. I am told during the course of the early morning when the Government intend to make a statement. I may hear something tomorrow morning, but so far I know nothing about it.
Mr. Graham Brady: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you received any intimations from the Prime Minister of his intention to make a statement about his extraordinary decision to appoint the former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), as personal envoy representing him with Ministers from a foreign Government? Clearly, that raises constitutional concerns, particularly about accountability to the House. If you have received no such indication, may we have a debate on the matter at some point?
Madam Speaker: I am not in control of the business of the House and I have received no such intimation from the Prime Minister. However, I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Prime Minister answers questions for half an hour on Wednesdays and Back Benchers have an opportunity to question him then. If not, the Leader of the Opposition has ample opportunity to do so on that issue.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As this is our first sitting after the Christmas recess, I wish to raise the matter of the resignation of the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) from the Department of Trade and Industry. He resigned because he thought that he had

57
committed serious financial improprieties in relation to his building society, but a number of other issues arise. Have you been informed that a Minister will make a statement on whether the proper ministerial declarations were made? I know that this matter should be investigated by the Permanent Secretary of the Department concerned, and ultimately by the Cabinet Secretary, but it is of interest to the House and the public to know whether such an investigation will be carried out and, if so, whether the results will be publicised.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Does it relate?
Mr. Skinner: Yes, it does.
On the question of registration, before making any statement, or guiding anyone else to make one, would you, Madam Speaker, take note of the fact that the House decided, very solemnly, to ensure that every Member of Parliament who had outside interests entered those interests and made sure that the money that they obtained thereby—in bands of £5,000 and upwards—was in the register? Anyone looking at the register will find that at least 30 Tories, some of them Front Benchers, have refused to abide by the decision of the House. It is high time they were made to do so.
Madam Speaker: If any hon. Member wants to press this further there are two routes. One concerns the ministerial code of conduct—the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), who raised the point of order, might want to raise that with the Prime Minister—and there is the Commissioner for Standards, if others are concerned about items not being registered.

Orders of the Day

  Rating (Valuation) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  5.46 pm
  The Minister for Local Government and Housing (Ms Hilary Armstrong): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  I can assure you, Madam Speaker, that none of this has reached "Today" or anywhere else, but, none the less, hon. Members are leaving the Chamber. The Rating (Valuation) Bill is brief and aims to place the law on rating valuations of non-domestic property on a fair and equitable footing. It will ensure parity of treatment between ratepayers and make explicit the assumptions that underlie the valuations made for the 1990 and 1995 rating lists. It will also apply to future revaluations.
  It might help hon. Members if I start by saying something about non-domestic rates. They are a tax on non-domestic property. Rates bills are calculated by multiplying the rateable value of a property by a poundage set annually by central Government. It is therefore essential that rateable values are assessed fairly. To ensure that rates bills are based on up-to-date values, a full revaluation exercise is carried out every five years. Revaluations are carried out on the basis of a common valuation date—for example, the revaluation in 1995 was based on rental values on 1 April 1993. They are also made on the basis of certain assumptions, one of which derives from long-standing case law dating from before the Local Government Finance Act 1988.
  That case law required all valuations to be based on an assumed state of reasonable repair, and valuation officers have valued property on that basis since the introduction of national non-domestic rates following the 1988 Act. They have assumed that—other than in extreme cases, and whatever its actual condition at the valuation date—the property is, and remains, in a state of reasonable repair.
  That is a fair and reasonable assumption to make. It has underpinned the rating valuations carried out by the Valuation Office for the 1990 and 1995 rating lists and informed the way in which thousands of appeals against those valuations have been decided. On 11 March 1998, however, in the case of Benjamin v. Anston Properties, the Lands Tribunal held that the valuer could not assume a state of reasonable repair, but that the valuation should instead reflect the actual condition of the property at the valuation date.
  If left undisturbed, the tribunal's decision would lead to considerable unfairness in the way in which different businesses are assessed for rates. It would also cause severe practical difficulties with the administration of the system and risk significant loss of rate income.
  Mr. Paul Burstow: Can the Minister give us some idea of the number of appeals that have been lodged as a result of the decision made on 11 March, in an attempt to gain benefit from that decision?
  Ms Armstrong: When an appeal is lodged, it is impossible to know whether the appellant is basing that

  59
  appeal on a particular decision. Only when the appeal is heard is it possible to be confident about the nature of the appeal. I shall return to that point when I explain how the Government intend to implement the Bill.
  There is an exception for repairs that would be uneconomic. In such cases, a valuation would be made on the basis that such repairs would not be made. In making his valuation, the valuation officer will, as he always has, take into account the age, location and type of property being valued in deciding what is a state of reasonable repair.
  If the Bill were not enacted, the rating system would be unfair as between individual ratepayers, and much more difficult to administer. Let me deal first with the question of fairness. As I have said, unless there is a material change of circumstances, the value of non-domestic property on which the annual rate liability is based is assessed only once every five years. Fairness dictates that, at that time, two identical properties in the same location should be given the same rateable value, and hence should have the same rates liability over the following five years. However, two buildings, identical in every other respect, may, on the day on which they are assessed for rates, be in different states of repair. Indeed, it is almost certain that they will be. Most commercial property is let on the basis that the occupier will maintain the property in a reasonable condition.
  As hon. Members know from their own domestic properties, all buildings need repairing simply to maintain their condition; but, as they will also know, the timing of repairs and the speed with which the works are done will depend on the individual decisions of the person occupying the property. It is likely, therefore—indeed, almost certain—that two identical properties in good repair on the day on which they were let to different tenants will be in more or less different states of repair on any particular day of the year, including the common date every five years on which the properties have their rateable values assessed for rating purposes.
  That being so, if rateable values were based on the actual repair condition of a property on a single, arbitrarily chosen date, the two properties would not have identical rates bills. They would have different rates bills over that five-year period unless the rateable value was adjusted, perhaps daily, to reflect changes in the repair condition of the property. That brings me to the severe practical difficulties caused by the tribunal's decision.
  First, the decision means that any ratepayer, the rateable value of whose property was based on the assumption of a condition of reasonable repair for either the 1990 or the 1995 revaluation—or, indeed, both—and who believed that his property was not in that condition, could make a proposal to change the valuations concerned. Any ratepayer can do that within a year of a decision in an appeal which he believes affects the value of his own property.
  The tribunal's decision sets out an interpretation of the law that can be used as the basis for changing the rateable values of other properties. Such proposals would present enormous difficulties: they would be almost impossible to determine accurately, because of the likely absence of reliable evidence about the state of repair of the property on the common valuation date.
  60
  Secondly, the Valuation Office would face great difficulties with the forthcoming 2000 revaluation, work on which has already begun. For the 2000 revaluation, the valuation date is I April 1998. Much of the work constitutes a desk exercise conducted on the basis of forms of return, the valuation officer's knowledge and the evidence that he collects about local property market conditions. The assumption of a common standard of repair enables him to carry out his work in that way.
  Physical i6nspections of properties are the exception and not the rule; but if the valuation officer must assess the actual condition of a property, it will6 involve the agency—potentially, at least—in inspecting every single one of 1.7 million hereditaments on the rating list in order to make that assessment, which simply cannot be done.
  Mr. Burstow: Will the Minister clarify another point? As I have found in reading up on it, the subject is extremely complicated, involving many formidable terms that are often impenetrable because of the lack of plain English. An issue of case law has, however, been drawn to my attention. The 1937 Robinson Brothers v. Houghton and Chester-le-Street assessment committee judgment placed a duty on valuation officers to assess the rateable value of commercial premises, taking into account matters that would intrinsically affect it, both upwards and downwards. I understand that that duty still applies. Is the Minister saying that the Bill will effectively extinguish the precedent that was set back in 1937?
  Ms Armstrong: Case law from 1937 has been built on and incorporated in successive legislation. The Bill will return the law to what it was assumed to be following the passage of the 1988 Act, and will therefore not disturb case law that was incorporated into the manner of dealing with things in those early days. It is because we now have a new case law that places a different interpretation on legislation that people thought was settled that we felt the need to present the Bill.
  I was talking about the practical difficulties of implementing the law, as we would understand it, following a tribunal decision. The position would be very difficult, because every property would have to be inspected on a particular day, which would be impossible. Indeed, the position could be even worse: to ensure fairness to ratepayers, theoretically it would be necessary for the valuation officer to make regular and frequent inspections of every single property. Liability for non-domestic rates arises day by day on the value of a property for that day; when valuations change, the tax liability changes with them. As 1 have said, if we cannot assume a common state of repair for the five-year-period, in fairness the repair condition of the property would need to be continually reassessed. We could reasonably expect the ratepayer to inform the valuation officer when he believed that the value of his property had fallen following changes in the state of repair of that property; he might not be so forthcoming in reporting repairs that might increase its rateable value. It would, of course, be impracticable to resource the valuation officer, or local authorities, to enable them to carry out frequent and regular inspections of 1.7 million properties; but, in extreme circumstances, that would be required if rating lists were to reflect every property's actual condition throughout the five years of a list.

  61
  Therefore, the Bill is necessary to ensure fairness between ratepayers and to avoid administrative chaos. Unless we are also to upset the valuations carried out for both the 1990 and 1995 rating lists, it must apply retrospectively as well as to future revaluations.
  However, we do not wish to deprive the ratepayer company in the Lands Tribunal case of the benefits of its successful appeal. That would not be right. Therefore, we have provided that the Bill's retrospective provisions will not apply to that case, or to any other where a proposal for an alteration of the rateable value shown in the rating list was made and not withdrawn or finally disposed of before 12 March, the day after the Lands Tribunal made its decision.
  That perhaps goes somewhat wider than hon. Members might expect. It would certainly be fair to exclude from the Bill's retrospective provisions only those ratepayers who had appealed on the same basis as that in the Anston Properties case, and had not already had their appeal settled. However, it is simply not possible to distinguish fairly between appeals made on that basis and those made on other grounds. Therefore, we have decided that the retrospection should not apply to a property where the ratepayer made a proposal to alter the value on or before the date on which the Lands Tribunal made its decision.
  The Bill amends the Local Government Finance Act 1988 to ensure that property in England or Wales that is subject to non-domestic rating is valued consistently, on the assumption that it is in a state of reasonable repair. That assumption will apply whatever the actual condition of the property, except in relation to repairs that it would be uneconomic for the landlord to carry out.
  The Bill relates only to the specific assumption as to a property's state of repair and does not interfere with any other legislation in relation to valuation of non-domestic properties; that point may assist the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) following his intervention. It is a simple measure that ensures that rating valuations are made fairly and consistently for all ratepayers. I commend it to the House.
  6.2 pm
  Mr. Simon Burns: The Minister said that the Bill is a simple measure. That will possibly be the understatement of the debate. I am sure that she would agree that it may be simple in some ways because of its shortness, but it is a highly technical and complicated measure, which has, I suspect, exercised the minds of civil service lawyers and professionals in the valuation sector over several months.
  There are in the Bill several issues that I trust that the Minister can address; perhaps the junior Minister will do so when winding up. In particular, it is clear that several professional bodies have made representations to her Department disputing the Government's interpretation of the existing body of case law. The explanatory notes to the Bill present that as an anomaly in an otherwise clear field. Several professionals have approached the Opposition to say that they do not concur with that interpretation.
  For example, the official submission from the Institute of Revenues, Rating and Valuation suggests that the ratepayer's success in the Benjamin v. Anston Properties Ltd. case was
  "widely anticipated throughout the profession".
  62
  Meanwhile, the Rating Surveyors Association states plainly that it does
  "not agree with the suggestion…that the Bill is 'restoring' the law to a previous position".
  Clearly, there is a certain amount of confusion and doubt within the profession.
  The argument centres around the status of the rebus sic stantibus rule—the idea that the rating value of a property should reflect its actual condition. That seems to be a clear enough guiding principle, but, needless to say, it is not as simple as that. The Bill seeks to ensure that, in future, rating valuations are arrived at on the basis that properties are in a "reasonable" condition. The Government claim that that reflects the method that was used for previous valuations, but, as I have said, there seems to be some dissent on that issue. We shall be looking hopefully for clarification from the Government on that point.
  Naturally, the difference between a valuation on the basis of rebus sic stantibus and one that assumes a reasonable state of repair will, in some cases, lead to big variations in business rates. That has a particularly large impact on small businesses, especially in generally rundown areas. It is important that the Bill does not do lasting damage to small and medium enterprises, and imperative that it does not hinder attempts at economic regeneration in some of our most deprived areas.
  It will not, I am sure, have entirely escaped the House's attention that the effect of assuming a "reasonable" state of repair, rather than an actual one, will almost certainly be to enhance the tax base available for the purpose of non-domestic rating. The question remains as to whether it provides a basis for fair business taxation. The drafting of the Bill leaves that open to doubt, but I should be more than grateful if the Minister wanted to intervene to clarify that point.
  Ms Armstrong: As the hon. Gentleman says, there is some dispute among the professions. They are suggesting that the Bill goes further than we are suggesting; that is the area to which the hon. Gentleman alludes. I do not agree with that. Obviously, I am not qualified to say what valuers believed or did not believe the 1988 Act to mean, but the leading authority on rating, the book "Ryde on Rating and the Council Tax" clearly says that properties should be valued on a common repair assumption.
  It may help the hon. Gentleman if I quote from the current edition, which says:
  "The rule that the hereditament must be valued in its existing physical state does not apply to defects which are due to ordinary lack of repair. The cases in which this exception to the rebus sic stantibus rule has been established and applied arose largely in the context of the definition of 'gross value' under previous legislation, in which the burden of repair was placed by statute upon the hypothetical landlord. Nevertheless, it is submitted that the principles established are equally applicable when, as now, the obligation to repair falls upon the tenant."
  It was on that basis that we introduced the legislation. The case this time was that, because the basis had changed from the landlord to the tenant, that meant that the whole basis of assumptions had changed. We are saying that that was not the intention. Indeed, the major book and guide on the issue affirms that.
  Mr. Burns: I thank the Minister for what was clearly a helpful intervention. I do not want to be churlish or to start quibbling, and I appreciate the time that she took to

  63
  seek to clear up the matter. Obviously, we shall have an opportunity at a later stage to come back to the matter if the situation and issue merit it, but there is a further concern among professionals, which it is important to put on the record—the question of the word "reasonable".
  As the IRRV points out in its submission to the Department, although there are guidelines contained in the explanatory notes, those have no force in law. The Bill itself is silent on that issue. The concern is that the Bill will have the opposite effect to that intended. Clearly, it has been introduced to clear up what the Government see as a potential problem in the shape of the Benjamin v. Anston case. The Government are worried that that will lead to further litigation along those lines, and see the Bill, not unreasonably, as a way of preventing that. However, in addition to the professions' concerns about the rebus sic stantibus rule, both the IRRV and the RSA have expressed serious concern that the Bill's drafting will lead to more, not less, litigation, because of the uncertainties surrounding the introduction of the assumption of a reasonable state of repair, especially in relation to the use of the term "reasonable".
  Ministers may want to return to that matter at a later stage, but I hope that they will appreciate the professional bodies' concerns.
  Ms Armstrong: Clearly, we have to discuss the issue. It is the Government's intention to make it clearer, especially for the ratepayer, precisely on what basis rates are to be paid, and to produce a workable system. I appreciate the fact that hon. Members will want to discuss what we mean by "reasonable", and I would consider that a valid subject for discussion in Committee.
  Mr. Burns: To continue our bipartisan approach, I thank the Minister for making that point. She is absolutely right, and we will certainly want to raise the issue in Committee and hear more about the Government's view and the way in which they intend to ensure that the legislation does not create problems that they have not so far anticipated.
  Conservative Members want the Bill to provide a fair and clear basis for the levying of business rates, and I am sure that the Government would agree with us. We have some doubts whether the Bill as drafted will achieve that aim. We do not oppose the Bill and we understand why the Government felt that they had to act, but, as a responsible Opposition, we want to work with them to iron out any possible flaws that could render the operation of the legislation unfair or unworkable and could achieve the exact opposite of what was intended.
  I shall certainly not ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to force a Division on a Bill that is needed in the light of certain events.
  6.12 pm
  Mr. David Borrow: I declare a non-pecuniary interest as a member of the Institute of Revenues, Rating and Valuation of more than 20 years' standing, and an honorary member of the Society of Clerks of Valuation Tribunals.
  64
  The legislation is necessary and sets down in law what was always assumed to be the situation. Under previous legislation, it was always assumed that the repair liability existed when a valuation took place. Valuation related directly to rateable value was made on the assumption that the tenant would keep the property in a good state of repair.
  The Bill places responsibility for repair on the landlord before occupation of a property—that is sensible and straightforward, but it introduces a new concept to statute by making the assumption that, when it is uneconomic to return a dilapidated property to a good state of repair, the valuation will be based on the unrepaired property, rebus sic stantibus.
  The origins of rating go back to the poor relief laws of 1601, and a whole series of case law has developed valuation for rating. In this century, we have for the first time arrived at a system whereby valuations are made on the assumption that the property is not in a good state of repair. Many of the initial cases involved something exceptional about the property—often structural repairs, subsidence or some other major defect affecting rental values—that meant that the cost of repair would be disproportionate to the additional rental value that it would create.
  The Bill's wording may lead such cases to involve not only properties with major structural defects, but ones that have simply not been kept in good repair. The property in the Benjamin v. Anston Properties Ltd. case, which was in Brighton, became unoccupied in the late 1980s, largely for economic reasons, and fell into disrepair. It is my understanding that there were no major structural problems.
  There are problems associated with properties in certain age groups or areas when they have fallen into disrepair. There was an interesting article by Tom Dixon in the IRRV journal, referring to the problems of the empty property rate and the fact that there was a disincentive to repair such properties. I am sure that the provisions will be used extensively to avoid paying rates.
  There is a problem in that many properties have leases of 14 or 21 years, with upward-only rent reviews. When properties become less desirable or popular, tenants cannot bring about a rent reduction. That was never a problem when there was rapid inflation but, over the past 10 years, certain classes of properties have had minimal changes in cash rental values and, with upward-only rent reviews, tenants are trapped into paying more than the market rent.
  That is an incentive for the tenants not to fulfil their obligation to keep the property in a good state of repair, and they may pass on the lease to sub-lessees to avoid their responsibilities. There is a danger that properties that could be put into a good state of repair and let at a realistic rent will be left in disrepair because of the effect of upward-only rent reviews and the fact that rates are based on rental values that are themselves tied to such reviews. The rates may be excessive, because there is no downward review for most commercial rents.
  Should Government managers give me the opportunity, I look forward to exploring more extensively in Committee some of the points that have been made by professionals.
  6.19 pm
  Mr. Paul Burstow: The hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow) has done an excellent job in the cause of seeking a place on the Committee. Other hon. Members have ably demonstrated how confusing and complicated the matter is; I say not that they have confused us, but that the subject matter is confusing.
  We could be forgiven for thinking that the Bill is non-controversial and that it will simply ensure that the law is as everyone had understood it to be and as Parliament had intended it to be. The Bill should therefore be only a technical matter that should not long be delayed in its passage. However, I should say that, in trying to get to grips with the issues raised in the Bill, and the case law that has already been mentioned in the debate, I found the matter to be quite challenging. Some formidable terminology is used, and plain English is absent.
  My understanding is that the impetus for the Bill's passage started with the March 1998 Lands Tribunal decision in the case known as Benjamin v. Anston Properties Ltd., which seems to have boiled down to an argument of administrative convenience versus some long-established principles underpinning the way in which the rateable value of business premises has been determined.
  Under current law, all non-domestic properties must be assessed individually. However, as the Minister told us earlier, that is largely a desk-top exercise and, in practice, similar properties are considered to obtain an average level of rental value for those properties. I have been told by those in the profession that the tone of the rating list is determined in that manner—by reference to types of properties.
  Properties of the same type—shops, for example—in a specific location will therefore have a similar value. Subsequently—at least until now—the rating list has been susceptible to further refinement through the appeal process and by reference to differences between properties materially affecting their value. The principle that a property should be valued as it is in fact was clearly stated in case law as long ago as 1937, in Robinson Brothers v. Houghton and Chester le Street assessment committee. Moreover, the precedent established in that case had been established in previous law.
  In Robinson Brothers, it was made clear that, in weighing up the evidence bearing upon value, the valuer has a duty to take into consideration every intrinsic quality and intrinsic circumstance that tends to push the rental value either up or down. The proposition is known as rebus sic stantibus and goes to the heart of the valuation system. I think that the Bill, at the very least, weakens that basic proposition of the valuation system. Moreover, as drafted the Bill would make it possible for the proposition to be abandoned entirely.
  It has been argued by the Minister, and in consultations between the various professional institutes and officials in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, that the rebus rule does not apply to repairs, and that is what the Anston case was all about. However, studies of the textbooks have shown that the law on the matter is somewhat vague because, until now, the proposition that rebus does not apply to repairs has been made in the context of valuations made on gross values. That is not the situation that we are debating today.
  66
  I have been informed by the various professional interests in the matter that the decision in the Anston case came as no surprise to them. In their view, the decision simply confirmed what was already generally understood to be established practice and precedent. The valuation officer in the Anston case argued that all economically feasible repairs had been performed prior to the hypothetical letting.
  I should say that the issue in the Anston case was that the previous tenants had left the premises in a rather bad state of repair, and that the rateable value in the 1990 list was £272,000. However, it was agreed in the tribunal hearing that, on the material day, repairs would have cost at least £300,000.
  The Lands Tribunal president, Judge Marder, described the proposition made by counsel for the Valuation Office—that a semi-derelict property should be valued on the basis that it might reasonably be expected to be let at full value—as extending the meaning of
  "'reasonably' to an unreasonable degree".
  We shall undoubtedly return later to that issue, as the Bill will provide new opportunities to explore what is meant by "reasonable". We should be concerned about the definition, which certainly the profession believes could lead to more rather than fewer cases.
  As the Local Government Finance Act 1988 placed the obligation of repair on the hypothetical tenant, surely it is unreasonable to assume that a tenant would take a property in substantial disrepair and expend large sums on it simply to increase his rent liability. Counsel for the Valuation Office made it clear that the effects of its success in the appeal would have been to make it easier to administer the valuation process. In other words, it was an argument as much about ease of administration as about equity and fairness in how the system was being applied to individual businesses.
  The Valuation Office argued that the Anston decision would open the floodgates on appeals. Where are those appeals? I asked the Minister earlier whether statistics on such appeals were available, but was told that statistics are not gathered in that manner. My understanding is that a floodtide of appeals has not been unleashed because of the Anston decision.
  The profession believes that the measures proposed in the Bill are an overreaction to an imagined problem. That was the view also of the judge in the case. Moreover, the consequences of passing the Bill unamended would be not only to reduce the legitimate grounds on which valuation appeals are heard, but to open up a can of worms of the definition of "repairs", "reasonable" and "uneconomic".
  I should give an example of how the Bill would work in practice. The Government have said many times that they support traditional high streets and want to help the regeneration of our inner cities. However, if the Bill's provisions were to be applied strictly, retailers trading on the edge of profitability in less attractive or tired and run down locations could be driven out of business.
  Ms Armstrong: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but I should not like hon. Members to go away with the impression that, currently or historically, properties have been assessed as he is implying. The Bill's main thrust is simply to enshrine what valuation officers have assumed in valuing properties. Valuers outside the Valuation Office may not see the matter in that light, but

  67
  I assure the hon. Gentleman that valuation officers have made those assumptions in their work. That is why the example that he is dealing with is painting an incorrect picture.
  Mr. Burstow: I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying that point. It is probably an issue to which we shall wish to return, perhaps after tabling amendments to the Bill. The profession certainly feels that the principle and precedent are sufficiently unclear. The Lands Tribunal decision in the Anston case deals in some detail with how the judge in the case believed the system worked. Perhaps the Minister will say in his reply whether the Government and officials believe that the judge was misdirecting himself in that respect and was describing a system that did not match the actual system. I should certainly be interested to know whether it was felt that the judgment was defective in that sense. I have seen nothing in the Bill's explanatory notes or heard anything in the debate to show that there is such a belief.
  If my contention holds—although I understand that the Minister does not accept it—it would have a significant impact on retail situations in more marginal retail locations. We therefore remain concerned about the Bill and its consequences. The logical conclusion of my argument is that the system, if it were made more uniform and easier to administer for the Valuation Office, could have the effect of hastening the run down of inner-city shopping parades.
  Another consequence of the Bill as it is drafted is that the system would not be able to recognise the effect of natural disasters that result in temporary disrepair. Therefore, damage done by fire, flood, storm or some other natural disaster would not result in a lower rateable value. If the Bill had been law at the time of the floods in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch), businesses in Ross-on-Wye would have received no relief through the rating system. I hope that the Minister will confirm when he winds up that the Government will give further consideration to that issue to give some comfort to those who fear the loss of such relief.
  I understand that, since the announcement in a written answer in July 1998 that the Government intended to legislate, little consultation with the valuation profession or with business has been undertaken. Indeed, the first time that the Institute of Revenues, Rating and Valuation learned of the Government's intentions was when the Bill was published in November. On what is supposed to be a non-controversial, technical matter, it is surprising that the Government did not provide an opportunity for dialogue to avoid the concerns that are now being brought to the attention of hon. Members and aired in the House tonight.
  The Bill contains flaws and it undermines important principles that underpin our rating system. As a consequence, it is not friendly to business. It will make the system less fair and less responsive. It allows for a significant dumbing down of the valuation system at the expense of business. The Bill will make the system simpler for valuation offices to administer by imposing an unreal uniformity on a system that is meant to reflect the operation of market forces. It may reduce the level of leakage resulting from valuation appeals and increase the level of certainty about business rate income. One can
  68
  understand that the Treasury might wish to have more certainty when forecasting the income from business rates, but that should not necessarily be the objective of a rating system that is meant to apply fairly to all businesses.
  The Bill breaches the principle that the law is intended to deal with future acts and should not attempt retrospectively to change matters that have been concluded in good faith on the basis of existing law. We believe that the Bill should not receive a Second Reading. We accept that it probably will, and therefore, in Committee, we will probe the Government further and improve the legislation to achieve the best outcome for all concerned.
  6.32 pm
  Mr. Adrian Sanders: Given the fact that hon. Members were outnumbered by the number of civil servants in the corner at the beginning of the debate, it is obvious that the Bill is anything but simple. It secures that the assumptions on which the 1990 and 1995 rating lists were compiled will continue to apply, and provides for subsequent rating lists to be compiled on the same basis. That seems reasonable enough and the Bill appears to be a minor, technical Bill, affecting the valuation of non-domestic properties for rating purposes only. It was published on 27 November, but was not in the Queen's Speech. It is only two pages long, it is non-contentious and it is unlikely to be opposed by the official Opposition. Indeed, one would not expect the official Opposition to oppose a Bill that merely corrects their legislation when in government.
  The need for the Bill arose when a Lands Tribunal ruling, referred to earlier as the Benjamin v. Anston Properties case, apparently went against what was thought to be the rule that a property should be valued as though it were in reasonable repair. That is rightly to deter owners from constructive vandalism or neglect, which is a common phenomenon when an owner wants to redevelop a site and speed up the departure of existing tenants. Under that rule, a reduction in rateable value of a property and in rates payable on it is prevented, and the owner's neglect results in no reduced rate bill.
  The Bill will be backdated to 1990, but not if a property's valuation list entry has been amended between then and l I March 1998. With a full revaluation for the uniform business rate in progress and due to take effect in 2000, the impact on rates payable thereafter will be considerable. The biggest effect will be on blighted urban areas where benign neglect is most common.
  The problem with the UBR is that rating properties on an annual rental value taxes enterprise. It hits small local firms much harder than large ones, because small businesses have more of their assets tied up in stock, turnover and wages, whereas big firms can afford to trade at a loss for long periods. The rating system is just one part of a casino economic system that benefits investors and speculators at the expense of enterprise and labour. While traders on the high street pay rates, landowners pay nothing. The community's wealth comes from the efforts of enterprising businesses, not from the risk-free ownership of land. By leaving a site empty, the owner cuts the footfall in all nearby businesses.

  69
  Who pays? Not the landowner. The chances are that he or she lives hundreds of miles away. Meanwhile, local businesses carry on paying high rates based on pre-slump values, leading to more business failures, more dereliction, and less footfall. It happens in even the most prosperous towns in Britain. Everybody except the landowners and banks suffers. The Government lose revenue, communities lose jobs, the least mobile residents lose accessible town centre shops, councils find it difficult to revive towns and have to cope with dereliction. The most enterprising people who make our towns live—the local businesses and traders—pay a rate that is an unfair burden that gets more unfair every year.
  None of us likes waste, so why not tax it? We want more local jobs, enterprise and trade, so why tax the people who provide them? Why encourage land speculation? Why penalise those who improve their property? We are pledged to shift the burden of tax away from jobs and enterprise on to pollution and resource consumption. One aspect of that is site value rating as an alternative to the uniform business rate. Or in other words—tax what we disapprove of, not what we approve.
  The Bill has two problems. The first is the escape clause whereby any repairs that a reasonable landlord would consider uneconomic are excluded from the definition of reasonable repair. In other words, if the neglect is great enough, the owner can get away with it. If the staircase or roof were removed, making the property unusable, no rates would be payable. Merely getting behind with the decorations or clearing the gutters would mean that the owner had to pay the same rates as a model owner. That cannot be fair.
  Secondly, why should the tenant pay for the owner's faults? If an owner fails to maintain a property, assuming that it is not let on a repairing lease, the tenant would pay the higher bills that would result from the new basis for valuation. Perversely, the Bill could result in faster dereliction of properties and areas as businesses pay more rates on the good repair assumption while the owners do not have to do the repairs that were the basis of the valuations. It is almost a charter for bad landlords. I shall be interested in the Minister's response—and I have noticed that he has been handed various pieces of paper, which will probably make his life more difficult.
  Ms Armstrong rose—
  Mr. Sanders: I shall give way briefly because I have almost concluded my remarks.
  Ms Armstrong: The hon. Gentleman's points are not legitimate in relation to the Bill. His objection that the tenant and not the landlord will have responsibility would have been made during the passage of the Local Government Finance Act 1988. We do not seek to change the basis of that Bill, so we cannot deal with that issue in this Bill.
  Mr. Sanders: We shall test that point in Committee, as the Minister's remarks do not fit with my reading of the Bill. Clearly, the Bill says that if the owner fails to maintain a property, the tenant pays the higher bill under the new valuation. There is also an escape clause, which will cause a problem with the definition of "reasonable". We have had no true, concise definition that will make matters fair for those who must pay the uniform business rate.
  6.40 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Alan Meale): As my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Housing said earlier, the Rating (Valuation) Bill is a short Bill to ensure that, in valuing a property for rating purposes, the property is assumed to be in a state of reasonable repair. That assumption will apply whatever the actual condition of the property, except in relation to repairs that would be uneconomic. The Bill puts the law on rating valuations on a fair and equitable footing while also making clear the assumptions that underlie the valuations made for both the 1990 and 1995 rating lists, and for future valuations.
  Opposition Members have asked about the implications for ratepayers. In practice, most ratepayers will see no change as a result of the Bill. Valuations of non-domestic property carried out by the Valuation Office agency are already based on the assumption that a property is in a state of reasonable repair, unless the disrepair is such that it would be uneconomic to remedy it. In such cases, the repair is assumed not to have been made, and the rateable value is adjusted downwards appropriately. As my hon. Friend also said, the Bill simply codifies those principles, ensuring that they will be applied consistently in future.
  The position of derelict property will remain the same as it was previously. If it is incapable of being let in that state, it will attract no value. In other circumstances, the valuer will assume a state of reasonable repair when valuing a property, taking account of its age and location. If the property is run down because it is near the end of its useful life, or if it is in a rundown area, those facts will be reflected in the assumption about its reasonable state of repair.
  Mr. Sanders: Surely that is the whole failing of the uniform business rate system. Why have not the Government introduced a Bill that would address that point?
  Mr. Meale: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, he may find out.
  If a property is in need of repair to bring it up to a reasonable state, the cost of repairs will be taken into account. If the costs are such that a landlord cannot hope to recover them from the rent that he could reasonably expect to receive for a property given its age and location, he will be assumed not to make the repairs. The rateable value of the property in that case will be lower, reflecting its unrepaired state.
  Retrospection has also been raised. I am obliged to advise the House that property has already been assessed on the basis of an assumed state of repair in both the 1990 and 1995 revaluations. If the Bill did not apply retrospectively, all previous rateable values would be brought into question. In such circumstances, it would be a physical impossibility for valuation officers to reassess in 1999 the repair condition of 1.7 million properties on each day since 1990.
  My hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Housing has pointed out that the Bill contains safeguards for the ratepayer in the case of Benjamin v. Anston Properties Ltd, and for others who lodged proposals to change their rateable values before the date on which the tribunal decision was made. In recognition of the fact that

  71
  such ratepayers might have sought to argue on the same basis as the ratepayers in the Anston Properties case, the Bill ensures that retrospection will not apply to any ratepayer whose appeal had not been finally dealt with by that date. Those ratepayers, and the ratepayer in the Anston case, will effectively enjoy the fruits of their litigation in respect of the 1990 and 1995 lists.
  I am not aware of any appeal having been levied since the date of our announcement in July. On whether retrospection should apply only to appeals lodged before the date of that ministerial announcement, I must say that that would be illogical. The Bill protects anyone who made a proposal before he or she knew the judgment in the Anston case and who had not settled his or her appeal by that date. It may be argued that such ratepayers might, quite independently, have interpreted the law in the same way as the Anston ratepayer, and, ultimately, the courts. As such, they should not be denied the fruits of their litigation.
  Any ratepayers who had not made a proposal by the date of the Anston decision had presumably not done so because they were happy with their rateable value and the way in which it had been calculated. To allow such ratepayers to avoid the effects of retrospection if they managed to enter a proposal between the dates of the Anston decision and the Government's announcement of legislation would simply benefit those who were quickest off the mark, and that would be unsatisfactory and unfair.
  Questions have been raised as to whether the Bill would conflict with certain European conventions. We are satisfied that it does not. We made an early announcement on 29 July of our intention to legislate. We have ensured that the Bill does not deprive the appellant property owner of the fruits of his litigation, and that the Bill is not unfair to other property owners who had already commenced proceedings. The retrospective effect of the Bill does not affect the ratepayer in the appeal, or any other ratepayer who, on or before the date of the decision on the appeal, had made a proposal for alteration of the rating list which was not disposed of before that date.
  Hon. Members must realise the possible financial consequences if the Bill is not enacted, asking, for example, how many appeals might be made if it is not. As my hon. Friend has said, appeals could be lodged against any of the 1.7 million rateable values in each of the 1990 and 1995 rating lists on the back of the Anston case decision. It is impossible to say how many additional appeals might be generated if the decision was not reversed, but the figure could be 1.7 million.
  We have conservatively estimated that there might be as many as 250,000 properties in a sufficient state of disrepair to encourage owners to appeal. Even using that estimate, it is impossible to gauge the degree of the financial implications, but we might be considering a loss of up to £7 billion over the nine years since 1990, or in the worst case scenario, up to £49 billion if all 1.7 million properties are taken into account. Hon. Members should treat the matter seriously, realising that a reduction of even just 1 per cent. in rateable values would lead to losses from the non-domestic rating pool of some £140 million in 1998–99 alone.
  72
  Hon. Members have inquired about how the Bill affects property maintained in a better-than-average state of repair, asking whether rateable values would be adjusted accordingly. The answer is straightforward: the rateable value of a property will depend on the facts of its case. In principle, however, where premises have been maintained to a higher standard of repair than in other similar properties of their age or in the same area, the higher standards should be disregarded when assessing the property's rateable value.
  Similarly, if a fire, for example, were to leave a property incapable of beneficial occupation, the property would be removed from the rating lists, and no rates would be payable until it was repaired. If, however, the fire's effect left the property lettable, disrepair resulting from the fire would be disregarded. In cases in which damage is relatively minor and a property is not rendered incapable of beneficial occupation, the valuation officers should make a valuation on the basis of a state of reasonable repair, except where it would be uneconomic to carry out a particular repair. Where repairs are being carried out, and are clearly economic, they should, quite rightly, be reflected in any valuation.
  Some Opposition Members asked whether the Bill would simply increase litigation. We do not believe so. There is considerable case law, in the context of both rating and of landlord and tenant law, on when works to a building comprise a repair, a renovation or an improvement. The precise nature of what is a reasonable state of repair will reflect the facts in each case, but I recognise that Opposition Members have signalled that they will revisit the issue in Committee. We look forward to that debate.
  The Opposition suggested that the Bill radically changes the law. We do not believe so. We cannot answer for what valuers believed, but valuation officers have since 1990 valued property on the assumption that it is in a reasonable state of repair. That assumption underlies the values that appear in both the 1990 and 1995 rating lists. Moreover, it is the only practical means of ensuring that ratepayers are treated fairly as regards their rate bills over a five-year period.
  The Bill is a worthwhile and necessary measure. It is consistent with good administration and, above all, it will ensure fair treatment and a fair tax assessment for all ratepayers. I commend it to the House.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 268, Noes 30.

  Division No. 29]

  [6.51 pm

  AYES

  Ainger, Nick

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'ty NE)

  Benton, Joe

  Allen, Graham

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Berry, Roger

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Best, Harold

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Betts, Clive

  Austin, John

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Banks, Tony

  Borrow, David

  Barnes, Harry

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Barron, Kevin

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Battle, John

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Bayley, Hugh

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Beard, Nigel

  Browne, Desmond

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Buck, Ms Karen

  73

  Burden, Richard

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Burgon, Colin

  Hanson, David

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Cabom, Richard

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Heppell, John

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Campbell—Savours, Dale

  Hill, Keith

  Caplin, Ivor

  Hinchliffe, David

  Caton. Martin

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Home Robertson, John

  Clapham, Michael

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Hope, Phil

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Clelland, David

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Clwyd, Ann

  Hurst, Alan

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hutton, John

  Coffey. Ms Ann

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Cohen, Harry

  Illsley, Eric

  Coleman, Iain

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Colman, Tony

  Jamieson, David

  Cooper, Yvette

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Corbett, Robin

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Crausby, David

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Cummings, John

  Jowell, Ms Tessa

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Dalyell, Tam

  Kemp, Fraser

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Khabra, Piara S

  Dawson, Hilton

  Kidney, David

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Denham, John

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Dobbin, Jim

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Doran, Frank

  Laxton, Bob

  Dowd, Jim

  Lepper, David

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Leslie, Christopher

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Levitt, Tom

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Lock, David

  Edwards, Huw

  Love, Andrew

  Efford, Clive

  McAllion, John

  Ennis, Jeff

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Etherington, Bill

  McCabe, Steve

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Fisher, Mark

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  McIsaac, Shona

  Flint, Caroline

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Flynn, Paul

  McNulty, Tony

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Fyfe, Maria

  McWalter, Tony

  Galloway, George

  Mallaber, Judy

  Gardiner, Barry

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Martlew, Eric

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Goggins, Paul

  Meale, Alan

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Merron, Gillian

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Michie, Bill (Shef'id Heeley)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Milburn, Alan

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Miller, Andrew

  Grocott, Bruce

  Moffatt, Laura

  Grogan, John

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  74

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Spellar, John

  Mullin, Chris

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Steinberg, Gerry

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Stevenson, George

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Olner, Bill

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  O'Neill, Martin

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Pearson, Ian

  Stringer, Graham

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Pickthall, Colin Pike, Peter L

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Plaskitt, James

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Taylor, Ms Dart (Stockton S)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Timms, Stephen

  Purchase, Ken

  Tipping, Paddy

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Todd, Mark

  Radice, Giles

  Touhig, Don

  Rammell, Bill

  Trickett, Jon

  Rapson, Syd

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Vaz, Keith

  Rooker, Jeff

  Watts, David

  Rooney, Terry

  White, Brian

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Rowlands, Ted

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Ruane, Chris

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  Wills, Michael

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Winnick, David

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Salter, Martin

  Wise, Audrey

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Wood, Mike

  Sawford, Phil

  Woolas, Phil

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Worthington, Tony

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Wray, James

  Skinner, Dennis

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Mr. Greg Pope and

  Soley, Clive

  Mr. Mike Hall.

  Noes

  Allan, Richard

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Livsey, Richard

  Baker, Norman

  Llwyd, Effyn

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Öpik, Lembit

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Rendel, David

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Burnett, John

  Sanders, Adrian

  Chidgey, David

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

  Cotter, Brian

  Stunell, Andrew

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Gome, Donald

  Webb, Steve

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Willis, Phil

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Keetch, Paul

  Mr. Paul Tyler and

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

  Mr. Paul Burstow.

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

  RATING (VALUATION) BILL [MONEY]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a),
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Rating (Valuation) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums so payable under any other Act.—[Mr. Betts.]
  Question agreed to.

  RATING (VALUATION) BILL [WAYS AND MEANS]
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a),
  That any Act resulting from the Rating (Valuation) Bill may impose liability to non-domestic rates by provision about the valuation of hereditaments.—[Mr. Betts.]
  Question agreed to.

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

  TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) (S.I., 1998, No. 2913)
  That the Town and Country Planning (Minerals) (Scotland) Regulations 1998 (S.I., 1998, No. 2913), dated 17th November 1998, a copy of which was laid before this House on 25th November, be approved.
  That the Town and Country Planning (Compensation for Restrictions on Mineral Working and Mineral Waste Depositing) (Scotland) Regulations 1998 (S.I., 1998, No. 2914), dated 17th November 1998, a copy of which was laid before this House on 25th November, be approved.—[Mr. Betts.]
  Question agreed to.

  EUROPEAN SCRUTINY COMMITTEE
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Quentin Davies be discharged from the European Scrutiny Committee and Mr. Robert Walter be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Betts.]

  School Governing Bodies
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Betts.]
  7.7 pm
  Mr. David Taylor: As a parent of four daughters in full-time education and as one who was once employed in the profession, it has been a pleasure and a privilege for me to be a member of school governing bodies in north-west Leicestershire for more than 20 years. However, there is no comparison between those early years as a governor and now, and nor would I ever want to return to them. The role of governing bodies has changed completely following the implementation of local management of schools introduced by the Education Reform Act 1988. Every survey of governors since then has revealed the great time commitment that the job now involves and has referred to the paper mountain from central and local government and from the schools themselves.
  I am delighted that the Minister for School Standards, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris), is replying to the debate. Since her election to the House, she has used her 18 years as a teaching professional to excellent effect and she is widely respected in the world of education. She knows only too well the impact on governors of the huge changes in the culture of education during the past decade or so.
  In the debate on the education White Paper, my hon. Friend said:
  "We recognise the important role of governors… I am afraid that we have put a further burden on them… When the relationship between the governing body and the school is right, it is a tower of strength for the good of the children. When it is not right and when governors feel that they are burdened down with paperwork, it is a matter for concern."—[Official Report, 18 July 1997; Vol. 298, c. 656.]
  In my visits last year to all schools in north-west Leicestershire, it was clear to me that the Government have every right to be concerned. The chairs of governors of those schools—mainly village primaries—often said that they were drowning in a sea of paper. I requested this debate in an attempt to raise the profile of the issues.
  Nationally, there are more than 300,000 governors and they are a huge and valuable resource. However, there is a risk that, as unpaid volunteers, they are being taken for granted and overwhelmed by consultation papers and new duties. Members of all governing bodies are increasingly concerned about the layer upon layer of additional responsibility and work that is being placed upon lay governors. Governors are unpaid volunteers: although they can reclaim expenses for expenditure incurred on behalf of the school, few do so because they are concerned about additional costs on already stretched school budgets. It might seem surprising, but many new governors are still not aware of the commitment and responsibilities that come with being a governor, while more experienced governors feel that they cannot commit more and more time to doing justice to their role. Recently, there has been a much higher turnover of governors in my part of the world, and we are not unique.
  The issue is not merely the call on the time of governors—time which so far has been willingly and freely given: there is an enormous information overload.

  77
  The continuing inflow of documents for the attention of chairs and members of governing bodies is reaching alarming proportions and is a disincentive for people either to take on, or to continue with, the role of governor. A cursory glance at the commitments for school responses in Leicestershire last term, and for some due early in the current term, reveals eight major consultations by the local education authority: on educational development, lifelong learning, behaviour support, nutritional standards for school meals, fair funding, key stage 1 class sizes, the new deal for schools and early-years child care. Soon, the LEA will be required to hold consultations on asset management, youth work, school organisation, special educational needs provision, youth and community education review, fair funding from April 2000 and the LEA Ofsted action plan. The Minister will appreciate what a daunting agenda that is for governing bodies and head teachers.
  I do not criticise the LEAs; they are carrying out statutory responsibilities to consult and would be acting illegally if they did not do so. Central support staff in local authorities are as overwhelmed by those requirements as are governors and school staff. However, at the rate that we are going, something will have to give.
  I have referred to the particular pressures of time and to the immense information overload for governors. I now turn to the issue of responsibilities. The increased responsibility in many areas requires a range and level of professionalism and expertise that few lay individuals can reasonably be expected to have. However, what is frequently demanded of governors, especially those who are chairs of governing bodies, now includes the setting of staff pay and conditions, professional development interviews and appraisal of head teachers, and, most importantly, the health and safety legal requirements. Following the delegation of health and safety issues to schools, governors have a corporate responsibility for health and safety regulation and non-compliance might constitute a criminal act that can carry severe penalties.
  I have always supported increased freedom for governors in relation to schools and recognise that it brings increased responsibility. I believe that most governors are content to accept that responsibility. However, they are volunteers and they require training and support. Local education authorities are under a specific duty to provide governor training. In Leicestershire, that is very well handled within the limited resources available, but that is not necessarily the case elsewhere. One of the difficulties in providing up-to-date and effective training and support is that guidance material on recent educational initiatives is not as full or as available as would be ideal, nor are the resources typically available to LEAs for such matters anywhere near the levels necessary to help optimise governors' contributions to driving up standards.
  The three key roles of governors remain to provide a strategic view, to act as a critical friend and to ensure accountability. The day-to-day pressures are such that the urgent can too often drive out the important. It is easy to forget that one's original intention was to drain the swamp when one is up to one's ears in alligators. Many of the extra pressures on governors that I have described developed in the years following the Education Reform Act 1988, but the past 20 months have posed additional challenges for school governing bodies through the major new duties placed on them.
  78
  The Labour Government brought into force certain provisions of the previous Government's Education Act 1997. The new duties now placed on governing bodies include the requirement to make arrangements to adopt a baseline assessment scheme for pupils entering primary education. Governing bodies must now adopt curriculum tests and public examination schemes with locally defined annual targets. There is a new duty on governing bodies and head teachers to provide careers education in years 9 to 11.
  Finally, under the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, governing bodies are required to ensure that schools meet limits on the size of infant classes; they must conduct the school with a view to promoting higher standards of educational achievement; they must have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State on determining the capability of members of staff; they must set annual school attendance targets; they must adopt a home-school agreement and take reasonable steps to ensure that the parental declaration relating to such agreements is signed by every parent; and they must ensure that any school lunches comply with regulations prescribing nutritional standards. There is an additional duty, to which I have already referred, relating to health and safety of persons on school premises, or taking part in any school activities elsewhere. A recent tragedy in Leicestershire underlines the importance of that new responsibility. I have outlined only a few of the new duties to illustrate the extra challenges posed for governors.
  Notwithstanding the changing priorities and despite the limitations on time and resources, the predominant role of any school governing body should be a strategic one. Governors constantly strive to establish high expectations, challenge complacency and provide a practical policy framework within which the school can thrive. However, the key to that is surely to have every post on the governing body filled, some continuity of local and national policies and properly resourced support from the LEA or school.
  Governing is a commitment which, if carried out properly, consumes many hours of precious time. Governors are expected to share responsibility for the safe and efficient running of the school. Many governors are in full-time employment and find it difficult to persuade their employers to allow them time away from work to fulfil their widening duties. Some governors have to use days from their precious annual holidays to do that, which compromises their commitments to their own families.
  At local schools, governor visits are often used to monitor and evaluate curricular work in the school—in my area, the literacy hour is under review this year. Monitoring and evaluating the curriculum is an area in which governors often feel out of their depth. It is very time consuming if it is to be done properly.
  The pressures on chairs of governors are heavy; at different times, I was chair of a small village primary school and of a large upper school. As chair, one's work load is clearly much larger than that of other governors. One is in daily contact with the head teacher to give support, with frequent meetings to discuss special needs, budgets and new directives, to fill in consultation documents, or to consider admissions. The chair probably tries to summarise all the documents coming into the school to make things easier for the other governors. One must often produce much of the governors' report to

  79
  parents and write letters to the local authority when one does not agree with its decisions. One must make and consider suggestions for the school's development plan—the list goes on.
  I loved the role of chair of governors: it was one of the most interesting voluntary jobs that I have ever done. However, the calls on time and energy can become wholly unreasonable. We are rapidly reaching the position where future candidates for the chair will come only from the ranks of the retired, the unemployed, or those with some other means.
  I remember that Sir Ron Dearing recommended that schools should be allowed to work in peace for at least five years. That would have given governors and teachers time to consolidate and improve the new skills that they had had to acquire during the previous 10 years. No one expects the world to stop for them, however, especially when social and economic change is so rapid. Our new Government, with an ambitious agenda to fulfil, produced even more pressure. I was delighted that our top campaign priority was education and that education is a main focus of our actions in government. Nevertheless, we absolutely must carry governors with us. The voluntary commitment of governors is already heavy and the hours are extensive. Many governors feel that even more delegation is undesirable and that governing bodies have been given enough powers and responsibilities to absorb. More paid staff, either in schools or in LEAs, are required to support the governor's role.
  When it was known that I had been successful in securing the debate, I received some feedback from local governors with a substantial number of letters, faxes, phone calls and visits from schools in the county of Leicestershire. We should bear in mind that many of those people have performed that role for a decade and more. They have experienced all the changes made by successive Governments and are not harking back to some illusory golden era of governing. I shall quote briefly from that correspondence. The chair of governors at a small village primary school says:
  "We are now implementing the various initiatives detailed in the School Standards and Framework Act. I am increasingly concerned that the governor work load is going to become prohibitive. In addition, the increase in governor responsibility and accountability does not seem commensurate with the voluntary nature of serving as a school governor.
  I do not think that remuneration for governors—as has been suggested occasionally—is the answer. I do, however, feel that governors are becoming a free substitute for the education authority professionals who are rapidly disappearing as more and more services and administration are devolved into schools.
  Aside from the increased role of governors, this devolution of services puts extreme pressure on the staff of small schools."
  A second letter states:
  "It is slightly alarming to note the rapid way in which the role of school governor has changed over the last year—it may be increasingly difficult to find people who are willing to take on this job in the future."
  Another letter says:
  "I have been Chair of a local primary school for the past 18 months. During this time, we as a governing body have seen the amount of our work load increase tremendously. The sheer weight of documentation that comes through from the DfEE and the LEA is such that I do not have time to read it all… I am aware that many of my colleagues find themselves equally beleaguered. We
  80
  find ourselves having to concentrate on the everyday issues of running the school rather than focusing on strategic issues and those directly affecting the children within our school.
  I became a governor because I cared about my children's education. I now find myself dealing with a whole array of issues which have little or nothing to do with that education.
  I have to take responsibility for keeping them warm, safe, fed and partially educated at home. The balance of their education should be provided at school but governors cannot focus on that crucial part because they are too engrossed in the new bureaucracy of governor accountability. Frankly, it is labour on the cheap. Please help".
  I pass on to my hon. Friend the Minister that poignant and heartfelt plea.
  As a governor in and the Member of Parliament for a constituency containing 50 schools and 12,000 children, I urge the Minister to recognise governors' problems and give them encouragement about the Government's support for them and reassurance about their future role. The weight of work and worry that we are transferring to volunteer governors seems neither sensible nor sustainable. We cannot go on like this.
  I am grateful to the Whips for carving out so much time for the Minister to respond to a crucial issue. I look forward to her speech with great interest.
  7.22 pm
  Mr. Bob Russell: I congratulate the hon. Member for North—West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) not only on securing the debate, but on getting more than three hours for it.
  I congratulate the hon. Gentleman also on the many and varied points that he made about the increasing work load faced by our school governors. Over 25 years, I was a governor of different schools in Colchester and, for a time, the chair of a combined board of junior and infant school. Does the Minister think it wise to force schools with a combined governing body to set up separate bodies? As the hon. Member for North—West Leicestershire said, that has made the governor deficit, which exists in many places, even worse. There is a problem in getting sufficient governors to come forward.
  I pay tribute to all the governors who have volunteered because, for the reasons that have been mentioned, the job is becoming increasingly difficult. There is more and more delegation, but many of us want some responsibility pulled back to the local education authority. Governors are being swamped with paperwork.
  I am concerned about the financial and legal responsibilities faced by governors. In many respects, governing bodies are almost local councils or local firms. They run small businesses that happen to be called schools, but they do not necessarily have professional staff and guidance on tap and must seek it out. I am worried because many experts are now offering their services. Some of their work is paid and some is voluntary. One wonders what they are offering in return. There is a need for more professional staff to be on hand for governing bodies.
  The term "labour on the cheap" has been used. I could understand the previous Administration wanting to run schools on the cheap, which is what these developments are about. My work load as a governor was continually extended because the professional staff from county hall and the local education authority were being withdrawn. Some of them set up firms, privatising the administration of our schools.

  81
  Will the Government provide the skilled, professional services that hitherto existed and are now increasingly provided by enthusiastic, dedicated people? I acknowledge their enthusiasm and dedication because I was one of them. When I started as a governor, I knew that there were professional staff to support me. I doubt that governors in many schools today have recourse to such staff. Will the Minister explain whether the Government will reverse that trend or proceed with further delegation?
  7.26 pm
  Mr. Bill O'Brien: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) on securing this debate. We sometimes pass over the important debates that should take place in the House, such as the issue of school governors and the voluntary work that they enter into when they accept their post. Whether governors work for a primary or secondary school or one of the new colleges, there is a great deal to be done to support education in local communities.
  I am receiving representations from local school governors about the funding of schools. The money that has been allocated by the Government over the past 14 or 18 months is being used to clear the debt that some governors had to continue carrying over because of the lack of support for education by the Tory Government. Schools were driven to dispensing with teachers and reducing services to which children are entitled. All that time, many school governing bodies were running a deficit. The money that has been allocated to education has been used, particularly in my constituency, to clear the backlog of debt.
  I am sure that now that some of the debt has been cleared, we shall realise the benefit of that money. However, it will take time to clear up the arrears that school governing bodies had to run up because the Tories let down education in many areas. Governing bodies had to make ends meet and reduce their teaching staff.
  School governors are often fund raisers, too. They make an effort outside school hours to raise funds to help with out-of-school activities, which were reduced when the Tory Government cut funding for them. We therefore owe a great deal to school governors for helping with the maintenance of education in our communities. Those issues are over and above the legal responsibilities and commitment of school governors and the burdens placed on them, which were outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire.
  In many instances, school governors had to dispose of school playing fields to raise money. I am pleased that the Minister and her colleagues are watching that carefully and that there is now an embargo on the sale of school playing fields, which are very important. I hope that we are going to assist school governors with the development of more out-of-school activities such as sports. There are still many problems to solve, problems which members of school governing bodies want to tackle. They want to ensure that their schools can provide out-of-school activities, such as sport and agricultural activities which some teachers wish to introduce. This takes money and time, but school governing bodies in my constituency are working to that end and credit must be given to them.
  I support the plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire that we should recognise the dedication of many of our constituents who are
  82
  members of school governing bodies and who do a great deal of work to ensure that the best quality education is provided for their communities. I associate myself with his remarks and reiterate his plea to the Minister to accept that there is a call from our communities for school governing bodies to be given a higher profile and greater assistance, through the local education authority in many areas. I hope that the Minister will respond to the points that have been made so that we can highlight through the media our appreciation and recognition of the work of school governing bodies.
  7.32 pm
  The Minister for School Standards (Ms Estelle Morris): I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) on securing this Adjournment debate. He is absolutely right to say that governors are key partners in the education service, and their work should be recognised and applauded. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) in welcoming this debate as an opportunity to do exactly that. I am in no doubt that schools work better when they have effective governing bodies to support them. If we were looking at the elements that made a good school, a good and effective chair of governors and governing body would be on that list.
  I also welcome the contribution made by the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell). I may have to differ from him on what I believe was his main point. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire that we do not want to go back to the days when governing bodies had no powers and decisions were made by local authorities. The answer to the question that the hon. Member for Colchester put directly to me—whether we would be centralising to local authorities some of the powers latterly given by both Governments to governing bodies—is no. That is perhaps a difference between our two parties.
  When we debated the School Standards and Framework Bill in Committee, the Liberals argued strongly that more powers should be given to local authorities. I suspect that the hon. Member for Colchester overstated his case, but the new powers that this Government have given to governing bodies and which were listed by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire—they relate to target setting, behaviour plans and class size plans—are quite properly the domain of governing bodies. Such decisions about individual schools should be made by those most closely affected.
  In a debate like this, we need to remind ourselves that governors are important because they provide the essential link between schools and the communities that they serve. They are independent, which is important, and they play a vital part in making sure that the wider local community is represented.
  My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire will know that the Government have put at the centre of the education debate a wish, a determination and a commitment to raise educational standards in all schools. Certainly, governors and governing bodies have a crucial role to play in that agenda. The legislation that was passed last year for the first time placed a specific responsibility on governing bodies to conduct schools with a view to promoting high standards of educational achievement. One might have supposed that that was what

  83
  they were doing anyway, that that was their raison d' etre and that that must be at the centre of what they were doing. However, the legislation made that explicit for the first time, and governing bodies and those who represent them have welcomed that.
  It is important to clarify in the new framework for schools exactly what the roles of governing bodies and local authorities are in raising standards. Although the legislation introduces some changes, the broad responsibility of governors remains largely the same as it was before the passage of that legislation.
  I understand what my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire said. I accept that the legislation and many of the initiatives that are central to the Government's wish to raise standards have resulted in a flurry of consultation on specific aspects of that legislation, especially in relation to new regulations that will need to take effect before 1 September. I take this opportunity to assure governing bodies that we understand the burden that extra bureaucracy and consultation can place on them and that we want to minimise that burden so far as we are able.
  Mr. Bob Russell: Is the Minister saying that governors already have burdens, and are they going to have extra burdens? What sort of central support do they get now, and will they get additional professional support in future?
  Ms Morris: I shall come to the latter point in a few minutes. My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire listed several consultation papers that have been published in the past year. I accept what he said but, in light of the Government's determination to improve standards and put education at the top of their agenda, it would have been strange had we not consulted governing bodies in the determination of that agenda.
  The word "burden" has a pejorative ring to it, so I do not want to repeat it. Instead, let me say that there is an acceptance that the new framework and the Government's new initiatives and policies have meant more consultation with governing bodies in the past 18 months than was the case in the previous 18 months. I accept that it has meant an increased work load for governing bodies, but, given the parents' and the nation's wish to do something about the unacceptably low standards of education in some parts of the system, it was an inevitability, and I am happy to justify it. I accept that, having initiated that amount of consultation, it behoves the Government to assist governing bodies to respond to it as efficiently as possible.
  Given the consultation that has emanated from recent legislation, I am keen to make sure that the flow of documents to schools from the Department is kept to a minimum. It is important that schools have enough time to respond to the consultation. I am conscious of the fact that, several times in recent months, the Department has issued many documents. Because we wanted to make rapid progress towards higher standards, perhaps there has not always been the amount of time that we would have wished for schools and governing bodies to respond. That is why we are redoubling our efforts to make sure that when consultation papers are sent to schools, governing bodies have at least 10 weeks—excluding school holidays—to respond.
  84
  We hope to make further improvements in that regard. For instance—this may be the type of initiative that the hon. Member for Colchester meant—we want to make greater use of sampling. I question whether it is always necessary, when we publish a consultation document, to request and analyse the views of 24,000 governing bodies. One initiative that we have put into effect since we came into government is to consult, on some consultation documents, a sample of schools and a sample of governing bodies.
  Some policies are so important that all governing bodies should have the right to respond to the proposals and have their views taken into account by the Government. However, we are trying to develop expertise in sampling. If we can do so, it will no longer be necessary for every governing body to respond fully on every initiative that comes out of the Government before we can assess the response and develop policy further.
  A large quantity of paper is generated locally through local authorities' consultation with schools—it does not all come from the Department or from Government bodies. That is why, on 29 July 1998, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment wrote, jointly with the chair of the Local Government Association's education committee, to all chief education officers about the need to reduce the bureaucratic burden on teachers, governing bodies and schools. The local authority education department often acts as a gatekeeper for messages and letters from other council departments to schools. The letter to local education authorities contained a framework covering gatekeeper communications and information requests, and urged local authorities to minimise paperwork.
  In the past six months, the Department has run two pilot schemes—one in Kent, which is a large local authority, and one in Derby, which is a much smaller local authority—to discover how local education authorities can identify good practice in dealing with paperwork for governing bodies and others, and how we can spread good practice when identified. Those pilot schemes are taking place this year. We very much hope to learn from them, so that we may ensure that the burden imposed on governing bodies by local authorities is reduced, and so that local authorities may tackle that problem as central Government do.
  We have asked local authorities to follow the Department guidelines by providing a simple summary of the issue contained in the document, and by making clear the status of any action that needs to be taken. As a Department, we have been doing that for some time, so in future there should be no need for governing body chairs to summarise documents for the governing body in the way that my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire feelingly described. I acknowledge that problem. The summary of the document now appears clearly on the front of the consultation document, as does a description of the intended audience.
  I very much agree with my hon. Friend that the relationship between a governing body—especially its chair—and the head is crucial. If that relationship is not right, it not only creates an extra work load for governors, but interferes with the proper running of the school and the raising of standards for children.
  There must be a clear division of responsibility between governing bodies and head teachers. For years, guidance from the Department has consistently emphasised the

  85
  strategic role of a governing body and the distinction between governance and management. We want to go further, to clarify that relationship. In the description of some governing bodies that was read to us by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire, it was unclear whether, in the schools that he was describing or quoting, the partners were clear about their responsibilities and acted accordingly. I accept that that relationship needs working at. It needs good will, and it needs to be talked about and clarified. Because of governing bodies' enthusiasm for their work, it is easy for them to impinge on what is properly the role of head teachers.
  The School Standards and Framework Act 1998 enables us to make regulations. We set out the terms of reference for governing bodies. We shall use those regulations to set out the distinct roles and responsibilities of governing bodies and head teachers more clearly than ever before.
  We do not intend to use those regulations to set out a long list of the responsibilities placed on governing bodies. My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire mentioned those responsibilities. However, it is important to note that, although the law places responsibilities on governing bodies to make sure—those are important words—that statutory responsibilities are met, the law certainly does not require governing bodies to carry out those functions themselves. Governing bodies, heads and schools need to be clear in their minds about where the duty to make sure that the law is kept, and the duty to carry out what is required by law, start and end.
  My hon. Friend especially mentioned governing body responsibility for health and safety. Governors' legal responsibility in that regard has not changed. Under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 and associated regulations, employers in schools are responsible for the health, safety and welfare of their employees. I am aware of the tragic incident that my hon. Friend mentioned. I understand the impact that it must have had on those concerned, and the importance that it has in his community. I understand that the matter is now being investigated by the Health and Safety Executive, and that the results of the inquest are still awaited.
  I do not accept all my hon. Friend's comments. It was necessary to bring legislation into one document, to meet the responsibilities of governing bodies within the new framework of schools. Much of it carried forward the contents of previous documents meeting a different framework of schools, and reiterated them in one body. We have placed on schools new responsibilities on target setting, for behaviour support plans, and to reduce class sizes to 30 for infant school children. Those are things that we would want the Government to do. They are things that parents would want us to do.
  Sometimes a balance must be achieved; I understand the difficulties. On one hand, there is a desire for stability and no increase in work, and on the other, there is an acceptance that things had to change because things were not all right. I know that my hon. Friends the Members for North-West Leicestershire and for Normanton share that acceptance.
  I always ask teachers, governing bodies and others to bear in mind the guiding principle that if the extra responsibility is about raising standards for children, we
  86
  should all take on that responsibility. If it is a responsibility that stands in the way of raising standards for children, we should object to that responsibility. That is the guideline as to whether the extra responsibility is a burden or whether it is part of the wider standards agenda.
  I am aware, as my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire must be aware, that a recent Ofsted inspection of Leicestershire identified LEA governor vacancies on school governing bodies as a particular problem. It may offer my hon. Friend some assurance to know—although I am not pleased about it—that the problem is not unique to Leicestershire. Governing bodies need to have all their places filled to cope with their work. Leaving vacancies is not an acceptable practice as far as LEA nominees are concerned. Schools need complete governing bodies, and I agree with my hon. Friend that in small schools in rural areas, where the governing body is smaller to begin with, vacancies can place an unacceptable burden on the rest of the governing body. I hope that, when local authorities are unable to fill their places, they will be prepared to consider a wider range of individuals, including nominations from governing bodies.
  I understand that Leicestershire is now considering what to do in light of the Ofsted inspectors' findings, and I hope that the local authority will look at the issue more flexibly than it may have done in the past. My hon. Friend may be interested to know the results of some research that surprised me—research recently commissioned by the Department, and carried out by the university of London institute of education, into improving the effectiveness of school governing bodies. Some of the project's findings are relevant to questions about work load and recruitment. For example, less than 10 per cent. of governors in the sample said that their work load was not reasonable. Interestingly, in a similar sample, more than 50 per cent. of head teachers thought that the work load on their governors was unreasonable. There is a mismatch in those results; it is almost as though head teachers were protecting governors. Head teachers showed much more concern about governing bodies' work loads than governors themselves. We must think hard about what that difference in perception means.
  The same research confirms data obtained from local authorities following the 1996 governor recruitment campaign: most schools do not experience significant difficulties in recruiting governors. In saying that, I am not minimising the problems for schools that do so. Many such schools are more challenging and in less affluent areas, where parents often do not have the confidence to stand as governors. With that in mind, the Department will be working with LEA governor training co-ordinators to produce information aimed at recruiting new governors to serve on reconstituted governing bodies from September.
  The Government have a good story to tell in supporting and training governors. This year's standards fund includes earmarked funding for governor training in the school effectiveness category. That is the first time for several years that governor training has been earmarked. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire will welcome that. Governor training expenditure under the previous Government had declined to about £6 million, but, under our Government, expenditure on training governors across all categories of

  87
  the standards fund is estimated to be about £10 million. We have specifically asked that in all schools, there is at least one governor who is trained in target-setting.
  We want to ensure that high-quality training is available to all governors. We are concerned not just with making training happen, but with its quality. That is why we are planning to issue guidance on how governor training needs can best be met, based on the best LEA practice. I am aware that not all governors take up the training opportunities available to them. Some misguidedly think that, in taking money to train themselves, they are using part of the school's budget that could be spent on pupils. I know that all hon. Members who have spoken in this debate agree that governing bodies ought to use the money that has been set aside for training. That is in the interests not only of governors, but of schools and pupils.
  We are working hard to ensure that departmental publications for governors are more user friendly. There is much work to be done by the Government on that; we always need to keep our eye on the ball and to update matters. A good example of such a publication is "The Governors' Guide to the Law". We have provided every governor with a copy, and we shall be revising it later this year to take account of the School Standards and Framework Act. As mentioned in the Green Paper on the teaching profession, "Meeting the Challenge of Change", we shall also be looking at providing more targeted advice for governors on specific issues such as appraisal, in order to make it easier for governors to identify exactly their responsibilities.
  It is interesting that all Members who have spoken in the debate have been school governors. That is why they spoke with passion. The fact that they have contributed to this debate shows not only concern for schools, standards and pupils in their communities, but an understanding of the governing body's role. The House is fortunate to have
  88
  many Members who have served as governors. That should further reassure present governors that their role and importance is truly acknowledged and will not be forgotten.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire—and others who have spoken—can take back not only to the governors who have written to him in order that their comments could be part of this debate, but to every school in his constituency, the fact that the Secretary of State and I and other Ministers are deeply indebted to governors for their work. We extend our thanks to them for the time that they put in, the challenges that they meet and the positive role that they play as partners in the education service. They are volunteers; they can choose to do different things with their time. They can choose to do what others do when they are not working or with their families. I think that they choose to continue to be governors because they know that their contribution can make a better school.
  I accept on behalf of the Government that, not only because of the contribution that governors make, but because getting their role right is crucial to the standards agenda, we, too, have an obligation to ensure that their work is acknowledged in this House and outside. We shall do all that we can to ensure that governors are able to carry out their important task as efficiently and as unburdened as possible.
  I have taken note of the comments made in this debate, and I assure hon. Members that I shall reflect on them. Although I am not pretending that everything is as unbureaucratic as it can possibly be, there is no going back from the important role that governors play in schools, for which I thank them. I thank, too, my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire for allowing the House to pay tribute to governors and to discuss this important issue.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at four minutes to Eight o'clock.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Robert Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list(a) the (i) task forces, (ii) review panels and (iii) advisory groups her Department has, (b) the remit of each and (c) the members of each together with their principal employment and their level of remuneration. [62813]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  This information has been placed in the Library.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the total expenditure and the breakdown of expenditure in her Department since May 1997 on(a) public opinion research, (b) television, radio and newspaper advertising and (c) direct mail. [63914]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The information for the Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland Department is as follows:

  (a) £447,837

  (b) £2,883,221

  (c) £966,887.

  All figures exclude the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland, and (c) also excludes the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland and the Department of Education for Northern Ireland, as information in the form requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Fair Employment
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what targets she has set for reducing the unemployment differential between Catholics and Protestants; and by what criteria she will measure the impact of fair employment legislation. [64209]

  Mr. Ingram
  Government alone cannot reduce the unemployment differential. It also requires practical action and attitudinal change on the part of employers, educators and the unemployed themselves. To assess the rate of progress, the Government propose to commission the Equality Commission to agree with the representatives of employers, employees, political parties and other interests, benchmark measures for the future reduction of the unemployment differential, informed by up-to-date professional analysis. Moreover, the Equality Commission 2
  will be given a role in advising the Government on measures which they might introduce to reduce the number of, or religious imbalance in, the unemployed.

  The impact of the legislation will continue to be measured by changes in the composition of the workforce and by the comparison of the Community composition of those appointed to jobs with that of those applying.

  Security
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list the measures taken in each month since February to reduce security activity. [64205]

  Mr. Ingram
  Since the reinstatement of the Provisional IRA ceasefire in July 1997, the Chief Constable has announced a progressive reduction in security measures in the Province. Each step has been fully consistent with the level of threat and taken after a review of the security situation.

  From February to the end of August, key factors which influenced the levels of security across the Province included the "tit for tat" killings following the murder of Billy Wright in 27 December 1997, devices in 5 town centres, attacks of security forces and the marching season.

  However, from September, the following measures have been taken:

  Base Reductions

  October

  Vacation of Letterkenny, Muff and Hemp vehicle checkpoints

  Demolition of Crumlin Road Sangar

  Demolition of R16 Road Sangar

  Announcement of closure of Fort Whiterock

  November

  Demolition of three PVCPs at Bessbrook

  Work started to demolish Muff vehicle checkpoint (Ongoing)

  Work started to demolish Letterkenny and Aughnacloy vehicle checkpoints (Ongoing)

  Work started to demolish Hump vehicle checkpoint (Ongoing)

  January 1999

  Work started to demolish Fort Whiterock Army Base (Ongoing)

  Troop Movements

  September

  The last remaining company of the Rural Reinforcement Battalion (RRB) returned to the Mainland

  October

  The last remaining company of the Urban Reinforcement Battalion (URB) returned to the Mainland

  November

  Drumadd Roulement Battalion (DRB) returned to the Mainland

  Military Patrol Support to RUC

  September

  Military patrols ceased in Belfast Region

  Military patrols ceased in South Derry

  3

  October

  Military patrols ceased in Waterside and City side, Londonderry

  Military patrols ceased in RUC G Division

  November

  Military patrols ceased in the Strabane Sub Division.

  Robberies
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was for each police division in Northern Ireland for(a) 1996, (b) 1997 and (c) 1998 up to the latest available date the number of incidents of robbery and attempted robbery from the dwellings of persons of pension age and above where violence was used or threatened, the number of persons who have been made

  The number of robberies in dwellings, recorded and cleared, by Division 1996, 1997 and 1998 to end November (where victim was aged 65 and over)

  Armed robbery

  Attempted armed robbery

  Robbery

  Attempted robbery

  Recorded

  Cleared

  Recorded

  Cleared

  Recorded

  Cleared

  Recorded

  Cleared

  1996

  A

  1

  0

  0

  0

  4

  1

  1

  1

  B

  0

  0

  1

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  D

  0

  0

  0

  0

  5

  1

  1

  0

  E

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  G

  1

  1

  0

  0

  7

  0

  0

  0

  H

  0

  0

  0

  0

  7

  0

  2

  0

  J

  3

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  K

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  L

  2

  0

  1

  0

  3

  0

  1

  0

  N

  3

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  O

  0

  0

  1

  0

  4

  0

  0

  0

  P

  1

  0

  0

  0

  4

  1

  0

  0

  Total

  13

  2

  3

  0

  38

  3

  6

  1

  1997

  A

  0

  0

  0

  0

  5

  0

  1

  1

  B

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  0

  0

  0

  D

  4

  0

  0

  0

  5

  2

  0

  0

  E

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  0

  0

  0

  G

  0

  0

  0

  0

  5

  0

  3

  0

  H

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  J

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  K

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  1

  0

  0

  L

  3

  1

  0

  0

  4

  0

  0

  0

  N

  1

  0

  0

  0

  2

  1

  0

  0

  O

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  P

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  1

  1

  0

  Total

  9

  1

  0

  0

  33

  5

  5

  1

  1998

  A

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  B

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  D

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  E

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  G

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  H

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  0

  0

  0

  J

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  0

  0

  0

  K

  2

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  L

  0

  0

  1

  0

  4

  0

  0

  0

  N

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  O

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  0

  0

  0

  P

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  3

  0

  1

  0

  18

  0

  1

  0

  4
  amenable in the courts, the number of cases pending, the sums stolen and the value of goods stolen and the number of persons injured by the robbers. [64763]

  Mr. Ingram
  Statistical data are not maintained in a manner to indicate, readily, the number of prosecutions pending for such offences or how many persons have been made amenable through the courts. The following tables record the available statistics including information in relation to robberies and attempted robberies which have been cleared up by the police. The figures for 1998 require end-year verification and are therefore quoted on a provisional basis. For statistical purposes, a case is said to be cleared if a person has been charged, summonsed, or cautioned for the offence; if the offence is taken into consideration by a court; if there is sufficient evidence to charge a person but it is not proceeded with because, for example, the suspect is under the age of criminal responsibility; or if the suspect has died.
  5

  The value of goods stolen (£), by Division, 1996, 1997 and 1998 to end November in respect of incidents recorded above

  1996

  1997

  1998

  A

  1,530

  7,430

  —

  B

  226

  1,565

  220

  D

  4,377

  21,394

  5,350

  E

  120

  1,150

  —

  G

  2,910

  5,420

  —

  H

  2,856

  —

  2,201

  J

  32,130

  23

  1,220

  K

  12,300

  6,040

  1,055

  Injuries sustained during robberies, by Division, 1996, 1997 and 1998 to end November in respect of incidents recorded above

  1996

  1997

  1998

  Serious

  Minor

  None

  Serious

  Minor

  None

  Serious

  Minor

  None

  A

  1

  0

  5

  1

  1

  4

  0

  0

  0

  B

  0

  1

  2

  0

  1

  3

  0

  0

  0

  D

  0

  3

  3

  0

  5

  4

  0

  2

  0

  E

  1

  0

  0

  0

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  G

  0

  2

  6

  1

  2

  5

  0

  1

  0

  H

  0

  4

  5

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  J

  1

  1

  2

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  2

  K

  0

  1

  2

  0

  2

  0

  0

  2

  1

  L

  0

  1

  6

  0

  2

  5

  0

  1

  4

  N

  0

  1

  2

  1

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  O

  0

  1

  4

  0

  1

  1

  0

  1

  2

  P

  1

  2

  2

  0

  1

  3

  0

  1

  0

  Total

  4

  17

  39

  3

  20

  26

  1

  9

  13

  Departmental Costs
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate she has made of(a) the cost of setting up a new department of Government in Northern Ireland and (b) the annual running costs of each such department. [64765]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Work on the costings of those new departmental structures in Northern Ireland which were agreed between the First Minister Designate and Deputy First Minister Designate of the new Northern Ireland Assembly on 18 December is proceeding but detailed estimates are not yet available.

  Pigmeat Imports
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the cost of the pigmeat imported from outside the United Kingdom for consumption in schools, hospitals and prisons administered by her Department in each of the last three years. [65119]

  Mr. McFall
  None of the pigmeat consumed in Northern Ireland schools, hospitals and prisons over the last 3 years has been imported from outside the United Kingdom.

  Specified Organisations
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on how many occasions(a) the opinion of a senior police officer has been given in court as evidence of a person's membership of a specified organisation, (b) a court has been asked to draw an inference from the failure of a person suspected of belonging to a specified organisation to mention a
  6

  The value of goods stolen (£), by Division, 1996, 1997 and 1998 to end November in respect of incidents recorded above

  1996

  1997

  1998

  L

  10,280

  10,340

  730

  N

  40

  1,025

  —

  O

  2,860

  470

  8,850

  P

  1,957

  1,250

  3,100

  Total

  71,586

  56,107

  22,726

  Note:

  Where the value appears to be particularly high the amount may include the value of a car stolen during the same incident.

  relevant fact; how many persons have been (i) charged and (ii) convicted of belonging to a specified organisation since September and on how many occasions a court has ordered forfeiture of property following conviction for belonging to a specified organisation. [64206]

  The Attorney-General
  I have been asked to reply.

  To date there have been no proceedings under section 30 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996 in relation to specified organisations as defined by the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998 and so the answer to each of the questions is none.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the official visits which Ministers in his Department have paid to Buckinghamshire since 2 May 1997. [64132]

  Mr. Hoon
  Since 2 May 1997, there has been one official visit made by a Minister from this Department to Buckinghamshire. The Lord Chancellor attended the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Conference in Chesham on 16 June 1998. Whilst I have made no official visits, I know the local area well.

  Ethnic Monitoring
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to include Irish as a category in his Department's ethnic monitoring of staff recruitment. [63873]
  7
  Mr. Hoon
  The over-riding principle of Civil Service recruitment procedures is that they should be fair, and selection should be on merit at each stage. Monitoring in this area is based on ethnic origin, and not nationality. The nine ethnic minority categories monitored by the Lord Chancellor's Department are based on those used in the 1991 census which did not include an Irish category. They will be reviewed in the light of any suggested changes in the 2001 Population Census.

  Legal Aid
  Sir Nicholas Lyell
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what the failure rate is in legally aided personal injury cases; and what was the cost to the Legal Aid Fund of such cases in each of the past five years. [63942]

  Mr. Hoon
  It is not possible to provide the information in the form requested. In cases that settle out of court, the terms of the settlement are not recorded on the Legal Aid Board's computer system, and it is therefore not possible to determine whether, in these cases, the plaintiff's claim was met in full. Information is available only in respect of cases where no damages were awarded. The proportion of cases receiving no damages in each of the last five years, was as follows:

  Year

  Proportion of cases without damages (Percentage)

  Net cost of cases without damages (£)

  1996–97

  42

  60,823,987

  1995–96

  43

  54,642,081

  1994–95

  37

  44,102,253

  1993–94

  38

  37,482,163

  1992–93

  35

  22,079,048

  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department how long the Legal Aid Board takes to process non-urgent applications. [64676]

  Mr. Hoon
  In 1997–98, the Legal Aid Board processed 84 per cent. of civil legal aid applications within 2 weeks, and 94 per cent. within 4 weeks.

  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department if solicitors receive acknowledgment letters in response to legal aid applications, and are kept informed of progress in consideration of the applications. [64677]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Legal Aid Board does not acknowledge receipt of civil legal aid applications received, nor does it keep solicitors informed of the progress of the application. On average, the Board receives 450,000 applications for civil legal aid a year. In the majority of cases, a decision is made within one to four weeks. As the majority of applications are decided within a short period, sending acknowledgment letters would create additional costs and an unnecessary administrative burden.

  On request, the Board is able to inform the solicitor of the current status of any particular matter.

  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the Corporate Information System of the Legal Aid Board. [64675]
  8
  Mr. Hoon
  The Legal Aid Board's Corporate Information System (CIS) was implemented on a phased basis which began with the first office going live in November 1997 and the final office in November 1998. The system is now fully operational in all Board offices. CIS is a fully integrated case management system for all types of legal aid with a single database. It replaces systems which were supported by increasingly ancient software and hardware which were not Millennium compliant. CIS provides the Board with more effective control over the management of the Legal Aid Fund and is an essential part of the Board's strategy for preparing for contracting with suppliers of legal services.

  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the average level of debt write-off in(a) the Reading legal aid region and (b) nationally in the last year for which figures are available. [65100]

  Mr. Hoon
  It is the Board's policy to pursue recovery of all debts unless it is evident it would not be cost effective to do so. The average value of debt written off nationally and in the Reading legal aid region in 1997–98, which are the latest figures available, are as follows:

  £

  Reading

  637

  Nationally

  700

  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the average amount of legal aid granted for claims in(a) the Reading region and (b) nationally in the last year for which figures are available. [65099]

  Mr. Hoon
  In 1997–98, the average gross cost of legal aid claims paid in respect of civil and criminal legal aid and advice and assistance (green form) in(a) Reading and (b) nationally were:

  Reading legal aid region

  National

  Total number

  (£) average

  Total number

  (£) average

  Civil legal aid

  20,142

  3,420

  328,845

  3,018

  Criminal legal aid

  35,311

  470

  494,130

  496

  Advice and assistance (Green Form)

  84,611

  91

  1,586,764

  106

  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what protocols have been established(a) nationally and (b) in the Reading legal aid region on the length of time for which printouts showing the levels of client contribution should be kept. [65102]

  Mr. Hoon
  Since the introduction of the Legal Aid Board's Corporate Information System (CIS) records of all contribution payments received from assisted persons, for both live and closed cases are maintained on the database. The Board's current policy is to maintain these records indefinitely and information can be printed out at any time.
  9
  The Board's Reading area office moved onto CIS in April 1998. The above procedure applied from that date. Prior to the introduction of CIS, full records of contributions received for all live cases were maintained on a computer system (OLIFS). At the end of a case, the system would produce a Closing Financial Statement which is retained for six years from the date the case was closed.

  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the annual cost of the Legal Aid Service in the Reading legal aid region. [65241]

  Mr. Hoon
  In 1997–98, the gross cost of legal aid services paid for out of the Reading Legal Aid Area Office was £105 million. The figure includes payments on account, final bill payments, VAT and disbursements, where applicable. It excludes the amounts that the Board received in contributions, costs paid by other parties and damages, all of which are sent direct to the Legal Aid Board's Financial Services at its Headquarters in London. The amount of gross costs paid to the legal profession nationally in 1997–98 was £1,612 million.

  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what systems are in place(a) nationally and (b) in the Reading legal aid region to ensure that client overpayments of contribution are returned. [65103]

  Mr. Hoon
  Legal Aid contributions are paid by the assisted person by monthly instalments to the Legal Aid Board. Contributions are paid throughout the life of a case. Payments are normally sent direct to the Board's Financial Services at its Headquarters in London. All payments received are recorded centrally on the computer system. In the absence of information to the contrary, any excess contribution instalments received by the Legal Aid Board are treated as payments in advance of future instalments due. Repayments are not, therefore, made to the assisted person until the conclusion of a case unless specifically requested. Any overpayments made to the Legal Aid Board would be identified and accounted for at the end of the case.

  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department how many people are employed by the Legal Aid Service(a) nationally and (b) in the Reading legal aid region. [65248]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Legal Aid Board has 13 area offices and two offices in London housing its central function departments. The average number of permanent staff employed by the Board from April to November 1998 is 931 nationally, with 70 at the Reading area office.

  In addition, the Legal Aid Board employs temporary staff on either a contract basis or for a specified period and who are included on the Board's payroll. The average number of temporary staff employed for the same period is 237 nationally and 6 at the Reading area office.

  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what sums are spent on training in the Legal Aid Service(a) nationally and (b) in the Reading legal aid region. [65249]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Legal Aid Board provides a national training programme which ranges from the development of legal reference and training materials for caseworkers 10
  and quality auditors to senior management development programmes. During 1998–99, expenditure on the national training programme is expected to be £276,014.

  In addition, £158,000 is allocated to 23 area and central function offices to provide local training initiatives which fall outside the national training programme. In-house on-the-job training is also provided in each office, after which performance is assessed by staff trained as trainers to identify any further staff development needs. Expenditure on local training initiatives undertaken within the legal aid area office in Reading is expected to be £5,000 by the end of the 1998–99 financial year.

  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the average level of non-collection of client contribution towards legal aid payment in(a) the Reading region and (b) nationally in the last year for which figures are available. [65101]

  Mr. Hoon
  It is the Board's policy to pursue recovery of contributions in all cases unless it is evident that it would not be cost effective to do so. The average value of contributions written off during 1997–98, which are the latest figures available are:

  £

  Reading

  287

  Nationally

  245

  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what arrangements have been made to monitor franchised legal aid firms(a) nationally and (b) in the Reading legal aid region. [65104]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Legal Aid Board's arrangements for monitoring legal aid franchises apply nationally. Over a period of up to nine months, applicants for a legal aid franchise are subjected to two audits by the Board. A preliminary audit is carried out to ensure the applicants have developed appropriate procedures to meet the requirements set out in the Franchising Specification and to assess the effectiveness of implementation. If successful, a pre-contract audit will then be undertaken. The pre-contract audit will cover, in more detail, the requirements of the Franchising Specification, including the general and management requirements and transaction criteria, which are the Board's measure of the quality service process. Once a firm of solicitors has been awarded a legal aid franchise, the Board's liaison managers and franchise quality auditors will undertake regular audits of the firm's case files approximately every twelve months.

DEFENCE

  CR Gas
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reasons CR gas was selected from the available riot control gases to be stockpiled for the counter-terrorist response capability. [63844]

  Mr. Spellar
  CR gas was selected some decades ago as a potential counter-terrorist response capability and there are no surviving records of this decision. However,
  11
  stocks of CR gas continue to be held as tests have confirmed it to be effective as a potential counter-terrorist response capability.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much CR tear gas has been manufactured by his Department since 1968; and at which establishment it was manufactured. [63843]

  Mr. Spellar
  The riot control agent CR was only ever manufactured by the MOD at the Chemical Defence Establishment at Nancekuke, Cornwall, between 1962 and 1977. On the closure of Nancekuke and the subsequent return of the site to the RAF, the remaining stocks of CR were transferred to the Chemical and Biological Defence Sector of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency at Porton Down.

  It is not possible to determine from the remaining records exactly how much CR was manufactured after 1968.

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the recruitment totals from 1990 to the present for each TA centre in Devon, Cornwall, Dorset and Somerset. [64464]

  Mr. Spellar
  This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Defence Contracts (Oil)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will list the countries with which there are Government to Government Defence contracts paid for in oil in the last five years; and when the memoranda of understanding with those countries were signed; [64636]

  (2) if there are guide prices for oil established within the memoranda of understanding with states purchasing defence equipment from the United Kingdom with oil risings; and what measures are in place to protect defence contractors and public funds from variations in oil prices. [64640]

  Mr. Spellar
  There have been no Government to Government Defence contracts paid for in the last five years, which involve Her Majesty's Government taking oil as payment.

  Joint Air Reconnaissance Intelligence Centre
  Ms Dari Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key targets have been set for the Joint Air Reconnaissance Intelligence Centre for 1998–99. [65079]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The role of the Joint Air Reconnaissance Intelligence Centre is to produce imagery intelligence and imagery products and services to meet MOD and operational command requirements. The Key Targets for the Agency for the 12 months from April 1998 are as set out.

  Key Target 1:
  To provide operational intelligence support as follows:

  98 per cent. of Priority 1 tasks to be completed within 24 hours of the receipt of appropriate imagery.

  92 per cent. of Priority 2 tasks to be completed within 48 hours of the receipt of appropriate imagery.

  12

  88 per cent. of Priority 3 tasks to be completed within 7 days of the receipt of appropriate imagery.

  Key Target 2:
  To provide detached Service personnel as required up to a total of 22 at any one time.
  Key Target 3:
  To complete Strategic, non-operational, intelligence requirements and other tasks as follows:

  92 per cent. of Priority 1 tasks to be completed within 24 hours of the receipt of appropriate imagery.

  88 per cent. of Priority 2 tasks to be completed within 48 hours of the receipt of appropriate imagery.

  80 per cent. of Priority 3 tasks to be completed within 7 days of the receipt of appropriate imagery.

  75 per cent. of Priority 4 tasks to be completed within 6 weeks of the receipt of appropriate imagery.

  Key Target 4:
  To revise the methodology of measuring the degree of customer satisfaction with the service provided.
  Key Target 5:
  To achieve a 2.5 per cent. improvement in efficiency.
  Key Target 6:
  To conduct evaluation of reconnaissance systems for MOD and other Governments within agreed times and allocated resources.

  Defence Animal Centre
  Ann Keen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key targets have been set for the Chief Executive of the Defence Animal Centre for 1998–99. [64742]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The Chief Executive of the Defence Animal Centre has been set the following Key Targets for 1998–1999.

  1. Meet 100 per cent. of the requirements for trained military personnel and trained military working animals for operations.

  2. To achieve a customer satisfaction rating of at least 95 per cent. for the quality of its trained output.

  3. To achieve a customer satisfaction rating of at least 95 per cent. of the quantity of its trained output.

  4. To achieve a customer satisfaction rating of at least 95 per cent. for the timeliness of delivery.

  5. Meet course specific training success rates for Military Working Animals of at least 95 per cent.

  6. Meet training success rates for personnel of at least 90 per cent.

  Trident
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on changes to the Strategic Defence Review decision to cancel the final tranche of Trident nuclear missiles; and what value of Trident missile components have been purchased from the USA since the Strategic Defence Review. [65042]

  Mr. George Robertson
  There has been no change to the Strategic Defence Review decision to cancel the planned final batch of Trident D5 missiles. Since the SDR, we have authorised $100.6m for US fiscal year 99 procurement of Trident missile components as announced in my written answer of 30 July 1998,Official Report, column 453. Some of these relate to the completion of earlier missile orders; of the remainder, some will be required as in service spares and the balance will be sold back to the US in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding that I announced on 30 July 1998, Official

  13
  Report, column 453. Overall, our decision to maintain our Trident missile inventory at 58 is expected to save in the region of £50 million.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to store the warhead component separately from the missile delivery vehicles of the Trident nuclear system. [65044]

  Mr. George Robertson
  We concluded in the SDR that storing Trident warheads separately from the missiles would be incompatible in current circumstances with maintaining a credible minimum deterrent with a submarine-based nuclear system.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the arrangements for the provision of spare and replacement parts for the Trident nuclear missile system, indicating in how many cases there is a single supplier of spare or replacement parts. [65041]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The Trident missile system was procured off the shelf from the United States under the provisions of the Polaris Sales Agreement of 1963, as amended for Trident. Missile system components, including spares and replacement parts, are procured on our behalf by the US Department of Defence (DoD). For most elements of the system, the DoD uses Prime Contractors (for example, for the missile itself the prime contractor is Lockheed Martin Missile Systems) who in turn employ numerous sub-contractors. Because of the nature of the procurement, we do not have detailed visibility of the sub-contractor network, but I can say that for most major components single suppliers are employed because of the high costs of supplier qualification and the low levels of production now remaining.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to rule out a first-strike use of the UK's Trident missiles. [65045]

  Mr. George Robertson
  In conducting the Strategic Defence Review, we concluded that such a policy of No First Use of Nuclear weapons would be incompatible with our and NATO's doctrine of deterrence, and that it would not further nuclear disarmament.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon will receive a substantive reply to his question to which a holding answer was given on 2 December. [64733]

  Mr. Spellar
  I replied to the hon. Member on 16 December 1998,Official Report, column 520.

  UN Volunteer Force
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what forces Her Majesty's Government have on stand-by for United Nations duty; how rapidly they can be deployed in an emergency; and what consideration he has given to improving their(a) training and (b) readiness; [64956]

  (2) if he will make it his policy to support the creation of a permanent UN Volunteer Force. [64957]
  14
  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The Government do not support the concept of a permanent United Nations Volunteer Force because it would involve duplicating expensive capabilities that already exist among member states, and because it would be impractical to create a single force that could cater for every eventuality. We believe the most effective way to provide the UN with military support is through the Secretary-General's Standby Arrangements initiative. Since 1994, the United Kingdom has declared a range of forces to be potentially available under the United Nations' Standby Forces Planning Arrangement to facilitate the rapid deployment of forces once political decisions on their use have been made. Following last year's Strategic Defence Review, we have decided to strengthen our commitment by declaring the whole range of our rapidly deployable forces as potentially available to the United Nations. This will be formalised in a Memorandum of Understanding which we plan to have ready for signature by March this year.

  The forces declared in the Memorandum of Understanding will be drawn from the new Joint Rapid Reaction Forces, which will have an initial operational capability available by 1 April 1999 and be fully operational by 2001. Each of the elements of this force will be held at graduated states of readiness, ranging from 24 hours up to and including 30 days.

  We believe the training and readiness of the United Kingdom's Armed Forces to be the equal of the best in the world. Nevertheless, we remain committed to seeking improvements to these high standards. That is why we announced, also as part of the 1998 Strategic Defence Review, that the Chief of Joint Operations will have increased authority for enhancing the training and preparedness of the Joint Rapid Reaction Forces.

  Tony Geraghty
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reasons the computer files and research material of the author Tony Geraghty have been seized by Ministry of Defence Police. [65368]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  This is a matter for the Chief Constable of the Ministry of Defence Police Agency. I have asked the Chief Constable to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from W. E. E. Boreham to Mr. Austin Mitchell, dated 11 January 1999:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about property seized by the Ministry of Defence Police from Tony Geraghty, as this falls into my area of responsibility as Chief Constable/Chief Executive of the Ministry of Defence Police Agency.
  Computer files and research material were seized, under warrant, from the home address of Mr. Geraghty, as part of an investigation in connection with alleged offences against the Official Secrets Acts. The property seized is currently under evaluation.

  Armed Forces (Youth Recruitment)
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list by age the numbers of men and women aged under 18 years in the armed forces. [65004]
  15
  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The number of men and women aged under 18 years in the armed forces is as follows:

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Naval Service

  16 year olds

  268

  49

  317

  17 year olds

  693

  128

  821

  Total

  961

  177

  1,138

  Army

  16 year olds

  1,083

  99

  1,182

  17 year olds

  3,449

  428

  3,877

  Total

  4,532

  527

  5,059

  Royal Air Force

  16 year olds

  37

  12

  49

  17 year olds

  364

  66

  430

  Total

  401

  78

  479

  AWE Committee
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what dates the Local Liaison Committee of the Atomic Weapons Establishment Committee(a) has met since 1 January 1997 and (b) plans to meet in 1999; and if the minutes of this committee are publicly available. [65056]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Atomic Weapons Establishment has two Local Liaison Committees, one covering the sites at Aldermaston and Burghfield, the other covering the site at Cardiff which is being decommissioned.

  The Local Liaison Committee for the Atomic Weapons Establishment Aldermaston and Burghfield met on the following dates:

  20 February 1997

  19 June 1997

  2 October 1997

  12 February 1998

  21 May 1998

  4 June 1998

  15 October 1998.

  The Local Liaison Committee for AWE Cardiff met on the following dates:

  19 June 1997

  28 November 1997

  26 June 1998

  23 November 1998.

  The next meeting of the AWE Aldermaston and Burghfield LLC is scheduled for 11 February 1999. It is expected that there will also be meetings in June and October 1999. The next meeting of the Cardiff LLC is scheduled for 17 May 1999 and it is expected that another one will be arranged for November.

  The minutes of the two committees are circulated to all members in order that they can disseminate the information or place it on local council files as appropriate.

  Ministerial Flights
  Mr. Wells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) for how many flight hours during 1997–98 Government Ministers have used the aircraft of 32 (The Royal) Squadron based at Northolt Airport; which Government officers used it the most; how much per hour the RAF charges ministers; and how much of this figure relates to Northolt Airport costs; [63696]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the cost of the Government chartering business jets when RAF jet aircraft of 32 (The Royal) Squadron Aircraft were unavailable in the last year for which figures are available; and if he will list the number of charters hired for that purpose; and the Ministers involved. [63695]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies I gave to the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) on 19 November 1998,Official Report, column 711.

  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the term "average cost", with reference to flights taken by Ministers in his Department, refers to the average cost per passenger. [64726]

  Mr. Spellar
  The average cost refers to the average cost per trip and not the average cost per passenger.

  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will place in the Library a copy of a table listing ministerial flights on RAF aircraft. [64725]

  Mr. Spellar
  A copy of the table was placed in the Library of the House on 19 November.

  Turkey
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he and his NATO counterparts have taken to seek to ensure that civilian control over the military is maintained and enhanced in Turkey; and if he will make a statement. [62098]

  Mr. Spellar
  The European Commission has made clear, in its recent report on Turkey's progress towards EU accession, that the strengthening of democratic institutions and civilian control of the military are vital components in bringing Turkey closer to its aspirations for full membership. We will continue to work with Turkey on this issue.

  Harassment Policy (DERA)
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the harassment policy within DERA is applicable to other MOD employees; and if he will make a statement. [65031]

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

  RAF Leeming
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions in the last year RAF Leeming has put up a tour of their base as a prize in a charity auction; and for each occasion which charity or organisation was involved. [64760]
  17
  Mr. Spellar
  A tour of the base has been offered on sixteen separate occasions since 1 January 1998. The organisations involved are as follows:

  Easingwold Hospice

  Richmond School

  Shepway CAB

  Brompon on Swale Primary School

  Linton on Ouse playing field project

  Yorkshire Cancer Research

  Friarage Hospital Breast Care Unit

  RAF Leeming Child Care Charities

  NSPCC (Yorkshire)

  Bedale County Primary School

  Dr. Bamados (Darlington)

  Ripon Grammar School

  Thornton Watlass Primary School

  RELATE (Scarborough/Bridlington)

  Highcliffe Primary School

  Allertonshire School.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost was in staff time of the tour organised at RAF Leeming in January as a prize in a fund-raising auction for the British Field Sports Society. [64826]

  Mr. Spellar
  There were no extra costs associated with this tour. It was a standard station tour, organised and conducted in the normal way by the station Community Relations Officer, and lasted approximately 7 hours. The value of the staff time of the Community Relations Officer and all other personnel that the locally based visitors met will have amounted to less than £100.

  RAF Alconbury
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what(a) direct and (b) indirect costs to public funds were incurred as a result of the Sportsman's Bash held in February hosted by RAF Alconbury. [64829]

  Mr. Spellar
  No direct or indirect costs were incurred by public funds.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions in the last year RAF Alconbury has hosted events for charities or other organisations; and if he will list the organisations concerned. [64762]

  Mr. Spellar
  Five outside functions have been hosted at RAF Alconbury in the last year, all of which have been at no cost to UK public funds. They were:20 February 1998—Sportsman's Bash
  21 February 1998—Huntingdon Cromwell Rotary Club—International Evening
  21 March 1998—Friends of the 8th Air Force Dinner
  20 June 1998—Friends of the 8th Air Force Dinner
  13 November 1998—Cambridgeshire Constabulary Senior Officers Dining Club Function.

  Otterburn Ranges
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate(a) the cost and (b) planned training days lost resulting from the re-opening of the public inquiry
  18
  into his proposals for investment in improvements to the Otterburn ranges in Northumberland; and if he will make a statement. [65048]

  Mr. Spellar
  It was originally estimated that training on the new developments at Otterburn would commence in 2001. When training could now start depends on the length of the re-opened Public Inquiry. Until we know the length of the Inquiry, it is not possible to give an accurate estimate of the effect on training nor of any associated costs.

  Troop Deployment
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he plans to take in respect of UK troop deployment following the announcement of the Under-Secretary General of Peacekeeping at the United Nations that under 18 year-olds will not be included on UN peacekeeping missions. [65010]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  We fully accept the UN's undertaking that personnel under the age of 18 will not be included on UN peacekeeping missions. When my Department responds to a UN request for the deployment of UK troops to a peacekeeping operation, the Permanent Joint Headquarters (PJHQ) allocates tasks to the three Services as appropriate. UN requirements are of course complied with, including age restrictions. However, there may be occasions when Royal Navy units already deployed overseas, are called at short notice to such an operation. These units may contain small numbers of under 18 year-olds.

  Atomic Weapons Establishment (Technical Papers)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many reports in the two series of reports produced by the Mathematical Physics Division of the Atomic Weapons Establishment are currently unclassified. [65058]

  Mr. Spellar
  A total of 130 reports in the two series produced by the Mathematical Physics Division of the Atomic Weapons Establishment are currently unclassified.

  Pigmeat Consumption
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost of the pigmeat imported from outside the United Kingdom which was purchased for consumption by British service men and women in each of the last three years. [65121]

  Mr. Spellar
  The procurement of food for the Armed Forces is contracted to Booker Foodservice who were selected and took over the contract on 1 October 1997. In the first year of the contract Booker Foodservice imported some £1.45 million worth of pigmeat, representing 50 per cent. of the Armed Forces' requirement for bacon and gammon. The balance of the requirement for bacon and gammon and all of the requirement for pork were obtained from UK sources at a cost of £4.25 million. Unfortunately, the cost of imported pigmeat for the previous two years, when NAAFI held the contract, is not available. We believe, however, that the proportion of imported pigmeat will have been broadly similar to that advised by Booker Foodservice.

  Cruise Missiles (Iraq)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if British cruise missiles have been used in the attack on Iraq. [65160]

  Mr. George Robertson
  No British cruise missiles were used during Operation Desert Fox, the 16–19 December air campaign against Iraq.

  Nuclear Weapons (Gulf)
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will rule out the use of nuclear weapons by UK forces in the Gulf. [65043]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The United Kingdom would consider the use of nuclear weapons only in extreme circumstances of self-defence.

TREASURY

  VAT (Government Departments)
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes he proposes to make to the way in which Government departments account for VAT on contracted-out services. [65410]

  Mr. Milburn
  The 1984 Finance Act provided for Customs and Excise to make refunds to departments in respect of the VAT they pay on contracted out services. This was designed to remove a potential disincentive to contracting out services to the private sector, where this represented value for money for the taxpayer. Since 1996–97 these VAT refunds have been netted off against expenditure in departments' Estimates and Appropriation Accounts. The Government have reconsidered this approach and concluded that it is not consistent with the legislation governing the treatment of receipts, which requires most receipts of Government departments to be appropriated in aid or surrendered to the Consolidated Fund. We will therefore revert to the arrangements that applied prior to 1996–97. So long as cash based Estimates and Appropriation Accounts continue to exist refunds of VAT on contracted out services will be appropriated in aid, an approach which provides a greater degree of transparency.

  Convergence Programme
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to produce a Convergence Programme. [65411]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  A Convergence Programme was submitted on 23 December 1998 to the European Commission. Copies of the Convergence Programme were placed in the Libraries of both Houses on that day.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has produced written guidance for the creation of new public private partnership capital schemes; and when he expects to produce final written guidance for potential project sponsors. [64678]

  Mr. Milburn
  Partnerships for Prosperity was published in November 1997. There is also a programme 20
  of guidance and technical notes for those engaged in the PFI in the public sector. Last year's publications were:
  General

  Private Finance and IT: A Practical Guide

  A Step-by-Step Guide to the PFI Procurement Process

  Policy Statements and Technical Notes

  Policy Statement No.2: Public Sector Comparators and Value for Money

  Policy Statement No.3: PFI and Public Expenditure Allocations for Non-Departmental Public Bodies

  Policy Statement No.4: Disclosure of Information and Consultation with Staff and other Interested Parties

  Technical Note No.2: How to follow EC Procurement Procedure and Advertise in the OJEC

  Technical Note No.3: How to Appoint and Manage Advisers.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if agreement has been reached with the Accounting Standards Board on the accounting presentation of PFI schemes in Government; and if he will make a statement. [64679]

  Mr. Milburn
  The Government welcomed the publication by the Accounting Standards Board on 10 September of Application Note F—Private Finance Initiative and similar contracts to Financial Reporting Standard 5. Officials are preparing detailed guidance reflecting this document to replace the Treasury's current guidance on this subject.

  Pre-Budget Report
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the changed assumption and calculation methods used in Table B9 of the Pre-Budget report (Cm 4076), compared with Table 4.5 in the July 1997 Red Book, HC 85. [64637]

  Mr. Milburn
  The conventions used in the July 1997 Red Book are set out in Annex B of Chapter 4. Those used in the Pre-Budget Report are described on pages 123–27 of that document.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what were the percentage increases in(a) the total expenditure of Department of Trade and Industry, Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, Department for Culture, Media and Sport and Department for Education and Employment in 1999–2000 and in the Welsh block for the same year, (b) each Department's expenditure relevant to the purposes of calculating the formula consequences for the Welsh block and (c) the expenditure within the Welsh block comparable to (b) above; [63613]

  (2) what changes he has made in the method of calculating the formula consequences for the Welsh block of expenditure by the DTI, DFEE, DETR and DCMS; [63550]

  (3) what comparability factor he used in calculating the formula consequences for the Welsh block of expenditure by the DTI, DETR, DCMS and DFEE in (a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99 and (c) 1999–2000. [63549]
  21
  Mr. Milburn
  [holding answer 14 December 1998]: No changes have been made to the method of operating the Barnett formula. The Government have already set out a statement of principles to govern changes to the devolved administrations' budgets in a reply by the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury to my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Mr. Timms) on 9 December 1997, Official Report, columns 510–13.

  The Government maintained the 1997–98 and 1998–99 allocations to the Welsh Office determined by the previous Government in the 1996 Public Expenditure Survey.

  The percentage increases in the total Departmental Expenditure Limits can be derived from the tables in "Modern Public Services for Britain: Investing in Reform" (Cm 4011).

  Changes in the total departmental programme expenditure provide the basis for calculating formula consequentials for the Welsh Office budget. Each Departmental Expenditure Limit has a specific comparability determined by the coverage of Welsh Office services. In the Comprehensive Spending Review these are, for the Welsh Office:

  Percentage

  DTI

  27.0

  DETR—non-local government

  70.0

  DETR—local government

  100.0

  DCMS

  87.3

  DfEE

  75.8

  As the Secretary of State for Wales, and in turn the National Assembly for Wales, are free to allocate expenditure within the Welsh block as they see fit, the structure of programmes within the Welsh block does not exactly mirror the departmental structure in England. It is therefore not possible to calculate the percentage increases in expenditure within the Welsh budget which are comparable to each Department's expenditure.

  British Workers (EU)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many British people moved to other parts of the EU in the last year for which figures are available; how many of them were of working age; and how many moved from the West Midlands. [64479]

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

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Jim Cunningham, dated 17 December 1998:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics, I have been asked to reply to your recent question asking about estimates of British people moving to other parts of the EU.
  It is estimated that 52.2 thousand British citizens migrated from the United Kingdom to other EU countries in 1996. Of these, 34.1 thousand were of working age. A total of 5.6 thousand persons migrated from the West Midlands to the EU. Due to sample size it is not appropriate to disaggregate the estimate further to identify British citizens.
  A migrant from the United Kingdom is defined as a person who has resided in the UK for a year or more, and who states on departure the intention to reside abroad for a year or more.
  22
  Estimates of migrants are derived from the International Passenger Survey (IPS), a continuous voluntary survey which covers the principal air and sea routes between the United Kingdom (UK) and countries outside the British Isles. The routes between the UK and the Irish Republic are excluded, as is all movement of diplomats and armed forces personnel. Estimates derived from the IPS are subject to both sampling and non-sampling errors. As an approximate guide, the standard error for an estimate of five thousand migrants is around 35 per cent., whilst for an estimate of 40 thousand migrants this is reduced to around 10 per cent.

  Smoking (Death Certificates)
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the number of death certificates each year that refer to smoking as a cause of death. [64100]

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

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Peter Bottomley, dated 17 December 1997:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary question on the estimated number of death certificates each year that refer to smoking as a cause of death.
  The table below gives the number of death certificates in each of the last five years that referred to smoking as an underlying or contributory cause of death.

  Number of deaths where smoking was mentioned on the death certificate as a cause of death, 1993–97, England and Wales

  Year

  Number of deaths

  1993

  2,038

  1994

  1,313

  1995

  1,080

  1996

  744

  1997

  686

  Smoking is only recorded as a cause of death on the death certificate for a small proportion of the deaths which are likely to be caused by smoking. According to the latest figures calculated by the Health Education Authority, there were an estimated 121,000 deaths due to smoking int he UK in 1995.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list the official visits paid to Buckinghamshire by Ministers in his Department since 2 May 1997. [64133]

  The Attorney-General
  The Solicitor-General visited the Buckinghamshire branch of the Crown Prosecution Service on 13 August 1997.

PRIME MINISTER

  Council of Europe
  Ann Keen
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will announce the composition of the United Kingdom delegation for the January 1999 ordinary session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. [64792]
  23
  The Prime Minister
  [pursuant to his reply, 17 December 1998, c. 646]: The right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) has been appointed as a full representative from the Minority Parties as a replacement for the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock), who becomes a substitute representative.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Ministerial Flights
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if the term average cost, with reference to flights by Ministers in her Department, refers to average cost per passenger. [64724]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The average cost refers to the average cost per trip and not average cost per passenger.

  Misappropriated Aid
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what estimate she has made of the amount of her Department's expenditure overseas which was misappropriated through corruption or fraud in recipient countries in each of the last three years; and what action her Department takes(a) to monitor such activities and (b) to ensure that consequent losses are minimised. [64800]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The figures requested are as follows: nil in 1995–96; £6,287 in 1996–97, and £58,293 in 1997–98. This Department gives a high priority to ensure regularity, propriety and value for money in the expenditure of aid funds. Departmental staff and aid recipients are required to follow detailed procedures and to keep comprehensive financial records. Where fraud is discovered, staff are expected to take action to recover the amounts lost, and to pursue prosecution wherever possible. Our control systems are under constant review by our internal auditors and are subject to examination by the National Audit Office. Full details of DFID' s procedures for authorising and accounting for expenditure are set out in the Department's Office Instructions, copies of which are in the Library of the House.

  Departmental Contracts
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations she has received concerning the number of her Department's contracts whose management is available for tender to UK based non-Governmental organisations; and if she will make a statement. [64797]

  Mr. Foulkes
  We have not received any such representations.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list, for the latest year for which figures are available, the names of UK based non-Governmental organisations who acted as contractors 24
  or managers of her Department's projects, programmes and activities and the (a) number and (b) total value of contracts for each manager or contractor. [64798]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The table lists, for 1997–98, the UK based organisations registered as charities which we have been able to identify as having acted as contractors or managers of my Department's projects; the number of contracts awarded to each; and the total value:

  NGO

  Number

  Total value (£)

  Accord

  2

  31,156

  Action for Disability

  1

  30,620

  ACTIONAID

  2

  2,294,840

  Active Learning Centre

  1

  44,775

  Association of Commonwealth Universities

  1

  4,919

  Bentham Moxon Trust

  2

  37,819

  British Executive Service Overseas

  1

  1,987

  British Overseas NGOs for Development

  1

  20,928

  Care International UK

  2

  10,927

  Charities Aid Foundation

  2

  98,150

  Childrens Aid Direct

  1

  98,332

  Christian Aid

  1

  45,484

  Education for Development

  1

  12,486

  Fauna and Flora International

  2

  202,525

  Hamlet Trust

  1

  76,936

  Henry Doubleday Research Association

  1

  22,650

  International Alert

  1

  12,973

  International Family Health

  25

  604,879

  International Planned Parenthood Federation

  1

  78,800

  International Records Management Trust

  8

  1,549,228

  International NGO Training and Research Centre

  1

  249,717

  Intermediate Technology Development Group

  1

  1,442

  Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine

  1

  6,000

  Living Earth Foundation

  1

  167,370

  London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine

  34

  875,819

  Overseas Development Institute

  21

  1,254,506

  Oxfam

  3

  35,291

  Population Services International

  1

  1,587,019

  Royal Agricultural College

  1

  14,288

  Royal Botanic Gardens

  2

  168,867

  Save the Children Fund

  5

  199,343

  Scottish Council for Research in Education

  1

  25,654

  Traidcraft Exchange

  2

  24,000

  World Wide Fund for Nature

  1

  13,860

  Zoological Society of London

  1

  30,246

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the numbers of her Department' s contracts which were available for tender to UK based managers in each year since 1994. [64799]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The following table lists the number of contracts let in the UK, from 1994–95, for which we have sought proposals. These contracts cover a wide variety of skills including management. Disaggregated figures for contracts limited to management functions, contracts with management components and contracts not available to UK consultants could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Year

  Number of contracts

  1994–95

  1,068

  1995–96

  1,512

  1996–97

  2,003

  1997–98

  1,995

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Television Licence Evasion (Colchester)
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what is the current estimated number of households which evade payment of a television licence in the Colchester constituency; and what plans he has to reduce the level of evasion. [62188]

  Janet Anderson
  The estimated national television licence fee evasion rate was 7.2 per cent. at the end of March 1998 and is expected to fall significantly by the end of the current financial year. Information below national level is not available in a comparable form. TV Licensing, which carries out the day to day administration and enforcement of the television licensing system as agent for the BBC, adopts all appropriate measures to minimise evasion throughout the United Kingdom.

  Sport (Girls)
  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate he has made of the proportion of girls who give up sport upon leaving school. [63432]

  Mr. Banks
  This Department has not made any estimate of the proportion of girls who have given up sport upon leaving school.

  The 1994 Young People and Sport Survey, which focused on ages 6–16 and was carried out by the then GB Sports Council, showed that, at age 16, the participation rate for girls in sport was 77 per cent. The 1996 General Household Survey, which focused on age 16 and over, showed that the participation rate in the age group 16–19 was 79 per cent. The same surveys show that the participation rates were 81 per cent. at ages 14–15, but fell to 70 per cent. at ages 25–29. However, direct comparisons are not appropriate because of the different nature of the two surveys.

  The English Sports Council (ESC) will be undertaking its next Young People and Sport Survey next year. The survey is likely to focus on the participation rates of girls in sport in more detail.

  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what initiatives are planned by his Department to encourage more girls to become involved in sport. [63433]

  Mr. Banks
  I have made clear my determination to encourage more women and girls into sport at all levels and am working closely with my Ministerial colleagues and others to ensure this.

  The English Sports Council (ESC), through which this Department's funding for sport is channelled, had a range of activities designed to encourage and promote women and girls in sport. Initiatives aimed specifically at young people come under the umbrella of the National Junior Sports Programme which brings together education sectors and local communities to develop interest in sport at an early age and help young people develop basic sports skills. Specific initiatives include:
  Top Play: an initiative run in conjunction with the Youth Sport Trust, which teaches core sporting skills to 4–9 year olds;
  26
  Top Sport: also run in conjunction with the Youth Sport Trust, which introduces 7 –11 year olds to sports and games;
  Coaching for Teachers: run in conjunction with the National Coaching Foundation, which offers tailored sports training for teachers; and
  Sportsmark and Sportsmark Gold: which awards secondary and special schools for their work on sport in the curriculum.

  In addition, the ESC is piloting an initiative, 'Girl Sport', aimed specifically at promoting the benefits of sport for girls and encouraging more girls to participate in sport. Also, the ESC is aiming, next Spring, to publish a National Action Plan for Women which will encourage organisations to sign up to specific targets to increase the number of girls involved in sport by 2001, including:

  a 20 per cent. increase in the number of girls who are members of sports clubs;

  a 20 per cent. increase in the number of secondary school age girls who take part in at least 3 sports on a regular basis; and

  a 20 per cent. increase in the number of girls who participate in sport in their leisure time.

  A major force for helping more women and girls into sport is coming through the National Lottery. Organisations are required to include ways of encouraging the participation of women and girls when applying for monies from the Lottery Sports Fund. This is now helping to increase participation levels in a range of sports.

  Scotland Act 1998 (Schedule 5)
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the offices or agencies under his control which will be subject to L.2 of Head L in Schedule 5 of the Scotland Act 1998; how many people are currently employed in these offices; and what equal opportunities practices are adopted in these offices. [63793]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 15 December 1998]: All Non-Departmental Public Bodies falling under my Department are covered by the reserved matter of equal opportunities defined by Section L.2 of Head L of Schedule 5 of the Scotland Act 1998 and by the first exception to that. The following bodies may be designated as cross-border public authorities and therefore be subject also to the second exception:

  Name of Body

  Current number of UK employees

  British Library

  2,413

  Theatre Trust

  6

  British Tourist Authority

  161.5

  Museums and Galleries Commission

  43

  National Heritage Memorial Fund

  152

  All these bodies are responsible for ensuring that they meet the equal opportunities requirements set out in law.

  World Heritage Sites
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the organisations in England involved in reviewing world heritage site nominations as a result of the Government's recent consultation. [64423]
  27
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Committee of experts set up at the request of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to recommend sites in England for inclusion in a new UK Tentative List of potential World Heritage Sites comprised representatives from the following organisations:

  English Heritage (Chair)

  The Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England

  The Joint Nature Conservation Committee

  The International Union for the Conservation of Nature

  The Local Authority World Heritage Forum

  The Cathedrals Advisory Commission for England

  The International Council on Monuments and Sites (UK)

  The Countryside Commission.

  Officials from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport also attended the meetings of the Committee.

  Healthy Living Centres
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to ensure that New Opportunities Fund support for healthy living centres addresses issues of social exclusion in rural areas. [64472]

  Mr. Banks
  [holding answer 17 December 1998]: The Policy Directions issued to the New Opportunities Fund make it clear that the primary aim of the healthy living centre initiative is that the centres should target people in communities with the worst health and greatest health inequalities, including those in pockets of deprivation within rural areas which may not be readily identifiable as deprived under the current criteria for determining deprivation. A particular emphasis is placed on ensuring that the centres are accessible to people who experience disadvantage, or who have difficulty accessing existing health facilities and services.

  The National Lottery Act 1998 requires the New Opportunities Fund to draw up a strategic plan containing its assessment of needs and its priorities in dealing with them, on which it must consult the Secretary of State. This ensures that there is a proper strategy for distributing Lottery proceeds. The Fund is currently consulting on its draft strategic plan and looking at ways it will focus on the most disadvantaged 20 per cent. of the population. The Fund proposes to give particular priority to, among others, deprived rural areas.

  In addition, the Fund may encourage applications of particular types, or in particular geographical areas, and use the new power of solicitation where sufficient applications are not forthcoming.

  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what criteria are used to assess applications for funding of healthy living centres from the New Opportunities Fund. [64471]

  Mr. Banks
  [holding answer 17 December 1998]: The New Opportunities Fund is currently consulting on its application guidance and developing its assessment criteria, but for healthy living centres the criteria will include consideration of the benefit to deprived communities and groups; additionality to mainstream health provision; innovation and quality of provision; community and user involvement; equality and access to the project; links with local health improvement
  28
  programmes and targets, and relevant national health strategies; links with broader local strategic planning and programmes (including community plans and regeneration programmes); and sustainability beyond the life of the grant.

  John Boyd Textiles Ltd.
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent representations he has received on the future of John Boyd Textiles Ltd. of Castle Cary and the historic horsehair looms used by that company. [64474]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  [holding answer 17 December 1998]: None. However, I understand that an application for planning permission for the conversion of buildings at the site to residential units has been submitted to South Somerset District Council. Oversight of the development control system is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions.

  Industrial Machinery
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what protection is available for industrial machinery to ensure processes of historical and cultural importance can continue. [64473]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  [holding answer 17 December 1998]: Where a building is listed as being of special architectural or historic interest any alteration to it, including the removal of machinery, would require listed building consent from the local planning authority. However, the refusal of consent to remove machinery would not necessarily mean that the machinery would continue in use; this is a matter for the owners of the buildings and the machinery.

  Social Exclusion (Sport)
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on how the Government's objectives to eliminate social exclusion in sport are being realised. [63426]

  Mr. Banks
  [holding answer 14 December 1998]: This Government are committed to eliminating the barriers which prevent people from participating in sport. We believe that everyone should have the opportunity to participate in and enjoy sport, regardless of class, gender, ethnic background, age or ability.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 14 December that as part of the Departmental Spending Review outcome sport will receive increased Government funding of almost £8 million over the next 3 years, some £2 million more than the £6 million already announced in July. The extra funding will not only help the UK Sports Council with the lead role we all want to see it play in UK sport, but will contribute to the existing range of provisions that the English Sports Council (ESC) makes in the field of social inclusion.

  The National Lottery is also making a major impact in addressing the needs of communities up and down the country, both in terms of sport and the other good causes. The Lottery Sports Fund has now provided grants totalling £900 million to over 4,000 capital projects.

  29
  Sports projects in economically deprived regions can apply for additional Lottery support under the ESC's 'Priority Areas Initiative'. The recent reforms to the National Lottery will help to encourage distributors to consider how their strategies for the lottery will contribute to better access, neighbourhood regeneration, and the reduction of economic and social deprivation.

  We are working towards the goal of social inclusion in a variety of other ways. I am the 'lead' Minister for a Policy Action Team which has been set up to examine best practice in the use of arts and sports projects in deprived areas. The Team draws together officials from a number of government departments with practitioners in the field of community sports provision, and will report in May 1999. My Department is also developing a new strategy for sport, which will set out some clear principles

  £

  Arts Council

  Chair

  8,751.99

  Arts Council

  Members

  18,346.69

  BBC

  Governors

  40,486.98

  DCMS

  2 posts

  4,701.00

  English Sports Council

  Chair and Members

  12,474.00

  General broadcasting covering:

  23,372.29

  BSC

  Chair and Members

  ITC

  Deputy Chair

  Radio Authority

  Members

  National Lottery Commission

  Chief Executive and Commissioners

  19,387.50

  National Lottery Charities Board

  Chair

  17,945.80

  National Heritage Memorial Fund

  Chair

  5,883.28

  New Opportunities Fund

  Chair and Members

  35,490.88

  National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts

  Chief Executive

  14,057.21

  Chair and Members

  23,536.00

  S4C

  Chair and Members

  4,712.00

  UK Sports Council

  Members

  28,972.29

  Recouped from Welsh Office

  -4,801.00

  Recouped from Scottish Office

  -7,039.00

  Recouped from Northern Ireland Office

  -3,132.00

  No expenditure has been made on television or radio advertising or direct mail.

  Regional Arts Councils
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the method and formula used to determine funding for the regional arts councils. [63984]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Arts Council expects the Regional Arts Boards to receive average increases in funding of 19 per cent. in 1999–2000, 11 per cent. in 2000–01 and 4 per cent. in 2001–02 in total. The Arts Council will fully fund the Regional Arts Board for each arts organisation that is delegated to them. They will also receive an element of flexible funding which will be related to factors such as deprivation, as well as population.

  Film Production (United Kingdom)
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what contribution United Kingdom produced films have made to the annual balance of trade for each of the last five years for which figures are available; [64913]
  30
  and targets for future developments in this area. I am especially keen to see the issue of equal opportunities in sport tackled more directly, and the strategy will demonstrate ways in which this can be achieved.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what has been the total expenditure and the breakdown of expenditure in his Department since May 1997 on(a) public opinion research, (b) television, radio and newspaper advertising and (c) direct mail. [63959]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  My Department has let one contract for public opinion research since May 1997. In order to preserve commercial confidentiality I am unable to provide details of the cost. A total of £243,146 has been spent on newspaper advertising for the following posts.

  (2) what contributions have been made to the annual balance of trade by overseas companies using film production services in the United Kingdom, for each of the last five years for which figures are available. [64914]

  Janet Anderson
  The contributions made to the UK balance of payments for each of the years 1993 to 1997 by(a) overseas sales of, royalties and rental payments for United Kingdom produced films and (b) the use of film production, processing, printing, editing etc. services in the United Kingdom by overseas companies are shown in the table.

  Export earnings of UK film companies

  £ million

  UK produced films

  Use of UK film production, printing, editing etc. facilities

  Total

  1993

  459

  128

  587

  1994

  516

  177

  693

  1995

  560

  227

  787

  1996

  686

  202

  888

  1997

  465

  207

  672

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics (news release ONS(98)359)

  Subtitling and Sign Language
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt) and the hon. Member for Maidenhead of 8 December 1997,Official Report, column 468, what replies he received from cable and satellite broadcasters following his request that they state their plans to make their services more accessible to viewers with hearing difficulties. [65240]

  Janet Anderson
  I am placing a summary of the responses received in the Library of the House. My officials are holding a series of meetings with the broadcasters; the major groups representing viewers with hearing difficulties; and the subtitling providers to discuss what scope there is for improving the level of subtitling on cable and satellite channels and what impediments broadcasters face in increasing the current level of provision.

  Television Licences
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate he has made of(a) the number of premises with a television licence for (i) colour and (ii) black and white televisions where there is more than one receiver and (b) how many of these contain (A) one to 10, (B) 10 to 20, (C) 20 to 50 and (D) more than 50 sets; and if he will estimate the extra revenue gained by the BBC if each set required a licence. [65165]

  Janet Anderson
  Information is not held centrally on the numbers of television sets installed in non-domestic premises other than hotels, and even for hotels information is not held in the form requested. The available statistics on domestic television ownership show only the number of households without television, those with one set and those with more than one set, broken down into colour and black and white. Over 60 per cent. of households with colour television have more than one colour set; a further 7 per cent. of households with colour television have an additional black and white set and a similar proportion of households with only black and white television have more than one set. Charging all households with more than one television set an additional licence fee would raise an estimated £1,320 million in extra television licence fee revenue, assuming that levels of television ownership remained unchanged.

  QUEST
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the annual budget will be for the departmental body QUEST. [65236]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The allocations for my Department which I published on 14 December 1998 included a sum of £500,000 in each of the financial years 1999–2000, 2000–2001 and 2001–2002 for the operation of Quality, Efficiency and Standards Team (QUEST).

  Museums and Galleries (Free Admission)
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to introduce universal free admission to museums and galleries by 2002. [64648]
  32
  Mr. Chris Smith
  I announced on 14 December 1998,Official Report, column 589, that funds had been allocated in two stages to allow Trustees of currently charging national museums in England to introduce free admission for children in 1999–2000 and pensioners in 2000–01. This reflects our expectation that they will endorse the first two stages of our programme to widen access.

  Funds have also been set aside to enable those national museums and galleries in England that wish to offer universal free access in 2001–02 to do so, and discussions about this will take place between my Department and the museums over the coming year.

  Decisions about free entry will continue to be a matter for the Trustees of individual museums.

  Broadcasting Licences (Religious Organisations)
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to allow religious organisations to obtain national broadcasting licences; and if he will make a statement. [64839]

  Janet Anderson
  I have no such plans. The Broadcasting Act 1990 disqualifies groups whose objectives are wholly or mainly of a religious nature from holding a terrestrial national radio licence issued by the Radio Authority.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Green State Scheme
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will assess the advantages of introducing a policy analogous to the Green State scheme established in Sweden and Norway. [62974]

  Mr. Meale
  We are not aware of such a scheme.

  National Air Traffic Services
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment the Government have made of the advantages and disadvantages of establishing NATS as a non-profit making organisation. [64570]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Ms Osborne) on 22 June 1998,Official Report, column 366. The Government are consulting interested parties on their preferred option of a public/private partnership for NATS, and will take account of responses to the consultation in taking final decisions. The consultation period will end on 31 January 1999.

  London Underground
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what estimate he has made of the re-payment cost of the public/private partnership for London Underground; [64571]
  33
  (2) what proportion of the repayment costs of the public/private partnership for London Underground will be covered (a) by Government and (b) by the Greater London Authority from the revenues generated by congestion charges or parking levies. [64572]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Under the public/private partnership for the Underground, London Underground will pay to the private sector a fee based on availability and performance of infrastructure. The work to date, to develop the contract structure and model the financial relationships, which is still being refined, suggests that, over the life of the concession, this fee and all the Underground's operating costs could be covered from London Underground revenues. Details of the estimated payments cannot be divulged, as to do so might compromise the public sector's ability to achieve value for money in the competition for the infrastructure contracts.

  People's Question Time
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what procedures will be in place to ensure that the proposed People's Question Time for the London Mayor and the Assembly of the Greater London Authority will be(a) publicised by means accessible to people with sensory disabilities, (b) in buildings which are accessible to disabled people and (c) equipped to offer communication support to deaf and hard of hearing people who might attend. [64488]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The GLA will need to comply with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 when deciding how best to publicise People's Question Time and its other public meetings and whether to hold them in the GLA building or other suitable locations. The GLA's own building will be built to a specification which as a minimum meets the standards set out in current legislation. Specific requirements have yet to be finalised, but I would expect the building to be equipped to meet the needs of all disabled people. For example, I envisage that the chamber and committee rooms would be equipped with induction loops for the hard of hearing.

  Local Government (Church Representatives)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if church representatives who serve on local education committees, will be able to retain an executive role in any of the new political structures proposed in "Modern local government: In Touch with the People", Cm 4014. [64489]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Our intention is that the new political structures will safeguard the present ability of church representatives to contribute to decision taking on the planning and provision of education services.

  Capital Receipts (Ipswich)
  Mr. Cann
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact of the capital receipts initiative in Ipswich. [64664]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Ipswich Borough Council received a total allocation of £1.570 million under the Capital Receipts Initiative (CRI) in 1997–98 and 1998–99 (£368,000 and £1,202,000 respectively). Returns from the 34
  authority show that two thirds of these resources are to be used to refurbish the authority's own stock. This will mean improvements mostly targeted at providing improved heating and insulation, to over 3,000 local authority properties. The remaining resources are being used to support RSL new build (14 per cent.), on renovation grants and home repair (8 per cent.) and for community safety and other improvements (10 per cent.). The Council's CRI allocation for 1999–2000 is £1.330 million.

  Merchant Fleet
  Mr. Cann
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action his Department has taken to maintain the size of the United Kingdom's merchant fleet. [64528]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  A shipping policy paper—"British Shipping: Charting a new course"—was published by the Deputy Prime Minister on 16 December. This sets out the Government's strategy for revitalising the British merchant fleet.

  Properties (Newcastle upon Tyne)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many privately owned and rented properties were vacant in the City of Newcastle upon Tyne in each of the last five years; and if he will estimate a vacancy rate for privately owned and rented properties in those years. [64680]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The number of privately owned and rented properties that were vacant in the City of Newcastle in each of the last five years are as follows:

  Year

  Number

  Per cent.

  1994

  4,679

  6.4

  1995

  4,339

  5.9

  1996

  4,191

  5.6

  1997

  4,385

  5.8

  1998

  4,455

  5.8

  A1
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what(a) highway improvement and (b) major highway maintenance have been carried out along the A1 corridor from the Eighton Banks interchange north to the Scottish Border in the last three years; indicating the length in mileage and duration of the works involved. [64681]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Jim Cousins, dated 11 January 1999:
  The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question. You asked "What highway improvement and major highway maintenance has been carried out along the A1 corridor from Eighton Banks interchange to the Scottish Border in the last three years".
  The tables attached set out the information you require.

  35
  The durations shown are the duration of the works, and do not reflect the extent of any lane closures, etc on the Al. For example, the Lobley Hill to River Derwent scheme was completed using night time only closures resulting in little or no delays to traffic throughout the 3 month contract period.
  I trust the above information meets your requirement.

  Highways Maintenance schemes carried out on the Al between Eighton Banks and the Scottish Border (over £50k) November 1995—November 1998

  Scheme

  Length in miles

  Duration

  A1 Scremeston Roundabout

  0.25

  2 weeks

  A1 Smearfield

  0.75

  2 weeks

  A1 Kingsway to Lobley Hill

  1.5

  2 months

  Al Lobley Hill to Blaydon Bridge

  0.2

  1 week

  A1 South of Alnwick

  0.8

  2 weeks

  Al Fenwick Stead to Granary

  0.5

  2 weeks

  Highway improvements carried out on the AI between Eighton Banks and the Scottish Border (over £50k) November 1995—November 1998

  Scheme

  Length in miles

  Duration

  A1 Seven Mile House to Stannington Bridge (Marginal Strips/Maintenance)

  2.1 miles

  3 months

  A1 Hitchcroft to Cawledge (Additional C/Way)

  1.7 miles

  6 months

  A1 Hitchcroft to Cawledge Southbound carriageway (Marginal Strips/Maintenance)

  1.4 miles

  1 month

  A1 Lobley Hill Junction (Partial Signal Control)

  Not applicable

  2 weeks

  A1 Loughend Farm (Diverge Taper)

  Not applicable

  3 weeks

  A1/C137 Burgham Farm Junction (Junction improvement)

  Not applicable

  1 month

  A1/B1342 Belford Junction (Diverge Taper)

  Not applicable

  1 month

  Other Minor Schemes

  Signing/Roadmarking

  11

  Red surfacing at junctions

  20

  Safety Fencing

  8

  Anti-skid treatment

  2

  Speed Cameras

  5

  Cycle Crossings

  3

  Central Reservation Hardening

  2

  Local Government Finance (North Yorkshire)
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions for what reasons the social services standard spending assessment for North Yorkshire has increased by 0.5 per cent. in the next financial year; and if he will make a statement. [64584]

  Ms Armstrong
  Calculations underlying the 1999–2000 social services standard spending assessment (SSA) for North Yorkshire are set out in the draft Local Government Finance Report (England) for 1999–2000. The 0.5 per cent. increase in the social services SSA reflects a 5.8 per cent. increase due to control totals, a 5.2 per cent. decrease due to changes in the method of calculation and a 0.1 per cent. decrease due to incorporating the latest data in the indicators used to calculate the SSA.

  Changes to the method of calculation for 1999–2000 have been made, following research and discussion with local government, where we are satisfied that they are justified and lead to a fairer system overall. The main changes affecting North Yorkshire are the new method of calculating the SSA for children's social services and the exclusion of residents of institutions from the elderly residential formula. I will shortly be meeting a delegation from North Yorkshire County Council to discuss the proposed settlement.
  36

  Highways Maintenance schemes carried out on the Al between Eighton Banks and the Scottish Border (over £50k) November 1995—November 1998

  Scheme

  Length in miles

  Duration

  A1 Hitchcroft to Cawledge

  1.4

  1 month

  A1 West Moor Felton

  0.4

  2 weeks

  A1 Scremeston Roundabout South

  0.8

  2 weeks

  A1 Warneford South

  0.5

  2 weeks

  A1 North of River Coquet

  0.4

  2 weeks

  A1 Detchart Junction

  0.3

  2 weeks

  A1 Fenwick North

  0.65

  2 weeks

  A1 Ancroft to Cat Inn

  0.65

  3 weeks

  A1 Lobley Hill to River Derwent

  1.83

  3 months

  A1 Warneford North

  0.6

  2 weeks

  A1 Buckton

  0.7

  2 weeks

  A1- A6105 Highfields Roundabout

  0.57

  3 weeks

  A1 Berwick Bypass

  1.5

  1 week

  Domiciliary Care
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what factors were considered in calculating the estimate of locally generated income from charges within the social services elderly domiciliary care standard spending assessment. [64577]

  Ms Armstrong
  Local authorities have complete discretion on whether to charge for non-residential social services provided for the elderly. They are also free to set the amount of any charge. The change was made because it is not fair to assume that each local authority can raise the same amount in charges irrespective of the ability of those receiving services to contribute towards their cost. This is supported by statistical evidence which shows that, the higher the proportion of pensioners receiving Income Support in an authority, the smaller the contribution that charges make to the cost of providing such services. In examining possible statistical evidence, the following indicators were also considered: pensioners living alone, pensioners in rented accommodation, elderly with a limiting long term illness and the needs index which was used in the Other Social Services standard spending assessment formula before 1998–99.

  Elderly Residential Care
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the reasons are for no longer including those in residential care, nursing homes and long-stay hospitals when counting the number of people aged 65 years or more for the purposes of calculating the social services elderly residential care standard spending assessment; what assessment he has made of the consequences of this change for local
  37
  authorities with large numbers of elderly people in residential care, nursing homes and long-stay hospitals; and if he will phase the change in over three years. [64579]

  Ms Armstrong
  The formula was changed in response to three concerns. First, the previous formula penalised local authorities which placed people in accommodation beyond their boundaries. Such placements counted towards the standard spending assessment for the receiving authority rather than the placing authority. Secondly, the previous formula included people who are funding their own care and are no financial burden on the local authority. Thirdly, the change to the method of calculation makes the formula more consistent with the research on which it was based. That research examined the characteristics of people in private households who were on the point of admission to residential care.

  We propose to make this change to standard spending assessments in 1999–2000. SSA Reduction grants will be provided to authorities whose total SSA is reduced substantially through changes in the method of calculation.

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the councils for which the prediction under the standard spending assessment formula for the number of elderly people needing residential and nursing care in 1999–2000 is smaller than the prediction for 1998–99, indicating the difference in each case; and what steps he plans to take as a result. [64580]

  Ms Armstrong
  Standard Spending Assessments (SSAs) are measures of relative need rather than absolute need. The elderly residential services SSA involves estimating each authority's share of the national total of people requiring residential or nursing care. The change in the method of calculating SSAs and in the data used have led to changes in each authorities' share of the national total of potential elderly supported residents. A table showing these figures has been placed in the House Library.

  SSA Reduction grants are provided to authorities whose total SSA is reduced substantially as a result of changes to the method of calculation.

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what assessment he has made of the impact on social services of meeting the cost of funding those persons who have taken up places in a private capacity in a residential or nursing home but whose capital subsequently falls below £16,000; [64582]

  (2) what research he has undertaken into the predicted increase in demand for residential and nursing care for elderly people in (a) urban, (b) rural and (c) seaside areas in the next year. [64581]

  Mr. Hutton
  I have been asked to reply.

  No such assessment has been made. Local authorities have the lead in arranging and funding social care and it is for them to determine the need for services in their area. They have a responsibility to obtain high quality of care for their clients and value for money,
  38
  taking into account local priorities and other sources of support available to individuals. The Community Care (Residential Accommodation) Act 1998 was enacted on 11 August and guidance was issued to local authorities concerning residents whose capital falls below £16,000. We are not aware of any major problems in this area.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the revised 1998–99 standard spending assessment base is for each local authority with responsibility for social services, taking into account the absorption of the special transitional grant for social services and the early years grant for education; what his policy is on publishing revised bases; and if he will recalculate for each such authority the published growth in standard spending assessment on the basis of the formula for carrying forward the special transitional grant for 1998–99 and previous years. [64574]

  Ms Armstrong
  When calculating growth in standard spending assessments for each authority, our policy has been to make adjustments to the base year where there are significant changes in responsibility and where funding amounts for changes in responsibility for each authority are available. To adjust in the manner requested for calculating growth between 1998/99 and 1999/2000, however, is not appropriate in the light of the Comprehensive Spending Review which started from a zero base, looking at expenditure needs afresh. The only fair comparison for social services is to look at total resources provided which, in aggregate, show a 6.1 per cent. cash increase or a 3.5 per cent. real terms increase between 1998/99 and 1999/2000. The increased resources we are making available will meet the costs of looking after existing and new community care clients, and enable local authorities to deliver real improvements in services.

  There has been no absorption of the Early Years Grant for Education into SSAs for 1999/2000. The same amount of Early Years Grant is available in 1999/2000 as in 1998/99.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will define the criteria under which local authorities will be capped for excessive spending. [65285]

  Ms Armstrong
  No.

  We have abolished crude and universal capping. My right hon. Friend will decide, after councils have set their budgets, whether capping is necessary in 1999/2000 and the principles for designation he will adopt if it is necessary.

  Youth Work
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many youth work posts were funded by local authorities in(a) 1998, (b) 1993 and (c) 1990. [64513]

  Mr. Raynsford
  This information is not centrally available.

  Conservation Areas
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to designate additional locations as special areas of conservation; and if he will make a statement. [64718]

  Mr. Meale
  Apart from 10 sites which have already consulted upon but not yet submitted, the UK list of candidate SACs is now complete. We are confident that

  Name of candidate Special Area of Conservation (cSAC)

  Date site submitted to EC

  Date of submission of amended site

  Achmore Bog

  14 October 1996

  —

  Afon Teifi/River Teifi

  20 June 1998

  —

  Afon Tywi/River Tywi

  1 October 1998

  —

  Amat Woods

  15 June 1995

  —

  Ardgour Pinewoods

  26 March 1998

  —

  Ardmeanach

  15 June 1995

  —

  Asby Complex

  8 January 1996

  20 March 1998

  Avon Gorge Woodlands

  8 January 1996

  —

  Ballochbuie

  20 June 1998

  16 March 1998

  Ballynahone Bog

  15 June 1995

  —

  Bankhead Moss, Beith

  26 March 1998

  —

  Barnack Hills and Holes

  20 March 1998

  —

  Barry Links

  15 June 1995

  —

  Bath and Bradford-on-Avon Bats

  8 January 1996

  —

  Beer Quarry and Caves

  15 June 1995

  —

  Beinn a'Ghlo

  14 October 1996

  —

  Beinn Dearg

  14 October 1996

  —

  Beinn Iadain and Beinn na h'Uamha

  14 October 1996

  —

  Ben Alder and Aonach Beag

  14 October 1996

  26 March 1998

  Ben Heasgarnich

  14 October 1996

  —

  Ben Lawers

  14 October 1996

  Ben Lui

  14 October 1996

  —

  Ben Nevis

  17 October 1996

  —

  Ben Wyvis

  17 October 1996

  —

  Benacre to Easton Bavents Lagoons

  15 June 1995

  —

  Berwickshire and North Northumberland Coast

  14 October 1996

  16 March 1998

  Berwyn

  15 June 1995

  20 March 1998

  Birklands and Bilhaugh

  15 June 1995

  —

  Black Bog

  15 June 1995

  —

  Black Loch Moss

  26 March 1998

  —

  Black Wood of Rannoch

  15 June 1995

  —

  Blawhom Moss

  15 June 1995

  —

  Blean Complex

  15 June 1995

  20 March 1998

  Bollihope, Pikestone, Eggleston and Woodland Fells

  20 March 1998

  —

  Border Mines, Kielder—Betterbum

  14 October 1996

  20 March 1998

  Borrowdale Woodland Complex

  15 June 1995

  —

  Braehead Moss

  15 June 1995

  16 March 1998

  Braunton Burrows

  8 January 1996

  20 March 1998

  Breckland

  8 January 1996

  —

  Bredon Hill

  15 June 1995

  —

  Burnham Beeches

  20 June 1998

  —

  Burry Inlet: Dunes/Cilfach Burry: Twyni

  15 June 1995

  —

  Burry Inlet: Saltmarsh and Estuary/Cilfach Burry: Cors heli ac Aber

  8 January 1996

  —

  Caenlochan

  17 October 1996

  26 March 1998

  Cairngorms

  17 October 1996

  26 March 1998

  —

  1 October 1998

  Caithness and Sutherland Peatlands

  8 January 1996

  26 March 1998

  Cannock Extension Canal

  15 June 1995

  —

  Cardigan Bay/Bae Ceredigion

  8 January 1996

  —

  Cam nan Tri-Tighearnan

  8 January 1996

  —

  Carrine Common

  15 June 1995

  —

  Castle Eden Dene

  15 June 1995

  —

  Castle Hill

  15 June 1995

  —

  Chesil and the Fleet

  14 October 1996

  20 March 1998

  Chilmark Quarries

  15 June 1995

  —

  Chilterns Beechwoods

  15 June 1995

  —

  Claish Moss and Kentra Moss

  14 October 1996

  —

  Clints Quarry

  20 June 1998

  —

  Clyde Valley Woods

  8 January 1996

  —

  Coalburn Moss

  14 October 1996

  16 March 1998

  40
  our list is scientifically robust and in accordance with the requirements of the Habitats Directive.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the locations that he has designated as special areas of conservation since 1 May 1997. [64717]

  Mr. Meale
  A full list of all 333 areas which have been submitted to the European Commission as candidate Special Areas of Conservation by the United Kingdom is as follows:
  41

  Name of candidate- Special Area of Conservation (cSAC)

  Date site submitted to EC

  Date of submission of amended site

  Cockinhead Moss

  15 June 1995

  26 March 1998

  Coed y Cerrig

  15 June 1995

  —

  Coedydd a Cheunant Rheidol/Rheidol Woods

  15 June 1995

  —

  Coedydd Derw Meirion/Meirionnydd Oakwoods

  15 June 1995

  —

  Coladoir Bog

  26 March 1998

  —

  Coleg Glynllifon

  15 June 1995

  —

  Coll Machair

  8 January 1996

  1 October 1998

  Conon Islands

  8 January 1996

  26 March 1998

  Cors Caron

  15 June 1995

  —

  Cors Fochno

  15 June 1995

  —

  Corsydd M-n/Anglesey Fens

  15 June 1995

  —

  Cothill Fen

  15 June 1995

  —

  Cotswold Beechwoods

  8 January 1996

  —

  Craigengar

  15 June 1995

  —

  Cranley Moss

  15 June 1995

  26 March 1998

  Craven Limestone Complex

  20 June 1998

  —

  Creag Meagaidh

  14 October 1996

  —

  Creag nan Garnhainn

  15 June 1995

  —

  Crymlyn Bog/Cors Crymlyn

  15 June 1995

  —

  Cuilcagh Mountain

  15 June 1995

  —

  Culbin Bar

  15 June 1995

  —

  Culm Grasslands

  15 June 1995

  —

  Cwm Cadlan

  15 June 1995

  —

  Dartmoor

  8 January 1996

  20 March 1998

  Denby Grange Colliery Ponds

  20 June 1998

  —

  Derryleckagh

  15 June 1995

  —

  Devils Dyke

  20 March 1998

  —

  Domoch Firth and Morrich More

  8 January 1996

  —

  Dorset Heaths

  1 October 1998

  —

  Dorset Heaths (Purbeck and Wareham) and Studlands Dunes

  8 January 1998

  1 October 1998

  Downton Gorge

  8 January 1996

  —

  Drigg Coast

  8 January 1996

  —

  Drostre Bank

  15 June 1995

  —

  Drumochter Hills

  17 October 1996

  —

  Duddon Mosses

  8 January 1996

  —

  Dungeness

  8 January 1996

  20 March 1998

  Dunkeld-Blairgowrie Lochs

  8 January 1996

  —

  Durness

  14 October 1996

  —

  Dykeneuk Moss

  26 March 1998

  —

  East Devon Pebblebed Heaths

  20 June 1998

  —

  East Hampshire Hangers

  15 June 1995

  20 March 1998

  East Mires and Lubminster

  1 October 1998

  —

  Eastern Moumes

  15 June 1995

  —

  Ebernoe Common

  15 June 1995

  —

  Eilean na Muice Duibhe

  15 June 1995

  —

  Elenydd

  15 June 1995

  —

  Ellers Wood and Sand Dale

  20 March 1998

  —

  Endrick Water

  —

  16 March 1998

  Ensor's Pool

  8 January 1996

  —

  Epping Forest

  8 January 1996

  —

  Eryri/Snowdonia

  15 June 1995

  20 March 1998

  Essex Estuaries

  14 October 1996

  20 June 1998

  Exmoor Heaths

  20 March 1998

  —

  Fairy Water Bogs

  15 June 1995

  —

  Fal and Helford

  14 October 1996

  20 June 1998

  Faray and Holm of Faray

  1 October 1998

  —

  Fardrum and Roosky Turloughs

  1 October 1998

  —

  Fenland

  15 June 1995

  —

  Fenn's, Whixall, Bettisfield, Wern and Cadney Mosses

  8 January 1996

  —

  Feur Lochain

  15 June 1995

  —

  Flamborough Head

  8 January 1996

  —

  Flanders Mosses

  14 October 1996

  —

  Flow of Dergoals

  15 June 1995

  —

  Foinaven

  8 January 1996

  —

  Folkestone to Etchinghill Escarpment

  8 January 1996

  —

  Fontmell and Melbury Downs

  8 January 1996

  —

  Gang Mine

  15 June 1995

  —

  Garron Plateau

  15 June 1995

  20 March 1998

  Garry Bog

  15 June 1995

  —

  Glac na Criche

  15 June 1995

  —

  Glannau M—n: Cors heli/Anglesey Coast: Saltmarsh

  15 June 1995

  —

  Glannau M—n: Twyni/Anglesey Coast: Dunes

  15 June 1995

  —

  Glannau Ynys Gybi/Holy Island Coast

  15 June 1995

  —

  Glan-treath

  20 March 1998

  —

  42 43

  Name of candidate Special Area of Conservation (cSAC)

  Date site submitted to EC

  Date of submission of amended site

  Glen Coe

  15 June 1995

  —

  Godrevy Head to St Agnes

  15 June 1995

  —

  Gower Commons/Tiroedd Comin Gwyr

  8 January 1996

  —

  Great Orme's Head/Pen y Gogarth

  15 June 1995

  —

  Great Yews

  15 June 1995

  —

  Grimsthorpe

  20 March 1998

  —

  Hascosay

  15 June 1995

  —

  Helvellyn and Fairfield

  15 June 1995

  —

  Hill of Towanreef

  15 June 1995

  —

  Holme Moor and Clean Moor

  15 June 1995

  —

  Hoy

  15 June 1995

  —

  Inchnadamph

  15 June 1995

  —

  Ingleborough Complex

  20 June 1995

  —

  Insh Marshes

  26 March 1998

  —

  Invernaver

  15 June 1995

  26 March 1998

  Isle of Portland to Studland Cliffs

  20 June 1995

  —

  Isle of Wight Downs

  15 June 1995

  —

  Isles of Scilly Complex

  8 January 1996

  20 March 1998

  Keen of Hamar

  15 June 1995

  —

  Kenfig/Cynffig

  15 June 1995

  —

  Kennet and Lambourn Floodplain

  17 October 1996

  —

  Kilhern Moss

  15 June 1995

  —

  Kingley Vale

  15 June 1995

  —

  Kirkcowan Flow

  15 June 1995

  —

  Largalinny

  20 March 1998

  —

  Lendalfoot Hills Complex

  26 March 1998

  —

  Lewes Downs

  15 June 1995

  —

  Limestone Seacliffs of S. W. Wales/Clogwyni

  15 June 1995

  20 March 1998

  Calchfaen De-orllewin Cymru

  Lismore Lochs

  15 June 1995

  —

  Yell Sound Coast

  1 October 1998

  —

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what criteria he used to select locations to be designated as special areas of conservation. [64716]

  Mr. Meale
  The criteria for the selection of Special Areas of Conservation are set out in Annexe III of the Habitats Directive. The Joint Nature Conservation Committee publication 'The Habitats Directive: Selection of Special Areas of Conservation in the UK' published last October sets out the way in which these criteria were applied in the UK. Copies of that document were placed in the Library of the House at that time.

  Water Charging
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what conditions will be imposed on water consumers who wish to change to a tariff-based system of charging. [64542]

  Mr. Meale
  Under present arrangements, the tariff and method of calculation of water charges and the choices offered to consumers are at the discretion of water undertakers.

  The Government propose to introduce increased choice and consumer protection for domestic water customers through the Water Industry Bill, now in Committee. The Bill proposes to give all household consumers the right to change to a measured basis of charging free of initial costs for meter installation. The only restriction on this right would be in cases where it was not reasonably practicable or would involve unreasonable expense. As a further
  44
  important consumer protection, customers exercising their new right to opt for a meter would have the option of reverting to unmeasured charging after a year.

  The Bill also proposes to introduce a new right for consumers currently paying on an unmeasured basis to stay on an unmeasured charge in their present homes, except where they are consuming water for non-essential purposes.

  It is proposed to use new powers under the Bill to protect vulnerable customers with high essential water use from measured bills that are higher than average.

  The Government also wish to see water companies go beyond these new legal requirements to develop tariffs that offer greater customer choice and have regard both to social and environmental objectives. It will be for companies to introduce new tariffs, which would, under the provisions of the Bill, require the approval of the Director General of Water Services.

  Solar Eclipse
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assistance his Department will offer to local authorities in Cornwall to deal with problems arising from the total eclipse of the sun on 11 August 1999. [65032]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Government expect the problems arising from the eclipse to be overcome through effective planning and co-ordination in accordance with the principles of Integrated Emergency Management. We are aware that relevant public bodies are working hard locally to ensure that effective arrangements are in place. The Government will be keeping a close watch on developments.

  Automatic Train Protection
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if it is his policy to require the provision of automatic train protection. [64668]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We are currently considering formal proposals, submitted by the Health and Safety Commission just before Christmas, that would require train protection measures (to stop trains automatically in danger situations) to be fitted to all trains and to key signals by 1 January 2004.

  Railtrack
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the adequacy of track maintenance carried out by Railtrack. [64662]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Railtrack and its contractors are required under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974, to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that risks to people's health and safety from their work activity are properly controlled. This includes the maintenance of its railway infrastructure. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) monitors Railtrack's compliance with the law.

  HSE's Railway Inspectorate has identified some locations where track standards have fallen below an acceptable level. They have reminded Railtrack of its responsibilities and ensured that the appropriate action has been taken to maintain safety. HSE will not hesitate to take further action which they consider appropriate to ensure safety is not being compromised.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the numbers and locations of speed restrictions put in place by Railtrack for safety reasons at(a) 1 May 1996, (b) 1 May 1997 and (c) 1 May 1998 and those on the day responsibility was handed over from British Rail to Railtrack. [64663]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The information requested is not held by my Department or the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). There is no specific legislation which requires Railtrack to report details of speed restriction it imposes to the HSE.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what are the respective roles of the Secretary of State, Rail Regulator and Franchise Director in resolving failures of co-ordination between Railtrack and rail franchisees. [64929]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The general duties of the Secretary of State, the Rail Regulator and the Franchising Director are set out in sections 4 and 5 of the Railways Act 1993.

  The Rail Regulator has published a policy statement about the need for more effective consultation and better co-ordination between Railtrack and the train operating companies, and between train operators themselves, on timetable planning. Proposals to introduce a formal
  46
  consultation process to take place in advance of the timetabling bidding cycle are currently being considered by the rail industry.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what emergency powers he has to override Railtrack and rail franchisee managers where their activities pose a threat to safety and to the national economy. [64930]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Health and Safety Executive have powers under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 to ensure that safety risks to people at work are properly controlled, including the power to take enforcement action. Under section 118 of the Railways Act 1993, in time of "great national emergency" the Secretary of State may give directions to the Rail Regulator, the Franchising Director, the owner or operator of a railway asset, and any provider of railway services.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what penalties have been imposed on(a) Railtrack, (b) South West Trains and (c) other franchisees as a result of failures of co-ordination between Railtrack and franchisees. [64928]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Franchising Director does not have a contractual relationship with Railtrack. Railtrack has regulated commercial agreements with Train Operating Companies which include incentive arrangements. The Franchising Director's franchise agreement with South West Trains includes a performance regime that rewards and penalises improvements and deterioration in punctuality and reliability. Similar arrangements apply to other London commuter franchises and some regional and rural rail services. The cash flows under the regime are published in the OPRAF Quarterly Bulletins, which are in the Library of the House.

  Heathrow Express
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the powers available to(a) his Department and (b) the Rail Regulator to control (i) frequency of service and (ii) fare costs on the Heathrow Express. [64666]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Any changes to the frequency of service on the Heathrow Express would be a commercial matter for negotiation between the parties concerned, namely Heathrow Express Operating Company Limited (HEOCL) and Railtrack. Under current legislation, the Heathrow Express service is exempt from licence conditions relating to the level of fares that may be charged. Any modifications to the licence could be obtained only by agreement with HEOCL itself or by reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

  European Council
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the outcome of the European Council meeting in Vienna on 11 and 12 December in respect of the integration of environmental requirements into transport policy. [64661]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Transport Council submitted a report on integrating the environment and sustainable development into the transport policy of the Community
  47
  to the Vienna European Council. The report, copies of which have been placed in the House Library, sets out details of the progress that has been made to date and of further action that is needed. The European Council welcomed the report and invited the Transport Council to continue its work with a view to submitting a comprehensive strategy, including a timetable for further measures and a set of indicators, to the Helsinki European Council at the end of 1999.

  West Coast Main Line
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the implications for fair competition arising out of arrangements entered into by Railtrack and Virgin in respect of the West Coast main line. [64667]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The access agreement between Railtrack and Virgin Trains was approved by the Rail Regulator in June 1998. The regulator considered many public interest duties when approving these access rights, including the development of rail services and the protection of the interests of customers of other train operating companies using the line, both passenger and freight. The proposed Strategic Rail Authority will, when established, set the longer-term framework for competition.

  Paddington Station
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the adequacy of track and platform space at Paddington station. [64665]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The adequacy of track and platform space at Paddington Station is a matter for the station operator, Railtrack. The number of platforms available for use at Paddington Station are stated in Railtrack's Railway Safety Case, under which the company is required to operate.

  The Health and Safety Executive's Railway Inspectorate is satisfied that adequate arrangements are in place for managing congestion at Paddington Station.

  Sewage Works (Isle of Wight)
  Dr. Brand
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the timing of the introduction of secondary sewage treatment at the new sewage works under construction at Yaverland, Sandown, Isle of Wight. [65273]

  Mr. Meale
  The Government announced in September that secondary sewage treatment would be required for all significant coastal outfalls in England and Wales. In cases which were formerly potential derogations to a lower level of treatment, such as Yaverland, we are encouraging water and sewage companies to make as rapid progress as possible with installation of secondary treatment. The timing of improvements to coastal discharges is being discussed between the Environment Agency and individual companies and will be agreed by Ministers early this year, as part of an approved company investment programme.

  Professional Drivers
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 in reducing risks to professional drivers and other road users arising from the use of vehicles on the road for work purposes. [64703]

  Mr. Meale
  There has been no such assessment. The road safety of professional drivers is comprehensively covered by road traffic and other relevant legislation.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to promote management by employers of occupational road risk; and if he will make a statement. [64706]

  Mr. Meale
  The Government believe that employers should foster working practices which encourage responsible driving. We have therefore supported the work of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, including the publication in 1998 of "Managing Occupational Road Risk", to help organisations develop an effective management approach to road safety.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has made to the Health and Safety Commission about managing the risks to which employees and other road users are exposed when vehicles are driven on the road for work purposes. [64705]

  Mr. Meale
  I have not made any such representations to the Health and Safety Commission.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to introduce regulations to reduce the risk of road accidents involving vehicles which are driven for work purposes. [64702]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  There are no plans to introduce regulations specifically to reduce the risk of road accidents involving vehicles driven for work purposes. Existing legislation (the Road Traffic Act 1988, related Acts, and associated regulations) already govern driving behaviour.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the proportion of fatal and serious injuries which occurred in road traffic accidents involving one or more vehicles being driven for work purposes. [64701]

  Mr. Meale
  I have made no such estimate. This information is not collected by the Police. There is no requirement to report traffic accidents involving work-related journeys to the health and safety enforcing authorities under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the system of enforcement of safety regulations relating to the safer system of work for professional drivers. [64704]

  Mr. Meale
  There has been no such assessment because the road safety of professional drivers is comprehensively covered by road traffic and other
  49
  relevant legislation, where HSE has no enforcement role other than where the carriage of dangerous goods is concerned.

  Long-haul Flights (Health Hazards)
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of health hazards on long-haul flights; and if he will make a statement. [64744]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  There is no evidence to suggest that long-haul travel poses particular health hazards for most passengers. However, elderly passengers and those with an existing medical condition may be vulnerable to the environmental and physiological stresses of flight and should seek appropriate advice from both the airline and their general practitioner before flying.

  Groundwork
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement about the forthcoming financial management and policy review of Groundwork. [65312]

  Mr. Meale
  As part of the Government's programme of regular five-yearly financial, management and policy reviews of non-departmental public bodies, my Department will conduct a thorough review of Groundwork beginning on Tuesday 12 January. The first stage of the review will take the form of a "prior options" study. This will assess the extent to which Groundwork's functions are necessary for the achievement of the Department's policies, and whether there is scope for changing the relationship between the Department and Groundwork to reflect more appropriately the Department's policies for promoting environmental regeneration.

  The progress made by Groundwork since the previous review in 1994 will be examined and the results of that examination and of the prior options study will inform a detailed review of the possible mechanisms for funding Groundwork's outputs and, if appropriate, Groundwork's policy and financial management systems.

  In carrying out the study, my Department will consult widely with those organisations with an interest in Groundwork's activities. I aim to ensure that any uncertainty caused by the review is kept to a minimum and I therefore expect the FMPR Advisory Group to report by early summer 1999.

  Glass Recycling
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what targets the Government have set for glass recycling; what progress has been made in achieving them; what is the recent trend in the proportion of glass being recycled; and if he will make a statement. [64978]

  Mr. Meale
  In the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997, there are targets for the recovery and recycling of packaging waste. Currently, businesses obligated under the Regulations must each achieve a minimum recycling target of 7 per cent. per material, including glass.
  50
  The recycling rate for glass packaging presently stands at 22 per cent. Although there is no target for the recycling of all glass, ie container and flatglass, present rates stand at 26 per cent.

  Recycling rates for all glass have remained fairly constant since 1995. The capacity is available to increase these recycling rates further.

  Jubilee Line Extension
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 16 December 1998,Official Report, columns 535, on London Transport, if he will list the contribution to the cost of the Jubilee Line Extension from (a) the private sector and (b) London Transport; and when London Transport expects to complete the cost review of the rephased programme. [64952]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  As stated in my reply of 16 December 1998,Official Report, columns 535–36, some £2 billion of the total cost of the Jubilee Line Extension is being directly funded by Government grant.

  The developers of Canary Wharf agreed to make a £400 million contribution, spread over a period ending 25 years after line opening. Some £135 million has already been paid. In addition, contributions totalling £7.5 million have been received from British Gas (further amounts are to be paid, depending on the value of land sales).

  The balance of the costs of this project is being met from within LT's total resources. The results of London Transport's current Jubilee Line Extension cost review, which will take into account the change to three-phase opening, are expected shortly.

  Railway Board Staff
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many staff employed by the successor companies of the British Railways Board have been made redundant during each of the last three years. [65188]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The information requested is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Best Value
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received as a result of the consultation on best value from(a) local authorities, (b) contractors to local authorities, (c) trade unions and (d) others; if he will make a statement in respect of representations made by each of the above categories; and if he will place a copy of the representations received in the Library. [65246]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The consultation paper "Modernising local government—Improving services through best value" published on 3 March 1998 received 547 responses. A full list of those responding was placed in the House of Commons Library in July (refDEP 98/850), and the individual responses in the DETR Library. A summary of
  51
  the responses can be found on the Internet at: http://www/local.detr.gov.uk., and I have sent a paper copy to the hon. Member.

  Of those responding, 404 were from local authorities; 9 from contractors; 3 from trade unions; and 131 from others including professional bodies. The responses demonstrated widespread support for our best value proposals.

  A number of comments were also received following publication of the White Paper "Modern local government: In touch with the People" published on 30 July 1998 which included proposals on best value which were subsequently reflected in the Local Government Bill now before the House. These confirmed the broad range of support for best value from local authorities, the trade unions, and the private sector.

  Network

  Private sector partners

  ICE Best Value Taskforce

  Led by the Institution of Civil Engineers

  The main objective of the Taskforce is to draw on expertise in the private and public sectors to create a 'Definitive Guide to Best Practice in Advancing Best Value in the Built Environment'

  Amey Facilities Management

  Babtie

  Brophy Grounds Maintenance

  Brown and Root

  Buro Happolds

  Halcrow

  JDM Midlands Ltd.

  John Doyle Group

  Mills & Reeve

  Mott Macdonald Group

  Mouchel Consulting Ltd.

  Parkman

  Pell Frischmann Consulting Engineers

  Ringway Highways Services Ltd.

  Scott Wilson Kirkpatrick

  Tarmac Heavy Building Materials

  Thorburn Colqhoun

  TPS Consult

  WS Atkins

  Public Sector Plc.

  Led by BV Strategies

  The network will consider specific local authority projects to consider public

  Suppliers (private companies)

  private partnership options

  Bull Information Systems

  Onyx UK

  David Cross Leisure

  Manpower

  Thames Water Brophy

  Xerox

  Bank of Scotland

  Quintain

  Amec

  Associated Holdings Ltd.

  Professional and Advisory Group (private companies)

  Anthony Collins Solicitors

  KPMG

  Chelgate

  ABROS

  The Centre

  SCOTIA

  Payroll Partnership Network

  Led by Bristol City Council, Bath and North East

  Somerset Council and South Gloucestershire Council

  The proposal is to create a Pazrtnership Network with a private sector partner to

  KPMG

  secure best value in the operation of a combined payroll service

  The Hub

  Led by Barony Consulting and ICL

  The network plan to establish Local Franchise Partnerships with local

  Barony Consulting Ltd.

  authorities. One of the areas they will focus on is Housing Benefit

  ICL

  52
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what involvement private contractors have in the ongoing pilot schemes for the local authority best value programme; if he will list the contractors concerned; and if he will make a statement. [65247]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The involvement of the private sector in the Best Value pilot programme takes a number of different forms and is one of the factors being evaluated by the Warwick Business School in the two year monitoring programme to be completed in the spring of 2000.

  The private sector is more directly involved in the Best Value Partnership Network scheme announced in September 1998. Four involve private sector partners, two are led by the private sector, one by a professional body; and three by local authorities. The table lists the private contractors involved in each of these pilots.
  53
  Two additional networks are led by local authorities. The 'Crossing the Boundaries' network currently consists of five authorities in the West Midlands who are exploring cross boundary collaboration between trading standards departments. The 'North Yorkshire Audit Partnership' consists of three local authorities who are working in partnership for the provision of Internal Audit services through a consortiums approach.

  Integrated Transport Commission
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what powers he proposes to use in order to establish the proposed integrated transport commission; how many people he proposes to appoint to such a body; what interests will be represented; how he will make appointments to the body; when he proposes that it should first meet; and if he will make a statement. [65244]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The establishment of the Commission for Integrated Transport was announced in the White Paper, 'A New Deal for Transport' (Cm 3950). It will be a non-statutory, non-Departmental public body that will provide independent advice to Government on the progress of integrated transport policy. It will comprise up to 15 members, including a Chair and Vice-Chair, who will all be selected in accordance with guidance from the Commissioner for Public Appointments; the two senior posts have already been advertised in the national press. All the appointments will be made on merit, with members selected on the basis of their knowledge of and expertise from sectors affected by transport policy and its impacts. We expect the Commission to meet shortly after these appointments have been made.

  Bus Priority Schemes (Gloucestershire)
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what allocations his Department has made for bus priority schemes in Gloucestershire for each of the last five years for which figures are available. [64828]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  This department does not provide specific funds for bus priority measures. As part of the annual local transport capital settlements, local highway authorities in Gloucestershire were allocated the following capital resources which could have been used on bus priority measures:

  Year

  £000

  1995–96

  580

  1996–97

  1,614

  1997–98

  600

  1998–99

  700

  1999–2000

  1,925

  Disabled Parking Spaces
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what national guidelines are issued by his Department for the proper identification of disabled parking spaces. [64976]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The signs and road markings used to identify on-street spaces reserved for disabled badge holders are prescribed in the Traffic Signs Regulations and 54
  General Directions 1994 (SI 1994 No. 1519). There is no legislation covering the signing of spaces in off-street car parks, but the then Department of Transport published an advisory leaflet in 1995 which covered parking both on and off-street. TAL 5/95 is still available without charge from my Department's Mobility Unit.

  Former Railway Formations
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent research his Department has carried out into the commercial viability of re-opening former railway formations for public use; and what plans the Government have to carry out an audit into the potential for such schemes. [64915]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  It is the responsibility of individual local planning authorities to promote the re-opening of railway lines and stations when considering their future public transport needs. However, in view of the importance of ensuring that sites which have potential for transport use are identified, the British Railways Board has carried out an audit of its remaining sites.

  SSSIs
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many prosecutions for damage to sites of special scientific interest have been started under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [64827]

  Mr. Meale
  The figures requested are shown in the table.

  Year

  Number of prosecutions

  1994

  0

  1995

  0

  1996

  2

  1997

  1

  1998

  1

  Taxi Accessibility
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will delay implementing regulations on taxi accessibility until the Government have(a) considered the representations which it has received and (b) undertaken a study into the economic effects of the regulations and their timing; and if he will make a statement. [64975]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We are committed to introducing the taxi provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.

  We have completed a first round of consultation and we have considered the wide range of representations made by the taxi industry, local authorities and disabled people. There will be a further round of consultation later this year on the draft regulations. The consultation will include a Regulatory Impact Assessment, part of which is an assessment of the economic effects of compliance. This will be based on an independent study carried out by Cranfield University.

  Otterburn Ranges
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what military issues will be considered in the scope of the re-opened public inquiry into the Otterburn ranges in Northumberland. [65047]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The issues to be discussed at the re-opened public inquiry into proposals for the Otterburn Training Area in Northumberland are at the Inspector's discretion.

  The new issues identified are in the Government Office's letter to parties dated 17 December 1998. I am arranging for the hon. Member to receive a copy and for copies to be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will estimate(a) the duration of and (b) the cost to his Department of the re-opened public inquiry into the Otterburn military ranges in Northumberland. [65049]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I am unable to be precise about the duration of the re-opened inquiry, although, as the matters for discussion are restricted to new issues that have arisen since the closure of the original inquiry, an approximate estimate would be in the order of four to six weeks. Costs to my Department will involve only minor administrative sums: the larger portion of the costs being borne by the other parties.

  Building Materials (Flammability)
  Mr. Lock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what decisions have been made as to flammability requirements for the exit ways for floor coverings for public buildings within Euro class B of the draft European Construction Products Directive concerning flammability classifications. [65245]

  Mr. Raynsford
  No decision has yet been taken with regard to the classes (which include considerations of flammability) which categorise the fire performance of floorings under the Construction Products Directive. The proposal for Euroclass B which is to be considered by the Standing Committee for Construction in March 1999 has now been amended, reducing the critical flux (heat flow rate) of materials in this class.

  Piccadilly Line
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what work(a) is currently being undertaken and (b) is planned to upgrade the London Underground Piccadilly Line; what new trains will be provided in each of the next three years; and if he will make a statement. [65065]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  London Underground are mid-way through a project to refurbish the entire fleet of 87 Piccadilly line trains. Refurbishment of 48 trains is already complete and London Underground expect that refurbishment of the whole fleet will be completed by December 2000.

  Although London Underground are not planning to procure any new trains in the next three years for use on the Piccadilly line, there are proposals to refurbish 15 ex-Jubilee line trains and bring these into service on
  56
  the Piccadilly line. These additional trains will make it possible to run a higher frequency 30 trains per hour (tph) service. London Underground expect that 4 ex-Jubilee line trains will be refurbished by December 2000 and refurbishment of 15 trains will be completed by December 2001.

  There are also proposals for the construction of additional platforms at Oakwood and Cockfosters stations and improved access for trains at Cockfosters Depot. This project will provide improved train reversing facilities at the east end of the line in order to enable the introduction of the increased 30 tph service and improve service recovery times following disruptions. London Underground expect the works to start in June 1999 and to be completed by the end of 2001.

  Housing
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will estimate the number of dwellings in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) Greater London and (c) the Edmonton constituency which are leasehold; how many of these in each case are former local authority accommodation; and how many of them are (i) houses and (ii) flats. [65064]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The different property laws of the countries within the United Kingdom prevent an estimate of leasehold dwellings for the UK. The table, from the Department's Survey of English Housing, provides estimates1 of the number of dwellings in Greater London and England which are leasehold; how many of them are houses and flats. The Survey of English Housing cannot produce estimates for parliamentary constituencies.

  SEH average for 1996–97 and 1997–98

  Thousand

  Houses

  Flats

  All

  Greater London

  Ex LA accommodation

  2

  82

  84

  Other accommodation

  25

  349

  374

  Total accommodation

  27

  431

  458

  England

  Ex LA accommodation

  36

  141

  177

  Other accommodation

  823

  806

  1,629

  Total accommodation

  859

  947

  1,806

  1Like all estimates from sample surveys, these figures are subject to sampling variability.

  West Midlands RDA
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions for what reasons(a) Herefordshire and (b) Worcestershire are not represented on the board of the West Midlands Regional Development Agency; and if he will make a statement. [65111]

  Mr. Meale
  As was made clear in our White Paper "Building Partnerships for Prosperity", the success of RDAs will largely depend on their boards. Because of this, our primary concern has been to choose people who will make an effective contribution whatever their background. Consistent with this aim, we have also sought to reflect an appropriate balance of regional interests in the composition of boards. However, it should
  57
  be remembered Board Members are there to further the success of RDA, not as delegates of a particular area, but to take into account the interests of the region as a whole.

  Moths
  Mr. McWalter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the potential impact of the introduction of genetically modified crops on moth populations. [65107]

  Mr. Meale
  All applications for the release or marketing of genetically modified crops (GM crops) are reviewed in order to assess the potential effects of the GMOs on other species, before a decision is made whether or not to grant a consent. To date, no effects on non-target moths have been identified.

  The European Corn Borer, a moth which is an important pest of maize, is susceptible to genetically modified maize varieties which have been modified to be resistant to this pest. Some varieties have been granted approval and are being grown in some European Community countries but, because this species is not a pest in the UK, it is unlikely to be grown here. The evidence suggests that other moths which do not consume the maize would be unlikely to be affected by this product.

  The Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE), which advises the Government on releases and marketing of GMOs, has recently extended its remit to consider the wider biodiversity implications, so that any indirect effects of managing the GM crops on farmland wildlife would be assessed, as well as the effects of the GM crops themselves.

  The Institute of Arable Crops Research in Rothamsted is carrying out research for the Department to investigate possible non-target effects of GM insect resistant crops on non-target insect species, under closely controlled laboratory conditions. The purpose of this research is to underpin the assessment of risks of that these crops may pose to non-target species. This work is not yet completed and it is too early to give any indications of the results. The final report for this contract will be published when it is completed.

  Pesticides Tax
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimates he has made of the cost of implementing and operating a tax on pesticides. [65087]

  Mr. Meale
  The research commissioned by my Department into the scope for a pesticide tax or charge has considered the potential costs of implementation. The Government will take this work fully into account in reaching a decision on whether to introduce such an instrument.

  South West RDA
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what criteria he used to select people to serve on the South West Regional Development Agency; how many people 58
  representing organisations in Gloucestershire were considered as suitable applicants under this criteria; and if he will make a statement. [64813]

  Mr. Meale
  The criteria for selection were set out in the information pack for people expressing an interest in serving on the Agency's Board. Copies of the information pack are available in the Library.

  Of the 28 people interviewed for the Board, five came from Gloucestershire, although they were not, given the criteria for selection, "representing organisations in Gloucestershire". One of these five Gloucestershire candidates, Nigel Costley, has been appointed to the Board.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he has taken to ensure that the particular interests of Gloucestershire are represented on the South West Regional Development Agency; and if he will make a statement. [64848]

  Mr. Meale
  The role of the boards of regional development agencies is to consider the interests of the region as a whole. Appointments were therefore made on the basis of the expertise that each member brings to the board, rather than to provide representation for particular localities or organisations.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many people representing organisations in Gloucestershire expressed interest in serving on the South West Regional Development Agency; which organisations in Gloucestershire proposed people for membership; and if he will make a statement. [64812]

  Mr. Meale
  The role of the boards of regional development agencies is to consider the interests of the region as a whole. Appointments were therefore made on the basis of the expertise that each member brings to the board, rather than to provide representation for particular localities or organisations.

  336 people applied to be members of the Board of the South West Regional Development Agency. Thirty nine of these came from Gloucestershire.

  Two organisations in Gloucestershire supported particular applications for board membership.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he has taken to ensure that the appointments he has made to the South West Regional Development Agency reflect the geographical spread of the area covered. [64811]

  Mr. Meale
  The role of the boards of regional development agencies is to consider the interests of the region as a whole.

  In making appointments, the Government have sought to ensure that board members bring understanding of the range of conditions existing within their regions. This has resulted in a broadly even geographical spread.

  Rail Travel Costs
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the average cost per mile of rail travel based on standard return fares in each EU country. [64647]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  This information is not available.

  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the percentage price increase for(a) peak and (b) off peak journeys for each of the privatised rail company areas in each year since privatisation. [64651]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  This information is not held centrally in the form requested. Rail fares are set by individual Train Operating Companies (TOCs) subject only to limits on increases which the Franchising Director applies to the fares he regulates. The general limit on regulated fares from January 1999 is minus 1 per cent. on the movement in the Retail Prices Index (i.e. the maximum regulated fare increase is 2.5 per cent.). For London Commuter TOCs, the limit varies depending on performance and the average maximum regulated fare increase for 1999 for those is 1.9 per cent. (1.6 per cent. below inflation). There have been many instances of individual unregulated fares being increased above the rate of inflation. Nevertheless, research shows that the average price paid per mile by passengers in 1997–98 was 13.4 pence and this was an increase of 3 per cent. (1 per cent. below inflation) on 1996–97. The research is based on tickets actually sold so 1998–99 data are not yet available, but the Franchising Director will continue to monitor the situation.

  Houses in Multiple Occupation
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will consider exempting accommodation provided wholly or predominantly for tourists from Houses in Multiple Occupation registration schemes. [64833]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The current statutory definition of a house in multiple occupation may include some accommodation of this type. If so, it would be within the scope of our model registration schemes. Local housing authorities may seek approval for schemes which depart from the models, and we would consider any such request on its merits.

  We plan to issue a consultation document on proposals for a HMO licensing scheme early in the New Year. In this, we will also seek views on options for changes to the HMO definition.

  A proposal to exempt accommodation provided wholly or predominantly for tourists, in the context either of the existing registration arrangements or of the HMO definition and the proposed licensing scheme, would, however, require careful consideration. Such premises are sometimes let for extended periods outside the holiday season to people with no other home.

  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the Houses in Multiple Occupation registration scheme; and if he will make a statement. [64835]
  60
  Mr. Raynsford
  We have made no formal assessment, since we are committed to replacing housing authorities' discretionary powers to make HMO registration schemes with provisions for a compulsory licensing system. However, in the meantime we are encouraging authorities to adopt registration schemes in order to ease the transition to an eventual licensing regime.

  Second London Oceans Workshop
  Mr. Anthony D. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the outcome of the Second London Oceans Workshop. [65307]

  Mr. Meale
  With Dr. Bernardes, the Brazilian Deputy Minister of the Environment, I had the pleasure of chairing the Second London Oceans Workshop on 10–12 December. The Workshop was attended by representatives nominated by 40 national governments, 14 international agencies and 14 non-governmental organisations.

  The theme of the Workshop was the integration of the management of the oceans. The main conclusions started by emphasising the role of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Against this background, the two major problems for the conservation and sustainable use of the seas were seen as over-fishing and other unsustainable fishing practices together with pollution from land-based activities. Shipping, exploitation of sea-bed minerals (including oil and gas), coastal development, dumping of waste and climate change are also sources of problems that need to be addressed.

  At the national level, Governments were called on to consider the social economic and environmental values of coastal and marine ecosystems, how to achieve the integrated approach as called for by Programme Area A of Chapter 17 of Agenda 21 (including the involvement of all stakeholders), how to join in international agreements already negotiated and how to report on the status of their seas. International organisations were requested to analyse what is hindering the wider acceptance of international agreements and to consider what can be done to remove the obstacles.

  The workshop agreed that the regional level was where international co-operation was most needed. UNEP was called upon to revitalise the Regional Seas Programme and to ensure there was a clear focus for the related tasks. Regional fisheries organisations were requested to adopt clear targets for achieving sustainable catches and to develop indicators for over-fishing. Integrated coastal zone management needed support at the regional level. For shipping, more effective port-state control networks were needed, together with action on the regulation of fleets, alien species, anti-fouling agents and registers.

  In the global context, the workshop called for immediate action to implement recent UN fisheries agreements. The Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries was also crucial. Revitalising the Global Programme of Action on Land-Based Activities was essential. The environmental management of offshore oil and gas required further initiatives to follow up the success of the Noordwijk Workshop. Because of the range

  61
  of interests and organisations necessarily involved, improved coordination is needed. The UN General Assembly should consider how the annual debate on the oceans and the law of the sea can be broadened and better prepared.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Pensioners (Benefit Targeting)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how he plans to improve the accuracy of his targeting of benefits on the poorest pensioners. [63202]

  Social Security Appeal Tribunals

  Year

  New lodgements

  Total

  Appeals heard and decided Decided in appellant's favour

  Percentage in appellant's favour

  1993

  193,200

  77,900

  31,200

  40

  1994

  137,100

  74,000

  33,300

  45

  1995

  125,000

  83,400

  35,900

  43

  1996

  167,000

  111,700

  42,400

  38

  1997

  287,200

  135,100

  45,900

  34

  1998 (first half)

  133,000

  98,300

  28,500

  29

  Source:

  100 per cent. computer extract from Independent Tribunal Services (ITS) systems

  Disability Benefits
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the impact of proposed changes in disability benefits on carers. [63205]

  Mr. Bayley
  Carers wishing to combine their caring role with employment will benefit from the new emphasis on helping those who can work to do so, whilst providing support for those who cannot. Carers in the same family as the disabled person for whom they provide care should also benefit from some of the proposed changes to the family income. The proposed changes to the contribution conditions for Incapacity Benefit will include specific protection for carers in receipt of Invalid Care Allowance.

  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what discussions he has had with disability organisations on his plans for disability benefit reform. [63217]

  Mr. Bayley
  My hon. Friend, the Minister of State, discussed the proposals for Disability Benefit reform with representative organisations at regular meetings of the Disability Benefits Forum, set up following the Welfare Reform Green Paper, "New Ambitions for our Country".

  We have also discussed Disability Benefit reform more generally with a wide range of organisations representing disabled people and their carers.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on his plans to ensure that expenditure on benefits for the disabled is reduced by £750 million. [63220]

  Mr. Bayley
  Our proposals for reforming benefits for disabled people are not designed to make savings in expenditure but are based on the key principle of work for
  62
  Mr. Timms
  From next April, we will introduce a new minimum income guarantee for pensioners of at least £75 per week for single people, and £116.60 for couples. In the Pensions Green Paper, we announced that, starting from April, we plan to implement changes to the way we deliver the minimum income guarantee so that the system can more accurately pinpoint those pensioners who are likely to be entitled to it.

  Social Security Appeals
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many appeals against decisions of social security officers(a) were made and (b) succeeded in each of the last five years. [63204]

  Angela Eagle
  The following is the information:

  those who can, security for those who cannot. They will help disabled people to take up and stay in employment, modernise the system and improve provision for severely disabled people with the greatest needs.

  Spending on benefits for sick and disabled people has reached almost £25 billion a year and will continue to rise in real terms as we meet increasing demand and seek to do more for those in greatest need.

  Stakeholder Pensions
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the stakeholder pension proposals. [63207]

  Mr. Darling
  The Green Paper on pensions; "A new contract for welfare: Partnership in Pensions" clearly sets out our proposals for the framework for stakeholder pension schemes.

  Benefit Computer Systems
  Mr. Caplin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to modernise his Department's benefit computer systems. [63208]

  Mr. Timms
  As part of our transformation programme, we are already working closely with the private sector in designing and developing the next generation of computer systems fit to support the delivery of a modernised Welfare State.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to improve benefits for disabled people. [63209]
  63
  Mr. Bayley
  We will modernise the benefits system to help more disabled people take up and stay in work and provide extra help for severely disabled people with the greatest needs. We will shortly bring forward legislation to achieve these aims.

  Widows' Pensions
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the effect of his proposed changes to the widows' pension arrangements on widows who are currently not entitled to income support. [63210]

  Angela Eagle
  The proposals set out in the consultation document, "Support in Bereavement", would have no effect on current widows.

  Widows who are currently receiving a widow's pension would continue to do so for as long as they satisfy the current qualifying conditions.

  It is estimated that, in the first year, in the region of 20,000 widows widowed after implementation of the new scheme would receive Bereavement Allowance and of those around 15 per cent. would become entitled to Income Support after six months.

  Pensioners (Heating Bills)
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the assistance provided by his Department to pensioners with heating bills. [63211]

  Angela Eagle
  For a second year we are making Winter Fuel Payments to over seven million pensioner households. The poorest pensioners received their £50 payment before Christmas, and payments to the others are presently being issued.

  Late Retirement
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans the Government have to encourage later retirement and postponed pension entitlement. [63212]

  Mr. Timms
  On 10 December 1998,Official Report columns 278, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced that the Performance and Innovation Unit has now been established. One of its first projects will be to look at how we can improve the well-being and quality of life of older people by helping them to remain active. The Unit has been asked to deliver their conclusions in the summer.

  Benefit Expenditure
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received regarding the projected level of social security spending over the next five years. [63213]

  Mr. Darling
  Our approach to welfare reform is principle-driven and not cuts-driven. We are investing in providing extra help for pensioners, for families and for disabled people. Our commitment to prudent public finances and stable economic growth means we are achieving this with half the average annual rate of real growth in benefit expenditure than there was during the last Parliament.

  Pensions
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the progress of his Department's pensions review. [63214]

  Mr. Timms
  The Green Paper "A New Contract for Welfare: Partnership in Pensions", was published on 15 December and my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State made a statement to the House about it on 15 December 1998,Official Report, columns 761–80. It sets out our plans for radical reform of the pension system, with the objective that everyone can look forward to a secure retirement.

  Means-tested Benefits
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what public opinion survey work his Department carries out to assess the effectiveness of means-tested benefits in meeting their objectives. [63215]

  Angela Eagle
  A number of DSS-sponsored research studies have been carried out to measure public attitudes towards the principle of means-testing. Otherwise, public opinion surveys are used to provide background information rather than to evaluate benefit effectiveness.

  Children
  Mr. McWalter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proposals he has to improve the economic situation of children in families in the lowest 10 percentile of income. [63216]

  Angela Eagle
  We have already taken action to improve the financial position of children in the poorest families. The child personal allowance in the income-related benefits for children under 11 was increased by £2.50 on 9 November 1998. From this April the rate of Child Benefit for the eldest child will increase by £2.50 over the normal uprating for all families, and the Family Premium in the income-related benefits will be adjusted by a similar amount to ensure that the most vulnerable families receive this increase.

  Disability Benefits
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what discussions he has had with disability organisations on his plans for disability benefit reform. [63217]

  Mr. Bayley
  Ministers have met disability organisations at the Disability Benefits Forum set up following the Welfare Reform Green Paper, "New Ambitions for our Country: A New Contract for Welfare", to discuss how disability benefits can be reformed. The Forum has met on seven occasions since June and has discussed the proposals for Disability Benefits reform contained in the discussion document "A New Contract for Welfare: Support for Disabled People" on two occasions.

  The Government have also discussed disability benefits more generally with a wide range of organisations representing disabled people and their carers.

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received on ways to tackle fraud. [63218]

  Mr. Darling
  Consultation on the Green Paper, "Beating Fraud is Everyone's Business: securing the future", ended on 30 September 1998, and 165 responses were received. Around two thirds of the responses came from public and private organisations (including around 50 from local authorities) and the remaining third came from individuals.

  The Green Paper set out details of the Government's strategy for tackling fraud and the principles behind it. The great majority of responses supported the strategy and its governing principles.

  I am placing in the Library a list of the organisations and academics who responded. Copies of the list and specific responses are available on request from the Department of Social Security, by contacting the Fraud Strategy Directorate, 6th Floor, The Adelphi, 1–11 John Adam Street, London WC2N 6HT.

  Benefits Agency (Training)
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he is taking to ensure that Benefits Agency staff are trained in dealing with clients with mental health problems; and if he will make a statement. [63219]

  Angela Eagle
  The programme of training, available to all BA staff, includes a range of customer service and interpersonal skills courses. They all include training on the needs of special groups within the community, including people with mental health problems.

  We are currently working in partnership with groups representing people with mental health problems. They hold workshops specifically geared to meet the needs of staff who have contact with the mentally ill. From April 1999 we intend to extend this partnership by jointly developing and delivering courses where this can add value to our training products.

  Tax and National Insurance
  Mr. Fabian Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he has taken to harmonise the arrangements for tax and national insurance contributions. [63221]

  Mr. Timms
  The Government are committed to modernising the National Insurance contributions system so that it is simpler and easier for employers to understand and operate, and to promoting greater alignment with the tax system in the longer term.

  From April 1999, the point at which employers start to pay secondary Class 1 contributions will be raised to a new "earnings threshold" set at the level of the personal tax allowance. The tax and contributions treatment of payments and benefits to employees included in PAYE settlement agreements will be aligned by the introduction of new Class 1B contributions for employers. Also from that date, under the provisions of the Social Security Contributions (Transfer of Functions, etc.) Bill the Contributions Agency will transfer from the Department
  66
  of Social Security to the Inland Revenue. This will reduce the burdens on businesses and individuals by enabling tax and National Insurance contributions to be processed through one organisation.

  Child Support
  Mr. Denis Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many individuals and organisations have responded to the consultation exercise on the Green Paper, "Children First: a New Approach to Child Support." [65037]

  Angela Eagle
  Written responses to the Green Paper have so far been received from 105 organisations and 1,435 individuals, including over 50 from hon. Members. In addition, my noble Friend Baroness Hollis of Heigham has held meetings with more than 40 organisations, academics and other groups.

  All Work Test
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what consultations are taking place regarding the replacement for the all work test for incapacity benefit; when the changes are planned to be introduced; and if he will make a statement. [65068]

  Mr. Timms
  Our proposals on benefits for those with a long-term illness or disability were published in the consultation document "A new contract for welfare: Support for Disabled People". We will give full consideration to the responses when the consultation period ends on Friday 8 January 1999. In addition a subgroup of the Disability Benefits Forum has been set up to consider proposals for reform of the All Work Test and in particular to examine ways in which the test may be used to provide information to help people claiming incapacity benefits who want to plan a return to work. One meeting has taken place and a further 2 or 3 meetings are planned before the subgroup report back to the Disability Benefits Forum at the end of March.

  We are aiming to introduce changes to the test from April 2000.

  Pensions
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assumptions he has made on the size of the rebates of those contracting out of SERPS for(a) a personal pension and (b) a stakeholder pension over the next five decades. [65171]

  Mr. Timms
  The assumptions used are those set out in the Government Actuary's report "Occupational and Personal Pension Schemes, Review of Certain Contracting-out Terms" (Cm 3888), presented to Parliament in March 1998.

  As explained in the Green Paper on pensions, "Partnership in Pensions", the structure of the contracting out rebates will be reviewed in the light of Stakeholder Pension schemes. For the purposes of the estimates in the Green Paper the level of contracting out rebates for Stakeholder Pension schemes and Personal Pensions were assumed to be the same.
  67
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate how many members of the second state pension scheme will gain more in retirement than they earned in work. [64945]

  Mr. Timms
  Information is not available in the form requested. Such information as is available is as follows.

  An individual who earned £4,250 per year throughout a full working life of 49 years would receive State Pension payments (basic Retirement Pension and the State Second Pension combined, assuming they do not contract-out) approximately equal to their gross earnings in the year before they reach state pension age. Any individual earning below this level in every year (but above the Lower Earnings Limit—£3,328 in 1998–99) would receive State Pension payments higher than their earnings in the year before reaching State pension age.

  Note:
  Assumed real earnings growth is 1.5 per cent per year.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if the choice of the single nominated stakeholder pension scheme for whom employers will be compelled to pass employee contributions will be determined by a vote of all employees in the firm wishing to join a stakeholder pension scheme. [64819]

  Mr. Timms
  We proposed in the Green Paper on pensions, "A new contract for welfare: Partnership in Pensions", that employers should be required to consult their workforce or any organisations representing them before nominating a stakeholder pension scheme. The form this consultation takes will, however, be a matter for individual employers to decide.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the number of personal pension holders who will transfer to stakeholder pensions; and if he will present this figure as a proportion of all personal pension holders. [64951]

  Mr. Timms
  The Green Paper on pensions, "A new contract for welfare: Partnership in Pensions", makes clear that the decision to transfer from a personal pension to a stakeholder pension scheme will depend on individual circumstances, including the terms on which a transfer is offered. It is not possible to predict how many personal pension holders will in practice choose to transfer.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to bring forward proposals to help pensioners with incomes just above the income support level; and how many pensioners will be helped by such measures. [64947]

  Mr. Timms
  We said in the pensions Green Paper that we would welcome views on the most cost effective ways of reforming the rules governing the minimum income guarantee so as to better reward those who have saved for their retirement. We hope to bring forward proposals later in this Parliament. Any changes will depend upon the resources available. The numbers of pensioners affected will depend on the measures proposed.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the minimum payment under the state's second pension once the scheme becomes fully operative. [64944]
  68
  Mr. Timms
  An individual who worked for a full working life of 49 years from April 2002, earning above the Lower Earnings Limit (LEL) in every year (£3,328 in 1998/99), would receive a State Second Pension as described on page 45 of "A new contract for welfare: Partnership in Pensions" of approximately £51 per week, in today's earnings.

  This is the minimum amount payable to any individual who spends a full working life in employment (earning above the LEL), or who qualifies for caring or disability credits, under the State Second Pension scheme.

  Notes:

  1. Assumed real earnings growth is 1.5 per cent. per year.

  2. The estimate is given in constant earnings terms i.e. the amount received will be comparable to today's level of average earnings.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate for each of the next five decades the numbers of pensioners who will have incomes above the minimum income guarantee and still remain eligible for income-related benefits. [64950]

  Mr. Timms
  The information requested is not available.

  Projections forward to the year 2050 are subject to a high degree of uncertainty, given the number of assumptions that need to be made in making these estimates. Some of those who will be pensioners in 2050 have yet to begin work, and most are today in their 20s and 30s.

  Estimates of the number of pensioners receiving the minimum income guarantee have been made by extrapolating estimates from the PENSIM model, but these can give only a broad indication of the likely order of magnitude of figures so far into the future. The PENSIM projections can be applied only to estimates of pensioners on the minimum income guarantee. Estimates for other income related benefits (such as Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit) are not available, as projections for these benefits would require many more assumptions to be made and would be surrounded by an unacceptable level of uncertainty.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in what ways, other than its link to earnings rather than prices, the new minimum income guarantee will differ from income support for pensioners. [64938]

  Mr. Timms
  We have made it clear that we want to make delivery of the minimum income guarantee more automatic than has been the case with Income Support. To that end, we plan a number of improvements to the way we deliver services to pensioners. In addition we will examine how we might reform the rules to reward better those who have saved for their retirement.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects those people whom he has forecast to benefit from the proposed stakeholder pension scheme to receive those benefits. [64850]

  Mr. Timms
  The Green Paper on pensions; "A new contract for welfare: Partnership in Pensions", indicates that our aim is for the first stakeholder pension schemes to operate from April 2001. People joining a stakeholder pension scheme will begin to receive benefits when they retire.
  69
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to bring forward the reforms outlined in paragraph 20 of the fifth Chapter of "A new contract for welfare: Partnership in Pensions. [64946]

  Mr. Timms
  We have already started to improve services for pensioners and expect to continue to do so during the remainder of this Parliament.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people earning between £9,000 and £20,000 are contributing to a pension above the compulsory minimum; and what is the distribution of these sums measuring the value of pension savings per annum in blocks of £250. [64970]

  Mr. Timms
  Information is not available in the form requested. Such information as is available is as follows: Data drawn from the 1996 General Household Survey and Spring 1998 Labour Force Survey suggests that there are approximately 10.75 million employees and self-employed people earning between £9,000 and £20,000 per year. Of these, around 7 million are estimated to be making pension savings above the compulsory minimum.

  Industrial Deafness
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what specific areas relating to industrial deafness the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council is reviewing; what progress is being made; and what other possible areas of industrial disease are being considered at present by the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council. [64974]

  Mr. Timms
  The Industrial Injuries Advisory Council is undertaking a review of the whole schedule of occupational diseases for which Industrial Injuries benefits are paid, except for a few diseases that they have recently examined. Their aim is to update and simplify the list of diseases, to ensure that they reflect current scientific knowledge.

  The Council has set up a dedicated sub-group—the Occupational Deafness Working Group to examine occupational deafness. This is to examine all the criteria for awarding benefit for occupational deafness. The group issued a consultation paper in August 1998 to obtain views on the jobs included for benefit purposes.

  When they have finished their consideration, the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council will report their conclusions and recommendations to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Due to the number of prescribed diseases, there is likely to be more than one report. The timing of the Council's report is a matter for them.

  Unclaimed Benefits
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will estimate the amounts of unclaimed benefits in each Welsh constituency for each of the following(a) income support by (i) pensioners and (ii) non-pensioners, (b) housing benefit by (i) local authority and (ii) private tenants, (c) council tax benefit by (i) local authority tenants, (ii) private tenants and (iii) owner occupiers, (d) family credit by (i) couples and (ii) single parents, (e) disability living allowance and (f) attendance allowance; [64659]

  (2) if he will estimate the amount of unclaimed benefit by (a) local authority and (b) constituency in Wales in each of the past 10 years. [64655]
  70
  Angela Eagle
  The information is not available because reliable estimates of unclaimed benefit cannot be produced at this level of detail.

  Appeals
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of appeals submitted(a) for a paper hearing and (b) for an oral hearing to the Independent Tribunal Service were successful in each of the last three years; and in the case of paper hearings, if he will make it a duty of the Tribunal Service (i) to avail itself of the relevant information from the appellant's general practitioner and consultants or (ii) explain to the appellant that he should obtain this information for the tribunal. [64660]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is in the table.

  Proportion of oral and paper hearings

  Hearing type

  All

  Oral

  Paper

  1997

  All cases heard and decided

  22,571

  12,577

  9,994

  Percentage in appellant's favour

  30.0

  43.6

  12.9

  1998

  All cases heard and decided

  251,321

  170,332

  80,989

  Percentage in appellant's favour

  33.9

  43.1

  14.5

  Note:

  The figures for 1997 represent a small number of cases due to the introduction of GAPS. Most cases heard and decided during this year (and 1996) were cleared from the old ITS computer system which did not record the oral/paper split. The figures for 1998 contain details of all hearings recorded on GAPS up to the end of October.

  Source:

  100 per cent. download from the ITS Generic Appeals Processing System (GAPS).

  In the case of medical evidence for paper hearings, the Independent Tribunal Service (ITS) explains in a pre-hearing information leaflet sent to appellants that they are responsible for providing reports from general practitioners and consultants before the hearing. However, if further medical evidence is required by the tribunal, it is the tribunal's responsibility to obtain it. The new Appeals Service will give similar information in leaflets for appellants.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Denis Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in how many cases disability living allowance has been awarded following an appeal to the Independent Tribunal Service(a) in respect of the care component of DLA, (b) in respect of the mobility component of DLA and (c) in respect of both the mobility and care components in the last three years for which figures are available. [65040]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is in the table.

  Year1

  Care

  Mobility

  Care and mobility

  1995–96

  9,160

  10,540

  11,840

  1996–97

  11,350

  12,270

  13,700

  1997–98

  10,660

  11,100

  13,140

  1Figures relate to 12 months ending February

  Source:

  Analytical Services Division: 5 per cent. data

  Pensioners (Christmas Bonuses)
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the level of payment of Christmas bonuses to recipients of the state pension in the various member states of the European Union. [65069]

  Mr. Timms
  Our legislation provides that a £10 Christmas Bonus is payable to people present or ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom or any other member State, who are entitled to receive a qualifying benefit, including State Pension, in the first week in December.

  No other European Union member country makes a similar lump sum payment to its pensioners. However, some member states, including Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain make an additional payment equal to the customer's monthly pension in the month of December.

  New Deal (Communities)
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proposals his Department has to work with other departments to support the New Deal for Communities. [63206]

  Angela Eagle
  We are already working with other Government Departments to progress the New Deal for Communities. We are part of the Ministerial network which oversees its development and participate in 10 out of 18 cross-Whitehall Policy Action Teams. Working together we will develop proposals for a long-term, unified strategy to tackle the problems of our poorest neighbourhoods.

HEALTH

  Pharmaceutical Packaging
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what preparations his Department has made and what discussions it has held with the pharmaceutical industry to ensure that the European Union directives relating to pharmaceutical packaging which come into force on 1 January 1999 will be implemented in the United Kingdom; and what assessment he has made of the industry's ability to comply with the regulations. [64198]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 15 December 1998]: Numerous discussions have taken place with representatives of the pharmaceutical industry on compliance with Directive 92/27/EEC (on the labelling of medicines for human use and on package leaflets). The most recent meeting was held on 15 December 1998.

  The directive requires approval of a package leaflet and labelling when market authorisation is granted or renewed. Authorisation by the Medicines Control Agency (MCA) was completed on 1 January 1999.

  To facilitate effective compliance with the directive, the MCA recently consulted on proposals to require marketing authorisation holders to provide additional leaflets and labels so as to ensure that an approved label, and, where required, a leaflet would accompany every medicine dispensed to a consumer. This consultation exercise specifically sought details of the impact of these proposals on the pharmaceutical industry. The responses to this exercise are being considered.

  Aspirin
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects the Medicines Control Agency to decide whether to exempt 75mg strength aspirin from restrictions on pack sizes; and if he will make a statement. [64441]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 17 December 1998]: A review of the status of 75 milligram aspirin regarding the recent pack size restrictions is currently being co-ordinated by the Medicines Control Agency.

  In line with statutory requirements, expert advice is being sought from the Committee on the Safety of Medicines (CSM) and public consultation will follow shortly after. An announcement will be made when the advice of CSM and the Medicines Commission and the responses to the public consultation have been considered.

  West Middlesex University Hospital
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will initiate an inquiry into the caseload of the accidents and emergency ward at West Middlesex, with particular reference to the circumstances surrounding the death of a patient in the ward on 6 December. [64931]

  Mr. Denham
  We do not believe that an inquiry into the caseload of the accident and emergency department at West Middlesex University Hospital National Health Service Trust is warranted. All hospitals face winter pressures of varying degrees and Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow Health Authority have been allocated £2.5 million winter pressures moneys which is being spent on relieving any pressure areas, including opening additional beds when required.

  It would not be possible to comment on the circumstances of an individual patient's care without breaking confidentiality. We would wish to extend our sympathies to the family concerned.

  Caverject
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to regulate the prescribing of Caverject and MUSE for NHS patients; and if he will make a statement. [65076]

  Mr. Denham
  We hope shortly to announce substantive policy proposals about the treatment of erectile dysfunction under the National Health Service.

  Diabetic Retinopathy
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are(a) the proportion of sight disorders attributable to diabetic retinopathy and (b) the annual Government expenditure on preventative and treatment facilities designed to alleviate this condition. [64971]

  Mr. Hutton
  New registrations for blindness in England and Wales (1990–1991) show that, among people of working age (16–64), diabetes is the most common cause of blindness (13.8 per cent.) with 11.9 per cent. of cases of blindness due to diabetic retinopathy. Diabetic retinopathy is also the cause of 8.2 per cent. of registrations for partial sight among this age group. For people over 65, diabetic retinopathy accounts for 2.2 per cent. of new registrations for partial sight.
  73
  The condition is treated by regular eye examinations of diabetics and, where there are signs of retinal deterioration, treatment by laser coagulation. Information is not available on the total expenditure on these facilities which span both hospital and community general ophthalmic services.

  Age Weighting
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the age weighting in respect of the elderly and its effect on revenue allocations for 1999–2000. [64834]

  Mr. Denham
  The formula used to inform allocations to health authorities for 1999–2000 comprises three components: hospital and community health services; general practitioner practice infrastructure; and prescribing.

  Each component includes an adjustment to reflect the age characteristics of the local population. For each component, the elderly gain a higher weighting than all other age bands.

  Consultation Document MLX 249
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to instruct the Medicines Control Agency to extend the consultation period for consultation document MLX 249. [65177]

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will extend the consultation period on the Medicines Control Agency's Document MLX 249; [65259]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the length of time available to the public to respond to the Medicines Control Agency's paper MLX 249. [65258]

  Ms Jowell
  The consultation letter MLX 249 was issued on 6 November asking for responses by 31 December 1998. The period of consultation was within the generally accepted range. Following representations, we have agreed however that responses received by 31 January 1999 will be considered in the normal way.

  Allergies
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about his plans to review the services available for the treatment of allergies under the NHS. [65257]

  Mr. Hutton
  Departmental officials will soon meet representatives of the British Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology and other relevant professional and patient support bodies to discuss the future of allergy services. The society will be proposing an agenda for this meeting based on their preliminary discussions with the other interested parties.

  Also, later this month the Advisory Group on Medical Education and Training, chaired by the Chief Medical Officer, will be considering an application from the Royal College of Physicians' Joint Committee on Higher Medical Training for the recognition of allergy as a clinical specialty in its own right.

WALES

  Health Service Expenditure
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what his latest estimate is of(a) capital and (b) current expenditure in Wales in the current financial year on the National Health Service; what the planned figures are for 1999–2000; and what the figures were for actual spending in each of the last three years. [63446]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The information is as follows:

  £ million

  Outturn:

  Original plan

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Current

  2,122.8

  2,242.9

  2,305.5

  2,445.3

  —

  Capital1

  55.5

  50.1

  44.6

  34.6

  —

  Total

  2,178.3

  2,293.0

  2,350.1

  2,479.9

  2,654.9

  1Includes capital provision for NHS Trusts within their External Financing Limits. Excludes the estimated cost of depreciation element of NHS Trust expenditure which does not score against the capital account but is included with the health authority revenue.

  The split between revenue and capital is not available for 1999–2000 as final spending decisions have not yet been taken.

  EU Structural Funds
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to the oral answer from the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), of 9 December 1998,Official Report, column 306, if he will set out the basis of his calculation for the figures of £1.5 billion to £2 billion to which West Wales and the Valleys could be entitled. [64635]

  Mr. Hain
  This is our best rough estimate of the level of resources that might be available to Wales for economic investment. It is impossible to be specific about the level that European funding might contribute until the overall EU budget has been set.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations his Department has made to the European Commission regarding economic indicators other than unemployment being used when determining which areas qualify for Objective 2 status. [64749]

  Mr. Hain
  The UK government, in negotiations on the new Structural Funds programme, have proposed that Objective 2 status be based on a range of indicators which would allow Member States to use their own national and regional criteria to target funds at areas of greatest need. These indicators represent measures of deprivation, the degree of social cohesion, the level and type of unemployment and geographical issues. Negotiations are, however, continuing and the final criteria for Objective 2 status are unlikely to be agreed by Member States before March 1999.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the financial benefits to Wales of economic indicators other than unemployment being used to determine which areas qualify for Objective 2 status. [64750]
  75
  Mr. Hain
  Specific estimates of the benefits to be made to Wales of certain areas obtaining Objective 2 status have not been made yet. Any benefits depend not only on whether the indicators chosen secure Objective 2 status for any part of Wales, but on the total financial package for the Structural Funds agreed by Member States. Firm estimates will not be possible until Member States have agreed the Agenda 2000 proposals and the associated financial framework.

  Holywell High Street
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he signed the traffic order as part of the process of closing and pedestrianising Holywell High Street, Holywell, Flintshire. [64694]

  Mr. Hain
  My right hon. Friend has made no such order. The Highway Authority for Holywell High Street, part of a non-trunk road, is the appropriate local authority, and, in 1992, the former Clwyd County Council made the County Council of Clwyd (High Street and adjoining roads, Holywell) (Traffic Regulation) Order 1992.

  Schools
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on equalising capitation for all schools. [64487]

  Mr. Hain
  Existing funding arrangements give local education authorities the flexibility to address local needs, circumstances and priorities. I have no plans at the present time to restrict this by introducing measures to equalise capitation.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what his policy is on the funding of foundation schools. [64530]

  Mr. Hain
  Foundation schools in Wales will be funded in accordance with the Financing of Maintained Schools Regulations 1998 which were laid before Parliament on 3 December.

  EU Budget
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will estimate Wales's contribution to the EU budget during the next six year period. [64500]

  Mr. Hain
  It is the UK, as member state, which makes a contribution to the EU budget. Estimates of Wales's contribution would depend on exactly which of many hypothetical assumptions are made about which taxes, at UK level, are deemed to finance the EU contribution, because different taxes have different regional effects.

  Higher Education Funding Council
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many of the newly appointed members of the Higher Education Funding Council (Wales) are resident in Wales. [65070]

  Mr. Hain
  Five re-appointments to the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales were announced on 8 December 1998. Two of these re-appointed members, Dr. Brynley Roberts and Professor Brian Clarkson, are resident in Wales.
  76
  Of the remainder, Sir Philip Jones, the Chairman, was educated at Cowbridge Grammar School and Dr. Kenneth Gray is a graduate of the University of Wales, Bangor.

  Employment
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the numbers in employment in Wales in each year since 1979. [65092]

  Mr. Hain
  Labour Force Survey estimates of the numbers of people in employment in Wales in each available year since 1979 are shown in the table.

  Numbers in employment, Wales, 1979–98

  Thousand1

  Year

  Number in employment

  1979

  1,136

  1980

  2—

  1981

  1,097

  1982

  2—

  1983

  1,028

  1984

  1,073

  1985

  1,076

  1986

  1,085

  1987

  1,080

  1988

  1,135

  1989

  1,212

  1990

  1,232

  1991

  1,202

  1992

  1,192

  1993

  1,155

  1994

  1,177

  1995

  1,189

  1996

  1,195

  1997

  1,216

  1998

  1,204

  1Not seasonally adjusted.

  2Not available.

  Notes:

  1. Employment at spring each year.

  2. Data are not available for 1980 and 1982 as the Labour Force Survey was carried out every two years between 1973 and 1983.

  3. Numbers in employment include people aged 16 or over who did some paid work in the reference week (whether as employees or self employed), those who had a job they were temporarily away from, people on government employment and training programmes (from spring 1983), and unpaid family workers (from spring 1992). People in full-time education who also did some paid work in the reference week have been classified as in employment since spring 1983.

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics, Labour Force Survey.

  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the number of(a) manufacturing and (b) service jobs created in Wales since May 1997; and how many jobs have been lost in the same period. [65091]

  Mr. Hain
  According to the Welsh Register of Manufacturing Employment (WRME) there have been an estimated 15,400 jobs gained and 17,600 jobs lost in manufacturing in Wales since June 1997. These figures relate to manufacturing plants which employed 11 or more people.

  Corresponding data for service jobs are not available.

  National Vocational Qualifications
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate his Department has made of the
  77
  number of 16 and 17 year olds who are (a) in employment and (b) unemployed but have not qualified to NVQ level 2. [64746]

  Mr. Hain
  Estimates derived from the Labour Force Survey, for summer 1998, indicate that of the 34,000 16 and 17 year olds in employment, about 13,000 were not qualified to NVQ level 2 or equivalent. Figures on the numbers of unemployed 16 and 17 year olds not qualified to NVQ level 2 or equivalent cannot be reliably estimated.

  Investing in Young People
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the financing of the Government's Investing in Young People strategy. [64747]

  Mr. Hain
  Investing in Young People is a term used by the Department for Education and Employment to describe a range of education and training initiatives in England, which are designed to raise the achievements of young people to NVQ level 2 or equivalent. This term is not used within Wales, although most of the initiatives are contained within our policies which are set out in "Building Better Schools Together, Learning is for Everyone" and "Pathway to Prosperity: A New Economic Agenda for Wales".

  High-quality education and training which is accessible to all is essential to building a prosperous Welsh economy. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales announced on 14 December 1998 Official Report, column 3, that he was increasing total expenditure on education and training in Wales by £844 million over the next 3 years. This increase will provide a sound basis for the National Assembly for Wales when it assumes responsibility for education and training in Wales.

  Expenditure on Skill-Seekers and Skill-Build, our replacement programmes for Youth Training, is being increased by £9 million in 1999–2000, and by £12 million and £13.5 million respectively in 2000–01 and 2001–02. This will allow TECs to:
  maintain the current level of places for Modem Apprenticeships,
  National Traineeships and Skill-Build, a programme targeted at those young people who are not able to follow training to level 2;
  increase the basic level of training allowance to £40 per week;
  improve the quality of provision through the payment of higher unit prices to training providers.

  In order to help 14 and 15 year old young people who have been, or are at risk of being, excluded from education, and 16 to 17 year olds who have dropped out of education, training and employment, we are making available a further £0.4 million in 1999–2000, and £0.9 million in 2000–01 and 2001–02 to strengthen the Youth Access Initiative.

  To help ensure that young people leaving school embark upon the most appropriate training or education pathway, we have asked the Welsh TECs to collaborate with the careers companies to design and operation, on a pilot basis, a Youth Gateway. The Youth Gateway comprises an extended assessment, work sampling initiative which will enable young people to make better-informed decisions about their future. £3.75 million is being made available over three years for this purpose.
  78
  We will also be introducing in September 1999 the new statutory Right to Time Off to Study or Train programme. Targeting 16 and 17 year olds who are already in jobs but have not achieved a level 2 qualification, this programme will allow them reasonable paid time off work, to pursue a course of study or training leading to the achievement of a level 2 qualification.

  Our policies for further education (FE) are detailed in our lifelong learning Green Paper—"Learning is for Everyone" (LIFE).

  LIFE sets out a challenging vision of priorities for the future and in order to meet this challenge I was delighted to announce last month very significant increases in funding for further education. In 1999–2000, total expenditure on FE in Wales will for the first time exceed £200 million with more than £100 million of additional funding being ploughed into the sector over the next three years. This will support additional student enrolments of 28,000 by academic year 2001–2002, on top of the current 202,000 enrolments. Also, FE Access Funds will increase from £0.5 million per annum to a total of £13 million over the next three years, to support widening access and improved retention of students.

  These new and enhanced programmes demonstrate the commitment of the Government to investing in the young people of Wales.

  Welfare Rights
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will list the counties that have independent welfare rights organisations; [64652]

  (2) if he will list the counties in Wales that operate welfare rights units; [64654]

  (3) if he will estimate the amount of public funds spent per 1,000 of population on welfare rights services for each local authority in Wales. [64656]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Water Pollution
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to announce the outcome of the review of the adequacy of preventive controls over water pollution from oil and petrol storage installations in Wales. [64933]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The Groundwater Regulations 1998 (SI 1998, No. 2746), which I signed in November 1998, will give the Environment Agency additional new powers to help it prevent leaks and spillages from storage facilities, including from underground fuel storage in retail petrol stations. The Government are considering whether further controls to prevent water pollution from oil and petrol storage installations are needed and we expect to make an announcement about our conclusions later this year.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assistance he plans to provide to homeless people in Wales over winter. [64804]
  79
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  Last month, local authorities, working with the voluntary sector, were invited to submit bids for grants to provide further assistance to rough sleepers over the winter. Fourteen applications have been received and I will write to my hon. Friend shortly with details of successful bids and place a copy in the Library. During the current year, the Welsh Office has also allocated £350,000 for rough sleeping projects and £315,000 towards the running costs of 3 organisations concerned with preventing and alleviating homelessness.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Robert Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the special advisers in his Department and the issues on which they specialise; and to what level they have been security cleared. [62839]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  David Clark and Andrew Hood are currently employed as Special Advisers in my Department. They are employed under terms and conditions based on the Model Contract for Special Advisers, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.

  David Clark is advising me on European Affairs and Security Policy.

  Andrew Hood is advising me on policy related to Africa, the Middle East, the Americas, Asia, international trade policy, human rights, the global environment, the arms trade and the Commonwealth.

  Both work in accordance with Schedule 1 (Part 1) of the Model Contract.

  Special Advisers are subject to the usual security clearance arrangements. Both Mr. Clark and Mr. Hood have been cleared to the same level as senior FCO officials.

  MI6
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 8 December 1998,Official Report, column 167, concerning MI6 personnel taking up private sector posts, how many cases have been (a) referred to the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments and (b) subject to consideration by himself; and of those he has considered, how many he has (i) approved, (ii) rejected and (iii) deferred. [63856]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  [holding answer 15 December 1998]: Since 1 May 1997 the case of one retiring SIS officer has been referred to the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, and another to the Cabinet Secretary. In both cases, recommendations were subsequently put to me to confirm approval, which I did.

  Cyprus (Landmines)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate he has made of the number of active landmines which are buried in the(a) Republic of Cyprus and (b) occupied area of Northern Cyprus. [64296]
  80
  Ms Quin
  A UN Mine Action Service paper of November 1998 reported an estimated total of 16,942 landmines in Cyprus. In June 1998 the UN Secretary-General's report on the United Nations operation in Cyprus stated that there are 38 minefields and booby-trapped areas inside the UN buffer zone and a further 73 within 500m of it. It confirmed that UNFICYP continues to seek precise information about minefields from both sides.

  Telephone Records
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 8 December 1998,Official Report, columns 167–68, if the telephone system in his Department has the capability to record external numbers dialled from particular telephone extensions. [64516]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We are in the process of acquiring, from CCTA, call logging equipment which will enable calls to be identified.

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the British High Commissioner to Sri Lanka last visited the Jaffna area; whom he met; and what report he has submitted on his discussions and views regarding that meeting. [64522]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Our High Commissioner last visited Jaffna on 20 and 21 August 1998. This was his third visit since 1996. Other officials from the High Commission have also made regular visits.

  The High Commissioner met the Government Agent, the Vicar General, the Acting Vice Chancellor of the University, members of the aid community, the Headmistress of a girl's school, and the Major and Municipal councillors.

  His report highlighted a number of areas where Britain might be able to offer some development assistance. These are being pursued.

  He also gave a short speech at the Municipal Council office when he observed that there had been much progress in the development of Jaffna since his first visit and appealed to Tamil communities outside Sri Lanka to contribute to the reconstruction of Jaffna.

  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations the Government have made to the Government of Sri Lanka regarding a resolution of the continuing conflict with the Tamil community; and if he will make a statement. [65066]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We believe a lasting solution to the ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka can be reached only through a political settlement. During my visit to Colombo in November last year I made clear to the Sri Lankan Government that we remain ready to help in the resolution of the conflict if both sides ask us to play a role.

  Iraq (Missing Kuwaitis)
  Mr. Curry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he has taken to support Kuwait in pressing for the return home of Kuwaiti(a) missing persons and (b) prisoners of war, or of their remains, from Iraq following the Gulf conflict. [64583]
  81
  Mr. Fatchett
  We continue to play a leading role in the Tripartite Commission and Technical Sub-Committee meetings which work to resolve the cases of the 600 or more Kuwaitis missing since the Gulf War. We fully support the International Committee of the Red Cross which chairs these meetings in its attempts to seek the truth about the whereabouts of the missing. We have seen reports that Iraq has postponed indefinitely its participation in the Technical Sub-Committee meetings. We are discussing this further with the ICRC. We are concerned at this sign of a new level of Iraqi non-cooperation on the issue. It is appalling that Iraq has done so little to date to account for the Kuwaiti missing.

  Arms Transfers
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will take measures to ensure that(a) all arms transfers require legally binding end-use certification, (b) British embassies are required to check end-user documentation relating to the recipient country and (c) details of end-users relating to the granting or refusal of export licences are included in annual reports of strategic exports to Parliament. [64535]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  All applications for Standard Individual Export Licences to export goods controlled for strategic reasons must be supported by appropriate End-User Undertakings, or, if the consignee is a government body, a copy of the relevant part of the official purchase order or contract. It would not be possible to make End-User Undertakings binding on the end-user or consignee in UK law without the assumption of extra-territorial powers by the Government.

  We regularly ask our overseas posts to carry out checks in cases where we wish to confirm the accuracy of the information contained in end-user documentation.

  On the content of the forthcoming annual report on strategic exports, I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) on 14 July 1998, Official Report, column 149. Information on licences issued and refused will be broken down by country but will not include details of individual end-users.

  British Council
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the good governance work of the British Council and its contribution to an ethical dimension in foreign policy. [65183]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The promotion of good government worldwide is a priority for the Government and a central feature in building an ethical dimension in foreign policy. The British Council makes a valuable contribution to this policy in its work overseas in areas such as the promotion of democratic institutions and procedures, the reform of public sector institutions, the role of the media, legal systems and conflict resolution.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the(a) extent and (b) impact of reductions in the Government grant to the British Council between 1979 and 1996. [65185]
  82
  Mr. Fatchett
  From 1979 the British Council's grant-in-aid fluctuated considerably with reductions in 1979–80, 1980–81, 1986–87 and 1992–93. The most recent reduction was in 1996–97 when the grant-in-aid decreased by 6 per cent. in real terms. As a result the Council reduced its headquarters staff by 26 per cent., relocated its Manchester office and restructured overseas directorates. In spite of these fluctuations, the Council expanded its overseas network from 70 countries in 1979 to 109 in 1996 in response to changes in the international environment and the opportunities these opened up.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on the progress being made by the British Council in appointing a new Director-General.[65184]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The British Council has received a good response to its recruitment campaign for a new Director General. The Nomination Sub-Committee of the Board of the British Council expects to draw up a short list of candidates this month and to conduct final interviews in February. Given normal notice periods the Council hopes to have a new Director General in place by June.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the benefit to Britain of the English language teaching and promotion undertaken by the British Council. [65186]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The FCO's annual survey of the work of the British Council demonstrates that the Council's English language work is making an increasingly important contribution to the objectives of British missions abroad. This work increases respect for British values and creates export opportunities for the UK, while being welcomed by host countries as a valued contribution to their communities.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his plans for the British Council over the next five years. [65182]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The British Council, as the UK's principal agency for cultural relations overseas, will continue to contribute to the achievement of the Government's foreign policy objectives for the foreseeable future. Working in close consultation with the FCO and through its skill and expertise, it will provide essential support to our overall diplomatic effort.

  Chechnya
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those UK companies known to be operating in Chechnya during 1998 with the goods and services which they have supplied to Chechnya. [64796]

  Ms Quin
  The only British company which we know to have operated in Chechnya during 1998 is Granger Telecom. We understand that this company was working on a local and satellite communications project in Grozny. The exact details are a matter for the company.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library copies of the written communications between Granger Telecom and his Department during 1998. [64794]
  83
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  In agreement with Granger Telecom, I have placed in the Library copies of the two written communications between the FCO and the company before the tragic kidnap of 3 October 1998. I am also placing in the Library a copy of my letter of 11 December and 8 January to the hon. Member, which set these communications in context.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when his Department was first informed of activities by Granger Telecom in Chechnya. [64795]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  In July 1998: Granger Telecom wrote to HM Ambassador, Moscow, on 9 July 1998 supporting visa applications for the UK by Chechens associated with Granger Telecom's activities in Chechnya.

  Committee on Human Rights
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to set up a Committee on Human Rights to investigate human rights abuses abroad. [65003]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We have no immediate plans to set up a Committee on Human Rights. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office receives full information on human rights violations abroad, including from UK official sources diplomatic reporting, international organisations and from non-governmental organisations, academic institutions and the media, including the BBC Monitoring Service from Caversham. The FCO also receives relevant human rights reports by other governments, including the State Department's Annual Report. All this information is routinely available to all FCO officials.

  Notes and Memoranda
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the series of notes and memoranda which are produced by the research analysts and economic advisers departments. [65080]

  Mr. Fatchett
  These papers cover politically and economically sensitive subjects and are not produced for use outside of government. Each note or memorandum is added to the public record and made available when no longer sensitive, in classes FO 972–3 at the Public Record Office, Kew.

  Arms Sales
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to incorporate the EU Code of Conduct on arms sales into UK law. [64708]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  EU Member States adopted the Code of Conduct on Arms Exports as a political commitment rather than as a Joint Action or Common Position, which would have been legally binding. It would not therefore be appropriate to incorporate the Code of Conduct in UK law, especially as our national arms export licensing criteria, which are similar to those in the Code of Conduct, are not thus incorporated.
  84
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to publish detailed annual reports on arms exports; and if he will make a statement. [64709]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  As to the content of the Government's first annual report on the UK's strategic export controls, I refer the hon. Member to my reply of 14 July 1998 to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr, Jones),Official Report, column 149. As to the timing of publication, I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) on 27 November 1998, Official Report, column 38.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Operation Angel
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what the cost was to his Department of its contributions towards Operation Angel in North West England; [64509]

  (2) what the total cost was of Operation Angel in the North West of England to (a) the Government and (b) public bodies financed through the council tax. [64508]

  Mr. Boateng
  Operation Angel was the name given to an investigation by Lancashire Constabulary into allegations of public sector corruption in the Preston area. The cost of the investigation was borne by the Lancashire Constabulary from within its normal budget. My Department has not incurred any direct costs for the investigation. Information on costs falling to other Departments or public bodies financed through the council tax is not collected by the Home Office.

  CS Sprays
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which UK police forces have had CS gas issued to them since 1968. [63929]

  Mr. Boateng
  All police forces in England and Wales have issued their officers with CS incapacitant spray except Northamptonshire, Nottinghamshire and Sussex. An operational pilot has recently been completed in two forces in Scotland: Strathclyde and Tayside. CS incapacitant spray is not issued in Northern Ireland.

  CS dispersed in smoke for use in situations of public disorder has been available to all police forces since 1968 for use as a tactical option. It is a matter for individual chief officers of police to decide whether to hold CS for this purpose.

  Solar Eclipse
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assistance the Government will offer to Cornwall in dealing with problems arising from the total eclipse of the sun on 11 August 1999. [65033]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Home Office is responsible for emergency planning in England and Wales and makes an annual grant to county level local authorities to make plans for emergencies. This grant complements the local authority's own commitment.
  85
  Under Integrated Emergency Management arrangements, local emergency planners develop non-specific and flexible plans designed to produce a multi-agency response to the effects of an incident irrespective of the cause. This approach is ideal for an incident such as the Eclipse which is not an unforeseen emergency, but is an event for which there has been sufficient time for local services to plan. There are arrangements to seek mutual aid, if required, from services in other areas and ultimately from the military.

  My officials have been involved in discussions with those responsible for planning the response to the Eclipse, including the Chief Executive of Cornwall County Council and the Chief Constable of Devon and Cornwall Constabulary and will continue to watch developments closely offering assistance where possible.

  Private Security Firms
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration has been given to introducing an independent licensing authority and regulatory framework for private security firms. [64538]

  Mr. Boateng
  We intend to introduce statutory regulation for the private security industry as soon as possible. We will not be able to bring forward early legislation, as we warned before the election, but we completed a consultation exercise with the industry and others last year on the best way to provide a comprehensive, effective and streamlined system. We are determined to develop practical proposals which protect the safety and rights of the public without introducing unnecessary bureaucracy. We hope to bring forward firm proposals shortly.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what role private security firms will undertake as part of Crime and Disorder Act 1998 partnerships; and if he will make a statement. [64539]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 does not specifically provide a role for the private security industry. However, the requirement for local authorities and police in every area to produce strategies to reduce crime and disorder gives all members of the community—including the private security industry—the opportunity to make a contribution to the development and implementation of those strategies.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps the Government have taken to enable the youth justice system to prevent offending by children and young persons. [64537]

  Mr. Boateng
  Measures to enable the youth justice system to prevent offending by children and young persons are contained in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998; others are within the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Bill currently before Parliament.

  The Crime and Disorder Act introduces the final warning scheme in place of repeat cautioning of young offenders; new community-based court disposals to prevent or address youth offending and its causes; and multi-agency youth offending teams to turn young offenders away from crime. These measures are being piloted in ten areas of the country ahead of national implementation. The Act also contains measures to speed
  86
  up the youth justice system and establishes the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales to monitor the operation of the system and provide advice on how the aim of preventing offending might most effectively be achieved.

  The Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Bill will create a new form of sentencing disposal for first time defendants in the youth court who plead guilty. Except in cases in which the court decides that an absolute discharge or a custodial sentence would be more appropriate, there will be a referral to a youth offender panel, which will draw up a contract with the offender, aimed at tackling his or her offending behaviour and its causes.

  Illegal Immigrants
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the cost to East Sussex County Council of maintaining illegal immigrants who arrived at Newhaven Ferry Port in each of the last three years. [64755]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the question from the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) on 17 December 1998,Official Report, column 747.

  Asylum and Immigration
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if asylum seekers who applied between 1 July 1993 and 31 December 1995 and who have convictions for offences resulting in a sentence of(a) imprisonment of less than 12 months and (b) a community service order will be eligible for the process of determining asylum applications set out in paragraph 8.30 of "Fairer, Faster and Firmer—A Modern Approach to Immigration and Asylum"; [64685]

  (2) what plans he has for the Immigration and Nationality Directorate to ascertain which asylum seekers whose applications were made before 31 December 1995 have convictions for offences resulting in a sentence of (a) imprisonment of less than 12 months and (b) a community service order. [64687]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Under the procedure set out in para. 8.30 of the White Paper CM4018, every undecided application for asylum made between 1 July 1993 and 31 December 1995 will be examined individually to see whether the applicant qualifies for asylum or for leave to remain on some other ground, both in relation to the usual criteria and in relation to the presence of factors associated with the delay in deciding the case. Where there is information suggesting that the applicant's presence in the United Kingdom would not be conducive to the public good, including any information about criminal convictions, this will be taken into account when considering the application.

  The arrangements by which the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) is notified of criminal convictions and recommendations for deportation made by a court are those set out in the answer I gave to the hon. Member on 8 December 1998, Official Report, column 117. Officials are examining these arrangements to consider whether IND should routinely be notified where someone subject to immigration control is convicted of an offence resulting in a sentence of

  87
  imprisonment of less than 12 months or a community service order. I have asked them to report their conclusions in due course.

  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the individuals and organisations that responded to the White Paper on Asylum and Immigration; and, for those who did not indicate that they did not wish their submissions to be published, when he intends to make those responses available. [65073]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw) on 17 December 1998,Official Report, column 726.

  Fire and Rescue Services
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the(a) per capital funding and (b) the standard spending assessment for each local authority's fire and rescue services in 1999–2000. [64846]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The following table sets out the provisional fire standard spending assessment for 1999–2000 and the amount per head of population for local authorities responsible for fire service funding. Some of these are constituent authorities of combined fire authorities. For example, Stoke-on-Trent City Council, together with the continuing part of Staffordshire County Council, form a combined fire authority for the former county of Staffordshire.

  Table showing provisional 1999–2000 fire standard spending assessments for English authorities

  Local authority

  Fire SSA(£/head)

  Fire SSA £million

  England

  27

  1,346.000

  London area

  38

  270.534

  Metropolitan areas

  31

  342.853

  Shire areas

  24

  732.303

  Isles of Scilly

  158

  0.310

  London Fire

  38

  270.534

  Greater Manchester Fire

  31

  78.835

  Merseyside Fire

  37

  51.827

  South Yorkshire Fire

  27

  35.684

  Tyne and Wear Fire

  33

  36.870

  West Midlands Fire

  30

  78.365

  West Yorkshire Fire

  29

  61.273

  Metropolitan fire authorities

  31

  342.853

  Shire counties

  23

  534.574

  Shire unitary authorities

  24

  197.729

  Isle of Wight Council

  28

  3.584

  All purpose authorities

  Bath and North East Somerset

  28

  4.693

  Blackburn with Darwen

  24

  3.314

  Blackpool

  26

  3.902

  Bournemouth

  22

  3.499

  Bracknell Forest

  23

  2.541

  Brighton and Hove

  25

  6.218

  Bristol

  23

  9.410

  Darlington

  26

  2.645

  Derby

  22

  5.247

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  33

  10.221

  Halton

  19

  2.313

  Hartlepool

  37

  3.425

  Herefordshire

  21

  3.553

  Isle of Wight Council

  28

  3.584

  88

  Table showing provisional 1999–2000 fire standard spending assessments for English authorities

  Local authority

  Fire SSA(£/head)

  Fire SSA £million

  Kingston upon Hull

  25

  6.666

  Leicester

  18

  5.275

  Luton

  20

  3.564

  Medway

  21

  5.130

  Middlesbrough

  37

  5.337

  Milton Keynes

  19

  3.782

  North East Lincolnshire

  28

  4.439

  North Lincolnshire

  29

  4.436

  North Somerset

  28

  5.133

  Nottingham

  21

  5.891

  Peterborough

  20

  3.188

  Plymouth

  20

  5.116

  Poole

  22

  3.173

  Portsmouth

  19

  3.568

  Reading

  20

  2.980

  Redcar and Cleveland

  41

  5.680

  Rutland

  25

  0.896

  Slough

  21

  2.319

  South Gloucestershire

  26

  6.192

  Southampton

  18

  3.906

  Southend-on-Sea

  22

  3.825

  Stockton-on-Tees

  40

  7.204

  Stoke-on-Trent

  18

  4.573

  Swindon

  18

  3.255

  Telford and the Wrekin

  18

  2.677

  Thurrock

  22

  2.972

  Torbay

  26

  3.134

  Warrington

  22

  4.141

  West Berkshire

  24

  3.472

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  27

  3.826

  Wokingham

  26

  3.747

  York

  21

  3.666

  Isles of Scilly

  158

  0.310

  Shire Counties

  Bedfordshire

  24

  9.006

  Buckinghamshire

  23

  11.062

  Cambridgeshire

  22

  12.423

  Cheshire

  24

  16.255

  Cornwall

  26

  12.440

  Cumbria

  26

  12.667

  Derbyshire

  26

  18.665

  Devon

  26

  18.059

  Dorset

  24

  9.201

  Durham

  25

  12.478

  East Sussex

  27

  13.304

  Essex

  24

  31.499

  Gloucestershire

  21

  11.624

  Hampshire

  24

  29.163

  Hertfordshire

  23

  23.676

  Kent

  24

  31.418

  Lancashire

  28

  31.570

  Leicestershire

  24

  14.540

  Lincolnshire

  20

  12.097

  Norfolk

  21

  16.176

  North Yorkshire

  22

  12.561

  Northamptonshire

  21

  13.083

  Northumberland

  28

  8.506

  Nottinghamshire

  26

  19.013

  Oxfordshire

  22

  13.548

  Shropshire

  21

  5.801

  Somerset

  21

  10.213

  Staffordshire

  22

  17.895

  Suffolk

  20

  13.450

  Surrey

  24

  25.278

  Warwickshire

  22

  11.295

  West Sussex

  23

  17.201

  Wiltshire

  20

  8.551

  Worcestershire

  20

  10.858

  Speed Cameras (Gloucestershire)
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many speed cameras have been installed in Gloucestershire; and how many prosecutions resulted from them in each of the last five years for which records are available. [64817]

  Mr. Boateng
  I understand from the Chief Constable of Gloucestershire Constabulary that the force has 33 sites for automatic speed cameras and that the cameras were first brought into use during 1995. There were 526 prosecutions in 1995 and 3,705 in 1996. Figures for 1997 are not yet available.

  Ministerial Flights
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 9 December 1998,Official Report, column 214, if the average cost of flights, with reference to flights by Ministers in his Department, refers to the average cost per passenger. [64720]

  Mr. Straw
  The average cost refers to the average cost per trip and not the average cost per passenger.

  Liquor Licensing
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) late licensed premises and (b) licensed premises there are per 1,000 head of population for each county in Wales. [64653]

  Name

  Date produced

  Voluntary After-Care

  1997

  Options for improved support for victims and other witnesses attending Magistrates' courts

  May 1997

  The processing of Rape Cases by the Criminal Justice System

  November 1997

  The effects of Video violence on Young Offenders

  1998

  Trends in Crime Revisited

  1998

  Reconviction after sentence: a six year follow up of people sentenced in the Crown Court in 1996

  January 1998

  A Survey of Custody Officers' Views on New Provisions of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994

  March 1998

  The Impact of the National Lottery on the Horserace Betting Levy: Technical Supplement

  July 1998

  The Impact of the National Lottery on the Horserace Betting Levy: Third Report

  July 1998

  Evolving Crack Cocaine Careers, New User, Quitters and Long Term Combination Drug Users in North West England

  September 1998

  Transfers from prison to hospital: the Operation of Section 48 of the Mental Health Act 1983

  October 1998

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library a list of unclassified papers produced in the Briefing Notes series of papers by the Police and Reducing Crime Unit since January 1997, specifying the title of each paper and the date on which it was produced. [65059]

  Mr. Boateng
  All main series reports produced by the Home Office Policing and Reducing Crime Unit are circulated with a short briefing note summarising the main findings and points for action. Occasionally, the Unit prepares a stand alone briefing note which may be an extended summary of a piece of work which we do not justify a full report, or as an interim report on a project which is attracting interest. There have been two publications in this Briefing Note series since January 1997:

  1/98 Domestic Violence and Repeat Victimisation (August 1998)

  2/98 Planning Police Trainee Throughput: some good practice suggestions (August 1998).

  90
  Mr. George Howarth
  The number of(a) special hours certificates and (b) licensed premises per 1,000 persons for each county in Wales as at 30 June 1998 is given in the table.

  Special hours certificates per 1,000 population

  Licensed premises per 1,000 population

  Clwyd

  0.14

  3.09

  Dyfed

  0.19

  5.36

  Gwent

  0.12

  2.87

  Gwynedd

  0.21

  7.86

  Powys

  0.08

  6.17

  Mid-Glamorgan

  0.21

  2.57

  South Glamorgan

  0.31

  2.57

  West Glamorgan

  0.31

  2.92

  Note:

  Counties are those before the recent reorganisation of local government in Wales

  Unclassified Papers
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library a list of unclassified papers produced in the made available series of papers by the Research, Development and Statistics Directorate since January 1997, specifying the title of each paper and the date on which it was produced. [65060]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information is as follows:

  Papers published in the Briefing Note series are included in the Unit's general publications list, which is published on the World Wide Internet and is also freely available from the Unit. An up-to-date list will be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Sandeep Bansall
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received concerning the prison placement of Mr. Sandeep Bansall. [65178]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The hon. Member wrote to my noble Friend, the Lord Williams of Mostyn, the Minister with responsibility for prisons and probation, and made representations over the telephone to the Director General of the Prison Service, requesting Mr. Bansal's transfer from Pentonville prison.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when Mr. Sandeep Bansall will be moved from Pentonville prison; [65180]
  91
  (2) what steps have been taken by the prison authorities to place Mr. Sandeep Bansall nearer his family. [65179]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Mr. Sandeep Bansall was temporarily transferred on 22 December 1998 from Pentonville prison to Leicester prison. As this is a local prison, whose primary purpose is to serve the courts, he was then allocated to Ashwell, a training prison near Leicester, and moved there on 30 December 1998.

  Pigmeat Imports
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the cost of the pigmeat imported from outside the United Kingdom which was purchased for consumption in prisons in each of the last three years. [65118]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Up to and including 31 March 1998, all pigmeat consumed in prisons in England and Wales was produced by the Prison Service's own farms. Since that date, all pigmeat has been purchased on contract.

  The contractors have advised that all pork supplied to the Prison Service has been of British origin, as has 80 per cent. of the bacon. The remaining 20 per cent. of bacon was imported, primarily from Holland, and cost approximately £60,000.

  Education Expenditure
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of section 11 funding was spent in each education authority area in England and Wales in 1997–98; and what percentage of pupils were covered by the grant in each case. [63694]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The table relates to the maximum grant payable to each local education authority (LEA) in respect of the 1997–98 financial year, expressed as a percentage of the total maximum grant payable to LEAs. The figures refer to projects for various educational purposes, in schools and in other sectors. The types of project vary between authorities.

  Information is not held centrally in the form requested in the second part of my hon. Friend's Question. Reports are received annually on each project, showing the numbers of pupils, or others, covered. But, because support provided to an individual may be separately counted under different headings, aggregation of the figures may produce a misleading result.

  LEA

  Percentage

  Barking & Dagenham

  0.34

  Barnet

  1.03

  Bedfordshire

  0.82

  Berkshire

  1.08

  Bexley

  0.15

  Birmingham

  4.35

  Bolton

  0.76

  Bradford

  4.73

  Brent

  1.47

  Brighton & Hove

  0.15

  Bristol1

  0.70

  Bromley

  0.03

  Buckinghamshire2

  1.16

  Bury

  0.39

  Calderdale

  0.93

  Cambridgeshire

  1.16

  92

  LEA

  Percentage

  Camden

  1.82

  Cardiff

  0.45

  Cheshire

  0.09

  Coventry

  2.57

  Croydon

  1.52

  Darlington3

  0.15

  Derby4

  1.41

  Devon

  0.08

  Doncaster

  0.11

  Dudley

  1.02

  Ealing

  1.51

  East Sussex

  0.09

  Enfield

  1.71

  Essex

  0.03

  Gateshead

  0.03

  Gloucestershire

  0.27

  Greenwich

  1.11

  Hackney

  2.92

  Hammersmith & Fulham

  0.55

  Hampshire

  0.13

  Haringey

  2.70

  Harrow

  0.69

  Havering

  0.05

  Hereford & Worcester

  0.23

  Hertfordshire

  1.79

  Hillingdon

  0.41

  Hounslow

  1.36

  Hull5

  0.04

  Islington

  1.57

  Kensington & Chelsea

  0.94

  Kent

  1.28

  Kingston

  0.11

  Kirklees

  2.57

  Lambeth

  2.10

  Lancashire

  5.02

  Leeds

  0.96

  Leicester

  2.63

  Leicestershire

  0.51

  Lewisham

  1.37

  Lincolnshire

  0.09

  Liverpool

  0.30

  Luton

  1.78

  Manchester

  2.40

  Merton

  0.65

  Middlesbrough6

  0.55

  Newcastle

  0.05

  Newham

  0.12

  Newport

  0.31

  Norfolk

  0.16

  North East Lincolnshire

  0.04

  North Lincolnshire

  0.23

  North Tyneside

  0.13

  North Yorkshire7

  0.06

  Northamptonshire

  0.58

  Nottinghamshire

  1.58

  Oldham

  1.96

  Oxfordshire

  0.56

  Poole8

  0.03

  Portsmouth

  0.18

  Redbridge

  1.24

  Richmond

  0.06

  Rochdale

  1.20

  Rotherham

  0.39

  Salford

  0.06

  Sheffield

  1.51

  Shropshire

  0.12

  Somerset

  0.05

  South Tyneside

  0.13

  Southampton

  0.39

  Southwark

  0.82

  St Helens

  0.02

  Staffordshire9

  0.89

  Stockport

  0.09

  Suffolk

  0.28

  93

  LEA

  Percentage

  Sunderland

  0.10

  Surrey

  0.33

  Sutton

  0.09

  Swansea

  0.32

  Swindon10

  0.14

  Tameside

  0.43

  Tower Hamlets

  6.61

  Trafford

  0.34

  Wakefield

  0.29

  Walsall

  1.46

  Waltham Forest

  1.66

  Wandsworth

  1.46

  Warwickshire

  0.98

  West Sussex

  0.25

  Westminster

  1.74

  Wigan

  0.08

  Wolverhampton

  1.55

  The following show the estimated approximate division of the grant allocated to the lead authority among the LEAs in question:

  1Bristol: 93%. Bath&North Somerset, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire: 7%

  2Buckinghamshire: 80%. Milton Keynes: 20%.

  3Darlington: 60%. Durham: 40 ℅.

  4Derby City: 95%. Derbyshire: 5%.

  5Hull: 80%. East Riding of Yorkshire: 20%.

  6Middlesbrough: 63%. Stockton: 27%. Redcar and Cleveland, and Hartlepool: 10%.

  7North Yorkshire: 34%. City of York: 66%.

  8Poole, Bournemouth and Dorset: about one third each.

  9Staffordshire: 40%. Stoke-on-Trent: 60%.

  10Swindon: 60%. Wiltshire: 40%.

  Note:

  In a number of cases, local education authorities had entered into agreements with neighbouring LEAs to act as the "lead authority" in a joint arrangement for administrative purposes. In these, grant allocations were made to the lead authority, which would distribute funding to each LEA.

CABINET OFFICE

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what has been the total expenditure and the breakdown of expenditure in the Cabinet Office since May 1997 on(a) public opinion research, (b) television, radio and newspaper advertising, (c) direct mail and (d) publicity. [64186]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  [holding answer 17 December 1998]: Since May 1997 the Cabinet Office expenditure on public opinion research totalled £481,200; on television, radio and newspaper advertising £220,164; on direct mail £794,319, and on publicity £1,158,469. All figures are net of recoverable VAT.

  Civil Servants (Industrial Tribunals)
  Mr. Prior
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office which civil servants are not allowed to use the Industrial Tribunal Service as a last means of settling disputes. [64338]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  [holding answer 17 December 1998]: The only civil servants who do not have access to an Employment Tribunal are those employed as police constables in the Ministry of Defence Police. In common
  94
  with other persons in police service, their rights to bring proceedings in an Employment Tribunal are restricted by Section 200 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

  Drugs Tsar
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will make a statement on the selection procedure for(a) the Drug Tzar and (b) his Deputy. [64695]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  The UK Anti-Drugs Co-ordinator, Keith Hellawell, was appointed following a fair and open competition. The process was in line with the Nolan principles, including the involvement of an independent member on the interview panel. The post was advertised in the national press attracting a very strong field of over 200 applicants. Of these, seven demonstrating the strongest evidence of the core skills for the job, were selected for interview. The interview panel appointed Mike Trace as deputy because his background and expertise provided a valuable supporting role to the Co-ordinator.

  Cabinet Joint Consultative Committee (Security Passes)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if Liberal Democrat members of the Cabinet Joint Consultative Committee have been issued with security passes giving them access to secure areas in Government buildings. [64773]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  No.

  Cabinet Joint Consultative Committee (Pension Proposals)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what representations he has received from the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) concerning the Government's pensions proposals; and if these will be discussed at the Cabinet Joint Consultative Committee. [64774]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  Representations on the Government's pensions proposals are a matter for my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Social Security.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Childcare
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what plans he has to extend the registration of childcare workers to those providing childcare for the over-eights; [65052]

  (2) what plans he has to increase the quality of childcare provision for the over-eights and related health and safety aspects; [65055]

  (3) what estimate he has made of the cost of bringing childcare provision for the over-eights into the registration system; [65053]

  (4) what research his Department has commissioned on parents' views of the quality and registration of childcare provision. [65054]
  95
  Ms Hodge
  I refer my hon. Friend to the replies I gave to the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) on 17 December 1998,Official Report, columns 668–69.

  Free School Meals
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the estimated annual cost would be of extending free school meals(a) to all children, (b) to all children under 11 years, (c) to all children whose parents are in receipt of working families tax credit and (d) to children under 11 years whose parents are in receipt of working families tax credit. [64683]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  We have no plans to extend eligibility for free school meals and have not therefore made precise costings. We estimate the approximate cost in England of(a) to be £1.8 billion and of (b) to be £1 billion. On the basis of assumptions by the Inland Revenue on the numbers of children whose parents will be in receipt of Working Families Tax Credit, we estimate the approximate cost of (c) to be some £410 million and of (d) to be £210 million.

  GCSEs (Northern Ireland)
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will initiate research into the reasons why school pupils in Northern Ireland achieve better results in GCSEs and A Levels than pupils in England. [64525]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Government have set in place a range of policies designed to raise standards in all schools in England, including the National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies, Education Development Plans, measures to tackle school and LEA failure, Education Action Zones and target setting by schools. These approaches are backed by the significant additional resources for schools announced in the Comprehensive Spending Review and are based on a range of evidence about what raises standards drawn from across the UK and internationally. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no plans for research of the type suggested.

  School Reserves
  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what guidance his Department gives schools on the level of reserves which they should hold. [64954]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Department does not issue detailed guidance on this matter. However, reserves held by schools should be used effectively, and to this end the Department has encouraged local education authorities to recycle reserves through loan schemes, while preserving the right of schools to draw on their reserves when needed. Authorities are also permitted to require schools to report on the intended use of reserves in excess of a certain level as determined by the authority, so as to encourage a planned approach to the holding of reserves.

  Autism
  Dr. Ladyman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what data he has collated with respect to the incidence of special educational needs 96
  related to autism among children; and if he will list the numbers and percentage of such children by education authority area and for each of the last 20 years. [64911]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  These figures are not available. Provisions in the Education Act 1981, now consolidated into the Education Act 1996, require schools to submit information on numbers of pupils with special educational needs. In accordance with the recommendation of the Warnock Committee, there is no requirement for them to record the nature of the disability or learning difficulty and we have no current intention to require them to do so.

  New Deal (Eastleigh)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people have entered the New Deal gateway in the Eastleigh borough council area since its inception; and how many took up each New Deal option. [64753]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  It is not possible to provide separate figures for individual towns or council areas. The latest Government Statistical Service figures for the Southampton and South West Hampshire Unit of Delivery, which covers Eastleigh, show that, to the end of September 1998,(a) 751 young people had entered the Gateway and 97 had secured unsubsidised employment (b) 108 had joined one of the four options: 29 on the Employment option; 7 on the Voluntary Sector option; 1 on the Environment Task Force; and 71 on the Full-Time Education and Training option.

  Trade Unions (New Deal)
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the number of people taken on under the New Deal by the trade unions. [64748]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Central records are not kept of the 52,800 young people who have found work under New Deal and the 35,400 employer agreements that have been signed. This information is not held centrally; however, we have worked closely with the TUC over the implementation of New Deal and are grateful for their support and we do know that a number of individual Trade Unions have taken on young people under the New Deal.

  League Tables
  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he has taken to assess the validity of league tables for state schools which include a value-added element. [65078]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Extensive development work has been done by the Department and the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority on methods of calculating measures of value-added by schools for publication in performance tables. We have also conducted a pilot study, involving some 200 state and independent schools, to investigate a variety of options for presenting school value-added indicators based on information about individual pupil performance. The results of the pilot study were published on 1 December, as a supplement to the 1998 secondary school performance tables. A copy has been placed in the Library.

  Playgroups
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he expects to announce the recipients of the DfEE/Pre-School Learning Alliance grants for playgroups. [65046]

  Ms Hodge
  A total of £407,000 has been paid to date in grants of up to £1,000 to 497 voluntary pre-schools and playgroups, including 5 in Oxfordshire. A few applications for which further information is required remain to be decided. A list of grant recipients will be placed in the Library in due course.

  I am grateful to the Pre-school Learning Alliance, Playgroup Network, Gloucestershire Parents and Toddlers Association and many Early Years Development and Childcare Partnerships for their help in the administration of this scheme for assisting pre-schools and playgroups in financial difficulty.

  Astra Staff
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment in what circumstances ex-Astra staff are eligible to apply for Civil Service vacancies. [64697]

  Mr. Mudie
  Those ex-Astra employees who were former civil servants can, like any other former civil servants, apply for reappointment into the Civil Service. Reappointment is not automatic and depends on there being suitable vacancies. Applicants must also meet the current competencies required for the job in question. Those ex-Astra staff who were not former civil servants can, like anyone else, apply for any advertised vacancies, subject to the provisions of the Civil Service Order in Council 1995.

  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on outstanding issues concerning ex-Astra employees. [64696]

  Mr. Mudie
  There are no outstanding issues but I am currently considering representations made on behalf of employees of the former Astra Training Services Ltd.

  This Government introduced a package of special measure, both financial and non-financial, that helped those who were potentially worse affected by this failed privatisation. The administrators of the Astra Pension Scheme, Fountain Trustee Ltd., have confirmed that all ex-Astra staff are getting their full accrued pensions as they reach the retirement age of 60.

  Disability Rights Commission
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will set out the basis of the estimated annual running cost of the proposed Disability Rights Commission. [65113]

  Ms Hodge
  The estimated budget for the Disability Rights Commission (DRC) was calculated by examining its proposed functions and assessing the associated costs using the best information available. This involved drawing on information about the running costs of the existing commissions where their functions are similar and taking account of issues arising specifically in the context of disability. We believe the estimate is realistic 98
  and reflects the important work the DRC will be expected to undertake. In due course, we will review the DRC's funding in the light of its operational experience.

  PFI Projects
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment which local education authorities have requested funding for PFI projects additional to their original estimates. [65189]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The local education authorities that have requested funding additional to their original estimates for PFI projects are as follows:

  Birmingham

  Cornwall

  Dorset

  Dudley

  Kingston upon Hull

  Leeds

  Manchester

  North Yorkshire

  Sheffield

  Staffordshire

  Stoke on Trent

  Tower Hamlets

  Westminster.

  Many of these projects are very early Pathfinders and the original estimates of costs were based on limited information. However, in all cases, local education authorities have been required to demonstrate that the projects continue to provide value for money at the increased level of funding. The initial assessment of PFI project costs has improved as greater experience of schools PFI has been gained.

  Schools (Temporary Classrooms)
  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the Government's policy towards the use of temporary classrooms in schools. [63444]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Temporary classrooms can provide a suitable solution to accommodation issues in schools. Whether they are appropriate in any particular instance is usually a matter for the local education authority or the grant-maintained school. However, we have made clear that, where additional accommodation is required to implement our class size pledge, LEAs should seek to provide permanent and not temporary classrooms.

  Teachers' Salaries
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the median salary of a secondary school teacher with 10 years' experience was as a percentage of(a) average industrial male earnings, (b) the salary of a police sergeant with 10 years service in that rank and (c) the salary of a middle-ranking member

  99
  of the professional, administrative and managerial grade in local authority service in 1970, 1975, 1980, 1985, 1990, 1995 and currently. [62084]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The median salary of a secondary school teacher with 10 years' experience is not available for the years before 1985. Since 1985, the median salary of secondary school teachers with 10 years' experience as a percentage of the other groups of workers was as follows:

  Percentage

  Year

  All occupations: full-time males paid on adult rates

  Police sergeant with 10 years' service1

  Local government officers: full-time staff on adult rates2

  1985

  96

  78

  n.a.

  1990

  101

  86

  78

  1995

  113

  89

  94

  1997

  111

  88

  89

  1The salary of a police sergeant excludes London weighting and allowances, housing emoluments, overtime payments and any other additions to basic salary.

  2Local government officers have been identified from the New Earnings Survey as SOC group 102. Information is not readily available for 1985. The small samples on which this group is based may make the data unreliable.

  Agricultural Colleges
  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will review the future structure and funding of the land-based and agricultural colleges. [63814]

  Mr. Mudie
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no plans to do so. The Further Education Funding Council is due to publish soon a report reviewing the adequacy and sufficiency of facilities for further education provision for agriculture.

  New Deal (Hampshire)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer of 7 December 1998,Official Report, column 82, on the New Deal in Portsmouth, if the figure for clients who secured unsubsidised jobs is included in the total figure of those who entered the Gateway; and what were the destinations for the people not accounted for under the four options. [64260]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The 143 young people who secured unsubsidised jobs are included in the figure of 1,094 young people who had entered the Gateway by the end of September 1998. 217 young people had joined one of the four options; 633 were in the Gateway; 18 had left New Deal to claim other benefits; 19 had left for other known destinations, including other training, travelling abroad, imprisonment; and 64 had left for unknown destinations.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people have entered the New Deal Gateway in the Rushmoor Borough Council area since its inception; and how many took up each New Deal option. [64255]
  100
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  It is not possible to provide separate figures for individual towns or council areas. The latest Government Statistical Service figures for the Guildford Unit of Delivery, which covers Rushmoor, show that, to the end of September 1998,(a) 416 young people had entered the Gateway and 82 secured unsubsidised employment; (b) 48 had joined one of the four options: 6 on the Employment option; 6 on the Voluntary Sector option; 1 on the Environment Task Force; and 35 on the Full-Time Education and Training option. 229 young people were on the Gateway, 16 had left New Deal to claim other benefits, 9 had gone to other known destinations, including other training, travelling abroad, imprisonment; and 32 had gone to unknown destinations.

  Education (Staffordshire)
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what measures his Department has taken since May 1997 to improve the provision of education in Staffordshire. [64506]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The table sets out details of the financial support that Staffordshire has received since May 1997, through the education SSA system, the Standards Fund, Schools Capital and the New Deal for Schools. Details of the Standards Fund allocations and support for capital funding for schools for 1999–2000 will be announced in due course.

  Staffordshire LEA

  £ million

  Education SSA increase

  17.6

  Standards fund

  8.5

  Capital support

  6.2

  New Deal for schools

  3.5

  Provisional education SSA 1999–2000

  18.3

  Total allocation

  54.1

  Notes:

  1. Capital Support includes both Annual Capital Guideline (ACG) and Supplementary Credit Approval (SCA).

  2. The Standards Fund figures include both the LEA and government grant contributions.

  Grammar Schools
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of children in(a) England and (b) Northern Ireland attend grammar schools. [64526]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  In January 1998, 4.5 per cent. of all pupils aged 11 and over in maintained schools in England attended grammar schools.

  Information for Northern Ireland is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the cost implications of the restructuring of Kent's schooling system which would be required if grammar schools were to be abolished; and if he will place the breakdown of that estimate in the Library. [64497]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  None. It is for parents in Kent to decide whether or not they wish to retain selection by reference to high academic ability. If they voted to do so,
  101
  the law would require only the admission authorities of those schools to change their admission arrangements. Any other changes would be a matter for decision at local level.

  Physical Education
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many places have been made available for specialist PE teachers on initial teacher training courses in each of the last five years. [64715]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The following table shows the target intake to physical education (PE) initial teacher training for the years 1994–95 to 1998–99.

  Target recruitment to initial teacher training (ITT) courses in England, 1994–95 to 1998–99

  Year

  Target intake

  1994–95

  1,255

  1995–96

  1,250

  1996–97

  1,300

  1997–98

  1,550

  1998–99

  1,450

  Source:

  DfEE

  Counter-drugs Strategy
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he has taken to ensure that those training to be teachers are fully equipped to present in schools the Government's counter-drugs strategy. [64517]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Curriculum for teacher training ensures that all teachers must be able to address pupils' personal, moral and social development. This will provide a focus for the full range of personal, social and health education work, including drug education. As certain aspects of drug education are a statutory requirement of National Curriculum science, all primary school teachers and secondary school science teachers are trained in drug education.

  We have made increased funding of £7 million available this year through the Department's Standards Fund programme for drug education and prevention work. Eligible expenditure includes direct and associated costs of training teachers in schools. Further support of £7.5 million is to be made available through the Standards Fund for each of the next three years, following the Comprehensive Spending Review.

  The DfEE has also recently issued new drug education guidance for teachers and youth workers, on the effective delivery of drug education in schools and youth service settings, and on dealing with drug-related incidents. The guidance encourages schools to take note of best practice and assist them in developing and implementing their own drug education programmes and policies.

  New Deal (Gateway)
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list by region and 102
  up to the latest date for which the figures are available the numbers of young people leaving the New Deal for unsubsidised employment who have subsequently re-entered the Gateway, indicating the average time such people have spent in employment before returning to the Gateway. [63272]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 14 December 1998]: This information is not currently available as individuals who return to New Deal within 13 weeks resume where they left off. Information on the length and time spent on unsubsidised jobs will be available at a later stage from the longer-term evaluation of New Deal. Destination information published in the monthly statistical press notice is subsequently revised to reflect those returning to the New Deal Gateway before 13 weeks of employment.

  Departmental Communications
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many communications were sent by his Department to(a) primary schools, (b) secondary schools and (c) local education authorities in each month of 1998 for which details are available; and if he will list them specifying the subjects they covered. [63961]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 16 December 1998]: The Department sent 70 communications to primary schools and 73 communications to secondary schools in 1998. Most items were for information only. Since June 1998, schools have received material in regular batches which clearly indicate the priority of items. From 1 December, batches contain only: guidance on legal changes, curriculum development material on key strategies such as literacy and numeracy, data collection and 2-page summaries of documents on key policy issues.

  All communications to schools are also copied to the local education authority—in some cases there is action in these for both school and local education authority. In addition, local education authorities received 179 communications that were not sent also to schools. A list has been placed in the Library.

SCOTLAND

  Government Funding (Competitive Bidding)
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the schemes for competitive bidding for central Government funding by local authorities and voluntary organisations run by his Department in(a) 1998; (b) 1997 and (c) 1996, and the amounts of money involved and the number of successful and unsuccessful bids in each scheme in each year. [63560]

  Mr. McLeish
  [holding answer 15 December 1998]: The information is contained in the table.
  103

  Scheme

  Succesful bids

  Unsuccessful bids

  1996 Amount involved (£ million)

  Succesful bids

  Unsuccesful bids

  1997 Amount involved (£ million)

  Succesful bids

  Unsuccesful bids

  1998 Amount involved (£ million)

  Education

  Alternatives to Exclusion Grant Scheme

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  18

  14

  3.0

  School Rationalisation 1998–99

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  8

  8

  15.0

  Transport

  Transport Challenge Fund

  5

  7

  28.5

  9

  10

  29.7

  —

  —

  —

  Cycle Challenge Fund

  —

  —

  —

  37

  43

  0.650

  —

  —

  —

  Rural Community Transport Grant Scheme

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  10

  8

  0.340

  Urban Programme

  Programme for Partnership

  23

  27

  77.01

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Capital

  Central Challenge Fund2

  —

  —

  —

  19

  33

  16.1

  —

  —

  —

  PFI Level Playing Field Support

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  10

  13

  660.1

  Housing

  Empty Homes Initiative

  —

  —

  —

  33

  56

  2.0

  102

  86

  7.0

  Rough Sleepers Initiative

  —

  —

  —

  35

  39

  4.0

  37

  26

  5.0

  New Housing Partnership

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  27

  5

  34.6

  Health Care

  Mental Health Development Fund

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  22

  56

  1.578

  Local Care Partnership Scheme

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  12

  36

  0.554

  Social Work

  Section 10(1) of Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968

  135

  3—

  7.6

  112

  3 —

  7.4

  97

  3—

  7.0

  Ethnic Minority Grant Scheme

  4

  36

  0.200

  9

  23

  0.225

  6

  29

  0.275

  Transitional Fund (1996 only)

  275

  133

  3.5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Asylum Seekers Grant

  —

  —

  —

  13

  1

  0.631

  3—

  3—

  —

  1Over 3 years

  2Funding for 1997 bids staged over 2 years

  3Figures not yet available

  Birthweights
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the percentage of low birthweight

  Percentage of all live births and singleton live births which are low birthweight (less than 2,500g) by health board of residence 1,2 for years ending 31 March

  1996

  1997

  1998

  All live births

  Single live births

  All live births

  Single live births

  All live births

  Single live births

  Scotland

  6.9

  5.6

  6.9

  5.5

  6.8

  5.5

  Argyll & Clyde

  6.8

  5.2

  6.5

  5.6

  7.0

  5.6

  Ayrshire & Arran

  6.8

  5.1

  6.5

  5.2

  7.0

  5.5

  Borders

  5.7

  5.2

  6.7

  5.3

  5.3

  4.6

  Dumfries & Galloway

  6.3

  5.1

  6.6

  4.7

  6.1

  4.6

  Fife

  7.3

  5.7

  6.6

  5.4

  6.1

  5.1

  Forth Valley

  7.0

  5.7

  7.2

  5.2

  7.1

  5.3

  Grampian

  5.6

  4.7

  6.0

  4.9

  6.3

  5.2

  Greater Glasgow

  8.3

  6.8

  8.0

  6.7

  8.1

  6.7

  Highland

  6.4

  5.1

  6.0

  4.8

  5.6

  4.0

  Lanarkshire

  6.5

  5.3

  7.0

  5.6

  6.9

  5.6

  Lothian

  6.7

  5.4

  7.3

  5.8

  6.5

  5.1

  Orkney

  3.6

  3.7

  2.8

  1.5

  3.1

  2.1

  Shetland

  1.8

  1.8

  4.4

  3.3

  4.8

  3.1

  Tayside

  7.3

  5.9

  6.2

  4.7

  6.6

  5.6

  Western Isles

  4.5

  2.9

  2.1

  1.3

  4.0

  2.8

  1Excludes cases resident outwith Scotland and those where the health board of residence is not known

  2Excludes home births

  104
  live births in each Scottish health board area broken down by (a) single and (b) all live births for the last three years. [64425]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The information is as follows:

  EU Funding (Mining Areas)
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list(a) in total and (b) by project over £50,000 the amount of EU funding given to mining or former mining areas in (i) Fife, (ii) Ayrshire and (iii) East Lothian over the past five years. [64456]

  Mr. Macdonald
  [holding answer 17 December 1998]: The information on total European Structural Fund assistance is provided in the table. The individual project lists are extensive. I have arranged for them to be placed in the Library.

  £

  Area

  European Structural Funds Assistance (1 January 1994 to 31 December 1998 inclusive)

  Fife

  166,935,119

  Ayrshire

  133,149,607

  East Lothian

  1,590,675

  1These figures include a small number of projects where activity extends outwith the coalfield areas

  World Heritage Sites
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if the Joint Nature Conservation Committee was consulted on the proposal to nominate the Atlantic Frontier Continental Shelf as a world heritage site. [64412]

  £

  July 1997–December 1998

  1999–2000

  Replacing

  Upgrading

  Maintaining

  Replacing

  Upgrading

  Maintaining

  Security

  —

  33,000

  10,000

  —

  30,000

  8,000

  Heating

  —

  3,600

  215,898

  —

  5,000

  129,000

  Ventilation

  —

  9,600

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lighting

  10,000

  22,000

  28,450

  70,000

  41,000

  22,500

  Scottish Parliament
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of his Department's staff will be redeployed in the Scottish Parliament; and how many new staff are being recruited for the Scottish Parliament. [64454]

  Mr. McLeish
  [holding answer 17 December 1998]: Numbers have not yet been finalised. 172 posts in the Parliament have been advertised externally. 26 posts have been identified to be filled initially by Scottish Office staff on secondment to facilitate the transition from the set up to the operational phase.

  Ministerial Flights
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his letter to the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon of 2 December 1998 concerning ministerial use of RAF flights, if the term "average cost" refers to the average cost per passenger. [64735]

  Mr. Dewar
  The "average cost" refers to the average cost per trip and not average cost per passenger.
  106
  Mr. Macdonald
  We have sought advice from Scottish Natural Heritage on the merits of the proposal to nominate the Atlantic Frontier Continental Shelf as a World Heritage Site. I understand that, in framing their advice, Scottish Natural Heritage had discussions with the Joint Nature Conservation Committee.

  Scottish Office Building, Victoria Quay
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the expected costs up to the end of the financial year 1999–2000 of replacing, upgrading and maintaining security, heating and ventilation and lighting control systems in the Scottish Office building at Victoria Quay; what changes there have been in those estimates over the last 18 months; and what has been the annual cost of these since the building opened. [64457]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 17 December 1998]: The maintenance of security, heating, ventilation and lighting systems at Victoria Quay is carried out by SERCo Ltd. under contract to The Scottish Office. The information sought is not held by The Scottish Office in the form requested. SERCo have, however, provided figures which relate to their categorisation of expenditure and financial year.

  The table shows the expenditure on replacing, upgrading and maintaining the security, heating, ventilation and lighting systems over the 18 months to December 1998 and estimated expenditure for the calendar year 1999. There has been no change to estimates over the previous 18 months.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Construction Industry
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the impact on the construction industry of the rule that self-employed subcontractors in continual employment for 11 weeks must be regarded as employees. [64461]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  I am aware of no such rule.

  Redundancy Payments
  Liz Blackman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the average time taken by each Redundancy Pay Services Department office to process claims for redundancy payment in the last year for which figures are available. [64515]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  In the Financial Year 1998–99, to date, the average time taken by each Redundancy Payments Office to process claims for redundancy payments was nine weeks for the Birmingham Office and six weeks for both the Edinburgh and Watford Offices.
  107
  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will change the rules for compensatory payments in lieu of notice in cases where a firm becomes insolvent so that the ex-employee is paid the full amount to which they would have been entitled if they had been made redundant by a firm which was not insolvent. [64564]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  Payments in lieu of notice constitute damages for breach of an employee's contract, and the courts have established(Westwood -v- Secretary of State for Employment 1984) that they are subject to the common law principle of mitigation. This means that they may be reduced by income which the employee received, or could have received, during what should have been the notice period. Compensatory notice payments made on behalf of insolvent employers by my Department, under the Employment Rights Act 1996, are therefore calculated on the same basis. They are also subject to a statutory limit (currently £220 per week) which is reviewed annually. There are no plans to abolish the limit as the statutory scheme is intended to provide only a basic level of protection for former employees of insolvent companies. Amounts owed above the statutory limit stand as a debt in the insolvency proceedings.

  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the average time taken by the Edgbaston Redundancy Pay Services Department office to process claims for redundancy payment; and what is the equivalent time for each other office. [64568]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  In the Financial Year 1998/99, to date, the average time taken by the Redundancy Payments Office in Edgbaston, Birmingham, to process claims for redundancy payments was nine weeks. The equivalent time for both the Edinburgh and Watford Offices was six weeks.

  European Structural Funds
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what consultations he has undertaken in relation to the criteria for restructuring assistance under the European Regional Development Fund, European Social Fund and other funds. [64988]

  Mr. Wills
  I and my officials have undertaken a series of consultations with National bodies on all issues relating to the reform of European Structural Funds during the course of the negotiations. Consultations with local and regional organisations are organised by the Scottish Office, Northern Ireland Office, Welsh Office, by the DETR and the Government Offices in England.

  The information received from all these consultations is used by the Department of Trade and Industry in developing the UK's policy on the reform of the European Structural Funds.

  Motor Industry
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the number of people employed in the United Kingdom motor vehicle and parts industry(a) on the last date for which figures are available, (b) 10 years ago and (c) 20 years ago. [64843]

  Mr. Battle
  The number of people employed in the UK motor vehicle and parts industry as of September 1998 was 223,900. The figure for June 1988 was 244,100 and for June 1978 427,200 (source ONS, Labour Market Trends).

  Ministerial Flights
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the term "average cost", with reference to flights taken by Ministers in his Department, refers to the average cost per passenger. [64719]

  Mr. Byers
  The "average cost" refers to the average cost per trip and not average cost per passenger.

  Minimum Wage
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he plans to lay national minimum wage regulations before the House of Commons. [64766]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  I will present the national minimum wage regulations to the House for approval shortly.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received requesting an exemption for religious communities from the national minimum wage. [64767]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Government have received a number of representations requesting exemption for religious communities from the national minimum wage.

  Parental Leave
  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the implications of the introduction of parental leave for families on low incomes. [63203]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The introduction of a right to parental leave will provide more choice for employees with children in balancing work and family responsibilities. We will monitor the impact of the new provisions.

  British Activity Holiday Association
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if ministers in his Department will meet a deputation representing the British Activity Holiday Association. [65260]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  A deputation from the British Activity Holiday Association met my officials on 18 December.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Organophosphates
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the use of organophosphates in grain stores. [63993]

  Mr. Rooker
  All pesticides, including organophosphorus (OP) compounds for use in grain stores, are regulated under the Control of Pesticides Regulations 1986 or the Plant Protection Products Regulations 1995. Applicants wishing to gain approval for the use, sale, supply, storage and advertisement of such products are required to submit a substantive data package which is then subject to a rigorous assessment for safety and efficacy.

  Pesticide active ingredients are subject to review either for routine purposes or because there is a specific concern. In May 1998, I announced a UK review of anticholinesterase compounds (including OPs) which will re-assess the risk that the use of such products present to consumers, workers and the environment.

  The regulatory process includes an assessment of the effectiveness for use against the target pests for which approval and thus use is sought. Approval is only recommended if effectiveness is demonstrated. MAFF funded R&D has provided useful data by providing information about resistance to specific pesticides in farm and commercial grain stores. In 1996 the Advisory Committee on Pesticides concluded that information on the prevalence and control of resistant strains should be added to the labels of pesticides used in, amongst other areas, grain stores. This recommendation has been accepted by Ministers and implemented.

  Ministerial Address
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his e-mail address. [62568]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  My e-mail address for correspondence is c.corres@sec.maff.gov.uk.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Robert Jackson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list(a) the (i) task forces, (ii) review panels and (iii) advisory groups his Department has, (b) the remit of each and (c) the members of each together with their principal employment and their level of remuneration. [62816]

  Mr. Morley
  The following sets out the remit, membership and members' remuneration of Advisory Groups whose members are appointed by MAFF Ministers, reflecting membership as at 31 December 1998. The remuneration figures include attendance payments and payments for preparatory work. Reasonable expenses are payable for members' travel and subsistence costs; these are specific to each member and have therefore not been included. Details of members' principal employment could be provided only at a disproportionate cost.

  Neither the Ministry nor its Agencies have any Task Forces or Review Panels whose members are appointed by Ministers. However, there are several groups with flexible membership which have been formed either for a specific issue or on an on-going basis so that the Ministry may
  110
  involve industry and other interested parties in its processes. Attendance at meetings of these groups is voluntary and no remuneration or expenses are payable to those who attend. Attendance is apt to change from meeting to meeting, therefore details of these groups have not been given.

  Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes
  To advise Health and Agriculture Ministers of Great Britain and Heads of the Departments of Health and Social Services for Northern Ireland on matters relating to the irradiation of food or the manufacture of novel foods or foods produced by novel processes, having regard to the views of relevant expert bodies.

  £per meeting

  Prof. Peter John Aggett

  Member

  138

  Prof. Janet Mary Bainbridge

  Chairperson

  176

  Prof. Charles Brown

  Member

  138

  Dr. Philip John Dale

  Member

  138

  Dr. Michael J. Gasson

  Member

  138

  Dr. John Heritage

  Member

  138

  Prof. David Arthur Ledward

  Member

  138

  Reverend Dr. Michael Jonathan Reiss

  Member

  138

  Prof. Ian Rowland

  Member

  138

  Mrs. E. Russell

  Member

  138

  Prof. Thomas Andrew Bruce Sanders

  Member

  138

  Prof. Herbert Sewell

  Member

  138

  Dr. Norman Alan Simmons

  Member

  138

  Prof. Ronald Walker

  Member

  138

  Prof. H. F. Woods

  Member

  138

  Advisory Committee on Pesticides
  To advise Ministers, either when requested to do so or otherwise, on any matters relating to the control of pests including the safety of pesticides in respect of people, animals, crops and the environment.

  £ per meeting

  Prof. Sir Colin Leonard Berry

  Chairperson

  175

  Prof. Alan Boobis

  Member

  138

  Mrs. Elaine Prosser Brown

  Member

  138

  Prof. Peter Calow

  Member

  138

  Dr. Andree Denise Carter

  Member

  138

  Prof. David N. M. Coggon

  Member

  138

  Prof. Donald L. Lee

  Member

  138

  Mr. Jim Orson

  Member

  138

  Mrs. Sylvia Mary Owen

  Member

  138

  Dr. Alexander Thompson Proudfoot

  Member

  138

  Prof. Thomas Michael Roberts

  Member

  138

  Prof. Geoffrey Roger Sagar CBE

  Deputy Chairperson

  138

  Prof. Ian C. Shaw

  Member

  138

  Dr. Colin A. Soutar

  Member

  138

  Prof. Paul Webster

  Member

  138

  111
  Agricultural Dwelling House Advisory Committees
  To advise housing authorities on the agricultural need and urgency when a farmer asks the authority to re-house an ex-employee, because he needs the accommodation for an incoming worker. An ADHAC is formed to deal with each individual case. When an ADHAC is formed, a Chair is chosen from amongst the members.

  £ per day

  Anglia Region

  Mr. Christopher J. Barker

  Member

  86

  Mr. A. F. Felstead

  Member

  86

  Ms Jeanette Irene Firrell

  Member

  86

  Mr. C. Gillot

  Member

  86

  Mr. M. J. Harrison

  Member

  86

  Mr. Edward Thomas Kirby

  Member

  86

  Mr. A. W. J. Langford

  Member

  86

  Mr. Peter G. Scates

  Member

  86

  East Midlands Region

  Mr. B. J. Clayton

  Member

  86

  Miss Emma J. Huntsman

  Member

  86

  Mr. Thomas Anthony Twigg

  Member

  86

  Mr. A. R. Wylde

  Member

  86

  North Eastern Region

  Mr. Derek R. Gardner

  Member

  86

  Mr. Kenneth Graham

  Member

  86

  South Mercia Region

  Mr. Raymond Druett

  Member

  86

  Mr. C. Patrick Love

  Member

  85

  Mrs. Evelyn Mary Milton

  Member

  86

  Mr. Glyn Nicholas

  Member

  86

  Mrs. Joyce E. Thomas

  Member

  86

  Mr. Roger Bailey Weaver

  Member

  86

  Wessex Region

  Mr. George R. Bartaby

  Member

  86

  Mr. G. C. Clifton

  Member

  86

  Mr. K. A. Parsons

  Member

  86

  Committee of Investigation for Great Britain
  To consider and report to the Minister, if the Minister concerned with agriculture in the area effected directs, on; (i) any report made by the appropriate Consumers' Committee appointed under section 19 of the Agricultural Marketing Act 1958, (ii) any complaints made to the Minister as to the operation of a marketing scheme applicable to England and Wales, to Great Britain or to the United Kingdom which, in the opinion of the Minister, could not be considered by a Consumers' Committee, (iii) any question referred to the Minister under section 20(3) of the 1958 Act, which deals with directions that may be given by the Minister to Marketing Boards.

  £ per day

  Mr. Raymond Harris

  Member

  130

  Mr. Hugh Humphreys-Jones

  Member

  130

  Mrs. Rowena Lawrence-Mills Bsc

  Member

  130

  Dame Sheila Masters CBE

  Member

  130

  Mrs. Eileen Masterman

  Member

  130

  Mrs. Suzan Matthews QC

  Chairperson

  253

  Mr. Denis G. G. Moloney LLB

  Member

  130

  Consumers Committee for Great Britain
  To consider and report to the Minister on:

  (i) the effect of Agricultural Marketing Schemes (now only wool) on consumers.

  112

  (ii) any complaints made to the Committees, on the schemes by consumers.

  Name

  Mrs. Dorothy Cockerell

  Member

  Expenses only

  Mrs. Barbara L. M. Hawkins

  Member

  Expenses only

  Mrs. Janet Laurence

  Chairperson

  Expenses only

  Mr. John Murphy

  Member

  Expenses only

  Mrs. Joy Roberts

  Member

  Expenses only

  Mrs. Marjorie Snowden

  Member

  Expenses only

  Mr. Gilbert Tracy

  Member

  Expenses only

  Consumer Panel
  To bring to the attention of Ministers food issues of concern to consumers; to advise on the transparency for consumers of Ministers food policies; to advise on the transmission to consumers of advice and information relating to Ministers' policies.

  £ per meeting

  MAFF Minister of State, Mr. Rooker

  Chairperson

  Nil

  Mrs. Susan Baker

  Member

  139

  Dr. John Godfrey

  Member

  139

  Mr. John Keith Hosker

  Member

  139

  Miss Jane Lloyd Hughes

  Member

  139

  Mrs. Mary H. Kidd JP

  Member

  139

  Mrs. Janet Laurence

  Member

  139

  Ms Eva Lewis

  Member

  139

  Ms Jacqueline Salfield

  Member

  139

  Mrs. Phyllis M. Sluice

  Member

  139

  Dr. Jane Wilde

  Member

  139

  An additional fee of £28 is payable for writing papers which are discussed in meetings.

  Farm Animal Welfare Council
  To keep under review the welfare of farm animals on agricultural land, at markets, in transit and at place of slaughter, and to advise Agriculture Ministers of any legislative or other changes that may be necessary.

  £ per meeting

  Prof. Mike Baxter

  Member

  111

  Mrs. Rosemary Berry

  Member

  111

  Mr. Glenn Berry

  Member

  111

  Prof. Donald M. Broom

  Member

  111

  Prof. Stephen R. L. Clark

  Member

  111

  Mr. John A. C. Don

  Member

  111

  Dr. Peter Roderick English

  Member

  111

  Mr. Tim Charles Harris

  Member

  111

  Ms Vicki Hird

  Member

  111

  Mr. Gareth Jones Lloyd

  Member

  111

  Mr. Anthony Robin Lucas

  Member

  111

  Mrs. Judy Macarthur Clark

  Member

  111

  Mr. Richard Maunder

  Member

  111

  Prof. John Peter McInerney OBE

  Member

  111

  Miss Miriam Jane Parker

  Member

  111

  Dr. Mark Pattison

  Member

  111

  Dr. Martin James Potter

  Member

  111

  Mr. Francis Edward Shields OBE

  Member

  111

  Prof. Sir Colin Raymond William Speeding CBE

  Chairperson

  176

  Mr. Paul Staines MBE

  Member

  111

  Mrs. Josephine Margaret Turnbull

  Member

  111

  Mr. Mike Vaughan

  Member

  111

  Dr. Agnes Winter

  Member

  111

  113
  Food Advisory Committee
  To assess the risks to humans of chemicals which are used in or on food and to advise Ministers on the exercise of powers in the Food Safety Act 1990 relating to the labelling, composition and chemical safety of food. The Committee will also advise Ministers on general matters relating to food safety. In exercising its functions the Food Advisory Committee will take the advice and work of the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (COT), the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes (ACNFP), the Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food (ACMSF) and other relevant advisory committees into account.

  £ per meeting

  Mrs. Matti Alderson

  Member

  138

  Prof. Sir Colin Murray Campbell

  Chairperson

  176

  Mr. Neville Craddock

  Member

  138

  Mrs. Dorothy Craig

  Member

  138

  Dr. E. Maureen S. Edmonson

  Member

  138

  Prof. Catherine Geissler

  Member

  138

  Dr. Catherine Humphries

  Member

  138

  Dr. Christopher Llewelyn

  Member

  138

  Prof. Alan Malcolm

  Member

  138

  Mr. Roger Manley

  Deputy Chairperson

  138

  Dr. Charles McDonald

  Member

  138

  Mr. Thomas Miller

  Member

  138

  Prof. Christopher Ritson

  Member

  138

  Prof. Susan Shaw

  Member

  138

  Mr. Philip William Strachan

  Member

  138

  Prof. H. Frank Woods

  Member

  138

  Hill Fanning Advisory Committee for England, Wales and Northern Ireland
  To advise on any hill farming matters referred to them by the Minister and the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Name

  MAFF Parliamentary Secretary, Mr. Morley

  Chairperson

  Nil

  Mr. Edmund S. Bailey

  Member

  Expenses only

  Mr. Richard Betton

  Member

  Expenses only

  Mr. William John Cockbain

  Member

  Expenses only

  Mr. Philip Henry Cornelius

  Member

  Expenses only

  Mrs. Esther Baddeley Cummins

  Member

  Expenses only

  Mrs. Joyce Gilman

  Member

  Expenses only

  Mrs. Elizabeth Ann Hayton

  Member

  Expenses only

  Mr. Patrick J. Kelly

  Member

  Expenses only

  Mr. Cyril Stobart Lewis

  Member

  Expenses only

  Mrs. Rosemary Ann Mudge

  Member

  Expenses only

  Mr. Colin Passmore

  Member

  Expenses only

  Mr. David Pearson

  Member

  Expenses only

  Mr. T. D. Prince

  Member

  Expenses only

  Mr. Hugh Robert Thomas

  Member

  Expenses only

  Mr. John Vaughan

  Deputy Chairperson

  Expenses only

  Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee
  To provide scientifically-based advice to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Department of Health and territorial departments on matters relating to spongiform encephalopathies, taking due account of the remit of other bodies with related responsibilities.

  £ per day

  Prof. Adriano Aguzzi

  Member

  186

  Prof. Jeffrey William Almond

  Member

  186

  Prof. Roy Anderson FRS

  Member

  186

  114

  £ per day

  Mr. Christopher Bostock

  Member

  186

  Mr. Raymond Bradley OBE

  Member

  186

  Prof. Fred Brown

  Member

  186

  Prof. John Collinge

  Member

  186

  Prof. Anne Ferguson

  Member

  186

  Dr. Peter N. Goodfellow FRS

  Member

  186

  Prof. William D. Hueston

  Member

  186

  Prof. Harriet Kimbell MBE

  Member

  186

  Dr. Richard Henry Kimberlin OBE

  Member

  186

  Dr. Michael John Painter

  Member

  186

  Prof. Sir John Ridley Pattison

  Chairperson

  218

  Mr. David Barton Pepper

  Member

  186

  Prof. Peter George Smith

  Member

  186

  Dr. William Albert Watson CB

  Member

  186

  Dr. Robert George Will

  Deputy Chairperson

  186

  Sugar Beet Research and Education Committee
  Under section 68 of the Food Act 1984, as amended by the Food Safety Act 1990.
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for Wales are required to prepare, each year after consultation with the sugar beet processors and growers, a programme for carrying out research and education in matters affecting the growing of home grown sugar beet.
  The Act also provides for the programme to be brought into effect by means of an order, and to be financed by a levy on the producers and growers.

  £ per meeting

  Dr. Michael J. Armstrong

  Member

  155

  Mr. Melvyn Frank Askew

  Member

  155

  Dr. David James Carmichael

  Member

  155

  Mr. Christopher Robert Arthur Carter

  Member

  155

  Mr. Hugh Roger Dyas

  Chairperson

  181

  Prof. John H. R. Hoyles

  Member

  155

  Prof. Roger Plumb

  Member

  155

  Veterinary Products Committee
  To give advice with respect to safety, quality and efficacy in relation to the veterinary use of any substance or article (not being an instrument, apparatus or appliance) to which any provision of the Medicines Act is applicable. To promote the collection of information relating to suspected adverse reactions for the purpose of enabling such advice to be given.

  £ per day

  Prof. Ian Douglas Aitken OBE

  Chairperson

  210

  Dr. David Nicholas Bateman

  Member

  165

  Dr. Arnold S. Cooke

  Member

  165

  Prof. Anthony Dayan

  Member

  165

  Prof. Rosalind Margaret Gaskell

  Member

  165

  Prof. George Gettinby

  Member

  165

  Mrs. S. Janet Graham

  Member

  165

  Prof. J. Harrington CBE

  Member

  165

  Prof. Charles Anthony Hart

  Member

  165

  Dr. R. J. Heitzman

  Member

  165

  Dr. Michael H. Jepson

  Member

  165

  Prof. Karl A. Linklater

  Member

  165

  Dr. W. J. McCaughey

  Member

  165

  Prof. Quentin McKellar

  Member

  165

  Prof. Andrea Mary Nolan

  Member

  165

  Dr. Mark Pattison

  Member

  165

  Mrs. Susan Pauline Payne

  Member

  165

  Dr. Christopher J. Powell

  Member

  165

  Prof. Randolph Harvey Richards

  Member

  165

  115

  £ per day

  Mr. David Skilton

  Member

  165

  Prof. Howard Norman Ernest Stevens

  Member

  165

  Mr. Richard Arthur Wickham

  Member

  165

  Dr. David Fergusson Wishart

  Member

  165

  Independent Scientific Group on Cattle Tuberculosis
  To advise Ministers on implementation of the Krebs Report on bovine TB in cattle and badgers by:
  overseeing the design and analysis of the randomised trial to test the effectiveness of badger culling as a means of controlling bovine TB;
  regularly monitoring the progress of, and outputs from, the experiment and assessing any important differences in results between treatments;
  monitoring the data on Bovine TB in areas and species outside the experiment;
  reporting to Ministers on progress; and
  advising, as requested, on related issues.

  £per hour

  Prof. John Bourne MRCVS, CBE

  Chairperson

  25.70

  Dr. Christi Donnelly

  Deputy Chairperson

  21.25

  Sir David Cox FBA, FRS

  Member

  21.25

  Prof. George Gettinby FRSE

  Member

  21.25

  Prof. Ivan Morrison FRSE

  Member

  21.25

  Institute for Animal Health

  Member

  21.25

  Dr. Rosie Woodroffe

  Member

  21.25

  Prof. John McInerney OBE, FRSA1

  Member

  21.25

  1Co-opted member

  The Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Review Group
  To review existing policies and legislation in England and Wales concerning the management and conservation of salmon, trout, eels and freshwater fish and make recommendations. The review and recommendations should take particular account of:
  the need to maintain, and where appropriate enhance, biodiversity;
  the need to maximise the economic, social and recreational benefits derived from salmon and freshwater fisheries, taking account both of the interests of local communities and local factors and traditions;
  the need for management of fisheries to be on a fully sustainable basis, taking account of the precautionary approach.
  The review should also consider other factors that may affect the development and sustainability of these fisheries.
  The review should examine the institutional arrangements for the regulation and management of these fisheries (including the role of the public sector, the need to involve all interested parties, and arrangements in tidal and coastal waters) and how best such arrangements can be funded.

  Name

  Prof. Lynda Warren

  Chairperson

  Expenses only

  Dr. Nick Giles

  Member

  Expenses only

  Mr. John Golding

  Member

  Expenses only

  Dr. Keith Hendry

  Member

  Expenses only

  Mr. Derek Heselton MBE

  Member

  Expenses only

  Mr. David Hodgkiss

  Member

  Expenses only

  Mrs. Jean Howman

  Member

  Expenses only

  Mrs Jane James

  Member

  Expenses only

  Dr. Mike Ladle

  Member

  Expenses only

  Mr. Frank Lythgoe

  Member

  Expenses only

  Mr. David Moore

  Member

  Expenses only

  116

  Name

  Mr. Mervyn Mountjoy

  Member

  Expenses only

  Mr. Pat O'Reilly

  Member

  Expenses only

  Mr. Stanley Payne

  Member

  Expenses only

  Dr. Anne Powell

  Member

  Expenses only

  Mr. John Williams

  Member

  Expenses only

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the principal changes which he will be seeking in his discussions with EU ministers on CAP reforms. [63340]

  Mr. Rooker
  We are seeking the gradual reduction and eventual phasing out of price and production-related agricultural support.

  We are also pushing for part of the savings from such a reduction in production support to be directed to measures which will protect and enhance the environment and help the rural economy adjust, particularly in more fragile rural areas.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the purpose of his visit to Welshpool on 7 December. [63407]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  To visit the market, and to meet with farmers, their representatives, and other members of the rural community.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many official visits(a) he and (b) the ministers in his Department have made to Buckinghamshire since 2 May 1997; and if he will list them. [64136]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  One. My hon. Friend the Minister of State gave an address at Buckinghamshire University on 26 June 1998.

  Comprehensive Spending Review
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much of the Comprehensive Spending Review moneys allocated to his Department has been allocated for the financial years (i) 1999–2000, (ii) 2000–01 and (iii) 2001–02. [63520]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 14 December 1998]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) on 27 October 1998, Official Report, columns 156–58.

  Fisheries
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to ensure an equality of fisheries monitoring and enforcement work across EU fishing nations. [64164]

  Mr. Morley
  Effective enforcement of measures to conserve fish stocks, applied consistently throughout the Community, is a high priority for this Government. It was one of the main issues we focused on during our Presidency and as a result of our initiative new measures
  117
  were adopted at the Fisheries Council in December 1998 which will improve fisheries control and enforcement in all Member States.

  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on how many occasions British fisheries officers have visited fisheries enforcement officers of other EU nations in the last three years; and what reciprocal visits have taken place. [64163]

  Mr. Morley
  Since 1996 there have been some 20 occasions on which British Sea Fishery Officers employed by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency and the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland have made official visits to other Member States. There have been 6 visits to the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has for future decommissioning schemes for the British fishing fleet. [64166]

  Mr. Morley
  I have already announced that, following our Comprehensive Spending Review, we will be making a total of £10.5 million available over the three years from 1999–2000 for a limited decommissioning scheme aimed primarily at those fleet segments where effort control is not an option under MAGP IV. I hope to be able to bring detailed proposals before the House early in the New Year.

  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment his Department has made of the impact of decommissioning schemes in the last three years on the British fleet in terms of its(a) average age, (b) numbers of vessels, (c) overall effort of fleet, (d) effort of fleet by sector and (e) number of vessels by port; and if he will make a statement. [64165]

  Mr. Morley
  In the last 3 years, decommissioning schemes have removed 385 vessels, representing 11,802.28 tonnes, or approximately 5.5 per cent. of the fleet in capacity terms.

  The effort of this on the average age of the fleet is difficult to determine because of other variables involved, for example vessels leaving the fleet through natural wastage, sales to third counties, licence aggregations resulting in replacement vessels entering the fleet etc.

  There are similar issues in relation to the effect of decommissioning on fishing effort (which is the product of capacity, measured as vessel tonnage and engine power, and time spent at sea). In the absence of controls on time at sea under MAGP III, vessels remaining in the fleet were free to adjust their fishing patterns in response to circumstances and total fleet effort showed only a small decline in this period. Under MAGP IV arrangements, effective from the beginning of 1998, the UK has explicit fishing effort targets for most of the major fleet segments and is currently conforming with these. Full details of these targets, and of UK outturn by segment and in total against MAGP III capacity targets are set out in Commission Decision 98/124/EC.

  Further information on the impact of the four decommissioning rounds in the period 1993–1996 is contained in the September 1997 Economic Evaluation of the Fishing Vessels (Decommissioning) Schemes commissioned by UK Fisheries Departments from
  118
  Nautilus Consultants, copies of which are available in the House Library and on the internet. This includes specific information on vessel numbers by port, age and type of vessels decommissioned etc.

  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment his Department has made of the merits of individual transferable quotas; and what plans he has to introduce such quotas to the United Kingdom fishing fleet. [64162]

  Mr. Morley
  Experience elsewhere has so far suggested that individual transferable quotas (ITQs) work best in single species fisheries or where stocks are under the jurisdiction of a single authority, though even in these cases they can lead to significant increases in enforcement costs, which are often passed on to the fishermen concerned in the form of licence charges. I am not currently aware of their successful use in the kinds of mixed fisheries typical of EU waters, or in situations where vessels of many countries fish the same stocks.

  I do not therefore have any plans to introduce ITQs for the UK fleet, but remain willing to consider any viable option for improving fisheries management.

  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on what basis(a) he and (b) his Department's fisheries scientists calculated the effect of the precautionary principle for the purposes of negotiating the setting of the total allowable catches for 1999. [64157]

  Mr. Morley
  Over the last two years the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) has been developing a new precautionary framework to its annual advice on total allowable catches (TACs) for fish stocks. UK fisheries scientists have contributed to this work. Reflecting progress made, this year's advice contains explicit suggested precautionary reference points in terms of spawning stock biomass and fishing mortality. Further work is needed to refine and develop the application of the precautionary approach but UK Ministers have taken account of ICES' suggested reference points in developing the United Kingdom's approach to the setting of 1999 TACs.

  BSE Inquiry
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many witnesses who have given evidence to the BSE Inquiry now work for(a) public sector agencies other than under his Department and (b) private sector employees. [64077]

  Mr. Rooker
  Of the 66 witnesses who are serving or former MAFF officials, two now work for non-MAFF public sector agencies and five are employed within the private sector.

  Ethnic Monitoring
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to include Irish as a category in his Department's ethnic monitoring of staff recruitment. [63883]

  Mr. Morley
  The over-riding principle of Civil Service recruitment procedures is that they should be fair and selection should be on merit at each stage.
  119
  Monitoring in this area is based on ethnic origin and not nationality. The ethnic origin categories monitored by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food are those used in the 1991 census, which did not include an Irish category. They will be reviewed in the light of any suggested changes for the 2001 Population Census.

  Antibiotics
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 7 December 1998,Official Report, column 103, what assessment he has made of the proposal from the European Commission to ban the use of four antibiotic growth promoters from 1 January 1999. [64123]

  Mr. Rooker
  The proposal was put to the Council of Agriculture Ministers on 14 December 1998. We supported the proposal, which is designed to reduce the risk of the build up of microbial resistance to antibiotics in animals and man. It was possible that the abrupt introduction of the ban would adversely affect animal health and welfare, leading to an unnecessary increase in the use of therapeutic antibiotics. The ban will not therefore come into effect until 1 July 1999, giving livestock producers time to adapt to the loss of the four growth promoters. The proposal, as agreed, is in line with advice the Government have received from the Chairman of the Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food (ACMSF) and the Veterinary Products Committee that the use of antibiotics which may impair the efficacy of prescribed therapeutic antibiotics used in human medicine through the development of resistant strains of organisms should be phased out.

  Monsanto
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what matters were discussed at the meetings held between Ministers and Monsanto on(a) 29 June 1998 and (b) 15 July 1998. [63385]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 15 December 1998]: These were private meetings at which matters relevant to both MAFF and Monsanto were discussed.

  Growth Hormones
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received on the EU moratorium on the use of the BST growth hormone in dairy cattle; and if it is his policy to maintain the moratorium. [64224]

  Mr. Rooker
  Various representations have been made concerning the use of BST including some from members of the public in official correspondence. Also, new scientific information has been published which will be considered by a sub-group of the independent scientific Veterinary Products Committee (VPC). Once the information has been considered, we will be guided by the advice of the VPC in discussions on the future of the Community moratorium.

  American Sugar
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received 120
  concerning the level of import levy on American sugar; for what reasons it is set at its current level; and when the level was last changed. [64236]

  Mr. Rooker
  I have not received any representations about the level of the EU import tariff on American sugar. The current level was set as part of the EU's obligations agreed under the Uruguay Round of world trade negotiations concluded in 1994. Under these obligations the level of import tariff is reduced annually from 1995–2000 (a total reduction of 20 per cent.). In addition to this tariff the EU can, when the import price falls below an agreed level, apply an additional safeguard duty to protect EU producers. The most recent change in the safeguard duty for white sugar was on 2 December 1998.

  Kashmir Bee Virus
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the risk of import of Kashmir Bee virus through infected bee packages from New Zealand. [64250]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Central Science Laboratory's National Bee Unit is currently conducting a risk assessment exercise relating to the import of bees and specifically to the risk of introducing Kashmir Bee virus from New Zealand.

  A decision on whether to allow the import of bee packages will not be taken until the results of this assessment are available.

  Animal Products
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what powers the EU has under existing bilateral and multilateral trade agreements to enforce harmonised community rules in third countries. [64282]

  Mr. Rooker
  The World Trade Organisation (WTO) Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures gives members, including the European Community, the right to take measures necessary for the protection of human, animal or plant life or health which are based on scientific principles and which do not arbitrarily or unjustifiably discriminate between members where identical or similar conditions prevail. The Community's import requirements for animal products, which seek to ensure that imports are produced to at least the same standard as Community production, are an example of such measures.

  In accordance with the provisions on recognition of equivalence in the WTO Agreement, the Community has entered into specific bilateral agreements with certain third countries which formally recognise that their respective systems of sanitary measures are intended to provide similar health assurances. These agreements, such as the Agreement between the European Community and the USA on sanitary measures to protect public and animal health in trade in live animals and animal products, include provisions enabling both parties to verify compliance by way of on-site checks and inspections.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the occasions in the last 10 years when a guarantee offered by a third country with
  121
  regard to compliance with Community rules regarding the importation of fresh meat or meat products subsequently proved ineffective. [64285]

  Mr. Rooker
  This information is not available. However, figures provided by the European Commission on the checks carried out at Border Inspection Posts in 10 Member States in the first half of 1997 show that 3.69 per cent. of consignments of fresh meat, including offal, and meat products and 2.00 per cent. of poultry meat and poultry meat products were rejected on arrival. In the period 1 January to 30 September 1998, 1.5 per cent. of consignments of animal products of all types were rejected at UK Border Inspection Posts. Not all rejections are due to non-compliance with standards of production in the country of origin.

  Meat Hygiene Service
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for what reasons he has not abated the standard charge for Meat Hygiene Service services to abattoirs as provided for in the Council Directive 85/73/EEC (as amended). [64283]

  Mr. Rooker
  In appropriate cases, the Meat Hygiene Service abates the standard charge for hygiene inspections down to the level at which the actual costs of such inspections are recovered, subject to a maximum abatement of 55 per cent. in line with Directive 85/73/EEC (as amended).

  Farm Bankruptcies
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many farmers in England and Wales have been declared bankrupt since 1 January. [64294]

  Mr. Rooker
  Figures for bankruptcies in the agricultural sector are available for the first six months of 1998. These, together with the corresponding figures for 1997, are given in the table.

  Bankruptcies in the agricultural and horticultural sectors (England and Wales)

  11998

  11997

  Bankruptcies of Self-employed Individuals

  71

  88

  Company Insolvencies (including partnerships)

  30

  23

  Total

  101

  111

  1January—June

  Source:

  Department of Trade and Industry

  Farm Subsidies
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the current arrangements for the payment in euros of CAP farm subsidies for those member states which are not adopting the single currency. [64634]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Agriculture Council held in Brussels on 14 and 15 December 1998 reached agreement on agrimonetary arrangements following the introduction of the Single Currency on 1 January 1999. As my right hon. Friend indicated in his answer of 26 October 1998, these arrangements include improved general provisions for those Member States not joining the Single Currency on 1 January 1999 to make CAP payments in euros. There 122
  are no detailed provisions; each Member State's proposed payment scheme would be subject to the European Commission's agreement.

  My right hon. Friend announced on 12 November 1998 his intention to make available an option for payments of market support measures, such as export refunds and intervention buying, in euros by autumn 2000. No other Member State outside the single currency has so far announced its intention to make this option available.

  My officials are now in the process of working out the detailed provisions for a euro payment scheme, which we will then discuss with the Commission.

  Export Scheme Agreement
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what procedures are in place to ensure that EU inspectors visit the United Kingdom to complete the Date Based Export Scheme Agreement. [64495]

  Mr. Rooker
  Commission Decision 98/692/EC on the Date-based Export Scheme (DBES) requires the European Commission to carry out an inspection of the UK's procedures for implementing the provisions of the Scheme and progress with the offspring cull. If they are satisfied they will then set a date from which exports under the Scheme can begin. The Decision requires us first to have slaughtered offspring of BSE cases confirmed before 25 November 1998 (the date of adoption of the Decision). We have laid before Parliament the necessary legislation for the offspring cull and aim to have fulfilled the Decision requirement by the end of March.

  Tallow
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made in encouraging EU inspectors to visit rendering plants to inspect the production of tallow in accordance with the Florence Agreement of 1996. [64494]

  Mr. Rooker
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) on 17 December 1998,Official Report, column 663.

  Dead Stock
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he was to improve traceability of dead stock, with particular reference to that(a) buried on farms, (b) sold to knackers' yards and (c) given to hunts. [64496]

  Mr. Rooker
  There is no legal requirement for records to be kept of on-farm burial although the Water Code issued by the Department and the Welsh Office recommends that farmers should keep a field plan of the burial site and records of the dates of burial and the number and type of livestock buried.

  Under the Animal By-Products Order 1992, as amended, anyone consigning fallen stock to a knacker's year or hunt kennel must keep a record of each consignment and ensure that identifying documentation accompanies it during transport. Knackers' yards and hunt kennels must also keep records of all incoming

  123
  consignments of carcases or parts of carcases and the use to which they were put. There are no proposals to alter these requirements.

  Agriculture Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the Agriculture Council held in Brussels on 14 and 15 December; and if he will make a statement. [64491]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Quinn) on 17 December 1998,Official Report, columns 661–62.

  Fisheries Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the Fisheries Council held in Brussels on 17 and 18 December; and if he will make a statement. [65071]

  Mr. Morley
  I represented the United Kingdom at a meeting of the EU Fisheries Council in Brussels on 17 and 18 December. My noble Friends Lord Sewel, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Scottish Office, and Lord Dubs, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Northern Ireland Office, were also present.

  The Council agreed unanimously, with Italy abstaining, the total allowable catches (TACs) and quotas to apply in 1999 in Community waters. Details of the final TACs are in the following table. In some cases, there are significant reductions compared with 1998; in other cases, the final figures are higher than the Commission's proposals or the 1998 TACs; in all cases, the UK sought a balance between the need to be cautious in the management of stocks for their long-term benefit and the need to take account of the practical realities for fishermen and short-term socio-economic pressures on them. At the end of the negotiations, the total UK quotas agreed were some 57,000 tonnes higher in cod equivalent terms than the quotas being discussed at the start of the negotiations. This increase is worth some £30 million to the industry, although overall there has been a net year-on-year reduction in fishing opportunities in order to conserve stocks for the future.

  I invoked The Hague Preference on all the stocks where it was necessary to do so.

  A particularly welcome part of the package was the securing of additional quota to catch haddock in the Irish Sea, reflecting the upsurge of fish in this area. As a result of close co-operation with the Irish Republic, we secured an additional 2,400 tonnes of quota for UK Irish Sea fishermen which will be especially beneficial in Northern Ireland.

  We were also very pleased to secure as part of the package the separation of the small Shetland coastal sandeel fishery from the North Sea sandeel TAC and helpful Commission statements on two UK initiatives: a Commission commitment to propose the introduction of a new TAC for dogfish and a commitment to respond to concern about the effects of sandeel fishing on birds and other wildlife.
  124
  Separately from the main TACs package, the Council agreed by qualified majority, with Italy and Greece opposed, 1999 TACs for bluefin tuna and swordfish. These retain small unallocated quotas to cover incidental by-catches by the UK and other northern countries.

  The Council agreed unanimously to eighteen regulations covering 1999 international fisheries arrangements: between the Community and Norway, Faroes, Greenland, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland and Russia; and under the North West Atlantic Fisheries Organisation and the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission. These all reflected negotiations completed in the previous weeks and, in cases where the UK has a direct interest, safeguarded that interest.

  Following the substantial progress made at its last meeting, the Council unanimously adopted a regulation amending fisheries control and enforcement rules. These will strengthen control arrangements throughout the fisheries sector in line with UK objectives, including more effective monitoring of Third Country vessels, improved transparency of enforcement activity, increased co-operation among Member States and reinforcement of the UK's national rules on designated ports.

  The Council agreed by qualified majority, with Belgium, France and Spain voting against, some limited amendments to 1998 autonomous tariff quotas and tariff suspensions for 1999. These measures help to maintain the competitiveness of the processing industry by giving them access, at reduced rates of duty, to raw material that Community fishermen cannot supply.

  Stock

  1998 TAC (tonnes)

  1999 TAC (tonnes)

  Gain/loss %

  Sandeels IIa, IV

  1,000,000

  1,000,000

  0

  Herring I, II

  1,300,000

  1,300,000

  0

  Herring IVa, b

  229,000

  240,000

  5

  Herring IVc, VIId

  25,000

  25,000

  0

  Herring Vb, VIaN, VIb

  80,370

  68,000

  -15

  Herring VIa (Clyde)

  1,000

  1,000

  0

  Herring VIIa

  9,000

  6,600

  -27

  Herring VIIe, f

  1,000

  1,000

  0

  Herring VIIg-k

  22,200

  21,000

  -5

  Herring IIa, IV Ind. by-catch

  22,000

  30,000

  36

  Cod IIa, IV

  140,000

  132,400

  -5

  Cod Vb, VI, XII, XIV

  11,000

  11,800

  7

  Cod VIIa

  7,100

  5,500

  -23

  Cod VIIb-k, VIII, IX, X

  20,000

  19,000

  -5

  Megrim IIa, IV

  3,000

  3,000

  0

  Megrim Vb, VI, XII, XIV

  4,840

  4,840

  0

  Megrim VII

  22,400

  22,400

  0

  Dab&Flounder IIa, IV

  30,070

  30,070

  0

  Anglers IIa, IV

  22,070

  22,070

  0

  Anglers Vb, VI, XII, XIV

  8,600

  8,600

  0

  Anglers VII

  26,670

  26,670

  0

  Haddock IIa, IV

  115,000

  88,550

  -23

  Haddock Vb, VI, XII, XIV

  25,700

  19,000

  -26

  Haddock VII, VIII, IX, X

  20,000

  22,000

  10

  Haddock VIIa

  0

  5,000

  —

  Whiting IIa, IV

  60,000

  44,000

  -27

  Whiting Vb, VI, XII, XIV

  9,000

  6,300

  -30

  Whiting VIIa

  5,000

  4,400

  -12

  Whiting VIIb-k

  27,000

  25,000

  -7

  125

  Stock

  1998 TAC (tonnes)

  1999 TAC (tonnes)

  Gain/loss %

  Hake IIa, IV

  2,070

  1,930

  -7

  Hake Vb, VI, VII, XII, XIV

  33,160

  30,910

  -7

  Lemon sole & witch IIa, IV

  12,000

  12,000

  0

  Blue whiting IIa NS

  90,000

  90,000

  0

  Nephrops IIa, IV

  15,200

  15,200

  0

  Nephrops Vb, VI

  12,600

  12,600

  0

  Nephrops VII

  23,000

  23,000

  0

  Plaice IIa, IV

  87,000

  102,000

  17

  Plaice Vb, VI, XII, XIV

  2,400

  2,400

  0

  Plaice VIIa

  2,400

  2,400

  0

  Plaice VIId, e

  5,700

  7,400

  30

  Plaice VIIf, g

  1,100

  900

  -18

  Plaice VIIh,j,k

  1,350

  1,350

  0

  Pollack Vb, VI, XII, XIV

  1,100

  1,100

  0

  Pollack VII

  17,000

  17,000

  0

  Saithe IIa, IIIb,c,d, IV

  97,000

  110,000

  13

  Saithe Vb, VI, XII, XIV

  10,900

  7,500

  -31

  Saithe VII, VIII, IX, X

  8,800

  8,800

  0

  Turbot&brill IIa, IV

  9,000

  9,000

  0

  Skates&rays IIa, IV

  6,060

  6,060

  0

  Mackerel IIa(EC), III, IV

  62,455

  62,455

  0

  Mackerel IIa (non EC), Vb, VI, VII, VIIIabde, XII, XIV

  422,160

  422,160

  0

  Sole II, IV

  19,100

  22,000

  15

  Sole Vb, VI, XII XIV

  155

  155

  0

  Sole VIIa

  900

  900

  0

  Sole VIId

  5,230

  4,700

  -10

  Sole VIIe

  670

  700

  4

  Sole VIIf,g

  850

  960

  13

  Sole VIIh,j,k

  720

  720

  0

  Sprat IIa, IV

  150,000

  175,000

  17

  Sprat VIId,e

  12,000

  12,000

  0

  Horse mackerel IIa, IV

  60,000

  60,000

  0

  Horse mackerel Vb, VI, VII, VIIa,b,d,e, XII, XIV

  320,000

  265,000

  -17

  Meat and Livestock Commission
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of the Meat and Livestock Commission budget was spent on promoting British pork and bacon in each of the last three years.[65120]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  As a percentage of total expenditure, the proportion spent by the Meat and Livestock Commission on promoting British pork and bacon in each of the last three financial years is as set out. These amounts are equivalent to the pork and bacon promotion levy collected from pig producers.

  Year

  Percentage

  1995–96

  18

  1996–97

  16

  1997–98 (prov.)

  18

  Mr. Ken James
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the Parliamentary Secretary last met Mr. Ken James; and if he will make a statement. [64669]

  Mr. Morley
  I have not met Mr. James since the election.

  New Forest Fox Hounds
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to send a substantive reply to the question from the hon. Member for New Forest, West of 30 November 1998 regarding New Forest fox hounds. [64740]

  Mr. Morley
  The Chief Executive wrote to the hon. Member on 16 December 1998.

  Forest Enterprise
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish a minute of the meeting between the Parliamentary Secretary, the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), and the Chief Executive of Forest Enterprise on 24 November 1998. [64979]

  Mr. Morley
  I often meet officials of the Forestry Commission, including the Chief Executive of Forest Enterprise, to discuss forestry matters. When I met the Chief Executive on 24 November he informed me, amongst other things, that Forest Enterprise had issued a formal warning to the New Forest Fox Hounds. It is not customary to publish the minutes of meetings between Ministers and their departmental officials.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the relationship between Forest Enterprise and the Parliamentary Secretary, the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley). [65008]

  Mr. Morley
  My right hon. Friend the Minister has responsibility for forestry in England, but I act on his behalf on most forestry matters. Forest Enterprise is an agency of the Forestry Commission, which is the Government's Department for forestry.

  Maternal Transmissions
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of how many more animals will be included in the cull as a result of the addition of maternal transmissions. [64646]

  Mr. Rooker
  The selective cull, which removes cattle which have been exposed to BSE through contaminated feed, has been operating since January 1997. Since maternal transmission was confirmed as a possibility, a further cull has been initiated to slaughter offspring born after 1 August 1996 to confirmed BSE cases. This has operated on a voluntary basis since August 1998 and became compulsory on 4 January 1999. It has been estimated that, at most, 10,000 animals might need to be slaughtered under the arrangements. Inevitably, this estimate rests on assumptions about the future course of
  127
  the epidemic and the number of offspring found to be already dead. The final number may well be considerably less.

  Before beef exports can resume under the Date Based Export Scheme, the UK must slaughter all living offspring born between 1 August 1996 and the date of the EC Decision on the DBES (25 November 1998) to confirmed BSE cases. This is likely to be at least 3,500 animals.

  Agricultural Tenancies
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to reduce the disincentives to tenants from moving from Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 tenancies to farm business tenancies under the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995. [64731]

  Mr. Rooker
  There are no plans to re-visit the agricultural holdings legislation. The Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995 offers considerable flexibility for parties to negotiate farm business tenancies that best suit their respective interests.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many tenancies have been negotiated, in each year, since the coming into force of the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995. [64727]

  Mr. Rooker
  Precise information is not available. The Annual Survey of Tenanted Land is a sample survey and does not allow a definitive overall number of tenancies to be given. However, the results of a policy evaluation, conducted by the University of Plymouth in 1996 and published in January 1998, indicated that some 5,000 new tenancies had been created in the first year since the Act came into force.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what impact the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995 has had on encouraging new entrants into the agricultural industry. [64729]

  Mr. Rooker
  A policy evaluation was conducted by the University of Plymouth in 1996 and its findings published in January 1998. This showed that some 5,000 tenancies were created in the first year of the Act, covering about 200,000 hectares of land. A copy of the report was placed in the House Library.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will amend the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995 to allow landlords and tenants to agree that the provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 will apply to the agricultural holding. [64732]

  Mr. Rooker
  There are no plans to amend the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995. The flexibility available under the Act enables parties to tailor their tenancy agreements according to their respective needs. If they wish to do so, many features of a tenancy under the 1986 Act could be included.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he intends to review the operation of the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995. [64728]

  Mr. Rooker
  An independent policy evaluation was carried out in 1996 by the University of Plymouth. A copy of the report was placed in the Library of the House in January 1998. There are no immediate plans to carry out a further review.
  128
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what impact the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995 has had on tenancy progressions on tenanted estates. [64730]

  Mr. Rooker
  Any policy of progression by tenants within individual estates is a matter for landlords. The Ministry has not conducted any specific survey into this matter, and has no plans to do so.

  BSE
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many notifiable cases of BSE there have been per month in the last two years. [64644]

  Mr. Rooker
  Numbers of cattle notified as BSE suspects to Agriculture Departments in Great Britain during 1997 and 1998 are given by month in the following table. It should be noted that not all these cattle have subsequently been confirmed as having BSE.

  Month of restriction

  Number of suspect cases

  1997

  January

  538

  February

  501

  March

  521

  April

  523

  May

  447

  June

  432

  July

  450

  August

  454

  September

  412

  October

  460

  November

  427

  December

  442

  1998

  January

  459

  February

  403

  March

  436

  April

  384

  May

  325

  June

  334

  July

  343

  August

  307

  September

  322

  October

  372

  November

  314

  December

  288

  Note:

  Data as at 4 January 1998

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many prosecutions of farmers for breaches in BSE controls there have been; and if he will list the specific breaches. [64645]

  Mr. Rooker
  Since 1996, there have been 5 successful prosecutions of farmers for breaches of BSE controls brought by MAFF and the Intervention Board Executive Agency. In addition, we have been informed of a further 17 prosecutions undertaken by Local Authorities and by the Scottish Procurator Fiscal.

  Offences include failure to keep proper records, incorrect tagging, failure to record cattle movements, false declarations relating to the BSE status of holdings, altering the date of birth of calves on movement and identification documents, forgery of cattle birth documents, failure to stain sheep heads and specified

  129
  bovine material, selling meat contrary to the Fresh Meat (Beef Controls) (Nos. 2) Regulations 1996 and the Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1995, illegible cattle eartags, deception and false accounting under the Over 30 Month Scheme and various offences under the Animal by Products Order 1992, the Cattle Passports Order 1996 and the Trade Descriptions Act 1968.

  Details of legal action on breaches of BSE controls are published each month in the BSE Enforcement Bulletin, copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

  Ministerial Flights
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his letter to the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon of 30 November 1998 130
  listing details of ministerial flights, if the average cost of flights taken refers to the average cost per passenger. [64734]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  The average cost refers to the average cost per trip and not average cost per passenger.

  Hen Houses
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the research on the use of electric plates to purify air in hen houses; and what plans he has to introduce a similar system in the United Kingdom. [64844]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Ministry is aware of the research, most of which has been carried out in the United States over the last 15 years. The electric plate technique has some limitations and is not widely used in the UK. Other methods for controlling dust, such as misting systems, are beginning to be introduced into the UK broiler industry.

Preamble
Reassembling after the Christmas Recess, the House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Wakefield.

Mount Vernon Hospital Burns and Plastic Surgery Unit
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy on the future of the burns and plastic surgery unit at Mount Vernon Hospital.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, the future of burns and plastics services at Mount Vernon Hospital is to be considered by an expert advisory group commissioned by Hillingdon Health Authority. The establishment of this group follows the public consultations on the future of both specialist and local services at Mount Vernon and Watford Hospitals NHS Trust, undertaken last summer.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that Answer. Does she agree that any proposal to relocate a large team of specialist experts who have an excellent regime under their control is almost certainly doomed to failure; that the proposal to cut it in half and put half in that place which should never have been built—the Chelsea and Westminster Hospital—would be sheer vandalism; and that such a proposal and the process of inquiry is extremely discouraging for staff, all grades of which have rejected it, and for possible donors? I speak as a chairman of a charitable trust.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I certainly acknowledge that the concerns voiced by the noble
2
Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, were expressed also in the public consultations about the proposals put forward in relation to the future of those specialist services. I acknowledge the work carried out in research and education supported by charitable trusts at the Mount Vernon burns unit.
We must recognise also the importance of highly specialised units being located in environments where they can obtain support from all the necessary services. I am thinking in particular of paediatrics. More than half the patients in the burns unit at Mount Vernon are children but there are no paediatric services on site. Therefore, balances must be struck. But the expert advisory group is looking at those issues and is looking in particular at how the expertise which has been built up can be safeguarded.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that such a unit, as the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, pointed out, depends on a whole range of people doing a number of jobs? Many of them depend upon working close to their homes. If an attempt is made simply to relocate a unit, that will inevitably mean the loss of some of the experience of working together gained over a long period of years.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I recognise the points that my noble and learned friend makes. However, they must be balanced with the recognition that we need a proper geographical spread of high quality services which are supported by the necessary infrastructure. The expert advisory group has been called in to achieve that balance and it will be wrestling with that problem.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I echo what has been said already from both sides of the House. Is it not the case that the Chelsea and Westminster is wholly unsuitable for the relocation of that unit? If it must be relocated, it should be relocated no further away than Northwick Park, which is sufficiently close to enable the staff of the unit to be retained as a whole.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, that was a point put forward extremely clearly in the consultation process.

3
There was debate on two issues: first, the necessity of relocation in the first place; and, secondly, as regards the relocation site were it to go forward. It was clear that the preferred option of the health authority for Chelsea and Westminster was challenged within the consultation process. As I understand it, that is one of the reasons the expert advisory group has been formed—specifically to look at that issue.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is it correct that the other plastic surgery and burns unit set up after the King's Cross fire is to be moved northwards? If so, is there not perhaps a gap in the south? Now that there is one health authority covering the whole of London, does the Minister not agree that it is extremely important to have those facilities distributed evenly throughout the London area? In the past, other relocations have worked extremely satisfactorily; for example, the paediatric gastroenterology unit to the Royal Free Hospital.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the noble Baroness makes an important point. We must not look at such proposed moves in isolation but in relation to providing the right spread of specialist services to serve a region or an area as a whole. That is one of the reasons we are supporting the British Burn Association's national burn care review which is looking to produce guidelines for the NHS that can give advice on commissioning burns services and ensure that there is access to a high level of specialist care on an even geographical basis.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, irrespective of any decision that may be made on strategic grounds to locate these services, as a point of principle when one is dealing with a unit with a major international and national reputation and a proud record of research, it would be a profound error to divide that unit into two? That would inevitably have a detrimental effect upon the quality of the service and the research carried out.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I take seriously the contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, on this issue. There is always concern that one may lose by movement, particularly when splitting up services. As I say, these are not easy balances to be struck, as the noble Lord is well aware. It is because they are not easy balances to be struck that the expert advisory group, which will draw in a range of expertise on these issues, is being consulted.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, given the uncertainties that have arisen since the consultation programme started, can my noble friend tell me how much longer the consultation process will take? Also, does she have a rough idea when we will reach the end of it and how we will ensure that we obtain a decent result?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I understand that the advisory group will report its interim findings to the health authority in April of this year advising on the provision of services and having taken specific account
4
of those issues arising from the public consultation exercise. I know it is difficult when these issues drag on. On the other hand, it is important to take into account all the issues that are raised.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, has the Minister borne in mind that when previous units of excellence were broken up, the staff dispersed? Will the inquiry bear in mind that centres of excellence have been lost as a result of staff dispersing and not awaiting the results of an inquiry?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, that is borne in mind. As the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, pointed out, there is mixed experience in these areas. Sometimes moves can be destructive and at other times, if they are handled with sensitivity, whole teams can be taken across and moved for the benefit of the service.

Millennium Dome
2.46 p.m.
Baroness Rendell of Babergh Baroness Rendell of Babergh asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the state of progress on the construction of the Millennium Dome.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, I visited the Millennium Dome last week, shortly after my appointment. Very few people, if any, who have visited or seen the Dome can fail to be impressed. It is a triumph of British design, architecture, engineering and construction. The construction of the Millennium Experience Dome at Greenwich continues to be on time and on budget.
Installation of the foundations and steelworks for the Dome's exhibits began on schedule in late autumn last year. Development of the detailed design for each exhibit and other aspects of the Dome's content is progressing to programme. The body and the mind exhibits, revealed at the 400-day mark last November, provide tempting glimpses of the quality, innovation and fun which will be offered throughout the millennium experience in the Dome during the year 2000.
We remain confident that the millennium experience will be the once-in-a-lifetime event which will place the UK firmly at the centre of the world stage in the new millennium.
Baroness Rendell of Babergh: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for his enthusiastic reply and at the same time congratulate him on his appointment as Minister responsible for the Dome. Can he tell me whether sponsorship contributions to the Dome have been satisfactory? Also, how much more is needed to reach the target of £150 million?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for her kind congratulations. As she says, the target for sponsorship is £150 million.

5
The position is that £120 million has already been raised and the remaining £30 million will be comfortably raised in the moderately near future. We believe that sponsors are right behind the Dome.
Lord Luke: My Lords, from these Benches I associate myself with the noble Baroness, Lady Rendell, in welcoming the Minister to his new and onerous responsibilities. I hope that he has had time to consider access to the Dome. However successful it is, access to the Dome is vital. If the final section of the Jubilee Line extension opens on schedule in October, is the Minister satisfied that three months is enough to iron out possible teething troubles that can occur with a lot of new technology? What contingency plans are there to get 20,000 people away from the Dome if there is a major breakdown in transport?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his kind congratulations. I recognise that the job will be hard but I regard it as a genuine privilege to be invited to join the Millennium Dome team. As regards access to the Dome, I have sought to acquaint myself with the position. The Jubilee Line extension will connect central London—namely Waterloo—and North Greenwich, the site of the Dome in summer 1999. It is expected that by the end of October 1999, Waterloo will be connected with Green Park, completing the Jubilee Line extension. I am confident that that is more than enough time for the service to be up and running so that it can bring visitors to the Dome.
The Lord Bishop of Wakefield: My Lords, in the light of the welcome progress being made in the design of the spirit zone with its greater emphasis on the significance of Christianity for this country and the place being accorded to other faith communities, does it remain the intention of the Government to reflect the significance of the millennium for Christians in other parts of the Dome, and in particular in the opening ceremonies?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I recognise the obvious significance of the millennium celebrations to the Christian religion. I believe that considerable work and effort have gone into making the spirit zone acceptable to the Christian religion as well as to other faiths, and that such significance will be reflected in the celebrations on 31st December 1999.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, can the Minister tell us a little more about the shortfall on sponsorship? Is £150 million seen as the necessary overall figure or are certain zones or components of the Millennium Dome not attracting sponsorship? Can he enlighten us on that?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I think it would be quite wrong to describe it as a shortfall. The process of raising sponsorship for the Dome has
6
gone according to plan. We have £120 million of the £150 million sought. I do not think there will be any difficulty in raising the remaining £30 million.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, my congratulations to the Minister on his new office will at least be tempered with sympathy and concern as to how that may affect the noble and learned Lord's future.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as ever I am grateful to the noble Lord for his sympathy and concern, which I believe is misplaced. I feel sure that the Millennium Dome will be a great success and I shall make every contribution to try to achieve that.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend aware that my wife and I took the opportunity yesterday of going to east London and viewing the Dome—admittedly from a slight distance? We were both very impressed. However, we noticed a regular-shaped hole in the roof on the west side. Is my son right in thinking that that is for the purpose of inserting the exhibits or is there some other reason for it?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I did not know that the noble Lord and his wife went to east London on Sunday, but I am grateful to hear it. I am not acquainted with the detail of the particular hole that he has in mind. I shall make inquiries and hope that there is no problem related to it.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, is the Minister aware that less than 25 per cent. of the Millennium Commission's funds have gone to the Dome? Although the millennium is a spectacular happening for London, is he aware that Millennium Commission projects will be celebrating the occasion on over 3,000 sites throughout the country?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am aware of that. I am grateful to the noble Lord for pointing out that the millennium celebrations will take place not just in London but throughout the nation. We believe that the celebrations in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will be a great credit to the nation as a whole.

ITV Companies: Licence Obligations
2.54 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth Lord Thomson of Monifieth asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they propose to take to ensure that reductions in payments to the Treasury by independent television companies lead to increased expenditure on programmes.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, under the Broadcasting Act 1990, the terms on which Channel 3 licences are renewed are solely a matter for the Independent Television Commission. The commission has made clear that licence renewal terms were set to

7
enable licencees to continue to provide the same range and quality of services as before while providing a fair return to the Exchequer for the right to broadcast to nearly every home in the United Kingdom.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer and recognise that the immediate responsibility rests with the Independent Television Commission. However, does he not agree that it is a proper concern of government and of taxpayers generally that putting right these absurd anomalies of the Conservatives' Broadcasting Act 1990 involves a cost to the Exchequer of £90 million? Therefore, would it not be right that such tax concession and change can be justified only if vigorous steps are taken to ensure that that money is used primarily to improve programme standards, which are badly in need of improvement, and does not go into the pockets of shareholders?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is certainly true that as a result of the renegotiation there is less money for the Exchequer. However, the £90 million to which the noble Lord refers is offset in part by the additional revenue from Channel 5 and Teletext services. The licence renewal process which the ITC went through was not intended to be a negotiation about the content of programmes; it was as set out in the Broadcasting Act 1990, for which I claim no responsibility. It was there to recognise the difference in value of the licences which were originally allocated in 1993.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, leaving aside all technicality and dealing with the quality of service, is the Minister aware that, as regards the television programme about this House, nobody apparently seems to be aware of what on earth is going on?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I assume that the noble Lord refers to the BBC2 programme on Sunday nights, which is a little remote from the Question. I am sure that when noble Lords have finished watching those programmes they will form strong and diverse views about their quality.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the standards of television are dropping dramatically and that over Christmas it was widely thought that they dropped to a new low? What are the Government going to do about it?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I never watch television at Christmas so I do not have any personal experience of those programmes. I do not think that audiences at Christmas are dropping dramatically. I am not sure that there is general agreement with the assertion which my noble friend makes.
The Lord Bishop of Wakefield: My Lords, in the context of this Question, would the Minister want to encourage independent companies and the BBC to
8
include religious broadcasting in any increased expenditure on programmes? I refer particularly to Christmas morning, when latterly, sadly, there is no live broadcast of worship. If there were, perhaps the viewing figures would increase.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as I made clear in a previous answer, the licence renewal process, set out in the Broadcasting Act 1990, did not involve a renewal of the licence requirements. The existing licence requirements, including programme obligations, and those for religious programming, remain in force and have not changed.

Children: SEN Assessment Criteria
2.58 p.m.
Lord Quirk Lord Quirk asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied with the criteria used for assessing children as having special educational needs.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, the Government are satisfied with the two statutory criteria for deciding whether school-age children have special educational needs. These criteria are, first, whether the children have a significantly greater difficulty in learning than the majority of children of their age, and, secondly, whether the children have a disability which prevents or hinders them in making use of educational facilities of the kind generally provided for children of their age. It is the responsibility of schools to decide whether an individual child has special educational needs.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that explanatory reply. As special educational needs may arise from a complex array of psycho-physical conditions, many of them ambiguous, there is obviously scope for disagreement and inconsistency about assessment. But does that explain the quite staggering variation in the percentage of SEN pupils throughout the country? How can it be that in the single London borough of Tower Hamlets and among children from strictly similar social and ethnic backgrounds, 5 per cent. of pupils are classified as having special educational needs in one school—the Kobi Nazrul School—while between 60 per cent. and 70 per cent. of pupils are classified as SEN in neighbouring schools? Can it possibly be that, in some instances at least, we face not children with learning disabilities but staff with teaching disabilities?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the Government would be concerned to see variations such as those cited by the noble Lord, Lord Quirk, unless there were good reasons for them. It is open to schools to seek the advice of local education authority educational psychologists, who have the expertise, to support school assessments.

9
I shall take up the noble Lord's specific point about neighbouring schools in Tower Hamlets and shall write to him about it.
Lord Rix: My Lords, is the Minister satisfied that children with special educational needs, particularly those with profound and multiple disabilities, are being properly assessed and their parents fully consulted before such children are excluded?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, it is extremely important that parents are consulted when children with special educational needs are being assessed—and certainly before a child is excluded from a mainstream school. As the noble Lord knows, the Government have relatively recently issued a Green Paper on special educational needs and have responded with an action programme for improving provision for such children. As a result of the Comprehensive Spending Review the Government have also invested considerable additional sums in supporting such children in mainstream schools as well as in continuing to provide good facilities in special schools for the small numbers who need to be separately supported in such schools.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, is my noble friend continuing the previous government's practice of adhering to the principles of the Warnock Report? Furthermore, will the Government build on those principles?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, since coming into office in May 1997, the Government have issued a Green Paper and have consulted on special educational needs. Tomorrow we are publishing a consultation document to review the SEN code of practice. I am sure that that will lead to revisions to the previous provisions in the light of further consultation on the code of practice.
Lord Tope: My Lords, are the Government now satisfied that there is general recognition in all maintained schools of the special needs of dyslexic pupils and that appropriate methods are being used to help such pupils to overcome their problems? How many teachers in England and Wales have successfully completed approved courses in helping dyslexic pupils?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I cannot give a specific answer on the number of teachers who have received special training for dealing with dyslexic pupils. However, it is certainly the case that over many years teachers insufficiently recognised that some children have that problem. Indeed, the existence of that problem was sometimes denied. I believe that the new requirements for initial teaching training courses, introduced in 1996, will ensure that newly qualified teachers understand their particular responsibilities for identifying the problem. The Government will continue to monitor the progress that is being made.
Lord Renton: My Lords, will the Minister bear in mind that if a child with special educational needs
10
(although not severely handicapped in that way) attends an ordinary school, he or she will be at a psychological disadvantage which may add to his or her other problems and that, in any event, it will interfere to some extent with the education of the other children at that ordinary school?
Baroness Blackstone: No, my Lords, the Government do not accept that proposition. We are anxious to ensure that as many children with moderate learning difficulties as possible can be integrated into mainstream schools. The Government believe that many teachers are committed to supporting such children in ordinary schools. Moreover, the Government take the view that it is beneficial to children who do not have such needs to mix with those who do and to help to encourage such children rather than separating and segregating them for their entire school careers.
Baroness David: My Lords, can my noble friend tell me whether local authorities are coping with the number of children coming forward for statements? I believe that at one time they had to wait for quite a long time before they could be provided with the statements they had requested.
Baroness Blackstone; My Lords, approximately 3 per cent. of children are given statements. That is a small proportion of the total number of school pupils. However, the Government are anxious to try to reduce the number who have statements and to deal with their needs without going through what is a complex, time-consuming, and, to some extent, bureaucratic process involving a lot of paperwork. It is sensible to try to respond to the needs of such children without using the statementing process and by carrying out that work in schools. I believe that that is the right approach. If we go down that route we shall not have large numbers of parents waiting for statements for many months.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, although the 1994 code of practice which the Minister says is currently being reviewed and revised rightly stresses the earliest possible intervention for the assessment of special educational needs, does not the Minister agree that over-assessment of SEN—that is, so assessing too many children—is likely to produce a double jeopardy: on the one hand, lowering the self-esteem of otherwise perfectly normal children and, on the other hand, diluting resources which should be devoted to those who are genuinely and severely in need?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the Government accept that this is a difficult balance to strike. It would be wrong to fail to support those children who have special educational needs. They must be identified. Moreover, they should be identified early. The Government are attempting to do that through their early assessment of children before they reach the age of five. On the other hand, we must avoid too many children

11
being unnecessarily labelled as having special educational needs. They should be allowed the opportunity to develop without being given such a label.

Business
3.8 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend Lady Hayman will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the National Health Service. It has been agreed through the usual channels that a convenient time to take the Statement will be after the debate on the Second Reading of the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Bill.

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

Trustee Delegation Bill [H.L.]
3.10 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, on behalf of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
This is the first of two short but important Bills coming before your Lordships for Second Reading today which stem from the work of the Law Commission. This first Bill sets out to clarify the law relating to the delegation by individual trustees of their trust responsibilities and to improve the protection of beneficiaries.
Before I go on to explain the Bill in detail, perhaps your Lordships will allow me to remind you of how it is that such Bills come to be introduced. The Law Commission, founded by the Law Commissions Act 1965, has as its chief aim the review and updating of the law of England and Wales. It prepares programmes of work which are presented to the Lord Chancellor for approval from time to time. Each item of the programme will generally result in a report which will make recommendations for reform, often accompanied by a draft Bill.
In order to arrive at that stage, the Law Commission will review the state of the law in an area and produce a consultation paper setting out the perceived problem, the current state of the law and a range of potential solutions. To achieve the widest possible circulation, the consultation document will be circulated among experts in the relevant field and will also be available to the
12
public. In the light of the responses, the commission will prepare the final report. Though each project is the responsibility of a particular commissioner and his or her legal team, your Lordships might like to know that the commission has developed a collegial system of working which requires each stage of a project to have the agreement of all of the commissioners before proceeding to the next. The final report will be presented to the relevant government department, which will then consider whether or not to accept the recommendations and what priority implementation of accepted recommendations should have.
The rigorous working methods of the commissioners and their staff result in products of high quality, and having been through the commission's painstaking processes this Bill comes before your Lordships to day very little changed from the form in which it appeared in the report to which it was appended. Your Lordships will also be pleased to know, I am sure, that a well-informed response to the consultation paper overwhelmingly supported the Law Commission's provisional recommendations, which were those upon which the Bill is based.
Perhaps I should say at this stage that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has signed a certificate under Section 19 of the Human Rights Act 1998 saying that, in his view, the provisions of the Bill are compatible with convention rights.
To turn now to the Bill itself, I am afraid to say that, though it is short, it deals with matters of some complexity. I hope that what I shall say now, taken together with the new style explanatory notes published with the Bill, will make things sufficiently clear. The primary responsibility of trustees has traditionally been to hold property on behalf of the beneficiaries under the trust. A trustee must safeguard the property and deal with it in the best interests of the beneficiaries. It is a general rule of trust law that a trustee, having voluntarily agreed to act, cannot delegate the exercise of his or her powers and duties. That rule is subject to the following exceptions: first, if the instrument establishing the trust specifically authorises delegation; secondly, if delegation is permitted by all the beneficiaries, though for this exception to apply all the beneficiaries must be both mentally capable and at least 18 years old; or, thirdly, if delegation is permitted under Section 25 of the Trustee Act 1925 or Section 3(3) of the Enduring Powers of Attorney Act 1985.
The Bill that I am introducing is not concerned with the third exception so far as it relates to Section 25 of the Trustee Act. That section has stood the test of time and needs only minor improvement. However, Section 3(3), of the Enduring Powers of Attorney Act has been criticised since its enactment for failing to protect the interests of beneficiaries. It was for this reason that the Law Commission was asked to consider the operation of the present law. It issued a consultation paper in 1991.
To explain how the difficulty arises, I should tell your Lordships what Section 3(3) was intended to do and why the result is problematical. Section 3(3) provides that:
"Subject to any conditions or restrictions contained in the instrument, an attorney under an enduring power, whether general or limited, may (without obtaining any consent) execute or exercise

13
all or any of the trusts, powers or discretions vested in the donor as trustee and may (without the concurrence of any other person) give valid receipt for capital or other money paid".
At the time that the Enduring Power of Attorney Bill was going through its parliamentary stages, a decided High Court case was reported. Taken together with Clause 2(8)of the Bill, which provided that a power of attorney under Section 25 of the Trustee Act could not be an enduring power, this case was found to make it impossible for an attorney under an enduring power to dispose of any of the donor's property held on trust. Section 3(3) was introduced to remedy the position for people who are co-owners of land.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, then the Lord Chancellor, said on introducing the clause:
"Most married couples nowadays hold the matrimonial home upon a trust for sale, so that the inability of an attorney under an enduring power to dispose of trust property would have widespread effect and reduce the efficacy of the scheme contained in the Bill. This amendment seeks to remedy this defect".
Though this was an honourable attempt to overcome a potential problem, there are several difficulties with it. I will mention two. First, the effect of an enduring power of attorney, in relation to a person who has responsibilities as a trustee, is that all the donor's trustee powers will be delegated along with other powers unless they are expressly excluded from the delegation. This goes a great deal wider than was necessary to deal only with jointly owned real property. The delegation of those trustee powers may, as a result, be inadvertent. In any event, to continue delegation after the trustee becomes mentally incapable will often be inappropriate, at least where the trustee has no beneficial interest in the property. Secondly, the delegation is not subject to any restrictions to protect beneficiaries unless they are stated in the power of attorney itself. This is in strict contrast to the provisions of Section 25.
The 1925 Act restricts an individual trustee's power to delegate by including some safeguards for beneficiaries. Under Section 25, a trustee may only delegate if, first, the delegation is limited to twelve months; secondly, the attorney is not the trustee's only co-trustee, unless that co-trustee is a trust corporation; thirdly, the trustee tells any co-trustee or anyone who has power to appoint new trustees what he is doing; and, fourthly, the trustee remains liable for the attorney's acts and defaults. Those are the limitations under the 1925 Act.
The response to the Law Commission's consultation paper supported the commission's provisional conclusion that Section 3(3) was inappropriate for delegation by trustees in general, but that special provision should nonetheless be made for co-owners of land. In 1994 the commission published its report The Law of Trusts: Delegation by Individual Trustees.
The commission concluded that the conditions imposed by Section 25 of the Trustee Act 1925 were appropriate for the delegation of trustee powers and duties, subject to certain minor changes, but that Section 3(3), with its very wide scope and lack of safeguards, was not. It also concluded that some relaxation of the rules designed to address the needs of beneficial co-owners of land was justified. The Bill gives effect to these recommendations.
14
I shall now turn to the detail of the Bill. Clause 1 creates a new statutory exception to the general rule that a trustee must exercise in person the functions vested in him or her as a trustee. The effect is that a person authorised by a power of attorney to act in relation to property of the relevant kind will not be prevented from acting by the rule that the trustee must exercise trustee functions in person.
The provision will be of particular benefit to co-owners of land. First, it will enable those co-owners, who are essentially trustees for themselves, to delegate without having to comply with the restrictions which apply where trustees hold land only for third parties. The need for this special rule for co-owners of land arises because the 1925 property legislation requires land owned by more than one person to be held on trust. The result is that co-owners of land are, whether they appreciate it or not, trustees of a freehold or leasehold estate in land, irrespective of whether they hold the land for themselves or other people. Secondly, the provision will enable a co-owner to make effective provision for the disposal of the co-owned land if he or she becomes mentally incapable. This is necessary because Section 3(3) of the Enduring Powers of Attorney Act 1985 is to be repealed by Clause 4. Finally, the provision will ensure that a person acting under a power of attorney is able to deal with the proceeds of sale and income from the land as well as the land itself.
Clause 2 supports Clause 1. The problem to be solved is that a person dealing with a donee of a power of attorney under Clause 1 has to know whether the donor of the power has a beneficial interest in the relevant property. This could be left to investigation. However, investigation of title to beneficial interests is notoriously complicated. Clause 2 simplifies the transaction by providing a mechanism by which a purchaser can rely on a written statement by the donee that, at the time that he or she exercised the trustee function, the donor had a beneficial interest in the relevant property.
Clause 3 extends the benefit of Clause 1 to the popular form of power of attorney prescribed by Section 10 of the Power of Attorney Act 1971. Noble Lords who wish to see the effect of this Bill on the 1971 Act will find the relevant extracts showing the amendments set out in Annex A of the published explanatory notes.
Clause 4 repeals Section 3(3) of the Enduring Powers of Attorney Act 1985 subject to various transitional provisions. As I said earlier, Section 3(3) was intended to preserve the efficacy of the enduring powers of attorney scheme, by allowing an attorney under an enduring power to dispose of any of the donor's property held on trust. As I also said, it may have gone further than was necessary to achieve the desired result and may have the much wider and undesirable effect of automatically delegating all the donor's functions as a trustee whether or not he or she owns the trust property in question.
The repeal will ensure that trustees who hold property only for third parties should be able to delegate their trustee functions only by statute subject to the

15
safeguards imposed by Section 25 of the Trustee Act 1925. The repeal will also bring to an end the existence of the inconsistent but overlapping regimes of Section 25 and Section 3(3). The transitional provisions are necessary because it is likely that there are in existence enduring powers of attorney in relation to which the donor is no longer mentally capable of making new provision for the delegation of trustee functions.
Clause 5 amends Section 25 of the Trustee Act 1925 in relation to powers of attorney granted after the Bill comes into force. Section 25 allows a trustee to delegate the exercise of the trusts, powers and discretions vested in him or her as trustee, for a period of up to 12 months, by power of attorney. This power to delegate is, however, subject to various safeguards intended to protect the interests of beneficiaries from excessive delegation. These are that the trustee may not delegate to a sole co-trustee unless it is a trust corporation; he or she must give notice of each appointment to specified persons; and, importantly, he or she remains liable for the acts and omissions of the attorney.
If the trust is created by a document, then the document may exclude or restrict the Section 25 powers. The text of Section 25 showing the changes that would be effected by the Bill is set out at Annex B to the explanatory notes as published.
Clause 6 repeals Section 2(8) of the Enduring Powers of Attorney Act 1985, which provided that a power of attorney granted under Section 25 could not be an enduring power. The repeal allows an enduring power of attorney to be used to delegate trustee functions under Section 25 of the Trustee Act 1925 after the Bill comes into force. Importantly, the requirements and protections of Section 25 of the Trustee Act will apply.
I now turn to some clauses of sufficient complexity that I trust your Lordships will allow me to give examples which smack rather of algebraic equations by way of explanation—that is, those who were interested in what has gone before. The examples are repeated in the explanatory notes for those of your Lordships who would wish to essay them with pen and paper.
Clause 7 specifies the circumstances when a person acting alone cannot satisfy a statutory requirement that two trustees are to receive trust money. I shall refer to that rule as the "two trustee rule" when I come to deal with it later. These requirements are that, first, capital moneys arising from land must be paid to, or at the direction of, at least two trustees; secondly, that a valid receipt for such capital moneys must be given otherwise than by a sole trustee; and, thirdly, that a conveyance or deed must be made by at least two trustees to overreach any powers or interests affecting a legal estate in land.
The clause is intended to strengthen and clarify the operation of the general rule of trust law which requires two trustees to receive trust money. The new provision will make it clear that, so long as there are at least two trustees, the rules could be satisfied either by two people acting in different capacities or by two people acting jointly in the same capacity but not by one person acting in two capacities. For example, where A and B are the only trustees: if A and B each appoint X as attorney,
16
X (acting alone) would not satisfy the two-trustee rule. However, if A appointed X as his attorney and B appointed Y as his, X and Y could act together and satisfy the requirement. Similarly, if A appointed X and Y as his joint attorneys and B appointed X and Y as his joint attorneys, X and Y can satisfy the two-trustee rule.
Clause 8 inserts four new subsections in Section 36 of the Trustee Act 1925, which contains a statutory power for the appointment of new or additional trustees. The new subsections give the donee of an enduring power of attorney created after the commencement of the Act a new but limited power of appointment of new trustees in certain circumstances. The new power is necessary to prevent the strengthened "two-trustee rule" set up by Clause 7 from frustrating the new power for an attorney under an enduring power to exercise the trustee functions of the donor set up by Clause 1. For example, A holds land for himself and B. A appoints X as his attorney under an enduring power. A loses mental capacity and the power is registered. X wants to sell the land but cannot satisfy the two-trustee rule unless a new trustee is appointed.
Clause 9 inserts a new subsection into Section 22 of the Law of Property Act 1925, which provides that if land which is subject to a trust of land is vested, solely or jointly, in a trustee who is incapable by reason of mental disorder of exercising his or her functions as a trustee, the trustee shall be discharged before the legal estate is dealt with. This provision might prevent an attorney for an incapable trustee, who is acting under a registered enduring power, from dealing with the legal estate and so defeat the policy underlying the Enduring Powers of Attorney Act 1985 and Clause 1 of this Bill. The new Section 22(3) inserted by this clause provides that no discharge is necessary if there is an attorney under an enduring power entitled to act for the incapable trustee.
Clause 10 creates a general rule of interpretation in relation to the extent of the authority conferred by a power of attorney, in relation to land. The new rule will provide that, unless the document specifies to the contrary, in powers of attorney created after the commencement of the Bill a reference to land will include a reference to all the interests of the donor of the power of attorney in the land at the time that the donee acts. This new provision will prevent the technical distinctions between legal and equitable interests in land frustrating the intentions of donors of powers of attorney who may not appreciate the legal niceties. Perhaps I may give your Lordships an example. Here, again, I turn to algebra for clarity. A and B are a married couple who own their own house. As I said earlier, whether or not they appreciate it, joint owners are in fact trustees for themselves. In creating a power of attorney, A may refer to "my house" even though it is jointly owned, but even if he says "our house" he is unlikely to make it clear whether he is referring to his legal interest, which he holds as trustee, or his equitable interest of which he is the beneficial owner.
Clause 11 defines the terms "land" and "enduring power" for the purposes of the Bill, and specifies that references to the creation of a power of attorney are to be taken to refer to the execution of the instrument

17
creating it. I shall not weary your Lordships with the definitions but will point your Lordships to the glossary of terms provided in the Bill. Clause 12 refers to the schedule setting out the repeals to be effected by the Bill and Clause 13 provides for the short title, the commencement, which is to be by order of the Lord Chancellor on such day as he may appoint, and the extent, which is to England and Wales only.
It is unusual to encounter such relative complexity in so short a Bill. I apologise for the complexity of the explanation, but I genuinely believe that this is a worthwhile Bill. I commend it to your Lordships' House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
3.30 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, on his most interesting lecture. I hope that all of us are now qualified to sit the examination paper on the Trustee Delegation Bill which I assume he will set us!
I welcome this Bill wholeheartedly. It is an example of the kind of minor but useful reform which can be achieved by the Law Commission. As a practitioner with a good deal of experience in trust law, I am sure that it will do considerable good and no harm. I have no criticisms at all of the substance of the Bill. I have one minor comment on the drafting of it which I fear will be of interest only to enthusiasts of the minutiae of parliamentary draftsmanship such as myself, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, who I am glad to see present today.
My comment is that this Bill contains a number of what might be called "explanatory parentheses". A good example is in Clause 3 of the Bill where more than half the clause is taken up by a parenthesis which explains the effect of Section 10(2) of the Powers of Attorney Act. This has no substantive effect on the Bill whatsoever and is simply a guide to the reader of it. The practice of including parentheses of this kind has become common in recent years. However, we now have full Explanatory Notes which is a considerable improvement on previous practice. Those notes explain exactly what is being amended and why it is being amended. Surely it is not now necessary to include the explanatory parentheses which, as I said, have no substantive effect on the Bill itself.
I have one more important general comment. The Law Commission itself is a tribute to that most distinguished Labour Lord Chancellor, Lord Gardiner. The Law Commission is a successful tribute to him. It has achieved a great deal in recent years. However, the work of the Law Commission is valueless if its reports do not get onto the statute book. We had no Law Commission Bills at all in the long Session which ran from May 1997 until November 1998. The result of that was that the backlog in enacting Law Commission Bills, which was already substantial, has become worse. Apart from this Bill and the Bill which will be debated next, there are 20 further reports from the Law Commission which await action by the Government.
18
Therefore, while I welcome these two Bills I believe that if we are to keep up with the work of the Law Commission we need a target of four to five Law Commission Bills every year. Some of those Bills are certainly meatier than others and may take up more time, which may of course reduce the time available for other Bills. However, this Bill, and the contracts Bill which we are to debate next, will not need long debates. I certainly hope that there will be time for further Bills in this Session. If, as now seems at least possible, your Lordships' House will not have to spend the whole of the time from April to the Summer Recess in debating its own future, that might perhaps leave more time for further Bills, such as the two I have mentioned, and enable useful and practical reforms to the law to be achieved. Having said that, I repeat once again that I believe this is an admirable Bill to which I give full support.
3.35 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am somewhat daunted in having to speak after the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, who is a truly eminent Chancery Silk. I, too, wish to congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, on the remarkable exposition that he has given of the Bill. I am pleased that despite his new responsibilities, he still has time to come to your Lordships' House to practise his old trade.
In a minute I shall see whether I pass the test set by the noble and learned Lord in understanding the purpose of the Bill. I believe the Opposition have absolutely no quarrel with it whatsoever. As I understand it, its main objective is to repeal Section 3(3) of the Enduring Powers of Attorney Act 1995—that is achieved by Clause 4 of the Bill—in order to deal with a decision which I believe is called Walia v. Michael Naughton Ltd. and to protect Section 25 of the Trustee Act 1925.
I think the noble and learned Lord's starting point was the Powers of Attorney Act 1971, which sets out a statutory procedure under Section 10 to delegate powers of attorney. The limitation of the 1971 Act is that it does not deal with the question posed by the automatic revocation of a power of attorney on the onset of mental incapacity. It was with that matter that the 1985 Act set out to deal. Section 1 of that Act provides power to establish an enduring power of attorney, anticipating circumstances in which someone unfortunately suffers from mental incapacity.
I think I am also right in saying that the 1985 Act did not seek to change the rules set out in Section 25 of the 1925 Trustee Act, as amended by Section 9 of the 1971 Act. That must be right because where a trustee is dealing with other people's property, strict rules should apply as to the delegation of the trustee's powers.
While the 1985 Act was under consideration, the case of Walia was decided. I think it involved three co-owners of property who were, by virtue of the 1925 Law of Property Act, also trustees. Under Section 10 of the 1971 Act, one of the co-owners sought to delegate to another a power of attorney. However, the learned judge held that this could be done only under Section 25 of the 1925 Trustee Act. This would have proved a

19
huge millstone in property transactions. That was the background to the enactment of Section 3(3) in the 1985 Act.
Unfortunately, it appears that the words of Section 3(3) have gone too far. This Bill simply deals with that problem by limiting the section's effect to correcting the consequences of Walia and, at the same time, protecting Section 25. If that is essentially what the Bill sets out to do, it seems to me an admirable objective and one with which the Opposition are entirely in tune.
It is to the great credit of the Law Commission that the Government have accepted almost in its entirety the draft that the commission set out. It is with some hesitation that I say that Her Majesty's Government have got it right in view of the fate of Section 3(3); but I hope for all our sakes that they have.
3.40 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am grateful for both speeches. I say genuinely that the support given to the Bill by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, is the most eloquent indication that it is worth while. The noble Lord is an eminent Chancery practitioner.
Perhaps I may deal with two points made by the noble Lord. The first relates to the brackets in various sections of the Bill. I agree that they are necessary for the purpose of giving effect to the purport of the Bill. They seem useful. If, for example, one is in a solicitor's office trying to deal with a question of the delegation of power that might arise in relation to a property, it would be of some value to know what subsection (3) of Section 3 of the Enduring Powers of Attorney Act 1985 said in summary without having to go to the explanatory notes, which might not be available. Therefore, although I take the noble Lord's point that they make the Bill longer, they have some value.
Secondly, the noble Lord made the point that the Law Commission's efficacy depends upon the Government giving effect to its Bills. I agree with the principle. Nevertheless, there are questions of priorities. There is a full legislative programme this year, as there was last year, and will probably be the case next year. I hesitate to say it, but I believe that other Bills will fill the gaps in time that are left as a result of the saving of time in relation to the House of Lords Bill, and I fear that they will not be Law Commission Bills.
I give the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, 100 per cent. in regard to his exposition of the Bill's intention. After a sticky start in getting the subsection wrong, he then showed that he completely understood the substance. I am grateful for his support. I therefore urge the House to give the Bill a second reading.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, perhaps I may mention a point wisely made from the Liberal Democrat Benches regarding our ability to deal with a number of Law Commission Bills. They are the kind of Bills that can perfectly well go to the special Select Committee which
20
sits in the Moses Room and not take up Committee time on the Floor of the House. That being so, we could get through a great many in one Session.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as I indicated in response to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, in principle, like everybody, I am keen that as many of these Bills as possible should go through. But however it is done, there is still a question of how much time they will take up, and there are other legislative priorities. However, I will bear in mind what the noble Lord said.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Bill [H.L.]
3.43 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
It gives me real pleasure to bring before your Lordships, so soon after your Lordships have considered the Trustee Delegation Bill, a second Bill to give effect to recommendations for law reform made by the Law Commission. This Bill implements the recommendations which were made in the Law Commission Report No. 242, Privity of Contract: Contracts for the Benefit of Third Parties, published in July 1996. I should like to thank the Law Commission for another excellent piece of work which continues its valuable contribution to law reform.
The common law doctrine of privity of contract means that, as a general rule, a contract cannot confer rights or impose obligations on any person except the parties to it. So third parties cannot acquire or enforce rights under contracts, even contracts which have been made for the express purpose of conferring benefits on them. The non-recognition of third party rights has been much criticised by the judiciary, academics and law reform bodies. The Law Commission thought that it had been the rule which senior judges have criticised more than any other rule of English contract law. Nearly 20 years ago it was described by Lord Diplock as,
"an anachronistic shortcoming that has for many years been regarded as a reproach to English private law".
More recently, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Steyn, said that,
"the case for recognising a contract for the benefit of a third party is simple and straightforward. The autonomy of the will of the parties should be respected. The law of contract should give effect to the reasonable expectations of contracting parties … there is no doctrinal, logical or policy reason why the law should deny effectiveness to a contract for the benefit of a third party where that is the expressed intention of the parties".
The Bill will give effect to that simple and straightforward principle.
The Bill provides that a third party will have a right to enforce a term of the contract, both when the contract expressly provides that he should have that right and also where there is no such express provision but there is a contractual term which purports to confer a benefit

21
on him. Once the third party has a right to enforce the term, there will be limitations on the extent to which the contracting parties may modify their contract without the third party's consent.
The contracting parties will not be obliged to give enforceable rights to the third party on whom the benefit is to be conferred. If it is apparent from the contract that they did not intend to do so, the third party will still be unable to enforce the term.
I emphasise that the Bill does not change that part of the rule under which a burden cannot be imposed on a third party without his consent. It is clearly right that the principle should remain. The Bill deals solely with benefits conferred on third parties.
The reform brings English law into line with the position in Scotland, most member states of the European Union and much of the common law world, including the United States of America. The harmonisation of commercial law in this way can only be beneficial to the interests of the business community.
As many of your Lordships will be aware, the Law Commission generally produces with its reports a draft Bill to give effect to its recommendations. The report on privity of contract was no exception. However, the Bill before your Lordships today is not identical to that draft Bill in every respect. Since the report was published we have been working closely with the Law Commission in considering comments which have been made, and we have included a number of improvements which have been suggested. As always, I am grateful to the Law Commission for the continuing assistance that it has given. None of the changes goes near the heart of the Bill, but it may be helpful to your Lordships if I mention briefly the main modifications which we have made before turning to the detailed provisions of the Bill.
The principal changes are additions to Clause 6, which excludes certain types of contract from the operation of the Bill. Other legislation already governs the question of third party rights under particular contracts, and it would be contradictory for this Bill to apply to them.
Clause 6 now prevents a third party from suing an employee for a breach of his contract of employment. Without this exception it could be thought that there was a risk of the rights of workers to take lawful industrial action being restricted in unexpected ways. It is not intended by a by-wind to upset the present balance on our labour laws.
Clause 6 now also prevents third party rights arising from the "deemed" contracts under Section 14(1) of the Companies Act 1985 under which the registered memorandum and articles of the company constitute a contract between the company and its members in respect of their rights as such. The peculiar nature of these deemed contracts makes them unsuitable for enforcement by a third party under a general reform aimed at giving effect to the parties' intentions.
I should also mention that the drafting of the present Bill has been modified to reflect the fact that a third party's interest may be limited to particular terms of the contract rather than the contract as a whole.
22
A full explanation of the current law and the proposed changes can be found in the Law Commission report to which I have referred. As your Lordships will be aware, we have not produced notes on clauses as a separate departmental publication, as was the previous practice. Instead, the Bill is accompanied by Explanatory Notes which we have prepared to assist readers of the Bill and help to inform debate upon it.
Clause 1 is the core of the Bill. It sets out the circumstances in which a third party may have the right to enforce a term of a contract. He or she will have that right if the contract contains an express term to that effect. A third party may also have the right where there is a contractual term purporting to confer a benefit on him or her, unless it appears on a true construction of the contract that the contracting parties did not intend the third party to have a right to enforce it. In order to acquire that right, the third party must be expressly identified in the contract but need not be identified by name. It is sufficient if he or she is identified as a member of a class or answers a particular description. The remedies available to the third party will be the same as those available to a party to a contract bringing an action for its breach.
Clause 1 also contains the essential definitions of "the promisor" and "the promisee" as used throughout the Bill. "The promisor" is the party against whom the contractual term is enforceable by the third party and "the promisee" is the contracting party by whom the term is enforceable against the promisor.
Clause 2 restricts the way in which the contracting parties can alter the third party's entitlement under the contract without his or her consent once the third party has the right to enforce a term. They may not do so after the third party has accepted the term, or relied on it, when the promisor knows of, or can reasonably be expected to have foreseen, that reliance. The court may, however, dispense with the third party's consent in particular circumstances, such as where it cannot be obtained because his or her whereabouts are unknown. In keeping with the Bill's preservation of the contracting parties' freedom to agree their own terms, these rules will be displaced by an express term of the contract providing that the contract can be cancelled or varied without the third party's consent or that the third party's consent is to be required in specified circumstances different from those specified in Clause 2.
Clause 3 deals with the defences, set-offs and counterclaims available in proceedings by a third party to enforce a term of the contract. Broadly, the promisor can rely on defences or set-offs which arise in two different ways. He or she can rely on any defence, set-off or counterclaim which might arise in connection with the contract and which could have been relied on by the other party to the contract. For example, a defence that a contract is void or that it has been discharged is a good defence whether the action is brought by the promisee or the third party. The promisor may also rely, in an action by the third party, on a defence, set-off or counterclaim which related specifically to the third party and arises otherwise than

23
in relation to the contract. It may be available, for example, under a separate contract between the promisor and the third party.
Clause 4 provides that the Bill does not affect the rights of the promisee to the contract to enforce a contract term which benefits a third party while Clause 5 makes provision to avoid the double liability of the promisor to both the promisee and the third party.
As I have explained, Clause 6 provides for types of contract to which the new rules in Clause 1 will not apply. I have already mentioned contracts of employment and deemed contracts under Section 14(1) of the Companies Act 1985. Also excluded are contracts for the carriage of goods by sea, as defined in the clause. It would have contradicted the policy behind the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1992 if third parties to contracts which are covered by that Act were also able to rely on the provisions of Clause 1 of this Bill. Nor will the provisions of Clause 1 apply to contracts for the international carriage of goods by road, rail or air which are covered by international conventions. It might undermine our commitment to those conventions if this was not the case. Nevertheless, this Bill will allow third parties to enforce exclusion or limitation of liability terms in these two types of contract.
For example, a contract between the charterer of a vessel and the owner of the goods to be carried may provide that the shipowner is not to be liable for damage caused by negligent stowage. The Bill will enable the shipowner, as third party, to rely on that exclusion in an action by the owner of the goods. Similarly, so-called "Himalaya clauses", under which the defences available to the carrier are extended to servants, agents and independent contractors engaged in loading and unloading, will be effective without having to resort to artificial reasoning based on concepts such as implied contract, as has been necessary in the past.
Another type of contract which is excluded from benefiting from the provisions of this Bill is one which is contained in a bill of exchange, promissory note or other negotiable instrument. As the Law Commission explained, other legislation may confer rights on third parties, subject to certain conditions, where they are "holders" of those instruments, and it would cause unacceptable uncertainty to open up the possibility of third parties, who were not holders, having rights to enforce those contracts under the provisions of this Bill.
Clause 7 preserves any rights or remedies which may be available to a third party at common law or by statute apart from the Bill, but ensures that the third party cannot invoke Section 2(2) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 to contest the validity of a term excluding or limiting the promisor's contractual liability to the third party, under the Bill, for negligently caused loss or damage. This again is consistent with the underlying policy of the Bill which is to enable contracting parties to confer rights on third parties but to allow them to retain control over the nature and extent of those newly conferred rights.
Finally, Clause 8 provides that the Bill is to come into effect six months after Royal Assent and will apply only to contracts entered into after it comes into force. Six
24
months is a reasonable period to allow the professions and the public to become familiar with the legislation and to make any necessary modifications to standard form contracts.
This is a useful law reform measure which has been long awaited. I commend it to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
3.57 p.m.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, more than 60 years ago, the Law Revision Committee, which was a part-time predecessor of the present Law Commission, recommended that where a contract by its express terms seeks to confer a benefit on a third party, that third party should be entitled to enforce the provision in his own name.
Thirty years ago. I well remember as a member of the Law Commission's Advisory Panel on the Codification of the Law of Contract that the draft code provided for the creation of rights in third parties. Sadly, neither the 1937 report nor the abortive attempts of the Law Commission 30 years ago to create a codification of the law of contract came to anything and here we are in 1999.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor quoted senior members of the judiciary, including the late Lord Diplock, as condemning the non-recognition of third party rights rule as anachronistic. Surely Lord Diplock was right in his criticism, as have been other members of the senior judiciary. Indeed, the story of our failure in England—notice that I do not say the United Kingdom—for so long to make the changes now to be made by this Bill is not a happy one. Other common law countries have got rid of the rule; Scotland and most European Union countries recognise and enforce the rights of third party beneficiaries under contracts.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is to be congratulated on promoting a Bill relatively soon (I say to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart) after the comprehensive 1996 report of the Law Commission. One of the problems that many lawyers have experienced with this subject over the years is that the simple logic of the privity of contracts rule—that only a party to a contract may enforce it—has been widely regarded as a fundamental principle of the law of contract. There was no firm rule either way until the mid-19th century. Nor was the logic all one way. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Steyn (who unfortunately is not here today) put the matter very clearly in 1995 when sitting in the Court of Appeal. He said:
"there is no doctrinal, logical or policy reason why the law should deny effectiveness to a contract for the benefit of a third party where that is the expressed intention of the parties".
It is true that over the years a number of exceptions to the third party rule have been created by Parliament or the judges, but many of them are technical and artificial and give rise to anomalies. How much better therefore it is to do what we are beginning to do today and abolish the rule and give effect to the parties' intentions. The Married Women's Property Act 1882 provides that if a man takes out life assurance expressly

25
for the benefit of his wife and/or children such dependants can enforce the contract, but that Act does not help a co-habitee or stepchildren, even though they may be expressly named as intended beneficiaries.
The rule in a whole number of fields causes problems and injustices. Suppose that an employer takes out medical expenses insurance for his employees. The employees have no right to enforce the contract. Building contracts are notorious, especially where sub-contractors are involved, for creating difficulties. An example given in the 1996 report of the Law Commission is where one contracts with a builder to do work on the home of one's daughter. The work is done defectively. As a contracting party one can sue the builder but one will get only nominal damages because one has suffered no direct financial loss. However, the daughter who is not a party to the contract cannot claim at all even though she may be expressly identified, named and specified in the contract.
The situation would be changed for the better if this Bill were enacted. In the words of Clause 1(1) a person who is not a party to a contract (a third party) may in his own right enforce the contract if it expressly provides that he may do so or it purports to confer a benefit on him. I leave aside the qualification in Clause 1(2) but I stress the qualification in Clause 1(3) that the third party must be expressly identified in the contract by name as a member of a class or as answering a particular description. My query is whether this may be over-restrictive. To take a slight variation of my previous example, instead of arranging for work to be done on your daughter's house you may buy a piece of antique furniture for her but you do not identify her to the retailer. It is delivered to your home for the good reason that you want to give it to her for Christmas and not in advance. Therefore, the retailer knows nothing of your daughter. Some time after Christmas the furniture is found to be infested with woodworm which causes damage to other furniture that is owned by your daughter. She could not sue now or, as I see it, under this Bill because she would not be expressly identified in the contract of sale. If you sued you would get only nominal damages.
Problems can arise when a retailer against whom a purchaser normally has Sale of Goods Act rights becomes insolvent. The purchaser could not instead claim against the manufacturer who had sold to the retailer unless the manufacturer-retailer contract expressly identified the ultimate consumer as having rights to claim direct against the manufacturer. That is not normally the situation in the case of a manufacturer-retailer contract. In its 1996 report at paragraph 7.54 the Law Commission admits that the Bill that they proposed, which this Bill largely follows, falls short of providing so-called consumer third parties with comprehensive remedies.
My final point relates to the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 which has been referred to by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. Among other provisions the 1997 Act renders void any contractual clause that excludes liability for negligently caused death or personal injury. I am glad that under this Bill if a third party brings an action against a builder or seller
26
of goods, for example, any clause in the contract that seeks to exclude such liability will no more be effective against a third party than it is against a contracting party. However, by virtue of Clause 7 of this Bill a contractual provision that seeks to exclude liability for other kinds of damage—not personal injury or death—will be effective against a third party although it is subject to a reasonableness test under the Unfair Contract Terms Act if the action is brought by a contracting party.
I believe that the policy of the law should be against unreasonable contract clauses whoever relies upon them and in whatever circumstances. The Law Commission seeks to justify this at considerable length in part 13 of its report but admits that there is an inherent contradiction in amending one subsection in one section (Section 2(2)) but not another (Section 2(1)). I know that the Government are keen to implement the proposals of the Law Commission more or less as they stand, but I ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor whether they would be prepared to reconsider the matter of the Unfair Contract Terms Act.
Apart from those queries, I wish the Bill speedy success.
4.7 p.m.
Lord Wilberforce: My Lords, I should like to interpose a few words in the gap. I apologise for not having put down my name owing to uncertainties of movement. First, I thank the Government, and in particular the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, for so rapidly introducing the two reports of the Law Commission, thereby implementing an assurance that he gave in the debate on the Queen's Speech in relation to a question that I put to him. I am very grateful that these have been so promptly brought forward. I follow the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, in expressing the very strong hope that this may be the first of many other Law Commission reports to be given similar treatment.
There is no doubt that this matter deserves legislation in spite of the efforts of the judges. For many years the judges have done their valiant best to get round in some way or another the rule against giving effect to contracts in favour of third parties. In this connection one thinks most of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, who is very much in our thoughts at this time. I made an effort in relation to stevedores in the case of the "Eurymedon" in 1975. However, my reasoning in that case has been stigmatised as artificial. That adjective was taken up not only by the noble and learned Lord but also by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. Artificial or not, it is good that the efforts of the judges should be generalised and carried forward in the form of legislation. One can only express the hope, as voiced by the Law Commission, that room will be left and encouraged for judicial creativity even after this Bill has been passed.
The first point that I should like to make on the Bill relates to Scotland. The Bill applies only to England and Wales, the reason being that Scotland itself recognises the jus quaesitum tertio, and it was thought it was unnecessary to interfere with that. It is curious that

27
Scottish law, having recognised this over many years and given effect to it, should hardly be mentioned in the report of the Law Commission. In the very valuable report No. 242, which is a mine of learning and jurisprudence, there is only one tiny reference to Scottish law, in parenthesis on page 42. One would have thought that some use would have been made of the experience of the Scottish judges and jurisconsultus over the years in framing the English legislation.
The McGregor contract code, which has a valuable section on this subject of rights of third parties, examines the law of Scotland in some detail and referred to the institutional writers, particularly the noble Earl, Lord Stair, and a number of distinguished judgments not only in the Scottish courts but in this House on appeal in which this matter was carefully considered. One would have thought that they would have contained something which could have been drawn on for the benefit of our legislation.
Are we to be satisfied at the point we have reached that there is now no divergence between Scottish and English law? The McGregor Code was very emphatic on that point, and its provisions were designed to promote unanimity between the laws of the two countries. It is obviously desirable that that should be so; otherwise, in every case of a contract crossing the Borders one would have to decide whether the law of Scotland applied or the law of England.
Can the noble and learned Lord give an assurance that examination has been made of this matter and whether the two laws are harmonious, identical or nearly the same? If any divergence exists, can he assure noble Lords that the law of Scotland will be adjusted, as necessary, to bring the two laws together?
My second point relates to arbitration clauses. There are a number of contracts to which the Bill may have relevance which contain arbitration clauses. Building contracts are conspicuous in that regard. The question then arises where third party rights may be involved, whether the third party may take advantage of the arbitration clause.
This matter was examined by the members of the Law Commission at considerable length and they expressed the view that this was the most difficult question that they have had to consider. Ultimately they came to the conclusion that it would not be right to include arbitration clauses among those of which a third party could take advantage for the reason that if the third party were to be able to take advantage of an arbitration clause it would have to follow that an arbitration clause could he voted against the third party. That would contravene the principle to which the noble and learned Lord has drawn attention; namely, it is not the purpose of the Bill to impose any burdens on third parties.
For that reason the Law Commission decided not to allow arbitration clauses to be taken advantage of by third parties, and their draft Bill contains, in Clauses 6(2)(d) and (e), provisions excepting arbitration clauses and jurisdiction clauses from the operational clause, Clause 1: in other words, saying that a third party cannot take advantage of an arbitration or jurisdiction clause.
28
Those two provisions do not appear in the Bill in Clause 6. It may be that the matter is dealt with in some other way which I have not been able to discern, but I should be very grateful if the noble and learned Lord could give the philosophy underlying the elimination of those clauses or tell the House that the matter is disposed of in some other way.
Subject to those points, I give the Bill a very hearty welcome.
4.14 p.m.
Lord Meston: My Lords, those who believe that the process of law reform is sometimes painfully slow will find support in the time that it has taken to achieve what the Bill proposes. As the noble Lord, Lord Borne, reminded us, the changes in the Bill are largely based on the recommendations of the Law Revision Committee in 1937. It has long been realised and taught that the principle of privity of contract when it frustrated the legitimate expectations of third parties was out of touch with reality and fairness. In the classic case of Beswick v. Beswick in 1967, Lord Reid said:
"If one had to contemplate a further period of parliamentary procrastination this House might find it necessary to deal with this matter".
He was referring to this House in its judicial capacity. More than 30 years on, Parliament is now able, through the Bill, to deal with the problem.
Perhaps there are two fortunate features of this delay. First, the Bill derives from the Law Commission. The report of the Law Commission provides a penetrating and compelling analysis and, because other jurisdictions have moved faster, it has been possible to learn how statutory reforms have been framed and operated elsewhere, particularly in the United States and in the Commonwealth. That said, I wish to support the observations made by my noble friend Lord Goodhart, and his suggestion that there might be an annual target set for processing a number of Law Commission Bills. Furthermore, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, reminded noble Lords that there is the admirable procedure of the Jellicoe Committee.
The Bill skilfully gives effect to what the Law Commission report at paragraph 3.28 describes as its basic philosophy for reform:
"That it should be straightforwardly possible for contracting parties to confer on third parties the right to enforce the contract".
Through the provisions of the Bill that proposition can now be applied from sophisticated commercial contracts to ordinary domestic and consumer contractions, when it can often be almost a matter of chance which member of the family is formally the contracting party. I happily adopt the example given by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie.
The Bill, sensibly and satisfactorily, deals with the problem of the incidental beneficiary by the mandatory terms of Clause 1(3). Again as the noble Lord, Lord Borne, pointed out, that may be at some cost to the intended beneficiary, who is unknown to the seller.
The Bill also deals with the other real problem of defining the circumstances in which such contracts can and cannot be varied and cancelled. In that respect,

29
Clause 2 prevents variation or cancellation of a term where there has been reliance by the third party. The concept of reliance is familiar to lawyers, but it can create evidential problems, and there is no definition of it in the Bill. However, paragraph 9.14 of the Law Commission report should help in guiding the courts. There it is stated:
"Reliance on a promise, in our view, means 'conduct induced by the belief (or expectation) that the promise will be performed, or at least, that one is legally entitled to performance of the promise'. The reliance need not be detrimental: that is, the conduct need not make the plaintiff worse off than before the promise was made".
I do not wish to take further time in questions of limited interest to non-lawyers. As the Law Commission suggests in paragraph 12.27, the question of non-party rights under insurance contracts should be kept under review. All practitioners will need to consider the implications of the Bill for their own areas of specialisation. I was glad to see that it preserves the principle to which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor referred, that an employer cannot unilaterally assign the right to his employee's work to another.
On family law, there does not seem to be much scope for use of this law reform, although if the Government decide to give some statutory force to pre-nuptial contracts—about which it was thought that the Government were enthusiastic last year—I wonder whether the Bill will enable a particularly battle-scarred and pessimistic husband to make future provision for several prospective ex-wives in one agreement! I hasten to say that that is not a serious suggestion.
Finally, I said that there were two fortunate features of the delay in the change to the law. The second is this. As has already been noted by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, and as every lawyer will recognise, in the Bill we reach fulfilment of something tenaciously advocated for many years by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, whose 100th birthday will be reached in just 12 days. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will accept the Bill as an early present.
4.20 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, although there will probably be a few voices against it, I wish to give my warm and unqualified congratulations to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on bringing forward the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, said, the strict application of privity of contract is relatively recent deriving, I think, from the early 1860s. On many occasions before that, the common law enforced contractual promises for the benefit of third parties.
Indeed, as many noble Lords have said, throughout the late 1940s and 1950s the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, strove to establish the situation that prevailed before the middle of the 19th century. He finally failed in his task in a case called Midland Silicones Limited v. Scruttons Limited, where the late Lord Chancellor, Lord Simonds, said quite uncompromisingly, that if any change were to be made to the law it would have to be made in your Lordships' House by legislation.
30
Since that time, many ingenious efforts have been made by the Judicial Committee of your Lordships' House to get round the rule. A number of those have been mentioned in the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Meston, referred to the case of Beswick v. Beswick; and there have been many adjustments of the rules of agency and assignment to remedy injustice that flowed from the strict rule. There have also been circumstances where the promisee sought to enforce the contract for the benefit of the third party.
Just as I felt daunted by the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, in the earlier debates, I now feel daunted by the presence of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, in this debate. In the case of the "Eurymedon" he used the—I shall not use the word "artificial" but perhaps the expression "jurisprudentially ingenious"—technique of the unilateral contract to gain for the benefit of third parties the protection of exclusion clauses which had been negotiated between the main contracting parties.
There are, of course, those who say that when further cases of injustice arise, further ingenuities will come forward from the courts to meet them. There are also those who say that the present proposals do not comprise a comprehensive change in the law. Many statutory exceptions to the rule of privity will remain untouched by the proposals.
However, in my submission the arguments advanced by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for change are overwhelming. First, the Judicial Committee of your Lordships' House has been calling for change for a long time. The noble Lord, Lord Meston, mentioned Lord Reid in 1967. More recently, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goff, in a case in the Judicial Committee in 1996, again called for legislation change. The fact of the matter is that most Commonwealth countries and nearly all of our European Community partners provide enforceable remedies for third parties. It is very much in the interests of the United Kingdom that we have a uniform commercial law for the benefit of international traders. All those factors conspire to make the changes desirable.
As regards the Bill, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor explained, there are a number of areas where there is a legitimate difference of view about the right approach. For example, to what extent should consumers benefit from the Bill? To what extent should overlapping claims be adjudicated upon by legislative rules? What should be the proper extent of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 in relation to exclusion clauses? How should exclusion clauses and set-offs apply to the relationship between third parties and the promisor?
The Bill has sought solutions to all these problems. Not everyone will agree with everything that has been decided. For my part, I cannot find anything in the Bill which is so unreasonable that a reasonable legislator would conclude that it would not be a sensible way of approaching the problem. So the Opposition give their full support, through the the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, in promoting the Bill.
4.25 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful for the warm welcome which the Bill has received and for the contributions of the noble Lords who have spoken in support of it. I am sure that the House would wish to join me in acknowledging the Law Commission's greatly valued contribution to the cause of law reform; and, if I may respond to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, in acknowledging the creativity of the judges over the years which certainly ameliorated the position but which did not prove to be quite sufficient to remove the need for this Law Commission-inspired Bill.
I am also happy to take this opportunity to acknowledge our debt in this area of the law, as in so many other areas of the law, to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, whose 100th birthday looms and whose appointment to the Order of Merit by Her Majesty a little time ago gave so much pleasure to so many across the whole of the common law world.
The one question which, has been asked I think rightly, about the Bill is not why it has been introduced, but why it has not been introduced before. It is a good question—but this Government have introduced it.
The noble Lord, Lord Borne, had some questions of detail. While it is unsurprising that there has been unanimous support for the reversal of the rule which prevents third parties from enforcing contractual terms intended to benefit them, it is inevitable in a complex area such as this that there may be some divergence of view about the extent and the consequential effects of that reversal. However, one of the special merits of Law Commission Bills is that they are the result of the widest possible consultation on points of detail as well as broad principle.
I listened with care to the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. I wondered about the illustration he gave under Clause 1(3). I shall reflect on it, but I should have thought that in practice the purchaser could have ensured that the contract could have been enforced by his daughter, for I do not doubt that the seller would have written such a provision into the contract of sale in order to secure the sale.
The noble Lord then turned to the broader issue of consumer protection. The Law Commission considered that issue in its report at paragraphs 7.54 to 7.56. Plainly, the Bill will have a significant effect in adding to consumer protection where the third party who acquires rights in accordance with the intentions of the parties to the contract is also a consumer—for example, where a contract between a manufacturer and a retailer confers rights on a purchaser. But to provide that contractual rights are automatically conferred on consumers regardless of the intentions of the parties to the contract would go far beyond the purpose of the Bill. On this point the Government are of the view that the Law Commission got the matter right.
The noble Lord, Lord Borne, then called attention to what I accept is a very difficult question; that is, the Unfair Contract Terms Act and in particular Clause 7 of the Bill. This difficult question is whether legislation in place to protect consumers should apply to the rights which will be enjoyed by third parties if the Bill
32
becomes law. Why should the legislation not protect third-party rights, just as it already protects the rights of contracting parties? There are persuasive arguments both ways. It was a question which caused the Law Commission difficulty. In its report it went as far as to say that it had agonised about it. I am persuaded, as the Law Commission was, that the balance lies in favour of preserving the rights of the parties who have chosen to bind themselves by the terms of their contract rather than enlarging the rights which they have chosen to confer on third parties.
It is important to remember that the Bill will confer rights which could not exist before. Under the previous law, third parties could have no enforceable rights under the contract. They might have acquired rights outside the contract—for instance, under the law of negligence—and those rights will not be taken away or diminished in any way by the Bill; Clause 7(1) ensures that. The Bill cannot take away any rights which third parties would have had before. But the Bill gives the contracting parties the absolute right to control the rights which may be enjoyed and enforced under the contract by those who were not parties to it. For example, they have the freedom to specify that no third party shall have any enforceable rights at all under the contract. Equally, they should have the freedom to limit such rights as they choose to confer. One possible way of looking at the matter would be to regard the right conferred on the third party as a donation and to say that it is right that the donors should be able to limit the extent of the gift as they choose.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, spoke in the gap. I take his question about Scotland and am familiar with the McGregor commercial code and the Scots doctrine of jus quaesitum tertio. The Law Commission consultation paper of 1991 contained 20 pages about the law in other jurisdictions, including two pages on Scotland. However, the noble and learned Lord's question goes to whether we are satisfied that there is no material divergence between Scots law and English law as it will become when the Bill is passed. That is a matter on which I am happy to undertake to write to the noble and learned Lord.
The noble and learned Lord also raised a question about arbitration and exclusive jurisdiction clauses. This was another of the more difficult issues which the Law Commission recognised that it faced in this project. One apparent difficulty was that, while arbitration and exclusive jurisdiction clauses should be enforceable by third parties, those clauses cannot operate satisfactorily unless the entitlement to enforce also carries a duty on the third party to submit to arbitration or to comply with the jurisdiction agreement, as the case may be. But, as I said, the reform deals solely with conferring benefits on third parties, not with imposing duties or burdens on them. It would be unsatisfactory, however, if the third party could take the benefit of a clause such as this, without being bound by it. That was the state of thinking then by the Law Commission to which the noble and learned Lord called attention. However, the noble and learned Lord should know that, on further reflection, the Law Commission concluded that in practice the third party would not be able to do so. The Law Commission

33
concluded that, although in theory the third party might seek to rely on an arbitration clause to stay court proceedings without being bound to arbitrate, in practice no stay would be granted by the court unless he had shown willingness to go to arbitration. On that basis, the conclusion was that there was no good reason to exclude these clauses from the operation of the reform. I give that rather full explanation to the noble and learned Lord. If he wishes to write to me on the subject, I shall, of course, respond.
I am grateful for the general statements of support made by noble Lords who have contributed to the debate, which reinforce my confidence in commending the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Before we move to the Statement on the National Health Service, I should like to take this opportunity to remind the House that the Companion indicates that discussion on a Statement should be confined to brief comments and questions for clarification. Peers who speak at length do so at the expense of other noble Lords.

National Health Service
4.37 p.m.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I should like to repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health.
"Madam Speaker, I should like to make a Statement on how the National Health Service is coping with the recent sharp rise in the number of people falling ill.
"First, on behalf of everyone in the country, I want to thank all the people working in the health service and local social services for the huge effort they have put in to try to make sure that everyone is getting the treatment and care that they need. They have done all this because there has been a surge in the numbers of people going to see their doctor and an even bigger surge in the number of people calling ambulances, calling helplines and going to hospital. This sharp increase in the level of illness is confirmed by the increase in the number of people dying, which in some parts of the country has meant that families trying to arrange funerals face long delays.
"From the figures put together by the Public Health Laboratory Service from returns made by the Royal College of General Practitioners, the present outbreak of flu and flu-like illnesses seems likely to be on the same scale as in the winters of 1994 and 1996—although it may go higher. These figures reflect the increased numbers of people with flu-like symptoms who see their local GP. Up till now flu and flu-like illnesses have been worst in the West Midlands and the North, but there have been sharp peaks elsewhere.
"The demand for ambulance and hospital services has shown a much larger increase, with daily ambulance journeys almost doubling in some places.
34
Both the Merseyside and the Greater Manchester ambulance services saw the demand for ambulances shoot up to over 1,000 journeys per day compared with an average of 500 to 600. For the London ambulance service, this New Year was the busiest on record with over 4,700 journeys compared with a daily average of 3,000.
"There have also been some tragic fatalities due to meningitis. I extend my sympathy to the families concerned. Of course parents are right to visit their family doctor to seek advice if they have concerns. In November, the Chief Medical Officer advised GPs to refer suspected cases promptly to hospital, and he will be renewing that advice shortly.
"The NHS is better prepared than ever before to cope with these illnesses, and in most places most hospitals have coped well with the pressures they face. In August I asked the NHS to prepare itself to strengthen emergency and ambulance services; make best use of the beds which are available; improve discharge arrangements; and prevent unnecessary admissions to hospital in the first place. And it has done so. Over 2,200 schemes are under way nationally, backed by the £159 million announced by the Chancellor in the pre-Budget Statement. They include £750,000 to improve intensive and high dependency care in London; £200,000 for one-stop clinics in Walsall; £175,000 for better home treatment and care in Leeds; £140,000 for a community-based phlebotomy service in Gloucestershire; and £45,000 to help prevent fractures in the elderly in Kent.
"In August we also announced GPs could this winter, for the first time, offer flu vaccinations to all their patients over 75 rather than confine vaccinations to particularly vulnerable groups. As a result more than a third of a million extra doses have been given this year compared with last and vaccine remains available.
"And we are tackling particular pressure points. Over the last week those parts of the NHS which are suffering particular problems which can be helped by more cash have been told they can draw on the £50 million contingency fund which is there for that purpose. In some places that will mean more high dependency beds are being provided to help relieve pressure on intensive care beds.
"The position today is that 35 adult intensive care beds are free and available for use. The situation seems to be easing but it could well get worse again if icy weather were to lead to a lot of falls, particularly among the elderly. The NHS cannot be complacent. It is not and I am not.
"I will not pretend that the NHS everywhere has coped as well as the public is entitled to expect. Such an increase in illness will always cause difficulties. And those difficulties are worse because of the serious underlying problems we have inherited.
"We inherited a run-down NHS, with serious staff shortages. Many buildings are out of date. Much equipment is old and unreliable. Methods of working are not making the best use of new technology, particularly information technology. There are not

35
enough staffed beds. The Government are getting a grip on the short-term consequences of these problems, and also laying longer-term foundations to build a modern and dependable NHS. Much of this work is already underway.
"One of the causes of the shortage of nurses is the cuts which the previous government deliberately made in the numbers of nurses going into training—down from 15,000 a year at the time of the 1992 general election to fewer than 13,000 when they left office; and having fallen at one point to just 11,700. If they had not made these cuts there could have been an extra 11,000 nurses available today. It takes three years to train a nurse and so the country is now paying a heavy price for these years of neglect.
"This year, 15,500 nurse training places will be available and 2,500 more people are already in training now compared with when we took over.
"As I have said before, we must also reform the system of nurse education and training which was introduced in the 1980s. It has achieved some of its objectives but its emphasis on the academic element has put off some potential recruits. Many nurses when they do qualify feel they lack the practical skills necessary on a ward. The transfer of responsibility to the education sector from the health service has broken the old links between individual hospitals and nurses in training to the disadvantage of both. Many nurses and nurse managers recognise the need for change and so I hope to carry the profession with us—but reform there must be.
"The previous government refused, right up to the end, to recognise that there was a shortage of nurses. This Government recognise that reality and training extra nurses is a major objective. We spelt that out in our evidence to the Pay Review Body. This year we also made clear that the review body should give special attention to the pay of nurses in the lower grades. Like the nurses themselves, we want to see a reform of the present rigid grading structure and better career development prospects so that these vital staff have a modern, fair and flexible system for both pay and promotion.
"I repeat my hope that the independent review body will propose a settlement which is fair to nurses and midwives and which the Government will be able to implement in full.
"We are also addressing the concerns of qualified nurses who have left the NHS. We want to attract them back, not just with better pay but with family-friendly shift patterns and a better and safer working environment. If we are to retain existing staff, recruit new staff and persuade former staff to return, we must provide them all with the modern buildings, plant and equipment that they need. We have already started on the biggest hospital building programme in the history of the NHS and there is more to come. A high priority for more small-scale investment will include replacing out-dated and unreliable equipment.
36
"Last September the Prime Minister announced that the National Lottery New Opportunities Fund will help provide new and better quality equipment for the detection and treatment of cancer. He also announced that from April we will be investing £30 million to renew a quarter of all accident and emergency departments to make them better and safer for both patients and staff. Ambulance services will be getting new control systems, new vehicles and new equipment. All these will help the NHS cope better with winter pressures in future.
"New methods of working will also help. We started three pilot schemes in Newcastle, Preston and Milton Keynes to test out NHS Direct—a nurse-led 24 hour helpline. These have been a great success. Providing advice and reassurance round the clock, they have been very popular with patients and have had a positive impact in helping patients look after themselves and reducing unnecessary calls on other services. Over the Christmas and New Year period, the NHS Direct pilots took almost double their usual number of calls—itself an indication of the upsurge in illness. After receiving advice from the nurse they spoke to, about half the patients with flu-like symptoms were able to look after themselves. This shows how the NHS is delivering new and better services. It is being extended to the rest of the country.
"From the special investment of £44 million which we have provided, NHS Direct has already been extended to the West Midlands where it took over 1,150 calls in its first week of operation. By April this year it will cover more than 20 million people in the West Country, Manchester, South London, West London, Essex and Nottinghamshire—over 40 per cent. of the population. This will both provide a new and better service for patients and, at the same time, help people avoid resorting unnecessarily to the GP or the 999 service or their local hospital.
"Finally there is the question of beds. Under the previous government, the number of acute beds was reduced by 40,000, and the number of general beds by a further 23,000. In September I announced a review of beds in the health service, how many beds, what sort of beds and where they should be. Preliminary work for the review is showing that the health service needs more beds. Our extra investment in the NHS over the next three years will see to it that we can respond rapidly when we have the final report.
"Then there is the question of intensive care and high dependency beds. Soon after coming into office, on the advice of the specialists in children's intensive care, I authorised a shift of extra funds from the paperwork of GP fundholding into children's intensive care and for the service to be concentrated in regional and sub-regional centres, with special arrangements for retrieval of very sick children by specially trained and specially equipped staff. As a result of the additional investment, the service can now provide up to 300 children's intensive care, very specialist new-born and high dependency beds. The new system has been working well, but recently there was an unacceptable delay in despatching an

37
ambulance from Nottingham to Rotherham. In the light of that experience I have insisted that each children's intensive care unit, with its local ambulance service, reviews its arrangements to ensure that it is possible to stabilise and transfer very sick children safely and promptly.
"Intensive and high dependency care beds are vital to the treatment of many people who have had operations as well as accident and emergency cases. They demand a huge amount of resources. Intensive care is not just a matter of a bed and some specialist equipment. To care properly for one patient for one day in intensive care can require the services of around six specialist nurses as well as specialist intensive care doctors, anaesthetists and others. Previously the overall level and availability of intensive and high dependency care has not had the attention it deserves. That is why the Audit Commission is now co-operating with the NHS and the Intensive Care Society to carry out a detailed study of the operation of intensive and high dependency care in the NHS. I hope this will provide a sound basis on which to plan for better services in future. I am also reviewing the role of the Emergency Beds Service and the National Intensive Care Beds Register. None of this is a criticism of the people working in these services; they, more than anyone else, want the system to be modernised.
"It has always been a source of pride in our country that when difficulties crop up people rally round to help out. They have certainly done so on this occasion. I should like to thank them all. In particular I should like to thank Dr. Ian Bogle, Chairman of the BMA, for his advice to the public that normally healthy adults should use services in a considerate and responsible way.
"Madam Speaker, from next April for the first time in 20 years the NHS will operate on a budget entirely set by a Labour government. It will benefit from the first stage of our £21 billion extra investment.
"I know that the people of this country realise that when so many people suddenly fall sick, as they have in some places recently, it is inevitable that treatment and care cannot be as prompt as at other times. I want to make sure that we provide the people who work in the NHS with sufficient tools and resources to ensure that its impact is much less in future.
"Over the past few weeks, nurses, doctors, midwives, health visitors, cleaners, kitchen staff, managers, porters, ambulance staff, laboratory scientists, therapists, pharmacists, telephonists, clerical, administrative and maintenance staff and social services staff have all performed wonders at a time when their own ranks have been severely depleted by the same illnesses as are affecting the rest of us. Many of them have kept on working while 'under the weather' themselves; many have returned early from leave to help their colleagues; others have cancelled leave which they planned to take. I thank them all. They have done us proud".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.51 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement which, as I am sure she will acknowledge, addresses the deep concerns felt throughout the country about the pressures currently being experienced within the NHS. The Statement is right to highlight the immense efforts of doctors, nurses and ambulance staff everywhere to cope with the surge in numbers of flu victims, particularly in the North and the Midlands.
It is perhaps indicative of the intensity of this winter crisis that the Government are already drawing on the contingency fund for high dependency beds. Can the Minister say whether that fund looks set to be fully utilised and whether £50 million will be sufficient? Will she also confirm that the other expenditure plans set out in the Statement are in fact a reannouncement of money already set aside?
The Minister mentioned that there are 35 adult intensive care beds currently available for use. Can she say where those beds are? It is no use telling someone on a trolley in the north of England that there is a free bed somewhere in Cornwall. It matters that the beds are available for use by real patients.
There is one aspect of this serious situation about which the Statement made no mention at all; that is, the effect on the availability of beds of the Government's drive—one could almost call it an obsession—to reduce the numbers of those on waiting lists for elective surgery. The fact is that in many parts of the country the hospital system is being run at far too high a level of utilisation of bed capacity solely because hospitals have been pushed, badgered and even threatened to force through a reduction in waiting list numbers. That is happening in order to enable the Government to meet their election pledge to reduce the numbers on hospital waiting lists by a certain date.
That election pledge made no sense when it was made and still does not. It hangs like an albatross around the Government's neck. Even without this winter crisis, it was serving to distort and undermine clinical priorities. I put it to the Minister that the crisis in the health service is far worse than it need have been as a direct result of the Government's political priorities. Can the Minister say how many hospitals continue to admit routine waiting list cases while emergency patients are being kept on trolleys or turned away altogether? Is it not time for the Government to admit that their manifesto pledge is detrimental to patient care and that they should drop it in favour of more sensible targets focused on waiting times for individual conditions?
On the subject of trolleys, does the Minister recall her right honourable friend Miss Harriet Harman—and indeed the Prime Minister—promising the public before the last election that, when elected to office, they would immediately set up a task force on "trolleys" under a Labour government? Can the Minister clarify what happened to that task force? I wonder whether it too is stuck on a waiting list?
The Statement mentioned nurse numbers and I should like to cover that point. Will the Minister confirm that the Government have actually cut back nurse training

39
by 3 per cent. from the levels that the Conservative government planned for 1997–98? The NHS is crying out for more nurses. How will the Government's wish-list for nurse recruitment be met? When and where do they expect to find the extra nurses we need when morale in the health service is as low as it is? If the Government are now acknowledging the shortage of nurses, why is it that in the national priorities guidance issued last year nurse recruitment did not feature at all?
I must put the record straight on nurse numbers. The Government claim that the last government cut the number of nurse training places. The fact is that nurse training places funded by the Conservative government actually increased by 8 per cent. in 1995–96 and by 14 per cent. in 1996–97. Another 14 per cent. increase had been planned for 1997–98 and, as I mentioned, by Labour's own figures the Government have cut back that target by 3 per cent. Once again they are trying to take the credit for an increase that was planned by the last Conservative government and which now has been cut back.
The claim that there were only 11,000 new trainee nurses in 1996–97 is not right. That figure only counts the Project 2000 scheme—33,000 or so graduate nurses over three years. As the Minister well knows, Project 2000 is only one scheme designed to replace the Nurse Learner Programme which accounts for the paper falls—they are only paper falls—in the early 1990s; they do not count all the other nurses who were set to come on stream such as midwives, practice nurses working in the community and the extra 1,000 intensive care nurses that we created over the last five years of our time in government.
I welcome the words of comfort relating to nurses' pay. We shall see what that expression of hope amounts to at the end of this month or shortly thereafter when the pay awards are announced. I quite understand that the Minister cannot say more about the actual awards or on the question of staging. However, can she say what the Government's policy is should the review body recommend an award that is higher than inflation and the Government agree that recommendation? Will she undertake to fund the hard-pressed health authorities in order to avoid money being siphoned off from patient care to other areas?
The Statement makes a strident boast in relation to hospital building. The fact is that the Government's hospital building programme was largely planned for by the last government, as the Minister will know, and the only reason that the present Government are trying to take credit is that they enacted legislation which we framed in order to clarify the powers of trusts to enter into PFI contracts. Of course we welcome the new hospitals being built, but let us give credit where credit is due.
Can the Minister assure the House that the Government are prepared to learn the lessons from the past week of crisis? In particular, will she take on board the fact that there is spare capacity in the private sector? Will she confirm that during the crisis our health service has now started to make use of the resources of the private sector, as we on this side of the House have
40
been urging for a long time? If that is so, will she now acknowledge that the ideological barrier that this Government have erected, really a dogmatic refusal even to talk to the private sector, is not in the best interests of patients or hospitals and should be reconsidered in the face of the past week's evidence that our health service is simply unable to do it all?
5 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, on behalf of these Benches I too thank the Minister for repeating the comprehensive and important Statement made by the Secretary of State in another place. I only hope that the noble Baroness is not suffering from her own winter pressures as regards her health.
It has not been a good start to the new year for many patients, with overflowing hospital beds and overloaded emergency services and intensive care units. Staff in the NHS have performed heroically in the face of current circumstances. I join the Minister in paying tribute to them.
We welcome the eventual acknowledgement by the Secretary of State, after some days of stalling, that there is a crisis in the National Health Service. We welcome many of the steps being taken to cope with it. This is not, however, an exceptional winter and there is not an exceptional flu epidemic, as has been acknowledged. However, without wishing to be unduly combative at this stage in the Session, the air is thick with the sound of chickens coming home to roost.
With their eyes open to the possible consequences, in their first two years of office, with some broad exceptions, the Government stuck to the former government's spending plans for the NHS. They phased nurses pay last year which effectively meant that their award then was worth less than the full award. They failed quickly enough to grapple the issues underlying the problems of nurse recruitment.
By concentrating so heavily on cutting waiting lists for elective surgery—indeed, spending 10 ten times more money than originally envisaged—they skewed priorities within the health trusts.
Some of the reasons for the current problems were created by the previous government. The number of acute beds has fallen inexorably since the 1980s. There are now only some 100,000 acute beds. The occupancy rate, as has been referred to, is as high in many hospitals as 95 per cent. The new private finance initiative developments will, it appears, reduce the number of beds even further. What assessment is being made of the specific consequences of PFI in that respect? Will the department think again if the review shows that the current level of development under the PFI will reduce those beds to an unacceptable level? No doubt the Minister will have seen speculation in the press that in some cases PFI development cut beds by as much as one-third or one-half.
As regards recruitment of nurses, we welcome the Statement made by the Secretary of State concerning training. We look forward to the recommendations of the nurses pay review body. The figure of 5 per cent. has been widely trailed, but if parity with newly-qualified

41
teachers is to be achieved the pay rise needs to be substantially more. Will the Minister confirm that the department recognises the fact that not just a fair settlement should be reached but that a generous pay rise is needed for nurses and that that will not be phased? Without that, we will carry on with the ever-rising cost of agency nurses, which has doubled in the past seven years, overtime totalling £600 million at the last count, and an inability to staff beds, even if they are available.
We have a massive shortage of doctors coming down the track as a result of the Calman training reforms and the New Deal. That will be further exacerbated by the working time directive. What plans do the Government have in that regard? At the end of the day, however, as the Minister knows, the issue is not purely about resources and recruitment: there is the key issue of public expectations. We cannot have a situation where the Secretary of State continues to reassure us that there are enough resources for virtually every treatment when every health professional will tell you that there is some form of rationing at every level within the National Health Service.
Without government realism on the subject, is it any surprise that members of the public imagine they have a right to ring an ambulance when they are suffering from a bout of flu? The Secretary of State has commended the BMA on its advice. Can we expect similar realism from the Government?
5.4 p.m.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl and the noble Lord for the support they gave to the efforts made by NHS staff over the past difficult couple of weeks. I shall try to answer the points that have been raised.
In terms of the 35 intensive care beds that were available today, as the noble Lord will understand, the situation changes hour by hour and day by day. At lunch time today there was availability throughout England in each of the regions except for the West Midlands, which started the day with three potential beds expected to become available during the day, and the eastern region where two beds were expected to become available. The bids that have come in under winter pressure funding schemes for expanding high dependency beds in order to ease pressure on ICU beds are also spread throughout the country. I do not think we can ever totally eliminate transfers in intensive care when we are under that sort of pressure. On the other hand, we want to minimise such transfers to acceptable levels. The general picture is not of an uneven spread across the country. I believe that is the issue that the noble Lord raised.
I turn to the number of beds available overall, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, in terms of the possible consequences of PFI schemes. It is important to stress that the review being undertaken will be broad and strategic. It will look at overall needs and ensure that we have the resources available to meet such needs. After that, we shall need to look at individual areas as regards availability.
42
As concerns PFI schemes and the hospital building programme, which is not exclusively PFI, it may well be that the previous government had grandiose plans. Unfortunately, they did not deliver on them through the PFI schemes. That is why the success of this Government in signing up and getting the building on track is important and has to be acknowledged.
I believe there is a general acceptance that we have a real and pressing need to recruit more nurses. The issue is more complicated than just getting more nurses into training, important though that is. It is important that we look at the other measures taken by the Government. I have given the figures. For example, I refer to the encouragement through bursaries for enrolled nurses to convert to trained nurses and to the encouragement for healthcare assistants and others already working within the health service to be able to train as nurses without losing income by guaranteeing their income during that time.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, asked what we have been doing. The recent advertising campaign on nurse recruitment had some 14,000 responses. Throughout the country, individual units are working hard to encourage nurses. There is a vast workforce of people who were trained as nurses who are not working in nursing or not working at all at present.
Although pay is obviously an issue overall for the profession, for many nurses flexibility is as important as pay. We must ensure that we provide opportunities within the NHS for people to work flexibly. On a visit to Addenbrooke's Hospital over Christmas I was very impressed with its work to replace the use of agency nurses by running its own internal agency through a bank system. Often people work through agencies because they provide flexibility. That system is useful, not only in saving fees to agencies but in providing the opportunity for people who were thinking of returning to work to try it over a period of time without making a full-time commitment.
Both the noble Earl and the noble Lord asked me to comment further on the pay review body's possible recommendation on nurses' pay. I am sure that both will understand that it is not possible for me to hypothesise about what we may do if certain things happen; nor is it possible for me to give commitments about what we shall do. We made it clear in evidence to the pay review body that we are looking for a settlement that will be fair to the nurses as well as affordable for the NHS. We said that we were anxious to consider issues relating to nurses' starting pay.
If we are serious about increasing the morale and status of nursing, we must recognise that there is more than one problem. I have referred to family-flexible employment policies and to money, but there is also the question of the career structure in nursing. We must allow people to develop and progress within their profession without having to leave hands-on nursing. The more examples we can give of that and the more rewards we can give to such people, the more we shall encourage people to stay in nursing.
Perhaps I may deal finally with the ideology or political commitment to particular ideas, if I may put it that way. In the past, ideological barriers to co-operation

43
created difficulties for units which may have felt that, first and foremost, they had to continue to fulfil their contracts. The recent willingness of units to co-operate has been encouraging. The flu outbreak has been patchy and some units have recognised that if they have spare capacity it is important to make it available for acute medical admissions rather than to continue with their routine elective surgery. I am glad that the noble Lord raised that point. It is a complete canard that the waiting list initiative has in some way been fuelling the current difficulties.
Noble Lords who know the NHS well will be aware that in the two weeks immediately preceding Christmas very little routine elective work takes place anyway. Units under pressure have been cancelling elective surgery so that they can meet the emergency pressure. That causes problems for potential elective patients. Some conditions requiring elective surgery are not minor, but are major conditions. Cancelling such treatment causes problems and difficulties.
I make absolutely no apology for being committed to fulfilling our manifesto commitment on waiting lists. From the letters that I receive every day of the week, I know that it is important to patients that we continue to fulfil that commitment. In doing so, we are reducing waiting times, as well as numbers. However, with the current difficulties, the priority must be to meet the needs of the severely ill patients who are coming into accident and emergency units. This weekend I saw for myself how that operated, when I visited a community unit which, under waiting list initiative money, had opened beds to deal with elective orthopaedic discharges from hospital. Last week that unit had stopped dealing with surgical cases and had handed over those beds for medical cases. So the flexibility is there; we recognise the priorities and, as I said earlier, NHS staff are working extremely hard to meet the stresses on the system.
5.13 p.m.
Lord Laming: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating that helpful Statement. It is absolutely right to pay tribute to National Health Service staff and, in doing so, to recognise that we are referring not only to hospitals and to the services associated with them, but also to primary care, which has taken a particular burden on itself in the past few weeks.
With that in mind, I should be grateful if the Minister could also pay tribute to the contribution made by local government, and in particular to those involved in the social care services and the home helps who have given intensive help and support to individuals, many of whom live alone and are bedridden. Will the Minister also acknowledge the help given through increasing respite care and through speeding up hospital discharge arrangements? Increasingly, health and social service providers are working together much better than ever before. Good health care depends on effective social care.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am glad to have the opportunity to do exactly as my noble friend requests.
44
Social services staff have played an enormously important part. When talking to NHS staff, a recurring refrain is how much worse the situation would have been if last winter we had not built up the relationships that are paying dividends this winter. We tend to focus on A&E departments, but the difficulty can go right through the system. If the system is not working smoothly and if there is not adequate social care provision to enable those who are well enough to return home to do so, the difficulty will again be felt at the acute end, in the A&E departments. Indeed, A&E consultants focus on the importance of social care to them in managing their workload. It is interesting to note how much of the £159 million that has already been allocated has been given specifically to social services schemes. I know that in the eastern region some of that extra money is being spent on pressure-reducing mattresses so that patients can be safe at home with good quality care.
That reminds me that I did not respond earlier to the noble Earl's point about the £50 million which is being made available. I should not like to be definite about this because bids are still coming in and being assessed, but my impression is that we shall probably have just about the right number of effective and robust bids to tally with the £50 million which has been kept back from the £209 million.
Lord Naseby: My Lords, is it not depressing that, when the situation is nowhere near an epidemic, parts of the NHS cannot cope? Will the Minister confirm that it was her Government who voluntarily accepted the spending plans that they inherited and who decided to phase nurses' pay? Is it not a fact that in the past 12 months the number of nurses leaving the profession has been at an all-time record? Against that background, surely the Minister can give this House a commitment that in the year to come the pay awards of all medical staff will be implemented in full, at whatever level they may be?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the noble Lord is sufficiently experienced a parliamentarian to know that I cannot give that commitment to this House in advance of the report of the pay review body. The noble Lord is absolutely right that a number of issues result in nurses leaving the profession as well as in people not entering it, and that we must address those issues. The Statement referred to some of the long-term and medium-term measures that we are taking to do precisely that.
On the incidence of illness, the noble Lord said that this is nowhere near an epidemic. I shall check the figures, but it is interesting that the rate of 200 GP consultations per 100,000 was, until 18 months ago, classified as a "moderate epidemic". The terminology was then changed. The noble Lord is absolutely right that this is not a major epidemic, but the threshold is the same. The incidence of flu this winter is above the winter norm.
In addition, we are seeing the four-yearly cycle of mycoplasma illness, which is particularly difficult to deal with. There is some evidence that some of the flu-like illnesses that are being reported are of particular

45
severity for those with respiratory problems. That is creating more demand for hospital rather than primary care services and for intensive care beds. Obviously, however, the picture is still emerging.
Baroness Ludford: My Lords, while I welcome the Minister's recognition that the health service needs more beds, does she accept that many Londoners regard it as a pity that the Government did not reach that conclusion nearly two years ago when they came into power? The Government might then have accepted rather less of the previous government's disastrous decimation of London hospitals. What beds in London hospitals will it now be possible to save from closure? What are the implications for hospitals in London? For instance, Barts has a splendid intensive care unit but, under PFI scheme merger plans, many of the local beds will be lost. What will be the immediate consequences of the Government's recognition that there is a lack of beds?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I do not think that there are immediate consequences other than the schemes that are being put in place under the additional winter pressure funding expenditure this year. I have explained before to your Lordships' House, and made it clear in the Statement, that we are carrying out a national review in order that we can look properly at the need for, the disposition of and the types of beds that the health service overall requires. As the noble Baroness is well aware, the Turnberg Review was particularly helpful in this. Given the controversy that there has been over many years about London health services and the appropriate pattern, it is not possible to come into government and take a snap decision and say "This is the right way forward". It was appropriate to have the Turnberg Review and it is absolutely appropriate to take decisions in the light of the ongoing national beds review.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, it is not my intention to repeat the circumstances that have arisen from the flu epidemic or to comment on the failure of the previous government to train nurses in sufficient numbers, a failure which has given rise to many of the problems that we now have. It is my intention to address the severe criticism that the Conservative Front Bench has made of the commitment of the Labour Party in its manifesto to reduce the waiting lists of patients requiring medical treatment.
That criticism is not only unjustified but lacks compassion. It demonstrates the clear difference between the Conservative Party and the Labour Government. The way that the term "waiting lists reduction" or "increase" is used by the Opposition reflects some kind of paper exercise. The Labour Government recognise that it means people. It means people who are waiting for medical treatment—large numbers of them waiting for surgery—and waiting for months, sometimes years. It means people who do not have private medicine available as an alternative. When the Labour Government talk about reducing waiting lists, they are concerned about the people.
46
I still remember the great cry at one time—
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me, The Companion makes it quite clear that Back Bench responses to a statement should not occasion a debate. I am sure that the Minister would welcome a question from the noble Lord. To pursue this in the form of a debate is not in the traditions of the House.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, I will finish this last sentence and then ask the Minister if she recalls and agrees with me that there was a cry by the previous government to the effect that "The health service is safe in our hands". We know that was not true. The British people knew that it was not true, and decided on it in 1997.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, my noble friend very eloquently confirms that it is not a matter of either/or in the health service. We have to meet the needs of all those who require treatment and care, whether they are waiting for admission for surgery or are acutely medically ill. It is about balancing those needs and providing for all of them throughout the system. We must recognise that each of the statistics represents an individual, whether it is an individual waiting for a long time on a trolley or an individual waiting for admission to hospital and having that admission cancelled. They are individuals and we have to be very well aware of the impact on them and their families.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, I would like to be clear about what the Minister said about the seriousness of the situation on Merseyside. She mentioned that the number of calls on ambulance drivers has risen from the usual 500 per day to more than 1,000 per day. In the light of the seriousness of the crisis there, will the Minister say what emergency steps are being taken in the area to address that problem?
In addition, the Minister will recall that a large number of beds were closed in the previous four years, including the Broad Green Accident and Emergency Unit. As part of the review which is now under way, will the Minister ensure that those areas which have suffered a loss of beds or the closure of units are particularly looked at with a view to reinstating them?
As to the subject of nurses, may I commend to the Minister the article which appeared yesterday in the Sunday Times, penned by Melanie Phillips. I hope that she will find the time to read it, as it deals with a number of the questions which have been raised here today.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, luckily I found the time to read it over the weekend. I am not sure that I shall have a lot of time this week.
Yes, Merseyside has had a particularly difficult time. It is important that we look at the lessons to be learned from the pressures of this winter, both in planning for next winter and in the context of provision in response to the findings of the overall bed review.
As to the specific help which is being given to Merseyside at the moment, for example, schemes are being carried out to reduce intensive care transfers in

47
Liverpool and East Lancashire, with an extra ICU in Manchester and a HDU in Stockport, and so on across the area. Perhaps I could write to the noble Lord in a little more detail about that.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, it is always easy to be wise after the event. After having listened to Her Majesty's Opposition on this matter, I cannot help but question the depth or otherwise of its wisdom after presiding over the health service for some 18 years, during which so little that was constructive was done.
It is already quite clear—and was made clear by a Government report published only a few weeks ago—that there are gross disparities in the health of people depending upon their own individual circumstances. By and large, the poor, the unemployed, the homeless and those that are badly housed are more susceptible to bad health than other sections of the community. And yet, over the past few years, the Opposition has said exactly the opposite and pooh-poohed any suggestions of that kind.
Does my noble friend agree that, on taking office, the difficulty is to make some assessment of the resources that will be required to restore matters to a degree of normality? Does she agree that perhaps we overestimated the savings that could be made by the administrative actions necessary to take this wretched internal competition out of the health service? Perhaps we should have estimated that it would cost a lot more and that it would probably restrict the Government's ability financially to deal with the matter. Does she also agree that, far from being a matter for the Department of Health alone, health is a matter for the whole Government—for the Cabinet and every department that has any impact at all on the health of the nation?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I particularly agree with the last point made by my noble friend. It is certainly important that we take a view across government about improving people's health. That should be done as much by policies in connection with public transport, pollution reduction and those sorts of issues as by the direct provision of health care.
We also have to recognise the time frame in which investment starts giving a return. Although we are putting money into nurse training now, we shall not get new nurses trained and through for three years. The money that we are putting into supporting smoking cessation now will be tremendously advantageous, but not immediately. We have to deal with a long legacy of ill health. That is why it is important that we look across the board and that, while we focus today on immediate pressures, we do not lose sight of the long term.
Baroness Emerton: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister about the timing of the review as regards the increase in acute beds. I am the chairman of an NHS acute trust. Last week we had to cancel the admission of 109 elective patients. We do not have flu down in our part of the world, but the admission of those elective patients, some of whom are suffering from cancer, had to be cancelled. I am pleased to know that the
48
Government have acknowledged the pressure as regards acute beds. However, it would be helpful to know when the review will come to fruition. Can the Minister give us some information in that respect?
I should also like to make an observation about the training of nurses. In the Statement the Secretary of State said that reform was necessary. Would it be possible for us to have some idea of when such reform will take place? I say that because correlation of theory and practice is certainly something which we need to see; and, indeed, we do need to see change. It would be most helpful to the profession itself, as well as to higher education and the trusts (where the clinical placements are), if the education programme could be changed.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, as regards nurse education, there are very major structural issues to be addressed. However, there are perhaps less controversial issues on which many parties are agreed; for example, the importance of introducing practical experience early in the curriculum. Progress could then be made through the local educational consortia in the short term. I would not like to think that we were ruling that out but that we are in fact supporting those sorts of agreed changes. I believe that we need to look at what can be done in the short term as well as in the medium and the long term.
As far as concerns the review of beds, I cannot give a specific date. As I said when repeating the Statement, preliminary work has shown a need for more beds. We are trying to ensure that the investment which will take place over the next three years will enable us to respond rapidly when the final report becomes available.

Broadcasting (Restrictions on the Holding of Licences) (Amendment) Order 1998
5.32 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 11th November be approved [48th Report from the Joint Committee, Session 1997–98].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the order will lift the restrictions in broadcasting legislation which prevent British Telecom and other public telecommunications operators, which I shall henceforth call PTOs, from providing broadcast television through their telecommunications network. At present, any PTO which wants to deliver such entertainment services has to create a subsidiary company to compete in the auction of cable franchises run by the Independent Television Commission. If it were successful—as was the case for the Milton Keynes and Westminster franchises—the PTO had to build a new cable network separate from its existing telecommunications network. This order will enable PTOs to hold such broadcasting licences directly.
We published in April last year a policy paper, Broadband Britain—A Fresh Look at the Broadband Entertainment Restrictions, setting out how the Government intended to deliver our manifesto commitment to end the entertainment restrictions on

49
PTOs. In that policy statement we made clear that PTOs, cable operators and others should immediately have the option to compete in the provision of broadcast entertainment to the 17 per cent. of UK homes currently outside any cable franchise area. We also announced our intention that PTOs and cable operators should be allowed to compete in the provision of television services by wire throughout the whole country from 1st January 2001. This will bring to an end the previous licensing practice of awarding exclusive cable franchises to the highest cash bidder.
The order before your Lordships' House this evening is the only change to broadcasting legislation that is required to implement Broadband Britain. It may be helpful if I briefly explain what steps have been or will be taken by the Independent Television Commission to deliver, by administrative means, the commitments in Broadband Britain. The Department of Trade and Industry is currently considering in close consultation with DCMS, the ITC and Oftel, how best to take forward the necessary changes to telecommunications licensing arising from Broadband Britain.
The Independent Television Commission has already implemented the Government's commitment to enable open competition in the provision of broadband services to those areas currently not covered by cable franchises. On 2nd November, the ITC published its invitation to apply for local delivery service licences to cover the 4 million UK homes currently outside cable franchise areas. These licences—in accordance with the ITC's revised policy reflecting Broadband Britain—will be non-exclusive. So. PTOs, cable operators and others can already compete openly in the delivery of services to both businesses and consumers in the currently enfranchised areas.
In April the ITC announced that existing cable franchisees could apply to the commission to replace their existing exclusive licences, which contain terms set to reflect that exclusivity, with new non-exclusive licences containing revised terms. To date, licensees in 10 franchise areas have replaced their existing licences with new non-exclusive ones.
Finally, the ITC intends to invite applications in mid-2000 for further licences in areas which are currently exclusive to be effective from 1st January 2001. This will complete the delivery of the principal broadcasting objectives of Broadband Britain—which, incidentally, is impossible to say—ending the exclusive nature of cable franchises and opening up competition between different cable operators, public telecommunications operators and others in the provision of broadband entertainment services.
The phased introduction of the Government's approach to the licensing of cable franchises balances the need of existing cable operators to finance the remainder of their network provision against the needs of all service providers to plan and finance their strategies for digital services with confidence. The introduction of truly open competition from 1st January 2001 will benefit the industry and the consumer.
The implementation of the new broadcasting licensing regime, which was set out in Broadband Britain, is an example of the Government's evolutionary
50
approach to tackling the implications of convergence. We have used administrative measures to deliver the practical results that the industry wants and needs rather than rushing in with stop-gap revision to the statutory regime. Assessment of changes to that statutory regime can be made in a more considered manner, taking advantage of responses to our Green Paper, Regulating Communications, which we are now considering. So any changes will be more fully thought through, and we will avoid regulatory uncertainty at a critical time for the broadcasting industry as it invests in the new digital technology.
The order before us today is one step in achieving this Government's broadcasting objectives, and the lifting of the current entertainment restrictions on public telecommunications operators is one, I hope, we can all agree is necessary. I commend the order to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 11th November be approved [48th Report from the Joint Committee, Session 1997–98].—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of the order. I begin my remarks by making it clear that I support the making of the order. The full implementation of the ruling of the European Court of Justice on the Broadcasting Act 1990 arises from the view that it expressed in September 1996. In practice, the order will remove the last anomaly of the now defunct domestic satellite system regime, which was ended in 1997 by the satellite television service regulations.
There is now no logical place for a division between the domestic and the non-domestic satellite services market. It is far more sensible and rational to have a unified satellite market. Under the previous arrangements, the all-satellite broadcasters were defined as non-domestic, although BSkyB, which is a British company, invests considerably in this country each year. We therefore support the removal of the last vestiges of that division, which is now redundant.
The proposals also start in train the removal of a further division within the broadcasting market. Opening the market for UK homes outside the current franchise area is indeed an exciting new development in the world of television, and will enable about another 4 million homes in future to have access to the latest multi-media entertainment. For example, those north of the Border in the Highlands will almost certainly be able to benefit from a major change—that is, the introduction of multi-media entertainment—in a way that was previously impossible for them. The expanding and ever-developing world of transmission will therefore allow millions of homes to experience quality far beyond that which is provided by any analogue service. As one of those who has just recently changed to digital, I certainly appreciate the advantages, as Woking, where I live, suffers from poor aerial reception. Like others, I welcome the developments in digital and other methods of delivery of communications.

51
The previous Conservative government were fully aware of the need to free up the market and sought to do so when they deemed it appropriate. They took the view that allowing growth through small, exclusive cable franchises was the best initiation to a broader, non-exclusive, cabled Britain. The present Government consider that now is the time to allow PTOs—like the Minister, I shall use the abbreviation—access to those areas of Britain not yet covered by franchises. They also see 2001 as the appropriate time for competition throughout Britain.
The Minister said that the commitments in Broadband Britain would be fully met by the administrative means that he has outlined. Can the Minister confirm that primary legislation will be needed to achieve the final removal of broadcast restrictions, and, if so, when is it planned to introduce that legislation to the House? I welcome the freeing up of the market, as I have mentioned previously, but I hope that sufficient time has been allowed to enable smaller operators to compete with the larger networks of PTOs. Naturally I am aware that the cable sector was able to contribute to the consultation exercise that preceded the publication of Broadband Britain last April. I hope that its views and concerns have been taken properly into account. It is the cable companies and other new entrants which have made significant strides in providing broadband capability, innovation and competition in the core telephony market.
In an era of rapidly changing technology, an environment is now being created that should enable computer, media and telecommunications companies to provide telephone, television and computer services. The lower costs of much of this new technology are spurring on the creation of that environment.
The creation of a healthy, competitive cable services market is an important step in the continuing multi-media revolution. It will bring entertainment to many who otherwise would have missed out. This is an exciting and fascinating time in the development of multi-media and digital services. All these technologies will make an important contribution to building superhighways throughout the country, providing a wide spread of the population with access to advanced services in the digital information age. We are therefore happy to support the Government in this matter, which we hope will continue the development of a better overall service for the whole of Britain.
5.43 p.m.
Lord McNally: My Lords, like the noble Baroness, we on these Benches support this order. However, it is worth noting that this is secondary legislation dealing with an important and powerful industry or group of industries. It is important that Parliament does not allow secondary legislation simply to slip by, particularly as regards broadcasting where, quite frankly, it has proved almost impossible for primary legislation to keep up with the pace of technological change. Therefore of necessity successive governments have had to build into
52
broadcasting legislation powers of secondary legislation which are nevertheless extremely significant. This is also a significant order.
As I know that the Minister maintains a close interest in these matters I should place on record the fact that I am the president of the British Radio and Electronic Equipment Manufacturers' Association (BREMA). However, I am assured by that association that manufacturers have no direct interest in this order. I am present by order of our Whips. However, it is interesting to remember that originally BT was kept out of the cable industry because the previous government did not want an overlarge cuckoo in the cable nest while the cable industry was developing. However, as is so often the case, technology has simply bypassed that restriction by means of the digital revolution and technology convergence. Therefore I think we are right to sweep away that provision as outdated.
I wish to put two points to the Minister in this context. In relation to Broadband Britain he referred to the need for action on the part of the ITC and Oftel. However, we now have the ITC, the DTI, Oftel, the department of culture and heritage, the OFT and the European Commission all with fingers in the regulatory pie as regards the converging electronic media. At the same time the various bodies are taxed in different ways. Competition laws affecting various parts of the electronic media are either different or are still to be tested by the new Competition Act. I accept fully that the Government are committed to genuine competition in the industry. Technology allows such divergence and choice and yet there is a danger of dominance in the sector by global multi-media empires.
Today BT does not regard other public telephone operators as its major competitors. Its major competitors are News International, United Newspapers, EDS, IBM or Microsoft. These are powerful players in separate markets now entering a converging market. These powerful players may have been governed in the past by separate regulatory and tax regimes. Towards the end of his remarks the Minister mentioned my next point. I hope that when the Government consider this industry or group of industries, they will consider that there is a need for an assessment of how these powerful vested interests will be kept under proper political and parliamentary surveillance. As I say, we are talking about powerful forces. Many of the regulatory regimes are relatively untested. What is also untested is the political will power to ensure the convergence of technologies and the power that that brings will be properly addressed.
I believe that new primary legislation will be needed in the near future to make sure that the various regulatory bodies, the various taxation regimes and the various national and international controls on these technologies are subjected to—I mention an overworked phrase—a level playing field. It is an important matter. Although this is just one order laid under the provisions of an Act, it is part of an important trend on which Parliament should continue to keep a close eye.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for the welcome that they

53
have given to the order and the principles behind it. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, for placing the order in its proper historical context. As the noble Lord said, the regulation of broadcasting and communications in its widest sense is a constantly moving matter. We cannot expect legislation in one decade to last until the following decade, or even more than a few years at any time.
Perhaps I may deal first with a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, about the decision by the European Court of Justice. That is much more trivial than the noble Baroness thinks, if she does not mind my saying so. The European Court of Justice remarked on an oversight under which the 1997 regulations did not amend the Broadcasting (Restriction on the Holding of Licences) Order 1991. There was no practical consequence to that oversight as the 1991 order merely prohibited PTOs from holding a licence category which no longer existed. There never has been any restriction on the non-domestic satellite service licence on which all satellite licences are now based. So we are using the opportunity of this order to amend the 1991 order to correct this minor point.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for saying that this extension of competition was anticipated by the previous government. I do not agree with her that the right approach in 1990 was to set up individual cable companies with exclusive licences in particular parts of the country. I remember that when the Cable and Broadcasting Bill was before the House in 1984 the only Members in any part of the House who said that cable would take a great deal longer to reach a large part of the population were myself and the late Lord Hill of Luton, who knew what he was talking about even if I did not. The idea that 15 years later we should have reached only 87 per cent. of Britain using the exclusive licence technique confirms what we said then. I hope that Charles Hill is listening to my remarks.
The noble Baroness asked whether this was the final removal of broadcast restrictions. I adopt the view of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that it is becoming increasingly impossible to distinguish between broadcasting and telecommunications. That is what our Green Paper, Regulating Communications: Approaching Convergence in the Information Age, is about. There will still be a need for primary legislation in regard to telecommunications. Some of that will affect what we now consider to be broadcasting. However, it is not our intention and we have no plans at present to introduce further primary legislation in relation to broadcasting.
The noble Baroness asked for an assurance that there had been adequate consultation with the cable companies. I assure her that there has been very detailed consultation with the companies and with everyone else concerned. In particular, our Regulating Communications Green Paper was a consultative document. The consultation period ended on 30th November last year. We are now considering the responses and will place our conclusions before Parliament as soon as we possibly can.
I am slightly surprised at the comments of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, on secondary legislation. I thought that we were doing rather well to carry out so many of
54
the objectives of Broadband Britain by administrative means without bothering Parliament with them. The ITC had those powers and, with our encouragement, has been able to use them. However, the noble Lord is right, in that primary legislation cannot keep up. In due course there will have to be further primary legislation in relation to the whole range of these issues.
Although we have rejected the view of the then National Heritage Select Committee in another place that there should be a communications ministry, I believe the noble Lord will recognise that our plans on the regulatory side bring together the regulation of broadcasting and telecommunications in a way that I hope he will welcome.
The noble Lord raised the issue of global multi-media empires. I remind him that existing regulation provides that national public telecommunications operators with a turnover of more than £2 billion are prohibited from taking part in licences for Channel 3 and Channel 5. That covers BT, and those restrictions are still in place.
Lord McNally: My Lords, to clarify my concern, last year I spent a lot of time on the Competition Act with the noble Lord, Lord Simon, as DTI Minister. We spent many happy hours talking about competition in the telecommunications industry and how the Competition Act would help ensure that. It remains a worry to me, particularly in view of technology convergence, that part of the forest seems to be policed by the DTI and part by the Minister's department and yet the beasts are increasingly entering both parts.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, my Lords, I had noticed that the noble Lord took some part in the deliberations on the Competition Act. The Whips noticed as well. This is not an order about competition policy. I merely repeat my previous remarks. We recognise the convergence. That is why we published the Green Paper. That is why both the Broadband Britain document and the convergence document are joint publications of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department of Trade and Industry. That is why our plans for regulation recognise the fact of convergence and we shall be prepared for that fact. At the same time, I hope it offers some assurance to the noble Lord that the restrictions on BT in regard to Channel 3 and Channel 5 continue. There is no relaxation of the regulatory provisions.
It is true that the whole process that we are undergoing will be subject to continuing change. I have no doubt that this will not be the last piece of secondary legislation placed before Parliament before we reach the stage in due course of primary legislation.
I hope that the noble Lord's party took the opportunity to respond to the convergence document. I hope that when we come to report to Parliament he will find some matter in it with which to disagree. Meanwhile, I rely on the universal support that the order has received again to commend it to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MMR Vaccine
5.58 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Department of Health plan to issue new guidance on MMR (measles, mumps and rubella) vaccine in the light of new medical evidence and litigation recently instituted against pharmaceutical companies manufacturing the vaccine.
The noble Lord said: I initiate this debate not so much as a Front Bench spokesman but more as the concerned parent of a small child of 10 months with the need to take a decision on whether or not to vaccinate in the next few months.
I wish to stress that I am not anti-vaccination as such; but the more I have looked at the facts surrounding the MMR vaccine, the more perturbed I have become. Many parents share my concerns. There are now well over 1,800 families who have contacted solicitors because they believe that their children have been permanently damaged after being given MMR or MR vaccination. Of those cases, more than 350 have now been investigated by the solicitors. The common factors are: first, that the parents are convinced that their children were developing normally before taking MMR vaccine; that the children were given the vaccine and that the children have acquired physical injuries and/or disabilities after receiving the vaccine.
The injuries recorded include conditions such as: autism, bowel problems, epilepsy, encephalitis, behavioural problems, diabetes and multiple sclerosis. Autism is numerically the greatest. The cost to society of caring for these injured children could be huge.
The original three MMR vaccines were: Pluserix, Immravax and MMRII. They were introduced into the UK in 1988. The Public Health Laboratory Service, when it first tested the vaccines, only looked at three weeks' experience after receipt of the vaccination. Pluserix and Immravax vaccines were hastily withdrawn in September 1992, following evidence from research commissioned by the Department of Health and carried out at Nottingham which, contrary to the Department of Health's expectations, demonstrated a strong link between the Urabe strain of mumps contained in the former two vaccines and meningitis. MMRII, which contains the Jeryl-Lynne strain of mumps, continued in use, but some 1,000 cases of injury appear to be related to this vaccine.
In February 1998, an article in the Lancet by Dr. Andrew Wakefield of the Royal Free Medical School and others postulated, but did not—as they acknowledged—prove a link between developmental and bowel disorders and MMR vaccination based on the study of 12 children.
The Department of Health shortly thereafter held, under the auspices of the then Chief Medical Officer, Sir Kenneth Calman, and Dr. John Pattison, a meeting of experts to review and discuss available evidence. This included neurologists, paediatricians and immunologists, including Dr. Wakefield.
In its subsequent summary of the meeting, the Department of Health gave the impression that the meeting conclusively decided that no linking evidence between measles vaccine or MMR immunisation and either Crohn's disease or autism had been found.
In fact, however, the evidence was not treated as conclusive. The Medicines Control Agency set up a working party to examine links between autism and MMR vaccine which is due to be published shortly. The MCA clearly had genuine doubts, but did not share those doubts with the general public at the time.
What is the medical evidence we have so far? The most definitive study was carried out in 1994 for the US Centers for Disease Control—the Vaccine Safety Datalink Project—which monitored the progress of half-a-million children. Their key finding was that the incidence of seizure increased dramatically, by three times the norm, after MMR vaccinations. This was confirmed by a similar study carried out in the UK by the Public Health Laboratory Service, but it was withheld until the 1994 vaccination campaign, Operation Safeguard, was over.
Research suggesting a link between measles vaccine and acute encephalopathy was published by Robert Weibel and others in paediatrics in the US in March 1998. The most recent published evidence comes from the University of Michigan College of Pharmacy and has been published in the peer reviewed journal Clinical Immunology and Pathology. It was carried out by Drs. Singh and Yang and looked at a study of 48 autistic and 34 normal children and measured the levels of antibodies to measles virus. This study suggests that measles or MMR vaccines may in some way prompt some people's immune systems to act in a negative way to brain tissue.
In research, which is currently being prepared for publication, Mr. Paul Shattock, director of the autism unit at the University of Sunderland, has discovered a peptide derived from food in autistic children's urine. He postulates that the cause of the brain damage of all types to the children appears to be the lodging of measles virus in the gut which causes inflammatory bowel disease. This allows the peptide to cross the so-called blood-brain barrier and to effect neurotransmission, which leads to the behavioural disorders mentioned.
All those studies, while not proving a link beyond doubt, certainly provide powerful circumstantial evidence. It appears to be only a matter of time before further virological research proves the link. The fact is that our understanding of the immune system, whether in connection with research such as this, or that carried out into Gulf War syndrome, is still in its infancy.
The medical evidence is backed up by home video evidence in many cases, which demonstrates the children developing normally, talking, laughing and then suddenly, after the time of the MMR vaccine being administered, demonstrating behavioural problems, lack of speech and interaction. The most common age to develop autism is between one year and two years old. The videos show autism developing at much older ages.
The guidance given to GPs on vaccinations is contained in what is known as the Green Book: Immunisation against Infectious Diseases. Guidance to the general public is given by the Health Education Authority. The plain fact is that the dangers of mumps, measles and rubella have in recent years been consistently overplayed in recent guidance and that the dangers of vaccination are underplayed.
Many of us had mumps, measles and rubella as children, as a matter of course. In the literature of the time, these were not described as serious or life-threatening diseases, but as being likely to go away within 10 days, without serious ill effects. Contrast that with this extract from a Health Education Authority publication of 1994:
"Unfortunately, measles can be much more serious than people think. School age children who get it are likely to be very ill. Measles can cause pneumonia, blindness, deafness and even brain damage. Measles can also he fatal. In fact it's the disease most likely to cause inflammation of the brain".
Many people agree that the 1994 campaign—Operation Safeguard—undertaken by the Department of Health to promote the specific MR vaccine grossly over-dramatised the dangers of mumps, measles and rubella. The fact is that deaths and serious complications from measles are not now common in developed countries. Current Health Education Authority literature, MMR—The Facts, makes inadequate mention of the risks of vaccination and is even misleading.
In some other cases, the Department of Health has adopted the precautionary principle: animal growth promoters, human albumen and general anaesthesia for dentists. However, rather than adopting the precautionary principle here, they appear intent on promoting the vaccines in question. GPs are actually being given incentives to vaccinate their patients. To receive an annual bonus, they need to exceed a minimum 70 per cent. immunisation rate in their practice. They therefore have a direct incentive to reassure parents to allow their children to be vaccinated with MMR against a parent's better judgment.
The UK vaccine compensation scheme is wholly inadequate. Currently, the 1979 Vaccine Damage Compensation Payment Act only allows up to £40,000, the figure that was changed last year. It is wholly inadequate to compensate for the costs of bringing up a disabled child. Initially, when the Act was first passed, claimants were limited to £10,000—an even more inadequate sum.
There are many parents who may believe that their child has been damaged by a vaccine, but compensation under the Act is only available when that child is regarded as having its capacities impaired by more than 80 per cent. Many of the children are now in their 20s and 30s and are still being looked after by their parents. It is high time that justice is done for them. We need a scheme which pays compensation on a level with that in the US and Japan. In the US, over I billion dollars have been paid out over the past 10 years under their no-fault scheme.
The Medicines Control Agency receives reports under the yellow card scheme by which doctors, pharmacists and coroners are meant to report adverse reactions to
58
vaccinations. But there is evidence that only 5 per cent. of adverse reactions are reported. Has the Department of Health considered what improvements to the yellow card scheme could be made, to make it work effectively? Even the Medicines Control Agency has admitted that only a small percentage of even serious reactions gets reported. Some doctors appear to be unaware of the system.
One of the key concerns of campaigners is the fact that very little tracking is done of the incidence of autism. Although about 350 cases are reported each year, there appear to be as many as half-a-million children in this country with the condition. Yet this cannot be confirmed by the Department of Health because it has no central tracking system, so it is difficult to assess that there has been a growth in autism across the UK. The fact remains, however, that from a problem that was perceived to affect only a small proportion of the population a decade ago, there is now a huge number of cases in total which cannot be explained by better diagnosis alone.
One of the key problems also encountered by parents and others wishing to understand more about MMR and its consequences is secrecy. The advice and recommendations of the Committee on Safety of Medicines and the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation are secret. Information held by them on cancellation of product licences is commercially confidential. That is not so in the States. It is high time that this was remedied by a freedom of information Act.
What can parents do now? As a result of doubts about MMR and MR vaccines many parents seek to have their children vaccinated with single vaccines. The experience of helplines in this area is that many parents distrust MMR and believe that doctors are pressuring them to accept vaccination to fulfil their targets. The experience of parents, however, is that it is virtually impossible to obtain them in the UK except via enlightened pharmacists and a friendly doctor. Parents have to sign a disclaimer and even now they make trips to France to get their children vaccinated.
In the face of the desire of parents to obtain the single vaccine the statement in April by the then CMO was:
"There is no evidence that it has any benefit and indeed may be harmful".
This seems to be based on the fact that children may have one injection a year rather than all in one go and are therefore "at risk" of contracting mumps, measles and rubella for rather longer. But how can the Department of Health explain the incredibly low incidence of any problems with the single measles vaccine in the 21 years before 1988? The UK appears to be the only EU country where single vaccines are not available.
In summary, what do I seek in initiating this debate? It is clear that a number of key steps must be taken by the department. First, there must be much more balanced guidance from the Department of Health to doctors and the public about the merits of the MMR vaccine and the risks of mumps, measles and rubella. Secondly, there must be a comprehensive programme of research to establish the links between MMR vaccination and

59
damage. Thirdly, a decision should be taken by the Department of Health to allow GPs to prescribe single vaccines for mumps, measles and rubella. Patients should not have to travel abroad or get these vaccinations for their children privately. Fourthly, there must be a much better system for tracking adverse reactions to vaccines such as MMR and for publicising them so that parents are clearly aware of what they can do to report problems. We need a comprehensive database of those children already believed to have been damaged so that it can be analysed fully. Fifthly, there must be an end to the secrecy of the Committee on Safety of Medicines and the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation so that it is clear to the public when there are problems with vaccines or the formulation of them is changed. They should be championing children's health not commercial interests
Sixthly, there should be a major improvement to the terms of the Vaccine Damage Payments Act so that the compensation payable is higher and parents of vaccine-damaged children can obtain compensation without having the current burden of proof which requires over 80 per cent. impairment. In addition, the levels of compensation paid out to vaccine-damaged children to date should be reviewed. Seventhly, the Department of Health should start immediate discussions to see if the current litigation between the drug companies and parents of children damaged by MMR vaccines since 1988 can be settled with proper compensation to the children. Eighthly, the department should cease giving incentives to GPs to immunise using the MMR vaccine. I look forward to the Minister's response.
6.13 p.m.
Lord Winston: My Lords, I have great sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. Some years ago I took my febrile child to the casualty department of the Royal Free Hospital—the same hospital from which Dr. Wakefield emanates. The child had just had a convulsion having been vaccinated 24 hours earlier. I was convinced that I had damaged the child. It was only afterwards that it became quite clear that the viral infection that my child had had nothing to do with the vaccination but had been picked up three days earlier from contact with another infant. That is exactly the problem here. We are looking at something that has been reported in an extremely anecdotal fashion. While parents are quite justifiably worried about vaccination, a close look reveals a great lack of evidence that there is a serious cause for any concern.
These fears are extremely reminiscent of those relating to pertussis vaccine in the early 1970s. When pertussis vaccination in this country fell from about 81 per cent. to 30 per cent., there was a great rise in whooping cough and in consequence children who could have been saved died. This happened not only in this country but in several others. In other countries the reduced coverage of this vaccine resulted in a very serious crisis, with many children being lost who need
60
not have died. There is a very close parallel between what happened in the mid-1970s and what could happen if we look at MMR vaccination in the wrong way.
The evidence relating to inflammatory bowel disease and MMR was based initially on a study of women in pregnancy. It showed that in pregnancy women who contracted measles were more likely to give birth to children with inflammatory bowel disease. A larger study showed that this was purely anecdotal and that there was no real evidence. The studies by Wakefield published in The Lancet, which are the most crucial ones in this area, probably should not have been published, certainly not in the form of an early report. An early report is to an extent hypothetical.
In 1978 I published an early hypothesis in The Lancet which turned out to be totally wrong. Very often The Lancet is happy to publish preliminary data which may spark debate that influences how people think about a particular medical situation. I believe that the publication of Wakefield with regard to bowel disease contains so many flaws in both the histological methodology—the way that bowel biopsies were viewed through the microscope to see whether or not the virus was present—and the selection of the 12 children who were studied in this anecdotal report that it might have been better to look at more comparative data. The truth is that when that study has been repeated with a much more precise look at the RNA—the molecular fingerprint of the virus—we have not been able to find any evidence of it in the bowels of children with Crohn's disease or inflammatory bowel disorders.
Nor is there any clear evidence of a link between autism and MMR. After all, MMR has been in use in the United States for 25 years, with some 200 million doses of MMR having been given. There is simply no evidence that autism has increased during that time. A detailed study on this very issue which has taken place in Sweden has also proved negative. Studies have been made to try to link both inflammatory bowel disease and autism. These have also not shown any significant rise, which would be expected in populations where this vaccine was in use.
I should like to quote from a paper by Duclos and Ward published within the last three weeks in Drug Experience. These people have no vested interest in this matter. This does not have a financial aspect. I regret that a suggestion has been made that there may be some financial motive behind the suggested need for vaccination. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, did not intend to say that. However, here we are talking about the protection of children worldwide. Duclos and Ward say:
"During 30 years of worldwide use measles vaccination has proven to be one of the safest and most successful health interventions in the history of medicines. It is not a 'perfect' vaccine but the benefits far outweigh the risks even in countries with a low incidence of measles and a higher rate of measles vaccine coverage".
Let us consider the risks. If a child has measles its chances of contracting otitis media, which can be very serious, are between 7 and 9 per cent. With this vaccination, the chances are nil. One's chances of getting pneumonia are between 1 and 6 per cent. With vaccination, the chances are nil. The chances of getting

61
diarrhoea are 6 per cent. but with vaccination the chances are nil. With measles the chances of getting encephalomyelitis are between 0.5 and one per 1,000 children, which is a very high incidence. If one has the vaccine, the chances are one in 1 million. The chances of getting thrombocytopenia—admittedly, a condition that results in the loss of blood platelets temporarily—are nil with the infection and about one in 30,000 with vaccination. The chances of getting an anaphylactic reaction with the injection of any protein is a possibility, but it is not a very great one and it has never been fatal.
The chances of death with measles are something between 0.1 and 1 in a 1000 children. That is a very high incidence. In the developing world the chance of dying from measles may be as high as between 5 and 15 per cent. The chance with the vaccination is nil: no deaths have been reported with vaccination.
I do not think that we should base very serious medical decisions on anecdotal data. The noble Lord referred to the meeting of the Medical Research Council, which included a string of experts of great repute. He said that their findings were equivocal. The main conclusions of the meeting were as follows:

"(a) That the balance of available biological and epidemiological evidence was against the persistence of measles in Crohn's disease.

"(b) There was no correlation between measles or mumps infection alone and Crohn's disease or ulcerocolitis.

"(c) There was no current evidence linking bowel disease or autism with MMR vaccine and that there was thus no reason arising from the work considered for a change in the current MMR vaccination policy."

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, the finding of the experts, all of whom had a number of preconceptions, it appears, was fairly unequivocal, but how can the noble Lord explain the reason for the MCA commissioning further research into the links between autism and the MMR vaccine? Dr. Wakefield, who was asked to give a view to that gathering, was the only one who held the view that he did; all the others, known in advance, were not of that view, yet the MCA still decided to commission further research.
Lord Winston: My Lords, I am very grateful for the intervention, but that is exactly the point of the report: they are simply being responsible, as scientists should be. They are looking at something which is shown to be anecdotal and they want to continue to see the evidence. However, Mr. Wakefield himself said that the notion that there should be a change in vaccination policy was not his view, in spite of his publication in The Lancet.
It would not be a good idea to split the vaccination into separate aliquots. That would mean submitting children to six vaccinations a year and would inevitably reduce coverage of the vaccination. More children would slip through the net. Why should we impose a different regime in this country, when there is no justification for doing so for any solid medical reason, and yet say that it is perfectly all right for the rest of the world? We should not undermine the credibility of a vaccine which has saved something like two million lives per annum.
6.23 p.m.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, as we can see, there are few more emotional areas in medicine than those involving vaccination or immunisation.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for giving us the opportunity to debate the issues involved with the administration of the MMR vaccine. I have followed his written Questions on this subject over the past three months and have myself raised this issue on various occasions over the past 15 years. I listened with great interest to the noble Lord, Lord Winston. I have the greatest respect for his views and I am delighted that his daughter suffered no ill effects. My interest in MMR started after my youngest daughter was vaccinated in 1983. She collapsed and did not utter a sound for three days after the injection. Luckily she made a full recovery, but other children have not been so lucky.
The noble Lord's opening speech has dealt with most of the issues and much of what I wished to say has already been covered, but I should like to emphasise some of the points. Since the conception of the NHS, the Government, the medical profession and the public have come to accept that immunisation is a good thing and that any criticism is unforgivable since it could lead to the death of weak and defenceless infants. The debate has been going on for over a hundred years and it was only in the mid 1990s that the anti-vaccination lobby gave up their campaign, succumbing to public indifference and media overkill. Immunisation is a divisive issue which cannot easily be resolved. There are important questions which should be answered.
Are measles, mumps, and German measles really that dangerous? If the available statistics are examined, they clearly show that measles is not the random killer that medicine would have us believe. In the American epidemic of 1990, when 27,000 cases were reported, 89 people died but most of the deaths were among children of low income families, where poor nutrition and failure to treat complications were probably the significant factors. Of course, I am aware of the complications of rubella and pregnancy, but research has shown that the vaccination produces immunity until the age of 11 to 13, whereas actual contraction of the disease gives the life-long immunity which is so important.
Death from measles is not common in developed countries. The year before the MMR vaccine was launched, there were six deaths out of 42,165 reported cases in Britain. Between 1979 and 1983, 83 children died out of 467,732 reported cases, this lower percentage probably reflecting the fact that doctors had a better understanding of how to treat the disease.
Until recently, about 93 per cent. of pre-school children received the live triple vaccine. This followed a £20 million extensive media campaign by the government in 1994, aimed at 5 to 16 year-olds, which suggested that measles was a deadly, debilitating disease.

63
I have received today a brief from SmithKline Beecham. Under the heading "the safety of MMR vaccine", they state:
"if the vaccine were to be suspended, a large number of healthy children would be put at unnecessary risk from the potential complications of measles, mumps and rubella. Put simply, children would die."
The information given to the public has always been that the MMR vaccine has been safely used in other countries, particularly the United States, and that it provides lifelong protection against all three infections with a single administration. What the public are not told is that in a study that was completed before the launch of the 1994 MMR campaign, children given the injection were three times more likely to suffer convulsions than those who did not receive it, and that the vaccine caused five times more cases of the rare blood disorder thrombocytopenia purpura than expected. Besides sometimes causing dangerous mutations like atypical measles, the vaccine has been associated with numerous side effects, including deafness, encephalitis, febrile convulsions, Guillan-Barre Syndrome and sub acute sclerosing panencephalitis—a fatal wasting disease that is only very rarely associated with measles. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, mentioned the possible connection with autism.
I have the figures for the adverse reactions to the MMR vaccine reported in the United States between July 1960 and April 1994. There were 5,799 unexpected reactions; 3,063 required emergency treatment; 616 were taken to hospital; 363 were left disabled in some way and 30 died. The US National Vaccine Information Centre believes that, because of massive under-reporting, these figures represent only 10 to 15 per cent. of the total number of side effects, which means that the true figure could be as high as 60,000 adverse effects over the four years since record-keeping began.
As a dental surgeon, I have just been told by the General Dental Council—I presume with government compliance, although I have not received an answer as yet—that dentists cannot now give a general anaesthetic in their surgeries because it is too dangerous. In the same period that we are discussing in relation to this vaccine there has been one incidence of a death caused by a general dental practitioner in about 2 million administrations. When looking at the problems of MMR, I am not sure that I understand the logic of that ruling. I hope the Government will soon be able to explain it to my profession.
I wanted to discuss whether immunisation methods protect to anything like the degree claimed. Time prevents me from giving your Lordships more figures, but it is a fact that epidemics of measles still occur at three-year or four-year intervals despite the fact that immunisation rates in some areas are as high as 98 per cent. Do the Government have a view as to whether the short-and long-term side effects of immunisation are a reasonable price to pay for the possible protective benefits?
64
Finally, what advice would I give to parents who are trying to decide whether to have the vaccination? I have said it many times from my place on this side of the House; I have said it countless times from the place I used to occupy on the other side of the House. Resistance to disease is about having an intact, healthy, efficient immune system. It is about healthy nutrition, which can be helped—and here I declare my interest as President of the All Party Group for Alternative and Complementary Medicine, and the Natural Medicines Society—by herbal, homoeopathic and vitamin supplementation. I could speak on that subject for another half an hour or so, but I shall stop. Perhaps the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, will take it up.
I hope that the Government will examine seriously the points that arise during our interesting debate.
6.30 p.m.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for putting down this Question, as I believe that it raises an important issue wider than the MMR vaccine itself which we all need to take seriously if we value our health. I agree with virtually everything he said.
I, too, have wondered for some time about the risk/benefit ratio of vaccination, having read uncomfortable reports which suggest that not all the evidence is presented to the public, and that dangers are sometimes understated and successes exaggerated. For example, just as much of the improvement in mortality rates over the past century has come about through social rather than medical measures, such as better housing and sewerage, so much of the reduction in infectious diseases has occurred for reasons unconnected with vaccination, which often came along only when the disease in question was already a spent force. Graphs plotted against time make this clear.
Vaccines tend to give only partial protection in any case. Added to this, one must beware of the phenomenon known as "re-diagnosis", whereby a belief in the efficacy of a vaccine can lead doctors to change their diagnosis of a child with measles or whooping cough to something different once they learn that he or she has been vaccinated, thus subtly improving the figures for that vaccine's effectiveness.
But we are concerned this evening with safety. My interest in the MMR vaccine was aroused by a letter in the medical press on 21st March 1988 which stated that,
"published pre-licensure studies of MMR vaccine safety have been restricted to 3 weeks".
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has already referred to that. Accustomed as I was to medical oddities, I found this claim so extraordinary that I followed it up by writing and later talking to its author—he is also one of the authors of the work cited by the noble Lord—in order to be assured of its accuracy. For a procedure which involves the forceful disturbance of infant immune systems, by a route which does not mimic nature, and when viruses are well known to linger in the body ready to resurface later in life, three weeks seems wholly inadequate.

65
A commentary in The Lancet on 28th February, while critical of the research suggesting a possible link between the MMR vaccine and bowel and behavioural abnormalities, spoke of the "extremely high standards for vaccine safety" that were demanded. This does not quite add up. Although I have not been able to give him notice of the question, I should like to ask the noble Lord who will wind up to let me have a note in due course of the justification for the absence of longer-term safety studies in this case. Until much more is known I, too, join the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, in urging that at the very least the component vaccines should be given separately and that more open-minded and active surveillance should become the order of the day. I say "open-minded" because it clearly takes inordinate pressure from parents to get cases of damage reported, so strong is the official belief in the relative safety of this measure.
My chief reason for speaking this evening, however, is not that suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, but to draw attention to what I believe to be an inherent danger in public health initiatives. I referred to it in the debate in my name on 16th December on the fluoridation of the water supply. While it is crucial that in measures affecting whole populations the science should be impeccable, it is a paradoxical fact that science often takes a back seat behind other considerations. These initiatives all too quickly become campaigns, whether over smoking, recreational drug use, AIDS, fluoridation, or vaccination. Public positions are taken up, often before the science is properly done and this, when coupled with the tendency towards premature consensus among scientists who are uncomfortable with uncertainty, can result in the defending of positions rather than the weighing of evidence. And of course the longer this goes on the more difficult it becomes to climb down, and the more face is lost.
This situation is not helped by the pressure from big interest groups, such as the makers of the vaccines or AIDS drugs. On my way here today, I found the long and well-presented briefing by SmithKline Beecham, referred by the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn—impressive on the surface but one-sided and tendentious. There was no mention of much of the research referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. Nor is the situation helped by the laudable wish among politicians as well as scientists to be seen to make a difference—to protect children against mumps or dental decay and to protect the public against passive smoking. Causes such as these carry great emotional power. It is not just the financial aspect mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Winston. In no time there is a bandwagon rolling and a politically or scientifically "correct" view established which it is more than anyone's career is worth to challenge publicly. Solidarity becomes the watchword, and anyone who casts doubt on the underpinnings of the edifice is seen as a threat and treated accordingly. And if doctors are paid more money the more children they vaccinate, they of all people are unlikely to question its basis.
In such a climate it is very difficult for dissenting voices to be heard, even in the medical press. The Lancet, as we have heard, had to defend itself for
66
publishing the recent research on the MMR vaccine and autism, even with all the disclaimers and qualifications that went with it, in the face of the argument that is familiar in such campaigns, "How dare you raise doubts about this measure and put children's health at risk". But of course it is precisely to protect children's health that these questions are raised by responsible researchers, who are simply trying to say, "Please come out from behind your fortifications and look with unbiased eyes at the evidence we are presenting".
The dangers of fashion and dogma are as real in science as they are elsewhere, and the greater the exposure in the public domain, with all its pressures connected with interest groups, money, careers and reputations, the greater these dangers are, and of course the wider the potential for harm.
I should like to end by restating the tentative law which I aired in winding up my debate in December, which is drawn from experience over a number of these cases, to the effect that the quality of the science is usually in inverse proportion to the public profile of the issue. In the true spirit of science I welcome from your Lordships examples which appear to refute as well as confirm this hypothesis. But in the meanwhile I would appeal for an openness over this particular vaccine, a willingness to listen to patients and to reappraise cherished notions when new evidence emerges, and (dare I say it?)a certain scepticism towards official scientific advice which can have its own inbuilt biases and does not always get things right.
6.38 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has raised a topical and interesting subject for debate today, and the House will be grateful to him for doing so. I believe that he has also earned our thanks for speaking to his Motion in such a succinct and helpful way.
Without wishing to go over too much ground already covered by the noble Lord, I think that it is important that at the outset we root our thinking in some of the underlying facts. Childhood immunisation against measles, mumps and rubella has been available under the NHS in the form of the combined MMR vaccine since 1988. It has been widely used in other parts of the world, notably in the United States, for considerably longer. Indeed, over a period of over 27 years literally hundreds of millions of doses have been administered world- wide in accordance with guidelines issued by the World Health Organisation. In the UK the Department of Health has given an unqualified recommendation to the use of the vaccine in line with advice received from the independent committee on vaccination and immunisation.
The results of this immunisation policy are clear. Since 1988 some 1.2 million children a year have been vaccinated with MMR in the UK. The consequence of this has been a fall in the reported number of measles cases from over 50,000 a year to less than 5,000. The number of deaths from acute measles has fallen from around 20 a year to nil from 1989 onwards.

67
Since the introduction of routine vaccination against rubella—and this, of course, goes back further than 1988—reported cases of congenital rubella syndrome in babies have fallen by more than 90 per cent.
That is the millpond into which Dr. Andrew Wakefield and his associates cast their stone in March last year with the publication of The Lancet article to which the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, referred. That article sought to do something relatively limited; that is to say, it aimed to posit a hypothesis linking the MMR vaccine with the appearance of a new syndrome involving inflammatory bowel disease in children combined with a regressive developmental disorder most readily characterised as a form of autism. The precise nature of this alleged link was not spelt out; indeed, the authors of the paper stated in terms that no causal relationship had been proved. Nevertheless, such was Dr. Wakefield's reported concern about the prima facie evidence of an association between the vaccine and the syndrome that he felt compelled to publish.
Limited in its aims or not, the result of that article has been entirely predictable. Press coverage of its central hypothesis has been widespread and prominent, as has coverage of the pending legal action by individuals who claim that their children have been damaged by the MMR vaccine. It is therefore unsurprising that reports are now arriving from many parts of the country of parents refusing to allow their children to be vaccinated against MMR and of some who, in line with advice contained in Dr. Wakefield's Lancet article, are seeking to have their children immunised with the single components of the MMR vaccine as separate injections a year apart. Single vaccinations of this kind are not recommended by the Department of Health, for clinical reasons that were outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Winston, and are not available under the NHS. As the noble Lord mentioned, some people are therefore going abroad with their children to countries where they can obtain these vaccinations.
This is the juncture at which I must declare my hand by expressing grave concern over the direction that events have taken since the publication of the article by Dr. Wakefield and his team last year. Unusually, I find myself in disagreement with the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, in his call for amended guidance on the use of MMR vaccine. I know that I am in danger of appearing to the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, as part of the established edifice, but I do not believe that there is anything approaching a sound basis on which to doubt the safety and efficacy of the vaccine. The fact is that all authoritative medical opinion, not only in the UK but overseas, has comprehensively repudiated the hypothesis that Dr. Wakefield and his colleagues have advanced. It has been unequivocally rejected by 37 experts convened under the auspices of the Medical Research Council; it has been rejected in equally emphatic terms by the Chief Medical Officer; and in April last year a paper was published by a research team in Finland which came to an identical conclusion based on a survey of 3 million past recipients of the MMR vaccine. Among those 3 million recipients not a single case of Crohn's disease or autism was found.
68
In July there were further interesting findings, first from Dr. Wakefield's team at the Royal Free, who reported that they had, after all, been unable to trace the presence of the measles virus in the lesions of inflammatory bowel disease, despite using the most sensitive screening techniques available; and then from a Swedish research team who examined the medical records of a group of children with autism. The Swedes found that there was a higher incidence of autism in those children who had not been vaccinated than in those who had—the very opposite of what one would expect if there were any direct correlation between MMR vaccination and autism.
The advice of the Department of Health therefore remains, as I am sure the Minister will tell us, that MMR vaccine continues to be the safest way for parents to protect their children against measles, mumps and rubella. That is not to say that the claims of parents who believe that their children have been damaged by the MMR vaccine should be dismissed without the fullest investigation; of course they should not be. I understand that to that end the Medicines Control Agency is currently considering case reports of suspected adverse reactions in children following MMR vaccination and it has also commissioned a study to look specifically at the possible association between the MMR vaccine and autism. That is the right and proper course to take. But it is quite another thing to regard this, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, appears to do, as a cue for amending Department of Health guidance on the use of the vaccine.
Indeed, I have to ask the noble Lord what form he believes the new guidance should take. The purpose of any such guidance is to give the patient an informed choice. As it is, a GP has a duty to advise a parent of the recognised risks associated with vaccination. In many types of vaccination, including MMR, there is a fairly strong possibility of mild and temporary side effects and a very remote risk of an allergic reaction leading to serious and lasting harm. Those are recognised hazards. Each parent has to weigh up the relative risks and benefits associated with vaccination and non-vaccination respectively, based on the known statistical evidence. Most GPs strongly advise that the risk of not being immunised far outweighs any risk associated with the vaccination.
If one then tells a GP to add a rider to the effect that there is currently a hypothesis, as yet unproven—indeed comprehensively rejected by medical authorities—that MMR vaccine may be linked to Crohn's disease and autism, what is the patient supposed to make of that? It is a way of proceeding which encourages the very antithesis of informed choice. Once doubts have been raised in a patient's mind, no matter how unfounded they are, they thereby acquire a weight and emphasis out of all proportion to their significance.
It is very important that guidance issued to GPs and subsequently promulgated by them to patients is based on proven evidence. If that does not happen, the consequences can be profound. The noble Lord, Lord Winston, mentioned the case of pertussis vaccine. The scare surrounding the pertussis vaccine in the 1970s led to a sharp fall in whooping cough vaccinations and three

69
epidemics of whooping cough affecting 300,000 children, of whom more than 70 died—a far greater cost in life and suffering than would have occurred if the immunisation programme had continued uninterrupted. Any vaccination campaign depends for its success on a high level of uptake, under which those who are vaccinated effectively act as a screen against infection for those who have not been vaccinated. I do not know—perhaps the Minister can tell us—what the fall has been in the uptake of MMR vaccine since last spring.
In that context, we should not forget the serious consequences that can ensue from contracting measles—and not just in developing countries. In France, where vaccination coverage is not as good as it is in the UK, 15 children died of measles between 1992 and 1994. According to the Health Education Authority, encephalitis, which is an inflammation around the brain and has a 15 per cent. mortality rate, occurs in one in 5,000 children with measles. Twenty to 40 per cent. of survivors have residual problems. After MMR vaccination the incidence of encephalitis is one in a million.
Those of us whose memories go back 30 years will remember that in the 1960s about a thousand deaf-blind children were horn within a period of four years as a result of congenital rubella syndrome. In the five years 1990 to 1995 there were 25 cases in total, dramatic proof of the effectiveness of the vaccination campaign.
I am personally convinced that the right course is for the Department of Health to remain undeflected in this matter and to continue as hitherto with the national vaccination programme. That is not to say that minds should be closed in any way whatever. That is the course advocated by the World Health Organisation and by scientists worldwide. I believe that it is the only responsible course if we are not to see a resurgence of three devastating diseases.
6.49 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for raising such an important subject and also for giving me advance notice of some of the questions that he intended to raise. I also thank other noble Lords for their contributions to what has been a short but extremely important debate. It is important not just in terms of the Government's public health policy but important to all of us as parents who must make decisions about our children. In the past 20 years, parents have sometimes been bewildered and confused by conflicting reports in the media and elsewhere and I welcome the opportunity to put forward the Government's views on this important issue.
The noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, referred to the history of immunisation. Vaccines have been one of the greatest successes of public health medicine in this country. It was a little over 200 years ago when Edward Jenner first demonstrated the protection against smallpox that material from cowpox could offer. At the time Jenner was working, few people reached adulthood without having caught smallpox; and around 10 per cent. of
70
people who did catch smallpox died. Today the smallpox virus is extinct. That success story was built on a programme of widespread immunisation. The programme involved giving vaccines to hundreds of millions of babies, children and adults around the world.
That highlights the important difference between immunisation and other medical interventions: vaccines are generally given not to people who are already unwell as a remedy but to healthy people to prevent future illness. As such there is clearly a critical responsibility on those who develop, licence and recommend vaccines to ensure that they are as safe as is possible.
Safety of vaccines is uppermost in my mind when considering immunisation. I am sure that many noble Lords present here today will recall the scare in this country over the safety of whooping cough vaccine in the 1970s. We were forcefully reminded of that by my noble friend Lord Winston. Public and professional alarm over stories of alleged brain damage caused by the vaccine caused the number of children being immunised to collapse, from a rate of over 80 per cent. in 1972 to around 30 per cent. in 1975. The result was a resurgence of whooping cough in the late 1970s, which led to three major epidemics of over 300,000 notifications and at least 70 deaths. Although subsequent studies and inquiries failed to support the alleged link, by then the damage had been done.
I describe this background as it is important to today's debate. The noble Lord has raised the issue of the safety of the measles, mumps and rubella—or MMR—vaccine. This subject has received much press coverage in recent years, yet much of the coverage has failed to inform readers fully of the balance of evidence and the real risks and benefits of the vaccine. It is first worth setting out the background to why MMR vaccine is recommended.
In the UK, immunisation policy is based on the recommendations of a statutory independent expert committee—the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation. Before the introduction of MMR vaccine in 1988, the immunisation programme against measles, mumps and rubella consisted of immunisation against measles for everyone at 12 to 18 months; and immunisation against rubella for schoolgirls only at age 10 to 14. There was no immunisation against mumps.
Despite that policy, measles vaccine uptake was relatively low. In the last year before MMR was introduced in England 86,000 children caught measles and 16 died.
The lack of control of mumps meant that it was the leading cause of viral meningitis in children under 15 and caused about 1,200 hospital admissions each year in England and Wales.
The policy of only immunising schoolgirls against rubella failed to stop the disease circulating in the ready reservoir of all males and girls under immunisation age. That circulating disease was then caught by the 5 to 10 per cent. of pregnant women in whom the vaccine had not worked or by those who had not been immunised. Rubella damage to unborn babies is devastating. In the year before MMR was introduced there were 164

71
confirmed cases of rubella infections in pregnancy. Now there are fewer than 10 cases annually. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, very much underpinned those points.
But as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, explained, a theory that MMR might be linked with new adverse reactions has been raised. The publicity has centred on one group of workers at the Royal Free Hospital who have developed a theory that MMR vaccine might be linked with autism and inflammatory bowel disease. I hope that noble Lords will find it helpful if I set out the work that has been undertaken to examine that theory.
It is our duty to ensure that the advice the Department of Health gives to the medical profession and to parents is based on the view of independent experts. Therefore both the Committee on Safety of Medicines and the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation have both looked in detail at all aspects of the safety of MMR, as well as any possible links with autism and inflammatory bowel disease.
The Chairman of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation along with committee members visited researchers at the Royal Free Hospital to hear about their work at first hand. The committee has reviewed all the evidence on numerous occasions and has advised UK Health Ministers that there was no link between MMR and autism or inflammatory bowel disease.
In March 1998 the Medical Research Council convened a meeting of 37 independent experts under the chairmanship of Sir John Pattison. The group examined published and unpublished research into the suggested association between MMR and autism and inflammatory bowel disease. Researchers from the Royal Free Hospital team presented their work extensively. The independent experts—this was referred to by my noble friend Lord Winston but it bears repetition—concluded:
"There is no evidence to indicate any link between MMR vaccination and bowel disease or autism".
They went on to say:
"There is therefore no reason for a change in the current MMR vaccination policy".
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked about the potential link between vaccination and autism. As he has already suggested, the Medicines Control Agency has responded to requests for individual cases to be studied where parents have associated the onset of autism with MMR vaccine. That review, which is being undertaken by independent specialists, is close to completion. I should point out also that a large study on children with autism in the North Thames region, covering the period before and after the introduction of the MMR vaccine, is also close to completion.
A number of noble Lords asked whether a disease such as measles is perhaps less serious than is presented to the public. As my noble friend Lord Winston made clear, measles can be a very serious matter. In an epidemic of measles in the United States in 1989–91, about 160 children died. To me, that is a serious matter.
72
I am not able to answer the points raised by the noble Lord on payments under the vaccine damage payments scheme but I shall ensure that his concerns are conveyed to the Department of Social Security which is responsible for such matters.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, also raised the issue of litigation. It is my understanding that a vaccine manufacturer has received writs from a solicitor acting on behalf of a number of parents. But that is a matter for the manufacturer and not the Department of Health. Furthermore, before there could be any consideration of compensation, evidence will need to be provided, which is not apparent in the scientific literature, that MMR vaccine has indeed caused some of those purported problems.
Noble Lords raised the question of single vaccine prescription and asked whether general practitioners could be allowed to prescribe single vaccines for measles, mumps and rubella. My noble friend Lord Winston supplied much useful information on that matter. However, the Government see no evidence whatever that convinces us that it should contribute to putting children's lives at risk. All available published and unpublished material purporting to show risks associated with the MMR vaccine has been studied by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation and the Department of Health's independent expert advisory group on vaccines. That committee saw nothing to convince it that there are risks associated with the combined vaccine that would be avoided by separating the components. Indeed, the committee was mindful that separating the components would leave children at heightened risk and recommended against that practice.
Since there is no evidence of benefit and only reason to assume risk, it seems extraordinary for the Department of Health to be asked to promote less than the highest standards of preventive care. When the World Health Organisation reviewed the work suggesting that there may be some link between MMR vaccine, inflammatory bowel disease and autism, its assistant director-general wrote to my right honourable friend, Tessa Jowell, expressing alarm and pointing out that the present study does not meet the requirements for establishing such a causal relationship. Dr. Henderson went on to conclude,
"We believe none of these data provide a basis for providing the different components of this vaccine in separate schedules".
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked about the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation. The recommendations of the committee are published regularly in the guidance sent to all doctors and other health professionals involved in immunisation in the book Immunisation Against Infectious Disease. At the committee meetings discussions take place that are commercially and clinically sensitive and for that reason the minutes are not published. But wherever there are problems with vaccines, they are conveyed as quickly and effectively as possible to health professionals and the public.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, suggested that the department should no longer provide general practitioners with incentives to immunise using MMR

73
vaccine. The target payment scheme for general practitioners has been highly effective in achieving and maintaining high coverage that did not exist beforehand. Since there is no evidence that points to real risks associated with the vaccine, it would be extraordinary for the Government to give tacit acknowledgement that the work has failed.
I remind the House of the comments made by Duclos and Ward in its review article on adverse events with measles vaccines, published only a month ago in Drug Safety,
"We suggest that the real issue is one of good science versus bad science. We believe that several of the reports alleging an association between Crohns, autism and measles vaccine are in the public domain due to a failure of the peer review process".
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked about balanced guidance from the Department of Health. The department produced extensive guidance on MMR vaccine in the form of fact sheets for health professionals to use in their discussions with parents and as information leaflets for parents to receive directly. The information within those leaflets represents the best available information on both the benefits of MMR immunisation and the risks. Where there is clear evidence that there truly is a risk associated with the vaccine then that has been accurately reflected.
The noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, asked about risk benefits. I can perhaps quote to him the World Bank's description of immunisation as being the single most cost-effective health intervention. On the other issue he raised in relation to long-term studies, he asked me to provide him with a note and I shall be happy to oblige in that regard.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, asked whether, in the light of current publicity, there has been a fall in uptake. My understanding is that at the moment there has been a fall of between 4 and 6 per cent. Thankfully, that is
74
nothing like that compared with the situation in relation to whooping cough, but it is a warning of what can happen in the light of such publicity.
Perhaps I might conclude by posing three questions. What possible motive could the Department of Health have for continuing to provide a vaccine that may harm children? The answer is straightforward. There is no evidence that MMR harms children in the ways imagined and much evidence that it benefits them. Why does no other country take seriously the claims about MMR? It is because the evidence has been examined over and over again and found to be lacking in scientific merit to convince national authorities. Why has it proved so difficult to find corroborating evidence for the allegations in relation to the risks from MMR vaccine? The answer is clear. As so many commentators have said, when scrutinised the work fails to stand up to the requirements of scientific evidence for causal association. The burden should now fall on those thinking up the stories to actually prove them before causing more anxiety in the minds of parents trying to do their best for their children.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, came to this subject as a concerned parent of a small child who needed to take a decision on whether or not to vaccinate. I hope sincerely that the noble Lord has been reassured. I can say to him that the Department of Health has taken every step possible to examine every piece of information made available to it suggesting that there were new problems with MMR vaccine. The weight of evidence is overwhelming that MMR vaccine does not cause those purported conditions. I hope the noble Lord will be reassured and that his decision will be that of so many parents who agree to have their children protected in the appropriate recommended fashion with MMR vaccine.
House adjourned at five minutes after seven o'clock.

  Sudan: Diplomatic Relations
  Sudan: Diplomatic Relations
  Turkey: Human Rights
  Turkey: Human Rights
  Ottawa Convention: Ratification
  Ottawa Convention: Ratification
  General Pinochet
  General Pinochet
  Equine Insemination and Dentistry
  Equine Insemination and Dentistry
  MoD: Defence Intelligence IT System
  MoD: Defence Intelligence IT System
  RAF Heavy Lift Capability
  RAF Heavy Lift Capability
  Holy Loch: Removal of Debris
  Holy Loch: Removal of Debris
  General Pinochet
  General Pinochet
  Council Housing Debt, Scotland
  Council Housing Debt, Scotland
  Scottish Parliament: Costs
  Scottish Parliament: Costs
  Incapable Adults, Scotland: Family Role
  Incapable Adults, Scotland: Family Role
  Public Interest Immunity
  Public Interest Immunity
  War Crimes Act
  War Crimes Act
  Community Service Sentences: Litter Clearance
  Community Service Sentences: Litter Clearance
  Liability for Psychiatric Damage
  Liability for Psychiatric Damage
  Lords of Appeal: Outside Interests
  Lords of Appeal: Outside Interests
  Lords of Appeal: Appointments
  Lords of Appeal: Appointments
  Judicial Appointments
  Judicial Appointments
  Judges: Declaration of Interests
  Judges: Declaration of Interests
  Conflicts of Interest
  Conflicts of Interest
  Treaty of Rome: Economic and Financial Sanctions
  Treaty of Rome: Economic and Financial Sanctions
  European Commission: Fraud Prosecutions
  European Commission: Fraud Prosecutions
  Museums and Galleries: Free Admission
  Museums and Galleries: Free Admission
  QUEST
  QUEST
  World Heritage Sites: Statutory Controls
  World Heritage Sites: Statutory Controls
  Environment Council, 20–21 December
  Environment Council, 20–21 December
  A.12: Fatal Accidents
  A.12: Fatal Accidents
  A.13 Completion
  A.13 Completion
  Lords of Appeal: Register of Interests
  Lords of Appeal: Register of Interests
  Parliamentary Data and Video Network
  Parliamentary Data and Video Network
  British-Irish Council
  British-Irish Council
  Bereavement Benefits
  Bereavement Benefits
  Actively Seeking Work Rules: Widows
  Actively Seeking Work Rules: Widows
  Benefits Integrity Project: Successor Scheme
  Benefits Integrity Project: Successor Scheme
  Health Inequalities and Benefits Policy
  Health Inequalities and Benefits Policy
  Non-departmental Public Bodies
  Non-departmental Public Bodies
  Merrywood and Pen Park Schools
  Merrywood and Pen Park Schools
  NVQ Take-up
  NVQ Take-up
  Class Sizes
  Class Sizes